“ACQ-Group” had acquired the shares in foreign subsidiaries and financed the acquisition partially by intra group loans. Furthermore, in the years following the acquisition, goodwill amortisations were deducted for tax purposes. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the interest rate on the loans had been reduced, and where costs related to external financing and amortisations of acquired goodwill had been denied. An appeal was filed by “ACQ”. Decision of the Federal Tax Court Before the judgment was delivered the appeal filed by “ACQ” in regards of the interest rate on the intra group loans was withdrawn. “***Firma*** Services GmbH pays interest of a non-variable 9% p.a. to the affiliated (grandparent) company ***6*** for an intercompany loan (“Intercompany Loan”). As stated in the statement of facts in the enclosure, the high difference between the intercompany loan interest rate and the arm’s length interest rate is a clear violation of the arm’s length principle as defined in the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and the current case law of the Administrative Court. The payments exceeding the arm’s length interest rates constitute a hidden distribution.” The Court partially upheld the appeal and amended the assessment in regards of goodwill amortisations and financing costs. Goodwill amortisation within the meaning of section 9(7) KStG 1988 and the deduction of interest on borrowed capital in the case of acquisitions of shareholdings pursuant to section 11(1)(4) KStG 1988 were introduced with the 2005 Tax Reform Act in order to make Austria more attractive as a business location. § Section 9 (7) KStG 1988 contained a “group barrier” from the beginning in order to prevent arrangements within the group or within the group of companies. Thus, goodwill amortisation is not available if the participation is acquired by a company belonging to the group or by a shareholder exercising a controlling influence. The Budget Accompanying Act 2011 restricted the deductibility of interest on borrowed capital to the extent that debt-financed group acquisitions should no longer lead to a deduction of operating costs. The explanatory notes justified this change in the law by stating that undesirable arrangements in the group, which led to an artificial generation of operating expenses, should be prevented. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

92. Osnovni is the parent company of an MNE Group engaged in the development and sale of software products. Osnovni acquires 100% of the equity interests in Company S, a publicly traded company organised in the same country as Osnovni, for a price equal to 160. At the time of the acquisition, Company S shares had an aggregate trading value of 100. Competitive bidders for the Company S business offered amounts ranging from 120 to 130 for Company S. 93. Company S had only a nominal amount of fixed assets at the time of the acquisition. Its value consisted primarily of rights in developed and partially developed intangibles related to software products and its skilled workforce. The purchase price allocation performed for accounting purposes by Osnovni allocated 10 to tangible assets, 60 to intangibles, and 90 to goodwill. Osnovni justified the 160 purchase price in presentations to its Board of Directors by reference to the complementary nature of the existing products of the Osnovni group and the products and potential products of Company S. 94. Company T is a wholly owned subsidiary of Osnovni. Osnovni has traditionally licensed exclusive rights in all of its intangibles related to the European and Asian markets to Company T. For purposes of this example it is assumed that all arrangements related to the historic licences of European and Asian rights to Company T prior to the acquisition of Company S are arm’s length. 95. Immediately following the acquisition of Company S, Osnovni liquidates Company S, and thereafter grants an exclusive and perpetual licence to Company T for intangible rights related to the Company S products in European and Asian markets. 96. In determining an arm’s length price for the Company S intangibles licensed to Company T under the foregoing arrangements, the premium over the original trading value of the Company S shares included in the acquisition price should be considered. To the extent that premium reflects the complementary nature of Osnovni group products with the acquired products in the European and Asian markets licensed to Company T, Company T should pay an amount for the transferred Company S intangibles and rights in intangibles that reflects an appropriate share of the purchase price premium. To the extent the purchase price premium is attributable exclusively to product complementarities outside of Company T’s markets, the purchase price premium should not be taken into account in determining the arm’s length price paid by Company T for Company S intangibles related to Company T’s geographic market. The value attributed to intangibles in the purchase price allocation performed for accounting purposes is not determinative for transfer pricing purposes ...

At issue was whether interest expenses incurred as a result of intra-group liabilities related to the acquisition of shares were tax deductible. In August 2010, the Swedish companies H AB and B AB had agreed, among other things, to sell E Oy’s shares to B AB and to allow B AB to transfer its rights and obligations to purchase the said shares directly or indirectly to its own subsidiary. B AB’s subsidiary had established D Oy in August 2010. In September 2010, before the completion of the acquisition, B AB had transferred its rights and obligations to purchase E Oy’s shares to D Oy. Ownership of E Oy’s shares had been transferred to D Oy at the end of September 2010. D Oy had financed the acquisition of E Oy’s shares mainly with a debt it had taken from B AB, from which D Oy had deducted the interest expenses incurred in its annual taxation. The tax audit report considered that no business-independent business grounds had been presented for the transfer of the loan liability of the acquisition to D Oy in a multi-stage ownership and financing arrangement and that the arrangement had been implemented solely to benefit from the Finnish group grant scheme and interest deduction. On this basis, the interest expenses on the debt related to the acquisition of E Oy’s shares had been added to D Oy’s taxable income in the tax adjustments submitted for the tax years 2012–2015 to the detriment of the taxpayer and when the tax for 2016 was delivered. In addition, the Taxpayers’ Law Enforcement Unit had stated that the actions in question were entirely artificial in a way that was proportional to the Supreme Administrative Court’s yearbook decision in the Supreme Administrative Court 2016: The Administrative Court held that the arrangement as a whole had to be regarded as artificial. Hence, deductibility of the interest paid to the foreign group company could be denied on the basis of the tax avoidance provision. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court by the company. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Court set aside the decision of the administrative court and ruled in favor of D Oy. The Court held that the establishment of an auxiliary company as a company acquiring shares in an acquisition between independent parties and the financing of the company partly with equity and partly with intra-group debt could not be considered as artificial transactions. In such a situation, the deductibility of interest could not be denied under the tax avoidance provision. D Oy had acquired E Oy’s shares from an independent party. Based on the preliminary work of the Business Income Tax Act, the legislator’s starting point was that in share transactions between independent parties, the tax benefits related to the use of holding companies are limited by amending the law. Therefore, and taking into account that the premise of the Business Income Tax Act was that interest expenses accrued in business activities are deductible, the establishment of a holding company as an acquiring company and the financing of a holding company as an artificial act. Nor did such a situation have to be equated with the situation presented in the Supreme Administrative Court’s yearbook decision KHO 2016: 72. D Oy was thus entitled to deduct the interest expenses of the debt related to the acquisition of E Oy in its taxation for the tax years 2012 and 2013 as provided in section 7 and section 18 (1) (2) of the Business Income Tax Act and section 7 of the same law in its taxation for 2014–2016. as provided for in Article 18 (1) (2) and Article 18a. Tax years 2012–2016. in the manner provided for in subsection 1 (2) and section 18 a. Tax years 2012–2016. in the manner provided for in subsection 1 (2) and section 18 a. Tax years 2012–2016. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

At issue was whether interest expenses incurred as a result of intra-group liabilities related to the acquisition of shares were tax deductible. In 2005, CA / S, indirectly owned by private equity investors A and B, had purchased a listed share in DA / S. DA / S’s subsidiary EA / S had established H AB in July 2008. On 25 August 2008, EA / S had transferred approximately 83.8 per cent of F Oy’s shares in kind to H AB and sold the remaining approximately 16.2 per cent at the remaining purchase price. On August 26, 2008, EA / S had subscribed for new shares in G Oy and paid the share subscription price in kind, transferring 56 percent of H AB’s shares. On August 27, 2008, G Oy had purchased the remaining 44 percent of H AB’s shares. EA / S had granted G Oy a loan corresponding to the purchase price, the interest expenses of which the company had deducted annually in its taxation. The share transfers in 2008 had been reported to be related to the 2005 acquisition and In the share transfers carried out in 2008, EA / S’s direct holding in F Oy had been changed to indirect. The change in ownership structure was implemented within a short period of time as a series of share transfers. With the help of the share transfers, new debt relationships had been created in the Group, with the aim of transferring the interest burden on EA / S to G Oy corresponding to the purchase price of H AB’s shares. When the share transfers were considered as a whole, their purpose was to seek a tax advantage in the form of interest deductions. The share transfers had therefore not corresponded to the real nature or purpose of the case and were artificial in nature. The Administrative Court held that when the share transfers were considered as a whole, their purpose was to seek a tax advantage in the form of interest deductions. The share transfers had therefore not corresponded to the real nature or purpose of the case and were artificial in nature. Hence, deductibility of the interest paid to the foreign group company could be denied on the basis of the tax avoidance provision. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court by the company. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the administrative court. It stated that the subsidiary had been used in a multi-stage arrangement within the group as a company acquiring shares and that the arrangement as a whole had to be considered wholly artificial. According to the settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, national measures restricting the right to deduct interest do not infringe the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 49 TFEU if they deal only with purely artificial arrangements. The judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-484/19, Lexel, does not have to be considered as a change in this settled case law. In the light of these factors and the artificial nature of the present share transfers, the Supreme Administrative Court held that the denial of the right to deduct interest expenses accrued to G Oy under section 28 of the Tax Procedure Act was not contrary to Article 49 TFEU in the present case. The denial of the right to deduct interest expenses was also not contrary to the prohibition of discrimination in the Nordic tax treaty. KHO 2021 178 Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

A AG, which was founded in 2000 by researchers from the University of Applied Sciences D, has as its object the development and distribution of …, in particular in the areas of ….. It had its registered office in Zurich until the transfer of its registered office to Zug in 2021. By contract dated 16 June 2011, it was taken over by Group E, Country Q, or by an acquisition company founded by it for this purpose, for a share purchase price of EUR …. On the same day, it concluded two contracts with E-Schweiz AG, which was in the process of being founded (entered in the Commercial Register on 7 September 2011), in which it undertook to provide general and administrative services on the one hand and research and development on the other. As of 30 September 2011, A AG sold all ”Intellectual Property Rights” (IPR) and ”Non-Viral Contracts” to E-Company, a company in U with tax domicile on the island of V, for a price of EUR … for the IPR and EUR … for the ”Non-Viral Contracts”. A AG had neither identifiable operating activities nor personnel substance in the financial year from 01.10.2011-30.09.2012 following the shareholding transaction. The transfer of the tangible and intangible business assets and the personnel of A AG to other companies of the E group corresponded to an integration plan that had already been set out in a draft power point presentation of the E group prior to the acquisition of the shares. Following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment for additional taxable net profit for the tax period 01.01.-30.09.2011 for state and communal taxes and direct federal tax, as well as taxable equity of CHF … for state and communal taxes. The assessed taxable net profit included a hidden profit distribution from the sale of the IPR and customer relationships to the E-Company. The calculations of profits was made as a discretionary estimate. An appeal was filed by A AG with the tax court which was dismissed with respect to the calculations of profits due to the sale of intangible assets at a lower price, but were upheld with respect to the transfer of functions. An appeal was then filed with the administrative court by both A AG and the tax authorities. A AG requested that the assessment of the Tax Office be dismissed with costs and compensation. The Tax Office requested the dismissal of the complaints of the obligated party and the annulment of the decision of the Tax Appeal Court and confirmation of the objection decisions with costs to be borne by the obligated party. Judgement of the Administrative Court The court ruled in favour of the tax authorities and remanded the case to the court of first instance for recalculation. Excerpts “The subject matter of the proceedings are reorganisation measures carried out after the change of shareholders, which were connected with the sale of assets of the obligated party to other group companies and the abandonment of traditional operating activities. The dispute revolves around the question of whether the obligated party provided services to related companies under conditions that do not comply with the principles of tax law regarding the appropriateness of performance and consideration between related parties and whether it therefore provided non-cash benefits or hidden profit distributions that are subject to profit tax.” “According to the correct findings of the Tax Appeals Court, to which reference can be made, the large discrepancy between the values according to the transfer price study of company I and the share purchase price and the result of the PPA was suitable to cast doubt on the correctness of the transfer price study. Even if the objections to the comparability with the PPA were true, the relevance of the PPA (wrongly disputed by the obligated party) could not be verified without the data used in its preparation. The share purchase price was agreed among independent third parties and therefore corresponded to the enterprise value at the time of the acquisition of the shareholding. According to the findings of the lower court, the transfer price study was only subsequently prepared in 2012 and is incomplete in various respects, which was not refuted by the obligated party. The Tax Appeals Court therefore concluded that the requirement had not been fulfilled and that the facts of the case had remained unclear. In particular, there had been uncertainty about the actual value of the intangible rights sold after the investigation had been completed. The Cantonal Tax Office’s assertion that the agreed purchase price for the intangible rights was too low had not been refuted and, based on the comparison with the PPA and the share purchase price, this assertion appeared very likely. The Cantonal Tax Office had therefore provided the main evidence incumbent upon it. Because the cantonal tax office had not been able to carry out its own valuation due to the lack of data, it had rightly proceeded to an estimate. According to the decision of the lower court, the discretionary assessments regarding the profit from the sale of the intangible assets were rightly made.” “Moreover, the burden of proving the obvious incorrectness of the discretionary assessment is placed on the taxpayer, which is not to be equated with a “reversal of the burden of proof” (on the whole Zweifel/Hunziker, Kommentar StHG, Art. 48 N. 44; diesel, Kommentar DBG, Art. 132 N. 37; Zweifel et al., Schweizerisches Steuerverfahrensrecht, § 20 Rz. 22).” “An estimate is “obviously incorrect” if it cannot be objectively justified, in particular if it is recognisably motivated by penalties or fiscal considerations, if it is based on improper bases, methods or aids for estimation or if it cannot otherwise be reasonably reconciled with the circumstances of the individual case as known from the experience of life. Obviously incorrect is therefore an estimate that is based on an abusive use of the estimation discretion, i.e. is arbitrary (Zweifel/Hunziker, Kommentar StHG, Art. 48 N. 59; dieselben, Kommentar DBG, Art. 132 N ...

At issue in this case was whether or not it is possible to regularize transactions between companies by directly applying art. 9.1 of DTA between Spain and French, without resorting to the transfer pricing methods provided for in local Spanish TP legislation. Application of article 9 and taxing according to local tax legislation is often a question of determining the arm’s length price. But sometimes other rules will apply regardless of the value – for instance anti avoidance legislation where the question is not the price but rather the justification and substance of the transaction. In the present case the arm’s length price of the relevant transaction was not discussed, but rather whether or not transaction of shares had sufficient economic substance to qualify for application of Spanish provisions for tax depreciation of the shares in question. The National Court understood that the share acquisition lacked substance and only had a tax avoidance purpose. It could not be understood that the appellant company has undergone a actual depreciation of its shares to the extent necessary to make a tax deduction. Judgement of the supreme Court The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the National Court. The court pointed out that the regularization of transactions between Spanish and French companies, through the application of art. 9.1 in the DTA, can be carried out without the need to resort to the methods provided for in local legislation for determining the arm’s length value of transactions between related parties. Excerpts “IV.- What has just been stated are the abstract terms of the regulation contained in the aforementioned Article 9.1; and this shows that its individualisation or practical application to some singular facts will raise two different problems. The first will be to determine whether the specific commercial or financial transactions concluded between these two legal persons, Spanish and French, have an explanation that justifies them according to the legal or economic logic that is present in this type of relationship. The second problem will have to be tackled once the first one just mentioned has been positively resolved, or when it has not been raised; and it will consist of quantifying the tax scope of the singular commercial or financial operation whose justification has been recognised or accepted. V.- The above shows that the application of this Article 9.1 Tax Treaty must be accompanied by the application of internal rules; and these may be constituted by Article 16 of the TR/LISOC or by other different internal rules, for the reasons expressed below. Thus, Article 10 TR/LISOC shall be applied when, without questioning the justification of the transactions concluded between entities or persons that deserve to be considered as “associated enterprises”, only the quantification or the value, in market terms, of the object or price of these transactions is in dispute. But other internal rules will have to be applied when what is disputed with regard to these transactions is not the amount of their object but the justification of the legal transaction that materialises them, because this externalises a single purpose of fiscal avoidance and is not justified by circumstances or facts that reveal its legal or economic logic. And these rules, as the Abogado del Estado argues in his opposition to the cassation, may be embodied by those which regulate the powers recognised by the LGT 2003 to the Administration in order to achieve a correct application of the tax rules, such as those relating to assessment, the conflict in the application of the tax rule and simulation (Articles 13, 15 and 16 of that legal text). VI.- The answer which, on the basis of what has just been set out, must be given to the question of objective appeal, defined by the order which agreed the admission of the present appeal, must be that expressed below. That the regularisation of transactions between Spanish and French companies, by means of the application of Article 9.1 of the Agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of evasion and avoidance of fiscal fraud in the field of income tax and wealth tax of 10 October 1995, can be carried out without the need to resort to the methods provided for determining the market value in related transactions and to the procedure established for that purpose in the internal regulations. ELEVENTH – Decision on the claims raised in the appeal. I.- The application of the above criterion to the controversy tried and decided by the judgment under appeal leads to the conclusion that the infringements alleged in the appeal are not to be assessed. This is for the following reasons. The main question at issue was not the amount or quantification of the transactions which resulted in the acquisition by the appellant SARA LEE SOUTHERN EUROPE SL (SLSE) of shares in SLBA Italia. It was the other: whether or not the acquisition of those shares was sufficiently justified to be considered plausible and valid for making the allocations which had been deducted for the depreciation of securities of SARA LEE BRANDED APPAREL, SRL. The tax authorities and the judgment under appeal, as is clear from the foregoing, understood that this acquisition lacked justification and only had a tax avoidance purpose, because this was the result of the situation of economic losses that characterised the investee company in the years preceding the acquisition. They invoked Article 9.1 of the DTA to point out that, in those circumstances of economic losses, the parameter of comparability with normal or usual transactions between independent companies, which that article establishes in order to accept that a related-party transaction actually existed, could not be assessed in the transactions in question. And they reached the final conclusion that, in those particular circumstances, it cannot be understood that the appellant company has undergone a depreciation of its shares to the extent necessary to make a deduction based on those shares.” Click here for English translation Click here ...

92. Osnovni is the parent company of an MNE Group engaged in the development and sale of software products. Osnovni acquires 100% of the equity interests in Company S, a publicly traded company organised in the same country as Osnovni, for a price equal to 160. At the time of the acquisition, Company S shares had an aggregate trading value of 100. Competitive bidders for the Company S business offered amounts ranging from 120 to 130 for Company S. 93. Company S had only a nominal amount of fixed assets at the time of the acquisition. Its value consisted primarily of rights in developed and partially developed intangibles related to software products and its skilled workforce. The purchase price allocation performed for accounting purposes by Osnovni allocated 10 to tangible assets, 60 to intangibles, and 90 to goodwill. Osnovni justified the 160 purchase price in presentations to its Board of Directors by reference to the complementary nature of the existing products of the Osnovni group and the products and potential products of Company S. 94. Company T is a wholly owned subsidiary of Osnovni. Osnovni has traditionally licensed exclusive rights in all of its intangibles related to the European and Asian markets to Company T. For purposes of this example it is assumed that all arrangements related to the historic licences of European and Asian rights to Company T prior to the acquisition of Company S are arm’s length. 95. Immediately following the acquisition of Company S, Osnovni liquidates Company S, and thereafter grants an exclusive and perpetual licence to Company T for intangible rights related to the Company S products in European and Asian markets. 96. In determining an arm’s length price for the Company S intangibles licensed to Company T under the foregoing arrangements, the premium over the original trading value of the Company S shares included in the acquisition price should be considered. To the extent that premium reflects the complementary nature of Osnovni group products with the acquired products in the European and Asian markets licensed to Company T, Company T should pay an amount for the transferred Company S intangibles and rights in intangibles that reflects an appropriate share of the purchase price premium. To the extent the purchase price premium is attributable exclusively to product complementarities outside of Company T’s markets, the purchase price premium should not be taken into account in determining the arm’s length price paid by Company T for Company S intangibles related to Company T’s geographic market. The value attributed to intangibles in the purchase price allocation performed for accounting purposes is not determinative for transfer pricing purposes ...