In 2016 Fertilizer BV had been issued a tax assessment for FY 2012 in which the tax authorities had imposed additional taxable income of €133,076,615. In November 2019 the district court ruled predominantly in favor of the tax authorities but reduced the adjustment to €78.294.312. An appel was filed by Fertilizer BV with the Court of Appeal. Judgement of the Court of Appeal Various issues related to the assessment was disputed before the Court. Dispute 1: Allocation of debt and equity capital to a permanent establishment in Libya in connection with the application of the object exemption. More specifically, the dispute is whether the creditworthiness of the head office was correctly taken as a starting point and a sufficient adjustment was made for the increased risk profile of the permanent establishment. The Court of Appeal answered this question in the affirmative, referring to the capital allocation approach that is regarded as the preferred method for the application of Article 7 of the OECD Model Convention. Dispute 2: Should all claims and liabilities denominated in dollars be valued in conjunction? The mere fact that claims and debts are denominated in the same currency is insufficient to conclude that there is cohesion. The court takes into account the nature of the contracts in the light of the risks present and whether hedging of risks is intended. The Court shall make a separate assessment for each risk to be identified. The Court values the forward exchange contracts USD 200,000,000 and USD 225,000,000 in connection with USD debt I and USD debt II, and the claim of [N SA] in connection with the forward exchange contract USD 60,000,000. Dispute 3: Was the profit of a subsidiary of interested party, [E BV], (deliberately) set too high? Interested party wants to deviate from its own tax return and internal transfer pricing documentation and refers to a report prepared by [W]. The Court of Appeal places the burden of proof on the interested party. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, it does not follow from the aforementioned report that there is no trade at arm’s length within the group. The Court of Appeal also pointed to the global character of the report, which means that it is not a transfer pricing report. Furthermore, it has not become plausible that the companies with which [E BV] is compared in the report are sufficiently comparable. The interested party has not made it plausible that the profit has been set at a prohibitively high level. Dispute 4: Did the tax inspector rightly make an adjustment of € 42,843,146 in connection with the Supply Agreement concluded between [E BV] and an affiliated company of the interested party and [E BV], [J Ltd]? The Supply Agreement states that [J Ltd] is obliged to purchase the surplus produced by [E BV] with a new factory at cost price plus a mark-up of 5%. For the remaining goods, transfer prices are used which are based on the [concern Transfer Pricing Master File]. The Court of Appeal placed the burden of proof that the transfer price applied to the surplus was at arm’s length on the interested party. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the interested party has not provided this evidence. The Court of Appeal ignored the Supply Agreement. This agreement does not reflect the economic reality, since [E BV] is also a ‘fully fledged’ producer with regard to the surplus. The Court of Appeal derives this from the transfer price documentation and the fact that after the conclusion of the Supply Agreement, the functions performed, the investments made and the capital utilisation have (practically) not changed. The transfer price report from [Y] submitted by the interested party does not lead to a different opinion. There is no breach of the principle of equality since the interested party does not substantiate, or substantiates in too general a manner, that its case is comparable to the Starbucks, Nike and Apple cases and the other examples mentioned by it. The fact that the [group] also concluded agreements with third parties that are (somewhat) similar to the Supply Agreement does not lead to a different opinion either. It cannot be determined whether the functions performed, risks run and assets used by these third parties are comparable to the functions performed, risks run and assets used by [E BV]. Finally, the Court of Appeal ruled that the taxation of a possible profit transfer should not be taken in 2011, the year in which the Supply Agreement was agreed upon, but from month to month (year to year) in which the non-business conduct took place. In all, the Judgement of the Court of Appeal resulted in the additional taxable income of Fertilizer BV being reduced to € 65.609.318. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

This case concerned deductibility of notional interest paid in 2003-7 by two permanent establishments in the UK to their Irish HQs. The loans – and thus interest expenses – had been allocated to the PEs as if they were separate entities. The UK tax authorities held that interest deductibility was restricted by UK tax law, which prescribed that PE’s has such equity and loan capital as it could reasonably be expected to have as a separate entity. The UK taxpayers, refered to  Article 8 of the UK-Ireland tax treaty. Article 8 applied the “distinct and separate enterprise” principle found in Article 7 of the 1963 OECD Model Tax Convention, which used the language used in section 11AA(2). Yet nothing was said in the treaty about assumed levels of equity and debt funding for the PE. In 2017, the First-tier Tribunal found in favour of the tax authority, and in October 2019 the Upper Tribunal also dismissed the taxpayers’ appeals. Judgement of the UK Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Upper Tribunal and dismissed the appeal of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation and and Irish Nationwide Building Society. Click here for other translation ...

US Citybank was performing activities in Italy by means of a branch/permanent establishment. The Italian PE granted loan agreements to its Italian clients. Later on, the bank decided to sell these agreements to a third party which generated losses attributed to the PE’s profit and loss accounts. Following an audit of the branch concerning FY 2003 in which the sale of the loan agreements took place, a tax assessment was issued where the tax authorities denied deduction for the losses related to the transfer of the agreements. The tax authorities held that the losses should have been attributed to the U.S. parent due to lack of financial capacity to assume the risk in the Italien PE. First Citybank appealed the assessment to the Provincial Tax Court which ruled in favor of the bank. This decision was then appealed by the tax authorities to the Regional Tax Court which ruled in favor of the tax authorities. Finally Citybank appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court reversed the judgement of the Regional Tax Court and decided in favor of Citybank. “This Court, recently (Cass. 19/09/2019, no. 23355), dealing with the Convention between Italy and the United Kingdom on double taxation (Article 7 of which has the same content as Article 7 of the cited Convention between Italy and the United States of America), has specified that: (a) the permanent establishment, from a tax point of view, is a distinct and autonomous entity with respect to the ‘parent company’, the income of which, produced in the territory of the State, is subject to tax, pursuant to Article 23, paragraph 1, letter e), T.U.I.R.; (b) Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention between Italy and the United Kingdom against double taxation, entered into on 21 October 1988 (and ratified by Law n. 329 of 1990, ), provides for the application of Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention between Italy and the United Kingdom. (b) Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention between Italy and the United Kingdom for the avoidance of double taxation, concluded on 21 October 1988 (and ratified by Law No. 329 of 1990), which provides that where an enterprise of a Contracting State carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein, there shall in each Contracting State be attributed to that permanent establishment the profits which it might be expected to make if it were a distinct and separate enterprise engaged in the same or similar activities under the same or similar conditions and dealing wholly independently with the enterprise of which it is a permanent establishment. (c) the OECD Commentary (§ 18. 3.), with respect to the said Article 7, has clarified that the permanent establishment must be endowed with: “a capital structure appropriate both to the enterprise and to the functions it performs. For these reasons, the prohibition on deducting expenses connected with internal financing – that is to say, those which constitute a mere allocation of the parent company’s own resources – should continue to apply generally.”. In the present case, the Regional Commission complied with the above principles of law when it held that the Convention placed limits on the deductibility of the negative components of the Italian branch’s income, understood both as interest expense and as expenses connected with the management of the loan (in the case at hand, these were losses on loans and commission charges for the assignment of loan agreements).” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation > ...

In 2016 Fertilizer BV had been issued a tax assessment for FY 2012 in which the tax authorities had imposed additional taxable income of €162,506,660. Fertilizer BV is the parent company of a fiscal unity for corporation tax (hereinafter: FU). It is a limited partner in a limited partnership under Dutch law, which operates a factory in [Country 1]. The interested party borrowed the money for the capital contribution to the limited partnership from a wholly-owned subsidiary. The share in profits from the limited partnership was expressed as profit from a permanent establishment. In dispute was the amount of interest attributable to the permanent establishment. The court followed the inspector in allocating – in connection with the [circumstances] in [Country 1] – 75% equity and 25% loan capital to the PE. Furthermore, the FU had deposits and loans in USD. These positions were partly hedged by forward exchange contracts. Fertilizer BV valued these deposits and loans at the historical acquisition price or lower value in use. In dispute between the parties was whether and to what extent the positions should be valued as connected. In the opinion of the court, the mere fact that deposits and loans were denominated in USD did not mean that they should be valued as connected. The court considered part of it to be connected. Fertilizer BV is a production company. It sells its products to affiliated sales organisations at prices derived from market prices. After the commissioning of a new factory, Fertilizer BV produced more than before (hereinafter: the surplus). On the basis of two agreements, Fertilizer BV sold the surplus, at cost price with a surcharge of 5%, to a subsidiary established abroad. In the opinion of the court, no real commercial risk had been transferred to the subsidiary and the inspector rightly corrected the taxable amount. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

This case concerned deductibility of notional interest paid in 2003-7 by two permanent establishments in the UK to their Irish HQs. The loans – and thus interest expenses – had been allocated to the PEs as if they were separate entities. The UK tax authorities held that interest deductibility was restricted by UK tax law, which prescribed that PE’s has such equity and loan capital as it could reasonably be expected to have as a separate entity. The UK taxpayers, refered to  Article 8 of the UK-Ireland tax treaty. Article 8 applied the “distinct and separate enterprise” principle found in Article 7 of the 1963 OECD Model Tax Convention, which used the language used in section 11AA(2). Yet nothing was said in the treaty about assumed levels of equity and debt funding for the PE. In 2017, the First-tier Tribunal found in favour of the tax authority, and in October 2019 the Upper Tribunal also dismissed the taxpayers’ appeals ...