Skechers US Inc. had formed a related party entity, SKII, in 1999 and transferred IP and $18 million in cash to the entity in exchange for 100 percent of the stock. Skechers then licensed the IP back from SKII and claimed a franchise tax deduction for the royalties and also deductions for management fees and interest expenses on the unpaid balance of royalty fees. The Wisconsin tax authorities held that these were sham transaction lacking business purpose and disallowed the deductions. Judgement of the Tax Appeals Commission The Tax Appeals Commission ruled in favor of the tax authorities. Excerpt “(…) The burden of proof is on Petitioner to prove that the Department’s assessment is incorrect by clear and satisfactory evidence. In this case, Petitioner must prove that it had a valid nontax business purpose for entering into the licensing transaction that generated the royalty deductions claimed on its Wisconsin tax returns and that the licensing transaction had economic substance. Both are required. Petitioner did not present persuasive evidence or testimony of either requirement being met. Therefore, the Department’s assessments are upheld. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Petitioner did not have a valid nontax business purpose for the creation of SKII. Petitioner did not have a valid nontax business purpose for entering into the licensing transactions between Skechers and SKII that generated the royalty deductions claimed on its Wisconsin tax returns. Petitioner’s licensing transactions between Skechers and SKII did not have economic substance. (…)” US vs Skechers Final DO ...

In 2005 an agreement was entered between the UK tax authority and GE Capital, whereby GE Capital was able to obtain significant tax benefits by routing billions of dollars through Australia, the UK and the US. HMRC later claimed, that GE Capital had failed to disclose all relevant information to HMRC prior to the agreement and therefore asked the High Court to annul the agreement. In December 2020 the High Court decided in favour of HMRC. GE Capital then filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal. Judgement of the Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal overturned the judgement of the High Court and ruled in favour of GE Capital. HMRC-v-GE CAPITAL 2021 ...

In 2005 an agreement was entered between the UK tax authority and GE Capital, whereby GE Capital was able to obtain significant tax benefits by routing billions of dollars through Australia, the UK and the US. HMRC later claimed, that GE Capital had failed to disclose all relevant information to HMRC prior to the agreement and therefore asked the High Court to annul the agreement. The High Court ruled that HMRC could pursue the claim against GE in July 2020. Judgement of the High Court The High Court ruled in favour of the tax authorities. UK vs GE 2021 COA 1716 ...

Redington India Limited (RIL) established a wholly-owned subsidiary Redington Gulf (RG) in the Jebel Ali Free Zone of the UAE in 2004. The subsidiary was responsible for the Redington group’s business in the Middle East and Africa. Four years later in July 2008, RIL set up a wholly-owned subsidiary company in Mauritius, RM. In turn, this company set up its wholly-owned subsidiary in the Cayman Islands (RC) – a step-down subsidiary of RIL. On 13 November 2008, RIL transferred its entire shareholding in RG to RC without consideration, and within a week after the transfer, a 27% shareholding in RC was sold by RG to a private equity fund Investcorp, headquartered in Cayman Islands for a price of Rs.325.78 Crores. RIL claimed that the transfer of its shares in RG to RC was a gift and therefore, exempt from capital gains taxation in India. It was also claimed that transfer pricing provisions were not applicable as income was exempt from tax. The Indian tax authorities disagreed and found that the transfer of shares was a taxable transaction, as the three defining requirements of a gift were not met – that the transfer should be (i) voluntary, (ii) without consideration and that (iii) the property so transferred should be accepted by the donee. The tax authorities also relied on the documents for the transfer of shares, the CFO statement, and the law dealing with the transfer of property. The arm’s length price was determined by the tax authorities using the comparable uncontrolled price method – referring to the pricing of the shares transferred to Investcorp. In the tax assessment, the authorities had also denied deductions for trademark fees paid by RIL to a Singapore subsidiary for the use of the “Redington” name. The tax authorities had also imputed a fee for RIL providing guarantees in favour of its subsidiaries. RIL disagreed with the assessment and brought the case before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) who ruled in favour of the tax authorities. The case was then brought before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) who ruled in favour of RIL. ITAT’s ruling was then brought before the High Court by the tax authorities. The decision of the High Court The High Court ruled that transfer of shares in RG by RIL to its step-down subsidiary (RC) as part of corporate restructuring could not be qualified as a gift. Extraneous considerations had compelled RIL to make the transfer of shares, thereby rendering the transfer involuntary. The entire transaction was structured to accommodate a third party-investor, who had put certain conditions even prior to effecting the transfer. According to the court, the transfer of shares was a circular transaction put in place to avoid payment of taxes. “Thus, if the chain of events is considered, it is evidently clear that the incorporation of the company in Mauritius and Cayman Islands just before the transfer of shares is undoubtedly a means to avoid taxation in India and the said two companies have been used as conduits to avoid income tax” observed the Court. The High Court also disallowed deductions for trademark fees paid by RIL to a Singapore subsidiary. The court stated it was illogical for a subsidiary company to claim Trademark fee from its parent company (RIL), especially when there was no documentation to show that the subsidiary was the owner of the trademark. It was also noted that RIL had been using the trademark in question since 1993 – long before the subsidiary in Singapore was established in 2005. Regarding the guarantees, the Court concluded these were financial services provided by RIL to it’s subsidiaries for which a remuneration (fee/commission) was required. India vs Ms Redington (India) Limited 10 Dec 2020 Madras High Court FY 09 10 ...

General Electric (GE) have been routing financial transactions (AUS $ 5 billion) related to GE companies in Australia via the UK in order to gain a tax advantage – by “triple dipping” in regards to interest deductions, thus saving billions of dollars in tax in Australia, the UK and the US. Before entering into these transactions, GE obtained clearance from HMRC that UK tax rules were met, in particular new “Anti-Arbitrage Rules” introduced in the UK in 2005, specifically designed to prevent tax avoidance through the exploitation of the tax treatment of ‘hybrid’ entities in different jurisdictions. The clearance was granted by the tax authorities in 2005 based on the understanding that the funds would be used to invest in businesses operating in Australia. In total, GE’s clearance application concerned 107 cross-border loans amounting to debt financing of approximately £21.2 billion. The Australian Transaction was one part of the application. After digging into the financing structure and receiving documents from the Australian authorities, HMRC now claims that GE fraudulently obtained a tax advantage in the UK worth US$1 billion by failing to disclose information and documents relating to the group’s financing arrangements. According to the HMRC, GE provided UK tax officers with a doctored board minute, and misleading and incomplete documents. The documents from Australia shows that the transactions were not related to investments in Australian businesses, but part of a complex and contrived tax avoidance scheme that would circulate money between the US, Luxembourg, the UK and Australia before being sent back to the US just days later. These transactions had no commercial purpose other than to create a “triple dip” tax advantage in the UK, the US and Australia. HMRC are now seeking to annul the 2005 clearance agreement and then issue a claim for back taxes in the amount of $ 1 billion before interest and penalties. From GE’s 10 K filing “As previously disclosed, the United Kingdom tax authorities disallowed interest deductions claimed by GE Capital for the years 2007-2015 that could result in a potential impact of approximately $1 billion, which includes a possible assessment of tax and reduction of deferred tax assets, not including interest and penalties. We are contesting the disallowance. We comply with all applicable tax laws and judicial doctrines of the United Kingdom and believe that the entire benefit is more likely than not to be sustained on its technical merits. We believe that there are no other jurisdictions in which the outcome of unresolved issues or claims is likely to be material to our results of operations, financial position or cash flows. We further believe that we have made adequate provision for all income tax uncertainties.” The English High Court decision on whether the case has sufficient merit to proceed to trial: “150. For the above reasons, I refuse the application to amend in respect of paragraphs 38(b) and 38(e) of APOC and I will strike out the existing pleading in paragraph 38(e) of APOC. I will otherwise permit the amendments sought by HMRC insofar as they are not already agreed between the parties. Specifically, the permitted amendments include those in which HMRC seeks to introduce allegations of deliberate non-disclosure, fraud in respect of the Full Disclosure Representation, a claim that the Settlement Agreement is a contract of utmost good faith (paragraphs 49B and 53(ca) of APOC) and the claim for breach of an implied term (paragraphs 48 and 49 of APOC). 151. As to paragraph 68(b) of the Reply, I refuse the application to strike it out. To a large extent this follows from my conclusion in relation to the amendments to the APOC to add allegations of deliberate failure to disclose material information. In GE’s skeleton argument, a separate point is taken that paragraph 68(b) of the Reply is a free-standing plea that is lacking in sufficient particulars. I do not accept this: there can be no real doubt as to which parts of the APOC are being referred to by the cross-reference made in paragraph 68(b)(ii). 152. The overall result is that, while I have rejected the attempts to infer many years after the event that specific positive representations could be implied from limited references in the contemporaneous documents, the essential allegation which lay at the heart of Mr Jones QC’s submissions – that GE failed to disclose the complete picture, and that it did so deliberately – will be permitted to go to trial on the various alternative legal bases asserted by HMRC. I stress that, beyond the conclusion that there is a sufficient pleading for this purpose, and that the prospects of success cannot be shown to be fanciful on an interlocutory application such as this, I say nothing about the merits of the claims of deliberate non-disclosure or fraud.” UK-vs-GE-2020 ...

The issues were whether transactions executed by the company constituted insurance contracts for Federal income tax purposes and therefore, whether Reserve Mechanical Corp was exempt from tax as an “insurance company”. For that purpose the relevant factors for a captive insurance to exist was described by the court. According to the court in determining whether an entity is a bona fide insurance company a number of factors must be considered, including: (1) whether it was created for legitimate nontax reasons; (2) whether there was a circular flow of funds; (3) whether the entity faced actual and insurable risk; (4) whether the policies were arm’s-length contracts; (5) whether the entity charged actuarially determined premiums; (6) whether comparable coverage was more expensive or even available; (7) whether it was subject to regulatory control and met minimum statutory requirements; (8) whether it was adequately capitalized; and (9) whether it paid claims from a separately maintained account. US v Reserve Medical Corp TCMemo_2018-86 ...

The tax scheme in the Ben Nevis-case involved land owned by the subsidiary of a charitable foundation being licensed to a group of single purpose investor loss attributing qualifying companies (LAQC’s). The licensees were responsible for planting, maintaining and harvesting the forest through a forestry management company. The investors paid $1,350 per hectare for the establishment of the forest and $1,946 for an option to buy the land in 50 years for half its then market value. There were also other payments, including a $50 annual license fee. The land had been bought for around $580 per hectare. This meant that the the investors, if it wished to acquire the land after harvesting the forest, had to pay half its then value, even though they had already paid over three times the value at the inception of the scheme. In addition to the above payments, the investors agreed to pay a license premium of some $2 million per hectare, payable in 50 years time, by which time the trees would be harvested and sold. The investors purported to discharge its liability for the license premium immediately by the issuing of a promissory note redeemable in 50 years time. The premium had been calculated on the basis of the after tax amount that the mature forest was expected to yield. Finally the investors had agreed to pay an insurance premium of $1,307 per hectare and a further premium of $32,000 per hectare payable in 50 years time. The “insurance company” was a shell company established in a low tax jurisdiction by one of the promoters of the scheme. The insurance company did not in reality carry any risk due to arrangements with the land-owning subsidiary and the promissory notes from the group of investors. There was also a “letter of comfort” from the charitable foundation that it would make up any shortfall the insurance company was obliged to pay out. 90 per cent of the initial premiums received by the insurance company were paid to a company under the control of one of the promoters as commission and introduction fees tunneled back as loans to the promoters’ family trusts. Secure loans over the assets and undertakings secured the money payable under the promissory notes for the license premium and the insurance premium. The investors claimed an immediate tax deduction for the insurance premium and depreciated the deduction for the license premium over the 50 years of the license. The Inland Revenue disallowed these deductions by reference to the generel anti avoidance provision in New Zealand. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and ruled in favor of the Inland revenue. The majority of the SC judges rejected the notion that the potential conflict between the general anti-avoidance rule and specific tax provisions requires identifying which of the provisions, in any situation, is overriding. Rather, the majority viewed the specific provisions and the general anti-avoidance provision as working “in tandem”. Each provides a context that assists in determining the meaning and, in particular, the scope of the other. The focus of each is different. The purpose of the general anti-avoidance provision is to address tax avoidance. Tax avoidance may be found in individual steps or in a combination of steps. The purpose of the specific provisions is more targeted and their meaning should be determined primarily by their ordinary meaning, as established through their text in the light of their specific purpose. The function of the anti-avoidance provision is “to prevent uses of the specific provisions which fall outside their intended scope in the overall scheme of the Act.” The process of statutory construction should focus objectively on the features of the arrangements involved “without being distracted by intuitive subjective impressions of the morality of what taxation advisers have set up.” A three-stage test for assessing whether an arrangement is tax avoidance was applied by the Court. The first step in any case is for the taxpayer to satisfy the court that the use made of any specific provision comes within the scope of that provision. In this test it is the true legal character of the transaction rather than its label which will determine the tax treatment. Courts must construe the relevant documents as if they were resolving a dispute between the parties as to the meaning and effect of contractual arrangements. They must also respect the fact that frequently in commerce there are different means of producing the same economic outcome which have different taxation effects. The second stage of the test requires the court to look at the use of the specific provisions in light of arrangement as a whole. If a taxpayer has used specific provisions “and thereby altered the incidence of income tax, in a way which cannot have been within the contemplation and purpose of Parliament when it enacted the provision, the arrangement will be a tax avoidance arrangement.” The economic and commercial effect of documents and transactions may be significant, as well as the duration of the arrangement and the nature and extent of the financial consequences that it will have for the taxpayer. A combination of those factors may be important. If the specific provisions of the Act are used in any artificial or contrived way that will be significant, as it cannot be “within Parliament’s purpose for specific provisions to be used in that manner.” The courts are not limited to purely legal considerations at this second stage of the analysis. They must consider the use of the specific provisions in light of commercial reality and the economic effect of that use. The “ultimate question is whether the impugned arrangement, viewed in a commercially and economically realistic way, makes use of the specific provisions in a manner that is consistent with Parliament’s purpose.” If the arrangement does make use of the specific provisions in a manner consistent with Parliament’s purpose, it will not be tax avoidance. The third stage is to consider whether tax avoidance ...

Conclusion of the Tax Court: “The substance of the transactions is revealed in the lack of arm’s-length dealing between LIIBV and petitioners, the circular flow of funds, and the conduct of the parties by changing the terms of the agreements when needed to avoid deadlines. The Laidlaw entities’ core management group designed and implemented this elaborate system to create the appearance that petitioners were paying interest, while in substance they were not. We conclude that, for Federal income tax purposes, the advances from LIIBV to petitioners for which petitioners claim to have paid the interest at issue are equity and not debt. Thus, petitioners may not deduct the interest at issue for 1986, 1987, and 1988.” NOTE: 13 October 2016 section 385 of the Internal Revenue Code was issued containing regulations for re-characterisation of Debt/Equity for US Inbound Multinationals. Further, US documentation rules in Treasury Regulation § 1.385-2 facilitate analysis of related-party debt instruments by establishing documentation and maintenance requirements, operating rules, presumptions, and factors that impact treatment of a debt instrument as debt or equity. US vs Laidlaw Transportation Inc June 1998 US Tax Court ...

In the case of Ramsay a substance over form-doctrine was endorsed by the House of Lords (predecessor of the “UK Supreme Court” established in 2009). The “Ramsay principle” has since been applied in other cases involving tax avoidance schemes in the UK, where transactions have been constructed purely for tax purposes. Statutes referring to “commercial” concepts have also been applied in tax cases where transactions have lacked economic substance. UK vs RAMSAY LIMITED 1981 ...