In the case of a loan from the parent entity of an MNE group to a subsidiary, the parent already has control and ownership of the subsidiary, which would make the granting of security less relevant to its risk analysis as a lender. Therefore, in evaluating the pricing of a loan between associated enterprises it is important to consider that the absence of contractual rights over the assets of the borrowing entity does not necessarily reflect the economic reality of the risk inherent in the loan. If the assets of the business are not already pledged as security elsewhere, it will be appropriate to consider under Chapter I analysis whether those assets are available to act as collateral for the otherwise unsecured loan and the consequential impact upon the pricing of the loan ...

For instance in the case of a loan, those characteristics may include but are not limited to: the amount of the loan; its maturity; the schedule of repayment; the nature or purpose of the loan (trade credit, merger/acquisition, mortgage, etc.); level of seniority and subordination, geographical location of the borrower; currency; collateral provided; presence and quality of any guarantee; and whether the interest rate is fixed or floating ...

A German corporation,”G Corp” held interests in domestic and foreign companies in the year in dispute (2005). G Corp granted loans to various subordinate companies – resident in France and the USA. These loans were mainly at fixed interest rates; instead of a fixed interest rate, an annual participation of 12.5% in the balance sheet profit of the subordinate company, limited to a maximum amount of 25% of the loan volume, was agreed as consideration for one loan. No collateral was provided. In the year in dispute, G Corp wrote off these loans against taxable profits. G Corp also transferred assets at book value to a Maltese subsidiary company, of which it was the sole shareholder, and contributed the shares in this company, pursuant to section 23(4) of the Reorganisation Tax Act applicable in the year in dispute, also at book value, to another Malta-based company in the context of a capital increase against the granting of company rights. Finally, in the year in dispute, G Corp and its controlled companies earned interest income from loan claims against various foreign subordinated companies totalling … €. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the taxable income related to a partial value write-downs on unsecured loan receivables issued within the group and a book value transfer of assets to foreign subsidiaries had been adjusted. In 2017 the regional tax court issued its decision concluding that the adjustment was not possible under the relevant German arm’s length provision. This decision was then appealed to the Federal tax court by both parties. Judgment of the Court (Bundesfinanzhof) The Federal tax court found the appeal well-founded and referred the case back to the regional fiscal court. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Lender GmbH acquired all shares in T GmbH from T in 2012 (year in dispute) for a purchase price of … €. To finance the purchase price of the shares, Lender GmbH took out a loan from its sole shareholder, D GmbH, a loan in the amount of … €, which bore interest at 8% p.a. (shareholder loan). The interest was not to be paid on an ongoing basis, but only on expiry of the loan agreement on 31.12.2021. No collateral was agreed. D GmbH, for its part, borrowed funds in the same amount and under identical terms and conditions from its shareholders, among others from its Dutch shareholder N U.A. In addition Lender GmbH received a bank loan in the amount of … €, which had an average interest rate of 4.78% p.a. and was fully secured. Finally Lender GmbH also received a vendor loan from the vendor T in the amount of … €, which bore an interest of 10 % p.a. and was not secured. The shareholder loan was subordinated to all other liabilities. The tax office issued a tax assessment in 2016 with regard to interest payments on the shareholder loan. According to the tax authorities an interest rate of of 5 % would have been agreed between independent parties. The difference up to the actual interest rate of 8% was therefore considered a hidden profit distribution(vGA) and added to the income of Lender GmbH. A complaint filed by Lender GmbH against the tax assessment was unsuccessful (Cologne Fiscal Court, Judgment of 29.06.2017 – 10 K 771/16.) The appeal before the Bundesfinanzhof was directed against this judgment. Lender GmbH claims that there has been an infringement of substantive law and requests that the contested judgment be set aside and that the the 2012 corporate income tax assessment be annulled. The tax authorities requests that the appeal be rejected. Judgment of the Court (Bundesfinanzhof) When determining the arm’s length loan interest rate for an unsecured shareholder loan, the statutory subordination of shareholder loans (section 39(1)(5) InsO) does not preclude a risk premium when determining the interest rate to compensate for the lack of loan collateralisation. It is contrary to general principles of practice if the court assumes without factual findings that a third party would agree on the same interest rate for a subordinated and unsecured loan as for a secured and senior loan. The judgment of the Cologne Fiscal Court of 29 June 2017 – 10 K 771/16 is set aside and the case is referred back to the Cologne Fiscal Court for a different hearing and decision. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

A GmbH provided funding in the form of a clearing account to its Belgian subsidiary. The account was unsecured and carried an interest of 6% p.a. In 2005, A GmbH and the Belgian company agreed on a debt write-off which was deducted for tax purposes. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the write-off was denied as a tax deductible expense. According to the tax authorities, independent third parties would have agreed on some kind of security. The lack thereof was a violation of the arm’s length principle. A GmbH brought the assessment to court. The Federal Fiscal Court (I R 73/16) found the assessment of the tax authorities to be lawful. This decision was then appealed to the Constitutional Court by  A GmbH, alleging violation of the general principle of equality as well as a violation of its fundamental procedural right to the lawful judge. Decision of the Constitutional Court The Federal Constitutional Court decided in favour of A GmbH and found the constitutional complaint well-founded. “…the decision of the Federal Fiscal Court violates the complainant’s fundamental procedural right to the lawful judge (Article 101.1 sentence 2 of the Basic Law) due to the way it chooses to handle its obligation to make a reference pursuant to Article 267.3 TFEU.” Click here for English translation ...

For instance in the case of a loan, those characteristics may include but are not limited to: the amount of the loan; its maturity; the schedule of repayment; the nature or purpose of the loan (trade credit, merger/acquisition, mortgage, etc.); level of seniority and subordination, geographical location of the borrower; currency; collateral provided; presence and quality of any guarantee; and whether the interest rate is fixed or floating ...

G-Lender GmbH, owned 50% of Austrian company A GmbH. The remaining 50% of the shares in A GmbH were held by non related shareholders, who at the same time acted as managing directors of A GmbH. G-Lender GmbH granted A GmbH a total of five loans. These loans each carried an interest rate of  5.5% pa. Assets owned by A GmbH  were assigned as collateral. On 22 January 2002 and 16 June 2002, A GmbH made a partial payments on the loans to G-Lender. By a contract dated 9 April 2003, G-Lender GmbH provided a guarantee to an independent bank for a EUR 800,000 loan to A GmbH and at the same time declared subordination of its loan claims against A GmbH. Due to negative development in A GmbH, G-Lender GmbH on 31 December 2003, booked a partial depreciation on the loan in the amount of EUR 312.972. In December 2004 bankruptcy proceedings had been opened on A GmbH and the guarantee of G-Lender GmbH was claimed by B Bank. G-Lender GmbH formed a provision for liabilities an in addition wrote off the residual value of the loans to A GmbH. The German Tax Authorities disallowed the deductions from the loan guarantee. Judgment of the Bundesfinanzhof The case was remanded to the lower court for a final decision. The Court reaffirmed its view from a prior ruling in I R 73/16 scope of the correction in Article 9(1) OECD also allows the profit adjustments due to non recognition of a loan claim or a write-down on the loan value. According to the Court, loans provided without collateralisation can – depending on facts and circumstances – be at arm’s length within the meaning of Section 1 (1) AStG and Article 9 OECD-MA. The Court did not find the assessments under Section 1 AStG restricted by EU law based on the ruling in the ECJ case Hornbach Baumarkt (guarantee for a subsidiary in need of restructuring). Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Waiver KG had an outstanding (non-interest-bearing and unsecured) trade receivable of EUR 2,560,000 from a wholly-owned subsidiary in China related to deliveries made in FY 2004 and 2005. Waiver KG had first issued a partial waiver (EUR 560,000) on the receivable and then a complete waiver in December 2008, after a partial write-down had previously been made in the commercial balance sheet. The initial partial write-down had not been given effect to the taxable income, but in the course of a tax audit Waiver AG requested that the partial write-off be taken into account for tax purposes as well. The tax office refused to do so and instead applied an interest rate of 3% on the outstanding receivable. A complaint was then filed by Waiver KG to the tax court. The tax court issued a decision in favour of Waiver KG with reference to German jurisprudence on the blocking effect of Art. 9 OECD-MA. However, at the same time, the tax court increased the interest rate on the outstanding receivable to 10.5%. This decision was appealed to the Bundesfinanzhof by the tax authorities. Judgement of the Bundesfinanzhof The Court found that Art. 9 (1) OECD-MA does not limit arm’s length adjustments within the scope of Sec. 1 (1) AStG to so-called price adjustments, but also allowed for tax adjustments based on non-recognition of a loan receivable or a partial write-downs. The Court considers that lack of collateral can be at arm’s length, depending on facts and circumstances of the transaction in question. The case was referred back to the tax court, as it had not been sufficiently clarified whether a independent party would have waived collateral in the specific case, e.g. in order to avoid the bankruptcy of a functionally important company. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...