“Caixa… S.A.” received an assessment of additional taxable income in which, among other things, the (lack of) interest on a loan granted to a subsidiary had been adjusted by the tax authorities. Caixa S.A. lodged an appeal with the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul. Judgment of the Tribunal The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as regards the transfer pricing adjustment and upheld that part of the tax authorities’ assessment. Expert “It goes on to say that the discussion of the nature of the operation is innocuous in the context of the specific case. The fact is that “[t]here are various techniques by which practices can be employed to artificially increase interest expenses, so that they benefit from tax treatment that may be more favourable when compared to that of distributed profits. The first consists of checking the “reasonableness” of the amount of interest, refusing to deduct the excess against the objective criterion of at arm’s length interest. This is the technique used in Article 58 of the CIRC and Article 9 of the OECD Model Convention. A second technique operates at the level of the “qualification” of the underlying operation as credit or capital, given the circumstances of the specific case and is applied, for example, to “hybrid financial instruments” which have both credit and capital aspects, as is the case with profit-sharing bonds. In these circumstances, the authorities can, as part of their interpretation of treaties, laws and facts, ‘reclassify’ an apparently credit agreement as a capital contribution” [or vice versa] (9). This is what happened in this case, in which profits made by the applicant were artificially allocated to a subsidiary. The characteristic feature of indirect profit distribution is that an abnormal advantage is obtained. This presupposes, firstly, that an operation has been carried out which gives rise to an advantage and, secondly, that the advantage can be considered abnormal. “The operations do not translate into a direct, visible, apparent distribution of profits, but rather into operations that contribute to the formation of the company’s profit.” The advantage can be attributed either by the subsidiary company to another, which participates in its profits – in which case there is a hidden distribution of profits – or “be attributed, in the opposite direction, by the parent company to its subsidiary, in which case there is a hidden contribution, or it can be attributed to a third entity, linked by a triangular link”. The advantage can take two forms: it can translate into an expense or loss, or it can translate into an “unrealised gain”. The abnormal advantage of the indirect distribution of profits is “that which has no objectively equivalent counterpart”, which is measured by “comparing it with the hypothetical behaviour of two independent companies, dealing at arm’s length, i.e. with the competitive price – the open market price that would be charged, in a specific, equal or similar transaction” (10). The appellant maintains that the method adopted is not suitable for assessing transfer prices in the situation in question, given the risk involved and the specific nature of the inter-bank credit market. In this regard, it should be noted that “when analysing the transfer price of an intra-group loan, it is essential to first analyse the characteristics of the borrower in order to assess whether this entity could obtain an equal or similar level of debt from an independent creditor (e.g. bank), under the same terms and conditions as an independent entity would, given the performance of its business. In other words, the aim here is to assess and support the substance and economic rationale of the transaction, as well as its fit with the taxable person’s business purpose. Essentially, this analysis focuses on assessing the borrower’s credit risk, i.e. the risk that the borrower will not fulfil its commitments (debt) on the agreed date and whether the default requires a guarantee to be provided. // Given that credit risk is one of the main elements to be considered when determining the cost of financing (the greater the risk, the greater the cost to be borne), it may be asked to what extent a given interest rate, close to benchmarks such as Euribor, may be appropriate when there is an expectation that the debtor would not obtain that remuneration in market operations. The determination of the arm’s length remuneration for the operation in question must take into account all its specific characteristics. In particular, the date (in order to select operations with a similar context in terms of expectations and financial situation), the amount, the repayment term (longer terms imply greater uncertainty), the borrower’s credit risk (rating) and its level of indebtedness, the associated guarantees (they significantly influence credit risk), the interest rate applied (fixed or variable rate), the debtor’s sector of activity (relevant for assessing the ability to generate cash flows), the currency in which the operation was agreed and the markets involved…”. In this case, however, there is no evidence that the inspection report failed to take account of the factors in question when determining the transfer pricing method. It states that: In accordance with paragraph 199 of the 1979 OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs Report “Transfer Pricing and Multinational Enterprises”, when determining what is meant by a comparable or similar loan, it will be necessary to take into account the following factors: the amount and duration of the loan, its nature or purpose, the currency in which it is specified, and the financial situation of the borrower. Now, as already mentioned, C…. is an eminently banking organisation, and given its importance in the national and international banking market, it is one of the financial institutions that make up the panel of institutions that contribute to setting the Euribor rate, which corresponds to the average interest rate at which European banks in the Eurozone lend funds to each other. This rate is one of the reference rates for economic agents in Europe, and is considered a risk-free rate of return, given the profile of the institutions that contribute ...

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 ...

A Polish subsidiary in a German Group had taken out a significant inter-company loan resulting in a significantly reduced income due to interest deductions. At issue was application of the Polish arm’s length provisions and the arm’s length nature of the interest rate on the loan. The tax authorities had issued an assessment where the interest rate on the loans had been adjusted and the taxable income increased. On that basis, a complaint was filed by the company to the Administrative Court. The administrative court rejected the complaint and ruled in favor of the tax authorities. An appeal was then brought before the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal, although it did not share some of the conclusions and statements of the Court of first instance. The key issue in the case was to determine is whether the provisions of Art. 11 (Containing the Polish arm’s length provisions), allowing the authority to determine the income of the Company and the tax due without taking into account the conditions arising from existing relationships, including capital applies. Art. 11 paragraph 1 and paragraph 4. allows for the this provision to apply if three cumulative conditions are met: 1) the existence of connections between the parties referred to in art. 11 paragraph 1 points 1-3 or in para. 4 item 1 or 2 update; 2) the impact of these connections resulting in conditions that differ from those that would be agreed between independent entities; 3) the taxpayer’s failure to recognize income or income lower than would be expected if the above mentioned connections had not been there. The Supreme Administrative Court agreed that these cumulative conditions are met. The authority has made estimates of income on the basis of § 21 paragraph. 1 and 2 cited above. Regulation in the light of which it rules, if the taxpayer to provide an entity affiliated with the taxpayer loan ( credit ) or will receive such a loan ( credit ), regardless of their purpose and destiny, or also give or receive in any form of warranty or guarantee, the price of the market for this service are the interest or commission or other form of remuneration, which agreeing on for such a service, provided on comparable terms , entities independent ( paragraph. 1). The arm’s length interest rate is determined on the basis of the interest, that the entity would have to pay an independent party for obtaining a loan ( loans ) for the same period in comparable circumstances. However, according to the Supreme Administrative Court the inter group loan agreement differs from the typical loan agreements concluded by banks. The applicant does not conduct an economic activity identical to that of banks; With regard to the nature of the transaction applicant suffered much less risk of insolvency of a counter party, than borne by the bank in relation to the borrowers; The Company had a much greater possibility of controlling the situation of the financial and solvency of the counter party in the course of the duration of the contract than the bank in case of a contract of credit; The applicant does not bear the costs of verifying the ability of credit counter party and had the opportunity to immediately recover the funds provided in the framework of the agreement, which differ from the conditions defined by the parties of the contract of credit, concluded with the bank; The applicant does not incur other costs associated with granting and service the loan , which usually bear the banks; The applicant functioning in the group ‘s capital, implemented assumptions and tasks of economic different from those, which are the essence of the activities of entities operating on the market of services financial. Since comparable transactions between unrelated entities could not be established during the period under consideration, the CUP method was not applicable to the disputed contract. The Supreme Administrative Court states that the judgment under appeal meets the requirements provided for in art. 141 § 4 and fully enables its instance control, despite some shortcomings. The tax authority, while re- examining the case, is not bound within the meaning of the legal assessment contained in the fragment of the justification of the Administrative Court questioned by the Supreme Administrative Court. Instead, the legal assessment contained in this judgment is binding. Considering the, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed complaint. Click here for translation ...

An adjustments had been made by the tax authorities to a series of loans granted by GOLDEN ARCHES OF SPAIN SA (GAOS), domiciled in Ireland, to RESTAURANTES MC DONALDS, S.A. (RMSA), throughout the period 2000/2004 for amounts ranging between 10,000,000 and 86,650,000 €, at interest rates between 3,450% and 6,020%. The tax administration held that GAOS “has no structure or means to grant the loan and monitor compliance with its conditions … it does not have its own funds to lend, it receives them from other companies in the group”. The Administration refers to a loan received by GAOS from the parent company at a rate of 0%, which is paid in advance to receive another with an interest rate of 3.3%. The Administration indicates that “nobody, under normal market conditions, cancels a loan to constitute another one under clearly worse conditions”. The arm’s length interest rate was determined by reference to the interest rate RMSA would have paid to an independent bank. In 2005 there were external bank loans in the same company for more than 100,000,000 euros at an average interest rates of 2.57%. Judgement of the Court: “As regards the valuation at market price of the interest rate on the loans or lines of financing …, it has already been shown above that the loans were granted throughout the period 2000/2004 for amounts between 10,000,000 and 86,650,000 euros, with different interest rates ranging between 3.450% and 6.020%. These rates are notably higher than those demanded from RMSA by the banks – independent third parties – that granted it loans, so that in the financial year 2005 there are credit lines of more than 100,000,000 euros at average rates of 2.57% (credit lines for one year and renewable). “This being so, the reasonableness of the judgment cannot be disputed in appealing to the credit obtained by RMSA from independent entities, even though the conditions were different in some of their distinctive features to those of the loans received from GAOS, especially when the Court of First Instance rightly expresses the reasons why such alleged differences are irrelevant.” “…As regards the OECD Guidelines cited as infringed in the plea, this Court has already held that they are not sources of law and therefore cannot be relied on in cassation. Moreover, the reference in Article 16 TRLIS to them as rules inspiring application was introduced in Law 36/2006, which is not applicable ratione temporis to this case. Indeed, as we have recently stated (judgment of 19 October 2016, handed down in appeal no. 2558/2015), article 88.1.d) of the Law of this Jurisdiction allows for the complaint of defects in iudicando in which the contested judgment may have incurred, stating that “1. The appeal must be based on one or some of the following grounds: …d) Infringement of the rules of the legal system or case law that were applicable to resolve the issues under debate”. The infringement invoked in cassation, therefore, must refer precisely to the rules of the legal system, that is to say, to the formal sources which comprise it and which are set out in Article 1.1 of the Civil Code, which establishes that “…the sources of the Spanish legal system are the law, custom and the general principles of law”. Within the material concept of law expressed in the precept, it is possible to include the different manifestations, hierarchically ordered, of normative power (Constitution, international treaties, organic law, ordinary law, regulations, etc.). ), but it is not possible to base a ground of appeal on the infringement of the aforementioned OECD Guidelines, given their lack of normative value, that is to say, of a binding legal source for the Courts of Justice that can be predicated on them, and which this Supreme Court had already declared previously (thus, the Judgment of 18 July 2012, handed down in appeal no. 3779/2009 ), in which such guidelines are considered as mere recommendations to the States and, elsewhere in that judgment, it assigns them an interpretative value. Such a function, that of interpreting legal rules, derives, moreover, from the very role assigned to them by the Explanatory Memorandum to Law 36/2006, of 29 November, on measures for the prevention of tax fraud, which states the following: “…As far as direct taxation is concerned, this reform has two objectives. The first refers to the valuation of these operations according to market prices, thus linking them to the existing accounting criteria applicable to the recording in individual annual accounts of the operations regulated in article 16 of the Consolidated Text of the Corporate Income Tax Law, approved by Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004, of 5 March. In this respect, the acquisition price at which these transactions must be recorded for accounting purposes must correspond to the amount that would be agreed by independent persons or entities under conditions of free competition, understood as the market value, if there is a representative market or, failing that, the amount derived from applying certain generally accepted models and techniques and in harmony with the principle of prudence. In short, the tax regime for related-party transactions is based on the same valuation criterion as that established in the accounting field. In this sense, the tax administration could correct the book value when it determines that the normal market value differs from that agreed by the related persons or entities, with regulation of the tax consequences of the possible difference between the two values. The second objective is to adapt Spanish transfer pricing legislation to the international context, in particular to the OECD guidelines on the subject and to the European Transfer Pricing Forum, in the light of which the amended legislation must be interpreted. In this way, the actions of the Spanish tax authorities are brought into line with those of other countries in the region, while at the same time providing greater security for verification procedures by regulating the obligation of the taxpayer to document the determination of the market value agreed in the related-party transactions ...

At issue in this case is the choice of method for determening interest rates on an intra group loan – More precisely whether or not internal comparables existed that were in fact independent. It is also discussed whether a intra group loan is comparable to a bank loan or not. Click here for translation ...