In 2013, Viva Telecom Bulgaria EAD, as borrower/debtor, entered into a convertible loan agreement with its parent company in Luxembourg, InterV Investment S.a.r.l.. According to the agreement, the loan was non-interest bearing and would eventually be converted into equity. The tax authorities considered the arrangement to be a loan and applied an arm’s length interest rate and applied withholding tax to the amount of interest expense calculated. Vivacom appealed to the Administrative Court, which, in a judgment issued in 2019, agreed with the tax authorities’ argument for determining the withholding tax liability. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court requested a ruling from the CJEU, which was issued in case C-257/20. The CJEU ruled that the applicable EU directives do not prevent the application of withholding tax on notional interest. On this basis, the Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court issued its decision on the application of withholding tax on notional interest under an interest-free loan agreement. Relying on the conclusions of the CJEU, the court confirmed the withholding tax imposed on the notional interest determined under the concluded financial agreement. The SAC also rejected the local taxpayer’s request to recalculate the tax due under the net basis regime. However, the court relied on a separate transfer pricing benchmark study, which established a market rate in favour of the taxpayer compared to the one initially used by the tax administration, resulting in a reduction of the tax assessment. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

In 2011 a Dutch group “Hunkemöller BV” acquired “Target BV” for EUR 135 million. The acquisition was financed by four French affiliates “FCPRs” in the Dutch Group – EUR 60,345,000 in the form of convertible instruments (intercompany debt) and the remainder in the form of equity. The convertible instruments carried an interest rates of 13 percent. The four French FCPRs were considered transparent for French tax purposes, but non-transparent for Dutch tax purposes. Hence the interest payments were deducted from the taxable income reported by the Group in the Netherlands, but the interest income was not taxed in France – the structure thus resulted in a tax mismatch. The Dutch tax authorities argued that the interest payments should not be deductible as the setup of the financing structure constituted abuse of law; the financing structure was set up in this particular manner to get around a Dutch anti-abuse rule which limits interest deduction on loans from affiliated entities in respect of certain “abusive transactions”. See the preliminary AG Opinion here Decision of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the tax authority. The aim and purpose of the law is to prevent the levy of corporate income tax becoming arbitrarily and continuously obstructed through bringing together the profits of a business on the one hand (i.e. through forming a CIT fiscal unity) and artificially creating interest charges on the other (profit-drainage), by using legal acts which are not necessary to the achievement of the commercial objectives of the taxpayer and which can only attributed to the overriding motive of producing the intended tax benefits. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

In this case, A. S.A. had granted interest free loans to an affiliate company – Poiana Ciucas S.A. The tax authorities issued an assessment of non-realised income from loans granted. The tax authorities established that the average interest rates charged for comparable loans granted by credit institutions in Romania ranged from 5.45% to 19.39%. The court of first instance decided in favor of the tax authorities. An appeal against this decision was lodged by S S.A. According to S S.A. “The legal act concluded between the two companies should have been regarded as a contribution to the share capital of Poiana CiucaÈ™ S.A. However, even if it were considered that a genuine loan contract (with 0% interest) had been concluded, it cannot be held that the company lacked the capacity to conclude such an act, since, even if the purpose of any company is to make a profit, the interdependence of economic operations requires a distinction to be made between the immediate purpose and the intermediate purpose of a commercial activity, both of which are the cause of any legal act. Since company A. S.A. is the majority shareholder in Poiana CiucaÈ™ S.A., the grant of a sum of money to the latter, at a time when it was unable to secure financing, is intended to safeguard the economic activity and, implicitly, to obtain subsequent benefits for the company.” “The essential legal issue in this case is that for the period prior to 14 May 2010 (when the tax legislation changed) there was no legal basis for reconsidering the records of the Romanian related persons. Art. 11 para. (1) sentence 1 of the Tax Code cannot be considered as applicable in this case, as it refers to the right of the tax authority to disregard a fictitious/unrealistic transaction, which is not the case of the operation analysed during the tax inspection, which took place between companies A. and Poiana CiucaÈ™. Thus, the second sentence of Art. 11 para. (1) of the Tax Code, relating to the reclassification of the form of a transaction, becomes fully applicable to the factual situation at issue, as the tax authority considered the transaction between the two companies to be a genuine loan and not a contribution to the share capital.” Judgement of Supreme Court The Court set aside the appealed judgment, and refer the case back to the court of first instance. Excerpts “Consequently, the High Court finds that the objection of limitation of the authority’s right to determine tax liabilities for 2008 is well founded, since the decision of the court of first instance rejecting that objection was handed down with the incorrect application of the relevant provisions of substantive law, a ground for annulment provided for in Article 488(2) of the EC Treaty. (At the same time, from an analysis of the documents in the case-file, it is not possible to determine the amount of the sums withheld from the applicant company by the contested acts, representing corporation tax for 2008, interest and late payment penalties relating to that tax liability for the year in question, so that the Court of Appeal cannot determine with certainty the amount of those sums.” “As regards the appellant’s criticisms concerning the contract between it and Poiana CiucaÈ™ S.A., the judgment under appeal reflects the correct interpretation and application of the provisions of Articles 11 and 19(1)(b) of the Civil Service Code. (5) of Law No 571/2003 on the Fiscal Code, as in force at the relevant time, the provisions of Article 1266 of the Civil Code, Article 1 of Law No 31/1990 and point 1.65 of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines. Thus, in analysing the applicant’s claims concerning the classification of the contract concluded between A. S.A. and Poiana CiucaÈ™ S.A. as representing a contribution to the share capital, the Court of First Instance correctly held that those claims were unfounded, having regard to the provisions of Articles 1266 and 1267 of the Civil Code and the content of the contractual clauses contained in the contract in question. From an interpretation of the extrinsic and intrinsic elements of the contract, it cannot be held that the legal act between the contracting parties which occurred approximately eight years after the conclusion of the contract and the making available of the initial funds constitutes an element indicating that those funds represent a contribution to the share capital and that that was the original and real intention of the parties. In accordance with the view expressed by the judge hearing the case, it is held that the obligation to repay the sum granted by way of a loan was extinguished between the contracting parties by a new expression of will which took place between 2015 and 2016 and which cannot have retroactive effect from the date of conclusion of the contract (1 January 2007). That conclusion of the Court of First Instance, with which the Court of First Instance agrees, is not the result of a strictly grammatical analysis of the contractual clauses stipulated by the two parties, but is based on an analysis of the legal act which subsequently arose between the parties, taking into account the entire factual context in which it was concluded, in relation to the clauses of the loan agreement, the content of which was examined in a relevant manner by the court, holding that those clauses cannot be interpreted in the sense asserted by the applicant as regards the nature of the contract. A further argument in support of the above conclusion also derives from the manner in which the contractual terms were performed, the subsequent conduct of the lender, which did not receive any repayment of the sum paid and did not charge any interest, being relevant in that regard. The Court of First Instance examined the lender’s conduct both in the light of the defining features of the loan agreement and in the light of the terms of the contract at issue, finding that that conduct fully complied with the ...

To acquire companies and resell them with capital gains a French Investment Fund distributed the capital of its investors (€ 5.4 billion in equity) between a French Fund Commun de Placement à Risques (FCPRs) and British Ltds managed by the French Investment Fund. For the purpose of acquiring the [X] group (the target), the French Investment Fund set up three legal entities in the Netherlands, [Y] UA, [B] BV, and [C] BV (the acquisition holding company). These three joint taxed entities are shown as Fiscal unit [A] below. The capital to be used for the acquisition of [X] group was divided into four FCPRs that held 30%, 30%, 30% and 10% in [Y] respectively. To get the full amount needed for the acquisition, [Y] members provided from their equity to [Y]: (i) member capital (€ 74.69 million by the FCPRs, € 1.96 million by the Fund Management, € 1.38 million by [D]) and (ii) investment in convertible instruments (hybrid loan at 13% per annum that is not paid, but added interest-bearing: € 60.4 million from the FCPRs and € 1.1 million from [D]). Within Fiscal unit [A], all amounts were paid in [B], which provided the acquisition holding company [C] with € 72.64 million as capital and € 62.36 million as loan. [C] also took out loans from third parties: (i) a senior facility of € 113.75 million from a bank syndicate and (ii) a mezzanine facility of € 35 million in total from [D] and [E]. On November 22, 2010, the French [F] Sàrl controlled by the French Investment Fund agreed on the acquisition with the owners of the target. “Before closing”, [F] transferred its rights and obligations under this agreement to [C], which purchased the target shares on January 21, 2011 for € 265 million, which were delivered and paid on January 31, 2011. As a result, the target was removed from the fiscal unit of the sellers [G] as of 31 January 2011 and was immediately included in the fiscal unit [A]. [C] on that day granted a loan of € 25 million at 9% to its German subsidiary [I] GmbH. Prior to the transaction the sellers and the target company had agreed that upon sale certain employees of the target would receive a bonus. The dispute is (i) whether the convertibles are a sham loan; (ii) if not, whether they actually function as equity under art. 10 (1) (d) Wet Vpb; (iii) if not, whether their interest charges are partly or fully deductible business expenses; (iv) if not, or art. 10a Wet Vpb stands in the way of deduction, and (v) if not, whether fraus legis stands in the way of interest deduction. Also in dispute is (vi) whether tax on the interest received on the loan to [I] GmbH violates EU freedom of establishment and (viii) whether the bonuses are deducted from the interested party or from [G]. Amsterdam Court of Appeal: The Court ruled that (i) it is a civil law loan that (ii) is not a participant loan and (iii) is not inconsistent or carries an arm’s length interest and that (iv) art. 10a Wet Vpb does not prevent interest deduction because the commitment requirement of paragraph 4 is not met, but (v) that the financing structure is set up in fraud legislation, which prevents interest deduction. The Court derived the motive from the artificiality and commercial futility of the financing scheme and the struggle with the aim and intent of the law from the (i) the norm of art. 10a Corporate Income Tax Act by avoiding its criteria artificially and (ii) the norm that an (interest) charge must have a non-fiscal cause in order to be recognized as a business expense for tax purposes. Re (vi), the Court holds that the difference in treatment between interest on a loan to a joined tax domestic subsidiary and interest on a loan to an non-joined tax German subsidiary is part of fiscal consolidation and therefore does not infringe the freedom of establishment. Contrary to the Rechtbank, the Court ruled ad (viii) that on the basis of the total profit concept, at least the realization principle, the bonuses are not borne by the interested party but by the sellers. Excerpts regarding the arm’s length principle “In principle, the assessment of transfer prices as agreed upon between affiliated parties will be based on the allocation of functions and risks as chosen by the parties. Any price adjustment by the Tax and Customs Administration will therefore be based on this allocation of functions and risks. In this respect it is not important whether comparable contracts would have been agreed between independent parties. For example, if a group decides to transfer the intangible assets to one group entity, it will not be objected that such a transaction would never have been agreed between independent third parties. However, it may happen that the contractual terms do not reflect economic reality. If this is the case, the economic reality will be taken into account, not the contractual stipulation. In addition, some risks cannot be separated from certain functions. After all, in independent relationships, a party will only be willing to take on a certain risk if it can manage and bear that risk.” “The arm’s-length principle implies that the conditions applicable to transactions between related parties are compared with the conditions agreed upon in similar situations between independent third parties. In very rare cases, similar situations between independent parties will result in a specific price. In the majority of cases, however, similar situations between independent third parties may result in a price within certain ranges. The final price agreed will depend on the circumstances, such as the bargaining power of each of the parties involved. It follows from the application of the arm’s-length principle that any price within those ranges will be considered an acceptable transfer price. Only if the price moves outside these margins, is there no longer talk of an arm’s-length price since a third party acting in ...