A parent company resident in country Y1 was liable to tax on interest and dividends it had received from its Danish subsidiary. There should be no reduction of or exemption from withholding tax under the Parent-Subsidiary Directive or the Interest and Royalties Directive or under the double taxation treaty between Denmark and country Y1, as neither the parent company nor this company’s own Y1-resident parent company could be considered the rightful owner of the dividends and interest within the meaning of the directives and the treaty, and as there was abuse. The High Court thus found that the Y1-domestic companies were flow-through companies for the interest and dividends, which were passed on to underlying companies in the tax havens Y2-ø and Y3-ø. The High Court found that there was no conclusive evidence that the companies in Y2 were also flow-through entities and that the beneficial owner of the interest and dividends was an underlying trust or investors resident in Y4. The double taxation treaty between Denmark and the Y4 country could therefore not provide a basis for a reduction of or exemption from withholding tax on the interest and dividends. Nor did the High Court find that there was evidence that there was a basis for a partial reduction of the withholding tax requirement due to the fact that one of the investors in the company on Y3 island was resident in Y5 country, with which Denmark also had a double taxation treaty. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

I. sp. z o.o. is a Polish tax resident. Its sole shareholder is an Italian tax resident company. The Company plans to pay a dividend to the shareholder in the future, and therefore asked the following question to the Polish Tax Chamber: in order to exercise the right to exempt a dividend paid to a shareholder from corporate income tax (withholding tax) under Article 22(4) of the Corporate Income Tax Act of 15 February 1992 (Journal of Laws of 2019, item 865, hereinafter the CIT), is the Company required to verify whether the entity to which the dividend is paid is the actual owner of the dividend? The Tax Chamber answered that verification of the beneficial ownership is part of the due diligence obligation introduced in Article 26(1) of the Corporate Income Tax Act in 2019. The company challenged this interpretation before the Administrative Court and the Court found the complaint well-founded and overturned the interpretation of the Tax Chamber. An appeal was then filed by the authorities with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court. The Court set aside the judgment of the Administrative Court in its entirety and decided in favor of the authorities. Excerpts “It should be recalled that the Danish judgments point out that the mechanisms of Directive 90/435 (now 2011/96) were ‘introduced to address situations where, without their application, the exercise by Member States of their taxing authority could lead to profits distributed by a subsidiary to its parent company being taxed twice (judgment of 8 March 2017, Wereldhave Belgium and Others, C-448/15, EU:C:2017:180, paragraph 39). On the other hand, such mechanisms cannot apply if the owner of the dividends is a company established for tax purposes outside the Union, since, in such a case, the exemption from withholding tax on the dividends in question in the Member State from which they were paid could lead to those dividends not being effectively taxed in the Union.” (paragraph 113 of the judgment). In paragraph 5 of the operative part of the judgment, it was held that where the Directive’s “withholding tax exemption regime for dividends paid by a company resident in a Member State to a company resident in another Member State is inapplicable because of a finding of fraud or abuse within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that Directive, the application of the freedoms guaranteed by the EU Treaty cannot be relied upon to challenge the first Member State’s regulation of the taxation of those dividends.” The CJEU noted that “a Member State must refuse to avail itself of provisions of Union law if those provisions are relied upon not to pursue their objectives but to obtain an advantage under Union law, when the conditions for obtaining that advantage are only formally fulfilled.” (paragraph 72 of the judgment). In the context of the theses Danish judgments, the reasoning in the CJEU judgment of 7 September 2017, which was extensively cited by the Applicant and the Court of First Instance, must be considered outdated. C-6/16 in the EQIOM case (publ. ZOTSiS.2017/9/I-641). For this reason, the Supreme Administrative Court considered it pointless to refer to it when assessing the correctness of the judgment under appeal. It is clear from the Danish judgments that the mechanisms created by the Directive cannot be applied contrary to its purpose. They certainly cannot be applied in a situation where the recipient of the dividend will not be its actual beneficiary. National legislation which, when levying withholding tax, makes the application of the tax preference conditional on the exercise of due diligence by the payer by carrying out verification that the recipient of the dividend is its actual beneficiary must therefore be regarded as compatible with the provisions of the Directive. At the same time, in the opinion of the Supreme Administrative Court in the panel hearing the case, even the absence of an express regulation on the verification of the entity that is the recipient of the dividend would not exempt the payer from verifying that the taxpayer is the actual beneficiary of the dividend. It would be unacceptable to argue that, prior to the introduction of the regulation of Article 26(1) of the A.P.C. in the version in force in 2019, the payer could act without due diligence when applying the withholding tax exemption. It is irrelevant for this assessment that neither Article 22(4) of the A.P.D.O.P. nor the Directive contains this requirement expressis verbis, as the payment of dividends without withholding tax would be treated as an abuse of the right. Contrasting this regulation with the provisions relating to the exemption from withholding tax under Article 21(3) of the A.P.C. and Directive No 2011/96, i.e. the provisions governing the exemption from withholding tax of, inter alia, interest on loans and royalties, does not prejudge the fact that there is no obligation to verify the status of the taxpayer when paying dividends. At this point, it is necessary to stipulate that the tax preference will be admissible in a situation where, although the dividend payment is not made to its actual beneficiary, the look-through approach is applied. This concept allows the application of preferential taxation, or tax exemption, in a situation where, although the payment is made through an intermediary – an entity that is not the actual beneficiary, this actual beneficiary is established in the EU (EEA) and is known. It should be noted that this principle does not seem to be questioned by the interpreting authority (cf. DKIS interpretation of 14 June 2022, No. 0111-KDIB2-1.4010.128.2022.2.AR, available at http://sip.mf.gov.pl.). The use of this example is relevant as it illustrates a situation where an intermediary that is not the actual beneficiary of the dividend, upon receipt, transfers the dividend to another group entity – the actual beneficiary also established in the EU (EEA). As this is not the case in the present case, this issue is not discussed further. In the opinion of the Supreme Administrative Court, a taxpayer who applies a tax preference at source ...

The issue in the Danish beneficial ownership cases of NetApp Denmark ApS and TDC A/S was whether the companies were obliged to withhold dividend tax on distributions to foreign parent companies. The first case – NetApp Denmark ApS – concerned two dividend distributions of approximately DKK 566 million and DKK 92 million made in 2005 and 2006 to an intermediate parent company in Cyprus – and then on to NETAPP Bermuda. The second case – TDC A/S – concerned the distribution of dividends of approximately DKK 1.05 billion in 2011 to an intermediate parent company in Luxembourg – and then on to owner companies in the Cayman Islands. In both cases, the tax authorities took the view that the intermediate parent companies were so-called “flow-through companies” which were not the real recipients of the dividends, and that the real recipients (beneficial owners) were resident in countries not covered by the EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive (Bermuda and Cayman respectively). Therefore, withholding taxes should have been paid by the Danish companies on the distributions. Judgment of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court upheld the tax authorities’ assessment of additional withholding tax of 28 percent on a total amount of DKK 1,616 million plus a very substantial amount of interest on late payment. Only with regard to NetApp’s 2006 dividend payment of DKK 92 million did the court rule in favour of the company. Excerpts: “The Supreme Court agrees that the term “beneficial owner” must be understood in the light of the OECD Model Tax Convention, including the 1977 OECD Commentary on Anti-Abuse. According to these commentaries, the purpose of the term is to ensure that double tax treaties do not encourage tax avoidance or tax evasion through “artifices” and “artful legal constructions” which “enable the benefit to be derived both from the advantages conferred by certain national laws and from the tax concessions afforded by double tax treaties.” The 2003 Revised Commentaries have elaborated and clarified this, stating inter alia that it would not be “consistent with the object and purpose of the Convention for the source State to grant relief or exemption from tax in cases where a person who is resident of a Contracting State, other than as an agent or intermediary, merely acts as a conduit for another person who actually receives the income in question.” “The question is whether it can lead to a different result that NetApp Denmark – if the parent company at the time of the distribution had been NetWork Appliance Inc (NetApp USA) and not NetApp Cyprus – could have distributed the dividend to NetApp USA with the effect that the dividend would have been exempt from tax liability under the Double Taxation Convention between Denmark and the USA. On this issue, the CJEU’s judgment of 26 February 2019 states that it is irrelevant for the purposes of examining the group structure that some of the beneficial owners of the dividends transferred by flow-through companies are resident for tax purposes in a third State with which the source State has concluded a double tax treaty. According to the judgment, the existence of such a convention cannot in itself rule out the existence of an abuse of rights and cannot therefore call into question the existence of abuse of rights if it is duly established by all the facts which show that the traders carried out purely formal or artificial transactions, devoid of any economic or commercial justification, with the principal aim of taking unfair advantage of the exemption from withholding tax provided for in Article 5 of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (paragraph 108). It also appears that, having said that, even in a situation where the dividend would have been exempt if it had been distributed directly to the company having its seat in a third State, it cannot be excluded that the objective of the group structure is not an abuse of law. In such a case, the group’s choice of such a structure instead of distributing the dividend directly to that company cannot be challenged (paragraph 110).” “In light of the above, the Supreme Court finds that the dividend of approximately DKK 92 million from NetApp Denmark was included in the dividend of USD 550 million that NetApp Bermuda transferred to NetApp USA on 3 April 2006. The Supreme Court further finds that the sole legal owner of that dividend was NetApp USA, where the dividend was also taxed. This is the case notwithstanding the fact that an amount of approximately DKK 92 million. – corresponding to the dividend – was not transferred to NetApp Cyprus until 2010 and from there to NetApp Bermuda. NetApp Bermuda had thus, as mentioned above, taken out the loan which provided the basis for distributing approximately DKK 92 million to NetApp USA in dividends from NetApp Denmark in 2006. Accordingly, the dividend of approximately DKK 92 million is exempt from taxation under Section 2(1)(c) of the Danish Corporate Income Tax Act in conjunction with the Danish-American Double Taxation Convention. NetApp Denmark has therefore not been required to withhold dividend tax under Section 65(1) of the Danish Withholding Tax Act.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

This case concerns the application of the beneficial ownership rule to dividends paid by a French corporation to its Luxembourg parent. The Luxembourg parent company was not considered to be the beneficial owner of the dividends because it did not carry out any activity other than the receipt and further distribution of dividends, and it distributed the full amount of the dividend to its Luxembourg parent one day after receipt; all entities in the chain of ownership were wholly owned; and the two Luxembourg entities had common directors. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The issue was whether the benefits provided by the Argentina-Spain DTC were available to Empresa Distribuidora La Plata S.A., which was owned by two Spanish holding companies, Inversora AES Holding and Zargas Participaciones SL, whose shareholders were Uruguayan holding companies. The Argentine Personal Assets Tax provided that participations in Argentine companies held by non-resident aliens were generally subject to an annual tax of 0.5% or 0.25% on the net equity value of their participation. However, under the Argentina-Spain DTC, article 22.4, only the treaty state where the shareholders were located (Spain) had the right to tax the assets. On this basis, Empresa Distribuidora La Plata S.A. considered that its shares held by Spanish holding companies were not subject to the Personal Assets Tax. The tax authorities disagreed, finding that the Spanish holding companies lacked substance and that the benefits of the Argentina-Spain DTC were therefore not applicable. Judgement of the Tax Court The Tax Court ruled in favour of the tax authorities. The Court held that the treaty benefits did not apply. The Court agreed with the findings of the tax authorities that the Spanish companies had been set up for the sole purpose of benefiting from the Spain-Argentina DTC and therefore violated Argentina’s general anti-avoidance rule. Excerpt “According to the administrative proceedings, based on the background information requested from the International Taxation Directorate of the Spanish Tax Agency and other elements collected by the audit, it appears that: a) the company Inversora AES Americas Holding S.L., is made up as partners by AES Argentina Holdings S.C.A. and AES Platense Investrnents Uruguay S.C.A., both Uruguayan companies; b) the company Zargas Participaciones S.L., has as its sole partner ISKARY S.A., also a Uruguayan company. The purpose of the former is the management and administration of securities representing the equity of companies and other entities, whether or not they are resident in Spanish territory, investment in companies and other entities, whether or not they are resident in Spanish territory, and it has only three employees (one administrative and two in charge of technical areas) and has opted for the Foreign Securities Holding Entities Regime (ETVE). The second company, whose purpose is the management and administration of securities representing the equity of non-resident entities in Spanish territory, has had no employees on its payroll since its incorporation, and has also opted for the ETVE regime. Neither of the two companies is subject to taxation in their own country similar to that in the present case. According to the information provided by the Spanish Tax Agency (see fs. 34 of the Background Zargas Participaciones SL), there is no record that it has any shareholdings in the share capital of other companies. The evidence and circumstances of the case show that the Spanish companies lack genuine economic substance, with the companies AES Argentina Holdings S.C.A. and AES Platense Investments Uruguay S.C.A. (both Uruguayan) holding the shares of Inversora AES Americas Holding S.L. and the company ISKARY S.A. (also Uruguayan) holding 100% of the shares of Zargas Participaciones S.L. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the main purpose of their incorporation was to obtain the benefits granted by the Convention by foreign companies from a third country outside the scope of application of the treaty, without the plaintiff having been able to prove with the evidence produced in the proceedings that the Spanish companies carried out a genuine economic activity and that, therefore, they were not mere legal structures without economic substance (in the same sense CNCAF, Chamber I, in re “FIRST DATA CONO SUR S.R.L.” judgement of 3/12/2019). Consequently, the tax criterion should be upheld. With costs.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

The French Accor hotel group was the subject of an tax audit related to FY 2010, during which the tax authorities found that Accor had not invoiced a fee for the use of its trademarks by its Brazilian subsidiary, Hotelaria Accor Brasil, in an amount of 8,839,047. The amount not invoiced was considered a deemed distribution of profits and the tax authorities applied a withholding tax rate of 25% to the amount which resulted in withholding taxes in an amount of EUR 2.815.153. An appeal was filed by Accor with the Administrative Court. In a judgment of 7 July 2020, the Administrative Court partially discharged Accor from the withholding tax up to the amount of the application of the conventional reduced rate of 15% (related to dividends), and rejected the remainder of the claim. The Administrative Court considered that income deemed to be distributed did not fall within the definition of dividends under article 10 of the tax treaty with Brazil and could not, in principle, benefit from the reduced rate. However in comments of an administrative instruction from 1972 (BOI 14-B-17-73, reproduced in BOI-INT-CVB-BRA, 12 August 2015) relating to the Franco-Brazilian tax treaty, it was stated, that the definition of dividends used by the agreement covers “on the French side, all products considered as distributed income within the meaning of the CGI”. The Administrative Court noted that such a definition would necessarily include distributed income within the meaning of the provisions of Article 109 of the CGI”. The tax authorities appealed against this judgment. Judgement of the Administrative Court of Appeal The Court allowed the appeal of the tax authorities and set aside the judgment in which the Administrative Court had partially discharged Accor from the withholding tax to which it was subject in respect of the year 2010. “Under the terms of Article 10 of the tax treaty concluded between the French Republic and the Federative Republic of Brazil on 10 September 1971: “1. Dividends paid by a company which is a resident of a Contracting State to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State. / 2. However, dividends may be taxed in the State in which the company paying the dividends has its tax domicile and according to the laws of that State, but the tax so charged shall not exceed 15 per cent of the gross amount of the dividends / (…) 5. (a) The term “dividend” as used in this Article means income from shares, “jouissance” shares or “jouissance” warrants, mining shares, founders’ shares or other rights, not being debt-claims, participating in profits, as well as income from other corporate units which is assimilated to income from shares by the taxation law of the State of which the company making the distribution is resident. (…) “. It follows from these stipulations that the dividends mentioned in Article 10 of the Franco-Brazilian Convention must be defined as the income distributed by a company to its members by virtue of a decision taken by the general meeting of its shareholders or unit holders under the conditions provided for by the law of 24 July 1966, as amended, on commercial companies, which does not include income deemed to be distributed within the meaning of Article 109(1) of the French General Tax Code. Neither these stipulations, nor any other clause of the Franco-Brazilian agreement, prevent the taxation in France of income considered as distributed to Hotelaria Accor Brasil by Accor, according to French tax law, at the common law rate set, at the date of the taxation in dispute, at 25% of this income by Article 187 of the General Tax Code.” “The Accor company claims, on the basis of Article L. 80 A of the Book of Tax Procedures, of the instruction of 8 December 1972 referenced BOI n° 14-B-17-72 relating to the tax treaty concluded between France and Brazil on 10 September 1971, which provides that: “According to paragraph 5 of Article 10, the term dividends means income from shares, jouissance shares or warrants, mining shares, founders’ shares or other profit shares with the exception of debt claims and, in general, income assimilated to income from shares by the tax legislation of the State of which the distributing company is resident. / This definition covers, on the French side, all income considered as distributed income within the meaning of the Code général des Impôts (art. 10, paragraph 5b). “However, this interpretation was brought back by an instruction referenced 4 J-2-91 of July 2, 1991, published in the Bulletin officiel des impôts n° 133 of July 11, 1991, relating to the impact of international treaties on the withholding tax applicable to income distributed outside France, according to which: “the advantages which benefit [the partners and the persons having close links with the partners] and which are considered as distributed income in domestic law retain this character in treaty law when the applicable treaty refers to dividends and gives a definition similar to that of the OECD model. On the other hand, when they benefit persons other than the partners, these benefits are subject to the treaty provisions relating to “undesignated” income, i.e. income that does not fall into any of the categories expressly defined by the applicable treaty”. Annex 1 to this instruction specifically states, with regard to Brazil, that income paid to a beneficiary who is not a shareholder of the distributing company is subject to withholding tax at the ordinary law rate of 25%. These statements must be regarded as having reported, on this particular point, the administrative interpretation contained in paragraph 2351 of the instruction of 8 December 1972. In this respect, it is irrelevant that the instruction of 8 December 1972 was fully reproduced and published by the BOFIP on 12 September 2012 under the reference BOI-INT-CVB-BRA, after the tax year in question. It follows that Accor cannot claim the benefit of the reduced conventional tax rate.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS, a subsidiary in the Heerema group, paid dividends to a parent company in Luxembourg which in turn paid the dividends to two group companies in Panama. The tax authorities found that the company in Luxembourg was not the beneficial owner of the dividends and thus the dividends were not covered by the tax exemption rules of the EU Parent/Subsidiary Directive or the Double Taxation Convention between Denmark and Luxembourg. On that basis an assessment was issued regarding payment of withholding tax on the dividends. An appeal was filed by Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS with the High Court. Judgement of the Eastern High Court The court dismissed the appeal of Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS and decided in favor of the tax authorities. The parent company in Luxembourg was a so-called “flow-through” company which was not the beneficial owner of the dividend and thus not covered by the tax exemption rules of the Parent/Subsidiary Directive and the Double Taxation Convention between Denmark and Luxembourg. The Danish subsidiary was held liable for the non-payment of dividend tax. Excerpt “The actual distribution On 23 May 2007, Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS distributed USD 325 million, corresponding to DKK 1,799,298,000, to its parent company Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA. The amount was set off by the Danish company against a claim on the Luxembourg parent company arising from a loan of the same amount taken out by Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA in Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS on 22 January 2007 to pay the purchase price for the company. Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA acquired Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS from the two companies, Heavy Transport Group Inc. and Incomara Holdings SA, both resident in Panama and owners of both the Danish and Luxembourg companies. The purchase price was transferred from Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA to the Panamanian companies on 24 January 2007. The loan from Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS to Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA of USD 325 million is referred to in the loan agreement between the parties of 22 January 2007 as an ‘interim dividend’ and states that the amount will be paid as a ‘short term loan’ until such time as a resolution is passed at a future general meeting of Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS to distribute a dividend to the parent company in the same amount. The loan agreement also provides that the loan is to be repaid on demand or immediately after the dividend payment has been declared by offsetting it. It is undisputed that the company Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA was set up as an intermediate holding company between the Panamanian companies and Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS with the aim of ensuring that no Danish withholding tax was triggered by the dividend distribution. Moreover, as regards the activities of Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA, it appears that the company, which was apparently set up in 2004 to provide the financing for Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS and, after 22 January 2007, as the parent company of the company, did not have (and does not have) any employees, the administration of the company being outsourced to a group company in Luxembourg, Heerema Group Service SA. It is undisputed that the parent company had no other activity when it took over the Danish company. Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA’s annual accounts for 2007 show that its assets as at 31 December 2007 consisted of cash of USD 148 551 and financial assets of USD 1 255 355 in its subsidiary Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA was obliged and, moreover, was only able to repay the loan of USD 325 million to Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS by offsetting the dividend received and thus had no real power of disposal over the dividend. Consequently, and since the purpose of the transactions was undoubtedly to avoid Danish taxation of the dividends in connection with the repatriation of the funds to the shareholders in Panama, Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA cannot be regarded as the beneficial owner of the dividends within the meaning of Article 10(2) of the Double Taxation Convention and, as a general rule, the tax should not be reduced in accordance with the rules of the Convention. Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA is also not entitled to the tax exemption under the Parent/Subsidiary Directive, as it must be considered as a flow-through company with no independent economic and commercial justification, and must therefore be characterised as an artificial arrangement whose sole purpose was to obtain the tax exemption under the Directive, see the judgment of 26 February 2019 in Joined Cases C-116/16 and C-117/16. Significance of the possibility of liquidation under Article 59 of the current law on limited liability companies However, Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS claims that there is no abuse of the Parent/Subsidiary Directive, since the two shareholders in Panama, Heavy Transport Group Inc. and Incomara Holdings SA, instead of contributing the company Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA to receive and distribute the ordinary dividends of Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS to the Panamanian companies, could have chosen to liquidate the Danish company pursuant to Article 59 of the current Anartsselskabslov, whereby any liquidation proceeds distributed by the parent company in Luxembourg would have been tax-free for the two shareholders. In its judgment of 26 February 2019, paragraphs 108-110, the CJEU has ruled on the situation where there is a double taxation convention concluded between the source State and the third State in which the beneficial owners of the dividends transferred by the flow-through company are resident for tax purposes. The Court held that such circumstances cannot in themselves preclude the existence of an abuse of rights. The Court stated that if it is duly established on the basis of all the facts that the traders have carried out purely formal or artificial transactions, devoid of any economic or ...

“GAAR S.A” is a holding company with a share capital of EUR 55,000.00. In 2010, “GAAR S.A” was in a situation of excess equity capital resulting from an accumulation of reserves (EUR 402,539.16 of legal reserves and EUR 16,527,875.72 of other reserves). The Board of Directors, made up of three shareholders – B………… (holder of 21,420 shares, corresponding to 42.84% of the share capital), C………… (holder of a further 21,420 shares, corresponding to 42.84% of the share capital) and D………… (holder of 7. 160 shares, corresponding to the remaining 14.32% of the share capital) – decided to “release this excess of capital” and, following this resolution, the shareholders decided: i) on 22.02.2010 to redeem 30,000 shares, with a share capital reduction, at a price of EUR 500.00 each, with a subsequent share capital increase of EUR 33. 000.00, by means of incorporation of legal reserves, and the share capital of the appellant will be made up of 20,000 shares at the nominal value of €2.75 each; and ii) on 07.05.2010, to cancel 10,000 shares, with a capital reduction, at the price of €1. 000.00 each, with a subsequent share capital increase of 27,500.00 Euros, by means of incorporation of legal reserves, and the share capital of the appellant is now composed of 10,000 shares at a nominal value of 5.50 Euros each (items E and F of the facts). As a result of this arrangements, payments were made to the shareholders in 2010, 2011 and 2012, with only the payment made on 4 September 2012 being under consideration here. On that date, cheques were issued for the following amounts: B………… – €214,200.00; C………… – €214,200.00; and D………… – €71,600.00. Payments which, according to “GAAR S.A”, since they constitute exempt capital gains, were not subject to taxation, that is, no deduction at source was made. Following an inspection the tax authorities decided, to disregard the arrangement, claiming that it had been “set up” by the respective shareholders with the aim of obtaining a tax advantage (whilst completely ignoring the economic substance of the arrangement). In short, the tax authorities considered that the transactions were carried out in order to allow “GAAR S.A” to distribute dividends under the “guise” of share redemption, thus avoiding the tax to which they would be subject. An appeal filed by “GAAR S.A.” with the Administrative Court was dismissed. An appeal was then filed with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal and found that “GAAR S.A.” was liable for the payment of the tax which was not withheld at source and which should have been, we also consider that there is no error in the judgment under appeal in concluding that “at least in terms of negligence, it seems to us that the award of compensatory interest is, in cases such as the present, the natural consequence of the verification of the abuse, especially given the environmental and intellectual elements, demonstrating that there was a deliberate intention to avoid the due withholding tax” According to the court the tax authorities does not have to prove an “abusive” intention of the taxpayer. The tax authorities is not required to prove that the taxpayer opted for the construction leading to the tax saving in order to intentionally avoid the solution which would be subject to taxation. It is sufficient for the tax authorities to prove that the operation carried out does not have a rational business purpose and that, for this reason, its intentionality is exhausted in the tax saving to which it leads. Having provided this proof, the requirements of article 38(2) of the LGT should be considered to have been met. When the application of the GAAR results in the disregard of a construction and its replacement by an operation whose legal regulation would impose the practice of a definitive withholding tax act, it is the person who comes to be qualified as the substitute (in the light of the application of the GAAR) who is primarily liable for this tax obligation whenever the advantage that the third party obtains results from an operation carried out by him and it is possible to conclude, that he was the beneficiary of the operation. It is also possible to conclude, under the procedure set out in Article 63 of the CPPT, that the third party had a legal obligation to be aware of the alternative legal transaction that comes to be qualified as legally owed as a result of the disregard of the transaction carried out. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

In 2003 Molinos Argentina had incorporated Molinos Chile under the modality of an “investment platform company” regulated by Article 41 D of the Chilean Income Tax Law. Molinos Argentina owned 99.99% of the shares issued by Molinos Chile, and had integrated the share capital of the latter through the transfer of the majority shareholdings of three Uruguayan companies and one Peruvian company. Molinos Argentina declared the dividends originating from the shares of the three Uruguayan companies and the Peruvian company controlled by Molinos Chile as non-taxable income by application of article 11 of the DTA between Argentina and Chile. On that factual basis, the tax authorities applied the principle of economic reality established in article 2 of Law 11.683 (t.o. 1998 and its amendments) and considered that Molinos Argentina had abused the DTA by using the Chilean holding company as a “conduit company” to divert the collection of dividends from the shares of the Uruguayan and Peruvian companies to Chilean jurisdiction, in order to avoid paying income tax in Argentina and similar income tax in Chile at the same time. The non-taxation in Argentina was due to the application of article 11 in the DTA which established that dividends were only taxed by the country in which the company distributing them was domiciled (in the case of Chile, because Molinos Chile was domiciled in Chile) and the non-taxation in Chile was verified – in turn – because the dividends originated in the Uruguayan and Peruvian companies did not pay income tax in that country because they were profits from investment platform companies which “will not be considered domiciled in Chile, so they will be taxed in the country only for Chilean source income”. The tax authorities considered that the incorporation of the holding company in Chile by Molinos Argentina was not justified from the point of view of the corporate structure, since it had no real economic link with the Uruguayan and Peruvian companies and lacked economic substance or business purpose, since the dividends distributed by those companies did not remain in Molinos Chile but was used as an intermediary to remit those profits almost immediately to Molinos Argentina. It was constituted with the sole purpose of eliminating the taxation and to conduct the income obtained in states that are not party to the DTA -Uruguay and Peru- through the State with which the double taxation treaty has been concluded and using the benefits offered by the latter. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court’s ruled in favor of the tax authorities. Molinos’s conduct was not protected by the rules of the DTA. International standards must be interpreted in accordance with the principle of good faith. The conclusions reached by the National Tax Court and the National Chamber of Appeals in Federal Administrative Litigation was not seen as unreasonable or devoid of Foundation according to the doctrine of arbitrariness. Click here for English Translation ...

On 3 May 2021, the Danish High Court ruled in two “beneficial owner” cases concerning the question of whether withholding tax must be paid on dividends distributed by Danish subsidiaries to foreign parent companies. The first case – NETAPP Denmark ApS – concerned two dividend distributions of approx. 566 million DKK and approx. 92 million made in 2005 and 2006 by a Danish company to its parent company in Cyprus. The National Tax Court had upheld the Danish company in that the dividends were exempt from withholding tax pursuant to the Corporation Tax Act, section 2, subsection. 1, letter c, so that the company was not obliged to pay withholding tax. The Ministry of Taxation brought the case before the courts, claiming that the Danish company should include – and thus pay – withholding tax of a total of approx. 184 million kr. The second case – TDC A/S – concerned the National Tax Tribunal’s binding answer to two questions posed by another Danish company regarding tax exemption of an intended – and later implemented – distribution of dividends in 2011 of approx. 1.05 billion DKK to the company’s parent company in Luxembourg. The National Tax Court had ruled in favor of the company in that the distribution was tax-free pursuant to section 2 (1) of the Danish Corporation Tax Act. 1, letter c, 3. pkt. The Ministry of Taxation also brought this case before the courts. The Eastern High Court has, as the first instance, dealt with the two cases together. The European Court of Justice has ruled on a number of questions referred in the main proceedings, see Joined Cases C-116/16 and C-117/16. In both cases, the Ministry of Taxation stated in general that the parent companies in question were so-called “flow-through companies” that were not real recipients of the dividends, and that the real recipients (beneficial owners) were in countries that were not covered by the EU parent / subsidiary directive. in the first case – NETAPP Denmark ApS – the High Court upheld the company’s position that the dividend distribution in 2005 of approx. 566 million did not trigger withholding tax, as the company had proved that the distribution had been redistributed from the Cypriot parent company, which had to be considered a “flow-through company”, to – ultimately – the group’s American parent company. The High Court stated, among other things, that according to the Danish-American double taxation agreement, it would have been possible to distribute the dividend directly from the Danish company to the American company, without this having triggered Danish taxation. As far as the distribution in 2006 of approx. 92 million On the other hand, the High Court found that it had not been proven that the dividend had been transferred to the group’s American parent company. In the second case – TDC A/S – the High Court stated, among other things, that in the specific case there was no further documentation of the financial and business conditions in the group, and the High Court found that it had to be assumed that the dividend was merely channeled through the Luxembourg parent company. on to a number of private equity funds based in countries that were not covered by tax exemption rules, ie. partly the parent / subsidiary directive, partly a double taxation agreement with Denmark. On that basis, the Danish company could not claim tax exemption under the Directive or the double taxation agreement with Luxembourg, and the dividend was therefore not tax-exempt. Click here for English translation ...

The shareholder of “BO zoo” is a German company. The German parent held 100% of the shares of “BO zoo” continuously for more than 2 years. The German parent’s ownership of the shares was based on title. “BO zoo” asked the Tax Chamber whether, in order to apply the exemption provided for in Article 22(4) of the CIT Act, it is obliged to verify whether the German parent meets the definition of a beneficial owner of dividends within the meaning of Article 4a(29a) of the CIT Act. “BO zoo” took the position that no provision of the CIT Act makes the application of the exemption from CIT under Article 22(4) of the CIT Act conditional on the company receiving the dividend being the beneficial owner of the dividend. The Tax Chamber disagreed, arguing that the verification of the beneficial owner is part of the due diligence obligation introduced in Article 26(1) of the Corporate Income Tax Act in 2019. The company challenged this interpretation before the Administrative Court. The Court found the complaint of “BO zoo” well-founded and overturned the interpretation of the Tax Chamber. According to the Court, the obligation to verify the identity of the beneficial owner referred to in Article 28b of the CIT Act concerns a completely separate procedure, i.e. the procedure for the refund of withholding tax. It does not specify the conditions for claiming the exemption, but only the procedure for proving that tax has been withheld in spite of the exemption. The authorities appealed the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the position of the Administrative Court was correct and that, in the case of dividends, it is not necessary that the recipient of the dividend be the beneficial owner. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The controversy in the case of India vs Concentrix Services Netherlands B.V. & Optum Global Solutions International Netherlands B.V., was the rate of withholding tax to be applied on dividends paid by the Indian subsidiaries (Concentrix Services India Private Limited & Optum Global Solutions India Private Limited) to its participating (more than 10% ownership) shareholders in the Netherlands. The shareholders in the Netherlands held that withholding tax on dividends should be applied by a rate of only 5%, whereas the Indian tax authorities applied a rate of 10%. The difference in opinions relates to interpretation of a protocol to the tax treaty between India and the Netherlands containing an most favoured nation clause (MFN clause). MFN clauses provides that the parties to the treaty (here India and the Netherlands) are obliged to provide each other with a treatment no less favourable than the treatment they provide under other treaties in the areas covered by the MFN clause. The MFN Clause in the relevant protocol to the tax treaty between India and the Netherlands had the following wording “2. If after the signature of this convention under any Convention or Agreement between India and a third State which is a member of the OECD India should limit its taxation at source on dividends, interests, royalties, fees for technical services or payments for the use of equipment to a rate lower or a scope more restricted than the rate or scope provided for in this Convention on the said items of income, then as from the date on which the relevant Indian Convention or Agreement enters into force the same rate or scope as provided for in that Convention or Agreement on the said items of income shall also apply under this Convention.” More favourable tax treaties in regards of withholding tax had later been signed between India and #Slovenia, #Lithuania, and #Columbia. However, none of these countries were OECD members at the time where the Tax Treaties with India were entered. Concentrix Services Netherlands B.V. & Optum Global Solutions International Netherlands B.V. contended that since India had entered into Tax Treaties with other countries which were now members of OECD, the lower rate of 5% withholding tax in these treaties should automatically apply to the Tax Treaty between India and the Netherlands. According to the Tax Authorities since none of the aforementioned countries were members of the OECD, at the date where the tax treaties with India were signed, the MFN clause of the protocol appended to the tax treaty between India and the Netherlands would not apply in regards to these tax treaties. Slovenia, Lithuania, and Columbia only later became members of the OECD. Judgement of the Delhi High Court The High Court decided in favour of Concentrix Services Netherlands B.V. & Optum Global Solutions International Netherlands B.V. Hence, withholding tax on dividends paid by the Indian subsidiaries to its (participating) shareholders in the Netherlands was limited to 5%. Excerpts from the conclusion of the High Court “In our view, the word “is” describes a state of affairs that should exist not necessarily at the time when the subject DTAA was executed but when a request is made by the taxpayer or deductee for issuance of a lower rate withholding tax certificate under Section 197 of the Act. .” “Clearly, the Netherlands has interpreted Clause IV (2) of the protocol appended to the subject DTAA in a manner, indicated hereinabove by us, which is, that the lower rate of tax set forth in the India-Slovenia Convention/DTAA will be applicable on the date when Slovenia became a member of the OECD, i.e., from 21.08.2010, although, the Convention/DTAA between India and Slovenia came into force on 17.02.2005.” “However, the case before us is one where the other contracting State, i.e., the Netherlands has interpreted Clause IV (2) in a particular way and therefore in our opinion, in the fitness of things, the principle of common interpretation should apply on all fours to ensure consistency and equal allocation of tax claims between the contracting States.” ...

Bluestar Silicones France (BSF), now Elkem Silicones France SAS (ESF), produces silicones and various products that it sells to other companies belonging to the Bluestar Silicones International group. The company was audited for the financial years 2007 – 2008 and an assessment was issued. According to the tax authorities, the selling prices of the silicone products had been below the arm’s length price and the company had refrained from invoicing of management exepences and cost of secondment of employees . In the course of the proceedings agreement had been reached on the pricing of products. Hence, in dispute before the court was the issue of lacking invoicing of management exepences and cost of secondment of employees for the benefit of the Chinese and Brazilian subsidiaries of the Group. According to the company there had been no hidden transfer of profits; its method of constructing the group’s prices has not changed and compliance with the arm’s length principle has been demonstrated by a study by the firm Taj using the transactional net margin method and the criticisms of its prices are unfounded. The results must be analyzed in the context of heavy investments made by the Bluestar Silicones International sub-group, 80% of which it financed, and which are at the root of the heavy losses recorded in the sub-group’s first fiscal years for the years 2007 to 2009. Furthermore, the business tax adjustments was considered unjustified by the company since, the transfer prices charged did not constitute transfers of profits; Decision of the Court No charge of management fees from Brazil and Hong Kong: “Under these conditions, the administration was justified in considering that BSF’s renunciation to invoice management fees to the Chinese and Brazilian companies of the Bluestar Silicones International group constituted an abnormal act of management. It was thus entitled to correct the company’s profit and also to correct the company’s added value for the determination of its business tax.” No charge of cost of provision of employees in China: “While BSF claims that it derived a direct benefit from the provision of these three expatriates through the development of sales by the Chinese subsidiary, it does not establish this, even though it has been shown that the project manager and the two technicians worked at the Jiangxi site, which was acquiring the technology needed to manufacture products similar to those previously purchased by the Chinese subsidiary from BSF and therefore potentially competing with it. The impossibility of charging such fees due to Chinese legislation has also not been demonstrated, nor has any compensation resulting from insufficient transfer pricing. Under these conditions, the applicant company does not demonstrate that the advantage granted to the Chinese company had sufficient consideration in the interest of its operations and, consequently, was justified by normal management of its own interests.” Additional withholding tax and business tax However, the Court did find that the company was “entitled to argue that the Montreuil Administrative Court wrongly refused to discharge it from the additional withholding tax contributions charged to it for the financial year ended in 2007 and the additional business tax contributions for the year 2007 resulting from the correction made by the tax authorities of its transfer prices practiced with the company BSI Hong Kong.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

The dispute concerns a tax assessments issued by the plaintiff (the Belgian tax administration) for FY 2002 and 2003. In particular, the claimant (Alcopa N.V – the first company to sign a European distribution contract with Hyundai) contests the classification of reimbursements received from the Korean company HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY for publicity services, for an amount of EUR 1,965,630.46 in assessment year 2002 and for an amount of EUR 1,057,007.00 in assessment year 2003, as abnormal or gratuitous benefits and the consequent rejection of the DBI [Definitief Belaste Inkomsten] deduction from the profits arising from those abnormal or gratuitous benefits in application of Section 207 ITC92. The Antwerp Court of First Instance, Antwerp Division, ruled by judgment dated 13 January 2016 that it was indisputably established that abnormal or gratuitous benefits were granted to the plaintiff, so that the tax administration correctly applied Section 207(2) ITC92 and did not allow a DBI deduction on these benefits. According to the first court, there was no conflict with the Parent-Subsidiary Directive. The Antwerp Court of Appeal confirmed this judgment by judgment of 19 December 2017. The plaintiff’s appealed this judgment to the Belgian Supreme Court. Based on the Conclusion of the Advocate General J. Van der Fraenen (ENG), the Supreme Court dismissed Alcopa’s appeal. “Article 207(2) CIR92, as applicable to the dispute, stipulates that no deduction may be made on the part of the profit arising from abnormal or gratuitous advantages mentioned in Article 79, nor on the basis of the special separate assessment of unreported expenses pursuant to Article 219.Pursuant to that provision, therefore, no deduction of dividends within the meaning of Article 202, § 1, 1°, ITC92 may be made from the portion of the profit that results from abnormal or gratuitous advantages.“ “The aforementioned Article 207, paragraph 2, CIR92 is intended to safeguard the taxation of profits that, between companies belonging to the same group, are artificially shifted to the company that has a large amount of deductions, but has not made sufficient profits to realise the deductions in full. The purpose of that transfer is thus to reduce the taxable profits of the transferring company, while offsetting the profits transferred to the acquiring company with the deductions. However, in order to prevent that result, no deduction may be made from the profits carried forward under that provision.“ “Article 1(2) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (‘the Parent-Subsidiary Directive’) provides that that Directive does not preclude the application of national or agreement-based rules designed to combat fraud and abuse.“ “It is thus clear from the relationship between Article 1(2) and Article 4(1) of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive and the case-law of the Court of Justice that Article 4(1) of that directive does not preclude the application of Article 207(2) of the CIR92 , which seeks to safeguard the tax on profits deriving from an abnormal or gratuitous advantage resulting from a wholly artificial shift with the aim of offsetting, as far as possible, that shifted profit by deduction, inter alia, of dividends under the Parent-Subsidiary Directive.“ “It clearly follows that Article 4(1) of that directive does not have the effect that, where, after deduction of the other exempted profits, the balance of the profits of the parent company is insufficient to fully deduct from the taxable base dividends received from a subsidiary established in another Member State, those dividends must be immediately deducted from the profits arising from an abnormal or gratuitous advantage within the meaning of Article 207(2) CIR92. In that case, the result of Article 4(1) of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive is achieved by carrying forward the unused part of the deduction of dividends to a subsequent taxable period, in accordance with what the Court of Justice ruled in its judgment of 12 February 2009 in Case C-138/07 Belgische Staat v Cobelfret nv.“ “The ground that Article 4(1) of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive does require that the dividends received by the parent company are in any event immediately deducted from the taxable base, even if this means that the deduction must be made, in the event of an insufficient surplus, from the part of the profits from an abnormal or gratuitous advantage, fails in law.” Click Here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

An assessment was issued where the tax administration denied the application treaty benefits, understanding that the dividends distributed by X S.A. a company with tax residence in Panama, to its shareholder NL Corp in the Netherlands did not qualify for the reduced rate provided for in the DTA because the latter was not the “beneficial owner” of the dividends. Judgement of the Tax Court The court upheld the assessment. “By virtue of the above, we consider that the possibility that the tax administration of the State in which the benefits of the Convention are requested, in this case Panama, also depends on the analysis of the body of evidence, and it is not apparent that the taxpayer has provided, in a timely manner, documentation related to the elements described above, therefore, we do not consider the request to be admissible, as it has not been duly supported by the taxpayer. By virtue of the foregoing considerations, and the fact that access to the benefits provided for in Article 10(a)(iii)(3) of the Panama-Netherlands Convention depends on compliance with all the requirements detailed in the preceding paragraphs, which have only been partially met, revealing significant evidentiary deficiencies, which lead us to conclude that there are insufficient reasons to revoke the contested acts, in light of the regulations, doctrine and case law analysed in this resolution.” Click here for English translation ...

Following a restructuring of the Italien Piaggio group, SAS Piaggio France by a contract dated January 2 2007, was changed from an exclusive distributor of vehicles of the “Piaggio” brand in France to a commercial agent for its Italian parent company. The tax authorities held that this change resulted in a transfer without payment for the customers and applied the provisions of article 57 of the general tax code (the arm’s length principle). A tax assessment was issued whereby the taxable income of SAS Piaggio France was added a profit of 7.969.529 euros on the grounds that the change in the contractual relations between the parties had resultet in a transfer of customers for which an independent party would have been paid. In a judgement of October 2019, Conseil dÉtat, helt in favor of the tax authorities and added an additional profit of 7.969.529 to the taxable income of Piaggio France for the transfer of customers to the Italian parent company. Since the French agent had received no payment for the transfer, an assessment of withholding tax (dividend – hidden distribution of profit) was issued in accordance with the French-Italien Double tax treaty. An appeal filed by Piaggio on this additional issue. Piaggio claimed, that only risk but no intangibles had been transferred. Hence there was no basis for withholding taxes on hidden distribution of profits. Decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal. The Court held in favor of the tax authorities and dismissed the appeal. “…It results from the very terms of the contract produced by the administration on appeal, that SAS PIAGGIO FRANCE has become, as of January 2007, the commercial agent of its parent company, the latter’s agent and, as such, without its own clientele and without the right to hold the business. The applicant company claims to have continued the same activity in another form, by continuing to develop and commercially animate the French dealer network in exactly the same way as it did before the change in status, while acknowledging that the legal changes of change in status led to a transfer of risks, these factors do not prove that the brand’s dealer clientele in France, which it now lacks, would not have been transferred to its parent company, which succeeded it in the distribution of the brand’s products in France and took over all the risks associated with this operation and the brand’s development. Moreover, it follows from the very terms of the agency agreement that, contrary to what it maintains, the applicant company, which must obtain the agreement of its parent company in order to enter into a new distribution contract, does not directly choose and manage the scope of the approved dealers. Moreover, if it claims not to have transmitted its know-how, it does not establish it. Finally, even supposing that the applicant company’s operating income had not deteriorated, that the number of its employees would have been maintained, and that no other distributor would have been compensated, these circumstances are not such as to establish the absence of transfer of its own clientele to its parent company. It follows from this, and while the change in status in 2007 did not result in any compensation for SAS PIAGGIO FRANCE, the management was entitled to consider that by transferring its clientele and know-how to it, the latter had granted an advantage to the Italian company Piaggio et C Spa. In view of the foregoing and since SAS Piaggio France is indirectly owned by the Italian company Piaggio et C Spa, it is presumed, contrary to what it claims, to have made a profit transfer, within the meaning of the aforementioned provisions of Article 57 of the General Tax Code. It was thus for it to prove, which it did not do, that that transfer involved, for it, sufficient consideration and did not depart from normal commercial management. It is therefore rightly, in application of the aforementioned provisions and stipulations, that the administration has charged the withholding tax, the additional corporate income tax contribution and the corresponding social contribution on corporate income tax.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

For FY 2007 Atlantique Négoce declared having paid dividends to its Luxembourg parent company, Enka, but the tax authorities found that it had not been proven that the Luxembourg parent company was the actual beneficial owner of the dividends. On that basis a claim for withholding tax on the dividends was issued. Judgement of the Conseil d’Etat. The court upheld the decision of the tax authorities and dismissed the appeal of Atlantique Négoce. It follows from the grounds of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 26 February 2019, Skatteministeriet v T Danmark and Y Denmark Aps (aff. C-116/16 and C 117/16, paragraph 113) that the status of beneficial owner of the dividends must be regarded as a condition for benefiting from the exemption from withholding tax provided for in Article 5 of Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990. “The documents in the file submitted to the court of first instance show that the administration contested before the court the fact that the Luxembourg parent company Enka was the actual beneficiary of the dividends in question, in the absence of any element, such as a bank identity statement, establishing that this company was indeed the holder of the bank account opened in Switzerland into which the dividends were paid. In holding, after a sovereign assessment free of distortion, that none of the documents produced by the applicants was of such a nature as to establish that this company had apprehended the dividends at issue paid in 2007, the court did not disregard the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof or commit an error of law.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Union Castle Ltd. claimed a tax deduction of £ 39 million related to losses on derivative contracts. After acquiring derivative contracts, Union Castle issued bonus A shares to it’s parent company, Caledonia, which carried a dividend equal to 95% of the cash-flows arising on the close-out of the contracts. Therefore Union Castle had written off 39 million of the value of the contracts in it’s accounts. The tax authorities disagreed that a tax loss had been suffered and issued an assessment disallowing the loss. The Tribunal found in favor of the tax authorities. Capital transactions are subject of the UK transfer pricing rules. Issuing of shares meets the requirements of “making or imposing conditions in commercial and financial relations” as required by Article 9 of the OECD Model Convention. OECD TPG apply to debt financing. Share transactions, which have an effect on income taxation, must be within the UK transfer pricing rules. The Cases was then brought before the Court of Appeal where the appeals were dismissed. “The overall result, if my Lords agree, is that both appeals are dismissed. In the case of Union Castle’s appeal, I agree with the UT’s conclusions on the “loss” and “arise from” issues, but I have come to a different conclusion on the “fairly represent” issue and I would dismiss the appeal on that ground as well as on the “arise from” issue.” ...

Coffee Machine Ltd. was founded in Ireland and responsible for the trademark and patent administration as well as the management of the research and development activities of the A group, the world’s largest manufacturer of coffee machines. A Swiss subsidiary of the A group reported payments of dividend to the the Irish company and the group claimed that the payments were exempt from withholding tax under the DTA and issued a claim for a refund. Tax authorities found that the Irish company was not the beneficial owner of the dividend and on that basis denied the companies claim for refund. The lower Swiss court upheld the decision of the tax authorities. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court and supplemented its findings with the argument, that the arrangement was also abusive because of the connection between the share transfer in 2006 and the distribution of pre-acquisition reserves in 2007 and the total lack of substance in the Irish company. “…the circumstantial evidence suggests with a probability bordering on certainty that the complainant and the other companies involved wanted to secure a tax saving for themselves with the transfer of the shareholding in the subsidiary and the subsequent distribution of a dividend to the complainant, which they would not have been entitled to under the previous group structure. The economic objective asserted by the complainant – locating the research and development function, including the shareholding in the subsidiary, under the Irish grandparent company responsible for overseeing the licensing agreements – does not explain why the complainant went heavily into debt in order to ultimately use this borrowed capital to buy the subsidiary’s liquid funds, which were subject to latent withholding tax. It would have been much simpler for all parties involved and would have led to the same economic result if the subsidiary had instead distributed these funds to the sister company immediately before the transfer of the shareholding and the sister company had thus recorded an inflow of liquidity in the form of a dividend instead of a purchase price payment. Against this background, the chosen procedure appears to be outlandish and the legal arrangement artificial. Since the arrangement chosen by the complainant mainly served to obtain advantages from the DTA CH-IE and the AEOI-A CH-EU and the three characteristics of tax avoidance are met, the complainant must be accused of abuse of law both from the perspective of international law and from the perspective of internal law. “ “A person who, like the complainant, fulfils the criteria of abuse of the agreement and tax avoidance as defined by the practice cannot invoke the advantage pursuant to Art. 15 para. 1 aAIA-A CH-EU. As a result, the lower court did not violate either federal or international law by completely refusing to refund the withholding tax to the complainant on the basis of Art. 15 para. 1 aAIA-A CH-EU.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

In this case the Korean Supreme Court held that Luxembourg SICAV and SICAF are entitled to reduced withholding tax rate on interest and dividend income under the Korea–Luxembourg Tax Treaty. Meaning of “residents of Luxembourg,” which is subject to the “Convention between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital” (held: any person who, under the laws of Luxembourg, is liable to pay tax therein), and in a case where tax is not imposed in accordance with the benefit of tax exemption, etc. for which legal requirements has been fulfilled, whether it may be considered that the tax liability does not exist (negative). Standard for determining whether one qualifies as the “beneficial owner” as prescribed in Article 10(2) Item (b) or 11(2) of the “Convention between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital”. Meaning of “holding companies within the meaning of any similar law enacted by Luxembourg after the signature of the Convention” as stated in Article 28 of the “Convention between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital,” and whether a person who acquires securities such as stocks, etc. simply for the purpose of getting his/her investment returns constitutes such holding companies (negative in principle). Apart from appealing against the disposition imposing a corporate tax, whether it is possible to seek the revocation of disposition imposing a corporate tax on the grounds that the determination on the pertinent corporate tax amount, which becomes the standard of assessment, is illegal (affirmative). In a case where: (a) investing in listed domestic stocks or claims, Investment Company A and others, collective investment schemes that are included in the types of company established in Luxembourg in accordance with laws and regulations regarding Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS), appointed Bank B and others to storing agencies and received dividends and interest relevant to the above stocks and claims from Bank B and others; (b) paying the said dividends, etc. to Investment Company A and others for six years, Bank B and others have paid the withheld corporate tax by applying 15 per cent limited tax rate stipulated in Article 10(2) Item (b), and 10 percent limited tax rate prescribed in Article 11(2), of the “Convention between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital” each; and (c) the competent taxation authorities and others imposed corporate tax, deducted at source in the year shown, which is taxed at 20 percent in accordance with Article 98(1) Subparagraph 3 of the former Corporate Tax Act with respect to the dividends, etc., and local income tax, which is a special collection corporate tax, pursuant to Article 96 of the former Local Tax Act, each upon Bank B and others on the grounds that Investment Company A and others are not subject to the aforementioned Convention, the Court held that: (a) Investment Company A and others correspond to residents of Luxembourg who are liable to tax in Luxembourg in light of the overall circumstances; and (b) the aforementioned dividends, etc. were paid to Investment Company A and others who are residents of Luxembourg as the beneficial owner, and thus 15 per cent limited tax rate prescribed in Article 10(2) Item (b), and 10 per cent limited tax rate stated in Article 11(2), of the above Convention ought to be applied. Click here for English Translation ...

X S.à.r.l./B.V. filed corporate income tax returns for the year 2012 as a foreign taxpayer, declaring a taxable profit and a taxable amount of nil. No dividend distribution had been declared for income tax purposes Following an audit, the tax authorities included the dividend distribution in the taxable income and tax was levied on the dividend distribution at a rate of 2.5 per cent. In dispute before the Supreme Court was whether the dividend distribution was taxable to the X S.à.r.l./B.V. under Section 17(3) opening words and (b) of the Act. The dispute centred on the questions (i) whether X S.à.r.l./B.V. held the substantial interest in Holding with the main purpose or as one of the main purposes to avoid the levying of income tax or dividend tax on the DGA, and (ii) whether this substantial interest was not part of the business assets of X S.à.r.l./B.V.. Depending on the answers to those questions, the dispute was whether levying corporate income tax on the dividend distribution (a) was prevented by the operation of Directive 2011/96/EU (hereinafter: the Parent-Subsidiary Directive), or (b) was contrary to the freedom of establishment provided for in Article 49 TFEU. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court upheld the assessment issued by the tax authorities. Excerpt “When examining whether an arrangement is abusive, it is not sufficient to apply predetermined general criteria. In each specific case, the arrangement in question must be examined as a whole. Automatic application of an anti-abuse measure of general scope without the inspector being required to produce even the slightest evidence or indications of abuse goes beyond what is necessary to prevent abuse (see Eqiom and Enka, paragraph 32). If it is sufficient for the inspector to produce such initial evidence or indications, the taxpayer must be given the opportunity to produce evidence showing the existence of economic reasons for the arrangement (cf. ECJ 20 December 2017, Deister Holding AG and Juhler Holding A/S, joined cases C 504/16 and C 613/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:1009, para 70). 2.6.6. In applying the scheme, the starting point for the allocation of the burden of proof is that the inspector states the facts and circumstances from which it follows that the subjective condition has been fulfilled, and, in the event of reasoned challenge, makes them plausible (cf. Parliamentary Papers II 2011/12, 33 003, no. 10, p. 94). This principle is in line with Union law (cf. T Danmark judgment, paragraph 117). 2.6.7. When applying Union law, the fulfilment of the subjective condition merely provides a presumption of proof that abuse has occurred. This is confirmed by the T Danmark judgment, paragraph 101. If such a presumption of abuse exists, the taxpayer must be given the opportunity to rebut that presumption. The taxpayer may overcome this presumption by establishing, and if necessary demonstrating, facts indicating that the holding of the substantial interest does not constitute a wholly artificial arrangement unrelated to economic reality. A group of companies may be regarded as a wholly artificial arrangement if, in a group structure involving (a) non-EU resident, underlying shareholder(s) and a company resident in the Netherlands, a body resident within the Union has been interposed in order to avoid the levying of Dutch income or dividend tax, without this EU body or the body’s establishment in the EU Member State having any real significance (cf. Parliamentary Papers II 2011/12, 33 003, no. 3, pp. 105 and 106, and T Danmark judgment, paragraph 100). 2.6.8. The Court did not disregard the foregoing in 2.6.2 to 2.6.7 above. The judgments challenged by ground I do not show an error of law and, as interwoven with valuations of a factual nature, cannot otherwise be examined for correctness by the Supreme Court in the cassation proceedings. Nor are those judgments incomprehensible. For this reason plea I also fails.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

There is an obligation to withhold tax on dividends paid to a holding company resident in an EU Member State, if the beneficial owner is resident abroad. Although the Parent-Subsidiary Directive 90/435 does not contain a beneficial owner clause, the exemption clause contained in Article 14.1.h) of the TRLIRNR is perfectly in line with EU law. It cannot be rejected as an incorrect transposition nor can it be considered to infringe the Community principles of freedom of movement or establishment. All this in accordance with the CJEU Judgment of 26 February 2019. The judgment of the CJEU in Cases C-116/16 and C-117/16 is analysed. In contrast to the judgment cited by the claimant: CJEU Judgment of 7 September 2017 Case C-6/16. SP vs Palmolive SAN_1128_2018 ENG NW”>Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

A Dutch company, Agusta Holding BV, submitted a request regarding the reimbursement of withholding tax paid in Italy by its Italian subsidiary on dividends distributed for the fiscal year 2001. The request was initially accepted and the withholding tax paid back. But after an audit, the reimbursement was then challenged. The tax authorities found that Agusta Holding BV had been incorporated in the Netherlands only to benefit from the favourable fiscal dividend regime provided by the Italian-Netherland double tax treaty and from the Dutch tax regime concerning the exemption of dividends from taxable income. Agusta Holding BV appealed the decision of the tax office before the Provincial Tax Court which ruled in favor of Augusta Holding BV as the deadline to ask for the reimbursement of the withholding tax back had expired at the time of the audit conducted by local tax office. The local tax office appealed this decision before the Regional Tax Court. The Regional Tax Court overturned the decision and affirmed that: (i) the terms to challenge the reimbursement initially granted after automated controls had not expired, (ii) Agusta Holding BV was not tax resident in the Netherlands since its directors resided in Italy and in the UK and (iii) Agusta Holding BV did not perform any economic activity in the Netherlands. This decision was then appealed by Augusta Holding to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected the decision of the Regional Tax Court and held that the place of effective management of Agusta Holding BV was located in the Netherlands, where meetings of the board of directors physically took place and where the company had dedicated premises where management activities were conducted. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

A Luxembourg-based limited company (LU) held a 30% stake in an Austrian stock company operating an airport. LU employed no personnel and did not develop any activities. The parent company of LUP was likewise resident in Luxembourg. LUP had business premises in Luxembourg and employed three people. All of the shares in LUP were held by a company in the British Cayman Islands in trust for a non- resident Cayman Islands-based fund. In 2015, the Austrian Company distributed a dividend to LU. LU was not yet involved in the Austrian corporation “for an uninterrupted period of at least one year” thus withholding tax was withheld and deducted. A request for refunding of the withholding tax was denied by the tax office because the dividend was distributed to recipients in a third country and the tax authorities regarded the structure as abusive. LU then appealed the decision to the Federal Fiscal Court. The Court held that the appeal was unfounded, because the tax office rightly assumed that the structure was abusive within the meaning of Austrian tax rules. LU then filed an appeal to the Austrian Administrative High Court (VwGH). The High Court overruled the Federal Fiscal Court and found that LUP had actually developed activities. An economic reason for the set-up of a company structure- for example, the professional management of long-term investments in the EU by a management holding with several employees (the LUP as the Luxembourg parent company of the appellant) – exists even if the desired economic goal would have been achieved otherwise (i.e. with a holding company located outside the EU). According to the Court, an economic reason for a set-up exists if the economic objective, as put forward in this case, was better and safer to achieve. Thus, the structure was not abusive. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The cases of T Danmark (C-116/16) and Y Denmark Aps (C-117/16) adresses questions related to interpretation of the EU-Parent-Subsidary-Directive. The issue is withholding taxes levied by the Danish tax authorities in situations where dividend payments are made to conduit companies located in treaty countries but were the beneficial owners of these payments are located in non-treaty countries. During the proceedings in the Danish court system the European Court of Justice was asked a number of questions related to the conditions under which exemption from withholding tax can be denied on dividend payments to related parties. The European Court of Justice has now answered these questions in favor of the Danish Tax Ministry; Benefits granted under the Parent-Subsidiary Directive can be denied where fraudulent or abusive tax avoidance is involved. Quotations from cases C-116/16 and C-117/16: “The general principle of EU law that EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends must be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a fraudulent or abusive practice, the national authorities and courts are to refuse a taxpayer the exemption from withholding tax on profits distributed by a subsidiary to its parent company, provided for in Article 5 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2003/123/EC of 22 December 2003, even if there are no domestic or agreement-based provisions providing for such a refusal.” “Proof of an abusive practice requires, first, a combination of objective circumstances in which, despite formal observance of the conditions laid down by the EU rules, the purpose of those rules has not been achieved and, second, a subjective element consisting in the intention to obtain an advantage from the EU rules by artificially creating the conditions laid down for obtaining it. The presence of a certain number of indications may demonstrate that there is an abuse of rights, in so far as those indications are objective and consistent. Such indications can include, in particular, the existence of conduit companies which are without economic justification and the purely formal nature of the structure of the group of companies, the financial arrangements and the loans.” “In order to refuse to accord a company the status of beneficial owner of dividends, or to establish the existence of an abuse of rights, a national authority is not required to identify the entity or entities which it regards as being the beneficial owner(s) of those dividends.” “In a situation where the system, laid down by Directive 90/435, as amended by Directive 2003/123, of exemption from withholding tax on dividends paid by a company resident in a Member State to a company resident in another Member State is not applicable because there is found to be fraud or abuse, within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that directive, application of the freedoms enshrined in the FEU Treaty cannot be relied on in order to call into question the legislation of the first Member State governing the taxation of those dividends.” Several cases have been awaiting the decision from the EU Court of Justice and will now be resumed in Danish courts ...

A refund of withholding tax on dividend payments from an Italien subsidiary, CDC srl, was claimed by the parent company in Luxembourg, CDC Net SA. The parent company had been subject to income tax in Luxembourg as required by the EU Directive, but in Luxembourg there were no actual taxation of the dividends. The refund was denied as, according to the authorities, the Luxembourg company did not meet the requirements of the EU Directive due to lack of actual taxation of the dividends in Luxembourg. The Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities and denied the refund of withholding taxes under the European Parent Subsidiary Directive (Directive 90/435/EEC, Article 5, paragraph 1, ) as no double taxation existed due to the dividend exemption regime in Luxembourg. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The issue in this case was the meaning of and standard for determining what constitutes “beneficial owner” as prescribed by Article 10(2)(a) of the Convention between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Hungarian People’s Republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income. Whether a tax treaty may be deemed inapplicable in the event that treaty abuse is acknowledged according to the principle of substantial taxation under the Framework Act on National Taxes even if constituting a beneficial owner of dividend income (affirmative) In a case where: (a) Company A, in paying dividends on six occasions to Hungary-based Company B that owns 50% of its shares, paid the withheld corporate tax based on the limited tax rate of 5% as prescribed by Article 10(2)(a) of the Convention between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Hungarian People’s Republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income; and (b) the competent taxing authority deemed the U.S.-based Company C, the ultimate parent company of the multinational business group to which Company B is affiliated with, to be the beneficial owner of dividend income and, subsequently, issued a notice of correction to the amount of corporate tax withheld against Company A by applying a limited tax rate of 15% pursuant to Article 12(2)(a) of the Convention between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the United States of America for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, the Court holding that the application of the Convention between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Hungarian People’s Republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income cannot be denied with respect to dividend income even if based on the principle of substantial taxation under Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes; (g) nevertheless, the lower court held that the taxing authority’s disposition as above was lawful by deeming Company C to be the beneficial owner of dividend income solely from a tax saving perspective; and (h) in so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine ...

In this case, Union Castle Ltd. calimed a tax deduction of £ 39 million related to losses on derivative contracts. After acquiring derivative contracts, Union Castle issued bonus A shares to it’s parent company, Caledonia, which carried a dividend equal to 95% of the cash-flows arising on the close-out of the contracts. Therefore Union Castle had written off 39 million of the value of the contracts in it’s accounts. The tax authorities disagreed that a tax loss had been suffered and issued an assesment disallowing the loss. The Tribunal found in favor of the tax authorities. Capital transactions are subject of the UK transfer pricing rules. Issuing of shares meets the requirements of “making or imposing conditions in commercial and financial relations” as required by Article 9 of the OECD Model Convention. OECD TPG apply to debt financing. Share transactions, which have an effect on income taxation, must be within the UK transfer pricing rules. Click here for translation ...

In cases where a domestic corporation that operates a financial business (including a domestic place of business of a foreign corporation) borrowed money from a foreign controlling shareholder and such borrowed amount exceeds six times the amount invested in shares or equity interests by the foreign controlling shareholder, a certain amount of the interest paid in relation to the exceeding amount shall be excluded from deductible expenses of the domestic corporation and subsequently deemed to have been disposed of as a dividend of the domestic corporation pursuant to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act. In that sense, the interest paid in relation to the exceeding amount borrowed is regarded as a domestic source income of a foreign corporation, which is a foreign controlling shareholder. The Convention between the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Singapore for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, which allows dividend income and interest income to be taxed by both a residence country and a source country, defines the meaning of dividend income in Article 10(4) and the meaning of interest income in Article 11(5). Moreover, Article 28 of the former Adjustment of International Taxes Act stipulates that the relevant tax treaty preferentially applies to the classification of a domestic source income of a foreign corporation, notwithstanding Article 93 of the Corporate Tax Act. In view of the contents, structure, etc. of the pertinent statutory provisions, where a domestic corporation, including a domestic place of business of a foreign corporation, borrowed money from a foreign controlling shareholder, the interest paid in relation to the exceeding amount borrowed is regarded as a dividend and consequentially deemed a domestic source income of a foreign controlling shareholder, thereby falling under a dividend income in principle. However, the matter of whether to acknowledge a source country’s right to tax, as dividend income, the interest paid in relation to the exceeding amount borrowed under the applicable tax treaty ought to be determined depending on the tax treaty that the Republic of Korea concluded with the country where the relevant foreign corporation (foreign controlling shareholder) is a residence. In such a case where the interest paid constitutes another type of income (e.g., interest income), rather than dividend income, under the relevant tax treaty, then that classification should be the basis for either acknowledging the source country’s right to tax or setting the applicable limited tax rate. Click here for translation ...

In this case the Tax Court analyses the application of clause 10 (2) of the DTA between Panama and Luxembourg. The case originated in an assessment issued 26 November 2014 by the Directorate General of Revenue through which the tax administration denied the application of the aforementioned clause, understanding that the dividends distributed by Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (Panama), S.A. a company with tax residence in Panama, to its shareholder BBVA Luxinvest, S.A. did not qualify for the reduced rate provided for in the DTA because the latter was not the “beneficial owner” of the dividends, as required by the DTA. The tax administration concluded that application of the reduced rate required the recipient of the dividends to demonstrate not only its legal status as a shareholder (or “legal owner”) of the dividends, but also that it was the ultimate recipient of the dividend payments distributed by Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (Panama), S.A.. According to the tax administration, the documents provided did not constitute sufficient evidence to prove that BBVA Luxinvest, S.A. was indeed the beneficial owner of such dividend payments. Judgement of the Tax Court The court set aside the assessment. According to the court it had been proven that in the case at hand, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (Panama), S.A., was entitled to benefit from the payment of tax on dividends received in 2013, at the rate of 5%, as provided for in Article 10, paragraph 2, numeral a, of the Convention between Panama and Luxembourg for the avoidance of double taxation. Click here for English translation ...

The issues in this case was: Whether the price of purchase of right to dividends were deductible. Whether the purchase and sale of right to dividends was trading transaction in course of Appellant’s trade. Whether the purchase price expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of the trade. Whether HMRC were permitted to argue point in relation to section 730 ICTA that was not raised in closure notice and which they stated they were not pursuing Whether the price of sale of right to dividends should be disregarded for the purposes of calculating Appellant’s trading profits under section 730(3) ICTA ...

An intermediate Japanese holding company in the IBM group acquired from its US parent all of the shares of a Japanese operating company. The Japanese holdings company then sold a portions of shares in the operating company back to the issuing company for the purpose of repatriation of earned profits. These sales resulted in losses in an amount of JPY 400 billion which for tax purposes were offset against the operating company’s taxable income in FY 2002 – 2005. The Japanese tax authorities did not allow deduction of the losses resulted from the sales referring to article 132 of the Corporation Tax Act of Japan (general anti avoidance regulation). The tax authorities found that the reduction of corporation tax due to the tax losses should be disregarded because there were no legitimate reason or business purpose for the transactions. According to the authorities the transactions would not have taken place between independent parties and the primary purpose of the transactions had been tax avoidance. Decision of the Tokyo High Court The Court decided in favour of IBM and annulled the tax assessment. The Court held that the establishment of the intermediate holding company and the following share transfers should not be viewed as one integrated transaction but rather as separate transactions, and that each of these transactions could not be considered lacking economic reality. In 2016 the Supreme Court rejected the tax authorities’ petition for a final appeal. (The Corporation Tax Act of Japan was amended in 2010 and similar tax losses resulting from share repurchases between a Japanese parent and its wholly-owned subsidiary can no longer be claimed.) Click here for English Translation of the Tokyo High Court decision ...