The US tax authorities had increased Whirlpool US’s taxable because income allocated to Whirlpool Luxembourg for selling appliances was considered taxable foreign base company sales income FBCSI/CFC income to the parent company in the U.S. under “the manufacturing branch rule” under US tax code Section 951(a). The income from sales of appliances had been allocated to Whirlpool Luxembourg  through a manufacturing and distribution arrangement under which it was the nominal manufacturer of household appliances made in Mexico, that were then sold to Whirlpool US and to Whirlpool Mexico. According to the arrangement the income allocated to Luxembourg was not taxable in Mexico nor in Luxembourg. Whirlpool challenged IRS’s assessment and brought the case to the US Tax Court. In May 2020 the Tax Court ruled in favor of the IRS. “If Whirlpool Luxembourg had conducted its manufacturing operations in Mexico through a separate entity, its sales income would plainly have been FCBSI [foreign base company sales income] under section 954(d)(1),”. The income should therefore be treated as FBCSI under the tax code, writing that “Section 954(d)(2) prevents petitioners from avoiding this result by arranging to conduct those operations through a branch.” Whirlpool brought this decision to US court of appeal. Judgement of the Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the tax court and found that under the text of the statute alone, the sales income was FBCSI that must be included in the taxpayer’s subpart F income. Excerpt: “The question presented is whether Lux’s income from its sales of appliances to Whirlpool-US and Whirlpool-Mexico in 2009 is FBCSI under §954(d)(2). That provision provides in full: Certain branch income. For purposes of determining foreign base company sales income in situations in which the carrying on of activities by a controlled foreign corporation through a branch or similar establishment outside the country of incorporation of the controlled foreign corporation has substantially the same effect as if such branch or similar establishment were a wholly owned subsidiary corporation deriving such income, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary the income attributable to the carrying on of such branch or similar establishment shall be treated as income derived by a wholly owned subsidiary of the controlled foreign corporation and shall constitute foreign base company sales income of the controlled foreign corporation. As the Tax Court aptly observed, § 954(d)(2) consists of a single (nearly interminable) sentence that specifies two conditions and then two consequences that follow if those conditions are met. The first condition is that the CFC was “carrying on” activities “through a branch or similar establishment” outside its country of incorporation. The second condition is that the branch arrangement had “substantially the same effect as if such branch were a wholly owned subsidiary corporation [of the CFC] deriving such income[.]” If those conditions are met, then two consequences follow as to “the income attributable to” the branch’s activities: first, that income “shall be treated as income derived by a wholly owned subsidiary of the controlled foreign corporation”; and second, the income attributable to the branch’s activities “shall constitute foreign base company sales income of the controlled foreign corporation.” 26 U.S.C. § 954(d)(2).” … “From these premises, § 954(d)(2) expressly prescribes the consequences that follow: first, that the sales income “attributable to” the “carrying on” of activities through Lux’s Mexican branch “shall be treated as income derived by a wholly owned subsidiary” of Lux; and second, that the income attributable to the branch’s activities “shall constitute foreign base company sales income of” Lux. That second consequence directly answers the question presented in this appeal. We acknowledge that § 954(d)(2) states that, if the provision’s two conditions are met, then “under regulations prescribed by the Secretary” the provision’s two consequences “shall” follow. And Whirlpool makes various arguments as to those regulations, seeking a result different from the one mandated by the statute itself. But the agency’s regulations can only implement the statute’s commands, not vary from them. (The Tax Court read the “under regulations” text the same way. See Op. at 38 (“The Secretary was authorized to issue regulations implementing these results.”)). And the relevant command here—that Lux’s sales income “shall constitute foreign base company sales income of” Lux—could hardly be clearer.” Click here for translation ...

G.K. Ktf was a subsidiary of a company registered in the United Kingdom. On 29 December 2010 G.K. Ktf entered into a loan agreement with a Dutch affiliate, G.B. BV, under which G.B. BV, as lender, granted a subordinated unsecured loan of HUF 3 billion to G.K. Ktf. Interest was set at a fixed annual rate of 11.32%, but interest was only payable when G.K. Ktf earned a ‘net income’ from its activities. The maturity date of the loan was 2060. The loan was used by G.K. Ktf to repay a debt under a loan agreement concluded with a Dutch bank in 2006. The bank loan was repaid in 2017/2018. The interest paid by G.K. Ktf under the contract was deducted as an expense of HUF 347,146,667 in 2011 and HUF 345,260,000 in 2012. But, in accordance with Dutch tax law – the so called participation exemption – G.B BV did not include the interest as taxable income in its tax return. The tax authorities carried out an audit for FY 2011-2012 and by decision of 17 January 2018 an assessment was issued. According to the assessment G.K. Ktf had underpaid taxes in an amount of HUF 88,014,000. A penalty of HUF 43,419,000 and a late payment penalty of HUF 5,979,000 had been added. According to the tax authorities, a contract concluded by a member of a group of companies for a term of more than 50 years, with an interest payment condition other than that of a normal loan and without capitalisation of interest in the event of default, does not constitute a loan but a capital contribution for tax purposes. This is indicated by the fact that it is subordinated to all other creditors, that the payment of interest is conditional on the debtor’s business performance and that no security is required. The Dutch tax authorities have confirmed that in the Netherlands the transaction is an informal capital injection and that the interest paid to the lender is tax exempt income under the ‘participation exemption’. Hence the interest paid cannot be deducted from the tax base. The parties intended the transaction to achieve a tax advantage. Not agreeing with the decision G.K. Ktf took the case to court. The Court of first instance upheld the decision of the tax authorities. The case was then appealed to the Court of Appeal which resulted in the case being remanded to the court of first instance for reconsideration. After reconsidering the case, a new decision was issued in 2019 where the disallowed deduction of interest was upheld with reference to TPG 1995 para. 1.64, 1.65 and 1.66. The Court of first instance also found that the interest rate on the loan from BV was several times higher than the arm’s length interest rate. G.K Ktf then filed a new appeal with the Court of appeal. Judgement of the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the contested part of the tax authority’s decision and the final judgment of the court of first instance were unlawful and decided in favor of G.K. Ktf. For the years in question, legislation allowing for recharacterisation had still not been enacted in Hungary, and the conditions for applying the “abuse of rights” provision that was in force, was not established by the tax authorities. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

AES SUL Distribuidora Gaúcha de Energia S/A is active in footwear industry. It had paid for services to related foreign companies in South Africa, Argentina, Canada, China, South Korea, Spain, France, Holland, Italy, Japan, Norway, Portugal and Turkey. The tax authorities were of the opinion that withholding tax applied to these payments, which they considered royalty, and on that basis an assessment was issued. Not satisfied with this assessment AES filed an appeal, which was allowed by the court of first instance. An appeal was then filed by the tax authorities with the Superior Tribunal. Judgement of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça The court upheld the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities. Excerpts “Therefore, the income from the rendering of services paid to residents or domiciled abroad, in the cases dealt with in the records, is not subject to the levy of withholding income tax. The refund of amounts proved to have been unduly paid, therefore, may be requested by the plaintiff, as she would have borne such burden, according to article 166 of the CTN.” “This Superior Court has a firm position according to which IRRF is not levied on remittances abroad arising from contracts for the provision of assistance and technical services, without transfer of technology, when there is a treaty to avoid double taxation, and the term “profit of the foreign company” must be interpreted as operating profit provided for in arts. 6, 11 and 12 of Decree-law 1.598/1977, understood as “the result of the activities, main or accessory, that constitute the object of the legal entity”, including income paid in exchange for services rendered, as demonstrated in the decisions summarized below” “1. The case laws of this Superior Court guide that the provisions of the International Tax Treaties prevail over the legal rules of Domestic Law, due to their specificity, subject to the supremacy of the Magna Carta. Intelligence of art. 98 of the CTN. Precedents: RESP 1.161.467/RS, Reporting Justice CASTRO MEIRA, DJe 1.6.2012; RESP 1.325.709/RJ, Reporting Justice NAPOLEÃO NUNES MAIA FILHO, DJe 20.5.2014. 2. The Brazil-Spain Treaty, object of Decree 76.975/76, provides that the profits of a company of a Contracting State are only taxable in this same State, unless the company performs its activity in the other State by means of a permanent establishment located therein. 3. The term profit of the foreign company must be interpreted not as actual profit, but as operating profit, as the result of the activities, main or accessory, that constitute the object of the legal entity, including, the income paid as consideration for services rendered.” “Article VII of the OECD Model Tax Agreement on Income and Capital used by most Western countries, including Brazil, pursuant to International Tax Treaties entered into with Belgium (Decree 72.542/73), Denmark (Decree 75.106/74) and the Principality of Luxembourg (Decree 85. 051/80), provides that the profits of a company of a contracting state are only taxable in that same state, unless the company carries on its activities in the other contracting state through a permanent establishment situated therein (branch, agency or subsidiary); moreover, the Vienna Convention provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law to justify breach of a treaty (art. 27), in reverence for the basic principle of good faith. 7. In the case of a controlled company, endowed with its own legal personality, distinct from that of the parent company, under the terms of the International Treaties, the profits earned by it are its own profits, and thus taxed only in the Country of its domicile; the system adopted by the national tax legislation of adding them to the profits of the Brazilian parent company ends up violating the International Tax Pacts and infringing the principle of good faith in foreign relations, to which International Law does not grant relief. 8. Bearing in mind that the STF considered the caput of article 74 of MP 2158-35/2001 to be constitutional, the STF adheres to this stand and considers that the profits earned by a subsidiary headquartered in Bermuda, a country with which Brazil has no international agreement along the lines of the OECD, must be considered to have been made available to the parent company on the date of the balance sheet on which they were ascertained. 9. Art. 7, § 1 of IN/SRF 213/02 exceeded the limits imposed by the Federal Law itself (art. 25 of Law 9249/95 and 74 of MP 2158-35/01) which it was intended to regulate; in fact, upon analysis of the legislation supplementing art. 74 of MP 2158-35/01, it may be verified that the prevailing tax regime is that of art. 23 of DL 1. 598/77, which did not change at all with respect to the non-inclusion, in the computation of the taxable income, of the methods resulting from the evaluation of investments abroad by the equity accounting method, that is, of the counterparts of the adjustment of the value of the investment in controlled foreign companies. 10. Therefore, I hereby examine the appeal and partially grant it, partially granting the security order claimed, in order to affirm that the profits earned in the Countries where the controlled companies headquartered in Belgium, Denmark, and Luxembourg are established, are taxed only in their territories, in compliance with article 98 of the CTN and with the Tax Treaties (CTN). The profits ascertained by Brasamerican Limited, domiciled in Bermuda, are subject to article 74, main section of MP 2158-35/2001, and the result of the contra entry to the adjustment of the investment value by the equity accounting method is not part of them.” “Therefore, I hereby examine the appeal and partially grant it, partially granting the security order claimed, in order to affirm that the profits earned in the Countries where the controlled companies headquartered in Belgium, Denmark, and Luxembourg are established, are taxed only in their territories, in compliance with article 98 of the CTN and with the Tax Treaties (CTN). The profits ascertained by Brasamerican ...

Engie (former GDF Suez) is a French electric utility company. Engie Treasury Management S.à.r.l., a treasury company, and Engie LNG Supply, S.A, a liquefied natural gas trading company, are both part of the Engie group. In November 2017, Total has signed an agreement with Engie to acquire its LNG business, including Engie LNG Supply. In 2018 the European Commission has found that Luxembourg allowed two Engie group companies to avoid paying taxes on almost all their profits for about a decade. This is illegal under EU State aid rules because it gives Engie an undue advantage. Luxembourg must now recover about €120 million in unpaid tax. The Commission’s State aid investigation concluded that the Luxembourg tax rulings gave Engie a significant competitive advantage in Luxembourg. It does not call into question the general tax regime of Luxembourg. In particular, the Commission found that the tax rulings endorsed an inconsistent tax treatment of the same structure leading to non-taxation at all levels. Engie LNG Supply and Engie Treasury Management each significantly reduce their taxable profits in Luxembourg by deducting expenses similar to interest payments for a loan. At the same time, Engie LNG Holding and C.E.F. avoid paying any tax because Luxembourg tax rules exempt income from equity investments from taxation. This is a more favourable treatment than under the standard Luxembourg tax rules, which exempt from taxation income received by a shareholder from its subsidiary, provided that income is in general taxed at the level of the subsidiary. On this basis, the Commission concluded that the tax rulings issued by Luxembourg gave a selective advantage to the Engie group which could not be justified. Therefore, the Commission decision found that Luxembourg’s tax treatment of Engie endorsed by the tax rulings is illegal under EU State aid rules. The decision was appealed to the European General Court by Luxembourg and Engie. Judgement of the Court The General Court decided in favour of the Commission and held that a set of tax rulings issued by Luxembourg artificially reduced Engie’s tax bill by around €120 million. The tax rulings endorsed two financing structures put in place by Engie that treated the same transaction both as debt and as equity, with the result that its profits remained untaxed. The General Court has also confirmed that State aid enforcement can be a tool to tackle abusive tax planning structures that deviate from the objectives of the general tax system. See the Press Release of the Court Click here for Unofficial English Translation Click here for other translation ...

The US tax authorities had increased Whirlpool US’s taxable because income allocated to Whirlpool Luxembourg for selling appliances was considered taxable foreign base company sales income/CFC income to the parent company in the U.S. under “the manufacturing branch rule” under US tax code Section 951(a). The income from sales of appliances had been allocated to Whirlpool Luxembourg  through a manufacturing and distribution arrangement under which it was the nominal manufacturer of household appliances made in Mexico, that were then sold to Whirlpool US and to Whirlpool Mexico. According to the arrangement the income allocated to Luxembourg was not taxable in Mexico nor in Luxembourg. Whirlpool challenged IRS’s assessment and brought the case to the US Tax Court. The tax court ruled in favor of the IRS. “If Whirlpool Luxembourg had conducted its manufacturing operations in Mexico through a separate entity, its sales income would plainly have been FCBSI [foreign base company sales income] under section 954(d)(1),”. The income should therefore be treated as FBCSI under the tax code, writing that “Section 954(d)(2) prevents petitioners from avoiding this result by arranging to conduct those operations through a branch.” ...

In March 2018 a special EU committee on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance (TAX3) was established. Now, one year later, The EU Parliament has approved a controversial report from the committee. According to the report close to 40 % of MNEs’ profits are shifted to tax havens globally each year with some European Union countries appearing to be the prime losers of profit shifting, as 35 % of shifted profits come from EU countries. About 80 % of the profits shifted from EU Member States are channelled to or through a few other EU Member States. The latest estimates of tax evasion within the EU point to a figure of approximately EUR 825 billion per year. Tax avoidance via six EU Member States results in a loss of EUR 42,8 billion in tax revenue in the other 22 Member States, which means that the net payment position of these countries can be offset against the losses they inflict on the tax base of other Member States. For instance, the Netherlands imposes a net cost on the Union as a whole of EUR 11,2 billion, which means the country is depriving other Member States of tax income to the benefit of multinationals and their shareholders. The Commission has criticised seven Member States – Belgium, Cyprus, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands – for shortcomings in their tax systems that facilitate aggressive tax planning, arguing that they undermine the integrity of the European single market. Member States now calls on the Commission to currently regard at least these five Member States as EU tax havens until substantial tax reforms are implemented ...

Following an investigation into Luxembourg’s tax treatment of McDonald’s under EU state aid regulations since 2015, the EU Commission concluded that the tax rulings granted by Luxembourg to McDonald’s in 2009 did not provide illegal state aid. According to the Commission, the law allowing McDonald’s to escape taxation on franchise income in Luxembourg – and the US – did not amount to an illegal selective advantage under EU law. The double non-taxation of McDonald’s franchise income was due to a mismatch between the laws of the United States and Luxembourg. See the 2015 announcement of formal opening of the investigations into McDonald’s tax agreements with Luxembourg from the EU Commission ...

The European Commission has opened an in-depth investigation into Luxembourg’s tax treatment of the GDF Suez group (now Engie). The Commission has concerns that several tax rulings issued by Luxembourg may have given GDF Suez an unfair advantage over other companies, in breach of EU state aid rules. The Commission will assess in particular whether Luxembourg tax authorities selectively derogated from provisions of national tax law in tax rulings issued to GDF Suez. They appear to treat the same financial transaction between companies of GDF Suez in an inconsistent way, both as debt and as equity. The Commission considers at this stage that the treatment endorsed in the tax rulings resulted in tax benefits in favour of GDF Suez, which are not available to other companies subject to the same national taxation rules in Luxembourg. As from September 2008, Luxembourg issued several tax rulings concerning the tax treatment of two similar financial transactions between four companies of the GDF Suez group, all based in Luxembourg. These financial transactions are loans that can be converted into equity and bear zero interest for the lender. One convertible loan was granted in 2009 by LNG Luxembourg (lender) to GDF Suez LNG Supply (borrower); the other in 2011 by Electrabel Invest Luxembourg (lender) to GDF Suez Treasury Management (borrower). The Commission considers at this stage that in the tax rulings the two financial transactions are treated both as debt and as equity. This is an inconsistent tax treatment of the same transaction. On the one hand, the borrowers can make provisions for interest payments to the lenders (transactions treated as loan). On the other hand, the lenders’ income is considered to be equity remuneration similar to a dividend from the borrowers (transactions treated as equity). The tax treatment appears to give rise to double non-taxation for both lenders and borrowers on profits arising in Luxembourg. This is because the borrowers can significantly reduce their taxable profits in Luxembourg by deducting the (provisioned) interest payments of the transaction as expenses. At the same time, the lenders avoid paying any tax on the profits the transactions generate for them, because Luxembourg tax rules exempt income from equity investments from taxation. The final result seems to be that a significant proportion of the profits recorded by GDF Suez in Luxembourg through the two arrangements are not taxed at all. The two arrangements between LNG Luxembourg (lender) and GDF Suez LNG Supply (borrower) as well as Electrabel Invest Luxembourg (lender) and GDF Suez Treasury Management (borrower) work as follows: Under the terms of the convertible zero interest loan the borrower would record in its accounts a provision for interest payments, without actually paying any interest to the lender. Interest payments are tax deductible expenses in Luxembourg. The provisioned amounts represent a large proportion of the profit of each borrower. This significantly reduces the taxes the borrower pays in Luxembourg. Had the lender received interest income, it would have been subject to corporate tax in Luxembourg. Instead, the loans are subsequently converted into company shares in favour of the lender. The shares incorporate the value of the provisioned interest payments and thereby generate a profit for the lenders. However, this profit – which was deducted by the borrower as interest – is not taxed as profit at the level of the lender, because it is considered to be a dividend-like payment, associated with equity investments ...

The European Commission has formally opened an investigation into Luxembourg’s tax treatment of McDonald’s. Tax ruling granted by Luxembourg may have granted McDonald’s an advantageous tax treatment in breach of EU State aid rules On the basis of two tax rulings given by the Luxembourg authorities in 2009, McDonald’s Europe Franchising has paid no corporate tax in Luxembourg since then despite recording large profits (more than €250 million in 2013). These profits are derived from royalties paid by franchisees operating restaurants in Europe and Russia for the right to use the McDonald’s brand and associated services. The company’s head office in Luxembourg is designated as responsible for the company’s strategic decision-making, but the company also has two branches, a Swiss branch, which has a limited activity related to the franchising rights, and a US branch, which does not have any real activities. The royalties received by the company are transferred internally to the US branch of the company. The Commission requested information on the tax rulings in summer 2014 following press allegations of advantageous tax treatment of McDonald’s in Luxembourg. Subsequently, trade unions presented additional information to the Commission. The Commission’s assessment thus far has shown that in particular due to the second tax ruling granted to the company McDonald’s Europe Franchising has virtually not paid any corporate tax in Luxembourg nor in the US on its profits since 2009. In particular, this was made possible because: A first tax ruling given by the Luxembourg authorities in March 2009 confirmed that McDonald’s Europe Franchising was not due to pay corporate tax in Luxembourg on the grounds that the profits were to be subject to taxation in the US. This was justified by reference to the Luxembourg-US Double Taxation Treaty. Under the ruling, McDonald’s was required to submit proof every year that the royalties transferred to the US via Switzerland were declared and subject to taxation in the US and Switzerland. However, contrary to the assumption of the Luxembourg tax authorities when they granted the first ruling, the profits were not to be subjected to tax in the US. While under the proposed reading of Luxembourg law, McDonald’s Europe Franchising had a taxable presence in the US, it did not have any taxable presence in the US under US law. Therefore McDonald’s could not provide any proof that the profits were subject to tax in the US, as required by the first ruling (see further details below). McDonald’s clarified this in a submission requesting a second ruling, insisting that Luxembourg should nevertheless exempt the profits not taxed in the US from taxation in Luxembourg. The Luxembourg authorities then issued a second tax ruling in September 2009 according to which McDonald’s no longer required to prove that the income was subject to taxation in the US. This ruling confirmed that the income of McDonald’s Europe Franchising was not subject to tax in Luxembourg even if it was confirmed not to be subject to tax in the US either. With the second ruling, Luxembourg authorities accepted to exempt almost all of McDonald’s Europe Franchising’s income from taxation in Luxembourg. In their discussions with the Luxembourg authorities, McDonald’s argued that the US branch of McDonald’s Europe Franchising constituted a “permanent establishment” under Luxembourg law, because it had sufficient activities to constitute a real US presence. Simultaneously, McDonald’s argued that its US-based branch was not a “permanent establishment” under US law because, from the perspective of the US tax authorities, its US branch did not undertake sufficient business or trade in the US. As a result, the Luxembourg authorities recognised the McDonald’s Europe Franchising’s US branch as the place where most of their profits should be taxed, whilst US tax authorities didnotrecognise it. The Luxembourg authorities therefore exempted the profits from taxation in Luxembourg, despite knowing that they in fact were not subject to tax in the US ...