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

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

The Bundesfinanzhof confirmed prior case law according to which the provisions on hidden deposits and hidden profit distributions must be observed in the context of the additional taxation. On the question of economic activity of the controlled foreign company, the Bundesfinanzhof refers to the ruling of the European Court of Justice concerning Cadbury-Schweppes from 2006. According to paragraphs §§ 7 to 14 in the Außensteuergesetz (AStG) profits from controlled foreign companies without business activity can be taxed in Germany. In the case at hand the subsidiary was located in a rented office in Cyprus and employed a resident managing director. Her job was to handle correspondence with clients, to carry out and supervise payment transactions, manage business records and keep records. She was also entrusted with obtaining book licenses to order these sub-licenses for the benefit of three of Russia’s and Ukraine’s affiliates, which distributed the books in the Russian-speaking market. The license income earned by subsidiary was taxed at 10 percent in Cyprus. The Income was considered ‘passive’ as the subsidiary lacked the necessary ‘actual economic activity’. On that basis the Bundesfinanzhof rejected the appeal of the taxpayer. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The legislation on ‘controlled foreign companies’ in force in the United Kingdom provided for the inclusion, under certain conditions, of the profits of subsidiaries established outside the United Kingdom in which a resident company has a controlling holding. The UK tax authorities thus claimed from the parent company of the Cadbury Schweppes group, established in the United Kingdom, tax on the profits made by one of the subsidiaries of the group established in Ireland, where the tax rate was lower. The Court was asked to consider whether this legislation was compatible with the provisions of the Treaty on freedom of establishment (Articles 43 and 48 EC). The Court recalled that companies or persons could not improperly or fraudulently take advantage of provisions of Community law. However, the fact that a company has been established in a Member State for the purpose of benefiting from more favourable tax legislation does not in itself suffice to constitute abuse of the freedom of establishment and does not deprive Cadbury Schweppes of the right to rely on Community law. The Court then analysed the legislation in terms of freedom of establishment. According to settled case-law, although direct taxation falls within the competence of the Member States, they must none the less exercise that competence consistently with Community law. The Court noticed the difference in the treatment of resident companies depending on whether the CFC legislation was or was not applicable: in the first instance the company is taxed on the profits of another legal person, whereas this is not the case in the latter instance (that is, when a resident company has a subsidiary taxed in the United Kingdom or a subsidiary established in another Member State where the tax rate is higher than in the United Kingdom). The Court noted that the separate tax treatment is such as to hinder the exercise of freedom of establishment, dissuading a resident company from establishing, acquiring or maintaining a subsidiary in a Member State with a lower tax rate. The Court pointed out that a national measure restricting freedom of establishment may be justified only where it specifically relates to wholly artificial arrangements aimed at circumventing the application of the legislation of the Member State concerned and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that purpose. In order to find that there is such an arrangement there must be, in addition to a subjective element, objective and ascertainable evidence – with regard, in particular, to the extent to which the CFC physically exists in terms of premises, staff and equipment – that the incorporation of this subsidiary does not reflect economic reality, that is to say it is not an actual establishment intended to carry on genuine economic activities in the host Member State. The tests conducted under the national legislation must incorporate these factors if they are to be compatible with Community law. The Substance Test 67 As suggested by the United Kingdom Government and the Commission at  the hearing, that finding must be based on objective factors which are ascertainable by third parties with regard, in particular, to the extent to which the CFC physically exists in terms of premises, staff and equipment. 68 If checking those factors leads to the finding that the CFC is a fictitious establishment not carrying out any genuine economic activity in the territory of the host Member State, the creation of that CFC must be regarded as having the characteristics of a wholly artificial arrangement. That could be so in particular in the case of a ‘letterbox’ or ‘front’ subsidiary (see Case C-341/04 Eurofood IFSC [2006] £CR 1-3813, paragraphs 34 and 35). 69 On the other hand, as pointed out by the Advocate General in point 103 of his Opinion, the fact that the activities which correspond to the profits of the CFC could just as well have been carried out by a company established in the territory of the Member State in which the resident company is established does not warrant the conclusion that there is a wholly artificial arrangement ...