“A…, Sociedade Unipessoal LDA” had taken out two intra group loans with the purpose of acquiring 70% of the shares in a holding company within the group. The tax authorities disallowed the resulting interest expenses claiming that the loan transactions lacked a business purpose. The assessment was later upheld by the tax court in decision no. 827/2019-T. An appeal was then filed by “A…, Sociedade Unipessoal LDA” with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of Supreme Administrative Court The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the tax court and the assessment issued by the tax authorities. Experts “35. In general, a transaction is considered to have economic substance when it significantly alters the taxpayer’s economic situation beyond the tax advantage it may generate. Now, the analysis of the relevant facts leads to the conclusion that neither A… nor the financial position of the Group’s creditors knew any significant economic change, nor any other economic consequence resulted or was reasonably expected to result beyond the additional increase in interest payable on intra-group loans, certainly with a view to increasing deductions and reducing the taxable profit. Even if there is a business purpose in the transaction – which is not certain in view of the permanence of the underlying economic reality – the objective of reducing the tax exposure, with the consequent reduction of the tax base, appears manifestly preponderant (principal purpose test). 36. Despite the existence of a general clause and special anti-abuse clauses, as well as specific rules on transfer pricing, earnings stripping or thin capitalization, all tax legislation must be interpreted and applied, in its systemic unity, so as to curb the erosion of the tax base and the transfer of profits. This involves a teleological interpretation that is attentive to the object, purpose and spirit of the tax rules, preventing their manifestly abusive use through sophisticated and aggressive tax planning operations. This can only be the case with rules on deductible expenses, as in the case of article 23 of the CIRC, which must be interpreted and applied in accordance with the anti-avoidance objectives that govern the entire national, European and international legal system, in order to prevent the erosion of the tax base. 37. On the other hand, where the deductibility of expenses and losses is concerned, the burden of proof lies with the taxpayer, as this is a fact constituting the claimed deduction (Art. 74, 1 of the LGT). Therefore, the accounting expenses groundedly questioned by the AT, in order to be tax deductible, would have to be objectively proven by the taxpayer who accounted for them. The excessive interest expenses are not objectively in line with the criteria of reasonableness, habituality, adequacy and economic and commercial necessity underlying the letter and spirit of Article 23(1) and (2)(c) of the CIRC, against the backdrop of business normality, economic rationality and corporate scope. We are clearly faced with a form of interest stripping, in fact one of the typical forms of profit transfer and erosion of the tax base. The excessive interest generated and paid in the framework of the financing operations analysed must be considered as “disqualified interest” (disallowed interest). 38. 38. The setting up of credit operations within a group in order to finance an acquisition of shareholdings already belonging to the group, sometimes with interest rates higher than market values and generating chronic problems of lack of liquidity in the sphere of the taxpayer, can hardly be regarded as a business activity subject to generally acceptable standards of economic rationality, and as such worthy of consideration under tax law. The possibility of deducting the respective financial costs was or could never have been conceived and admitted by the tax legislator when it chiselled the current wording of Article 23 of the CIRC. Legal-tax concepts should always be understood by reference to the constitutionally structuring principles of the legal-tax system, to all relevant facts and circumstances in the transactions carried out and to the substantial economic effects produced by them on taxpayers, unless the law refers expressly and exclusively to legal form. In the interpretation and application of tax law the principle of the primacy of substance over form shall apply. 39. The AT is entrusted with the important public interest function of protecting the State’s tax base and preventing profit shifting. In interpreting and applying tax rules, it should seek to strike a reasonable, fair and well-founded balance between the principles of tax law and legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, on the one hand, and, on the other, the constitutional and European requirements of administrative and tax responsiveness in view of the updating and deepening of understanding and knowledge of tax problems, on a global scale, due to the latest theoretical, evaluative and principal developments which, particularly in the last decade, have been occurring in the issue of tax avoidance. 40. 40. The facts in the case records do not allow for the demonstration of the existence of a (current or potential) economic causal connection between the assumption of the financial burdens at stake and their performance in A…’s own interest, of obtaining profit, given the respective object. Hence, the non-tax deductibility of the interest incurred in 2015 and 2016 should be considered duly grounded by the AT, as the requirements of article 23, no. 1, of the CIRC were not met, as this is the only legal basis on which the AT supports the correction resulting from the non-acceptance of the deductibility of financial costs for tax purposes, and it is only in light of this legal provision that the legality of the correction and consequent assessment in question should be assessed. A careful reading of both decisions clearly shows that the fact that different wordings of Article 23 of the CIRC were taken into consideration was not decisive for the different legal solutions reached in both decisions. In both decisions the freedom of management of the corporate bodies of the companies is accepted, and it is certain ...

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 ...

“A…, Sociedade Unipessoal LDA” had taken out two intra group loans with the purpose of acquiring 70% of the shares in a holding company within the group. The tax authorities disallowed the resulting interest expenses claiming that the loan transactions lacked a business purpose. A complaint was filed with the Tax Court (CAAD). Decision of the Court The Court decided in favour of the tax authorities and upheld the assessment. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...