Following an audit of Sadepan Chimica S.R.L., the Italian tax authorities issued an assessment of additional taxable income relating to non-interest bearing loans and bonds granted by Sadepan Chimica S.R.L. to its subsidiaries. The tax authorities considered that, in the financing relationship between the subsidiaries and the foreign associates – Polena S.A., based in Luxembourg, and Sadepan Chimica N.V., based in Belgium – the former had applied interest rates that did not correspond to the arm’s length value referred to in Article 9, paragraph 3, of the Italian Income Tax Code. U.I.R. As a result, the authorities issued separate tax assessments for the year 2013 claiming the higher amounts of interest income, calculated by applying an average rate of 3.83% for loans and 5.32% for bonds. Not satisfied with the assessment, Sadepan Chimica S.R.L. filed an appeal. The Regional Tax Commission (C.t.r.) confirmed the assessments and Sadepan Chimica S.R.L. filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. In the appeal Sadepan Chimica S.R.L. and its subsidiaries stated that the C.t.r. judgment were ‘irrelevant’ for not having analysed the general and specific conditions in relation to which the loans had been granted, and in so far as it held that it was for the taxpayer to provide evidence that the agreed consideration corresponded ‘to the economic values that the market attributes to such transactions. First of all, they claimed that the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof have been infringed; secondly, they complained of the failure to assess the evidence; they also claimed that the Office had used as a reference a market rate extraneous to the case at hand in that it was applicable to the different case of loans from financial institutions to industrial companies whereas it should have sought a benchmark relating to intra-group loans of industrial companies. They added that they had submitted to the judge of the merits, in order to determine in concrete terms the conditions of the financing, a number of elements capable of justifying the deviation from the normal value and, precisely a) the legal subordination of the financing b) the duration, c) the absence of creditworthiness, d) the indirect exercise of the activity through the subsidiaries; that, nevertheless, the C.t.r. had not assessed the economic and commercial reasons deduced. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Court ruled in favour of Sadepan Chimica S.R.L. and annulled the judgment under appeal on the grounds that it had failed to take account of the specific circumstances (solvency problems of the subsidiaries) relating to the transactions carried out by the related parties. Excerpts (English translation) “In fact, it still remains that a non-interest-bearing financing, or financing at a non-market rate, cannot be criticised per se, since it is possible for the taxpayer to prove the economic reasons that led it to finance its investee in the specific manner adopted. The rationale of the legislation is to be found in the arm’s length principle set forth in Article 9 of the OECD Model Convention, which provides for the possibility of taxing profits arising from intra-group transactions that have been governed by terms different from those that would have been agreed upon between independent companies in comparable transactions carried out in the free market. It follows from this conceptual core that “the valuation ‘at arm’s length’ disregards the original capacity of the transaction to produce income and, therefore, any negotiating obligation of the parties relating to the payment of consideration (see OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations, paragraph 1.2). It is, in fact, a matter of examining the economic substance of the transaction that has taken place and comparing it with similar transactions carried out, in comparable circumstances, in free market conditions between independent parties and assessing its compliance with these (Cass. 20/05/2021, no. 13850 Cass. 15/04/2016, no. 749) Moreover, it is not excluded that intra-group gratuitous financing may have legal standing where it can be demonstrated that the deviation from the arm’s length principle was due to commercial reasons within the group, connected to the role that the parent company assumes in support of the other companies in the group (Court of Cassation 20/05/2021, no. 13850).” “In the OECD report published on 11/02/2020, on financial transactions, it is reiterated (as already stated in the OECD Commentary to Article 9 of the Model Convention) that, in intercompany financing transactions, the proper application of the arm’s length principle is relevant not only in determining the market value of the interest rates applied, but also in assessing whether a financing transaction is actually to be considered a loan or, alternatively, an equity contribution. It is also emphasised that, in order to distinguish a loan from an equity injection, among other useful indicators, the obligation to pay interest is of independent relevance. With reference to Italy, however, based on the application practice of the Agenzia delle Entrate (Circular No. 6/E of 30 March 2016 on leveraged buy-outs), the requalification of debt (or part thereof) into an equity contribution should represent an exceptional measure. Moreover, it is not ruled out that intra-group free financing may have legal standing where it can be demonstrated that the deviation from the arm’s length principle was due to commercial reasons within the group, related to the role that the parent company plays in supporting the other group companies. The Revenue Agency itself, already in Circular No. 42/IIDD/1981, had specified that the appropriateness of a transfer pricing method must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. “9.6. That being stated, this Court has clarified that, the examination by the court of merit must be directed along two lines: first, it must verify whether or not the office has provided the proof, which is due to it, that the Italian parent company has carried out a financing transaction in favour of the foreign subsidiary, as a legitimate prerequisite for the recovery of the taxation of the interest income on the loan, on the basis of the market rate observable in relation to loans ...

In this case, the Swiss tax authorities had refused to refund A SA withholding tax on an amount of the so-called distributable reserves. The refund was denied based on the Swiss “Old Reserves-doctrin”. “…the doctrine relates the existence of the practice of the Federal Tax Administration of 15 November 1990, known as the “purchase of a full wallet” (“Kauf eines vollen Portemonnaies” or the “old reserves” practice… According to this practice, “tax avoidance is deemed to have occurred when a holding company based in Switzerland buys all the shares of a company based in Switzerland with substantial reserves from persons domiciled (or having their seat) abroad at a price higher than their nominal value, …” The doctrin is applied by the tax authorities based on a schematic asset/liability test: if there are distributable reserves/retained earnings prior to the transfer of shares from a jurisdiction with a higher residual withholding tax to a jurisdiction with a lower one, the previous higher rate still applies on these reserves/retained earnings. Judgement of the Swiss Supreme Court The court ruled in favor of A SA and set aside the decision of the tax authorities. According to the court, the “Old Reserves-doctrin” only applies to cases of actual tax avoidance. According to previous case law, there is tax avoidance: when the legal form chosen by the taxpayer appears to be unusual, inappropriate or strange, and in any case unsuited to the economic objective pursued, when it must be accepted that this choice was abused solely with the aim of saving taxes that would be due if the legal relationships were suitably arranged, when the procedure chosen would in fact lead to a significant tax saving insofar as it would be accepted by the tax authorities. In this regard, the burden of proof is on the tax authorities. 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 ...