In 2009 and 2010 Global Nory, S.L. distributed a dividend of 7,000,000 euros to its parent company resident in Luxembourg, without declaring withholding taxes, as it considered that the dividend was exempt. In 2013, Global Nory, S.L. was notified of the commencement of general inspection proceedings, referring, among other items, to the dividend payments, and in 2014 the final assessment was issued, resulting in additional withholding taxes of 700,000 euros and 138,753.43 euros to late payment interest. The assessment was based on the following facts: The only relevant asset of Global Noray SL is a 5% stake in the listed company Corporación Logística de Hidrocarburos. This shareholding was acquired for a sum of 176,500,000 euros. Global Noray, S.L.’s income consists mainly of dividends received on these shares. Global Noray, S.L., is wholly owned by PSP Eur SARL, which in turn is wholly owned by PSP Lux SARL. The latter company is wholly owned by PSP IB. PSP stands for “Public Sector Investment Pension”. PSP IB stands for “Public Sector Pension Investment Board”, which is a Canadian Crown Corporation whose purpose is to manage the public pension funds of various groups of civil servants, military and police officers in Canada. PSP Eur SARL has provided a certificate of residence in Luxembourg. The tax authorities considered that the withholding tax exemption was not applicable, since those entities lacked any real economic activity, and considering that there were no economic reasons, but rather fiscal reasons, in the incorporation of the various European companies dependent on the Canadian parent company, since the ultimate owner of the group is a Canadian fund, eliminated the exemption in the settlement agreement. In the Inspectorate’s view, PSP Eur SARL has as its object the direction and management of the filial company without the appropriate organisation of material and personal resources, nor has it proved that it was set up for valid economic reasons, and not in order to take undue advantage of the scheme provided for in point (h). Since the filial company has no economic activity of any kind, merely collecting a dividend from CLH, there is no adequate organisation of human and material resources to manage an investee which does not carry out an economic activity. Appeals were filed by Global Noray but they were all subsequently dismissed by courts. Finally, an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court also upheld the assessment of additional withholding taxes and dismissed the appeal of Global Noray. The Court concluded that the Spanish anti-abuse clause which applies to dividend distributions by a Spanish subsidiary to its European parent company controlled, directly or indirectly, by shareholders not resident in the EU or in the EEA must be construed in such a way that the burden of proof of abuse falls on the tax authorities. However, in the case at hand the tax authorities had lifted this burden of proof. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

In 2013, Viva Telecom Bulgaria EAD, as borrower/debtor, entered into a convertible loan agreement with its parent company in Luxembourg, InterV Investment S.a.r.l.. According to the agreement, the loan was non-interest bearing and would eventually be converted into equity. The tax authorities considered the arrangement to be a loan and applied an arm’s length interest rate and applied withholding tax to the amount of interest expense calculated. Vivacom appealed to the Administrative Court, which, in a judgment issued in 2019, agreed with the tax authorities’ argument for determining the withholding tax liability. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court requested a ruling from the CJEU, which was issued in case C-257/20. The CJEU ruled that the applicable EU directives do not prevent the application of withholding tax on notional interest. On this basis, the Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court issued its decision on the application of withholding tax on notional interest under an interest-free loan agreement. Relying on the conclusions of the CJEU, the court confirmed the withholding tax imposed on the notional interest determined under the concluded financial agreement. The SAC also rejected the local taxpayer’s request to recalculate the tax due under the net basis regime. However, the court relied on a separate transfer pricing benchmark study, which established a market rate in favour of the taxpayer compared to the one initially used by the tax administration, resulting in a reduction of the tax assessment. Click here for English Translation Click here for other 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 ...