RKS, whose business consists of the manufacture of very large custom bearings for the civil and military industries, is controlled by the Swedish SKF group through (SAS) SKF Holding France. RKS was subject to a tax audit for FY 2009 and 2010, at the end of which the tax authorities took the view that the results reported by SAS RKS (losses since 2005) had not been determined in accordance with the arm’s length principle. It therefore increased SAS RKS’s results from 2006 to 2010 to the median net margin observed in a benchmark of eight comparable companies, equal to 4.17% in 2006, 4.32% in 2007, 3.38% in 2008, 2.33% in 2009 and 2.62% in 2010. SAS SKF France Holding applied to the Administrative Court for a discharge, and in judgment no. 1608939 of April 23, 2018, the Montreuil Administrative Court upheld the claim. In ruling no. 18VE02849 of June 22, 2020, the Versailles Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the appeal lodged by the the authorities against this ruling. By decision no. 443133 of October 4, 2021, the Conseil d’Etat, hearing an appeal lodged by SAS SKF France Holding, set aside the decision of the Versailles Administrative Court of Appeal and referred the case back to it. Judgement of the Administrative Court of Appeal In accordance with the guidance provided in the decision of the Conseil d’Etat, the Administrative Court of Appeal ruled in favor of SKF Holding and annulled the assessment of the additional taxable income. Excerpts in English “6. In addition, as mentioned above, the tax authorities have found that SAS RKS has had a negative net margin since 2005, with the exception of 2008. It then carried out a functional analysis of SAS RKS’s intra-group relations, taking the view that SAS RKS performed only limited production functions, and that it was therefore not likely to receive negative remuneration in view of the risks associated with this role. Lastly, it applied a “transactional net margin method” (MTMN), comparing SAS RKS’s ratio of net margin to sales for the operations in question with that of eight companies operating at arm’s length in similar fields. In doing so, it noted that the company’s net margin ratio was -19.32% in 2006, -6.44% in 2007, 1.41% in 2008, -10.46% in 2009 and -21.87% in 2010, compared with 4.17% in 2006, 4.32% in 2007, 3.38% in 2008, 2.33% in 2009 and 2.62% in 2010 for the median of the companies compared. In view of these factors, and as stated in the Conseil d’Etat’s decision of October 4, 2021, in the absence of any criticism of the comparables used by the tax authorities, the latter have established a presumption of profit transfer for the transactions in question, up to the difference between the amount of revenue recorded and that which would have resulted from the application of the average net margin rate of the panel of comparable companies. 7. However, SKF Holding France maintains that its subsidiary SAS RKS in fact assumes a more important functional role than that of a simple production unit within the SKF group, which meant that it had to assume higher development and commercial risks, which materialized in 2009 and 2010 and led to significant operating losses. 8. It is clear from the investigation that SAS RKS, founded in 1932 and acquired by the SKF group in 1965, has long-standing technical expertise and manufactures very specific products, often made-to-measure, for civil and military engineering, whose clientele, made up exclusively of professionals, is in fact limited to around fifteen companies, thus requiring no sales prospecting expenditure on the part of the distributing companies. In addition, SAS RKS owns all the tangible assets required for production, bears the risks associated with production, such as product quality defects, organizes the transport and logistics of its products at its own expense, and bears the inventory risk, as recognized by the French tax authorities when they accepted the principle of a provision for inventory depreciation during the audit. While it is common ground that the intangible assets, including patents, required for this production are held by AB SKF in Sweden, it is nevertheless clear from the investigation that SAS RKS carried out research and development work during the period under review, that it participated, through its parent company SKF Holding France, in an agreement to share research and development costs organized at group level, and that it therefore benefited free of charge from all the intangible assets thus held by the Swedish parent company. Furthermore, while it is common ground that the Swedish parent company periodically sends SAS RKS a schedule of margins to be applied to production costs, depending on the country of invoicing. This schedule is intended to guarantee a margin of 3% for the distribution companies, it is clear from the investigation that SAS RKS is free to determine its own production costs, known as “standard production costs”, which serve as the basis for negotiations with the end customer, carried out jointly with the distribution companies. It also emerges from the investigation, and in particular from the results of computer processing carried out by the tax authorities, that this scale, while applied in the majority of intra-group transactions, is not systematically applied. Furthermore, the company, which bears the exchange rate risk, maintains, without being contradicted, that it can freely refuse to contract with a customer if the final price negotiated does not suit it. On the other hand, it appears from the investigation that the distributing companies are limited to managing sales in practical terms, for example by drawing up contracts and invoices, and to assisting end customers in their negotiations with SAS RKS. As a result, SAS RKS enjoys relative autonomy within the Group, and assumes a high level of risk due to its production activities. Furthermore, it is clear from the investigation that the standard production cost defined by SAS RKS, which serves as the basis for the final price agreed with the customer, is determined at a very early ...

The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that in Year 1 FD had only $100,000 in total capital, including loans. In subsequent years USM makes no additional contributions to the capital of FD, and FD is unable to obtain any capital through loans from an unrelated party. Nonetheless, USM continues to sell 20,000 widgets annually to FD under the terms of the contract, and USM extends credit to FD to enable it to finance the purchase. FD does not have the financial capacity in Years 1, 2 and 3 to finance the purchase of the widgets given that it could not sell most of the widgets it purchased during those years. Thus, notwithstanding the terms of the contract, USM and not FD assumed the market risk that a substantial portion of the widgets could not be sold, since in that event FD would not be able to pay USM for all of the widgets it purchased ...

FD, the wholly-owned foreign distributor of USM, a U.S. manufacturer, buys widgets from USM under a written contract. Widgets are a generic electronic appliance. Under the terms of the contract, FD must buy and take title to 20,000 widgets for each of the five years of the contract at a price of $10 per widget. The widgets will be sold under FD’s label, and FD must finance any marketing strategies to promote sales in the foreign market. There are no rebate or buy back provisions. FD has adequate financial capacity to fund its obligations under the contract under any circumstances that could reasonably be expected to arise. In Years 1, 2 and 3, FD sold only 10,000 widgets at a price of $11 per unit. In Year 4, FD sold its entire inventory of widgets at a price of $25 per unit. Since the contractual terms allocating market risk were agreed to before the outcome of such risk was known or reasonably knowable, FD had the financial capacity to bear the market risk that it would be unable to sell all of the widgets it purchased currently, and its conduct was consistent over time, FD will be deemed to bear the risk ...

In 2009-2011 Fortis Petroleum Norway AS (FPN) bought seismic data related to oil exploration in the North Sea from a related party, Petroleum GeoServices AS (PGS), for NKR 95.000.000. FBN paid the amount by way of a convertible intra-group loan from PGS in the same amount. FPN also purchased administrative services from another related party, Consema, and later paid a substantial termination fee when the service contract was terminated. The acquisition costs, interest on the loan, costs for services and termination fees had all been deducted in the taxable income of the company for the years in question. Central to this case is the exploration refund scheme on the Norwegian shelf. This essentially means that exploration companies can demand cash payment of the tax value of exploration costs, cf. the Petroleum Tax Act § 3 letter c) fifth paragraph. If the taxpayer does not have income to cover an exploration cost, the company receives payment / refund of the tax value from the state. On 21 November 2018, the Petroleum Tax Office issued two decisions against FPN. One decision (the “Seismic decision”) which applied to the income years 2010 to 2011, where FPN was denied a deduction for the purchase of seismic services from PGS and interest on the associated seller credit, as well as ordinary and increased additional tax (hereinafter the «seismic decision»), and another decision (the “Consema decision”) which applied to the income years 2011 and 2012 where, FPN’s claim for deduction for the purchase of administrative services from Consema for the income years 2011 and 2012 was reduced at its discretion, and where FPN was also denied a deduction for the costs of the services and a deduction for termination fees. Finally in regards of the “Seismic decision” an increased additional tax of a total of 60 per cent, was added to the additional taxation on the basis of the incorrectly deducted seismic purchases as FPN had provided incorrect and incomplete information to the Oil Tax Office. In the “Seismic decision” the tax office argued that FPN used a exploration reimbursement scheme to run a “tax carousel” In the “Consema decision” the tax office found that the price paid for the intra-group services and the termination fee had not been determined at arm’s length. An appeal was filed by Fortis Petroleum Norway AS with the district court where, in December 2020, the case was decided in favour of the tax authorities. An appeal was then filed with the Court of Appel Judgement of the Court of Appeal The court upheld the decisions of the district court and decided in favour of the tax authorities. The Court concluded that the condition for deduction in the Tax Act § 6-1 on incurred costs on the part of Fortis Petroleum Norway AS was not met, and that there was a basis for imposing ordinary and increased additional tax. The Court of Appeal further found that the administrative services and the termination fee were controlled transactions and had not been priced at arm’s length. Excerpts – Regarding the acquisition of seismic exploration Based on the case’s extensive evidence, and especially the contemporary evidence, the Court of Appeal has found that there was a common subjective understanding between FPN and PGS, both at the planning stage, during the conclusion of the agreement, in carrying out the seismic purchases and in the subsequent process. should take place by conversion to a subscription price that was not market-based. Consequently, seismic would not be settled with real values. This was made possible through the common interest of the parties. The parties also never significantly distanced themselves from this agreement. The Court of Appeal has heard testimonies from the management of PGS and FPN, but can not see that these entail any other view on the question of what was agreed. The loan was never repaid, and in the end it was converted to the pre-agreed exchange rate of NOK 167. In the Court of Appeal’s view, there is no other rational explanation for this course than that it was carefully adapted to the financing through 78 per cent of the exploration refund. The share value at the time of conversion was down to zero. The Court of Appeal agrees with the state that all conversion prices between 167 and 0 kroner would have given a share price that reflected the value in FPN better and which consequently had given PGS a better settlement. On this basis, the Court of Appeal believes that the conversion rate did not cover the 22 percent, and that there was a common perception that this was in line with the purpose of the establishment of FPN, namely not to pay “a penny” of fresh capital. The Court of Appeal has also emphasized that the same thing that happened in 2009 was repeated in 2010 and 2011. For 2009, the Oil Tax Office came to the conclusion that it was a pro forma event and a shift in financial risk. In 2010 and 2011, the same actors used the same structure and procedure to finance all costs from the state. It is thus the Court of Appeal’s view that there was a common understanding between the parties to the agreement that the real relationship within was different from that which was signaled to the tax authorities regarding sacrifice and which provided the basis for the deduction. Furthermore, in the Court of Appeal’s view, the loan transactions were not fiscally neutral. The seismic purchases constituted the only source of liquidity and were covered in their entirety by the state. In light of ESA’s decision from 2018 as an element of interpretation, such a loss of fiscal neutrality would indicate that when the company has thus not borne any risk itself, sacrifice has not taken place either. Even if the debt had been real, assuming a sale without a common interest of the parties, in the Court of Appeal’s view in a tax context it could not be decisive, as long as 22 ...

From the captive insurance’s perspective, the fact that the captive insurance is exposed to the downside outcome of the insured risk and to the possibility of significant loss could be an indicator that the insurance risk has been assumed by the captive insurance. In addition, the assumption of the insurance risk can only take place if the captive insurance has a realistic prospect of being able to satisfy claims in the event of the risk materialising, i.e. the captive insurance needs to have access to funding to bear the consequences of the playing out of the insured risk. Determining whether the captive insurance has the financial capacity to assume the risk requires consideration of the capital readily available to the captive and its options realistically available. In particular, when the captive insurance invests the premiums into the insured entities within the MNE group, the relation between the captive insurance’s capacity to satisfy the claims and the financial positions of those other MNEs would be central to Chapter I analysis ...

RKS, whose business consists of the manufacture of very large custom bearings for the civil and military industries, is controlled by the Swedish group SKF through  (SAS) SKF Holding France. RKS was subject to a tax audit for FY 2009 and 2010, at the end of which the tax authorities adjusted the prices at which it had invoiced its products to the SKF group’s distribution companies abroad. According to the tax authorities, RKS was a simple manufacturing company that did not have control over strategic and operational risks, at therefore should not have losses resulting from such risks. As a result of the adjustment, SKF Holding France (the immediate parent of RKS) was subject to additional corporate income taxes amounting to EUR 5,385,325, including penalties. In a 2018 judgment the Montreuil Administrative Court discharged the additional taxes. However, this decision was set aside by the Versailles Administrative Court of Appeal in a judgment of 22 June 2020 in which the appeal of the tax authorities was granted. This judgement was then appealed by SKF to the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court decided in favor of SKF Holding and annulled the decision of the Versailles Administrative Court of Appeal. Excerpts from the Judgement “It is clear from the documents in the file submitted to the court that the administration applied a “transactional net margin method” (TNMM) during the audit of RKS, which consisted of comparing the ratio of net margin to turnover of this company for the transactions in question with that of eight companies operating at arm’s length and in similar fields of activity. In doing so, it found that the company’s net margin ratio was -10.46% in 2009 and -21.87% in 2010, whereas it was 2.33% in 2009 and 2.62% in 2010 for the average of the companies compared. Consequently, the administrative court of appeal was able to hold, without any error of law, that the service, at the end of this comparison, of which it noted that no criticism was addressed to it, had established a presumption of transfer of profits for the transactions in question, up to the difference between the amount of revenue recorded and that which would have resulted from the application of the average net margin rate of the panel of comparable companies. However, SKF Holding France argued before the court, in order to justify this difference, that RKS had a more important functional role than that of a simple production unit within the SKF group, which meant that it had to assume a development risk and a commercial risk and that this risk had affected its operating profit for the years in dispute. Firstly, as recommended by the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, in order for it to be considered established that a company belonging to a group is in fact intended to assume an economic risk which the group’s transfer pricing policy leads it to bear, and that this policy is therefore consistent with the arm’s length principle, it is necessary for that company to have effective control and mitigation functions over that risk, as well as the financial capacity to assume it. In holding that RKS was not liable for economic losses related to the operation of its business on the sole ground that it did not have the status of ‘main contractor’ within the SKF group, without investigating whether its functional position within the SKF group was such that it could not be held liable, without investigating whether its functional position within the group gave it the right to bear the specific risks it invoked, namely, on the one hand, strategic risks linked to the choice to develop new products, and, on the other hand, operational risks linked to the efficiency of the production processes, the court vitiated its judgment with an error of law. Secondly, in holding that the negative margin rate of the company RKS was not the result of the realisation of a risk that it was intended to assume, the Administrative Court of Appeal noted that the consolidated result of the SKF group, all activities taken together, was at the same time between 6 and 14%, that the company’s purchases of raw materials had been stable and that its sales had not suffered any decrease in volume except for wind turbines. In so doing, it did not respond to the argument that SKF Holding France raised to justify the drop in RKS’s margin over the two financial years in question, according to which this company had suffered the consequences of a strategic risk linked to its choice to reorient its sole activity towards the wind power sector. It therefore vitiated its judgment by failing to state adequate reasons.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

RKS, whose business consists of the manufacture of very large custom bearings for the civil and military industries, is controlled by the Swedish group SKF through (SAS) SKF Holding France. RKS was subject to a tax audit for FY 2009 and 2010, at the end of which the tax authorities adjusted the prices at which it had invoiced its products to the SKF group’s distribution companies abroad. According to the tax authorities, RKS was a simple manufacturing company that did not have control over strategic and operational risks, at therefore should not have losses resulting from such risks. In a 2018 judgment the Montreuil Administrative Court discharged the additional taxes. However, this decision was set aside by the Versailles Administrative Court of Appeal in a judgment of 22 June 2020 in which the appeal of the tax authorities was granted. This judgement was then appealed by SKF to the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The court decided in favor of SKF Holding and annulled the decision of the Versailles Administrative Court of Appeal. Excerpt “It is clear from the documents in the file submitted to the court that the administration applied a “transactional net margin method” (TNMM) during the audit of RKS, which consisted of comparing the ratio of net margin to turnover of this company for the transactions in question with that of eight companies operating at arm’s length and in similar fields of activity. In doing so, it found that the company’s net margin ratio was -10.46% in 2009 and -21.87% in 2010, whereas it was 2.33% in 2009 and 2.62% in 2010 for the average of the companies compared. Consequently, the administrative court of appeal was able to hold, without any error of law, that the service, at the end of this comparison, of which it noted that no criticism was addressed to it, had established a presumption of transfer of profits for the transactions in question, up to the difference between the amount of revenue recorded and that which would have resulted from the application of the average net margin rate of the panel of comparable companies. However, RKS argued before the court, in order to justify this difference, that it had a more important functional role than that of a simple production unit within the SKF group, which meant that it had to assume a development and commercial risk and that this risk had affected its operating profit for the years in dispute. Firstly, as recommended by the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, in order for it to be considered established that a company belonging to a group is in fact intended to assume an economic risk which the group’s transfer pricing policy leads it to bear, and that this policy is therefore in accordance with the arm’s length principle, it is necessary for that company to have effective control and mitigation functions over that risk, as well as the financial capacity to assume it. In holding that RKS was not liable for economic losses related to the operation of its business on the sole ground that it did not have the status of ‘main contractor’ within the SKF group, without investigating whether its functional position within the SKF group was such that it could not be held liable, without investigating whether its functional position within the group gave it the right to bear the specific risks it invoked, namely, on the one hand, strategic risks linked to the choice to develop new products, and, on the other hand, operational risks linked to the efficiency of the production processes, the court vitiated its judgment with an error of law. Secondly, in holding that the negative margin rate of the company RKS was not the result of the realisation of a risk that it was intended to assume, the Administrative Court of Appeal noted that the consolidated result of the SKF group, all activities taken together, was at the same time between 6 and 14%, that the company’s purchases of raw materials had been stable and that its sales had not suffered a drop in volume except for wind turbines. In so doing, it did not respond to the argument that the company raised to justify the drop in margin over the two financial years in question, according to which it had suffered the consequences of a strategic risk linked to its choice to reorient its sole activity towards the wind power sector. It therefore vitiated its judgment by failing to state adequate reasons.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

US Citybank was performing activities in Italy by means of a branch/permanent establishment. The Italian PE granted loan agreements to its Italian clients. Later on, the bank decided to sell these agreements to a third party which generated losses attributed to the PE’s profit and loss accounts. Following an audit of the branch concerning FY 2003 in which the sale of the loan agreements took place, a tax assessment was issued where the tax authorities denied deduction for the losses related to the transfer of the agreements. The tax authorities held that the losses should have been attributed to the U.S. parent due to lack of financial capacity to assume the risk in the Italien PE. First Citybank appealed the assessment to the Provincial Tax Court which ruled in favor of the bank. This decision was then appealed by the tax authorities to the Regional Tax Court which ruled in favor of the tax authorities. Finally Citybank appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court reversed the judgement of the Regional Tax Court and decided in favor of Citybank. “This Court, recently (Cass. 19/09/2019, no. 23355), dealing with the Convention between Italy and the United Kingdom on double taxation (Article 7 of which has the same content as Article 7 of the cited Convention between Italy and the United States of America), has specified that: (a) the permanent establishment, from a tax point of view, is a distinct and autonomous entity with respect to the ‘parent company’, the income of which, produced in the territory of the State, is subject to tax, pursuant to Article 23, paragraph 1, letter e), T.U.I.R.; (b) Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention between Italy and the United Kingdom against double taxation, entered into on 21 October 1988 (and ratified by Law n. 329 of 1990, ), provides for the application of Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention between Italy and the United Kingdom. (b) Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention between Italy and the United Kingdom for the avoidance of double taxation, concluded on 21 October 1988 (and ratified by Law No. 329 of 1990), which provides that where an enterprise of a Contracting State carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein, there shall in each Contracting State be attributed to that permanent establishment the profits which it might be expected to make if it were a distinct and separate enterprise engaged in the same or similar activities under the same or similar conditions and dealing wholly independently with the enterprise of which it is a permanent establishment. (c) the OECD Commentary (§ 18. 3.), with respect to the said Article 7, has clarified that the permanent establishment must be endowed with: “a capital structure appropriate both to the enterprise and to the functions it performs. For these reasons, the prohibition on deducting expenses connected with internal financing – that is to say, those which constitute a mere allocation of the parent company’s own resources – should continue to apply generally.”. In the present case, the Regional Commission complied with the above principles of law when it held that the Convention placed limits on the deductibility of the negative components of the Italian branch’s income, understood both as interest expense and as expenses connected with the management of the loan (in the case at hand, these were losses on loans and commission charges for the assignment of loan agreements).” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation > ...

HBP is a company resident in the United Kingdom, which also carries on banking business in Italy through its Milan branch (‘HSBC Milano’), which, for income tax purposes, qualifies as a permanent establishment (‘PE’ or ‘branch’) and grants credit facilities to Italian companies and industrial groups, including (from 1996) Parmalat Spa. HBP brought separate actions before the Milan Provincial Tax Commission challenging two notices of assessment for IRPEG and IRAP for 2003 and for IRES and IRAP for 2004, which taxed interest expense (147,634 euros for 2003 and 143,302 euros for 2004) on loans to Parmalat Spa. (€ 147,634, for 2003; € 143,302, for 2004) on loans from the ‘parent company’ in favour of the ‘PE’, and losses on receivables (€ 9,609,545, for 2003, and € 3,330,382, for 2004), as negative components unduly deducted by the permanent establishment, even though they related to revenues and activities attributable to the ‘parent company’. According to the Office, the PE is considered, from a tax point of view, to be an autonomous entity distinct from the parent company, both under domestic and supranational law, and is therefore, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the Convention between Italy and the United Kingdom for the avoidance of double taxation, subject to the same tax regime as independent entities, with certain consequences from the point of view of the quantification of its income. The Milan Provincial Tax Commission (CTP), with judgment No. 117/2010, allowed the appeals and annulled both notices as they lacked the “necessary tax basis”. The Lombardy Regional Administrative Court, with the judgment in question, after hearing the United Kingdom bank, upheld the Agency’s appeal, disregarding, first of all, the appellant’s objection that the 60-day deadline had not been met, pursuant to Article 12(7) of the Statute of Taxpayers’ Rights, with respect to the notice of assessment for 2003 (“notice for 2003″), on the grounds that the tax assessment notice took account of the urgency of the matter in view of the very short time remaining before the expiry of the time limit for assessment action. As regards the substance of the assessments, with reference to the dispute concerning interest expense, the CTR held that it was deductible only in respect of interest accrued on an amount exceeding the notional endowment fund of €6.3 million (equal to the minimum amount of the banks’ initial capital, according to Bankitalia’s provisions), which could be deducted under Article 7 of the Convention, in order to ensure the principle of free competition between the permanent establishment and the Italian credit institutions. With regard to loan losses, the CTR stated that: ‘Article 109 TUIR refers to the principle of correlation between costs and revenues […] mentioned in the notices of assessment. Article 110, paragraph 7 of the TUIR refers to the principle of free competition”, according to which the components of income, deriving from intercompany transactions with companies not resident in the territory of the State, are valued on the basis of the “normal value” of the goods sold and services received, which entails the equal tax treatment of companies carrying out banking activities, with the determination of a notional endowment fund, which aims to avoid favouring undercapitalised companies. It therefore agreed with the calculations made in the notices of assessment in which, on the finding that the branch, which did not have the regulatory capital (amounting to €45,435. 337, determined in relation to the amount of the credit lines granted to Parmalat Spa) required from an independent party, had transferred to the “parent company”, in the form of interest expense on loans received from the latter, 71.18% of the profits accrued on the “Parmalat credit”, retaining the remaining 28.82%, for the principle of correlation between costs and revenues, for the purposes of their tax deductibility, only 28.82% of the “Parmalat losses” were charged to the “PE”, amounting in total, in the two-year period from 2003 to 2004, to euro 18. 174.135. Finally, the CTR confirmed the legitimacy of the administrative sanctions for violation of tax regulations, excluding the objective uncertainty of the latter. 6. HBP appeals for the annulment of this judgment, on the basis of ten grounds, illustrated by a memorandum pursuant to Article 378 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to which the Agency resists with a counter-appeal. Judgement of the Supreme Court (a) the permanent establishment, from a tax point of view, is a distinct and autonomous entity with respect to the ‘parent company’, the income of which, produced in the territory of the State, is subject to tax, pursuant to Article 23, paragraph 1, letter e), T.U.I.R.; (b) Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention between Italy and the United Kingdom against double taxation, entered into on 21 October 1988 (and ratified by Law n. 329 of 1990, ), provides for the application of Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention between Italy and the United Kingdom. (b) Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention between Italy and the United Kingdom for the avoidance of double taxation, concluded on 21 October 1988 (and ratified by Law No. 329 of 1990), which provides that where an enterprise of a Contracting State carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein, there shall in each Contracting State be attributed to that permanent establishment the profits which it might be expected to make if it were a distinct and separate enterprise engaged in the same or similar activities under the same or similar conditions and dealing wholly independently with the enterprise of which it is a permanent establishment. (c) the OECD Commentary (§ 18. 3.), with respect to the said Article 7, has clarified that the permanent establishment must be endowed with: “a capital structure appropriate both to the enterprise and to the functions it performs. For these reasons, the prohibition on deducting expenses connected with internal financing – that is to say, those which constitute a mere allocation of the parent company’s own resources – should continue to apply generally.”. In ...