In 2005 an agreement was entered between the UK tax authority and GE Capital, whereby GE Capital was able to obtain significant tax benefits by routing billions of dollars through Australia, the UK and the US. HMRC later claimed, that GE Capital had failed to disclose all relevant information to HMRC prior to the agreement and therefore asked the High Court to annul the agreement. In December 2020 the High Court decided in favour of HMRC. GE Capital then filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal. Judgement of the Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal overturned the judgement of the High Court and ruled in favour of GE Capital ...

In 2005 an agreement was entered between the UK tax authority and GE Capital, whereby GE Capital was able to obtain significant tax benefits by routing billions of dollars through Australia, the UK and the US. HMRC later claimed, that GE Capital had failed to disclose all relevant information to HMRC prior to the agreement and therefore asked the High Court to annul the agreement. The High Court ruled that HMRC could pursue the claim against GE in July 2020. Judgement of the High Court The High Court ruled in favour of the tax authorities ...

General Electric (GE) have been routing financial transactions (AUS $ 5 billion) related to GE companies in Australia via the UK in order to gain a tax advantage – by “triple dipping” in regards to interest deductions, thus saving billions of dollars in tax in Australia, the UK and the US. Before entering into these transactions, GE obtained clearance from HMRC that UK tax rules were met, in particular new “Anti-Arbitrage Rules” introduced in the UK in 2005, specifically designed to prevent tax avoidance through the exploitation of the tax treatment of ‘hybrid’ entities in different jurisdictions. The clearance was granted by the tax authorities in 2005 based on the understanding that the funds would be used to invest in businesses operating in Australia. In total, GE’s clearance application concerned 107 cross-border loans amounting to debt financing of approximately £21.2 billion. The Australian Transaction was one part of the application. After digging into the financing structure and receiving documents from the Australian authorities, HMRC now claims that GE fraudulently obtained a tax advantage in the UK worth US$1 billion by failing to disclose information and documents relating to the group’s financing arrangements. According to the HMRC, GE provided UK tax officers with a doctored board minute, and misleading and incomplete documents. The documents from Australia shows that the transactions were not related to investments in Australian businesses, but part of a complex and contrived tax avoidance scheme that would circulate money between the US, Luxembourg, the UK and Australia before being sent back to the US just days later. These transactions had no commercial purpose other than to create a “triple dip” tax advantage in the UK, the US and Australia. HMRC are now seeking to annul the 2005 clearance agreement and then issue a claim for back taxes in the amount of $ 1 billion before interest and penalties. From GE’s 10 K filing “As previously disclosed, the United Kingdom tax authorities disallowed interest deductions claimed by GE Capital for the years 2007-2015 that could result in a potential impact of approximately $1 billion, which includes a possible assessment of tax and reduction of deferred tax assets, not including interest and penalties. We are contesting the disallowance. We comply with all applicable tax laws and judicial doctrines of the United Kingdom and believe that the entire benefit is more likely than not to be sustained on its technical merits. We believe that there are no other jurisdictions in which the outcome of unresolved issues or claims is likely to be material to our results of operations, financial position or cash flows. We further believe that we have made adequate provision for all income tax uncertainties.” The English High Court decision on whether the case has sufficient merit to proceed to trial: “150. For the above reasons, I refuse the application to amend in respect of paragraphs 38(b) and 38(e) of APOC and I will strike out the existing pleading in paragraph 38(e) of APOC. I will otherwise permit the amendments sought by HMRC insofar as they are not already agreed between the parties. Specifically, the permitted amendments include those in which HMRC seeks to introduce allegations of deliberate non-disclosure, fraud in respect of the Full Disclosure Representation, a claim that the Settlement Agreement is a contract of utmost good faith (paragraphs 49B and 53(ca) of APOC) and the claim for breach of an implied term (paragraphs 48 and 49 of APOC). 151. As to paragraph 68(b) of the Reply, I refuse the application to strike it out. To a large extent this follows from my conclusion in relation to the amendments to the APOC to add allegations of deliberate failure to disclose material information. In GE’s skeleton argument, a separate point is taken that paragraph 68(b) of the Reply is a free-standing plea that is lacking in sufficient particulars. I do not accept this: there can be no real doubt as to which parts of the APOC are being referred to by the cross-reference made in paragraph 68(b)(ii). 152. The overall result is that, while I have rejected the attempts to infer many years after the event that specific positive representations could be implied from limited references in the contemporaneous documents, the essential allegation which lay at the heart of Mr Jones QC’s submissions – that GE failed to disclose the complete picture, and that it did so deliberately – will be permitted to go to trial on the various alternative legal bases asserted by HMRC. I stress that, beyond the conclusion that there is a sufficient pleading for this purpose, and that the prospects of success cannot be shown to be fanciful on an interlocutory application such as this, I say nothing about the merits of the claims of deliberate non-disclosure or fraud.” ...

The Supreme Administrative Court laid down the factors to be applied in determining the abnormal nature of the remuneration of intragroup loans. “The normal or abnormal nature of the remuneration of loans taken by an enterprise from another enterprise to which it is affiliated must be assessed in relation to the remuneration that the lender should pay to a financial institution or similar body to which the enterprise is not related and would borrow, under similar conditions, sums of an equivalent amount. A lender’s assessment of the default risk of the borrower, whose risk premium is the consideration, depends on the debtor’s ability to repay the debt to the obligee until maturity. The assessment of the solvency risk of the borrower, in particular summarized in the periodic ratings that the rating agencies attribute to the companies that may, where appropriate, solicit them to this effect, results from the analysis of the evolutions of a series. economic variables, both internal and external to the borrower’s environment, reflecting, inter alia, the debtor’s statement of financial position, the stability of its long-term financial policy, profitability and capital profitability; it invests, possibly compared to the average data of the sector of activity which is its, its liquidities, the room for maneuver financial which it may possibly have because of predefined circumstances, its competitive positioning or the quality of its employees and leaders. ,,, 2) The borrower’s membership in a group of companies, if it is one of the characteristics of his organization, in capital requirements, can only be taken into account for the assessment of its risk of default to the extent that it is likely to have an impact on its solvency. In this respect, if the administration, which bears the burden of proof, can presume that the bond, by a parent company, of the debts of its subsidiary has the effect of modifying the solvency risk of the beneficiary of the surety, it can not can, on the other hand, presume that belonging to a group of companies can have such an effect on its own, even though market players would be informed about the solvency risk of the parent company because of the stability of the notes, convergent and regularly updated, which are attributed to it by the different rating agencies.” The court found that the interest rate must be determined based on a stand alone credit rating of the borrowing company and that the influence of group membership on the credit rating of the borrowere can only be determined in a detailed analysis. The court ruled in favor of General Electric France. Click here for translation ...