The taxpayer paid interest on five loans concluded with its Dutch subsidiary (“BV2”) on 31 December 2017, claiming exemption from withholding tax on the basis of the double taxation treaty between Belgium and the Netherlands (Article 11, §3, (a)). The dispute concerns whether the Dutch subsidiary “BV2” can be considered the beneficial owner of these interests. The concept of “beneficial owner” is not defined in the Belgium-Netherlands double tax treaty. However, this concept is also used in the European Directive on interest and royalties. In the Court’s view, this concept must be interpreted in the same way for the application of the Belgian-Dutch double taxation treaty. Indeed, as members of the EU, Belgium and the Netherlands are also obliged to ensure compliance with EU law. The Court noted that, of the five loans on which the taxpayer paid interest to its subsidiary “BV2”, four loans were linked to four other loans granted by a Dutch company higher up in the group’s organisation chart and having the legal form of a “CV” (now an LLC), to the taxpayer’s Dutch parent company, “BV1”. The fifth loan on which the taxpayer pays interest to its subsidiary “BV2” is clearly linked to a fifth loan granted by the same “CV” (now LLC) to the said subsidiary “BV2”. The taxpayer’s subsidiary “BV2” and its parent company “BV1” together form a tax unit in the Netherlands. At the level of the tax unit, a ruling (“APA-vaststellingsovereenkomst”) has been obtained in the Netherlands, stipulating a limited remuneration for the financing activities that this tax unit carries out for the companies in the group. The “transfer pricing report” attached to the ruling request indicates that a Dutch CV is the lender and that the taxpayer is the final borrower in respect of the loans in question. The “APA-vaststellingsovereenkomst” also clearly shows the link between these various loans. The loans granted by the CV are then transferred to a new Delaware LLC. The mere fact that a tax unit exists between the taxpayer’s subsidiary “BV2” and the parent company “BV1” does not imply ipso facto that the subsidiary “BV2” is a conduit company and therefore does not, in principle, prevent it from being considered a “beneficial owner”. However, a tax unit may be part of an arrangement designed to avoid or evade tax in certain transactions. The tax unity between the subsidiary “BV2” and the parent company “BV1” of the taxpayer has the effect that the interest obtained by the subsidiary “BV2” is offset by the interest paid to the LLC, so that there is virtually no tax to pay on this interest. Furthermore, the taxpayer would not have been able to claim any exemption if he had paid the interest directly to the LLC and if the interposition of the Dutch companies had not been used. In addition to the aforementioned links between the various loans, the Court emphasised the fact that the claims against the taxpayer and the underlying debts were initially held by a single company, that they were then divided between the taxpayer’s Dutch subsidiary “BV2” (claims) and the parent company “BV1” (debts), and then, following a merger between this subsidiary and the parent company, were reunited within the same company (BV 1). According to the court, this also reveals the interlocking nature of these loans, as well as the artificial nature of the construction. It is at least implicit from the above facts that the Dutch subsidiary “BV2” and the parent company “BV1” act only as formal intermediaries and that the final lender is the LLC, which took over the loans from the CV. For the fifth loan, which was financed by the Dutch subsidiary “BV2” directly with the CV (now LCC), it appears that the Dutch company “BV2” has an obligation to pay interest to the CV (now LLC). For the other four loans, significant evidence of actual interest flows was found in the financial statements of the companies concerned. According to the court, the taxpayer had not met his burden of proving that he was the beneficial owner of the interest. The exemption from withholding tax was rightly rejected by the tax authorities on this basis. In addition, the withholding tax must be added to the amount of income for the calculation of the withholding tax (grossing up). Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

Since Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA’s articles of association prevented it from issuing bonds, financing of the company had instead been archived via an arrangement with its subsidiary in Luxembourg, Mondadori International S.A. To that end, the subsidiary issued a bond in the amount of EUR 350 million, which was subscribed for by US investors. The funds raised were transferred to Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA via an interest-bearing loan. The terms of the loan – duration, interest rate and amount – were the same as those of the bond issued by Mondadori International S.A. to the US investors. The Italian tax authority denied the withholding tax exemption in regards of the interest paid on the loan. According to the tax authorities Mondadori International S.A. had received no benefit from the transaction. The interest paid by Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA was immediately and fully transferred to the US investors. Mondadori International S.A. was by the authorities considered a mere conduit company, and the US investors were the beneficial owners of interest which was therefore subject to 12.5% withholding tax. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court set aside the assessment of the tax authorities and decided in favor of Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA. The court held that the beneficial owner requirement should be interpreted in accordance with the current commentary on Article 11 of the OECD Model Tax Convention. On that basis Mondadori International S.A. in Luxembourg was the beneficial owner of the interest and thus entitled to benefit from the withholding tax exemption. Excerpt “First, the company must take one of the forms listed in the annex to Directive 2004/49; second, it must be regarded, under the tax legislation of a Member State, as resident there for tax purposes and not be regarded, under a double taxation convention, as resident for tax purposes outside the European Union; third, it must be subject to one of the taxes listed in Article 3(a)(iii) of Directive 2003/49, without benefiting from an exemption (cf. paragraph 147 of the aforementioned decision; also paragraph 120 of Court of Justice, 26 February 2019, Case C 116/16, T Danmark; No 117/18, Y Denmark). Nor is the national authority, then, required to identify the entity or entities which it considers to be the beneficial owner of the “interest” in order to deny a company the status of beneficial owner of the “interest” (paragraph 145). Finally, in its judgment of 26 September 2019 on Joined Cases C 115/16, C 118/16, C 119/16 and C 299/16, the Court of Justice expressed the principle that the beneficial owner is anyone who does not appear to be a construction of mere artifice, providing additional indicators or spy-indicators whose presence is an indication of exlusive intent. 4. Now, in the case at hand, it emerges from the principles set out above that the “actual beneficiary” of the interest on the Italian bond must be considered to be the Luxembourg company. And in fact, contrary to the case law examined above, in the case under examination, it is not disputed in the documents that Mondadori International s.a: 1) has existed for more than fifty years; 2) has its own real operational structure and does not constitute an “empty box 3) its corporate purpose is the holding and sale of shares in publishing companies; 4) it produced profits of over EUR 8 million in the tax year in question 5) it issued the bond six months before the Italian company when the latter could not do so and precisely because it could not do so: the two loans remain distinct by virtue of their negotiating autonomy and find different justification 6) the interest received by the Italian parent company was recognised in its financial statements and contributed to its income; 7) it has actual disposal of the sums, in the absence of contractually fixed obligations of direct (re)transfer 8) it issued its own bonds, discounting the relative discipline, placing its assets as collateral for the American investors. In particular, the breach and misapplication of the law emerges due to the examination of the contractual conditions, duly reported in the appeal for cassation, fulfilling the burden of exhaustiveness of the writing (see especially pages 134 – 136). There are no obligations, limits or conditions that provide for the transfer to the United States of the amounts received from Italy, thus leaving entrepreneurial autonomy and patrimonial responsibility in the hands of the Luxembourg company, which, moreover, has a vocation by statute for corporate operations of this type. These principles have misguided the judgment on appeal, which therefore deserves to be set aside and referred back to the judge on the merits so that he may comply with the aforementioned European and national principles, which we intend to uphold. 5. The appeal is therefore well-founded and deserves to be upheld, with the absorption of grounds 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 of appeal r.g. no. 7555/2013 and the analogous grounds 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of appeal r.g. no. 7557/2013, all of which focus on the same question of whether Mondatori Editore is the “beneficial owner” of the payment of interest on the bond loan.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

G.K. Ktf was a subsidiary of a company registered in the United Kingdom. On 29 December 2010 G.K. Ktf entered into a loan agreement with a Dutch affiliate, G.B. BV, under which G.B. BV, as lender, granted a subordinated unsecured loan of HUF 3 billion to G.K. Ktf. Interest was set at a fixed annual rate of 11.32%, but interest was only payable when G.K. Ktf earned a ‘net income’ from its activities. The maturity date of the loan was 2060. The loan was used by G.K. Ktf to repay a debt under a loan agreement concluded with a Dutch bank in 2006. The bank loan was repaid in 2017/2018. The interest paid by G.K. Ktf under the contract was deducted as an expense of HUF 347,146,667 in 2011 and HUF 345,260,000 in 2012. But, in accordance with Dutch tax law – the so called participation exemption – G.B BV did not include the interest as taxable income in its tax return. The tax authorities carried out an audit for FY 2011-2012 and by decision of 17 January 2018 an assessment was issued. According to the assessment G.K. Ktf had underpaid taxes in an amount of HUF 88,014,000. A penalty of HUF 43,419,000 and a late payment penalty of HUF 5,979,000 had been added. According to the tax authorities, a contract concluded by a member of a group of companies for a term of more than 50 years, with an interest payment condition other than that of a normal loan and without capitalisation of interest in the event of default, does not constitute a loan but a capital contribution for tax purposes. This is indicated by the fact that it is subordinated to all other creditors, that the payment of interest is conditional on the debtor’s business performance and that no security is required. The Dutch tax authorities have confirmed that in the Netherlands the transaction is an informal capital injection and that the interest paid to the lender is tax exempt income under the ‘participation exemption’. Hence the interest paid cannot be deducted from the tax base. The parties intended the transaction to achieve a tax advantage. Not agreeing with the decision G.K. Ktf took the case to court. The Court of first instance upheld the decision of the tax authorities. The case was then appealed to the Court of Appeal which resulted in the case being remanded to the court of first instance for reconsideration. After reconsidering the case, a new decision was issued in 2019 where the disallowed deduction of interest was upheld with reference to TPG 1995 para. 1.64, 1.65 and 1.66. The Court of first instance also found that the interest rate on the loan from BV was several times higher than the arm’s length interest rate. G.K Ktf then filed a new appeal with the Court of appeal. Judgement of the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the contested part of the tax authority’s decision and the final judgment of the court of first instance were unlawful and decided in favor of G.K. Ktf. For the years in question, legislation allowing for recharacterisation had still not been enacted in Hungary, and the conditions for applying the “abuse of rights” provision that was in force, was not established by the tax authorities. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The issue in these two cases is whether withholding tax was payable on interest paid to foreign group companies considered “beneficial owners” via conduit companies covered by the EU Interest/Royalties Directive and DTA’s exempting the payments from withholding taxes. The first case concerned interest accruals totalling approximately DKK 1,476 million made by a Danish company in the period 2007-2009 in favour of its parent company in Sweden in connection with an intra-group loan. The Danish Tax Authorities (SKAT) subsequently ruled that the recipients of the interest were subject to the tax liability in Section 2(1)(d) of the Corporation Tax Act and that the Danish company was therefore obliged to withhold and pay withholding tax on a total of approximately DKK 369 million. The Danish company brought the case before the courts, claiming principally that it was not obliged to withhold the amount collected by SKAT, as it disputed the tax liability of the recipients of the interest attributions. The second case concerned interest payments/accruals totalling approximately DKK 3,158 million made by a Danish company in the period 2006-2008 in favour of its parent company in Luxembourg in respect of an intra-group loan. SKAT also ruled in this case that the interest payments/write-ups were taxable for the recipients and levied withholding tax on them from the Danish company totalling approximately DKK 817 million. The Danish company appealed to the courts, claiming principally that the interest was not taxable. The Eastern High Court, as first instance, dealt with the two cases together. The European Court of Justice has ruled on a number of preliminary questions in the cases, see Joined Cases C-115/16, C-118/16, C119/16 and C-299/16. In both cases, the Ministry of Taxation argued in general terms that the parent companies in question were so-called “flow-through” companies, which were not the “beneficial owners” of the interest, and that the real “beneficial owners” of the interest were not covered by the rules on tax exemption, i.e. the EU Interest/Royalties Directive and the double taxation conventions applicable between the Nordic countries and between Denmark and Luxembourg respectively. Judgement of the Eastern High Court In both cases, the Court held that the parent companies in question could not be regarded as the “beneficial owners” of the interest, since the companies were interposed between the Danish companies and the holding company/capital funds which had granted the loans, and that the corporate structure had been established as part of a single, pre-organised arrangement without any commercial justification but with the main aim of obtaining tax exemption for the interest. As a result, the two Danish companies could not claim tax exemption under either the Directive or the Double Taxation Conventions and the interest was therefore not exempt. On 3 May 2021, the High Court ruled on two cases in the Danish beneficial owner case complex concerning the issue of taxation of dividends. The judgment of the Regional Court in Denmark vs NETAPP ApS and TDC A/S can be read here. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The cases of N Luxembourg 1 (C-115/16), X Denmark A/S (C-118/16), C Danmark I (C-119/16) and Z Denmark ApS (C-299/16), adresses questions related to the interpretation of the EU Interest and Royalty Directive. The issue in these cases is withholding taxes levied by the Danish tax authorities in situations where interest payments are made to conduit companies located in treaty countries but were the beneficial owners of these payments are located in non-treaty countries. During the proceedings in the Danish court system the European Court of Justice was asked a number of questions related to the conditions under which exemption from withholding tax can be denied on interest payments to related parties. The European Court of Justice has now answered these questions in favor of the Danish Tax Ministry; Benefits granted under the Interest and Royalty Directive can be denied where fraudulent or abusive tax avoidance is involved. Quotations from cases C-115/16, C-118/16, C-119/16 and C-299/16: “The concept of ‘beneficial owner of the interest’, within the meaning of Directive 2003/49, must therefore be interpreted as designating an entity which actually benefits from the interest that is paid to it. Article 1(4) of the directive confirms that reference to economic reality by stating that a company of a Member State is to be treated as the beneficial owner of interest or royalties only if it receives those payments for its own benefit and not as an intermediary, such as an agent, trustee or authorised signatory, for some other person.” “ It is clear from the development — as set out in paragraphs 4 to 6 above — of the OECD Model Tax Convention and the commentaries relating thereto that the concept of ‘beneficial owner’ excludes conduit companies and must be understood not in a narrow technical sense but as having a meaning that enables double taxation to be avoided and tax evasion and avoidance to be prevented.” “Whilst the pursuit by a taxpayer of the tax regime most favourable for him cannot, as such, set up a general presumption of fraud or abuse (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 September 2006, Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, C‑196/04, EU:C:2006:544, paragraph 50; of 29 November 2011, National Grid Indus, C‑371/10, EU:C:2011:785, paragraph 84; and of 24 November 2016, SECIL, C‑464/14, EU:C:2016:896, paragraph 60), the fact remains that such a taxpayer cannot enjoy a right or advantage arising from EU law where the transaction at issue is purely artificial economically and is designed to circumvent the application of the legislation of the Member State concerned (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 September 2006, Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, C‑196/04, EU:C:2006:544, paragraph 51; of 7 November 2013, K, C‑322/11, EU:C:2013:716, paragraph 61; and of 25 October 2017, Polbud — Wykonawstwo, C‑106/16, EU:C:2017:804, paragraphs 61 to 63)….It is apparent from these factors that it is incumbent upon the national authorities and courts to refuse to grant entitlement to rights provided for by Directive 2003/49 where they are invoked for fraudulent or abusive ends.” “In a situation where the system, laid down by Directive 2003/49, of exemption from withholding tax on interest paid by a company resident in a Member State to a company resident in another Member State is not applicable because there is found to be fraud or abuse, within the meaning of Article 5 of that directive, application of the freedoms enshrined in the FEU Treaty cannot be relied on in order to call into question the legislation of the first Member State governing the taxation of that interest. Outside such a situation, Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as: –not precluding, in principle, national legislation under which a resident company which pays interest to a non-resident company is required to withhold tax on that interest at source whilst such an obligation is not owed by that resident company when the company which receives the interest is also a resident company, but as precluding national legislation that prescribes such withholding of tax at source if interest is paid by a resident company to a non-resident company whilst a resident company that receives interest from another resident company is not subject to the obligation to make an advance payment of corporation tax during the first two tax years and is therefore not required to pay corporation tax relating to that interest until a date appreciably later than the date for payment of the tax withheld at source; –precluding national legislation under which the resident company that owes the obligation to withhold tax at source on interest paid by it to a non-resident company is obliged, if the tax withheld is paid late, to pay default interest at a higher rate than the rate which is applicable in the event of late payment of corporation tax that is charged, inter alia, on interest received by a resident company from another resident company; –precluding national legislation providing that, where a resident company is subject to an obligation to withhold tax at source on the interest which it pays to a non-resident company, account is not taken of the expenditure in the form of interest, directly related to the lending at issue, which the latter company has incurred whereas, under that national legislation, such expenditure may be deducted by a resident company which receives interest from another resident company for the purpose of establishing its taxable income.” Several cases have been awaiting the decision from the EU Court of Justice and will now be resumed in Danish courts ...

Italien fashion group, Dolce & Gabbana, had moved ownership of valuable intangibles to a subsidiary established for that purpose in Luxembourg. The Italian Revenue Agency found the arrangement to be wholly artificial and set up only to avoid Italien taxes and to benefit from the privileged tax treatment in Luxembourg. The Revenue Agency argued that all decision related to the intangibles was in fact taken at the Italian headquarters of Dolce & Gabbana in Milan, and not in Luxembourg, where there were no administrative structure and only one employee with mere secretarial duties. Dolce & Gabbana disagreed with these findings and brought the case to court. In the first and second instance the courts ruled in favor of the Italian Revenue Agency, but the Italian Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dolce & Gabbana. According to the Supreme Court, the fact that a company is established in another EU Member State to benefit from more advantageous tax legislation does not as such constitute an abuse of the freedom of establishment. The relevant criteria in this regard is if the arrangement is a wholly artificial and as such does not reflect economic reality. Determination of a company’s place of business requires multible factors to be taken into consideration. The fact, that the Luxembourg company strictly followed directives issued by its Italian parent company is not sufficient to consider the structure as abusive and thus to relocate its place of effective management to Italy. A more thorough analysis of the activity carried out in Luxembourg should have been performed. According to the Supreme Court something was actually done in Luxembourg. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...