At issue in the case of „RĪGAS DZIRNAVNIEKS” was if the interest rates charged on loans between related parties were at arm’s length. Judgement of the Court of Appeals The Court remanded the case to the Regional Court for a new hearing. Excerpts “As already indicated above, paragraphs 84, 91 and 92.3.1 and 92.3.2 of Regulation No 556 deal with the need for adjustments and mathematical calculations when significant differences in the comparable data and their material effects are established. The need for adjustments is also underlined in point 1.35 of the Guidelines. Guidance on how differences between comparables are to be addressed is provided, inter alia, in paragraph 3.57 of the Guidelines. It may be the case that, although every effort is made to exclude items with a lower level of comparability, the result is a series of figures for which it is considered that, given the process used to select the comparables and the information available on the limitations of the comparables, certain comparability defects remain which cannot be identified and/or quantified and are therefore not corrected for. In such cases, if the range includes a large number of observations, a statistical tool that takes into account the central tendency to narrow the range (e.g. to an interquartile range or other percentiles) could help to improve the reliability of the analysis. Thus, the Guidelines consider those cases where the analysis ends with a series of numbers. In such cases, various statistical tools should be used to narrow the range as much as possible. Reading these legal provisions in their context, it is clear that, although Regulation No 556 does not explain how adjustments and mathematical calculations are to be made, it is clear that, according to these legal provisions, the consistency of the transaction price with the price range indicated in the database used for a given type of product is not sufficient in itself to recognise the conformity of the price to be verified with the market price. The above-mentioned provisions of paragraphs 84, 91 and 92 of Regulation No 556 set out a number of relevant factors for the comparability of transactions. This means that for each transaction carried out with a related company, a detailed comparison should be made with the data used, indicating similar and dissimilar circumstances and adjusting the data where necessary. Consequently, the fact that the interest rates applied in the transactions between the applicant and its related companies fall within the range of interest rates used by the District Court does not, in itself, give rise to a finding beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant’s transaction prices are in line with market prices and that no corresponding adjustments are necessary. Moreover, the Regional Court merely referred to the first paragraph of Article 6(4) of the Law on Corporation Tax, which governed the adjustment of taxable income for interest payments during the audit period. However, the Regional Court has not explained whether that provision is also applicable in the present case. Nor has the Revenue Service, in its cassation appeal, put forward any arguments concerning the application and applicability of that provision to the dispute in the present case. Therefore, when examining the merits of the case, if it is concluded that the use of the statistical data compiled by the Bank of Latvia requires an adjustment, it must also be ascertained whether appropriate adjustments are not to be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the first paragraph of Section 6.4 of the Law on Corporate Income Tax.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

An assessment was issued for FY 2017, whereby additional income tax was imposed on “GSS Ltd” in the amount of 843.344,38 €, plus a fine of 421.672,19 €, i.e. a total amount of 1.265.016,57 €. Various adjustments had been made and among them interest rates on intra group loans, royalty payments, management fees, and losses related to disposal of shares. Not satisfied with the assessment, an appeal was filed by “GSS Ltd.” Judgement of the Tax Court The court dismissed the appeal of “GSS Ltd.” and upheld the assessment of the tax authorities Excerpts “Because only a few days after the entry of the holdings in its books, it sold them at a price below the nominal value of the companies’ shares, which lacks commercial substance and is not consistent with normal business behaviour. Since it is hereby held that, by means of the specific transactions, the applicant indirectly wrote off its unsecured claims without having previously taken appropriate steps to ensure its right to recover them, in accordance with the provisions of para. 4 of Article 26 of Law 4172/2013 and POL 1056/2015. Because even if the specific actions were suggested by the lending bank Eurobank, the applicant remains an independent entity, responsible for its actions vis-à-vis the Tax Administration. In the absence of that arrangement, that is to say, in the event that the applicant directly recognised a loss from the write-off of bad debts, it would not be tax deductible, since the appropriate steps had not been taken to ensure the right to recover them. Because on the basis of the above, the audit correctly did not recognise the loss on sale of shareholdings in question. The applicant’s claim is therefore rejected as unfounded.” “Since, as is apparent from the Audit Opinion Report on the present appeal to our Office, the audit examined the existence or otherwise of comparable internal data and, in particular, examined in detail all the loan agreements submitted by the applicant, which showed that the interest rates charged to the applicant by the banks could not constitute appropriate internal comparative data for the purpose of substantiating the respective intra-group transactions, since the two individual stages of lending differ as to the nature of the transactions. (a) the existence of contracts (the bank loans were obtained on the basis of lengthy contracts, unlike the loans provided by the applicant for which no documents were drawn up, approved by the Board of Directors or general meetings), (b) the duration of the credit (bank loans specify precisely the time and the repayment instalments, unlike the applicant’s loans which were granted without a specific repayment schedule), (c) the interest rate (bank loans specify precisely the interest rate on the loan and all cases where it changes, unlike the applicant’s loans, (d) the existence of collateral (the bank loans were granted with mortgages on all the company’s real estate, with rental assignment contracts in the case of leasing and with assignment contracts for receivables from foreign customers (agencies), unlike the applicant’s loans which were granted without any collateral), (e) the size of the lending (the loans under comparison do not involve similar funds), (f) security conditions in the event of non-payment (the bank loans specified precisely the measures to be taken in the event of non-payment, unlike the applicant’s loans, for which nothing at all was specified), (g) the creditworthiness of the borrower (the banks lent to the applicant, which had a turnover, profits and real estate, unlike the related companies, most of which had no turnover, high losses and negative equity), (h) the purpose of the loan (83 % of the applicant’s total lending was granted to cover long-term investment projects as opposed to loans to related parties which were granted for cash facilities and working capital). Since, in the event that the applicant’s affiliated companies had made a short-term loan from an entity other than the applicant (unaffiliated), then the interest rate for loans to non-financial undertakings is deemed to be a reasonable interest rate for loans on mutual accounts, as stated in the statistical bulletin of the Bank of Greece for the nearest period of time before the date of the loan (www.bankofgreece.gr/ekdoseis-ereyna/ekdoseis/anazhthsh- ekdosewn?types=9e8736f4-8146-4dbb-8c07-d73d3f49cdf0). Because the work of this audit is considered to be well documented and fully justified. Therefore, the applicant’s claim is rejected as unfounded.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

In 2009, Walmart acquired a majority in Distribución y Servicio D&S S.A., Chile’s leading food retailer. With headquarters in Santiago, Walmart Chile operates several formats including hypermarkets, supermarkets and discount stores. Following an audit by the tax authorities related to FY 2015, deduction of interest payments in the amount of CH$8.958,304,857.- on an “intra-group loan” was denied resulting in a tax payable of Ch$1,786,488,290. According to Wallmart, the interest payments related to debt in the form of future dividend payments/profit distributions. Decision of the Tax court “…this Court concludes that the claimant has not been able to prove the existence of a current account between Inversiones Walmart and Walmart Chile, nor has it been able to prove the appropriateness of the reduction in expenses in the amount of CH$8.958,304,857.- for interest paid to its related company, because it did not justify the need for such disbursement for the purpose of getting into debt in order to distribute profits among the partners, nor did it prove that such disbursement generates income subject to first category tax, as provided for in article 31 No. 1 of the LIR.In addition, the claimant also failed to prove that it was in a situation that would make the tax authority’s pronouncement in Official Letter No. 709 of 2008 applicable to it, pursuant to Article 26 of the Tax Code.That, due to the justifications mentioned above, which meet the criteria of consistency, reasonableness, sufficiency, clarity, and in general with the principles that enshrine healthy criticism, is that this judge has concluded that the complainant did not overturn the objections of the tax authority and, consequently, has not been able to prove the appropriateness of the reduction of the expenditure in question.It is therefore concluded that the contested assessment was issued in full compliance with the legal provisions governing the matter, which is why the Tax and Customs Court considers it appropriate not to proceed with the claim presented in the proceedings.” Click here for English translation ...

It follows from various Supreme Court judgments in the Netherlands that a loan is commercially irrational if no interest can be determined under which an independent third party would have been willing to grant the same loan. The consequence of a loan beeing deemed commercially irrational is that a loss is not deductible. This case addresses the implications of the Umbrella Judgement, in particular the question of how that judgment relates to case laws on unsecured loans and guarantees. The Advocate General concludes that the Umbrella Judgment is not applicable in this case and that the tax authorities has failed to demonstrate that an independent third party would not have been willing to enter a similar loan agreement. Click here for translation ...

In the transfer pricing case of C J Wildbird Foods Limited the issue was whether a related party loan should be treated as such for tax purposes. There was a loan agreement between the parties and the agreement specified that there was an obligation to repay the loan and interest. However, no interest had actually been paid and a tax deduction had also been claimed by the tax payer on the basis that the debt was unlikely to be repaid. The tax authorities argued that the loan did not have the characteristics of a loan. The borrower was loss making  and did not have the financial capacity to pay any interest. The tribunal found that there was a legal obligation to repay the loan and interest. Whether the loan or interest was actually repaid was irrelevant. “The modern business world has many famous examples of companies, especially in the technology sector, with no cash and no immediate prospect of generating a profit which go on to be very successful. Clearly the appellant considers BFL potentially to be such a company and is therefore prepared to subsidise its running costs by way of loan for the time being in the hope of obtaining repayment of some or all of its loans in due course, possibly with a gain on its share investment as well. As to the “hallmarks” that Mr Baird asks me to consider, there is no requirement that for a loan relationship to exist, interest must be charged; were it otherwise, many perfectly normal intra-group loans would fall foul of that requirement (and in any event, the loans in this case include a contractual obligation to pay interest, albeit an obligation that has not yet been enforced). Nor is there any requirement that, for a loan relationship to exist, the lender must have any degree of certainty that the debt will be repaid normal commercial loans are inherently hedged about with uncertainty about whether repayment will be made and save in degree, the present situation is no different. Lack of a fixed repayment date for a loan is perfectly commonplace. Here, the money has been advanced by the appellant on terms that it is all to be repaid. The fact that such repayment has not been made and HMRC may have formed the opinion that these payments will never be repaid is beside the point. The loans have been advanced as a matter of arm’s length negotiation between the two parties, there is an obligation to repay (as recognized by both companies in their respective audited accounts and  confirmed in evidence), and the fact that the appellant may well not recover some or all of its money is neither here nor there. It has made a commercial judgment that it is in its best interests to continue to support BFL by continuing loans, and the fact that HMRC may disagree with that judgment is irrelevant to the underlying nature of the transaction. Ultimately it may turn out that the appellant’s business judgment was overly optimistic, but that is of no relevance. It follows that I find the transactions in question to amount to loan relationships…“ Hence, the tribunal found in favor of the taxpayer ...

A South African parent company, Crookes Brothers Ltd, owned 99% of the shares in a subsidiary in Mozambique, MML. Crookes Brothers and MML entred into a loan agreement. According to the agreements MML would not be obliged to repay the loan in full within 30 years. Furthermore, repayment of the loan would not take place if the market value of the assets of MML were less than the market value of its liabilities as of the date of the payment, and no interest would accrue or be payable. According to clause 7 of the loan agreement, in the event of liquidation or bankruptcy of MML, the loan would immediately become due and payable to Crookes Brothers. At the time of submitting the 2015 income tax return, Crookes Brothers made an adjustment to its taxable income in terms of section 31(2) and (3) on the basis that an arms-length interest rate should apply. Later, Crookes Brothers requested a reduced assessment on the basis that the loan met the requirements contained in section 31(7) and was excluded from normal arm’s length interest requirement. The “arm’s length interest rate exclution” in section 31 of the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 (Act) containing South Africa’s transfer pricing provision applies where a controlled foreign company is not obliged to redeem the debt in full within 30 years from the date it is incurred. The tax authorities rejected the request on the basis that according to clause 7 of the agreement the loans would become immediately due and payable in the event of liquidation or bankruptcy of MML. Therefore the requirements of section 31(7) were not met. This decision was appealed by Crookes Brothers to the South African High Court. The Court agreed with the tax authorities, ...

A Group had established a physical cash-pool where funds from participants was transferred to and from a consolidating account (cash pool). The Polish Supreme Administrative Court concluded that every agreement in which the lender is obligated to transfer ownership of a specified amount of funds to the borrower, and the borrower is obligated to return the amount and pay interest, even if obligations of the parties to the agreement are implicit, constitutes a loan agreement. 2016 Decision Click here for translation 2015 Decision Click here for translation ...

C-GmbH was the sole shareholder of I-GmbH. In 2000, I-GmbH, together with another company, set up a US company for the development of the US market, H-Inc., in which the I-GmbH held 60 per cent of the shares. H-Inc. received equity from the two shareholders and also received a bank loan of approx. $ 1.5 million (USD), which the shareholders secured through guarantees. As of December 31, 2003, the balance sheet of H-Inc. showed a deficit not covered by equity of approx. 950,000 USD. On June 30 , 2004,  I-GmbH became the sole shareholder of H-Inc. Then the bank put the H-Inc. granted loans due. Since H-Inc. was not able to serve the bank loan, C-GmbH paid the bank. As of December 31, 2004, the balance sheet of H-Inc. showed a deficit not covered by equity of approx. $ 450,000 , which at December 31 , 2005 amounted to approx. $ 1.6 million, as at 31 December 2006 $ 2.5 million and at December 31, 2007 USD 3.5 million. During the years 2004 to 2007, the I-GmbH granted its US subsidiary 5% interest-bearing, unsecured loans of € 261,756.22 (2004), € 1,103,140 (2005), € 158,553.39 (2006) and € 75,000 (2007) resulting from the liquidity of future profits of H-Inc. should be repaid. Loan receivables were subject to individual value adjustments already in the respective year of their commitment (2004: € 261,052, 2005: € 1,103,140, ​​2006: € 158,000, 2007: € 75,000). In judgment of 17 December 2014, the German Tax Court stated, with reference to its judgment of 11 October 2012, IR 75/11, that the treaty principle of “dealing At arm’s length ” have a blocking effect on the so-called special conditions. The relevant test according to Article 9 (1) of the DTC-USA 1989, which corresponds in substance to Article 9 (1) of the OECD Model Agreement, could only include those circumstances that have an effect on agreed prices. The concept of agreed conditions in Article 9 (1) of the OECD-Model Agreement should, in principle, include everything which is the subject of commercial and financial relations and therefore the subject of contractual exchange between affiliated undertakings, so that both the price and all other terms and conditions should be included. Following these decisions, on 30 March 2016, the Federal Ministry of Finance issued a non-application decree stating that Article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention does not refer to a transfer price adjustment but to a profit adjustment. According to the decree the principles of the above decisions are not to be applied beyond the decided individual cases. Se also the later decision from the German Tax Court I R 29/14. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...