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 Barzani Brothers (1974) Ltd had provided interest-free financing to affiliated Romanian group companies in the form of “capital notes”. In Israel, financing qualifying as a “capital note” releases the lender from having to report interest income in its annual tax return in relation to the funding. Certain high risk long term funding arrangements may qualify as a “capital notes”. In regards to the intra-group funding provided by the Barzani Brothers Ltd, the Israel tax authorities did not recognize the qualification thereof as “capital notes”. Instead they found the funding provided to be ordinary loans. Labeling a loan agreement “capital note” does not turn the loan agreement into a capital note. On that basis an assessment of taxable interest income was issued to the company. The Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities and rejected the explanations of Barzani Brothers Ltd that the “loan-like agreements” had been executed by mistake, and that the intention had always been to provide long term funding against issuance of capital notes. Click here for translation ...

A GmbH, based in Zurich, was a subsidiary of the D group operating mainly in the field of consumer electronics worldwide, headquartered in country E. A GmbH was primarily responsible for acquiring exploitation rights to … and other related activities. The D Group also owned company F in Land H, which was responsible for the global treasury and cash pooling of the Group. On December 1 2008 A GmbH had entered into an agreement with Company F for the short-term deposit of excess capital and short-term borrowing. Under the terms of the agreement, if the balance was in A GmbH’s favor, A GmbH would be credited interest based on the one-month London Interbank Bid Rate (LIBID) minus 6.25 basis points, but not less than 0.05%. Following an audit in relation to the tax periods of 1.4.2009-31.3.2010 and 1.4.2010-31.3.2011, the tax authorities took the view that the cash pool credit contains a proportion of long-term loans to company F and insofar as the interest rate (determined on the terms of short-term deposits ) was too low compared to third-party terms. In the two financial years a minimum balance of Fr. … resp . … had never fallen below the base amount as a long-term loan. An assessment was issued on May 26, 2014 as a result of insufficient interest resulting in a hidden profit distributions based on the LIBOR interest rates. The appeal against the decision was dismissed by the Tax Appeals Court on 25 November 2016 with regard to the direct federal tax of the 2009/10 tax period and was partially approved with regard to the federal tax period 2010/11. The partial approval was made because the court of appeal reduced the applicable interest rate for 2011 from 2.25% to 2.0%, resulting in a reduction of the hidden profit distribution. A GmbH was charged for the direct federal tax of 1.4.2009-31.3.2010 with a taxable net profit of Fr. … and for the period from 1.4.2010-31.3.2011 with a taxable net profit of Fr. …. The Administrative Court partially upheld the complaint filed by A GmbH against the decision of the Tax Appeals Court by judgment of 7 December 2016 (SB.2016.00008) and dismissed the case for further investigation and for a new decision to the Tax Appeals Tribunal. It considered that the deposit in the cash pool that qualifies as a longer-term credit must be recalculated in the light of the considerations. On the basis of the facts presented by A GmbH and the evidence submitted, the administrative court concluded that the interest rates applicable in the D Group for longer-term loans to company F were in line with market conditions and, in the specific case, for the longer-term interest rates qualifying assets are decisive. The tax recourse court partially upheld the complaint in the second case by decision of 25 July 2017 and assessed the complainant for the direct federal tax of 1.4.2009-31.3.2010 with a taxable net profit of Fr. … and for the period of 1.4.2010- 31.3.2011 with a taxable net profit of Fr. …. The case was appealed to the Administrative Court on 29 August 2017, by the Swiss Federal Tax Administration (FTA). The Federal Tax Administration requested that the decision of the Tax Appeals Tribunal should be set aside and the taxable net profit with regard to the direct federal tax of 1.4.2009-31.3.2010 be set at CHF. … and for the tax period from 1.4.2010-31.3.2011 to Fri …. In a statement of objection dated 21 September 2017, A GmbH requested the dismissal of the complaint under costs and repercussions Click here for translation ...

The distinction between cash pool receivables and long-term loans. A GmbH is a group company of the global A-group. The A Group also includes company F Ltd, which is responsible for the global treasury and cash pooling of the A Group. In 2008, A GmbH entered into an agreement with F Ltd on the short-term deposit of excess liquidity and short-term borrowing (cash pool). Under the terms of the agreement, if the balance were in A GmbH’s favor, recievables would be credited interest based on the one-month London Interbank Bid Rate (LIBID) less 6 , 25 basis points, but at least 0.05%. The Swiss tax administration argued that a portion of the cash pool receivable had to be treated as a long-term loan bearing higher interest rates. The long-term loan was set to the minimum cash pool receivable balance of each fiscal year. The interest rate on the long-term loan was set to the Swiss „Safe Habor Rates“ according to the annual circular letters published by the Swiss Federal Tax Administration. The Tax Appeal Court largely confirmed the decision of the tax administration. However, it reduced the applicable interest rate for the calendar year 2011 from 2.25% to 2.00%. The Tax Appeal Court argued that the tax administration had unreasonably deviated from its longstanding method when determining the 2011 safe haven interest rate, so that the 2.25% mentioned in the circular letter were too high. A GmbH. appealed the decision to the Administrative Court. Based on the overall circumstances, the amount of the assets invested in the cash pool did not comply with the arm’s length principle according to the Administrative Court. In this respect, it was correct to qualify a portion of the cash pool receivable into a mid- or long-term loan. Concerning the size of the long term loan, the simple average of the cash pool receivable balance at the beginning and closing of the fiscal year could be taken as a starting point according to the Administrative Court. This question was referred back to the tax administration. Concerning the applicable interest rate on the long-term loan, the Administrative Court stated, that the tax authorities cannot in every case refer to the Swiss “Safe Habor Rates”. The Court concluded that the interest rates offered by F Ltd. for long-term intra-group loans were in line with the arm’s length principle. Click here for other translation ...

Loan agreements were entered into between Cotton Naturals (I) Pvt. and a US subsidiary on 13th April, 2002, 7th May, 2003 and then on 8th September, 2003. The rate of interest had been fixed at 4% per annum on the principal sum. The CUP method had been applied to determine the rate. The tax authorities held that the arm’s length interest rate should instead be set at 14% p.a. Following an objection to the assessment, at partial relief was granted in the form of a reduction of the rate to 12,20%. An appeal was filed by Cotton Naturals with the Tax Appellate Tribunal Cotton Naturals (I) Pvt. Ltd. where in February 2013 the assessment was set aside. An appeal was then filed with the High Court by the tax authorities. Decision of the High Court The High Court decided in favor of Cotton Naturals (I) Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the tax assessment. Excerpts “Transfer pricing determination is not primarily undertaken to re-write the character and nature of the transaction, though this is permissible under two exceptions. Chapter X and Transfer Pricing rules do not permit the Revenue authorities to step into the shoes of the assessee and decide whether or not a transaction should have been entered. It is for the assessed to take  commercial decisions and decide how to conduct and carry on its business. Actual business transactions that are legitimate cannot be restructured.” “Transfer pricing is a mechanism to undo an attempt to shift profits and correct any under or over payment in a controlled transaction by ascertaining the fair purpose is to ascertain whether the transfer price is the same price which would have been agreed and paid for by unrelated enterprises transacting with each other, if the price is determined by market forces. The first step in this exercise is to ascertain the international transaction, which in the present case is payment of interest on the money lent. The next step is to ascertain the functions performed under the international transaction by the respective AEs. Thereafter, the comparables have to be selected by undertaking a comparability analysis. The comparability analysis should ensure that the functions performed by the comparables match with the functions being performed by the AE to whom payment is made for the services rendered. These aspects have been elucidated in detail in Sony India Ltd. (supra) by referring to the OECD Guidelines as well as United Nations Practical Manual of Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries.” “The finding of the TPO that for this reason the interest rate should be computed at 14% per annum i.e. the average yield on unrated bonds for Financial Years (FY, for short) 2006-07, has to be rejected.” “We have no hesitation in holding that the interest rate should be the market determined interest rate applicable to the currency concerned in which the loan has to be repaid. Interest rates should not be computed on the basis of interest payable on the currency or legal tender of the place or the country of residence of either party. Interest rates applicable to loans and deposits in the national currency of the borrower or the lender would vary and are dependent upon the fiscal policy of the Central bank, mandate of the Government and several other parameters. Interest rates payable on currency specific loans/ deposits are significantly universal and globally applicable. The currency in which the loan is to be re-paid normally determines the rate of return on the money lent, i.e. the rate of interest.” “In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the substantial question of law mentioned above has to be answered against the appellant i.e. the Revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.” ...