On 29 December 2023, the Office of Chief Counsel of the IRS issued a memorandum (AM 2023-008) on the effect of group membership on financial transactions. The memorandum answers the following question: “May the Service consider group membership in determining the arm’s length rate of interest chargeable for intragroup loans and making a section 482 adjustment?” The answer given in the memorandum is “Yes. Under the section 482 regulations, the arm’s length rate of interest on an intragroup loan to a controlled borrower is generally the rate at which that borrower could realistically obtain alternative financing from an unrelated party. Thus, if an unrelated lender would consider group membership in establishing financing terms available to the borrower, and such third-party financing is realistically available, then the Service may adjust the interest rate in a controlled lending transaction to reflect group membership.” The rationale in the memorandum refers to Treas. Reg. §§ 1.482-1, 1.482-2, 1.482-9, OECD TPG 7.13 and 10.76-80 and the realistic alternatives/realistically available options principle ...

R.B. NV had entered into a loan agreement with a group company in Switzerland. The interest rate on the loan had been determined by applying the method used by the credit agency, Standard & Poor’s. Moreover, it had been concluded that R.B. NV was a “moderately strategic entity”, and a one-notch correction was applied to the “stand-alone credit rating”. Following an audit, the tax administration concluded that the company had not applied the S&P method consistently and that the company’s credit rating should have been the same as that of the group as the company was a “core entity” in the group. On that basis, the interest rate were reduced. Judgement of the Court The court ruled predominantly in favour of the tax authorities. The court found several unjustified deviations in the way R.B. NV had applied the S&P method and on that basis several adjustments were made by the court. According to the court, R.B. NV was not a “core entity” in the group whose credit rating should be the same as that of the group (as held by the tax authorities), but rather a “highly strategic entity” whose credit rating should be one notch lower than that of the group. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

Assume that S borrows EUR 50 million from an independent lender at the market rate of interest for borrowers with an A credit rating. Assume further that S simultaneously borrows EUR 50 million from T, another subsidiary of P, with similar characteristics as the independent lender, on the same terms and conditions and at the same interest rate charged by the independent lender (i.e. an interest rate premised on the existence of an A credit rating). Assume further that the independent lender, in setting its terms and conditions, was aware of S’s other borrowings including the simultaneous loan to S from T ...

Assume that S borrows EUR 50 million from an independent lender at the market rate of interest for borrowers with an A credit rating. Assume further that S simultaneously borrows EUR 50 million from T, another subsidiary of P, with similar characteristics as the independent lender, on the same terms and conditions and at the same interest rate charged by the independent lender (i.e. an interest rate premised on the existence of an A credit rating). Assume further that the independent lender, in setting its terms and conditions, was aware of S’s other borrowings including the simultaneous loan to S from T ...