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 ...

A controlled taxpayer generally will not be considered to obtain a benefit where that benefit results from the controlled taxpayer’s status as a member of a controlled group. A controlled taxpayer’s status as a member of a controlled group may, however, be taken into account for purposes of evaluating comparability between controlled and uncontrolled transactions ...

Assume that the accurate delineation of the actual transaction shows that the effect of passive association raises Company D’s credit standing from BBB to A, and that the provision of the explicit guarantee additionally enhances the credit standing of Company D to AAA. Assume further that independent lenders charge an interest rate of 8% to entities with a credit rating of A, and of 6% to entities with a credit rating of AAA. Assume further that Company M charges Company D a fee of 3% for the provision of the guarantee so the guarantee fee more than completely offsets the benefit of Company D’s enhanced credit standing derived from the provision of such guarantee ...

A similar issue arises in respect of cross-guarantees, where two or more entities in an MNE group guarantee each other’s obligations. From the lender’s perspective, it has access to the assets of every cross-guaranteeing entity in the event of a default by a guaranteed borrower. This potentially gives the lender greater comfort than a single guarantee as it can choose where within the cross-guaranteeing MNE group it seeks, if necessary, to make its recoveries. The effect of a cross-guarantee from a borrower’s perspective is that it now has multiple guarantees on its borrowings and may stand as guarantor for multiple borrowings itself. This can give rise to questions on how to evaluate each guarantee. Not only is this complex from the perspective of potentially large numbers of guarantees to be evaluated but also because each party providing a guarantee may in turn be guaranteed by the party for whom it is now acting as guarantor. Evaluating the effect of a cross-guarantee arrangement is difficult and as the number of parties involved increases, may be practically impossible. It may not be possible to determine the effect of the guarantee between any two parties where the same risk is subject to multiple guarantees. An analysis of the facts may lead to the conclusion that such an arrangement does not enhance the credit standing of an MNE group member beyond the level of passive association, in which case any support in the event of default from another MNE group member should then be regarded as a capital contribution ...

By providing an explicit guarantee the guarantor is exposed to additional risk as it is legally committed to pay if the borrower defaults. Anything less than a legally binding commitment, such as a “letter of comfort” or other lesser form of credit support, involves no explicit assumption of risk. Each case will be dependent on its own facts and circumstances but generally, in the absence of an explicit guarantee, any expectation by any of the parties that other members of the MNE group will provide support to an associated enterprise in respect of its borrowings will be derived from the borrower’s status as a member of the MNE group. For this purpose, whether a commitment from one MNE group member to another MNE group member to provide funding to meet its loan obligations, constitutes a letter of comfort or a guarantee depends on all the facts and circumstances, including whether the commitment provides the creditor relevant legal rights to enforce the commitment. The benefit of any such support attributable to the borrower’s MNE group member status would arise from passive association and not from the provision of a service for which a fee would be payable. See paragraph 7.13 on passive association ...

This section elaborates on the effect of group membership on determining the arm’s length price of financial guarantees, building upon the principles laid out in Section C.1.1 ...

The accurate delineation of financial guarantees requires initial consideration of the economic benefit arising to the borrower beyond the one that derives from passive association, as explained in the Section C.1.1.3 ...

A similar issue arises in respect of cross-guarantees, where two or more entities in an MNE group guarantee each other’s obligations. From the lender’s perspective, it has access to the assets of every cross-guaranteeing entity in the event of a default by a guaranteed borrower. This potentially gives the lender greater comfort than a single guarantee as it can choose where within the cross-guaranteeing MNE group it seeks, if necessary, to make its recoveries. The effect of a cross-guarantee from a borrower’s perspective is that it now has multiple guarantees on its borrowings and may stand as guarantor for multiple borrowings itself. This can give rise to questions on how to evaluate each guarantee. Not only is this complex from the perspective of potentially large numbers of guarantees to be evaluated but also because each party providing a guarantee may in turn be guaranteed by the party for whom it is now acting as guarantor. Evaluating the effect of a cross-guarantee arrangement is difficult and as the number of parties involved increases, may be practically impossible. It may not be possible to determine the effect of the guarantee between any two parties where the same risk is subject to multiple guarantees. An analysis of the facts may lead to the conclusion that such an arrangement does not enhance the credit standing of an MNE group member beyond the level of passive association, in which case any support in the event of default from another MNE group member should then be regarded as a capital contribution ...

By providing an explicit guarantee the guarantor is exposed to additional risk as it is legally committed to pay if the borrower defaults. Anything less than a legally binding commitment, such as a “letter of comfort” or other lesser form of credit support, involves no explicit assumption of risk. Each case will be dependent on its own facts and circumstances but generally, in the absence of an explicit guarantee, any expectation by any of the parties that other members of the MNE group will provide support to an associated enterprise in respect of its borrowings will be derived from the borrower’s status as a member of the MNE group. For this purpose, whether a commitment from one MNE group member to another MNE group member to provide funding to meet its loan obligations, constitutes a letter of comfort or a guarantee depends on all the facts and circumstances, including whether the commitment provides the creditor relevant legal rights to enforce the commitment. The benefit of any such support attributable to the borrower’s MNE group member status would arise from passive association and not from the provision of a service for which a fee would be payable. See paragraph 7.13 on passive association ...

This section elaborates on the effect of group membership on determining the arm’s length price of financial guarantees, building upon the principles laid out in Section C.1.1 ...