Tag: Reorganisation

TPG2022 Chapter IX paragraph 9.1

There is no legal or universally accepted definition of business restructuring. In the context of this chapter, business restructuring refers to the cross-border reorganisation of the commercial or financial relations between associated enterprises, including the termination or substantial renegotiation of existing arrangements. Relationships with third parties (e.g. suppliers, sub-contractors, customers) may be a reason for the restructuring or be affected by it ...

TPG2017 Chapter IX paragraph 9.1

There is no legal or universally accepted definition of business restructuring. In the context of this chapter, business restructuring refers to the cross-border reorganisation of the commercial or financial relations between associated enterprises, including the termination or substantial renegotiation of existing arrangements. Relationships with third parties (e.g. suppliers, sub-contractors, customers) may be a reason for the restructuring or be affected by it ...

Norway vs. IKEA Handel og Ejendom, October 2016, HRD 2016-722

In 2007, IKEA reorganised its property portfolio in Norway so that the properties were demerged from the Norwegian parent company and placed in new, separate companies. The shares in these companies were placed in a newly established property company, and the shares in this company were in turn sold to the original parent company, which then became an indirect owner of the same properties. The last acquisition was funded through an inter-company loan. Based on the non-statutory anti-avoidance rule in Norwegian Tax Law, the Supreme Court concluded that the parent company could not be allowed to deduct the interest on the inter-company loan, as the main purpose of the reorganisation was considered to be to save tax. The anti-avoidance rule in section 13-1 of the Tax Act did not apply in this circumstance. Click here for translation ...

Japan vs Yahoo, February 2016, Supreme Court, Case No  平æˆ27(行ヒ)177

In the Yahoo case, the Japanese Supreme Court applied the anti-avoidance provisions “…those deemed to result in an unreasonable reduction of the corporate tax burden…” as defined in Article 132-2 of the Corporate Tax Act (denial of acts or calculations related to reorganisation), where the meaning of “unreasonable” is “abusing the tax provisions related to reorganisation…as a means of tax avoidance” and serves as the criteria for determining the provisions applicability. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...