The Supreme Court in the Netherlands requested a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice to clarify its case-law on, inter alia, the freedom of establishment laid down in Article 49 TFEU, specifically whether it is compatible with that freedom for the tax authorities of a Member State to refuse to a company belonging to a cross-border group the right to deduct from its taxable profits the interest it pays on such a loan debt.  The anti-avoidance rule in question is contained in Article 10a of the Wet op de vennootschapsbelasting 1969. The rule is specifically designed to tackle tax avoidance practices related to intra-group acquisition loans. Under that legislation, the contracting of a loan debt by a taxable person with a related entity – for the purposes of acquiring or extending an interest in another entity – is, in certain circumstances, presumed to be an artificial arrangement, designed to erode the Netherlands tax base. Consequently, that person is precluded from deducting the interest on the debt from its taxable profits unless it can rebut that presumption. The Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) asked the European Court of Justice to clarify its findings in its judgment in Lexel, on whether such intra-group loans may be, for that purpose, regarded as wholly artificial arrangements, even if carried out on an arm’s length basis, and the interest set at the usual market rate. “(1)      Are Articles 49 TFEU, 56 TFEU and/or 63 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the interest on a loan debt contracted with an entity related to the taxable person, being a debt connected with the acquisition or extension of an interest in an entity which, following that acquisition or extension, is a related entity, is not deductible when determining the profits of the taxable person because the debt concerned must be categorised as (part of) a wholly artificial arrangement, regardless of whether the debt concerned, viewed in isolation, was contracted at arm’s length? (2)      If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, must Articles 49 TFEU, 56 TFEU and/or 63 TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the deduction of  the interest on a loan debt contracted with an entity related to the taxable person and regarded as (part of) a wholly artificial arrangement, being a debt connected with the acquisition or extension of an interest in an entity which, following that acquisition or extension, is a related entity, is disallowed in full  when determining the profits of the taxable person, even where that interest in itself does not exceed the amount that would have been agreed upon between companies which are independent of one another? (3)      For the purpose of answering Questions 1 and/or 2, does it make any difference whether the relevant acquisition or extension of the interest relates (a) to an entity that was already an entity related to the taxable person prior to that acquisition or extension, or (b) to an entity that becomes an entity related to the taxpayer only after such acquisition or extension?” Opinion of the Advocate General The Advocate General found that the Dutch anti-avoidance rule in Article 10a was both justified, appropriate and necessary – and therefore not in conflict with Article 49 of the TFEU – irrespective of the Court’s earlier judgment in the Swedish Lexel Case. Excerpts “(…) 71. In my view, the approach suggested by the intervening governments and the Commission is the correct one. Consequently, I urge the Court to revisit the approach it took in the judgment in Lexel on the matter at issue. 72. Freedom of establishment, as guaranteed by Article 49 TFEU, offers quite a wide opportunity for tax ‘optimisation’. The Court has repeatedly held that European groups of companies can legitimately use that freedom to establish subsidiaries in Member States for the purpose of benefiting from a favourable tax regime. (30) Thus, as X submits, A could legitimately choose to establish the internal bank of its group, C, in Belgium for that very purpose. Similarly, C may well grant loans to other companies of the group established in other Member States, like X in the Netherlands. Cross-border intra-group loans are not, per se, objectionable. (31) Certainly, such a loan may entail a reduction of the corporate tax base of the borrowing company in the Member State where it is established. Indeed, by deducting the interest on that loan from its taxable profits, that company reduces its tax liability with respect to that Member State. In effect, some of the profits made by the borrowing company are shifted, in the form of interest charges, from the Member State where it is established to the Member State where the lender company has its seat. However, that is something that the Member States must, in principle, accept in an integrated, single market such as the internal market of the European Union. 73. Nevertheless, the Court recognised a clear limit in that regard. It is a general legal principle that EU law, including freedom of establishment, cannot be relied on for abusive ends. The concept of ‘wholly artificial arrangements’ must be read in that light. Pursuant to the settled case-law of the Court, it is abusive for economic operators established in different Member States to carry out ‘artificial transactions devoid of economic and commercial justification’ (or, stated differently, ‘which do not reflect economic reality’), thus fulfilling the conditions to benefit from a tax advantage only formally, ‘with the essential aim of benefiting from [that] advantage’.(32) 74. Furthermore, in its judgment in X (Controlled companies established in third countries), (33) the Court has specified, with respect to the free movement of capital guaranteed by Article 63 TFEU, that ‘the artificial creation of the conditions required in order to escape taxation in a Member State improperly or enjoy a tax advantage in that Member State improperly can take several forms as regards cross-border movements of capital’. In that context, it held that the concept of ‘wholly artificial arrangement’ is capable of covering ‘any ...

3 February 2023 the Inland Revenue of New Zealand issued an interpretation statement explaining the Commissioner’s view of the law on tax avoidance in New Zealand. It sets out the approach the Commissioner will take to the general anti-avoidance provisions in the Income Tax Act 2007 – ss BG 1 and s GA 1. Where s BG 1 applies, s GA 1 enables the Commissioner to make an adjustment to counteract a tax advantage obtained from or under a tax avoidance arrangement. The Supreme Court in Ben Nevis considered it desirable to settle the approach to the relationship between s BG 1 and the specific provisions in the rest of the Act. This approach is referred to as the Parliamentary contemplation test. The Parliamentary contemplation test was confirmed as the proper and authoritative approach to applying s BG 1 by the Supreme Court in Penny and Frucor. The statement is based on and reflects the view of the Supreme Court as set out in Ben Nevis, and applied in Penny and Frucor ...

Fruit old s.a.s was active in wholesale of fruit and vegetables. In 2003 it purchased products at a price higher than the market price from another company owned by the same partners, Fruit new s.r.l., and resold them at a price lower than the purchase price. Both companies were domiciled in Italy. Following these transactions the entire business of Fruit old s.a.s (premises, employees and customers) was transferred to Fruit new s.r.l. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the price of the transactions had been adjusted, since it was in the taxpayer’s interest to transfer income from the Fruit old s.a.s to Fruit new s.r.l. The company argued that the transactions in question only took place over a short period of three months. It also stated that the pricing of the transactions were motivated by an “intra-group strategy”. Lower courts had ruled in favour of the company and set aside the assessment of the tax authorities. Judgement of the Court The Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the lower court and dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities. Since this was a case involving two Italien companies, the rules set forth in Article 110, on international transfer prices could not be applied. Transactions between resident intra-group companies at a price different from the normal value determined pursuant to Article 9 of the Income Tax Act are not in it self indicative of an avoidance conduct. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The facts underlying the notice of assessment are undisputed: a) Casa di Cura Santa Rita s.p.a. grants a free loan to Spazio Immobiliare 2000 s.r.l.; b) the latter company, substantially lacking its own means and wholly controlled by the former, uses the parent company’s loan in full to purchase certain assets; c) said assets are rented to the parent company against payment of a consideration, partly due also for the year 2004; d) payment of the consideration for the years of rental is deferred until 31/12/2005. In view of these facts, the tax authorities makes the following contentions: (a) the parent company did not directly purchase the goods and services from the subsidiary because it would not have been able to deduct the VAT due to the fact that it carried out almost all exempt transactions; (b) the subsidiary benefited from a VAT credit for the year 2004 (arising from the purchase of the goods then leased) which was then included in the group VAT settlement, but which it should have offset against the VAT paid by the parent company on the rentals c) the payment of the hire was contractually delayed between the parties in such a way as not to permit the aforesaid set-off; d) in this context, in which the payment of the hire was contractually delayed, the free loan granted by the parent company was the true consideration for the hire transaction, with the subsidiary’s obligation to pay the VAT relating to the transactions already in 2004. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court upheld the decision in regards of the assessment but remanded the the question of penalties to the court of first instance. Excerpts “17.4. The reconstruction of the case by the CTR is immune from the criticisms addressed to it both in terms of infringement of the law (fifth ground of appeal) and in terms of contradictory reasoning (ninth ground of appeal); with the result that the aforesaid grounds must be rejected (if not declared inadmissible). 17.4.1. The reasoning of the CTR is in no way contradictory, in that: (a) it classifies the financing as consideration for the hire contract; (b) it holds that that consideration, if paid on time, would have given rise to a VAT liability of SI 2000 (c) maintains that the rental agreement between the parent company and the subsidiary provided for the deferment of payment of the consideration solely for the purposes of evasion (surreptitious deferment of the time of taxation under Article 6 of Presidential Decree No 633 of 1972); (d) asserts the existence of VAT evasion by the subsidiary. 17.4.2. This is an entirely straightforward factual finding, legitimately made on the basis of the allegations of the parties and not affected by SI 2000’s objections. Nor can the appellant, in the context of legitimacy, substitute its own different reconstruction of the facts for that made by the CTR, free from the contested logical defects. 17.4.3. In view of the CTR’s legitimate findings of fact, there is not even a violation of the law complained of, a violation that would only arise from the different classification of the parent company’s disbursements as gratuitous loans and the legitimacy of the deferment of the rental fee, as claimed by the appellant. 17.4.4. In other words, the alleged breach of law follows from the different reconstruction of the case made by SI 2000, so that the fifth plea is inadmissible rather than unfounded. 17.5. The assessment made by the Regional Tax Commission leads to the conclusion that we are not dealing with a case of avoidance or abuse of law, but only with an evasion of tax, resulting from the qualification of the inter partes transaction made by the Regional Tax Commission, a qualification that is not called into question by the appellant’s complaints. 17.6 The issue has already been addressed by the S.C. in a recent judgment (Cass. no. 27550 of 30/10/2018), for which “the non-payment of taxes in relation to a transaction qualified in a legally correct manner by the financial administration integrates a hypothesis of tax evasion and not of tax avoidance, which occurs when a negotiating instrument is used for the purpose of obtaining a tax advantage through a distorted use of tax legislation, so that the provisions of law and the principles developed by the case law, both domestic and EU, on the subject of abuse of law cannot be applied”. 17.6.1. It is worth retracing the reasoning of the aforementioned judgment. 17.6.2. ‘It is well known that “in tax matters, according to the Community and national case law, an abusive practice is an economic transaction which, through the “improper” and “distorted” use of the negotiating instrument, has as its predominant and absorbing (though not exclusive) purpose the avoidance of the tax rule, while the mere abstract configurability of a tax advantage is not sufficient to integrate the abusive case, since the concomitant condition of the non-existence of economic reasons other than the mere saving of tax and the ascertainment of the effective will of the contracting parties to obtain an undue tax advantage is required” (so Cass. No. 25758 of 05/12/2014; see, also, Cass. No. 19234 of 7 November 2012; Cass. No. 21782 of 20/10/2011; Cass. S.U. No. 30055 of 23 December 2008). 17.6.3. With specific reference to direct taxes, then, the prohibition of abuse of rights translates into a general anti-avoidance principle that is grounded, first of all, in the same constitutional principles that inform the Italian tax system (Cass. no. 3938 of 19/02/2014; Cass. no. 4604 of 26/02/2014) and, above all, in Art. 37 bis of Presidential Decree No. 600 of 29 September 1973 (Cass. No. 405 of 14/01/2015; Cass. No. 4561 of 06/03/2015), which allows the tax authorities to disallow and declare non-enforceable transactions and acts, in themselves devoid of valid economic reasons and directed to the sole purpose of obtaining tax benefits that are otherwise not due.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Continental Tires RUS LLC had been issued a substantial loan from Continental AG (Germany). Following an audit the tax authority established that the main purpose of the loans was the systematic withdrawal of funds abroad. According to the tax authorities the loan transactions were concluded for the purpose of artificially raising cash in the form of loans and, accordingly, artificially increasing accounts payable, while the shortage of working capital arose and arises from the special, continuous and coordinated provision of deferred payments to buyers of tyre products. Judgement of the Russian Court of Appeal The Court ruled in favor of the tax administration. Excerpt: “The provisions of Article 252 of the Tax Code stipulate that the taxpayer reduces the income received by the amount of expenses incurred. Expenses are considered to be justified and documented expenses of the taxpayer. Reasonable expenses are defined as economically justified expenses, the evaluation of which is expressed in monetary form. Documented expenses shall mean expenses supported by documents executed in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation. Expenses are deemed to be any expenses on condition that they are incurred for the purpose of carrying out activities aimed at generating income. In accordance with Clause 3 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of 12.10.2006 № 53 “On arbitration courts assessing the validity of taxpayers receiving tax benefits”. (hereinafter – Ruling No. 53) tax benefit may be recognised as unjustified, in particular, if for taxation purposes transactions are taken into account not in accordance with their real economic sense or transactions are taken into account not due to reasonable economic or other reasons (business purposes). It is established that the Moscow Arbitration Court in Case No. A40-123542/14 states that, based on an analysis of taxation and financial results of the parent company Continental AG in Germany, the court considered that the so-called interest income received from the taxpayer in Russia actually has nothing to do with the economic activity of the subsidiary in Russia, is not related to the efficiency and business purpose of the taxpayer in the Russian Federation, and has the goal of servicing the losses of the parent company, in the absence of the holding company. In the aforementioned judicial act, the court concluded that the purpose of the relevant operations involving the provision of loans by the parent company to the company (the subsidiary) was to withdraw assets and profit from taxation in Russia, with the creation of fictitious “income” in Germany, without actually paying taxes on it, given the declaration of multimillion losses in view of the permanent reduction of taxable income by means of interest expenses, in connection with which the court regarded these actions as receiving unjustified tax benefits, entailing a loss of taxable profit. Thus, the court concludes that, as a result of the tax control measures taken, the Inspectorate came to a justified and lawful conclusion.” Click here for English translateion Click here for other translation ...

The 2013 Draft Handbook on Transfer Pricing Risk Assessment is a detailed, practical resource that countries can follow in developing their own risk assessment approaches. The handbook supplements useful materials already available with respect to transfer pricing risk assessment. The OECD Forum on Tax Administration published a report entitled “Dealing Effectively with the Challenges of Transfer Pricing” in January 2012. One chapter of that report also addresses transfer pricing risk assessment ...