This case concerns a private equity takeover structure with apparently an intended international mismatch, i.e. a deduction/no inclusion of the remuneration on the provision of funds. The case was (primarily) decided by the Court of Appeal on the basis of non-business loan case law. The facts are as follows: A private equity fund [A] raised LP equity capital from (institutional) investors in its subfund [B] and then channelled it into two (sub)funds configured in the Cayman Islands, Fund [C] and [D] Fund. Participating in those two Funds were LPs in which the limited partners were the external equity investors and the general partners were Jersey-based [A] entities and/or executives. The equity raised in [A] was used for leveraged, debt-financed acquisitions of European targets to be sold at a capital gain after five to seven years, after optimising their EBITDA. One of these European targets was the Dutch [F] group. The equity used in its acquisition was provided not only by the [A] funds (approximately € 401 m), but also (for a total of approximately € 284 m) by (i) the management of the [F] group, (ii) the selling party [E] and (iii) co-investors not affiliated with [A]. 1.4 The equity raised in the [A] funds was converted into hybrid, but under Luxembourg law, debt in the form of preferred equity shares: A-PECs (€ 49 m) and B-PECs (€ 636 m), issued by the Luxembourg mother ( [G] ) of the interested party. G] has contributed € 43 million to the interested party as capital and has also lent or on-lent it approximately € 635 million as a shareholder loan (SHL). The interested party has not provided [G] with any securities and owes [G] over 15% interest per year on the SHL. This interest is not paid, but credited. The SHL and the credited interest are subordinated to, in particular, the claims of a syndicate of banks that lent € 640 million to the target in order to pay off existing debts. That syndicate has demanded securities and has stipulated that the SHL plus credited interest may not be repaid before the banks have been paid in full. The tax authority considers the SHL as (disguised) equity of the interested party because according to him it differs economically hardly or not at all from the risk-bearing equity (participation loan) c.q. because this SHL is unthinkable within the OECD transfer pricing rules and within the conceptual framework of a reasonable thinking entrepreneur. He therefore considers the interest of € 45,256,000 not deductible. In the alternative, etc., he is of the opinion that the loan is not business-like, that Article 10a prevents deduction or that the interested party and its financiers have acted in fraudem legis. In any case he considers the interest not deductible. According to the Court of Appeal, the SHL is a loan in civil law and not a sham, and is not a participation loan in tax law, because its term is not indefinite, meaningless or longer than 50 years. However, the Court of Appeal considers the loan to be non-business because no securities have been stipulated, the high interest is added, it already seems impossible after a short time to repay the loan including the added interest without selling the target, and the resulting non-business risk of default cannot be compensated with an (even) higher interest without making the loan profitable. Since the interested party’s mother/creditress ([G] ) is just as unacceptable as a guarantor as the interested party himself, your guarantor analogy ex HR BNB 2012/37 cannot be applied. Therefore, the Court of Appeal has instead imputed the interest on a ten-year government bond (2.5%) as business interest, leading to an interest of € 7,435,594 in the year of dispute. It is not in dispute that 35,5% of this (€2,639,636) is deductible because 35,5% of the SHL was used for transactions not contaminated (pursuant to Section 10a Vpb Act). The remaining €4,795,958 is attributable to the contaminated financing of the contaminated acquisition of the [F] Group. The Court of Appeal then examined whether the deduction of the remaining € 4,795,958 would be contrary to Article 10a of the Dutch Corporate Income Tax Act or fraus legis. Since both the transaction and the loan are tainted (Article 10a Corporate Income Tax Act), the interested party must, according to paragraph 3 of that provision, either demonstrate business motives for both, or demonstrate a reasonable levy or third-party debt parallelism with the creditor. According to the Court of Appeal, it did not succeed in doing so for the SHL, among other things because it shrouded the financing structure behind [G], in particular that in the Cayman Islands and Jersey, ‘in a fog of mystery,’ which fog of mystery remains at its evidential risk. On the basis of the facts which have been established, including the circumstances that (i) the [A] funds set up in the Cayman Islands administered the capital made available to them as equity, (ii) all LPs participating in those funds there were referred to as ‘[A] ‘ in their names, (iii) all those LPs had the same general partners employed by [A] in Jersey, and (iv) the notification to the European Commission stated that the Luxembourg-based [H] was acquiring full control of the [F] group, the Court formed the view that the PECs to [G] had been provided by the [A] group through the Cayman Islands out of equity initially contributed to [B] LP by the ultimate investors, and that that equity had been double-hybridised through the Cayman Islands, Jersey and Luxembourg for anti-tax reasons. The interested party, on whom the counter-evidence of the arm’s length nature of the acquisition financing structure rested, did not rebut that presumption, nor did it substantiate a third-party debt parallelism or a reasonable levy on the creditor, since (i) the SHL and the B-PECs are not entirely parallel and the interest rate difference, although small, increases exponentially through the compound interest, (ii) the SHL is co-financed by A-PECs, whose interest rate ...