At issue was whether interest expenses incurred as a result of intra-group liabilities related to the acquisition of shares were tax deductible. In August 2010, the Swedish companies H AB and B AB had agreed, among other things, to sell E Oy’s shares to B AB and to allow B AB to transfer its rights and obligations to purchase the said shares directly or indirectly to its own subsidiary. B AB’s subsidiary had established D Oy in August 2010. In September 2010, before the completion of the acquisition, B AB had transferred its rights and obligations to purchase E Oy’s shares to D Oy. Ownership of E Oy’s shares had been transferred to D Oy at the end of September 2010. D Oy had financed the acquisition of E Oy’s shares mainly with a debt it had taken from B AB, from which D Oy had deducted the interest expenses incurred in its annual taxation. The tax audit report considered that no business-independent business grounds had been presented for the transfer of the loan liability of the acquisition to D Oy in a multi-stage ownership and financing arrangement and that the arrangement had been implemented solely to benefit from the Finnish group grant scheme and interest deduction. On this basis, the interest expenses on the debt related to the acquisition of E Oy’s shares had been added to D Oy’s taxable income in the tax adjustments submitted for the tax years 2012–2015 to the detriment of the taxpayer and when the tax for 2016 was delivered. In addition, the Taxpayers’ Law Enforcement Unit had stated that the actions in question were entirely artificial in a way that was proportional to the Supreme Administrative Court’s yearbook decision in the Supreme Administrative Court 2016: The Administrative Court held that the arrangement as a whole had to be regarded as artificial. Hence, deductibility of the interest paid to the foreign group company could be denied on the basis of the tax avoidance provision. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court by the company. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Court set aside the decision of the administrative court and ruled in favor of D Oy. The Court held that the establishment of an auxiliary company as a company acquiring shares in an acquisition between independent parties and the financing of the company partly with equity and partly with intra-group debt could not be considered as artificial transactions. In such a situation, the deductibility of interest could not be denied under the tax avoidance provision. D Oy had acquired E Oy’s shares from an independent party. Based on the preliminary work of the Business Income Tax Act, the legislator’s starting point was that in share transactions between independent parties, the tax benefits related to the use of holding companies are limited by amending the law. Therefore, and taking into account that the premise of the Business Income Tax Act was that interest expenses accrued in business activities are deductible, the establishment of a holding company as an acquiring company and the financing of a holding company as an artificial act. Nor did such a situation have to be equated with the situation presented in the Supreme Administrative Court’s yearbook decision KHO 2016: 72. D Oy was thus entitled to deduct the interest expenses of the debt related to the acquisition of E Oy in its taxation for the tax years 2012 and 2013 as provided in section 7 and section 18 (1) (2) of the Business Income Tax Act and section 7 of the same law in its taxation for 2014–2016. as provided for in Article 18 (1) (2) and Article 18a. Tax years 2012–2016. in the manner provided for in subsection 1 (2) and section 18 a. Tax years 2012–2016. in the manner provided for in subsection 1 (2) and section 18 a. Tax years 2012–2016. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

At issue was whether interest expenses incurred as a result of intra-group liabilities related to the acquisition of shares were tax deductible. In 2005, CA / S, indirectly owned by private equity investors A and B, had purchased a listed share in DA / S. DA / S’s subsidiary EA / S had established H AB in July 2008. On 25 August 2008, EA / S had transferred approximately 83.8 per cent of F Oy’s shares in kind to H AB and sold the remaining approximately 16.2 per cent at the remaining purchase price. On August 26, 2008, EA / S had subscribed for new shares in G Oy and paid the share subscription price in kind, transferring 56 percent of H AB’s shares. On August 27, 2008, G Oy had purchased the remaining 44 percent of H AB’s shares. EA / S had granted G Oy a loan corresponding to the purchase price, the interest expenses of which the company had deducted annually in its taxation. The share transfers in 2008 had been reported to be related to the 2005 acquisition and In the share transfers carried out in 2008, EA / S’s direct holding in F Oy had been changed to indirect. The change in ownership structure was implemented within a short period of time as a series of share transfers. With the help of the share transfers, new debt relationships had been created in the Group, with the aim of transferring the interest burden on EA / S to G Oy corresponding to the purchase price of H AB’s shares. When the share transfers were considered as a whole, their purpose was to seek a tax advantage in the form of interest deductions. The share transfers had therefore not corresponded to the real nature or purpose of the case and were artificial in nature. The Administrative Court held that when the share transfers were considered as a whole, their purpose was to seek a tax advantage in the form of interest deductions. The share transfers had therefore not corresponded to the real nature or purpose of the case and were artificial in nature. Hence, deductibility of the interest paid to the foreign group company could be denied on the basis of the tax avoidance provision. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court by the company. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the administrative court. It stated that the subsidiary had been used in a multi-stage arrangement within the group as a company acquiring shares and that the arrangement as a whole had to be considered wholly artificial. According to the settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, national measures restricting the right to deduct interest do not infringe the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 49 TFEU if they deal only with purely artificial arrangements. The judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-484/19, Lexel, does not have to be considered as a change in this settled case law. In the light of these factors and the artificial nature of the present share transfers, the Supreme Administrative Court held that the denial of the right to deduct interest expenses accrued to G Oy under section 28 of the Tax Procedure Act was not contrary to Article 49 TFEU in the present case. The denial of the right to deduct interest expenses was also not contrary to the prohibition of discrimination in the Nordic tax treaty. KHO 2021 178 Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Italien fashion group, Dolce & Gabbana, had moved ownership of valuable intangibles to a subsidiary established for that purpose in Luxembourg. The Italian Revenue Agency found the arrangement to be wholly artificial and set up only to avoid Italien taxes and to benefit from the privileged tax treatment in Luxembourg. The Revenue Agency argued that all decision related to the intangibles was in fact taken at the Italian headquarters of Dolce & Gabbana in Milan, and not in Luxembourg, where there were no administrative structure and only one employee with mere secretarial duties. Dolce & Gabbana disagreed with these findings and brought the case to court. In the first and second instance the courts ruled in favor of the Italian Revenue Agency, but the Italian Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dolce & Gabbana. According to the Supreme Court, the fact that a company is established in another EU Member State to benefit from more advantageous tax legislation does not as such constitute an abuse of the freedom of establishment. The relevant criteria in this regard is if the arrangement is a wholly artificial and as such does not reflect economic reality. Determination of a company’s place of business requires multible factors to be taken into consideration. The fact, that the Luxembourg company strictly followed directives issued by its Italian parent company is not sufficient to consider the structure as abusive and thus to relocate its place of effective management to Italy. A more thorough analysis of the activity carried out in Luxembourg should have been performed. According to the Supreme Court something was actually done in Luxembourg. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...