SA Compagnie Gervais Danone was the subject of an tax audit at the end of which the tax authorities questioned, among other things, the deduction of a compensation payment of 88 million Turkish lira (39,148,346 euros) granted to the Turkish company Danone Tikvesli, in which the french company holds a minority stake. The tax authorities considered that the payment constituted an indirect transfer of profits abroad within the meaning of Article 57 of the General Tax Code and should be considered as distributed income within the meaning of Article 109(1) of the Code, subject to the withholding tax provided for in Article 119a of the Code, at the conventional rate of 15%. SA Compagnie Gervais Danone brought the tax assessment to the Administrative Court and in a decision issued 9 July 2019 the Court discharged SA Compagnie Gervais Danone from the taxes in dispute. This decision was appealed by the tax authorities and in June 2021 the Administrative Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the administrative court and decided in favor of the tax authorities. An appeal was then filed by SA Compagnie Gervais Danone with the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Conseil d’État The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal and decided in favor of SA Compagnie Gervais Danone. Excerpts from the Judgement “3. It is apparent from the documents in the files submitted to the trial judges that Compagnie Gervais Danone entered into an agreement with Danone Tikvesli, a company incorporated under Turkish law, granting the latter the right to use Groupe Danone’s dairy product trademarks, patents and know-how, of which it is the owner, in order to manufacture and sell dairy products on the Turkish market. In order to deal with the net loss of nearly 40 million euros recorded by Danone Tikvesli at the end of the 2010 financial year, which, according to the undisputed claims of the companies before the trial judges, should have led, under Turkish law, to the cessation of its business, Danone Tikvesli was granted the right to use Groupe Danone’s dairy product brands, patents and know-how, Compagnie Gervais Danone paid it a subsidy of EUR 39,148,346 in 2011, which the tax authorities allowed to be deducted only in proportion to its 22.58% stake in Danone Tikvesli. In order to justify the existence of a commercial interest such as to allow the deduction of the aid thus granted to its subsidiary, Compagnie Gervais Danone argued before the lower courts, on the one hand, the strategic importance of maintaining its presence on the Turkish dairy products market and, on the other hand, the prospect of growth in the products that it was to receive from its Turkish subsidiary by way of royalties for the exploitation of the trademarks and intangible rights that it holds. 4. On the one hand, it is clear from the statements in the judgments under appeal that, in ruling out the existence of a commercial interest on the part of Compagnie Gervais Danone in paying aid to its subsidiary, the Court relied on the fact that Danone Hayat Icecek, majority shareholder in Danone Tikvesli, also had a financial interest in preserving the reputation of the brand, which prevented Compagnie Gervais Danone from bearing the entire cost of refinancing Danone Tikvesli. In inferring that Compagnie Gervais Danone had no commercial interest from the mere existence of a financial interest on the part of Danone Tikvesli’s main shareholder in refinancing the company, the Court erred in law. 5. Secondly, it is clear from the statements in the contested judgments that, in denying that Compagnie Gervais Danone had its own commercial interest in paying aid to its subsidiary, the Court also relied on the fact that the evidence produced by that company did not make it possible to take as established the alleged prospects for growth of its products, which were contradicted by the fact that no royalties had been paid to it before 2017 by the Turkish company as remuneration for the right to exploit the trade marks and intangible rights which it held. In so ruling, the Court erred in law, whereas the fact that aid is motivated by the development of an activity which, at the date it is granted, has not resulted in any turnover or, as in the present case, in the payment of any royalties as remuneration for the grant of the right to exploit intangible assets, is nevertheless capable of conferring on such aid a commercial character where the prospects for the development of that activity do not appear, at that same date, to be purely hypothetical.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Prior to the payment of dividends by Husky Energy Inc. to its shareholders in 2003, two of its shareholders (companies resident in Barbados) transferred their shares to companies in Luxembourg under securities lending arrangements, and therefore Husky Energy Inc. only withheld dividend tax at a reduced rate of 5% under the Canada-Luxembourg Income Tax Treaty. Judgment of the Court The Court found Husky Energy liable for failing to withhold dividend tax at the non-Convention rate of 25%. As the dividends were not paid to the Barbados companies, the 15% rate under the Canada – Barbados Income Tax Convention was not available. The Canada-Luxembourg Income Tax Convention rate was also not available as the Luxembourg companies were not the beneficial owners of the dividends as they were required to pay compensation to the Barbados companies equal to the dividends received. Excerpts “Under the securities lending arrangements, companies resident in Luxembourg enjoyed nothing more than temporary custodianship of the funds received in payment of the Dividends. The compensation payments were preordained by the terms of the borrowing requests, and this preordination ensured that at all times, the Barbcos retained their rights to the full economic value of the Dividends.” “For the foregoing reasons, HWEI and LF Luxembourg were not the beneficial owners of the Dividends for the purposes of Article 10(2) because they were legally obligated from the outset of the securities lending arrangements to return the full amount of the Dividends to the Barbcos in the form of the compensation payments. This was to occur no later than approximately seven weeks after the commencement of the securities lending arrangements. Consequently, HWEI and LF Luxembourg were not entitled to the benefit of the reduced rates of Part XIII tax provided under Article 10(2) and, for the purposes of subsections 215(1) and (6), the amount of tax under Part XIII that Husky was required to withhold and remit in respect of the Dividends was 25% of the Dividends.” “The fact that the Barbcos transferred their common shares in Husky to the Luxcos under atypical securities lending arrangements really has no bearing on whether the Transactions abuse Article 10(2). The rationale of Article 10(2) is to provide relief from double taxation by allocating the right to tax dividends between Canada and Luxembourg in accordance with the theory of economic allegiance while retaining the protections against the use of conduit‐type arrangements afforded by the beneficial owner requirement and the voting power requirement. Consistent with the theory of economic allegiance described by the majority in Alta Energy, which recognizes that a recipient of passive income need not have any allegiance to the paying country, the focus of the rationale of Article 10(2) is not how the common shares of Husky came to be owned by the Luxcos, but whether the Luxcos satisfy the residence requirement, the beneficial owner requirement and the voting power requirement. Since the hypothetical being considered assumes these requirements have been satisfied, I see no basis on which to find that the securities lending arrangements abused Article 10(2). VII. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the appeal of Husky is dismissed with costs to the Respondent, and the appeals of HWLH and LFMI are allowed with costs to HWLH and LFMI and the HWLH Assessment and the LFMI Assessment are vacated. While this is an unusual result, it flows from the fact that the Minister assessed the successors of the Barbcos and did not assess the Luxcos.” Click here for translations ...

An Ukrainian company, Slobozhanshchyna Agro, paid dividends to a Cypriot company, Unigrain Holding Limited, which held 25% of the shares in Slobozhanshchyna Agro. Withholding tax on the dividend paid was declared by Slobozhanshchyna Agro at a reduced rate of 5 % in accordance with Art. 10(2)(a) of the Ukraine-Cyprus Double Tax Treaty (see the relevant article below). Following an audit, the tax authorities concluded that the conditions for the application of the reduced rate of 5% under Art. 10(2)(a) were not met. Accordingly, Slobozhanshchyna Agro should have applied a withholding tax rate of 10% under Art. 10(2)(b) of the Tax Treaty. Slobozhanshchyna Agro disagreed with this conclusion and appealed to the Administrative Court. In December 2022, the Administrative Court ruled in favour of the tax authorities. According to the court, entitlement to the benefits under Art. 10(2)(a) of the Ukraine-Cyprus Double Tax Treaty was subject to the condition that the invested amount of not less than EUR 100,000.00 had been received by the Ukrainian taxpayer. The Cypriot company had purchased its shares in Slobozhanshchyna Agro from another Cypriot company for USD 2,600,000.00 and this amount was received by the non-resident. The conditions for the application of Art. 10(2)(a) of the Ukraine-Cyprus Tax Treaty were not met. In May 2023, the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Administrative Court. Slobozhanshchyna Agro appealed to the Supreme Court of Ukraine. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Administrative Court and Administrative Court of Appeal and ruled in favor of Slobozhanshchyna Agro. Excerpts (in English) “…A literal interpretation of the content of this provision of the Convention indicates that the actual owner of the dividends (a company that is not a partnership) must invest in the acquisition (i.e. purchase) of shares or other rights of the company in the equivalent of at least EUR 100,000. Article 10(2)(a) of the Convention does not contain a provision stating that the investment must be made in the company by way of a contribution in the form of funds or property to its charter capital.” “…In order for a taxpayer to apply the reduced corporate income tax rate of 5% of the amount of dividends paid, as provided for in subparagraph “a” of paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention between the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income dated 8 December 2012, a combination of two conditions must be met. The beneficial owner of dividends – a company that is not a partnership – must: (1) directly own at least 20 per cent of the capital of the company paying the dividends and (2) invest in the acquisition of shares or other rights in the company in the equivalent of at least EUR 100,000. For the purposes of this rule, an investment includes the acquisition of corporate rights of a company in exchange for funds or property in the equivalent of at least EUR 100,000. At the same time, whether the charter capital of the company whose corporate rights were acquired was increased by the said amount does not affect the applicability of this rule”. Cyprus – Ukraine Double Tax Treaty Dividends (Article 10) Dividends paid by a company which is a resident of a contracting state to a resident of the other contracting state may taxed in that other state. However, such dividends may also be taxed in the state of which the company paying the dividends is a resident and according to the laws of that state, but if the beneficial owner of the dividends is a resident of the other state, the tax so charged shall not exceed: a. 5% of the gross amount of the dividends if the beneficial owner holds at least 20% of the capital of the company paying the dividends or has invested in the acquisition of shares or other rights of the company equivalent of at least €100.000 b. 15% of the gross amount of the dividends in all other cases. New Protocol (applicable from 1 January 2020) ... a. 5% of the gross amount of the dividends if the beneficial owner holds at least 20% of the capital of the company paying the dividends AND has invested in the acquisition of shares or other rights of the company equivalent of at least €100.000 b. 10% of the gross amount of the dividends in all other cases. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

In 2001 “POEM B.V.” was incorporated in the Netherlands under Dutch law by its shareholder X, and has since then been registered in the Dutch trade register. In 2010 its administrative seat was moved to Malta where it was also registered as an ‘Oversea Company’. X was from the Netherlands but moved to Switzerland in 2010. In “POEM B.V.”‘s Maltese tax return for the year 2013, the entire income was registered as ‘Untaxed Account’ and no tax was paid in Malta. “POEM B.V.” distributed dividend to X in FY 2011-2014. Following an audit the Dutch tax authorities issued an assessment where corporate income tax and withholding tax over the dividend had been calculated. The assessment was based on Article 4 (4) of the Dutch-Maltese DTA under which “POEM B.V.” was deemed to be a resident of the Netherlands. Not satisfied with the assessment “POEM B.V.” filed an appeal arguing that it was a resident of Malta (or alternatively Switzerland) and that the Netherlands therefore has no taxing right over the profits or the dividends. Judgement of the Court The Court decided in favour of the tax authorities and upheld the assessment of taxable income in the Netherlands. Excerpts: “5.38. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, taken together and weighed up, the Court sees no evidence to suggest that, in the years in question, core decisions were prepared in substance in Malta and that substantive discussions took place there, let alone to rule that the core decisions were taken there. The interested party has thus failed to rebut the presumption of proof. This leads to the conclusion that the actual management of interested party was exercised from the Netherlands. Interested party was therefore resident in the Netherlands for the purposes of the Netherlands-Malta Convention in the years in question. For that case, it is not in dispute between the parties – rightly so – that the treaty does not impede the Dutch right of taxation and that the tax assessments in question were rightly imposed to that extent.” “5.40. Pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Netherlands-Switzerland Convention 2010, the interested party was a resident of the Netherlands if, under the laws of the Netherlands, she was subject to tax there by reason of her residence, stay, place of management or any other similar circumstance. The second sentence of that provision makes it clear that a person who is subject to tax only in respect of income from sources in the Netherlands is not deemed to be a resident of the Netherlands. For the application of this residence provision, the Court has previously held that in order to be a resident of one of the countries, a person must be fully subject to the tax in that country (‘full tax liability’) (see Court of Appeal of The Hague 24 June 2020, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2020:1044, r.o. 5.63-5.65). 5.41. By virtue of the residence fiction in Article 2(4) of the Vpb Act, the interested party was a resident of the Netherlands within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Netherlands-Switzerland Treaty 2010. Having held above in 5.38 that the interested party was a resident of the Netherlands for the purposes of the Netherlands-Malta Convention, the full subjection of the interested party in the Netherlands under Article 4(1) of the Netherlands-Switzerland 2010 Convention is not limited by the application of that Convention.” “5.47. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, in the face of the substantiated challenge by the Inspector, the interested party, which argued that it is actually managed in a country other than the country in which the formal management sits, has the burden of demonstrating facts and circumstances that justify the conclusion that its actual management is in Switzerland. The mere circumstance that its sole shareholder and co-director resides in Switzerland is insufficient for that purpose – also in view of his varying places of residence (cf. HR 2 July 2021, ECLI:NL:HR:2021:1044, BNB 2021/156). Since the interested party did not put forward anything else to substantiate its claim, the conclusion is that the interested party is a resident of the Netherlands for the purposes of the Netherlands-Switzerland Convention 2010. For that case, it is not in dispute between the parties – rightly so – that the treaty does not impede the Dutch right of taxation and that the tax assessments in question were also rightly imposed to that extent.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

This case concerns the application of the beneficial ownership rule to dividends paid by a French corporation to its Luxembourg parent. The Luxembourg parent company was not considered to be the beneficial owner of the dividends because it did not carry out any activity other than the receipt and further distribution of dividends, and it distributed the full amount of the dividend to its Luxembourg parent one day after receipt; all entities in the chain of ownership were wholly owned; and the two Luxembourg entities had common directors. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS, a subsidiary in the Heerema group, paid dividends to a parent company in Luxembourg which in turn paid the dividends to two group companies in Panama. The tax authorities found that the company in Luxembourg was not the beneficial owner of the dividends and thus the dividends were not covered by the tax exemption rules of the EU Parent/Subsidiary Directive or the Double Taxation Convention between Denmark and Luxembourg. On that basis an assessment was issued regarding payment of withholding tax on the dividends. An appeal was filed by Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS with the High Court. Judgement of the Eastern High Court The court dismissed the appeal of Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS and decided in favor of the tax authorities. The parent company in Luxembourg was a so-called “flow-through” company which was not the beneficial owner of the dividend and thus not covered by the tax exemption rules of the Parent/Subsidiary Directive and the Double Taxation Convention between Denmark and Luxembourg. The Danish subsidiary was held liable for the non-payment of dividend tax. Excerpt “The actual distribution On 23 May 2007, Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS distributed USD 325 million, corresponding to DKK 1,799,298,000, to its parent company Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA. The amount was set off by the Danish company against a claim on the Luxembourg parent company arising from a loan of the same amount taken out by Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA in Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS on 22 January 2007 to pay the purchase price for the company. Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA acquired Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS from the two companies, Heavy Transport Group Inc. and Incomara Holdings SA, both resident in Panama and owners of both the Danish and Luxembourg companies. The purchase price was transferred from Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA to the Panamanian companies on 24 January 2007. The loan from Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS to Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA of USD 325 million is referred to in the loan agreement between the parties of 22 January 2007 as an ‘interim dividend’ and states that the amount will be paid as a ‘short term loan’ until such time as a resolution is passed at a future general meeting of Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS to distribute a dividend to the parent company in the same amount. The loan agreement also provides that the loan is to be repaid on demand or immediately after the dividend payment has been declared by offsetting it. It is undisputed that the company Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA was set up as an intermediate holding company between the Panamanian companies and Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS with the aim of ensuring that no Danish withholding tax was triggered by the dividend distribution. Moreover, as regards the activities of Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA, it appears that the company, which was apparently set up in 2004 to provide the financing for Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS and, after 22 January 2007, as the parent company of the company, did not have (and does not have) any employees, the administration of the company being outsourced to a group company in Luxembourg, Heerema Group Service SA. It is undisputed that the parent company had no other activity when it took over the Danish company. Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA’s annual accounts for 2007 show that its assets as at 31 December 2007 consisted of cash of USD 148 551 and financial assets of USD 1 255 355 in its subsidiary Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA was obliged and, moreover, was only able to repay the loan of USD 325 million to Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS by offsetting the dividend received and thus had no real power of disposal over the dividend. Consequently, and since the purpose of the transactions was undoubtedly to avoid Danish taxation of the dividends in connection with the repatriation of the funds to the shareholders in Panama, Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA cannot be regarded as the beneficial owner of the dividends within the meaning of Article 10(2) of the Double Taxation Convention and, as a general rule, the tax should not be reduced in accordance with the rules of the Convention. Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA is also not entitled to the tax exemption under the Parent/Subsidiary Directive, as it must be considered as a flow-through company with no independent economic and commercial justification, and must therefore be characterised as an artificial arrangement whose sole purpose was to obtain the tax exemption under the Directive, see the judgment of 26 February 2019 in Joined Cases C-116/16 and C-117/16. Significance of the possibility of liquidation under Article 59 of the current law on limited liability companies However, Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS claims that there is no abuse of the Parent/Subsidiary Directive, since the two shareholders in Panama, Heavy Transport Group Inc. and Incomara Holdings SA, instead of contributing the company Heavy Transport Finance (Luxembourg) SA to receive and distribute the ordinary dividends of Heavy Transport Holding Denmark ApS to the Panamanian companies, could have chosen to liquidate the Danish company pursuant to Article 59 of the current Anartsselskabslov, whereby any liquidation proceeds distributed by the parent company in Luxembourg would have been tax-free for the two shareholders. In its judgment of 26 February 2019, paragraphs 108-110, the CJEU has ruled on the situation where there is a double taxation convention concluded between the source State and the third State in which the beneficial owners of the dividends transferred by the flow-through company are resident for tax purposes. The Court held that such circumstances cannot in themselves preclude the existence of an abuse of rights. The Court stated that if it is duly established on the basis of all the facts that the traders have carried out purely formal or artificial transactions, devoid of any economic or ...

“GAAR S.A” is a holding company with a share capital of EUR 55,000.00. In 2010, “GAAR S.A” was in a situation of excess equity capital resulting from an accumulation of reserves (EUR 402,539.16 of legal reserves and EUR 16,527,875.72 of other reserves). The Board of Directors, made up of three shareholders – B………… (holder of 21,420 shares, corresponding to 42.84% of the share capital), C………… (holder of a further 21,420 shares, corresponding to 42.84% of the share capital) and D………… (holder of 7. 160 shares, corresponding to the remaining 14.32% of the share capital) – decided to “release this excess of capital” and, following this resolution, the shareholders decided: i) on 22.02.2010 to redeem 30,000 shares, with a share capital reduction, at a price of EUR 500.00 each, with a subsequent share capital increase of EUR 33. 000.00, by means of incorporation of legal reserves, and the share capital of the appellant will be made up of 20,000 shares at the nominal value of €2.75 each; and ii) on 07.05.2010, to cancel 10,000 shares, with a capital reduction, at the price of €1. 000.00 each, with a subsequent share capital increase of 27,500.00 Euros, by means of incorporation of legal reserves, and the share capital of the appellant is now composed of 10,000 shares at a nominal value of 5.50 Euros each (items E and F of the facts). As a result of this arrangements, payments were made to the shareholders in 2010, 2011 and 2012, with only the payment made on 4 September 2012 being under consideration here. On that date, cheques were issued for the following amounts: B………… – €214,200.00; C………… – €214,200.00; and D………… – €71,600.00. Payments which, according to “GAAR S.A”, since they constitute exempt capital gains, were not subject to taxation, that is, no deduction at source was made. Following an inspection the tax authorities decided, to disregard the arrangement, claiming that it had been “set up” by the respective shareholders with the aim of obtaining a tax advantage (whilst completely ignoring the economic substance of the arrangement). In short, the tax authorities considered that the transactions were carried out in order to allow “GAAR S.A” to distribute dividends under the “guise” of share redemption, thus avoiding the tax to which they would be subject. An appeal filed by “GAAR S.A.” with the Administrative Court was dismissed. An appeal was then filed with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal and found that “GAAR S.A.” was liable for the payment of the tax which was not withheld at source and which should have been, we also consider that there is no error in the judgment under appeal in concluding that “at least in terms of negligence, it seems to us that the award of compensatory interest is, in cases such as the present, the natural consequence of the verification of the abuse, especially given the environmental and intellectual elements, demonstrating that there was a deliberate intention to avoid the due withholding tax” According to the court the tax authorities does not have to prove an “abusive” intention of the taxpayer. The tax authorities is not required to prove that the taxpayer opted for the construction leading to the tax saving in order to intentionally avoid the solution which would be subject to taxation. It is sufficient for the tax authorities to prove that the operation carried out does not have a rational business purpose and that, for this reason, its intentionality is exhausted in the tax saving to which it leads. Having provided this proof, the requirements of article 38(2) of the LGT should be considered to have been met. When the application of the GAAR results in the disregard of a construction and its replacement by an operation whose legal regulation would impose the practice of a definitive withholding tax act, it is the person who comes to be qualified as the substitute (in the light of the application of the GAAR) who is primarily liable for this tax obligation whenever the advantage that the third party obtains results from an operation carried out by him and it is possible to conclude, that he was the beneficiary of the operation. It is also possible to conclude, under the procedure set out in Article 63 of the CPPT, that the third party had a legal obligation to be aware of the alternative legal transaction that comes to be qualified as legally owed as a result of the disregard of the transaction carried out. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The controversy in the case of India vs Concentrix Services Netherlands B.V. & Optum Global Solutions International Netherlands B.V., was the rate of withholding tax to be applied on dividends paid by the Indian subsidiaries (Concentrix Services India Private Limited & Optum Global Solutions India Private Limited) to its participating (more than 10% ownership) shareholders in the Netherlands. The shareholders in the Netherlands held that withholding tax on dividends should be applied by a rate of only 5%, whereas the Indian tax authorities applied a rate of 10%. The difference in opinions relates to interpretation of a protocol to the tax treaty between India and the Netherlands containing an most favoured nation clause (MFN clause). MFN clauses provides that the parties to the treaty (here India and the Netherlands) are obliged to provide each other with a treatment no less favourable than the treatment they provide under other treaties in the areas covered by the MFN clause. The MFN Clause in the relevant protocol to the tax treaty between India and the Netherlands had the following wording “2. If after the signature of this convention under any Convention or Agreement between India and a third State which is a member of the OECD India should limit its taxation at source on dividends, interests, royalties, fees for technical services or payments for the use of equipment to a rate lower or a scope more restricted than the rate or scope provided for in this Convention on the said items of income, then as from the date on which the relevant Indian Convention or Agreement enters into force the same rate or scope as provided for in that Convention or Agreement on the said items of income shall also apply under this Convention.” More favourable tax treaties in regards of withholding tax had later been signed between India and #Slovenia, #Lithuania, and #Columbia. However, none of these countries were OECD members at the time where the Tax Treaties with India were entered. Concentrix Services Netherlands B.V. & Optum Global Solutions International Netherlands B.V. contended that since India had entered into Tax Treaties with other countries which were now members of OECD, the lower rate of 5% withholding tax in these treaties should automatically apply to the Tax Treaty between India and the Netherlands. According to the Tax Authorities since none of the aforementioned countries were members of the OECD, at the date where the tax treaties with India were signed, the MFN clause of the protocol appended to the tax treaty between India and the Netherlands would not apply in regards to these tax treaties. Slovenia, Lithuania, and Columbia only later became members of the OECD. Judgement of the Delhi High Court The High Court decided in favour of Concentrix Services Netherlands B.V. & Optum Global Solutions International Netherlands B.V. Hence, withholding tax on dividends paid by the Indian subsidiaries to its (participating) shareholders in the Netherlands was limited to 5%. Excerpts from the conclusion of the High Court “In our view, the word “is” describes a state of affairs that should exist not necessarily at the time when the subject DTAA was executed but when a request is made by the taxpayer or deductee for issuance of a lower rate withholding tax certificate under Section 197 of the Act. .” “Clearly, the Netherlands has interpreted Clause IV (2) of the protocol appended to the subject DTAA in a manner, indicated hereinabove by us, which is, that the lower rate of tax set forth in the India-Slovenia Convention/DTAA will be applicable on the date when Slovenia became a member of the OECD, i.e., from 21.08.2010, although, the Convention/DTAA between India and Slovenia came into force on 17.02.2005.” “However, the case before us is one where the other contracting State, i.e., the Netherlands has interpreted Clause IV (2) in a particular way and therefore in our opinion, in the fitness of things, the principle of common interpretation should apply on all fours to ensure consistency and equal allocation of tax claims between the contracting States.” ...

“Cosmetics Corp” is active in wholesale of medicinal products, cosmetics, perfumery and cleaning products. Following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment regarding the interest rate on loans granted to the related parties domiciled in Cayman Islands and Luxembourg. An appeal was filed by the company. Judgement of the Tax Court The court partially upheld the assessment. Excerpt “In this sense, it is essential to create a law that contains the guidelines that the OECD has established to guarantee the principle of full competition in transactions carried out between national taxpayers with related companies, for the purpose of applying the technical methods and procedures that they provide; The express reference made by Article 62-A of the TC cannot be considered as a dimension of the principle of relative legal reserve, insofar as there is no full development of the methods or procedures contained therein, nor a reference to an infra-legal rule containing them, but rather a reference that does not have a legal status, i.e. they are not legally binding, but only optional and enunciative to be incorporated into the legal system of each country. Hence, at no time is the legality of the powers of the Directorate General to determine the market price being questioned, since, as has been indicated, the law itself grants it this power, what is being questioned in the present case is the failure of the Directorate General to observe the procedures and forms determined by law to proceed to establish the market price, by using the OECD Guidelines, which, it is reiterated, for the fiscal year audited, did not have a legal status, nor were they binding, since they were not contained in a formal law; Therefore, even if the appellant itself used them, this situation constitutes a choice of the company itself, for the purpose of carrying out an analysis of its transfer prices, but in no way implies that this mechanism is endorsed by law, the Directorate General being obliged to lead or guide the taxpayer in the application of the regulations in force and adjust its operations to the provisions thereof, and if it considered that there was indeed an impediment to determine the market price, it should have documented it and proceeded in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned legal provisions, which it did not do. Finally, it should be clarified that article 192-A of the Tax Code, cited by the DGII at folios 737 of the administrative file, as grounds that the interest rates applied by the appellant were not agreed at market price, is not applicable to the case at hand, inasmuch as it regulates a legal presumption of obtaining income (income) from interest – which admits proof to the contrary – in all money loan contracts of any nature and denomination, in those cases in which this has not been agreed, which shall be calculated by applying the average active interest rate in force on credits or loans to companies applied by the Financial System and published by the ————— on the total amount of the loan; on the other hand, in the present case, as has been shown above, the determination made by the DGII has been through the application of the transfer prices regulated in article 62-A of the TC, which is completely different from the said presumption; in addition to the fact that, as evidenced in folios 82 to 93 and 309 to 314 of the administrative file, the Revolving Credit Line contracts presented by the appellant, entered into with the companies ————— and — ———— contain the clause “Interest Rate”, in which it is established that the interest rate of each loan will be the market rate agreed by the parties, which was 3% for the first company and 1% for the second, which was effectively verified by the DGII both in the accounting records of the appellant, in the loan amortisation tables, as well as in the referred Transfer Pricing Study, as mentioned above. Consequently, this Court considers that in the present case there has been a violation of the Principles of Legality and Reservation of Law, by virtue of the fact that in the instant case the Directorate General did not follow the procedure established by the legal system in force, and therefore, in issuing the contested act, it acted outside the legally established procedures, and consequently, the decision under appeal, with respect to this point, is not in accordance with the law; it is unnecessary to rule on the other grievances invoked by the appellant in its appeal brief. The aforementioned is in accordance, as pertinent, with precedents issued by this Tribunal with references R1810029TM, of the eleventh hour of September fourth, two thousand and twenty; R1505018TM, of the thirteenth hour and two minutes of May twenty-seventh, two thousand and nineteen; R1511005TM, dated ten o’clock ten minutes past ten on the thirty-first day of August two thousand and eighteen; R1405013T, dated eleven o’clock five minutes past five on the twentieth day of April of the same year; R1405007TM, dated eleven o’clock five minutes past five on the twenty-seventh day of the same month and year; and, R1704001T, dated eleven o’clock five minutes past five on the twenty-ninth day of May of the aforementioned year.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

“B-Production” is a subsidiary in a US multinational group and engaged in production and sales. “B-Production” pays services fees and royalties to its US parent. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment where deductions for these costs had been reduced which in turn resulted in additional taxabel income. An appeal was filed by “B-Production” with the Administrative court which in a judgement of June 2015 was rejected. An appeal was then filed by “B-Production” with the Supreme Administrative Court. In the appeal “B-Production” contested the findings of the Administrative Court that there was a hidden distribution of profits by means of the payment of management fees and duplication (overlapping) of the services at issue under the management contract and the other two agreements between the B-Production and the parent company. B-Production further argued that the evidence in the case refutes the conclusions in the tax assessment and the contested decision that the services rendered did not confer an economic benefit and in addition argues that the costs of royalties and the costs of engineering and control services under the other two contracts are not a formative element of the invoices for management services, a fact which was not considered by the court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Administrative Court decided in favour of the tax authorities and dismissed the appeal of B-Production as unfounded. Excerpts “The dispute in the case concerned the recognition of expenses for intra-group services. The NRA Transfer Pricing Manual (Fact Sheet 12) states that intra-group services in practice refers to the centralisation of a number of administrative and management services in a single company (often the parent company), which serves the activities of all or a number of enterprises of a group of related parties selected on a regional or functional basis. The provision of such services is common in multinational companies. The concept of intra-group services covers services provided between members of the same group, in particular technical, administrative, financial, logistical, human resource management (HRM) and any other services. In the present case, the costs in question relate to a contract for the provision of management services dated 26.11.2002, paid by the subsidiary [company], registered in the Republic of Bulgaria, to the parent company, [company], registered in the USA. The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (‘the OECD Guidelines’) should therefore be taken into account in the analysis of those costs and, accordingly, in the interpretation and application of the substantive law. According to paragraph 7.5 of the OECD Guidelines, the analysis of intra-group services involves the examination of two key questions: 1/ whether the intra-group services are actually performed and 2/ what the remuneration within the group for those services should be for tax purposes. In the present case, the dispute in the case relates to the answer to the first question, since it is apparent from the reasoning of the audit report, the revenue authorities and the ultimate conclusion of the court of first instance that the services did not confer an economic benefit on the domestic company and constituted a disguised distribution of profits within the meaning of section 1(5)(b) of the Act. “a” of the Tax Code. Therefore, the arguments in the cassation appeal for material breaches of the rules of court procedure – lack of instructions concerning the collection of evidence related to the amount of the price of the intra-group service and the allocation of the burden of proof to establish this fact – are irrelevant to the subject matter of the dispute. Paragraph 7.6 of the OECD Guidelines states that, according to the arm’s length principle, whether an intra-group service is actually performed when an activity is carried out for one or more group members by another group member will depend on whether the activity provides the group member concerned with an economic or commercial advantage to improve its commercial position. This can be determined by analysing whether an independent undertaking would, on comparable terms, be willing to pay for the activity if it were carried out for it by an independent undertaking or whether it would only have carried it out with its own funds. It is correct in principle, as stated in the appeal in cassation, that the analysis of intra-group services and their recognition for tax purposes is based on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. For example, the OECD Guidelines lists activities which, according to the criterion in point 7.6, constitute shareholding activities. According to paragraph 7.10, b. “b” of the OECD Guidance, expenses related to the accounting requirements of the parent company, including consolidation for financial statements, are defined as such. The evidence in this case established beyond a reasonable doubt that the management services covered by the contract at issue in this case included the compensation of a responsible financial and accounting manager, including cash flow planning and reporting, preparation of monthly, quarterly and annual reports (American Accounting Standards accounting. These activities, which there is no dispute that they were performed, fall within the definition of Section 7.10 for “shareholder activities.” The remaining activities included in management services, including the costs associated with the use of the software programs referred to in the expert report, are imposed by the parent company’s requirements for control and accountability of the subsidiary under the three sets of activities – managing director, production and finance. There is no merit in the objection in the cassation appeal that the management contract services do not duplicate the costs of the other two contracts. It is established from the conclusion of the FTSE that the costs of engineering and control services and royalties (know-how and patent) are not a formative element of the invoices for management services. The conclusion of the experts was based only on the fact that separate contracts had been concluded for the individual costs and not on an analysis of the elements that formed the fees. According to Annex 6 to the expert report, ...

McKesson is a multinational group engaged in the wholesale distribution of pharmaceuticals. Its Canadian subsidiary, McKesson Canada, entered into a factoring agreement in 2002 with its ultimate parent, McKesson International Holdings III Sarl in Luxembourg. Under the terms of the agreement, McKesson International Holdings III Sarl agreed to purchase the receivables for approximately C$460 million and committed to purchase all eligible receivables as they arise for the next five years. The receivables were priced at a discount of 2.206% to face value. The funds to purchase the accounts receivable were borrowed in Canadian dollars from an indirect parent company of McKesson International Holdings III Sarl in Ireland and guaranteed by another indirect parent company in Luxembourg. At the time the factoring agreement was entered into, McKesson Canada had sales of $3 billion and profits of $40 million, credit facilities with major financial institutions in the hundreds of millions of dollars, a large credit department that collected receivables within 30 days (on average) and a bad debt experience of only 0.043%. There was no indication of any imminent or future change in the composition, nature or quality of McKesson Canada’s accounts receivable or customers. Following an audit, the tax authorities applied a discount rate of 1.013%, resulting in a transfer pricing adjustment for the year in question of USD 26.6 million. In addition, a notice of additional withholding tax was issued on the resulting “hidden” distribution of profits to McKesson International Holdings III Sarl. McKesson Canada was not satisfied with the assessment and filed an appeal with the Tax Court. Judgement of the Tax Court The Tax Court dismissed McKesson Canada’s appeal and ruled in favour of the tax authorities. The Court found that an “other method” than that set out in the OECD Guidelines was the most appropriate method to use, resulting in a highly technical economic analysis of the appropriate pricing of risk. The Court noted that the OECD Guidelines were not only written by persons who are not legislators, but are in fact the tax collecting authorities of the world. The statutory provisions of the Act govern and do not prescribe the tests or approaches set out in the Guidelines. According to the Court, the transaction at issue was a tax avoidance scheme rather than a structured finance product ...

A Holding ApS is the owner of all shares in F. AG, domiciled in G. (Canton of Schaffhausen), which it acquired in December 1999 for a total price of Fr. 1. F. AG produces consumer goods. In accordance with the resolution of the general meeting of F. AG on 30 November 2000, a dividend of Fr. 5,500,000 was distributed. Of this amount, F. Ltd paid Fr. 1,925,000 as withholding tax to the Swiss Federal Tax Administration and the remaining amount of Fr. 3,575,000 to Holding ApS. On 15 December 2000, the latter in turn decided to distribute a dividend of 26,882,350 Danish kroner to C. Ltd. On 19 December 2000, A Holding ApS submitted an application to the competent Danish authority for a refund of the withholding tax in the amount of Fr. 1,925,000. The Danish authority confirmed the application and forwarded it to the Federal Tax Administration. By decision of 3 April 2003, the Federal Tax Administration rejected the application for a refund of the withholding tax. The reason given was that A Holding ApS was not engaged in any real economic activity in Denmark; it had been established solely for the purpose of availing itself of the benefits of the Agreement of 23 November 1973 between the Swiss Confederation and the Kingdom of Denmark for the Avoidance of Double Taxation in respect of Taxes on Income and on Capital. The appeals filed by A Holding ApS against this decision were dismissed by the Federal Tax Administration in its objection decision of 4 September 2003 and subsequently by the Federal Tax Appeals Commission in its decision of 3 March 2005. The A Holding ApS filed an administrative appeal with the Federal Administrative Court on 18 April 2005. It requested that the decision of the Federal Tax Appeals Commission be annulled and that the Federal Tax Administration be ordered to pay it the amount of CHF 1,925,000 plus 5% interest thereon since 29 January 2001. Judgement of the Court of Appeal The Court found that the Appeals Commission was correct in refusing to refund the withholding tax claimed by A Holding ApS on the grounds of abuse of the agreement. The appeal therefore proves to be unfounded and must be dismissed. Exceerpt “3.6.4 The complainant does not meet any of the conditions just mentioned. As the lower court found binding for the Federal Supreme Court (cf. Art. 105 para. 2 OG), it has neither its own office premises nor its own staff in Denmark. Accordingly, it did not record any fixed assets or any rental or personnel expenses. The “director” of the complainant, E. who apparently controls the entire group and is resident in Bermuda, performs all management functions according to the complainant’s own statement of facts and does not receive any compensation for this. Thus, the complainant itself does not carry out any effective business activity in Denmark; administration, management of current business and corporate management are not carried out there. It only has a formal seat in Denmark. Significantly, the complainant also immediately forwarded the dividends to its parent company. The complainant’s arguments that it also intends to hold other European shareholdings of the entire group are irrelevant. What is decisive is that, according to the above, the complainant ultimately proves to be a letterbox company and that, apart from tax considerations, no economically significant reasons for its presence in Denmark are apparent. The complainant’s objection that, in view of its detailed statements in the proceedings before the court, it is untenable for the Appeals Commission to claim that it [the complainant] “undisputedly” has no facilities and activities at all, does not lead to a different conclusion. The statements in question before the Appeals Commission do not contradict the above findings. The complainant has failed to show what significant activities it carries out in Denmark itself. If, on the one hand, it is established that the person resident in Bermuda carries out all management activities for the holding company and that there are no other staff, it is not sufficient for the complainant to merely allege, in an unsubstantiated manner, that it works with external resources as far as necessary and that the Danish company H. (as the complainant’s auditors) carries out such outsourced functions in a professional manner. 3.6.5 Other reasons that would justify the granting of the advantages of the agreement (cf. n. 19 and 21 of the OECD Commentary on Art. 1 OECD-MA 2003 and 1995 respectively) are also not given here. Even if the aforementioned circular letter 1999 of the Swiss Federal Tax Administration is used for comparison, no contradiction can be ascertained with regard to point 3 (critical with regard to the decision challenged here: Markus Reich/Michael Beusch, Entwicklungen im Steuerrecht, SJZ 101/2005 p. 266). According to that point 3, holding companies that exclusively or almost exclusively manage and finance participations may use more than 50 per cent of the income eligible for treaty relief to meet the claims of persons not entitled to treaty relief, provided that these expenses are justified on business grounds and can be substantiated; holding companies that engage in other activities in addition to managing and financing participations may not use more than 50 per cent of the income eligible for treaty relief (critically: Silvia Zimmermann, Kreisschreiben vom 17. 12.1998 on the abuse decision, StR 54/1999 p. 157 f.). The regulation in the circular presupposes that the company domiciled in Switzerland actually manages and finances the participations from here. From a mirror image perspective – insofar as such a mirror image may be possible at all – this requirement would not be met by the complainant, which is domiciled in Denmark and is a letterbox company, as explained above (E. 3.6.4). 3.6.6 Finally, the model clause listed in point 21.4 of the OECD Commentary on the OECD-MA 2003 would not lead to any other conclusion. According to this clause, the provisions of Art. 10 DTA (dividends) “shall not apply” if “the principal intention or one of the principal ...