The result of this analysis sets a maximum fee for the guarantee (the maximum amount that the recipient of the guarantee will be willing to pay), namely, the difference between the interest rate with the guarantee and the interest rate without the guarantee but with the benefit of implicit support (and taking into account any costs). The borrower would have no incentive to enter into the guarantee arrangement if, in total, it pays the same to the bank in interest and to the guarantor in fees as it would have paid to the bank in interest without the guarantee. Therefore this maximum fee does not of itself necessarily reflect the outcome of a bargain made at arm’s length but represents the maximum that the borrower would be prepared to pay.
TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.177
Category: D. Financial guarantees, TPG2022 Chapter X: Transfer pricing aspects of financial transactions | Tag: Benefit of borrower, Financial guarantee, Financial transactions, Loan guarantee, Pricing guarantees, Treasury functions, Yield approach
« Prev |
Next » Related Guidelines
- TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.175The next step would be to determine, by a similar process (unless directly observable in the case of a loan from a third party), the interest rate payable with the benefit of the explicit guarantee. The interest spread can be used in quantifying...
- TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.162This section elaborates on the effect of group membership on determining the arm’s length price of financial guarantees, building upon the principles laid out in Section C.1.1....
- TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.176The benefit of implicit support will be the difference between the borrowing terms attainable by the borrowing entity based on its credit rating as a member of the MNE group and those attainable on the basis of the stand-alone credit rating it would...
- TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.168Likewise, the financial capacity of the guarantor to meet its obligations requires an analysis of the correlation between the guarantor’s and borrower’s businesses. In situations where the guarantor and the borrower operate under similar market conditions, an adverse market event that affects the...
- TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.174This approach quantifies the benefit that the guaranteed party receives from the guarantee in terms of lower interest rates. The method calculates the spread between the interest rate that would have been payable by the borrower without the guarantee and the interest rate...
- TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.181The valuation of expected loss method would estimate the value of a guarantee on the basis of calculating the probability of default and making adjustments to account for the expected recovery rate in the event of default. This would then be applied to...
- TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.172The difficulty with using the CUP method is that publicly available information about a sufficiently similar credit enhancing guarantee is unlikely to be found between unrelated parties given that unrelated party guarantees of bank loans are uncommon....
- TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.169This section describes a number of pricing approaches for those circumstances where a guarantee is found to be appropriate. However, when the accurate delineation of the actual transaction indicates that the purported guarantee is not a guarantee, other pricing approaches should be considered,...
- United Arab Emirates issues comprehensive Transfer Pricing Guide23 October 2023, the United Arab Emirates issued a comprehensive practical Transfer Pricing Guide. The guide is designed to provide general guidance on the Transfer Pricing regime in the UAE with a view to making the provisions of the Transfer Pricing regulations as...
- German royalty barrier to counter IP box-regimesSome countries in Europe offer so-called IP or Patent boxes. To counter such tax practices, effective from 31 December 2017, Germany has introduced a new royalty barrier in ‘Law against Harmful Tax Practices in Connection with the Assignment of Rights. The law limits...
Related Case Law
- Germany vs “C A GmbH”, February 2019, Bundesfinanzhof, Case No I R 73/16C A GmbH managed an unsecured clearing account for a Belgian subsidiary. After financial difficulties in the Belgian subsidiary, C A GmbH waived their claim from the clearing account and booked this in their balance sheet as a loss. However, the tax office disallowed the...
- Germany vs A… GmbH, March 2021, BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT, Case No 2 BvR 1161/19A GmbH provided funding in the form of a clearing account to its Belgian subsidiary. The account was unsecured and carried an interest of 6% p.a. In 2005, A GmbH and the Belgian company agreed on a debt write-off which was deducted for...
- Korea vs “Korean Clothing Corp”, March 2023, Tax Tribunal, Case No 조심 2022중2863“Korean Clothing Corp” had two overseas subsidiaries – a fabric dyeing entity (AAA) and a sweater manufacturing entity (BBB). Following an tax audit for FY 2016~2020, the tax authorities issued an assessment of additional tax as a result of non arm’s length transactions....
- Poland vs A. Sp. z o.o., March 2019, Administrative Court, Case No I SA/Rz 1178/18A. Sp. z o.o. was established to carry out an investment project consisting in construction of a shopping center. In order to raise funds, the company concluded a loan agreement. The loan agreement was guaranteed by shareholders and other related parties. By virtue...