US Inbound: Foreign parent company loans to US subsidiaries

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

US Inbound: Foreign parent company loans to US subsidiaries

fuller.jpg

forst.jpg

Jim Fuller


David Forst

A somewhat surprising debt-equity case recently filed in the Tax Court involves a loan made to a related US company by a Luxembourg finance subsidiary of Tyco International, then a publicly-held Bermuda company. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) asserts it has "not been established" that the interest was paid on bona fide debt, but offers no further details. The US borrower's tax court petition states the loan was in the amount of $250 million; the US borrower made all interest payments due on the note; there were proper loan agreements with stated interest rates and a specified repayment schedule; the interest rates, amounts, and maturity dates were consistent with what would ordinarily have been available to the borrower from a third-party lender; and the US borrower had sufficient cash flow to service the debt. Assuming these are the facts, it is quite surprising that the IRS decided that it wants the case in court. These are the primary indicia of bona fide debt.

It is further surprising that the case was initiated by the IRS at all since it lost two major debt-equity cases just last year: NA General Partnership v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2012-172 (2012), involving ScottishPower; and PepsiCo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2012-269 (2012). ScottishPower, a UK company, made a loan to its US subsidiary. In PepsiCo, PepsiCo's Netherlands subsidiary issued an instrument to PepsiCo in the US. It will be interesting to see how the Tyco matter unfolds.

In another interesting development regarding an inbound loan by a foreign parent company to its US subsidiary, one which presumably is unrelated to the Tyco matter, the IRS issued Chief Counsel Advice 201334037. The Chief Counsel Advice (CCA) challenges the deductibility of interest paid to the foreign lender under three fact patterns. In Category 1, interest was paid to the foreign parent by netting a required interest payment against the foreign parent's new advance. Category 2 payments involved portions of a new advance by the foreign parent company that were "earmarked" to pay interest on the pre-existing debt in situations in which the interest payment was not netted. Category 3 payments were made close in time to new advances from the foreign parent.

According to the CCA, all three types of claimed interest payments were traceable to new loans or to draw-downs on pre-existing foreign parent lines of credit. The taxpayer (the US subsidiary) argued that correspondence between the times of the advances and its interest payments was not evidence of an economic linkage that could give rise to a deferral of the interest deductions. The taxpayer argued that it could have use or earmarked amounts other than the foreign parent company's advances to pay the interest on its pre-existing foreign-parent debt and correspondingly use the foreign-parent advances for other purposes.

The CCA rejects the taxpayer's arguments and asserts that the payments of interest were not payments for tax purposes since they involved circular cash flows. The CCA cites case law involving circular flows of funds and states that the principles and holdings of this line of cases apply in the context of purported payments of interest when those payments are part of a lender-borrower circular cash flow that may be subject to deferral under section 267(a)(3).

Thus, the interest expense deductions were disallowed on the grounds that the interest was not paid. Under section 267(a)(3), it had to be paid to be deducted. The CCA also states that the IRS will apply a heightened level of scrutiny to potential circular cash flows when related parties are involved and that it will look past the form of the parties' transactions to infer their private intentions from the objective economics of their transactions.

Jim Fuller (jpfuller@fenwick.com)

Tel: +1 650 335 7205

David Forst (dforst@fenwick.com)

Tel: +1 650 335 7274

Fenwick & West

Website: www.fenwick.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Kingsley Napley’s claimants are arguing that taxing the provision of education breaches the European Convention on Human Rights
While pillar two can progress without the US, it won’t reach the same heights without American involvement, argues Renáta Bláhová, founding partner of BMB Partners Taxand
There are unanswered questions as to how foreign investors could reclaim money via tax credits, advisers suggested
Amid an ever-changing tax environment, India’s advisory market is bustling with competition ahead of the 2025 World Tax rankings and ITR Awards
The deal comes after PwC had accused Paul McNab of using confidential information; in other news, McDermott hired a new London tax head from a US rival
Looking at transfer pricing simplification is “obviously helpful”, but it should be done in line with current standards, a senior government figure reportedly said
The UK Government’s plans to close the tax gap via increased HM Revenue and Customs investment have failed to impress local tax advisers
Under the merged scheme for R&D tax relief introduced last year, rules on contracted out R&D have changed. James Dudbridge argues for a proactive approach when reviewing companies’ commercial arrangements
Cultural nuances could account for tax advisers’ perceived poor cost management, a local partner told ITR
Updated rules represent a significant shift in the Luxembourg TP landscape and emphasise the need for robust arm’s-length calculations, says Vanessa Ramos Ferrin of TransFair Pricing Solutions
Gift this article