Germany: Heat turned up on intra-group financing

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

Germany: Heat turned up on intra-group financing

tao.jpg
wilmanns.jpg

Yu Tao

Jobst Wilmanns

Captive financing entities and other vehicles for centralising a group's funding arrangements have long been objects of suspicion for the tax auditors. However the scope for negative findings is being progressively curtailed. The 2008 Annual Tax Act effectively disallowed loan losses on intra-group finance and the interest limitation (basically to 30% of EBITDA) of 2009 significantly reduced the scope for withdrawing profits through financing charges. On the other hand, Cadbury Schweppes (ECJ case C-196/04 of September 12, 2006) now prevents a tax auditor from declaring an EU group financing centre abusive, merely because it enjoys a favourable tax regime. The tax authority's attention is now increasingly directed at the interest rate, an area unbounded by hard and fast rules. The interest rate must be at arm's length. Arm's length is undefined, but should lie somewhere between the borrowing and lending rate typically on offer from banks. Third-party comparisons often assume there to be little or no loan risk, not least in reflection of the free-of-charge "group backing" featuring in the transfer pricing rules. This, though, has prompted an intention of changing towards rating a borrower within a group at the group rating rather than on its own financial standing. Unfortunately, attempts to reach a consensus on a rating formula have all foundered on the unanswered question of a parent's ability to strip a subsidiary of assets, and thus to shift the credit risk, at will. The same problem is also felt by members of international cash pools. Frequently, many still take a broad approach of basing the pool interest rates on EONIA or EURIBOR with a discount or premium of, say 20 or 30 basis points to cover the cost of running the pool. However, tax auditors are ever more searching in their demand to know which entity takes the risk and to impute income or disallow expense accordingly.

Yu Tao (yu.tao@de.pwc.com)

Tel: +49 69 9585 6408
Jobst Wilmanns (jobst.wilmanns@de.pwc.com)

Tel: +49 69 9585 5835

PwC

Website: www.pwc.de

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

It is understood that the US has vowed to oppose any outcome from talks taking place at the UN
It’s the second year in a row that RSM’s tax business has posted fee income growth above 10%
Recent guidance from the Indian tax authorities should provide confidence for investors, says Sanjay Sanghvi of Khaitan & Co
Grant Wardell-Johnson also suggests there could be solutions to the friction between the US and the OECD when it comes to pillar two
The president had so far avoided announcing tariffs on the US’s neighbours despite previous threats
The firm brought in three managing directors from EY and Deloitte in Europe; in other news, KPMG’s bid to practise law in US was delayed
One expert argues the ERS would be unlikely to improve taxpayers’ experience unless it comes with additional funding to hire more agents and staff
From pillar two and amount B to Apple’s headline EU Commission dispute, Martin Bonner and Yiwen Ping of Kreston Global argue that 2024’s key TP developments will inform 2025
Holland & Knight, Nelson Mullins and McCarter & English made the joint-most tax partner hires in the US last year, according to annual ITR Talent Tracker data
Despite a three-year-high in tax revenues generated from settling TP cases, HMRC reported a sharp fall in resolved MAP disputes
Gift this article