Switzerland: Federal Supreme Court rejects offshore financing of a Swiss real estate group

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

Switzerland: Federal Supreme Court rejects offshore financing of a Swiss real estate group

savoia.jpg

Reto Savoia

Sufficient substance in an offshore financing branch of a Swiss company is required so that the foreign branch qualifies as a foreign permanent establishment. In this case, an entirely Swiss-based real estate group managed its finance activities through a Cayman Islands branch of a Swiss finance company. While the finance company had no employees in Switzerland, the Cayman branch had four part-time employees working 20% each.

Based on a ruling with the cantonal tax authorities, the Cayman Island branch constituted a permanent establishment to which all income of the finance company would be allocated and exempt from the Swiss tax base.

The Swiss Federal Tax Administration decided that the ruling would no longer be valid for direct federal tax purposes and subsequently appealed the decision of the cantonal administrative court – which upheld the existence of a permanent establishment – before the Federal Supreme Court. On October 5 2012 the Federal Supreme Court denied the existence of a permanent establishment in the Cayman Islands and ruled that all income of the Cayman branch was taxable in Switzerland.

The decision by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court to tax all financing income in Switzerland and not in the Cayman branch was based on the grounds that the activities of the Cayman Islands branch did not rise to the level of a permanent establishment which would merit an income allocation to the Cayman branch. The court in particular highlighted the fact that although there were four part-time employees in the Cayman branch their total compensation amounted to only $50,000 a year, while they managed a loan portfolio of several hundred million dollars.

In view of the above court case it will be all the more important to make sure that there are sufficient activities and substance in a foreign financing branch so that it qualifies as a foreign permanent establishment.

Reto Savoia (rsavoia@deloitte.ch)

Deloitte

Tel: +41 (0)58 279 63 57

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