Italy: Application of the transfer pricing regulations to interest-free intragroup loans

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

Italy: Application of the transfer pricing regulations to interest-free intragroup loans

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_crowe_valente.jpg
network-3154916.jpg

Federico Vincenti and Carola Valente of Valente Associati GEB Partners/Crowe Valente explain how an Italian Supreme Court ruling clarifies the evidentiary burdens and arm’s-length compliance

With judgment No. 3223 of February 10 2025, the Italian Supreme Court once again ruled on the applicability of transfer pricing regulations under Article 110, paragraph 7 of the Italian Income Tax Code (TUIR) to interest-free intragroup loans.

The case concerns interest-free loans granted by an Italian company to its foreign subsidiary (in this instance, a Romanian entity).

Regarding these interest-free loans, the Italian Revenue Agency contested (for the 2007 tax year, as well as the previous year) the failure to apply transfer pricing regulations under Article 110, paragraph 7 of the TUIR.

The Italian Revenue Agency adjusted the taxable business income by imputing theoretical interest income that the parent company should have received, based on the arm’s-length principle (i.e., the rate that would have been applied between independent entities).

The taxpayer challenged the assessment before the relevant provincial tax commission, which upheld the appeal. This decision was subsequently confirmed by the appellate tax court, which deemed the tax adjustment unlawful since there was no proof that the Italian company had received interest income.

The Italian Revenue Agency appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the appellate tax court had erroneously placed an evidentiary burden on the administration that was not required under international transfer pricing rules.

The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the appeal, ruling that even an interest-free loan between companies within the same group cannot escape the application of the arm’s-length principle under transfer pricing rules, reaffirming a principle established in similar cases.

Following such approach, the transfer pricing regulations must apply not only when the agreed interest rate is lower than the arm’s-length rate in the relevant economic sector but also when it is zero (due to the interest-free nature of the transaction).

It is important to recall the existence of Supreme Court decisions that denied the applicability of transfer pricing regulations to interest-free loans granted to foreign subsidiaries. This was based on the premise that such regulations apply only in relation to an intragroup transaction that generates income to be evaluated through following the arm’s-length principle.

Establishing where the burden of proof lies

Premised on the above, Supreme Court judgment No. 3223/2025 clarified that, in the case of an intragroup loan (granted by an Italian parent company to a foreign ‘vehicle’ company), it is the responsibility of the tax authorities to prove that the transaction took place at an interest rate lower than the arm’s-length rate.

Additionally, the court stated that the burden then shifts to the taxpayer to provide counter-evidence, either by proving that the loan was granted at a market-aligned interest rate or, in the case of an interest-free loan, by demonstrating that it was motivated by internal commercial reasons within the group, linked to the parent company’s role in supporting its subsidiaries.

The same approach was adopted in Supreme Court Decision No. 7361 of March 19 2024. In the case examined in the ruling in question, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts did not adequately consider the particular insolvency conditions of the borrowing companies.

The lower court ruling merely stated that, in such cases, comparable conditions should be sought in “loans granted to independent enterprises, backed by a parent company guarantee” and, in any event, at a high interest rate.

Conversely, according to the Supreme Court, the lower courts should have verified whether the interest rate considered by the tax authorities corresponded to that applied to loans with sufficiently comparable characteristics, granted to entities with the same credit rating as the associated debtor company. Additionally, they should have assessed the counter-evidence provided by the audited company regarding similar financial conditions available on the market and any internal commercial reasons within the group.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Despite this boost for investors, the OECD also said that extensive reliance on income-based instruments across economies is concerning
A recent UK First-tier Tribunal decision highlights the broad application of an anti-avoidance rule to deny tax relief, say Robert Waterson and Matthew Cummings of Eversheds Sutherland
The world’s largest legal market is typically alive with activity, with tax firms jostling for position ahead of the World Tax Rankings and ITR Awards
Public funding will allow the firm to invest in lateral hires, technology and further bolt-on acquisitions, MHA said
William Paul is being replaced as IRS chief counsel just two months after starting, it is understood
Wopke Hoekstra implored US officials to ‘truly look into the facts’; in other news, the EU Council has reached a political agreement on DAC9
The US president’s flippant approach to international trade will cause chaos for corporations, but there are opportunities for intrepid tax advisers
The ruling underscores that tax authorities must provide ‘detailed, well-supported, and logically sound justifications’ when determining reference prices in tax assessments, one expert told ITR
Tax teams and the IT experts they rely on should be wary of increased compliance, says Richard Sampson, chief revenue officer at Tax Systems
The law firm was representing a businessman in the commodities sector who had previously been convicted of tax fraud
Gift this article