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 & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Pillar two is certain to be a game-changer for tax advisers and their clients. Russell Gammon of Tax Systems outlines 10 reasons why
Despite a general decline in corporate tax rates around the world, jurisdictions are now more reliant on it than in 1990, a Tax Foundation economist found
Australian law firm Webb Henderson’s report said PwC had met 46 of 47 targets; in other news, the OECD has issued new transfer pricing country profiles
The arrival of a seven-strong team from Baker McKenzie will boost WTS Germany’s transfer pricing capabilities and help it become ‘a European champion’, the firm’s CEO said
Germany has forgotten to think about digital reporting requirements, a WTS partner claimed at ITR’s Indirect Tax Forum 2025
E-invoicing is currently characterised by dynamism, with fragmentation acting as a key catalyst for increasing interoperability, says Aida Cavalera of the International Observatory on eInvoicing
Pillar two and the US tax system ‘could work in harmony’, Scott Levine tells ITR in an exclusive interview to mark his arrival at Baker McKenzie
Peter White, who has a tax debt of A$2 million, has been banned for five years from seeking registration with Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board (TPB)
Wopke Hoekstra’s comments followed US measures aimed against ‘unfair foreign taxes’; in other news, Grant Thornton and Holland & Knight made key tax partner hires
An Administrative Review Tribunal ruling last month in Australia v Alcoa represents a 'concerning trend' for the tax authority, one expert tells ITR
Gift this article