All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

The Ardmore ruling: Between a rock and a difficult place

gavel on wooden background tax

It was perhaps unsurprising that in June the UK Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the UK tax authority (HMRC) in the Ardmore case.

Broadly speaking, the court confirmed the existing understanding of the law as it relates to UK withholding tax (UKWHT) on interest payments. Had the court done otherwise, the resulting upheaval could have led to UK taxpayers needing to re-examine a huge raft of debt arrangements.

But while being suitably grateful to Lady Justice Arden, who gave the leading judgment on June 21, some taxpayers and their advisers may feel that an opportunity has been missed to simplify and streamline the law in this area. Even worse, Ardmore may actually make life more complex.

Facts of the case

Ardmore, a UK-based, family-owned construction company borrowed money from trusts in Gibraltar. Ardmore did not deduct UKWHT from interest payments to the Gibraltan lenders.

In keeping with its long-standing position in such cases, HMRC determined that the interest payments had a “UK source” and so were subject to UKWHT. HMRC’s view was that, because Ardmore was a UK company, the “source” of the interest was the UK. As Ardmore had not accounted for the UK tax due, HMRC assessed Ardmore for that tax.

Ardmore and its advisers argued that, because the lenders were in Gibraltar, the debt arrangements were governed by Gibraltan law, and the loan documents included a Gibraltan jurisdiction clause, Gibraltar was the “source” of the interest and not the UK (and so no UKWHT was due). In short, Ardmore effectively thought it could justify this position by saying that the loan, rather than the debtor (and the funds from which the debtor serviced the interest), was the source of the interest.

The UK Court of Appeal upheld the previous lower tier tribunal decisions. Lady Justice Arden dismissed the idea that the origination of the loan from Gibraltar meant that the interest also originated there. 

She said: “The immediate search is for the source of the interest rather than a search indirectly for the source of the loan. The funds paid over as interest derived from funds generated in the UK.”

“The activity of lending became passive once the loan was made, whereas the business of Ardmore was actively conducted to produce those funds.”

She added: “Furthermore, relative to the links with the UK, the links with Gibraltar were of an insubstantial kind: there was no evidence that they were backed up by any kind of other activity within Gibraltar, nor was it explained why it was necessary for the trusts to form companies in the British Virgin Islands or what commercial purpose those companies served.”

Gibraltan law, she went on, would, under the terms of the loan, govern the arrangement only in the event of a default by the borrower, and this had not happened.

However, the UK Court of Appeal did not endorse the hitherto-existing approach of HMRC, which is that a UK-resident debtor must, generally, deduct UKWHT from interest payments to overseas lenders (subject to the availability of any relief or exemption). Cases may be different, and HMRC should look at all the relevant factors in each case and weigh them accordingly. For instance, it may not be appropriate for HMRC simply to look to debtor residence where there is an “active” lender and a “passive” borrower.

The correct approach, she added, was “not merely multifactorial”, but should also be “acutely fact-sensitive”.

HMRC already considers a number of factors in such cases, but their position has for some time been that one of the most important factors is the residence of the debtor and the location of their assets. Other factors (upon which HMRC tends to place less weight) include the residence of any guarantor, the location of any security for the debt, the competent jurisdiction for any legal action and the relevant law of contract, and the method of payment of interest. Following Ardmore it may be prudent to reconsider how appropriate any such hierarchy is in light of the facts.

A “practical” and “substantive” approach should be taken to weighing the factors in each case. As Lady Justice Arden said, the key test was whether “a practical person would regard the source [of the interest] as in … [the UK] or elsewhere”.

All factors ought to be considered and each has some relevance. That may sound reasonable, but – in contrast to the existing HMRC priority given to a debtor’s residence and location of their assets – advisers and HMRC must now weigh them all.

An opportunity to simplify the rules in this area has been missed and the court declined to set out an objective test of universal application. If anything, the Ardmore judgment has made the job of hunting for a UK “source” more complex. However, the court’s approach of having regard to the facts in hand is reasonable – debt arrangements are increasingly complicated and very often more complicated than Ardmore’s arrangements – as applying a “one-size-fits-all” approach would carry its own significant challenges. The court’s action in broadly upholding the status quo, then, deserves two cheers.

This article was prepared by Oliver Walker, a tax partner, and Stuart Pibworth, a tax associate, of Weil, Gotshal and Manges (London).

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Peter Boerhof, the VAT director of Vertex, will take part in a fireside chat with ITR at 10am GMT on November 10 to discuss how to manage the tax complexities of cross-border sales.
Tax leaders are concerned that the EU digitalisation drive could mean more audits as tax authorities collect ever greater amounts of data from businesses.
Speakers at ITR’s Global TP Forum Europe said TP analyses are often tied to the value created from a company’s ESG commitments.
Discussions around recharacterisation are better to avoid, as tax authorities could dismiss an entire TP transaction, said panellists at ITR’s Global TP Forum.
Several tax chiefs shared their administrations’ latest digital identity tracking systems and other tax technologies at the OECD’s annual meeting of authorities.
Businesses welcome the UK’s decision to scrap the IR35 reforms but are not happy about the time and money they have wasted to date.
Energy ministers agreed on regulations including a windfall tax on fossil fuel companies to address high gas prices at an extraordinary Council meeting on September 30.
The European Parliament raises concerns over unanimity in voting on pillar two, while protests break out over tax reform in Colombia.
Ramesh Khaitan speaks to reporter Siqalane Taho about tax morality, transfer pricing regulations, Indian tax developments, and the OECD’s two-pillar solution.
Join ITR and KPMG China at 10am BST on October 19 as they discuss the personal, employment, and corporate tax-related implications of employees working from overseas.
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.

By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree