Germany: Heat turned up on intra-group financing

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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 & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Magnus Pantzar is set to join as managing director after spending nearly a decade as EQT’s global head of tax
The OECD’s project was up for debate as Matt Williams spoke to ITR following BDO’s tax strategist survey, which uncovered increased complexity and costs among multinationals
Sponsored by Deloitte
Sameer Nurmohamed, partner, Deloitte Legal Canada
Sponsored by Deloitte
George Ankomah, partner, Tax & Regulatory Services, Deloitte Africa (Ghana)
The recent spree of firm mergers and acquisitions proves that geographic scale is the name of the game
The big four spin-off firm becomes Taxand’s second UK member; in other news, Haynes Boone launched a UK tax practice
Sponsored by Deloitte Luxembourg
Jean-Michel Henry and Mona El-Begawi of Deloitte Luxembourg examine the complexities created by timing differences in Luxembourg, EU, and OECD tax regimes
Stephanie Pantelidaki’s economic expertise will give Norton Rose Fulbright’s other teams ‘extra firepower,’ she says
Sponsored by MFA Legal & Tech
Samuel Fernandes de Almeida of MFA Legal & Tech assesses whether Portugal’s 7.5% surcharge on non-residents aligns with the EU’s free movement of capital principle and passes the proportionality test
Sponsored by McCarthy Tétrault
Senior McCarthy Tétrault tax practitioners highlight significant updates and implications for multinationals as Canada’s transfer pricing rules become more closely aligned with OECD guidance
Gift this article