INTM502010 - Interest imputation: dealing with 바카라 사이트榚quity function바카라 사이트� arguments: Introduction
Overview
The chapter starting at INTM501000 introduces the topic of applying transfer pricing legislation and principles to the UK lender바카라 사이트檚 financial activities rather than those of the borrower (dealt with in thin capitalisation guidance). This is mainly concerned with the imputation of interest - taxing the lender on the arm바카라 사이트檚 length rate of interest - where the actual reward is less than arm바카라 사이트檚 length. This chapter looks at the proposition, which is sometimes put forward against HMRC바카라 사이트檚 imputation arguments, that a loan is performing the function of equity in the financial structure of the borrower, and should therefore be treated as interest-free in the computations of the lender. This is often referred to as 바카라 사이트渜uasi equity바카라 사이트�, since it is claimed that although the form of the funding remains debt, the true character of the funding is equity.
It could be argued that the equity function argument is invalid in the transfer pricing context: transfer pricing treats the parties to a transaction as if they were at arm바카라 사이트檚 length from each other, negating equity participation. Transfer pricing puts aside such connections to arrive at an arm바카라 사이트檚 length answer. However, the reasoning for the equity function argument follows the same line as thin cap, that if debt is non-arm바카라 사이트檚 length it is, in effect, equity. Given the nature of the argument, it should follow that the equity argument should not even be considered unless it relates to a UK company lending to a subsidiary or to another entity in which it would be conceivable for it to take an equity stake. A company is very unlikely to take an equity stake in a fellow subsidiary. However, it may occur occasionally, for example, where there are restrictions on the ways in which a company can invest in a particular territory.
Perhaps a better term would be 바카라 사이트渇lexible finance바카라 사이트�, where money is advanced without the usual terms and conditions and it is necessary to determine the appropriate treatment, year on year.
The equity function argument comes up either in response to HMRC seeking to impute interest, or when companies occasionally approach HMRC seeking agreement on the transfer pricing treatment of an outward loan. There is no formal clearance process designed for this issue, but it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the issue without HMRC being able to provide certainty as to treatment.
However, although advanced thin capitalisation agreements (ATCAs) were not originally designed with this sort of issue in mind, there is no reason in principle why a case which was significant and complex enough should not be subject to an ATCA covering the tax treatment of this issue. An ATCA also offers the possibility of a more flexible treatment over time - for example agreeing that interest will be imputed once the borrower has established itself and is able to service the loan, subject to an agreed schedule.
If accepted, the equity function argument means that the sum advanced will, unless recharacterised again at some point in the future, generate neither interest income nor dividends. The recipient will hopefully provide a dividend return in the long run (though the 바카라 사이트渆quity function바카라 사이트� money will itself provide no entitlement), since the money will be put to work in the borrower바카라 사이트檚 business, but this is unquantifiable and uncertain, and not the basis on which money would be lent between unconnected persons.