Menu
We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.
The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ...
Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.
Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.
Widespread tax audits conducted by the Inland Revenue Board (“IRB”) on companies lately are causing jitters among CFOs and tax managers. The ongoing “Operasi Mega Corp” has set off alarm bells on thorny issues such as transfer pricing, withholding tax, retrospective clawback of tax incentives, and the deductibility of expenses.
In terms of transfer pricing, glaring intercompany loans and amounts owing from related companies that are sitting in financial statements are being looked at, with the threat of IRB slapping taxpayers with imputed interest income and penalties looming large. The IRB’s approach often disregards the fact that such transactions are genuinely intended by companies as equity contributions rather than loans.
Urgent Action
Companies must immediately:
Legal Position – Interest or No Interest
A plethora of Commonwealth and foreign case laws have ruled that equity-like advances or loans are not considered debt in nature and, therefore, the charging of interest is unnecessary. The courts have also ruled that the features[1] of an intercompany transaction should be examined holistically before determining and characterising whether it is equity-like or even quasi-equity.
In fact, the Commentary to the OECD Model Tax Convention also sets out the possibility that a prima facie loan may have characteristics of a contribution to equity. Therefore, it is premature to assume that all your intercompany financing or loans must be interest-bearing.
Legal agreements and transfer pricing documentation are therefore vital to support and evidence such characterisation. All these documents and arguments are required to be submitted to the IRB during the audit.
Jason Tan and Chris Toh are Tax Partners of LHAG with heavy specialisation in transfer pricing. They have been advising companies on complex intragroup financing structures, structuring intragroup legal agreements, and formulating effective strategies.
If you have any queries, please contact Partners, Jason Tan Jia Xin (tjx@lh-ag.com) and Chris Toh Pei Roo (tpr@lh-ag.com).
REFERENCE
[1] In many cases, courts will examine at least 10 to 12 features of a transaction before determining its true characterisation. These transactions are largely documented in the form of contracts and agreements.
Learn more about our partners who specialize in this area