The Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld an Appellate Tax Board decision disallowing interest expense on certain intercompany financing transactions because the underlying agreements did not establish an “unqualified obligation to repay.” The taxpayers, subsidiaries of a British utility, entered into a series of complex agreements—deferred subscription agreements—to sell and repurchase stock. The agreements were meant to constitute debt for U.S. federal and state tax purposes and equity under U.K. law, which strictly forbids debentures between a U.K. entity and a foreign subsidiary. The specific issue was whether, under the relevant provisions of the agreements, the share repurchase was mandatory, in which case there was an “unqualified obligation to repay,” or merely discretionary. The court found that the provisions were ambiguous because they contained both mandatory and discretionary language. The court found no error in the board’s decision to give little weight to the taxpayers’ evidence regarding their subjective intent and agreed that the taxpayers’ twin goals of international tax arbitrage and avoiding the creation of debentures under U.K. law were more reliable considerations. Ultimately, the court held that the taxpayers failed to meet their burden of proving that the agreements constituted true indebtedness or an “unqualified obligation to repay.” Nat’l Grid Holdings, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, No. 14-P-1662 (Mass. App. Ct. June 8, 2016).
Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.
Questions? Please contact firstname.lastname@example.orgRegister
Money for Nothing: Massachusetts Appeals Court Finds Intercompany Financing Transactions Did Not Constitute Genuine Indebtedness
Popular articles from this firm
If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email email@example.com.
Related topic hubs
In House Lawyer
Phones 4u Limited
"I find the Lexology service invaluable.
In common with many in-house lawyers, I have limited access to (and a limited budget for) resources and rely on receiving know-how from friends and contacts in private practice. Lexology is great as it provides a daily email with the headlines in all the areas of law that I am interested in (which are all relevant to me, as I was able to choose which areas I was interested in at registration), with links to articles from a wide variety of sources.
I tend to scroll through the daily email when I am having my lunch, reading the headlines and descriptions of the articles, and click on any items that are of interest to me - that way, I feel like I am kept 'in the loop' with legal developments.
In addition to the daily email, I find the articles themselves very helpful - they set out the legal principle but most importantly, they 'boil it down' to the practical implications. When I am doing legal research, I also find the archive search function very helpful.
I have recommended the service to quite a few friends who have also found it very helpful."