A Comparative Analysis of Anti-Avoidance Measures in Cross-Border Transactions

In international tax law, striking the right balance between anti-avoidance measures and cross-border economic freedoms is an ongoing challenge. European Union (EU) law, mainly through the freedom of establishment, allows companies to set up businesses in any Member State freely. However, Member States also have the right to implement tax rules that prevent avoidance and protect their fiscal interests.

This tension is reflected in three cases that we have recently looked at: Cadbury Schweppes plc v UK, X Holding BV v Netherlands, and Lexel AB v Sweden.

I would like to expand upon the common legal themes that connect these cases, mainly focusing on applying anti-avoidance rules, preserving tax sovereignty, and restricting cross-border taxation. Additionally, I will explore related examples to highlight how multinational enterprises (MNEs) can structure their operations to avoid being caught by these measures while still complying with EU law.

The Common Issue: Anti-Avoidance in the Context of Cross-Border Transactions

At the core of these three cases is the delicate balance between preventing tax avoidance and protecting the EU’s fundamental freedoms, particularly the freedom of establishment. The freedom of establishment, as enshrined in Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), allows companies to set up businesses and subsidiaries across borders within the EU. However, this freedom can be abused through wholly artificial arrangements—structures with little or no economic substance designed purely to minimise tax liabilities.

Wholly Artificial Arrangements

The principle of wholly artificial arrangements refers to situations where the primary purpose of a cross-border transaction or structure is to exploit tax benefits rather than to engage in genuine economic activities. These structures often have little substance, such as no real staff, physical premises, or independent business activities in the jurisdiction.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has repeatedly ruled that while Member States can implement anti-avoidance rules to combat such schemes, these rules must not go beyond what is necessary and must not restrict genuine economic activities. This principle is at the heart of the three cases being discussed, but it also resonates in several other key judgments, as will be explored later.

Brief Overview of Each Case

Cadbury Schweppes plc v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (C-196/04)

Cadbury Schweppes plc had established two subsidiaries in Ireland, primarily to benefit from Ireland’s favourable corporate tax regime. The UK’s Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules sought to tax the profits of these subsidiaries unless they could demonstrate genuine economic activity. The ECJ ruled that the UK’s CFC rules could only be applied to wholly artificial arrangements that existed solely to avoid tax. Since Cadbury Schweppes’ Irish subsidiaries were carrying out genuine economic activities, the CFC rules could not be applied.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE CASE SUMMARY

X Holding BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-337/08)

In this case, a Dutch parent company, X Holding BV, wanted to consolidate tax returns with its Belgian subsidiary to offset profits and losses across borders. However, Dutch law restricted tax consolidation to domestic companies. The ECJ ruled that this restriction did not violate the freedom of establishment, as it was a proportionate measure designed to prevent tax avoidance and ensure a balanced allocation of tax powers between Member States.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE CASE SUMMARY

Lexel AB v Skatteverket (C-484/19)

Lexel AB, a Swedish company, entered into a loan arrangement with a related company in a low-tax jurisdiction. Although the transaction was conducted on arm’s length terms, the Swedish tax authority denied the interest deduction, invoking anti-avoidance rules. The ECJ upheld this decision, emphasising that interest deductions could be denied where the transactions form part of a wholly artificial arrangement designed to avoid taxation.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE CASE SUMMARY

Detailed Comparison

Common Themes in the Cases

1. Anti-Avoidance and Wholly Artificial Arrangements
   The primary legal issue in all three cases revolves around the concept of wholly artificial arrangements. In Cadbury Schweppes, the UK’s CFC rules were designed to target such structures. Similarly, in Lexel AB, the interest deduction was denied because the transaction was deemed to lack genuine economic substance. The ECJ consistently rules that Member States are permitted to apply anti-avoidance rules, but only if they target artificial structures that serve no other purpose than tax avoidance.
   
2. Preservation of Tax Sovereignty
   A key theme in X Holding BV is the balance of tax sovereignty. The ECJ recognised that Member States have the right to restrict cross-border tax consolidation to protect their fiscal sovereignty and prevent tax base erosion. This theme also appears in Lexel AB, where Sweden was allowed to deny an interest deduction, and in Cadbury Schweppes, where the UK sought to protect its tax base by imposing CFC charges.
   
3. Cross-Border Restrictions and Taxation
   In each case, the Court had to weigh the freedom of establishment against the right of Member States to protect their tax revenues. The decisions in these cases all involve cross-border taxation restrictions, whether denying tax consolidation in X Holding BV, limiting interest deductions in Lexel AB, or imposing CFC rules in Cadbury Schweppes. However, the Court has been careful to ensure that these restrictions are proportionate and do not unduly infringe on companies’ rights to establish businesses across borders.

Differences in Jurisdictional Approaches

Despite the overarching theme of anti-avoidance, the facts and jurisdictional nuances of each case led to distinct applications of legal principles:

1. Cadbury Schweppes focused on CFC rules, which inherently target cross-border transactions. The UK’s CFC regime was scrutinised for its potential to infringe on the freedom of establishment, and the ECJ’s decision narrowed the scope of these rules to target only artificial arrangements.
2. X Holding BV, however, revolved around denying cross-border tax consolidation. While the Court still applied the freedom of establishment test, it allowed for a broader justification based on the need to preserve fiscal coherence within the EU, especially regarding tax base erosion.
3. Lexel AB involved interest deduction limitations, a different but related tool in the tax avoidance arsenal. The Court’s focus on the arm’s length principle highlighted that even commercially justified transactions could be subjected to anti-avoidance scrutiny if part of an artificial structure.

Additional Examples Highlighting These Issues

Cross-Referencing Similar Cases

These cases do not stand in isolation. MNEs and tax professionals can draw further insights from related ECJ rulings, such as Marks & Spencer plc, and more recent tax disputes involving companies like Apple and IKEA.

Marks & Spencer plc v David Halsey (C-446/03)

In the Marks & Spencer case, the issue of cross-border tax consolidation was also central. Marks & Spencer sought to use losses from its subsidiaries in other Member States to offset its profits in the UK. The Court ruled that while cross-border loss relief could be restricted to prevent tax avoidance, such a restriction must be proportionate and allow for relief in certain circumstances, such as where the losses cannot be used in the subsidiary’s home country. This case, like X Holding BV, highlights the tension between tax sovereignty and cross-border freedom and the need for proportionality in anti-avoidance measures.

Apple’s Tax Dispute with the European Commission

One of the most prominent recent examples of anti-avoidance measures in cross-border transactions involves Apple and its use of subsidiaries in Ireland to benefit from favourable tax rulings. The European Commission argued that these rulings constituted illegal state aid, allowing Apple to pay significantly less tax than other companies. While not an ECJ ruling, this case exemplifies the tension between Member States’ tax practices and the broader EU goal of ensuring fair taxation across borders. Like Cadbury Schweppes, the crux of the dispute was whether Apple’s subsidiaries in Ireland were genuine or simply a vehicle for tax avoidance.

IKEA’s Tax Dispute with the Netherlands

IKEA has also faced scrutiny over its use of cross-border structures to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions. In this case, the Netherlands allowed IKEA to license its intellectual property to subsidiaries in low-tax jurisdictions, reducing its overall tax liability. Like Apple’s case, the European Commission investigated whether this arrangement violated EU state aid rules. This highlights how, even within the confines of legal tax planning, cross-border structures can be subject to intense scrutiny if they appear to be primarily motivated by tax avoidance.

Tax and Legal Implications for MNEs

The rulings in Cadbury Schweppes, X Holding BV, and Lexel AB reinforce the need for substance over form in cross-border tax planning. For multinational enterprises, these cases demonstrate that while tax planning strategies can be employed to take advantage of different tax regimes within the EU, these strategies must reflect genuine economic activity. The key takeaway is that artificial arrangements designed purely to avoid tax will likely be challenged under EU law.

Substance and Genuine Economic Activity

One of the most critical lessons from these cases is ensuring that subsidiaries or cross-border transactions have real substance. This means that MNEs should ensure that:

• Subsidiaries have their management and staff in the host country.
• Transactions with related parties are on arm’s length terms and have a genuine business purpose beyond tax advantages.
• Any financing arrangements or intra-group loans reflect actual economic activity and are not solely designed to reduce tax liabilities.

Proportionality of Anti-Avoidance Measures

Another important takeaway is the ECJ’s emphasis on proportionality. Anti-avoidance rules must be carefully crafted to target only those structures that are wholly artificial. This means that MNEs may have grounds to challenge national tax measures that are overly broad or apply to genuine economic activities. For example, if a Member State seeks to use its CFC rules or deny tax deductions without evidence of an artificial arrangement, the MNE could argue that such measures disproportionately restrict its freedom of establishment.

Preventative Measures and Practical Guidance for MNEs

Given the Court’s rulings, MNEs should consider the following best practices to ensure compliance with both EU law and national tax regimes:

1. Substance Requirements: Ensure that all cross-border subsidiaries and structures have the necessary substance, including local staff, physical presence, and decision-making powers in the host country.
2. Arm’s Length Pricing: Ensure that all intra-group transactions are conducted at arm’s length and are documented accordingly. This is particularly important in financing arrangements, where tax authorities are likely to scrutinise the interest rates and terms of the loans.
3. Tax Risk Management: Develop a comprehensive tax risk management strategy that regularly reviews cross-border structures for compliance with evolving tax rules and case law. This should include regular audits of transfer pricing policies and financing arrangements to ensure that they reflect genuine economic activities.
4. Engage with Authorities: Where there is doubt over the legitimacy of a tax structure, MNEs should engage with national tax authorities to obtain advance rulings or clarifications. This proactive approach can help mitigate the risk of disputes and provide greater certainty for tax planning.

Closing Thoughts

The Cadbury Schweppes, X Holding BV, and Lexel AB cases provide crucial insights into the interaction between anti-avoidance measures and cross-border economic freedoms. For MNEs, the key lesson is that tax planning strategies must be based on genuine economic activity. Wholly artificial arrangements designed to avoid tax will likely be challenged under EU law. Member States have broad powers to protect tax sovereignty through proportional anti-avoidance measures.

By understanding the implications of these cases, MNEs can better navigate the complexities of cross-border tax planning and ensure compliance with national tax laws and EU principles of market freedom.