{"id":7026,"date":"2019-02-07T16:49:48","date_gmt":"2019-02-07T15:49:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/it.andersen.com\/leverage-buy-out-tax-avoidance-and-interests-paid-deduction\/"},"modified":"2020-06-11T18:04:30","modified_gmt":"2020-06-11T16:04:30","slug":"leverage-buy-out-tax-avoidance-and-interests-paid-deduction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/it.andersen.com\/en\/leverage-buy-out-tax-avoidance-and-interests-paid-deduction\/","title":{"rendered":"Leverage buy-out: tax avoidance and interests paid deduction"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Tax Court with the decision No. 868\/2019 ruled that the LBO transactions cannot constitute a tax avoidance when they have an economic substance other than tax benefits.<br \/>\nIn the case in point, the activity of leveraged buy-out was about the acquisition of 50% of the capital share of a trade company by two new partner. The Tax Office challenged the acquisition of the subsidiary shareholding using a bank loan despite positive balance sheets. For the Tax Authority this transaction was without economic substance and did not produce significant effects other than tax benefit (as per Circular 6\/2016).<\/p>\n<p>However the Supreme Court consider the acquisition of new financing partners as a valid economic reason that comply with tax law principles. The LBO acquisition did not procure undue tax avoidance, because it produced significant economic effect.<br \/>\nIn addition the Supreme Court (according with the decision No. 19430\/2018) admitted the deductibility of interests paid within the limits of 30 percent of the ROL (as per art. 96 Presidential Decree n. 917\/1986 and Circular 6\/2016 of Tax Authority).<\/p>\n<p>Please note contrariwise, the following decisions of Supreme Court No. 7292\/2006, No. 24930\/2011 and No. 4115\/2014 that considered the deductibility of interests paid only as inherent to the transaction profit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Tax Court with the decision No. 868\/2019 ruled that the LBO transactions cannot constitute a tax avoidance when they have an economic substance other than tax benefits. In the case in point, the activity of leveraged buy-out was about the acquisition of 50% of the capital share of a trade company by two [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":8454,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[50],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7026","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insights"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/it.andersen.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7026","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/it.andersen.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/it.andersen.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/it.andersen.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/it.andersen.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7026"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/it.andersen.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7026\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/it.andersen.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8454"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/it.andersen.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7026"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/it.andersen.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7026"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/it.andersen.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7026"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}