Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/klient.dhosting.pl/purplrocket/academyoftaxlaw.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/elementor-pro/modules/dynamic-tags/tags/post-featured-image.php on line 39

Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/klient.dhosting.pl/purplrocket/academyoftaxlaw.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/elementor-pro/modules/dynamic-tags/tags/post-featured-image.php on line 39

Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/klient.dhosting.pl/purplrocket/academyoftaxlaw.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/elementor-pro/modules/dynamic-tags/tags/post-featured-image.php on line 39

Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/klient.dhosting.pl/purplrocket/academyoftaxlaw.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/elementor-pro/modules/dynamic-tags/tags/post-featured-image.php on line 39
Case Analysis: Mylan Australia Holding Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation

Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/klient.dhosting.pl/purplrocket/academyoftaxlaw.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/elementor-pro/modules/dynamic-tags/tags/post-featured-image.php on line 39

Case Analysis: Mylan Australia Holding Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation

Table of Contents

Case Information:

  • Court: Federal Court of Australia
  • Case No: VID 770 of 2021; VID 526 of 2022
  • Applicant: Mylan Australia Holding Pty Ltd
  • Defendant: Commissioner of Taxation
  • Judgment Date: 20 March 2024

CLICK HERE FOR FULL JUDGMENT

Judgment Summary:

The Federal Court of Australia ruled in favour of Mylan Australia Holding Pty Ltd (MAHPL) against the Commissioner of Taxation. The case revolved around the disallowance of interest deductions claimed by MAHPL under intercompany promissory notes (PN A2 and PN A4) used to finance the acquisition of Alphapharm, an Australian subsidiary of Merck Generics. The court found that MAHPL did not obtain a tax benefit within the meaning of Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) and that the assessments issued by the Commissioner were excessive.

Key Points of the Judgment:

Background:

  1. In 2007, Mylan Inc., the ultimate parent company of MAHPL, acquired the global pharmaceutical business Merck Generics, including Alphapharm, for approximately USD 7 billion.
  2. The acquisition was financed through debt and equity, with significant intercompany loans structured to optimize tax benefits.
  3. MAHPL claimed deductions for interest expenses incurred under intercompany promissory notes PN A2 and PN A4.

Core Dispute:

The core dispute centred on whether MAHPL obtained a tax benefit in connection with a scheme to which Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) applies. The Commissioner of Taxation argued that the interest deductions claimed by MAHPL were part of a tax avoidance scheme and issued determinations disallowing these deductions.

Court Findings:

  1. Tax Benefit: The court found that MAHPL did not obtain a tax benefit as defined under Part IVA. The primary counterfactual proposed by the Commissioner, which assumed a 100% equity-funded acquisition, was deemed unreasonable.
  2. Dominant Purpose: The court concluded that the dominant purpose of the scheme was not to obtain a tax benefit. The structuring of the acquisition, including the use of intercompany loans, was driven by commercial considerations.
  3. Counterfactual Analysis: The court rejected the Commissioner’s primary counterfactual and accepted MAHPL’s counterfactual, which involved a mix of debt and equity funding. The court found that a mixed funding approach was more commercially realistic and aligned with Mylan’s overall financial strategy.
  4. Overall Foreign Loss (OFL) Position: The court considered Mylan’s OFL position in the US, which would have resulted in an inability to claim foreign tax credits for income taxes paid in Australia under a 100% equity-funded scenario.
  5. Repatriation of Funds: The court accepted that Mylan intended to repatriate free cash flow from its subsidiaries to service external debt and reduce leverage, contrary to the Commissioner’s arguments.
  6. Interest Rates and Terms: The court examined the terms of the intercompany loans, including the fixed interest rate applied to PN A2, and found them to be commercially reasonable.

Outcome:

The court ruled in favour of MAHPL, finding that the assessments issued by the Commissioner were excessive. The court ordered the parties to provide draft orders giving effect to the judgment and to file submissions on costs if there was any disagreement.

Transfer Pricing Method Used:

The case involved using intercompany promissory notes (PN A2 and PN A4) to finance the acquisition. The interest rates on these notes were benchmarked to ensure they were at arm’s length, as required under transfer pricing regulations.

Major Issues or Areas of Contention:

  1. Tax Benefit: Whether MAHPL obtained a tax benefit in connection with the scheme.
  2. Dominant Purpose: Whether the dominant purpose of the scheme was to obtain a tax benefit.
  3. Counterfactual Analysis: The reasonableness of the Commissioner’s primary counterfactual versus MAHPL’s proposed counterfactual.
  4. Repatriation of Funds: The intention and ability of Mylan to repatriate free cash flow from subsidiaries to service debt.
  5. Interest Rates and Terms: The commercial reasonableness of the intercompany loan terms.

Decision Analysis:

The decision was somewhat expected given the commercial rationale behind the structuring of the acquisition. However, it was controversial due to the significant tax implications and the Commissioner’s aggressive stance on disallowing the interest deductions.

Significance for Multinationals and Revenue Services:

  1. Importance of Commercial Rationale: The judgment underscores the need for robust commercial justification in structuring cross-border acquisitions and intercompany financing arrangements.
  2. Transfer Pricing Documentation: The case highlights the importance of maintaining comprehensive transfer pricing documentation to support intercompany transactions.
  3. Tax Planning Considerations: Multinationals must carefully consider the interplay between different tax jurisdictions when structuring international acquisitions and financing.
  4. Revenue Authority Approach: The decision may influence how revenue authorities approach similar cases involving complex international structures and intercompany financing.

Value of Transfer Pricing Expertise:

Transfer pricing expertise ensures that intercompany transactions are conducted at arm’s length and comply with local and international tax regulations. In this case, the benchmarking of interest rates on intercompany loans was a key factor in the court’s decision. The case demonstrates the importance of:

  1. Structuring intercompany financing arrangements
  2. Benchmarking interest rates and other terms to ensure arm’s length pricing
  3. Preparing robust transfer pricing documentation
  4. Defending transfer pricing positions in disputes with tax authorities

Preventative Measures:

To avoid disputes like this, companies should implement a proper tax risk management process and establish a tax steering committee. This includes:

  1. Implement a comprehensive tax risk management process
  2. Establish a tax steering committee to oversee tax planning and compliance
  3. Regularly review and update transfer pricing policies and documentation
  4. Conduct thorough benchmarking studies to support intercompany pricing
  5. Maintain detailed documentation of the commercial rationale behind tax planning strategies
  6. Ensure alignment between tax planning and overall business objectives

For more information on the importance of a tax steering committee, click here.

In Closing

This case serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between tax planning, transfer pricing, and commercial considerations in international business operations. It highlights the need for multinationals to carefully balance tax efficiency with robust commercial justification and comprehensive documentation.

Shopping Cart
Scroll to Top

Compare Programmes

Choose the track that fits your practice focus. All programmes are practitioner-taught, cohort-based, and validated by Middlesex University.

Dimension Transfer Pricing International Taxation South African Tax Law
Jurisdictional audience Global audience, covers all jurisdictions Global audience, covers all jurisdictions South Africa specific, relevant to SADC region
Ideal for TP managers, advisors, in-house tax teams, analysts moving into TP Advisors and managers dealing with cross-border rules, treaties, planning Practitioners working with the SA Income Tax Act, cases, compliance
Core focus Methods, comparables, DEMPE, documentation, audits, dispute defence Treaties, source vs residence, anti-avoidance, PE, relief from double tax Statutory interpretation, case law, assessments, objections, local practice
Primary tools OECD TP Guidelines, UN Manual, BEPS Actions 8–10, 13, case law OECD and UN Models, MLI, BEPS 1.0 and 2.0, domestic rules, cases Income Tax Act, SARS practice notes, Tax Administration Act, SA cases
Assessment style Case-based assignments, file reviews, short written defences Problem questions, treaty interpretation, position papers Problem questions, statutory analysis, case commentary
Typical outcomes Build defensible TP files and strategies, improve audit readiness Design cross-border structures within rules, mitigate double tax Apply SA tax law accurately, manage reviews and disputes
Entry point Start with PG Certificate, progress to PG Diploma, then MSc, or enter later with suitable experience or credits.

Awards Ladder

Award Best for What you achieve Assessment highlights
PG Certificate Foundation to intermediate upskilling Core concepts, frameworks, and applied techniques Short case write ups, timed responses, applied tasks
PG Diploma Expanding technical depth and application Advanced analysis, risk management, documentation quality Integrated case assignments, policy memos, oral defence
MSc Leaders and specialists building authority Capstone project and research backed practice outcomes Research project, viva or presentation, publishable summary

IFF Certificate Courses

Practical, practitioner-led certificates designed for immediate on-the-job application. Each course can stand alone or act as a pathway into our postgraduate tracks.

Dimension Conducting a Transfer Pricing Trial Effectively Managing Tax Teams Indirect Taxation Tax Risk Management
Jurisdictional audience Global audience Global audience Global audience, with local adaptation Global audience
Ideal for In-house tax, TP managers, litigators, advisors preparing for audits, ADR, trial Heads of tax, managers, team leads, controllers, emerging leaders VAT, GST, customs, finance managers, AP, AR, compliance specialists Tax managers, risk officers, controllers, advisors building governance
Core focus Case theory, evidence files, expert reports, witness prep, courtroom strategy Operating models, KPIs, workflows, stakeholder management, coaching VAT design, place of supply, input credits, exemptions, WHT interactions Risk identification, controls, documentation, audit readiness, dispute playbooks
Delivery mode Online, live sessions plus guided self-study Online, live sessions plus guided self-study Online, live sessions plus guided self-study Online, live sessions plus guided self-study
Duration 16 weeks, part-time 16 weeks, part-time 16 weeks, part-time 16 weeks, part-time
Outcomes Confident litigation preparation and defence for TP disputes Stronger execution, clear roles, measurable team performance Reduced VAT errors, better cash flow, fewer surprises at audit Structured governance, fewer findings, faster dispute resolution
Prerequisites TP fundamentals recommended Supervisory experience helpful Basic VAT knowledge helpful General tax experience helpful
Pathway Progress to PG Certificate in Transfer Pricing Progress to Mechanics of Leading Tax Teams, PG Certificate (leadership) Progress to PG programmes, International Tax or SA Tax Law Progress to PG Certificate in International Taxation or Transfer Pricing
Assessment End of module progress assessment

5000-word assignment if PG-Cert option elected
End of module progress assessment

5000-word assignment if PG-Cert option elected
End of module progress assessment

5000-word assignment if PG-Cert option elected
End of module progress assessment

5000-word assignment if PG-Cert option elected