Canada: U.S. Court Rejects Formula Apportionment in Computing Business Profits of a Foreign Bank Branch

In December 2005, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that National Westminster Bank, PLC, a U.K.-based multinational bank (NatWest), was not required to apply the formula-based apportionment of interest expense required under domestic U.S. tax law and ruled instead that it was entitled to rely on the properly maintained books and records of its U.S. branch in computing its business profits. In its third decision in the continuing tax dispute, the court provided some valuable guidance on the practical application of the "business profits" article in most tax treaties.

NatWest conducted its banking operations in the U.S. through several offices at various U.S. locations. NatWest treated all of these offices as a single U.S. branch operation, which it funded through intra-company advances. The U.S. branch reported the bulk of these advances on its books and records as loans and claimed interest expense with respect to these loans in computing its profits for U.S. tax purposes. NatWest’s U.S. branch was highly leveraged, operating with a far lower capital-to-total-assets ratio (as low as 0.76%) than would have a separately-incorporated bank subsidiary subject to U.S. minimum capital requirements. Since the interest "charged" by the U.K. parent on amounts reported as debt on the U.S. branch’s books and records reduced the branch’s income for U.S. tax purposes, what was at stake in the NatWest litigation was the proper determination of the share of NatWest’s worldwide profits taxable by the U.S.

While some aspects of the NatWest rulings (which dealt with the 1981-1987 tax years) may prove to be of principally historic interest to foreign banks with U.S. branches, the court’s approach contains helpful insights that may be applicable to many situations in which tax treaty rules overlay domestic rules for determining branch expenses.

The IRS Position

The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) denied the deduction for the intra-company loan interest expense claimed by NatWest’s U.S. branch and applied a U.S. Treasury Regulation that apportions interest expense deductions in computing income that is "effectively connected" with a U.S. trade or business. The Regulation disregards intra-company advances (such as those recorded by NatWest’s U.S. branch as loans) and uses instead a formula-based determination of a foreign taxpayer’s U.S. branch interest expense. The formula treats a foreign corporation’s U.S. branch as having "U.S.-connected liabilities" in proportion to the actual ratio of worldwide liabilities to worldwide assets or to an elective fixed ratio (currently 93%). The U.S.-connected liabilities derived under that formula are then used as the basis for computing U.S. branch interest expense under the Regulation. NatWest’s U.S. branch had recorded an amount of the advances received from its headquarters as being debt (rather than equity) in excess of the level of debt that would be imputed to the branch under the Regulation’s formula. Consequently, the IRS sought to deny what it regarded as the excess interest expense claimed by NatWest.

The IRS had long maintained that these U.S. domestic tax rules are also the exclusive method for determining the business profits of a U.S. permanent establishment under U.S. tax treaties. However, in a series of three rulings on motions for summary judgment, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims upheld NatWest’s method of allocating interest expense deductions for U.S. tax purposes based on the properly maintained books and records of its U.S. branch. Contrary to the U.S. Regulation, the court’s rulings recognize as relevant, for computing branch business profits under a tax treaty, transactions of the branch with the head office.

The Earlier NatWest Decisions

In decisions delivered in 1999 and 2003, the Court of Federal Claims established important principles pertaining to the interaction of tax treaties and a jurisdiction’s internal legal rules in apportioning interest expense to local branches.

In the first case of the NatWest trilogy in 1999, the court ruled that the U.S. Treasury Regulation that used a formula to disallow some of the interest expense reflected in the financial records of the U.S. branch was inconsistent with the former U.K.–U.S. tax treaty’s business profits article, which required attribution to a permanent establishment of those profits it would make if it were a "distinct and separate enterprise." Thus, the court held that the treaty required that branch profits should be based on the books and records of the branch maintained as if the branch were a distinct and separate enterprise dealing independently with the remainder of the foreign corporation. In particular, the court recognized that intra-company dealings set forth in those books and records are relevant in determining the profits to be attributed to a permanent establishment. It further held that those books and records could only be adjusted, if necessary, to ensure the use of market rates in computing branch interest expense and to impute adequate capital to the branch.

In the second case in 2003, the dispute turned on whether NatWest’s U.S. branch was in fact adequately capitalized (see our Osler Update). The U.S. government interpreted the "distinct and separate enterprise" requirement in the U.K.–U.S. treaty to mean that the profits of NatWest’s U.S. branch should be determined as if the branch were a separately incorporated subsidiary. A U.S. incorporated bank is subject to minimum capital requirements, whereas a branch of a foreign bank is not. Thus, for example, for the tax years at issue NatWest’s various branch offices operated with capital ratios (capital/total assets) ranging from 0.76% to 1.75%, while a separately-incorporated U.S. subsidiary of NatWest had capital ratios that varied from 6.03% to 7.19%. Under the U.S. government’s position, based on a comparison to the capital of a U.S. incorporated bank, an amount of capital should be imputed to the branch and be treated as equity capital of the U.S. branch, thereby reducing the branch’s debt funding and, consequently, its interest expense.

The court in 2003 held that the text of the U.K.–U.S. treaty provided no support for hypothetical infusions of capital into the U.S. branch based upon capital requirements that applied to U.S. incorporated banks and not to branches. In addition, relevant OECD commentary rejected hypothetical equity capital imputations and only supported adjusting branch interest expense in limited circumstances, namely, where capital advances from a head office had been improperly reported as loans to a branch. To the extent that 2001 and 2003 OECD commentary took a different view, this was of no relevance to the proper interpretation of a treaty that had been negotiated in 1975. The court agreed with NatWest that its U.S. branch was entitled to base its deductible interest expense on its properly maintained books and records, provided that the transactions between the branch and other parts of NatWest were properly characterized in those books and records and met certain other requirements. In this connection, the court noted that NatWest’s position was consistent with the historic position of the U.K., as set forth in the Inland Revenue Banking Manual (the U.K. Manual).

The Most Recent NatWest Decision

In the December 2005 decision the issues decided by the court were framed, to a remarkable extent, by reference to the U.K. Manual. In the 2003 ruling, the court had found, based on principles stated in the U.K. Manual, that the properly maintained books for the U.S. branch could be adjusted if an interest expense was deducted on amounts designated as debt that had in fact been allotted to it for capital purposes, or if interest paid or received on inter-branch loan transactions was not at arm’s-length rates. In the 2005 ruling, the IRS argued that the books and records of the U.S. branch were not adequately maintained. However, the taxpayer’s evidence showed that the preparation of the U.S. branch’s books and records was subject to both regulatory and head office controls, as well as internal branch control procedures (which the Bank of England had found to be exemplary). The court concluded that the U.S. branch had properly maintained its books and records. The court repeatedly deferred to NatWest’s books and records as having presumptive validity in the determination of branch interest expense.

The next question before the court was whether NatWest was entitled to aggregate all of its U.S. offices and to treat them as a single taxable unit (or permanent establishment) for U.S. tax purposes. Because some of NatWest’s U.S. offices had sustained losses, the U.S. government had argued that more capital should be allocated to those offices and, in turn, that the interest expense allocable to those offices should be reduced. However, if the various offices were aggregated, there was no such need for additional capital. The court held that it was a question of law whether there was a single permanent establishment as maintained by NatWest. There was no precedent for treating each of NatWest’s branch offices as a separate permanent establishment, and the IRS had always accepted NatWest’s income tax returns filed on the basis that there was only one permanent establishment in the United States. The fact that NatWest’s six offices maintained separate books and records for internal accounting purposes did not mean that the offices were six separate permanent establishments. Accordingly, the court held that NatWest was entitled to account for its capital and claim an interest deduction on the basis that all of its U.S. offices were a single taxable unit (or permanent establishment).

The next question was whether the U.S. branch, in its books and records, had treated as debt financing what the IRS alleged should have been treated as capital advances (in which case, the U.K Manual would permit an adjustment to the interest expense reported on the branch books and records). The government argued that the U.S. branch had claimed interest expense on advances provided to it to finance fixed assets or other capital expenses of the U.S. branch which should have been treated as capital advances. The court disagreed. NatWest had voluntarily reversed any previously claimed U.S. interest deductions in respect of such capital advances. The government counter-argued that, even if that were so, in calculating its profits, NatWest had failed to account for "economic capital", i.e., an amount the branch would hypothetically need to support the economic risks of its banking operations. The court rejected the government’s position that the U.K.–U.S. tax treaty then in force required the U.S. branch to account for "economic capital". NatWest was entitled to compute its U.S. branch’s interest expense, consistently with the treaty and the U.K. Manual, based on the amount of capital which in reality had been advanced to the branch, not on a hypothetical economic capital amount.

The remaining issue was whether NatWest paid and received arm’s length interest rates on both (a) money market transactions and (b) clearing account transactions. Based on the court’s view of the facts, NatWest was successful on the first, but failed to obtain summary judgment on the second issue.

Implications for Multinational Taxpayers

The NatWest trilogy of cases is required reading for anyone involved in international tax affairs of a multinational group. The specific context in which the rulings were made should be kept in mind. The cases involved the former U.K.–U.S. tax treaty, which was signed before the United States issued its formula-based Regulation, and the same conclusion would not be reached under the current treaty, which (like the Japan–U.S. treaty) was negotiated explicitly on the basis of permitting allocation of interest expense based on a type of formulary apportionment (risk weighting of worldwide assets). The NatWest court reached its conclusions in part because of the lack of evidence that the former treaty countenanced a formula-based method of allocating expenses. The tax years at issue in NatWest also predated the 1996 insertion in the language of the Regulation that it is generally meant to apply for purposes of determining U.S. branch business profits under tax treaties. Thus, it should not be assumed that a court interpreting a different OECD-based treaty than the 1975 U.K.–U.S. tax treaty, or later tax years, will reach the same conclusions as did the Court of Federal Claims. Nonetheless, the decisions offer some important insights and guidance:

  • By rejecting domestic formula-based income and expense allocation and imputation methods and relying on the branch’s properly maintained books and records in the determination of a branch’s business profits, the NatWest trilogy raises questions about the validity in certain cases of domestic formulaic rules that apply to branches of certain foreign taxpayers – for example, banks and insurance companies – in the face of applicable tax treaty provisions (indeed, an analogous challenge of a domestic formulary rule succeeded in respect of a Canadian insurer’s determination of its U.S. business profits under the Canada–U.S. tax treaty in a 1996 U.S. Tax Court decision). Accordingly non-residents carrying on business through branches reporting expense and/or business profits based on such domestic rules may consider reviewing the provisions of applicable treaties – as well as their "legislative history" – to evaluate the basis on which the branch is, or should be, taxed in the host country. If, based on such a review, it seems that a treaty may provide a different basis for taxation than that provided by the host country’s rules, such taxpayers should aim to meet (or exceed) the standards set by NatWest in maintaining the books and records of their foreign branches, given the primacy of the branch books and records in the analysis applied in the NatWest rulings.
  • The court’s analysis in the 2003 and 2005 decisions calls into question certain OECD interpretations of that organization’s own model tax treaty. The 2003 decision finds that certain interpretations of the business profits article advanced in two OECD reports (see the OECD’s 2001 "Discussion Draft on Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments" and its 2003 "Discussion Draft on the Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments: Part II (Banks)", advocating an approach akin to the "economic capital" imputation that was rejected by the court) lack support in the plain wording of the OECD model treaty-inspired U.K.–U.S. treaty. The 2005 decision rejected the U.S. government’s imputation of "economic capital" based on economic risk – an approach advocated in the OECD’s 2003 report on business profits of bank permanent establishments.
  • The finding in the 2005 NatWest decision that all of the U.S. offices were a single permanent establishment is a helpful development for foreign taxpayers with multiple host country branch offices because it allows the consolidation of the profits and losses of such offices in computing the overall business profits attributable to the permanent establishment in the host country. Taxpayers that have no offices or other fixed places of business in a treaty jurisdiction but have some level of activity in the jurisdiction may find this aspect of the ruling less comforting if it is interpreted as permitting the aggregation of disparate activities into a permanent establishment.

Authors credit: Richard Tremblay is a tax partner in the Toronto office of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP with an international tax practice. Hemant Tilak is a partner in the firm's Tax Department and is based in the Toronto office, where he provides tax and related advisory services to insurance companies and other insurance organizations. Matias Milet is an associate in the Tax Department of Osler's Toronto office.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.