This site uses cookies to provide you with a more responsive and personalised service. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookie notice for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.

Bookmark Email Print page

Banks and cash-pooling

Banking on Tax, Issue 7


Cash-pooling arrangements raise a number of tax and regulatory issues to be considered by a bank when it facilitates a cash-pooling arrangement for a corporate client. For example:

  • What is the impact of cash-pooling on the bank’s regulatory capital position?
  • What is the relevance of the general anti-avoidance provisions to cash-pooling?
  • What is the bank’s exposure to the promoter penalty regime?
  • What is the impact of withholding taxes?

We consider each of these issues below.

Regulatory capital impact

The regulatory capital impacts of cash-pooling within a single jurisdiction tend to create fewer issues than cross-border cash-pooling (although issues of netting still need to be considered for inter-country cash-pooling arrangements). However, an emerging issue for cross-border cash-pooling arrangements is where the prudential regulator in the jurisdiction of the “header company” of a cash pool, requires a bank to maintain independent systems and regulatory capital for transactions that might, absent cash-pooling, have been undertaken in a bank’s home country. For example, the prudential regulators in certain Asian jurisdictions require a bank’s systems and capital obligations to be met as if that jurisdiction was self contained. Cross-border cash-pooling has the capacity to increase the capital obligations of a bank, where Australia and the foreign jurisdiction both require the maintenance of capital in their respective jurisdictions.

General anti-avoidance provisions

If a bank participates in a cash-pooling arrangement, it is difficult to see how the general anti-avoidance regime (GAAR) could apply to it (absent some unusual factual matter peculiar to a particular corporate client). Whether or not the GAAR could apply to the corporate participants of a cash-pooling arrangement is less obvious. However, if a corporate participant enters into and conducts cash-pooling for commercial reasons unrelated to tax, then the GAAR should not apply to participants in a cash-pooling arrangement.

Promoter penalty regime

Notwithstanding that the GAAR may not apply to a bank that participates in a cash-pooling arrangement, a bank would still need to be aware that it may still have an exposure to promoter penalties (i.e. where a cash-pooling arrangement is entered into and conducted by a corporate client with a tax avoidance purpose, including withholding tax). Promoter penalties were introduced to deter the promotion of tax-avoidance arrangements. A bank can, inter alia, be subject to a civil penalty if it promotes a tax-exploitation scheme. For a scheme to be a tax-exploitation scheme, two conditions must be satisfied. The first condition is that it must be reasonable to conclude the bank entered into a cash-pooling arrangement with the dominant purpose of obtaining a scheme benefit. The second condition is that it must not be reasonably arguable that the scheme benefit was available under the tax laws. Accordingly, cash-pooling arrangements facilitated by a bank for commercial benefits (unrelated to tax) for their corporate clients should not expose a bank to promoter penalties.

Withholding taxes

The form and structure of cash-pooling arrangements can result in significantly different interest withholding tax outcomes, both for the bank and for the corporate participants. For example, cross-border notional pooling into an Australian bank can result in the elimination of withholding taxes; compared to, say, an on-shore header company, where withholding tax could arise on arrangements between the on-shore header company and other foreign pool participants. A bank facilitating such arrangements should ensure that it is facilitating the arrangement for reasons unrelated to minimising withholding tax.

Other issues to consider

Other taxation and regulatory issues that a bank involved in cash-pooling arrangements should consider include:

  • Transfer pricing (with minimal guidance from the Australian Taxation Office and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development – which has the potential for authorities to take differing positions, potentially resulting in double taxation)
  • Dealing with information requests from taxation authorities, particularly where there are cross-border confidentiality obligations
  • Whether the bank is appropriately indemnified for unexpected adverse taxation and regulatory outcomes.

Cash-pooling arrangements are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and more widespread. Accordingly, the taxation issues arising out of facilitating cash-pooling arrangements, particularly cross-border cash-pooling arrangements, will require tax input from the early stages of development.

Related links


Follow us


Talk to us