• No results found

Hedge accounting has been an area of

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Hedge accounting has been an area of"

Copied!
6
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Holger Haeuselmann is a Partner in the Frankfurt offi ce of the

international law fi rm Freshfi elds Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.

The Mystery of Hedge Accounting

and Its Taxation in Germany

By Holger Haeuselmann

Holger Haeuselmann discusses the issues involved in reconciliation

of a potential confl ict between German tax accounting and fi nancial

reporting rules applicable to a hedging position.

H

edge accounting has been an area of

uncertainty in German fi nancial and tax accounting. As of 2010, however, German companies have to apply the amendment to §254 of the Commercial Code that establishes basic criteria for hedge accounting in fi nancial statements. At the end of July 2010, the Institute of Public Auditors in Germany presented a Draft Auditing Standard on this subject. In August 2010, the Federal Ministry of Finance presented its views on the impact of hedge accounting on the determination of taxable income. The views expressed in the Revenue Statement con-fl ict with prevalent tax accounting practice and may cause some diffi culties in implementation—in par-ticular with regard to the hedging of shareholdings.

The Legal Framework for 2010

With effect from 2010, the German Commercial Code (HGB) was amended by the German Accounting Law Modernisation Act (BilMoG) by introducing the fol-lowing statutory language on hedge accounting to §254 of the HGB:

If assets, liabilities, pending transactions or highly probable forecast transactions are grouped together with fi nancial instruments to compensate opposing changes in values or cash fl ows deriving from comparable risks (hedging relationship), §249 (1) (regarding provisions for potential losses), §252 (1) Nos. 3 and 4 (princi-ple of item-by-item valuation, imparity princi(princi-ple

and realisation principle), §253 (1) sentence 1 (historical cost principle) and §256a (principles of currency translation) are not to be applied to the extent that and for the periods in which op-posing changes in value and cash fl ows offset each other.

Section 5 (1a), sentence 2 of the Income Tax Act (EStG) requires a taxpayer to adopt such results in its tax accounts:

The results from a hedging relationship estab-lished in accordance with fi nancial accounting standards and formed to hedge against fi nancial risk are authoritative for the determination of taxable profi ts.

For the sake of completeness it has to be mentioned that the new rules are to be applied by all industry groups including the insurance and banking industry. However, the concept does not apply to fi nancial instruments held in the trading books of a banking institution. Pursuant to §340e(3) of the HGB, fi nan-cial instruments held by a bank for trading purposes have to be measured at (risk adjusted) fair value. Such valuation is also authoritative for the determination of the taxable profi ts of a bank. This follows from §6(1) No. 2b EStG.

To facilitate the interpretation of §254 of the HGB, the Institute of Public Auditors in Germany (IDW) issued a Draft Auditing Standard on hedge account-ing (IDW ERS HFA 35) dated July 23, 2010. The German Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF) more or less simultaneously published a letter ruling on the interpretation of the complementary §5(1a) EStG.1 he vviewws with culaar w e re e h re e ca tic Th fli fl i ca he v ict w ict w ause ause cula view wit wit e so e so ar w ws h p h p om om with ent tax fic rd to acco es he he unting mplem dging

Fr mework

k fo

or 2010

0

F th k l t reg

(2)

A Brief Overview of the History

of Hedge Accounting in Germany

Financial Accounting

In the past, hedge accounting had always been an alien element in German fi nancial accounting. Hedge accounting was regarded as contradictory to old-school German accounting principles. German GAAP and, thus, German tax accounting has always been governed by the so-called prudence concept:

Assets have to be assessed at the lower of cost or market (historical cost principle).

All anticipated risks and losses that arise up to the balance-sheet date have to be taken into account (imparity principle).

Gains may only be shown if realised by the balance-sheet date (realisation principle).

Assets and liabilities must be measured on an item by item basis (principle of item-by-item valuation). Assets must not be offset against liabilities nor must income be offset against expenses.

The discrepancy between these principles and the concept of hedge accounting is obvious. Neverthe-less, it had become a common view in the accounting profession that at least the concept of true and fair view as stipulated in §264(2) of the HGB should al-low for hedge accounting (whether micro-hedging or macro-hedging) irrespective of any restrictive interpretation of the prudence principle.

To comply with the prudence principle and not to introduce mark-to-market valuation through the back door, the common view of permitted hedge account-ing allowed only an (off-balance sheet) offsettaccount-ing of unrealised gains and unrealised losses of the hedged item and the hedging instrument. Any excess (unre-alised) loss had to be provided for in the accounts whereas net excess (unrealised) gains could not be accounted for—due to the realisation principle.

Tax Accounting

The German tax authorities so far have taken a rather pragmatic approach vis-à-vis hedge account-ing. Although offi cial guidance has never been published, the local tax inspectors were prepared to adopt the hedging methodologies as applied for fi nancial accounting purposes. This policy suffered a signifi cant setback in March 2002. The German Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) expressed its opinion that at best micro-hedging (item-by-item hedging) would be acceptable for tax purposes. Therefore,

in 2006, the legislature felt compelled to amend §5 EStG by introducing subparagraph 1a pursuant to which “the results from a hedging relationship established in accordance with fi nancial accounting standards” should be adopted for tax purposes. The message was that, whatever the views of the Federal Fiscal Court should be, we—the tax authorities—are willing to adopt the result for fi nancial accounting purposes also for tax purposes.

The amended §5 (1a) EStG did not, however, solve a key problem of hedge accounting in taxes, which is how to deal with the exclusion from the tax base of gains and losses from shareholdings,2 whereas cor-responding gains and losses from hedging instruments are included in the tax base (although potentially being ring-fenced under §15 (4) EStG).

Suppose that in 2003 a German corporation invested US $200m in a U.S. subsidiary (€170m acquisition cost) and entered into a fi ve-year FX-hedge expiring in 2008. Suppose further that on expiry the hedging instrument generated an infl ow of €40m; correspond-ingly, the subsequent year end economic assessment of the U.S. investment should refl ect a write-down of €40m. The company is commercially fl at. But how should the termination of the hedging relationship be refl ected in the 2008 fi nancial and tax accounts?

More than once auditors have confi rmed a recogni-tion without any profi t and loss effect: credit cash of €40m, debit participating interests of €40m.

It will not come as a surprise that the tax authorities in a number of tax inspections have favoured a differ-ent view: the infl ow from the expired FX-derivate was treated as generating a fully taxable gain of €40m, while the write-down on the shareholding should not reduce the tax base pursuant to §8b(3) KStG.

The IDW Draft Auditing

Standard and How It Confl icts

with the Newly Issued Revenue

Statement on Hedge Accounting

Basics of the Hedge Accounting Rules

and the Interpretations Thereof

Conceptually, the IDW’s interpretation of the new §254 HGB is only one opinion amongst others. Practically, however, a company needs to get an auditor’s approval of its annual accounts. An audi-tor on his part will usually apply the IDW’s auditing and accounting standards. Thus, the IDW’s position ewasstip etati terppre p dg he io dg he or n vi lo lo or ew ow f ow f r m r m terp as for for mac mac pre stip he he ro-etati accou in the p nting ( re uden whethe ctive o ce prin -m i ket va f aluaat i ion tt n th d ro h oug d th back en t t v ew d h t e inflflflow ti w fromm th f n o

(3)

on hedge accounting will have a great impact on standard accounting practice.

From a tax perspective, the key consideration is that §5(1a) EStG explicitly requires adoption—as far as hedge accounting is concerned—of the result recorded in the fi nancial accounts also for tax purposes. That is, §5(1a) EStG precludes

the use of tax valuation principles that differ from those used in preparing the financial statements. While this will not force the tax authorities to follow the commercial accounting adopted by the taxpayer in all instances without any consideration of the

ap-propriate application of §254 HGB, it will be diffi cult for the tax authorities to claim that a taxpayer and its accountant have incorrectly applied the law in prepar-ing the accounts.

It is the understanding of the IDW that a company may elect (in its full discretion) whether to apply hedge accounting. If a company is commercially hedged and even if the treasurer of a company has designated a hedging position for commercial rea-sons, this does not necessarily require the application of the hedge accounting rules. In the opinion of the IDW, even in this case a company may continue to apply the concept of item-by-item valuation unless it has explicitly designated a hedging relationship for accounting purposes.

In its Revenue Statement of 25 August 2010 the BMF does not address this issue. However, it should be expected that the tax authorities will not accept any right to elect hedge accounting but will simply apply §254 HGB if its criteria are met. On the other hand, it has always been accepted that a company in practice has the choice whether or not to apply hedge accounting, simply by meeting or not meeting the necessary documentation requirements and thus satisfying or failing to satisfy the conditions.

The hedge accounting provision of §254 HGB covers balance sheet valuation only. It does not have any impact on the recognition or de-recognition of an item. Thus a re-alised gain or loss and any income or (effective) expense related to the hedged item or the hedging instrument will be accounted for separately for tax purposes.

As a consequence—and also not explicitly dis-cussed in the Revenue Statement—such infl ows and outfl ows further on should be subject to the same tax

treatment as if the respective balance-sheet item were not part of a hedging relationship.

For example, dividend income hedged through a total-return swap (TRS) remains tax-exempt dividend-income within the meaning of §8b(1) KStG whereas the dividend-compensation payment made under the hedging instrument (TRS) constitutes a tax-deductible item pursuant to §8b(3)2 KStG.

Suppose that a com-pany has entered into a (payer) liability swap to hedge its fl oating-rate funding. A perfect hedge may be established and the accountant may have accepted that the company’s profi t and loss will show only a (netted) fi xed-rate interest expense. Neverthe-less, for tax purposes the fl oating-rate interest paid on the funding should be considered when calculating the amount of interest relevant for the interest deduc-tion limitadeduc-tion pursuant to §4h EStG (so-called interest barrier—Zinsschranke) or the limited interest deduc-tion for trade tax-purposes (§8 No. 1 letter a of the Trade Tax Act). Any net infl ow under the swap will be fully included in the tax base and, correspondingly, any net outfl ow would reduce the tax base.

The Designation of a Hedging

Relationship and Its Consequences

The designation of a hedging relationship fi rstly requires the identifi cation of the risk to be hedged, whether it is a market risk (e.g., interest rate risk, foreign currency risk, etc.) or a credit risk. Secondly, the hedge must be expected to be highly effective in achieving offsetting changes in fair value or cash fl ows attributable to the hedged risk.

If only a portion of an asset is hedged, the non-hedged portion will have to be measured by applying the general accounting provisions.

For example, a German operating company is hold-ing 1,000 shares in a listed German stock corporation. It has entered into 8 single stock-future contracts (contract size 100 shares) to hedge its position. 200 shares have to be measured on an item-by-item basis by applying the general accounting provisions.

The hedge accounting rules apply only to the type of risk for which the hedge is designated. Other types of risk changes in value have to be considered by applying the general accounting provisions.

The German tax authorities have

adopted a rather restrictive attitude.

It should not be expected that it is

at the taxpayer’s option to apply

the recently introduced hedge

accounting provision.

g ons is d g thi he c pplyy th o ge in co ge in ID ap so of of ID ons, f the f the DW DW, pply , thi e h e h ev , ev y th is d edg edg ven ven he c counti is pt of ng rul e a tem-b es. In t mpany y-item ses St f 25 A 2010 th The es ng th at id o d n o ti of fi a ti he onc

(4)

For example, a German operating company is holding a block of shares in a listed U.S. company. It has entered into a US$-denominated single stock-future contract to hedge its position. On the balance sheet-date the change in value of the shares has to be measured against the future contract. With regard to the share price risk, hedge accounting rules may be applied. However, with regard to foreign-exchange risk (US$against €), the general accounting provi-sions have to be applied.

The application of the hedge accounting rules re-quires that the hedge is expected to be highly effective (so-called prospective effectiveness). Nevertheless, as in real life, it is unlikely to have a perfect hedge on balance sheet dates, the ineffective part of the hedge (the nonoffsetting changes in value of the hedged item and the hedging instrument) has to be refl ected in the accounts. In this respect, the general accounting provisions have to be applied as §254 HGB is ap-plicable only “to the extent that … opposing changes in value and cash fl ows offset each other.”

In the case of micro-hedging, gains and losses can be clearly attributed to the hedged item and to the hedging instrument. Consequently, the ineffective part of the hedged position can be attributed to either of them as well. For example, suppose the amount of ineffectiveness on the balance-sheet date is negative because the loss from the (derivative) hedging instru-ment exceeds the gain from the hedged item. In that case, the company must set up a provision due to the prudence concept. If the negative balance results from a loss in the hedged item exceeding the gain in the hedging instrument, a write down in the hedged-item should be the consequence. Should the excess-amount be positive—for whatever reason—such amount must not be included in the profi t and loss due to the realisation principle according to which gains may only be recorded if and when realised. In case of macro-hedging such attribution is not possible. Therefore a negative balance of ineffectiveness will always have to be refl ected by a provision.

The negative balance deriving from an ineffective hedging position should in principle be tax-deduct-ible even if not realized. However, if it requires a write-down of an equity position such write-down would not be tax-deductible pursuant to §8b(3) KStG. If the negative balance derives from an excess loss in the hedging instrument, a provision for losses from uncompleted transactions will have to be set-up. As an exception to the general rule limiting the tax-deductibility of (unrealised) losses from

uncom-pleted transactions, the respective amount will be tax-deductible pursuant to §5(4a) 2 EStG. However, if the hedged position does not constitute part of the company’s core business (so-called ordinary ac-tivities) the derivative loss-ring fencing rule (§15(4)3 EStG) may have to be considered.

For example, a German operating company is holding a block of shares in a listed U.S. company. It has entered into a single stock-future contract (SSF) to hedge its position. On the balance sheet-date, the change in value of the shares has to be measured against the future contract.

Although a high degree of effectiveness could be expected when designating the hedging relationship the change in value of the shares (hedged item) and the SSF (hedging instrument) on balance-sheet date— unsurprisingly—does not fully match:

Assume the value of the stocks goes down by US$20 whereas the SSF increases by US$19. This requires a write-down of the shares by US$1, which will not be accepted for tax purposes due to §8b(3) KStG.

By contrast, assume the market value of the stocks goes up by US$19 whereas the SSF goes down by US$20. The net loss of US$1 will be refl ected by a provision. The respective expense item will be taken into account when calculating the company’s taxable income due to §5(4a) 2 EStG. However, the tax authorities will claim such loss to be ring-fenced under §15(4)5 EStG—according to which losses from other derivates may be offset only against gains from derivatives—as the hedged instrument is a sharehold-ing that basically results in tax-exempt capital gains pursuant to §8b(2) KStG.

Hedge Accounting on Balance-Sheet

Date

We fi nally arrive at the question of all questions: What exact steps are required by the hedge account-ing provision (i.e. §254 HGB) on the balance-sheet date with regard to the effective (offsetting) part of a hedging relationship? Two schools of thought exist. And it does not make life easier that (i) the legislator has not provided further guidance on this question, and (ii) the Big-Four accounting fi rms appear to have different views in this respect:

The so-called net method (Einfrierungsmethode).

The changes in value of the hedged item and the hedging instrument will be identifi ed. The com-pensating amounts (effective part of the hedge) will be refl ected neither in the accounts nor in effeectiiven

e co ase, d , the ne e ed om e ed m ca n be be m effe eca eca ent ent ase ecti use use t ex t ex the iven e th e th xcee xcee e co from e ny mu the (de f st set u rivativ he he p a pr ed t g em e it xce d edi i ng t th h e h in d n th t e de i riv tiv t — e b —a i s l he hedg lt ed i mp

(5)

the profi t and loss. This would be different for the ineffective part of the hedge (the nonoffset-ting amounts).

The so-called gross method

(Durchbuchungs-methode). The “gross method” also requires

identifying the changes in value of the hedged item and the hedging instrument. However, this method goes one step further: any change in value will be fully refl ected at least in the balance-sheet through a parallel write-up and write-down of the hedged item and the hedging instrument, respectively. The IDW also allows such write-downs and write-ups with profi t and loss effect.

Continuing the above example, the value of the stocks went up by US$19 and the future contract—as far as the effective part of the hedge is concerned—went down by US$19. Pursuant to the “gross method” the base of the equity position would be increased by US$19, and correspondingly a provision of US$19 would be set-up with respect to the futures contract.

The IDW in its Draft Auditing Standard on hedge accounting (“IDW ERS HFA 35”) recommends the application of the “net method.” Commentators consider the “gross method” as not being in line with §254 HGB. They reason that the “gross method” would effectively result in a mark-to-market valua-tion. Mark-to-market valuation, however, is limited to the valuation of fi nancial instruments held as trading-book assets by banks (§340e (3) HGB). Therefore, the “gross method” should not comply with the law.3

In its Revenue Statement of August 25, 2010, the BMF strongly supports the “net method” and consid-ers it as the only method complying with the spirit and the purpose of §5(1a) sentence 2 EStG, the tax provision addressing hedge accounting.

Discontinuation of

Hedge Accounting

How to deal with an expiring hedging relationship is a somewhat tricky question as well. A hedging relationship may expire if the hedging instrument expires or is sold, terminated or exercised or if the hedge no longer meets the criteria for hedge ac-counting. Pursuant to the wording of the law, the general accounting provisions (i.e. the prudence concept as explained above) shall be applied if a hedging relationship has expired or terminates. This general statement is supported by the IDW and by the tax authorities. Nevertheless the conclusions and its consequences are very different.

According to the IDW, the moment at which the hedging relationship expires constitutes a special cut-off date for valuation purposes. At this cut-cut-off date, the afore-described (hedging) valuation rules shall be applied for the last time before moving back to the general valuation principles. As a result, the supporters of the “net method” are proposing to roll the gains/ income or losses/expenses resulting from the expired hedging instrument into the basis of the hedged item— without triggering a profi t and loss effect. Thus, at the end of a hedging relationship the supporters of the “net method” are adopting the same concept which the supporters of the “gross method” would already apply at each previous balance sheet date.

Continuing the above example (and focusing only on the effective portion of the hedge): the single stock future contract expires. The company has to make a payment of US$19 to the futures exchange. The book entry formula to be applied: credit participating in-terests US$19, debit cash US$19. Consequently, an immediate disposal of the shares thereafter would result in a profi t and loss effect of nil.

Contrary to the above, the tax authorities want to apply the general accounting principles right away if a hedging relationship has expired—without estab-lishing an additional “valuation date.” The wording of the law supports this view: §254 HGB deals with “valuation” only; it does not address recognition or de-recognition. Furthermore, valuation is a balance sheet date issue. Events after balance sheet date are issues of recognition or de-recognition.

In cases like the above, the tax authorities would require the taxpayer to include the US$19 infl ow from the expired futures contract in the tax base. On the other hand, the company would be required to write down its participation, which would not be deductible for tax purposes as an equity instrument is affected.4

The Conclusions to be Drawn

In its Draft Auditing Standard on Hedge Accounting,5 the Institute of Public Auditors in Germany (IDW) offers a rather fl exible approach. A company may opt for hedge accounting at its full discretion. It may follow the “net concept” (i.e. compensate gains and losses off-balance sheet) or it may follow the “gross concept” (i.e. compensate gains and losses on-balance sheet—or alternatively also with profi t and loss effect). Following IDW upon expiry of a hedging relationship, a company may roll expenses or losses from the hedging instrument into the basis of the hedged item.

oul effe § ld e sets ookk ass ec to on s -to on th bo w tio tio th oul on on. e va e va ook ld e Ma Ma alu alu k ass effe ark ark-atio atio sets arket v fi n anks ( aluatio ia 340e n, how rumen (3) HG Stat ment h “ of t Augus th t 2 d 5, ” 01 d 0 th id e n ase t l es h t ke g he ab t ov i e, l by

(6)

The German tax authorities have adopted a rather restrictive attitude. It should not be expected that it is at the taxpayer’s option to apply the recently introduced hedge accounting provision. The tax authorities are unwilling to apply the so-called gross method which in essence results in a mark-to-market-valuation on balance sheet dates. Finally, the tax authorities will not accept rolling the results of an expired hedging instrument into the formerly hedged item.

The dissenting views of the German tax authorities are particularly crucial with regard to hedged (ex-empt) equity positions. They may also have an impact

on hedged funding positions as far as the application of the interest deduction limitation (so-called inter-est barrier—Zinsschranke) and the limited interinter-est deduction for trade tax-purposes is concerned.

1 BMF of August 25, 2010, ref. IV C 6 – S 2133/07/10001. 2 §8b of the Corporation Tax Act (KStG).

3 Same view taken by Scharpf in Küting, Pfi tzer and Weber, HANDBUCH DER

RECHNUNGSLEGUNG, 5th ed. 2010, §254 HGB note 311. Also preferred view by Förschle and Usinger, in Beck’scher, BILANZ-KOMMENTAR, 7th ed. 2010, §254 HGB note 52.

4 §8b (3) KStG. 5 IDW ERS HFA 35.

E

NDNOTES

This article is reprinted with the publisher’s permission from the JOURNALOF TAXATIONOF FINANCIAL

PRODUCTS, a quarterly journal published by CCH, a Wolters Kluwer business. Copying or distribution

without the publisher’s permission is prohibited. To subscribe to the JOURNALOF TAXATIONOF FINANCIAL

PRODUCTS or other CCH Journals please call 800-449-8114 or visit www.CCHGroup.com. All views

References

Related documents

If the roll is equal to or higher then the model's shooting skill then it hits and wounds as described in close combat.. If the roll was lower then the model's shooting skill then

and the processes involved in their diversification, we collected and analyzed 419 samples in situ across the country (cultivated plants from old orchards and vines growing in

In this thesis I pursued contributions in three distinctive areas. These are i) the collection and analysis of evidence demonstrating the benefits of variation for learning

Formation and Impact of Granules in Fostering Clean Energy Production and Wastewater Treatment in Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactors.. Effect of Organic

The clean screen is not available for HMI devices with touch screen and function keys. In this case, configure a screen without operator controls,

Planning for the 1999 Iowa Oral Health Survey began in the spring of 1999 and included personnel from the Dental Health Bureau of the Iowa Department of Public Health,

The specific objectives of my study were to (1) monitor the variation for HIR among diverse source germplasm in tropical maize, (2) determine the relative importance of general

We conducted a pretest and posttest study using a specific questionnaire administered to a convenience sample of nurses who worked in a healthcare system in Principado de Asturias,