What the Summer Agreement means for future capital reductions

Since the Summer Agreement was concluded there has been much discussion on the pro rata rule for capital reductions. Given that to date no definitive legislative texts have been published, this aspect of the corporation tax reforms remains murky and changes might still be introduced to the proposed regulatory measure. 

The present legislation 
In the event of a capital reduction, one can presently choose which element of the authorised capital will bear the reduction, a choice that can be of some consequence in respect of tax. That is because repaying authorised capital is not deemed to be a dividend payout for Belgian tax purposes, which means it is not subject to withholding tax, if the following two conditions are met:

  • the repayment is the effecting of a resolution adopted in a regular manner to decrease the authorised capital;
  • the repayment must come from (a part of) the authorised capital made up of contributions actually paid in by the company’s shareholders. 

The future legislation 
The planned legislation will ditch the current rule that capital reductions can be allocated to that part of the authorised capital decided on by the company. When authorised capital is henceforth repaid it will be subject to withholding tax in proportion to the share of taxed reserves still present in the paid-up capital, plus the taxed reserves not held in the capital (a pro rata division). The underlying reason is that capital reductions should be due to legitimate financial or economic needs in order to be exempted from withholding tax, and they are not deemed to fulfil this condition if taxed reserves are still held by the company. 

Pro rata allocation
The pro rata facet is obtained through a percentage that expresses the proportion between:

  • in the numerator: the sum of the paid-up capital, the issuance premium and the profit-sharing certificates that are placed on a par with the authorised capital;
  • in the denominator: the sum of the taxed reserves, the exempted reserves incorporated into the capital and the amount of the numerator. The sum of the reserves is determined at the conclusion of the previous taxable period, less the interim dividends distributed during that taxable period. 

When it comes to calculating that proportionality the following are, according to the latest information received, not taken into account:

  • negative taxed reserves, other than the loss carried forward;
  • exempted reserves not incorporated into the capital;
  • revaluation surpluses, to the extent that they cannot be distributed;
  • underestimates of assets/overestimates of liabilities, the liquidation reserve and the special liquidation reserve;
  • the statutory reserve up to the legally-required minimum. 

The transitional arrangement for liquidation surpluses is likewise safeguarded, which means they can still be distributed tax-free after 8 years for large companies and 4 years for small ones. 

Entry into force
The new regulation is expected to take effect ‘as of 1 January 2018’, which makes matters far from clear, given that the repayment of authorised capital happens in two phases:

  • firstly, there is a resolution adopted by the general meeting, in the manner required for an amendment to the articles of association, to decrease the authorised capital;
  • then there is the effective distribution or repayment to the shareholders. This may only be done once the qualifying creditors have been paid or once their claim to collateral is dismissed under an enforceable court ruling. For the purpose of asserting their rights, the creditors in question have a period of up to 2 months after the decision to reduce the capital is published in the schedules to the Official Journal. In real terms the actual distribution or repayment to the shareholders can only be undertaken once two months have elapsed since the decision to perform a capital reduction was published. 

According to the latest information, the reference date will be the date of the general meeting that resolves to reduce the capital. That will also provide the greatest level of legal certainty, as when the second phase is used as a reference date it would mean that the future legislation would also impact all capital reductions that the general meetings decide on in November and December of this year. That would naturally mean much uncertainty indeed, as the general meetings were not yet aware of the actual details of the new regulatory measure.  

To pre-empt or not to pre-empt? 
Is it advisable to quickly launch a capital reduction in order to avoid the new regulation? In recent years capital reductions – in particular those combined with a preceding contribution of shares – have been the subject of the taxman’s focus. With due regard for the future pro rata division for capital reductions, the tax authorities will view a capital decrease still to be performed in 2017 with increasing suspicion, and will assess them against the anti-abuse provision (article 344.1 of the Income Tax Code). However, they will not be able to argue that the spirit of the (new) tax law was thwarted, as the spirit of a law that is not yet in effect can hardly be frustrated. The authorities can of course argue that there are no economic motives, which could be the case when the capital reduction follows an earlier contribution of shares.  

So the risk of such an action being re-qualified as a pro rata allocation, which will result in 30% withholding tax, is probably zero. But if the capital reduction is preceded by a contribution of shares, other risk factors emerge, including the risk that the taxman argues that what happened was a disguised distribution of dividends, for which 30% withholding tax will be payable on the entire payout. Given that this does not fall under the subject of this article, we will not examine it further.  

Conclusion 
If we look at legislation in other countries, then the principle of a pro rata allocation is not entirely alien, with countries such as Luxembourg having introduced it some time ago. The simultaneous application of the proportionality rule and the ranking of priority of debts together with a selection of qualifying reserves do however require transparency and clear legislation. Working on the assumption that the measures will be applicable to actions performed after 1 January 2018, and more specifically to resolutions to reduce the capital and repay issue premiums and profit-sharing certificates placed on a par with capital adopted by general meetings after that date, it is high time that the legislature drafted clear guidelines – undoubtedly a difficult challenge.

A popular control structure
The all-powerful manager of a civil-law partnership: was it always a fiction?
The civil-law partnership has long been a popular control structure among wealth planners. In many cases, donors do not want to give up their assets entirely, and still want to retain some control over what they donate. Definitely in cases of transfers of family companies, the donors (often parents or family members) still want to retain control over the course of the business.  The advant
The tax framework
Company subsidies: exempted or not?
Various subsidies were briefly described in the article by our colleagues from Strategy and Operations. They explained that they can assist you and your company with guidance on subsidies, from A to Z.1 In this context, we would like to discuss the tax framework for subsidies: how are awarded subsidies treated tax-wise within companies? Are these subsidies exempt from corporation tax and, if
Right to deduct VAT possible for costs incurred during the purchase of shares
The Ryanair ruling
Right to deduct VAT also possible for costs incurred during the purchase of shares, if the purchase ultimately does not (fully) go ahead The European Court of Justice recently confirmed that VAT on costs incurred during the purchase of shares may be deductible even if the purchase ultimately does not (fully) go ahead. As such, the Court of Justice has upheld the principle that the preparatory t
What are the options?
The deduction for investment: an illustration of the options
The deduction for investment allows companies and natural persons who earn profits or benefits to reduce their taxable profits by placing part of the acquisition or investment value of investments in new tangible and intangible fixed assets. Depending on the size of your business and the nature of your activities, you can generally apply the regular, one-off deduction for investment of 20% (tem
Valuation of usufruct
Now also a witch hunt when usufruct is sold?
In previous editions, we have already written about the valuation of usufruct when purchasing property, but recently there have also been regular reports of checks on the valuation of usufruct when reselling. However, up until now, the case law has followed the viewpoint of the taxpayer. Brief description For several years, there has been a lot of controversy regarding the valuation of usufruc
Vlabel is using conciliatory language
Has the decrease in Flemish sales duty led to an increase in the costs for purchases of usufruct?
The decrease in sales duty: also for split purchase usufruct-bare ownership The recent drop in the rate (to 7.00%) for purchases of family homes comes with a number of conditions. For example, the purchaser must be a natural person. Following some uncertainty, it was subsequently confirmed that, in the event of a split purchase of such a property by a company for the usufruct and the bare owner f
The labour market of the future
Earn (on the side) flexibly and untaxed
There are three legal social statuses in Belgium, (i) employee, (ii) self-employed and (iii) civil servant. However, the question is often asked whether these classifications are still relevant to the rapidly evolving labour market in which flexibility is key and many people opt for a 'freelance status' or wish to combine several statuses. Voka has already called for a debate on the labour mark
Is there a notification requirement for your organisation?
Well begun is half done: Prepare your organisation for the go-live of the UBO register.
The register of ultimate beneficiaries (the "UBO register") will go live on 31 October 2018. In one of our previous newsletters we presented an overview of the general framework of the UBO register. The Royal Decree of 30 July 2018, published in the Belgian Official Journal of 14 September 2018, explains this register in detail. We’ve reviewed what your organisation needs to take into account.&n
One of the action points of the ATAD Directive
Impact of the implementation of the Belgian CFC legislation: the de facto tightening of transfer pricing rules?
From 1 January 2019 (fiscal year 2020), the newly introduced CFC rule will come into effect in Belgium, due to the implementation of the ATAD directive1. This new legislation must be interpreted within the broader framework of the Summer Agreement and the reforms within Belgian corporate taxation, which, like the CFC legislation, have resulted in part from the heavily discussed implementation of t
Brexit, e-commerce & VAT action plan are discussed
Pending changes in the area of international VAT
In the previous edition we discussed the expected changes in terms of VAT at a national level. In this article we will briefly consider the VAT changes that are expected internationally.                Brexit  In principle, on 30 March 2019, the ‘Brexit’ will finally be a reality. The United Kingdom will no lon

Subscribe to our newsletter