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.

Property planning finds itself in turbulent waters
Valuation of a usufruct: in complete (r)evolution?
Much has been said and written in the past few years about the valuation of a usufruct and where the fiscal shoe pinches. An overview of valuation problems, current trends and a look at future property planning is provided below. Valuation of a usufruct Valuation of a usufruct: a changing world Usufruct is one of the oldest property rights known and was already applied in Roman times. Usufr
This difference in treatment needs to be corrected
Benefit in kind on immovable property: tax authority abides by the court ruling (for now)
The Federal Public Service Finance published Circular 2018/C/57 on 15 May 2018 on the flat-rate valuation of the benefit in kind for providing an immovable property or a part of an immovable property free of charge to employees or managers. The flat-rate estimate of these benefits is laid down by the Royal Decree implementing the Income Tax Code 1992 (RD/BITC 92). The Courts of Appeal of Ghent and
The 'use and enjoyment" rules explained
Freight transport and closely associated services: new rules clarified in a circular
On 31 October 2017, (previous) Royal Decree No 57, which deals with the freight transport services Department and related services, was replaced by a new RD which came into force on 23 November 2017. It clarifies the former RD in part while introducing a new rule. In order to clarify and discuss the (new) rules, the tax authorities published an administrative circular in this regard on 31 May 2018
Guidelines
Substantial changes in the obligations for partnerships
The Company Law Reform, published on 27 April 2018, is making a number of changes in the Companies Code and the Code of Economic Law. These new regulations will enter into force on 1 November 2018. A few rules will also change for partnerships. Although some clarifications will still be published, we would already like to provide the following guidelines. Changes in the Companies Code A first
Quickly detect system risks
Without a Legal Entity Identifier your company will not be trading on the stock market in 2018
  As from 3 January 2018, every legal entity that buys or sells financial instruments must have a Legal Entity Identifier or LEI. Legal Entity Identifier A LEI is a 20-digit alpha-numeric code enabling quick identification of legal entities that are active on the (international or local) financial markets. The LEI enables regulators to quickly detect system risks. Registrati
A summary of the main points
Immovable property leases to include VAT
  Although currently there is just a draft bill on this issue, which obviously can be subject to change in the meantime, we would like to summarize the main points of the upcoming revolution in the VAT landscape: immovable property leases may become subject to VAT. History Until recently, immovable property leases have – in principle – been exempt from VAT (section 44, paragr
UBO = Ultimate Beneficial Owner
The UBO register: new disclosure requirements planned for your company’s administrative body
As a result of the insertion of sections 14(1) and 14(2) into the Belgian Companies Code all companies must in the future obtain adequate, accurate and current information about their ‘ultimate beneficial owners’ (UBOs) and record the data in the new ‘UBO Register’, a central register containing data about companies and the natural persons behind them. In view of the unwavering atte
Introduction of the matrimonial property law
Is it the end of the final set-off clause or is it getting new life?
  Much has been said about the final set-off clause in recent years. After the Court of Cassation in 2017 ruled in favour of the tax payer that the claim was deductible in the scope of the payable succession duties, the Flemish regulator decided to come to the aid of the tax authorities by changing the law. What is a final set-off clause and how does it work? Many spouses married un
Also the unequal treatment gets reviewed
Benefit in kind for housing: how to anticipate the higher or lower scenario?
Discrimination as regards the benefit in kind for housing has been highlighted on several occasions. Specifically, it relates to the unequal treatment of the same benefits, whether in terms of provision by a sole trader or provision by a legal person. In the most common cases, the benefit arising from being a limited company is almost four times more expensive taxation-wise than the benefit arisin
To reduce the financial burden
Start-up reduction on social security contributions for self-employed persons
The start-up reduction was part of the 'Summer agreement' and took effect on 1 April 2018. With this initiative, the government intends to reduce the financial burden of self-employed persons in start-ups, who often have low incomes at the start of their activity, thereby stimulating entrepreneurship.  Which self-employed persons are eligible?  The reduction measure applies to all se

Subscribe to our newsletter