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.

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
Limited number of legal entity types
Help, soon my legal entity type will no longer exist!
The WVV ("CAC") is on its way On 4 June 2018, the "draft legislation introducing the Companies and Associations Code" was filed in the Chamber, marking one of the most far-reaching corporate law reforms since the introduction of the coordinated laws on commercial companies on 30 November 1935. This extensive reform of corporate law corresponds with the introduction of the “Companies and Asso
A brief summary
What should be expected in relation to (national) VAT?
Despite the fact that many of us are still in summer (holiday) mode, this article is going to focus on the VAT changes that we could expect in the not-too-distant future. It will provide a brief summary. For a more in-depth examination, you can always contact our VAT team.  Vouchers (1 January 2019)  In June 2016, Europe set out the VAT process for vouchers (Directive (EU)2016/1065 o
The FAQ contains no fewer than thirty-one questions
FAQ published regarding the Innovation Income Deduction (IID)
On 26 July 2018, the FPS Finance used Fisconet - you can registrate for free to consult the list of FAQ - to publish the long-awaited list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) regarding the Innovation Income Deduction. Since the law of 9 February 2017, introducing the Innovation Income Deduction, there now follows the first additional comments concerning the legal provisions of Art. 20
Depends on the nature and frequency of the violation
Fine levels set for non-compliance with transfer pricing documentation obligation
From tax year 2017 and, more specifically, the implementation of the mandatory transfer pricing documentation obligation, there was an immediate indication that, from a second violation of non-compliance with the transfer pricing obligations, a fine of between 1,250 EUR and 25,000 EUR (Article 445, §3 Income Tax Code 1992) could be imposed. The scales of the administrative fines and their appl
What are the consequences?
Vlabel overruled by the Council of State in the case of split acquisition and registration of bare ownership and usufruct
After years of dispute between taxpayers and the Flemish Tax Office (Vlabel), the Council of State has quashed Vlabel's position on split acquisition and split registration. Here below we explain where the problem lies and what the consequences of the decision of the Council of State are in practice. The problematic situations Two kinds of situations were targeted by the position of Vlabel. Th
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

Subscribe to our newsletter