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.

Legally most correct solution
Successive usufruct: The Flemish Tax Office (Vlabel) confirms the method of levying the registration duties
On 10 December 2018, a remarkable position was published on the Vlabel website (Position no 18083 of 26 November 2018). The real estate tax system is becoming more and more sophisticated with more (tax) advantages. The question must therefore be asked whether the well-known "simple" usufruct will not be partially replaced by transactions with a double or successive usufruct. In the area of registr
From 1 January 2019
New Flemish Lease Decree
On 24 October 2018, the Flemish Parliament approved the new Flemish Lease Decree. In our newsletter of 26 October 2017, we already hinted at the changes that this new decree will bring about. One of the most important changes remains the decree's broad scope. On the one hand, extensive regulations are provided for the rental of a house intended as a main residence. What is new here is that the ter
Confirmed in writing to our office
Confirmed: both usufructuary and bare owner are to be included in the UBO register
The Belgian Ultimate Beneficial Owner (UBO) register went live on 31 October 2018. On the basis of the legal texts and the explanatory notes, as ultimate beneficiary/ies of companies, the natural person(s) who directly or indirectly hold(s) a sufficient percentage of the voting rights or of the ownership interest in this company must first be notified. A holding of at least 25% is an indication of
The advantage is a taxable benefit
Fiches and withholding tax on benefits granted by foreign companies
Should payments received from a foreign company be subject to withholding tax and should this be declared on a fiche? At the moment, the answer to this question is negative in most situations, but this is set to change. A new draft law dated 18 December 2018 provides for the introduction of a tax fiction that requires the (Belgian) employer of the beneficiary employee not only to withhold withh
The requirement to register gets a broader scope
More entrepreneurs must register with the Crossroads Bank for Enterprises (CBE)
Under the aim of creating a more attractive business climate, changes were made to the existing company law. In that context, the legislator has done away with the ‘trader’ concept, replacing it with the umbrella term ‘enterprise. Besides forming the basis for the rules of the Code of Economic Law, the Judicial Code and the Civil Code, the new enterprise concept also has consequences for reg
More specific: matrimonial property law
A new compensation obligation in the legal system
What if a spouse practices his profession in a company whose shares all form part of his separate property? The Act of 22 July 2018 has introduced considerable changes to matrimonial property law. This article addresses a specific addition to that law, namely the possible disadvantage incurred by the matrimonial property when a spouse practices their profession through their own company1. 
Changes in the cary proxy and usufruct
Estate planning: recent developments
Over the last few months, we have regularly reported on the important changes in estate planning and inheritance planning. Below is an update of some of those changes.   The care proxy: secure your estate for later The classic example is a person who, due to a physical or mental limitation (e.g. coma, dementia), is – temporarily or permanently – unable to manage their assets properly.
Happy Brexmas?
How to prepare your company for Brexit?
On 10 December 2018, the British Prime Minister decided to postpone the vote on the Brexit deal in the House of Commons. The risk of a ‘no deal’ disaster scenario is increasing. What are the important dates? On 29 March 2017, the United Kingdom formally informed the European Council of its intention to leave the EU (according to the procedure provided in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty). C
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

Subscribe to our newsletter