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 under the division of property regime have nevertheless provided in their own protection by adding an ‘optional final set-off clause’ to their marital agreement. This clause serves to soften the nasty consequences of a pure division of property somewhat if the marriage should come to an end. Under pure division of property, each spouse remains the owner of his/her own goods and at the end of the marriage, whether caused by divorce or death, the spouses owe each other nothing. Under a community of property regime, however, as a rule of thumb half of the estate will belong to the surviving spouse, thus ensuring that they enjoy some protection. Spouses may also opt for allocating more than half of the estate to the surviving spouse. An optional set-off clause ensures that even under a division of property regime, the surviving spouse is protected thanks to their entitlement to the assets of the partner who dies first. The clause:

  • is optional, because the beneficiary spouse will be able to make certain choices;
  • is final, because it comes into effect at the end of the marriage (both in the case of death and in the case of divorce, but the protection usually has more weight in the former than in the latter case);
  • focuses on set-off, as the spouses agree that at the end of their journey together, they will make a settlement with respect to their separate assets.

Example: take a couple married under the division of property regime, with a final set-off clause in their marital contract and the woman owning 700 in assets and the man 300. These assets result from professional income obtained after the marriage (so-called ‘gains’). After the woman’s death, the spouse may choose to make a claim to his deceased wife’s estate. He may have her entire capital assigned to him (700). But there are other options as well, such as taking half of the total gains (which means that in addition to his own gains of 300, he takes 200 of the gains of his deceased wife), or taking nothing at all. The advantage of this arrangement is that while the spouses keep their separate assets (for instance because one of them is self-employed), it offers excellent protection for the partner in that they will not be left behind without means. Technically speaking, it is impossible for the husband to simply take possession of his wife’s goods. The marital contract gives him a claim to her capital. This means that initially the heirs (e.g. the children) inherit the wife's capital (700), but that the husband can make his claim to the 700 and demand that it be allocated to him.

How does the final set-off work out in terms of taxes?

The arrangement was highly advantageous in terms of succession duties and inheritance tax: since the husband does not ‘inherit’ the amounts from his spouse (after all: they are his by virtue of the marriage contract), they are not subject to inheritance tax. At the same time, the wife's heirs (e.g. the children) did not have to pay anything either, as they inherited their mother’s capital, which consisted of 700 in assets, but also of 700 in liabilities (the husband’s claim), so that in the end there was nothing to be taxed. It will come as no surprise that the tax authorities have been contesting this for years. They claim that the debt of 700 to the husband is not deductible. That would mean that the children would have to pay inheritance tax on the amount of 700. And that’s a big difference. Following endless procedures over the years, in January 2017 the Court of Cassation ruled that the settlement debt (the amount to be paid to the husband) is indeed deductible from the inherited capital. For our example this means that neither the husband, nor the children have to pay inheritance tax, and that the entire capital of the wife of 700 accrues to the husband free of tax.

The Flemish regulator comes to the aid of the tax authorities

Seeing that the Court of Cassation had, in fact, mowed down this part of the inheritance tax system, legislative action seemed the only remaining option to enable the tax authorities to levy taxes on the settlement debt. In Flanders the Flemish Parliament has already given in to the frustrations of the Flemish tax authorities by introducing the Decree of 8 December 2017. Among other things, the Decree provides that the set-off debt is not deductible as a liability in the estate of the first deceased spouse, so that de facto their entire capital is subject to inheritance tax. This means that from a tax point of view, the advantageous effects of the final set-off clause are now lost entirely in Flanders. If the husband now demands 700, the full amount will be taxed.

In legal literature many authors have already questioned the new Decree. According to the new rules, the spouse who under a community of property regime demands the gains of 1,000 (pursuant to the ‘survivor takes all’ clause), will have to pay inheritance tax on the part received on top of their own part. In our example, if our couple had been married under a community of property regime, inheritance tax would be levied on 500. This means that the Decree in fact creates a different tax treatment for spouses who in their marriage contract allocate the gains to the surviving spouse, depending upon whether they married under a community regime or a division regime. The question is now whether this difference will be upheld by the Constitutional Court. Meanwhile, nothing changes in Brussels and Wallonia just now; here, following the ruling of the Court of Cassation the set-off clause remains untaxed for the time being.

Federal legislator promotes the set-off clause – the new matrimonial property law

Precisely because spousal solidarity is not inherent with the division of property regime in its purest form, the draft bill amending the matrimonial property law (in principle as from 1 September 2018) provides a legal framework that should enhance the legal certainty as regards the set-off clauses. For this reason, the federal parliament will take a few measures to increase marital solidarity in the division of property regime.  This means that a statutory provision will be prepared that from a civil point of view will provide a strong basis to the set-off clause, making it all the more attractive. At the same time, such clauses are now being treated unfavourably – a situation that requires correcting.

Conclusion

From a civil perspective, the set-off clause remains useful: partners protect each other in an atmosphere of marital solidarity. The fact that this protection now will be subject to inheritance tax is a totally different ball game, particularly since the offset-clauses face heavier taxes than the protection under a community of property regime. Thankfully, there are alternative ways to achieve solidarity (such as gifting, or a tontine clause). In any case, each marital contract should be re-read with great care, while considering the following questions: does this give us sufficient protection? And, what are the tax consequences of such protection?

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