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. Usufruct was introduced in Roman law with the intention of keeping certain goods in the family while enabling third parties to enjoy the fruits of these goods for a specific period. For most of the last century, usufruct was applied in Belgium only to families, i.e. well-known usufruct for the surviving spouse. However, this property right only began to be applied to companies from the 1980s and 1990s. This lead to the question being raised of how usufruct could be valuated for companies whose situation is clearly different from that of natural persons.

Most valuations were initially subject to the 80% rule in Article 47 of the Registration Fees Code. This article states, inter alia, that the usufruct may not, in any circumstance, be assigned a value higher than 4/5th of the sales value of the whole property. Most usufructs were therefore simply valuated at the permitted legal maximum, without requiring any economic justification. The article published in 1999 by Ruysseveldt and Janssens (J. Ruysseveldt & P. Janssens, “De waardering van vruchtgebruik, anders bekeken…”, Not.  Fisc. M. 1999, issue 5, p. 105-111) introduced a set of valuation methods. This plurality of methods, however, was not adopted in practice by professionals. To make it manageable on a practical level, one calculation was identified from the full set of calculations and called the “Ruysseveldt method”. Knowing that all of the calculations were produced by Mr Janssens, this linguistic confusion (since it is named after the first of the two authors) is symptomatic of this episode.  

Considered the norm by the Administration until recently, this method does not inherently take into account the balance between the returns of the usufructuary and the bare owner. This method simply updates the rental value based on the interest rate of linear bonds. The application of this method resulted in very high valuations of the usufruct which suddenly and visibly went through the roof because of the financial crisis (they were sometimes more than 100% of the value of the whole property). This method gave rise to very unequal returns for both usufructuary and bare owner.  

Practitioners increasingly realised that the “Ruysseveldt method” was not correct. It did not take long for the Administration to react to this method. For the first time in 2010, a ruling was pronounced in which the Ruling Commission would not only calculate the usufruct in order to divert bare ownership (bare ownership is thus equal to the value of the whole property minus the usufruct value), but would also make a separate calculation of the bare ownership. The usufruct value was then determined by deducting the bare property value from the whole property value. The Ruling Commission found that the result of both calculations was very different and therefore decided to establish the usufruct value in a more balanced manner. This was the first time that the Ruling Commission deviated from the Ruysseveldt method, but it took some time before repeating it. The pressure of the mainstream Ruysseveldt valuation method was too big and so the Ruling Commission provisionally succumbed to the power of numbers. The Ruysseveldt method was (temporarily) given prominence again. 

In 2016 the tide on usufruct valuation began to turn. Some tax officials began to oppose this valuation method and achieved varying degrees of success at the courts (Louvain). Coincidentally, the Ruling Commission came back on the scene. This was clearly not coincidental but an expression of displeasure from the usufruct experts who could no longer reconcile with the mathematical anomalies of the Ruysseveldt method.

More specifically, the Ruling Commission developed (read: copied) its own usufruct valuation method in 2016. The Ruling Commission was to apply this method from then onwards but omitted to specify that this was the only possible method. It continued to leave the other methods intact (although the Ruysseveldt method would not be spared much leniency). Many positive rulings followed the publication of this method where all but one complied with the application of the Ruling Commission’s new method. No further trace of the Ruysseveldt method is to be found. The one alternative method that was approved (for which no details were published) produced an almost identical (just slightly lower) result to that of the Ruling Commission method. However, the Ruling Commission’s method generally produces usufruct valuations that are (too) low. Moreover, it has still not created situations in which the returns of the usufructuary and the bare owner are similar and comparable, which is nevertheless the intention of this method. 

It seems now that the days of the Ruysseveldt method are numbered. An internal instruction of 2018 by the Administration has shown that it will no longer allow verifying officers to use the Ruysseveldt method to carry out usufruct controls in the future, but will use the Ruling Commission’s method. The Ruysseveldt method is therefore a thing of the past, forever. It turns out, however, that this 2018 internal instruction has also spurred tax inspectors to go back to past valuations. This seems to be unjust and contrary to the principles of good governance. Minister of Finance Johan Van Overtveldt also confirms this and states that: “The rules need to be applied correctly. But there can be no question of retroactivity. The new method of the Ruling Commission can only be used after it has been published". As a footnote to this quote, it is important to mention that valuations that were compliant with the previous method must remain untouched. In the meantime, the initial difficulties have subsided and the tax authorities seem to be easing off on historical usufructs. Manifestly incorrect valuations (according to the former method) can of course be addressed. We can therefore conclude that if the fiscal aspects of your case were handled correctly in the past, there should be no tax implications today.

Valuation of a usufruct 2.0
The Administration’s internal instruction and the Ruling Commission’s glorified method are certainly not an end point but only a part of the process. The authors themselves have warned about this for many years. The Ruling Commission’s method is also not quite correct yet. As mentioned above, its usufruct valuations are often too low and there is still no guaranteed equality between returns. This new vision on valuations of a usufruct paves the way for new valuation methods that take into account the equality of returns. Several authors already predicted the inevitable demise of the Ruysseveldt method and prepared themselves for the future. The Spartax method is an example of a method that takes into account the similarity and comparability of returns.  

It should not be forgotten that usufruct valuations do not only consider the fiscal aspect. In practice, valuations are carried out in conjunction with the matrimonial property regime. When a usufruct is initially valuated incorrectly, it can create very serious problems in the future. In other words, valuations go beyond taxation and are also affected by other branches of law.  

So the question to ask in 2018 is to determine whether a usufruct still makes sense, and if it does, how do we valuate? To provide a full answer would be beyond the scope of this article. However, many technical elements will need to be taken into account (e.g. impact on rental value, additional expenses, etc.). “Valuations are hard work”, and will always be. Simply entering some numbers in an Excel file offers no guarantee of a correct valuation. The real estate market itself also has a considerable impact on valuations. One example is the rise in land prices in Ghent city centre which have a huge impact on valuations. We can describe the situation as follows: people invest massively in real estate in Ghent because the returns from savings accounts today are practically nil. This investment rush causes the price of real estate in Ghent to soar while the rental values remain stable. Rental yields decrease causing valuations to decrease as well. Another example is the crash of the Antwerp rental market. Rental prices decreased significantly while purchase prices remained stable. Rental yields decreased, resulting in decreased valuations of the usufruct. In such situations, the question must be asked as to whether usufruct is still the best option and whether the property tax specialist should find other solutions.  

Property planning of the future 
It is clear that property planning finds itself in turbulent waters. It was already predicted that the historical methods for usufruct valuations would end up not being immune to rejection and this has indeed been the case. Although property taxation has already been extensively overhauled, the question arises as to whether or not the biggest revolutions are still to come. The property tax specialist must ensure that he is properly equipped to tackle the issue. The current fuss is likely to be a hothouse for future ideas.

7 consequences of incomplete registration
The importance of correct registration in the crossroads bank for enterprises in 2019
Each company has its unique registration in the Crossroads Bank for Enterprises (CBE). However, businesses often forget to keep this registration up to date. This may have unpleasant consequences. The CBE is a register managed by the Federal Public Service Economy in which all basic information about companies and their establishments is kept. The CBE centralises the basic information about com
Are they 50% or 100% deductible?
Reception costs of a publicity event are only deductible in part
According to the letter of the law (art. 53, 8° of the Income Tax Code (WIB), reception costs incurred during a business related event are only 50% deductible. For some time already, there have been ongoing discussions concerning the question whether or not this limited deductibility likewise applies when the reception costs are incurred within the context of a publicity event.  And do these
Not as obvious as many people think
Restructuring? Think about your directorships
The restructuring of a company involves many aspects. An element that is often forgotten is the directorship positions held by the acquired company in a number of other companies. The question is what will happen with these directorships once the company holding them disappears as a result of a merger or division. In many cases, the intention is that these directorships will continue uninterrupted
This year it will be more likely that people will need to respond
Simplified declaration proposal? Check it thoroughly and respond in good time!
The number of simplified declaration proposals has been on the rise for several years now. This year, more than 3.2 million Belgians will receive such a proposal. If nothing needs to be changed, you do not need to respond either. However, if something does need to change (i.e. the Tax Authorities hold incorrect or incomplete data), then you must respond in good time. This year,
Also companies are required to follow the procedure
Conflicts of interest in the new Companies and Associations Code
The new Companies and Associations Code (CAC) entered into force on 1 May 2019. The CAC provides for broader and stricter regulations concerning conflicts of interest that may arise within an organisation. Broadening the scope of regulation means that the directors of cooperative companies, non-profit organisations (ASBL/VZW) and foundations&n
Important things you have to know
Some do’s and don’ts when making a bank donation
The bank donation is still a very popular way of donating money by bank transfer. This is not surprising: if it is carried out according to the rules of the game, the bank donation is a valid donation, without (too much) red tape and without incurring gift tax. However, there are a few rules that threaten to spoil the game if they are not followed correctly. Hence some tips that you should keep in
The further course of the relationship between the UK, the EU and the EEA
What impact will Brexit have on your corporate income tax?
For the time being, the United Kingdom (UK) is still part of the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA). The UK has since been given until 31 October 2019 at the latest to implement Brexit. This means that cross-border transactions with the UK continue to fall within the scope of EU directives. However, after Brexit, the UK will no longer be able to rely on these directives. This
Less strict circular for catering sector
New circular regarding the VAT rate for restaurant and catering services
On 1 January 2010, the VAT rate for restaurant and catering services was reduced to 12%. This rate only applies to food. Drinks (including non-alcoholic beverages and coffee and tea) are still subject to the standard VAT rate of 21%. On 23 December 2009, the administration published an explanatory note in which it detailed how an overall price for a menu (including drinks) needed to
From now on, also 'high' fixed cost deductions for self-employed persons
Personal income tax return form AY 2019: several new features explained
From now on, also 'high' fixed cost deductions for self-employed and other changes  The new personal income tax return form for assessment year 2019 was published on 7 April, the starting shot for the annual tax return race. For the Flemish tax return, "only" 6 codes have been added, and for the Walloon and Brussels tax returns, "only"
Does the new definition of a company have any consequences for your organisation?
Broader requirements for registration with the CBE - clarification for unincorporated companies
In a previous article, we explained that the introduction of a definition of 'company' in the new Companies and Associations Code (CAC) also affects the registration with the CBE (Crossroads Bank for Enterprises). In this article, we will discuss in more detail the registration obligation for unincorporated companies.  Consequences of the broader definition of a company  With the new

Subscribe to our newsletter