Articles

Dutch thin cap to be abolished in provisional 2013 Tax Proposals

Dutch thin cap to be abolished in provisional 2013 Tax Proposals

Dutch thin cap to be abolished in provisional 2013 Tax Proposals

19.09.2012

1.  Introduction 
 

This year Dutch budget day was overshadowed by the early stages of the formation of a new Dutch government. During the general election campaigns – the Dutch voted last week – many proposals were floated that are incompatible with the outgoing Dutch government's plans. Nevertheless, the Dutch government presented a substantial package of tax measures for 2013 (the "2013 Tax Proposals") yesterday. Together with the recently introduced rules on the deductibility of interest on participation loans and an increase of the general VAT rate from 19 to 21 per cent, these proposals are aimed at keeping the Dutch budget within EU deficit limits. Below we highlighted three of the proposed measures that are relevant for corporate taxpayers when structuring in or through the Netherlands. We will keep you updated of changes pursuant to the new Dutch government's formation, but expect most significant changes to be made to the taxation affecting domestic individuals.

2.  Abolition Dutch thin capitalization rules 
 
At the time the interest deduction limitations regarding interest due in respect of loans that are deemed to be related to the financing of participations were introduced – earlier this year – the Dutch government indicated that the Dutch thin capitalization rules would be abolished if and when budget permits (we refer to our Tax Alert of 5 June 2012). This statement was met with some skepticism in view of the current economic climate. However, in the 2013 Tax Proposals the Dutch government has made good on its promise, but we will have to wait and see if the prospective new government's budget will also permit the abolition. This abolition makes the Dutch interest deduction limitations more tailored towards abuse and provides some simplification of the Dutch rules on the deductibility of interest. 
 
3.  Dutch tax liability for foreign corporate taxpayers in respect of management fees 

 
Under current Dutch domestic law, a non-Dutch resident entity is in principle subject to Dutch corporate income tax in respect of activities that are performed in its capacity as board member of a Dutch resident entity. According to most tax treaties concluded by the Netherlands, in accordance with article 16 of the OECD model convention (directors' fees), the Netherlands can effectuate this levy on fees derived by a non-Dutch resident entity in its capacity as board member of a Dutch resident entity. It follows from Dutch case law that the term "board member" should generally be formally interpreted as the person that forms part of the body that according to the applicable law and articles of association is responsible for managing the entity.[1]

The 2013 Tax Proposals widen the scope of liability for Dutch corporate income tax to management activities and services – i.e. outside of the scope of formal board membership – performed by a non-Dutch resident entity in respect of a Dutch resident entity. It should be noted that in tax treaty situations, this extension will generally not have effect if the relevant tax treaty contains a directors' fee article in line with article 16 of the OECD model convention. Only in the event that the tax treaty contains a provision pursuant to which the fee derived by reason of exercise of such management activities and services may be taxed in the country in which the entity for which those activities and services are performed, is resident (i.e. the Netherlands), can this extension of Dutch domestic taxing jurisdiction be effectuated. One of the tax treaties concluded by the Netherlands that contains such a specific provision -  and for which this extension is particularly relevant - is the treaty with Belgium.
 
4.  At least 95% of the statutory voting rights required to enter into CIT fiscal unity 
 
Upon request Dutch resident entities can enter into a fiscal unity for Dutch corporate income tax purposes ("CIT fiscal unity"). The advantages of a CIT fiscal unity are, amongst others, that as a general rule all profits and losses of the entities that form part of the CIT fiscal unity can be off-set and all transactions entered into between these entities are generally ignored for the determination of the taxable profits. In order to form a CIT fiscal unity certain conditions should be met, one of which is that the parent company should hold the legal and beneficial ownership of at least 95% of the nominal paid-up share capital of the subsidiary. With this condition the legislator wanted to express that the parent company should also hold at least 95% of the voting rights in the subsidiary.

The entry into force of the Act for simplification and flexibilization of private company law and the Implementation Act thereto (together "Flex-BV Act") as per 1 October 2012 will ease a larger number of corporate provisions. Furthermore, the Flex-BV Act introduces possibilities to deviate from the provision of the law in the articles of association (we refer to our Corporate Alerts of 12 June 2012 and 9 November 2010). Under the Flex-BV Act, the articles of association may for instance provide for shares to which no voting rights are attached (such shares must, however, be entitled to distribution of profits and/or reserves).

As per 1 October 2012 this could in theory result in a situation in which a parent company holds the legal and beneficial ownership of at least 95% of the nominal paid-up share capital of the subsidiary, whereas the parent company holds less than 95% of the voting rights in the subsidiary. In the 2013 Tax Proposals it is therefore proposed that in order to enter into a CIT fiscal unity the parent company should in addition to the legal and beneficial ownership of at least 95% of the nominal paid-up share capital of the subsidiary:

(1) also hold at least 95% of the statutory voting rights in the subsidiary[2]; and
(2) always be entitled to at least 95% of the profits and assets of the subsidiary (this condition already applies pursuant to a ministerial decree).

According to the Under-Minister of Finance, these amendments should have no consequences for existing CIT fiscal unities that have been entered into in accordance with the currently applicable legislation.
   
5.  Final remark 
 
As discussed, the 2013 Tax Proposals have been published by an outgoing Dutch government with limited powers. Negotiations on a new Dutch government are currently in process following the general Dutch elections of Wednesday 12 September 2012. Depending on the outcome of these negotiations and the composition of the new Dutch government, the 2013 Tax Proposals may be further amended as it is guided through the new Parliament. Expectations are that measures geared towards domestic individuals are more likely to be affected by the negotiations than the measures described above, but the need to keep the budget deficit below 3% may increase the pressure on these measures too. We will keep you informed of any developments that may be important.
 
[1] See for instance, decision of Dutch Supreme Court, 22 December 1999, no. 35 024.

[2] The Under-Minister of Finance stated that the condition of (statutory) voting rights entails that an agreement between the management board of a subsidiary and other persons involved in that subsidiary whereby those persons have a certain degree of control or involvement in the (important) decisions of that subsidiary, do not influence the question whether this condition is met.

Team

Related news

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring