Articles

Benelux-China legal update - March 2015

Benelux-China legal update - March 2015

Benelux-China legal update - March 2015

02.03.2015 BE law

In this edition of the Benelux-China legal update, we discuss relevant developments both in the Benelux and China. In Luxembourg, the tax ruling procedure has been codified to provide additional certainty to investors. In the area of European capital markets, the European Commission has launched a consultation paper on the review of the prospectus directive that may, over time, facilitate access to European capital markets by Chinese investors. And in China, new guidelines on the taxation of indirect transfers of Chinese assets will resonate throughout international deals.

New tax ruling procedure in Luxembourg

An advance tax ruling is an agreement between a taxpayer and national tax authorities, clarifying and confirming the application of domestic tax laws on the taxpayer’s circumstances in a binding agreement.

Advance tax rulings have long been part of Luxembourg’s unique offering as a leading financial centre and popular go-to jurisdiction for holding companies as well as regulated and non-regulated funds vehicles. However, until recently, the Luxembourg tax rulings were mostly based on administrative practice, without a clear legal basis.

This changed with the Grand Ducal Decree of 19 December 2014 “for the Future of Luxembourg” (Zukunftspack), which formalized Luxembourg’s existing advance tax ruling practice and provided it with a clear statutory basis. The same Decree introduced changes to the transfer pricing legislation, an increase of VAT rates, and a temporary 0.5% income tax for individuals. All measures have entered into force on 1 January 2015. 

The Decree states, as a general principle, that an advance tax ruling cannot by itself provide for an exemption or moderation of taxes due. It thereby confirms that the purpose of a tax ruling is merely to provide confirmation of the correct application of tax laws, and therefore to provide certainty to (prospective) investors. An advance tax ruling will be valid for a maximum of 5 years and binding on the tax authorities, except in the usual scenario’s (i.e. if the description of the situation or operations with respect to which a ruling demand was introduced are inaccurate or incomplete or have changed, or if domestic, European or international laws have subsequently changed).

A tax ruling request must be introduced in writing with the competent tax inspector and duly motivated. It must identify the applicant, contain a detailed description of the operation or considered operation(s) and of the tax issues arising from such operation(s), motivate the applicant’s tax position on the matter and confirm that the facts and analysis given are true and complete. Requests relating to corporate taxation will be forwarded to a newly created commission des décisions anticipées (tax ruling commission) to ensure consistency and uniform treatment of tax payers.

The advance tax ruling will be published anonymously and in summary form in the annual report of the Luxembourg Revenue.

An administrative fee ranging from EUR 3,000 to EUR 10,000 will be levied on the applicant, depending on the complexity of the request and the amount of work involved. The fee is payable as from the receipt of the request; no ruling will be issued until the fee is paid and the fee is non-refundable in case the request is withdrawn, declined or answered negatively. A grandfathering exemption exists for pending rulings requests that were introduced prior to 1 January 2015.

This new regime for advance tax rulings in Luxembourg enhances Luxembourg’s prime position as a leading financial centre. By further promoting certainty and predictability, Luxembourg continues to be an ideal platform jurisdiction for Chinese enterprises investing overseas using Luxembourg structures.

Consultation paper on EU Prospectus Directive

On 18 February 2014, the European Commission launched a consultation on the Prospectus Directive, seeking the views of market participants to improve the current legislation so as to make it easier for companies to raise capital throughout the EU while ensuring effective investor protection. 

Via the consultation, the Commission is seeking views on how to overcome obstacles to efficient functioning of markets. A key focus will be to reduce the administrative hoops through which companies have to jump, as the current rules are often seen as costly and administratively burdensome for issuing companies, in addition to leading to prospectuses that are too detailed and complex for investors to wade through. To that end, the consultation will consider ways to (i) simplify the information included in prospectuses, (ii) examine when a prospectus is necessary and when it is not, and (iii) how to streamline the approval process in each of the member states.

All stakeholders and interested parties are invited to submit their contributions by 13 May 2015. On the basis of the outcome of this consultation, the Commission will identify key actions to unlock funding for businesses and to boost economic growth with the creation of a true single market for capital. Over time, this should contribute in the EU competing even better with the US and other parts of the world with deep capital markets and ample opportunities for funding, also for Asian companies.

SAT issues new rules on indirect transfers of Chinese assets by non-residents

In early February 2015, China’s State Administration of Taxation (SAT) issued a new set of guidelines on the indirect transfer of Chinese assets by non-resident enterprises. The new guidelines (Bulletin 7) supplement and provide additional guidance on two previous sets of administrative guidelines, known as Circular 698 (2009) and Bulletin 24 (2011), pursuant to which the indirect transfer of Chinese assets by non-resident enterprises may be subject to Chinese taxation.

The significance of the rules lies in their potential for Chinese taxation to apply to any international transaction or group restructuring, even those without an obvious Chinese angle (e.g. a transaction in respect of a European target between European entities, where the target holds a direct or indirect interest in Chinese assets or operations)

Pursuant to the new guidelines, an indirect transfer of Chinese assets by a non-resident enterprise through an arrangement that does not have reasonable commercial purposes will be re-characterised as a direct transfer. “Chinese assets” are clarified to include not only (i) equity investment assets of Chinese resident enterprises, but also (ii) properties of branches or establishments within the territory of China and (iii) real property located within the territory of China. An indirect transfer is any transfer equity interests in an offshore enterprise that directly or indirectly holds Chinese assets (safe harbours exist for the trading in listed shares of a non-resident entity holding Chinese assets, and for gains on disposals by non-resident enterprises that would, in case of a direct transfer, not be subject to tax pursuant to applicable double tax treaties)

The guidelines provide guidance (albeit vague) to determine the existence of reasonable commercial purposes in assessing whether an indirect transfer ought to be re-characterised. More usefully, they also set forth (i) criteria which, if met, will result in the transaction to lack reasonable commercial purposes and therefore to attract Chinese taxation, and (ii) a safe harbour for internal group restructurings.

The reporting requirements have been changed from a mandatory reporting obligation on the part of the transferor to a voluntary reporting obligation by any party to the transaction as well as by any person that participated in the planning of a transaction. The payor must withhold the taxes payable; penalties and interests apply (also on the part of the transferor so as to provide an incentive to report the transaction). 

The new guidelines are effective immediately, and also apply to transactions that took place before 3 February 2015 in respect of which the China tax treatment was not settled as of that date.

Related news

26.05.2020 NL law
De Tijdelijke wet COVID-19 Justitie en Veiligheid - Meer mogelijkheden voor rechtspersonen tot het gebruik van elektronische communicatiemiddelen en het uitstellen van termijnen

Articles - Het Nederland van twee maanden geleden is niet het Nederland van nu. Vanwege de uitbraak van het coronavirus en de bestrijding daarvan heeft het Nederlandse kabinet diverse overheidsmaatregelen opgelegd om de volksgezondheid en de economie te beschermen. Zo wordt een beroep gedaan op Nederlanders om gepaste afstand van elkaar (circa anderhalve meter) te houden en zijn bijeenkomsten met meer dan 100 personen in heel Nederland niet langer mogelijk. 

Read more

20.05.2020 NL law
Stibbe in Amsterdam answers questions from consumers, small business foundations and NGOs about the coronavirus [updated]

Inside Stibbe - In a special Q&A (in Dutch), lawyers from our Amsterdam office share their legal expertise and strive to provide answers to questions put to us by consumers, self-employed persons, enterprises large and small, foundations and NGOs as a result of the corona crisis.

Read more

21.05.2020 NL law
Stibbe 'Netherlands Tax Firm of the Year'.

Inside Stibbe - The International Tax Review has chosen our Amsterdam Tax team as 'Netherlands Tax Firm of the Year'. This is Stibbe's fourth recognition in recent years, after receiving this distinguished title in 2015, 2017 and 2019.

Read more

20.05.2020 NL law
Perpetual securities not considered equity for Dutch corporate income tax purposes

Short Reads - In a decision of Friday 15 May 2020, the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed that fixed-to-floating rate perpetual equity securities (“perpetual securities”) should not be considered a “participation loan” (deelnemerschapslening) for Dutch tax purposes. Under Dutch tax law, characterization of a debt instrument as a “participation loan” implies that such instrument is deemed equity for Dutch corporate income tax purposes. Characterization of the perpetual securities as a participation loan would have meant that the interest would have been regarded non-deductible dividend.

Read more

14.05.2020 NL law
Corona-special

Articles - Sinds de uitbraak van het coronavirus als veroorzaker van de ziekte COVID-19 lijkt alles anders. Tijdens zijn persconferentie op 31 maart jongstleden verwoordde minister-president Rutte dat door de huidige crisis, als gevolg van de uitbraak van het coronavirus, te omschrijven als een van de hevigste crises in de geschiedenis buiten oorlogstijd. Als historicus had de minister-president wellicht kunnen wijzen op de pandemie die letterlijk een eeuw geleden de wereld trof, toen het virus dat bekend staat als de ‘Spaanse griep’ in de nasleep van een oorlog rondwaarde.

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