Articles

Tax efficiency of leveraged dividends challenged by recent court decision

Tax efficiency of leveraged dividends challenged by recent court deci

Tax efficiency of leveraged dividends challenged by recent court decision

10.04.2018 BE law

Traditionally, Belgian tax law has been rather flexible in accepting the tax deductible character of interest due on leveraged financing structures. Recent court decisions, however, seem to challenge this principle.

In a decision of 9 January 2018, the Court of Appeals of Ghent disallowed the tax deductibility of interest payments made in the context of a so-called “leveraged dividend distribution".

The case related to a Belgian company that had acquired the shares of another Belgian company (the 'target company') and that had financed (part of) the purchase price with debt. The reimbursement of this acquisition debt was, in its turn, financed by a post-acquisition “super dividend distribution" by the target company. Since the target company lacked sufficient cash to actually pay out the dividend, it entered into a loan agreement with a third party financial institution to that end. The Court decided that the interest paid in relation to that third party loan was not tax deductible since the target company had not incurred these interest expenses “with a view to acquiring or preserving taxable income". 

This decision follows on another judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance of Antwerp of 29 June 2016, in which the tribunal ruled, on equivalent grounds, that interest expenses incurred in relation to an intragroup loan that was entered into to finance a decrease and reimbursement of (statutory) capital were not tax deductible either.

An appeal has been lodged against the latter decision and is currently still pending, and taking into account the very controversial nature of the reasoning applied by both the Court of Appeals of Ghent and the Tribunal of First Instance of Antwerp the expectation is that both procedures will in due time lead to a ruling by the Supreme Court. It is hazardous, however, to predict how the Supreme Court would eventually rule on the matter.

This new trend in (lower) case law (even if not final yet, and strictly speaking not binding for taxpayers that were not involved themselves in the relevant underlying cases) should nevertheless already be taken into account when structuring acquisitions. In the past, and given the absence of tax consolidation in Belgium, organizing a tax efficient acquisition of a Belgian target company typically involved some form of debt push-down, which often took the form of a leveraged dividend distribution or capital decrease (or a combination of both). If the aforementioned new case law trend would be confirmed, this may obviously jeopardize the fiscal feasibility of these types of structures, as a result of which the organization of a tax efficient debt push-down would become even more challenging than it was in the past. It goes without saying that we will carefully follow up on this matter and will let you know when there are any relevant evolutions.

To end on a positive note: in the context of the Corporate Tax Reform Act of 25 December 2017, a new tax consolidation regime (the so-called “group contribution rule") has been introduced, which will in principle apply as from tax assessment year 2020. It is, however, questionable whether this new rule will have a material positive impact on the tax effectiveness of leveraged share acquisition structures, since one of the conditions for this consolidation regime to apply is that the consolidating companies should have been affiliated without interruption throughout the four preceding taxable periods. It would be helpful that this condition be amended to either shorten the 4 year waiting period or to allow  tax consolidation by anticipation already during the aforementioned period (subject to a claw-back in case the affiliation would not be maintained throughout the entire period).

Team

Related news

03.07.2018 NL law
Abolishment of tax deductibility of coupon payments on AT-1 capital instruments announced per 1 January 2019

Short Reads - On Friday 29 June 2018, the Dutch government made public its intention to abolish article 29a Dutch corporate income tax act ('DCITA'), per 1 January 2019. As a result of the abolishment of this provision, coupon payments on so-called additional-tier 1 ('AT-1') capital instruments made by banks and insurance companies will no longer be tax deductible. The amendment of the DCITA, which is aimed to be included in the tax package for 2019, will apply to coupon payments made after 1 January 2019, irrespective whether it concerns new or already existing AT-1 instruments.  

Read more

11.06.2018 NL law
Legislative proposal on changes to the Dutch CIT fiscal unity made public

Short Reads - On 22 February 2018 the European Court of Justice ('ECJ') decided on two cases (C-398/16 and C-399/16), which are relevant for purposes of the 'per-element-approach' concerning the Dutch corporate income tax ('CIT') fiscal unity regime. To mitigate the (negative financial) impact of the decisions of the ECJ, the Dutch State Secretary announced last year that new legislation (with retroactive effect to 25 October 2017) will be introduced to amend the CIT fiscal unity regime.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring