Corporate Tax Reform
Phase 2 measures | Effective as of tax year 2020
An outline of the Phase 2 tax measures in the Law of 25 December 2017 enacting the Corporate tax reform (hervorming vennootschapsbelasting | réforme impôt des sociétés). These measures will be effective as of tax year 2020 (taxable periods starting on or after 1 January 2019). Any different effective dates are mentioned in the summary.
Last updated: 4 July 2018
GROUP CONTRIBUTION REGIME
A limited form of group taxation will be achieved by allowing the consolidation of tax losses within a group of companies, the so-called “deduction for group contribution”.
The deduction will have to be made against payment of a compensation equal to the additional tax which would have been due absent the group contribution deduction. This compensation will be exempt in the hands of the loss-making company (transferee) and disallowed in the hands of the profit-making company (transferor).
The following “group” conditions will have to be satisfied:
- A minimum 90% capital affiliation must exist, i.e. the taxpayer holds 90% or more of the other company’s capital, or the other company holds 90% of the taxpayer’s capital, or both companies are held for at least 90% of their capital by a common Belgian or foreign company;
- A foreign company must be located in the EEA; and
- The domestic or foreign company must have been affiliated during an uninterrupted period of 5 taxable periods including the current taxable period (according to the draft repair law to be calculated as of 1 January of the 4th calendar year prior to the calendar year linked to the tax year).
No group contribution will be possible by or with an entity that benefits from a special tax regime (e.g. tonnage tax regime).
The draft repair law provides for new rules governing the calculation of the 5-year period in case one of the entities was involved in a restructuring.
The group contribution will require the conclusion of a group contribution agreement that will have to meet various requirements.
According to the draft repair law, the group contribution agreement will have to be added to the tax return in order to benefit from the deduction. A model agreement will be issued by Royal Decree.
Subject to the same formalities and tax treatment, the new group contribution regime will also allow the utilisation of tax losses from a qualifying foreign company, located in the EEA, in case this company definitively ceases its activities (assuming that these activities are not transferred to another group company within the 3-year period after cessation).
In case a definitive EEA cessation loss has been deducted and the activities of the foreign company concerned are restarted within a 3-year period, the previously deducted group contribution will have to be recaptured by adding it to the Belgian company’s taxable base for the tax year during which the activities have been restarted.
The new group contribution regime will be added, as last item, to the first, unrestricted basket of tax attributes for purposes of calculating the minimum taxable base (cf. Phase I measures).
TAXABLE BASE - ATAD MEASURES
A CFC rule will be introduced in the context of the mandatory implementation of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD).
A Belgian company will be taxed on the “non-distributed profits” of a foreign company that is considered a CFC where such profits are arising from “non-genuine arrangements” which have been put in place for the essential purpose of obtaining a tax advantage.
A foreign company will be considered as a CFC if the following two conditions are simultaneously satisfied:
- The control test: the Belgian taxpayer owns (directly or indirectly) the majority of voting rights of the foreign company, or has (directly or indirectly) a stake of at least 50% in the capital of this company, or is entitled to at least 50% of the profits of this company; and
- The taxation test: in the country or jurisdiction where it is situated, the foreign company is either not subject to income tax or subject to income tax less than half of the income tax if the company would have been located in Belgium.
Foreign establishments are added to the CFC rule’s scope of application by the draft repair law. A foreign establishment, the profits of which are exempt or benefit from a tax reduction in Belgium, will be considered a CFC if it meets the afore-mentioned taxation test. In case profits of these foreign establishments arise from “non-genuine arrangements”, they will be attributed to (and taxed in the hands of) the head office.
An arrangement (or series thereof) will be regarded as “non-genuine” (artificial) to the extent that the foreign company or foreign establishment would not own the assets, or would not have undertaken the risks, which generate all (or part of) its income, if it were not controlled by a company where the significant people functions (which are relevant to those assets or risks) are carried out and are instrumental in generating the CFC income. A non-genuine arrangement will exist where assets are owned by a CFC but the strategic decisions are made by the Belgian taxpayer or its employees. Similarly, a non-genuine arrangement will also exist where risks are borne by the CFC but the strategic decisions are made in Belgium.
“Non-distributed profits” will be the CFC’s profits for the taxable period closed during the Belgian taxpayer’s taxable period. These profits will be limited to the amounts generated through the assets and risks which are linked to significant people functions carried out by the taxpayer.
To avoid double taxation in respect of CFC shareholdings, dividends distributed by a CFC will be eligible for DRD provided and to the extent that (i) these dividends do not benefit from the “ordinary” DRD and (ii) the profit has already been taxed in a previous taxable period in the hands of the domestic company as CFC income.
The draft repair law provides that capital gains on shares in a CFC will also be eligible for DRD provided and to the extent that the profit of this foreign company (i) has already been taxed in a previous taxable period in the hands of the domestic company as CFC income and (ii) has not been distributed before and still exists at the time of alienation of the shares on a liabilities and shareholders’ equity account.
The Belgian shareholder will have to demonstrate that the amount of such CFC dividends (for which DRD has been claimed) does not exceed the subsidiary’s total profit that has been taxed as CFC income during previous taxable periods.
The draft repair law furthermore provides for a new reporting obligation for taxpayers reporting CFC income.
Exit tax upon transfer to treaty-exempt foreign PE
Belgium will be entitled to tax the hidden gains that exist at the time of the transfer of assets of a Belgian company to its foreign establishment, the profits of which are exempt in Belgium under a tax treaty. Hidden gains will be defined as the positive difference between the fair market value of an asset and its acquisition or investment value reduced with the accepted write-offs and depreciations.
This new taxable event will be added to the list of transactions where a deferred exit tax payment can be applied for.
Inbound transfers – resident corporate tax
In case of the transfer of assets from a foreign permanent establishment, the profits of which are exempt under a tax treaty with Belgium, to the Belgian head office or another Belgian establishment, the Belgian initial tax value (for future depreciations, capital gains and losses, etc.) will be the fair market value at the time of the transfer. This fair market value will also have to be applied for the acquisition by a Belgian company of a foreign establishment or foreign assets further to a merger, demerger or assimilated transaction and the transfer by a foreign company of its seat to Belgium.
For all of these transactions, the value established by the exit state will be presumed to be the fair market value, unless counterproof. This presumption will, however, only apply subject to compliance with two conditions:
(1) the gain has been effectively included in the taxable base in the exit state; and
(2) Belgium has concluded a tax treaty, TIEA, etc. with the exit state that allows for an exchange of information.
As is already the case today, the acquisition or investment value less any write-offs and depreciations according to the Belgian Income Tax Code will be the initial value in case of a seat transfer of a “tax haven” company, unless if that company is located in an EU member state where it is subject to the standard tax regime.
Where the exit state’s fair market value rule does not apply, the fair market value will be deemed equal to the acquisition or investment value less any write-offs and depreciations according to the Income Tax Code, unless counterproof.
Inbound transfers – non-resident corporate tax
This new provision will cover the following 3 inbound asset transfers:
- Transfer from a foreign company’s head office to its Belgian establishment;
- Transfer from a foreign company’s foreign establishment to its Belgian establishment; and
- Transfer from a foreign establishment to Belgium (hence becoming a Belgian establishment).
In these instances, the initial tax value of the transferred assets will be their fair market value at the time of the transfer. For these 3 transactions the value established by the exit state will be presumed to be the fair market value, unless counterproof. This presumption will only apply subject to compliance with two conditions:
(1) the gain has been effectively included in the taxable base in the exit state; and
(2) Belgium has concluded a tax treaty, TIEA, etc. with the exit state allowing for the exchange of information.
Where the exit state value rule does not apply, the fair market value will be deemed to equal the acquisition or investment value less the write-offs and depreciations in accordance with the Belgian Income Tax Code, unless counterproof.
Definitions of hybrid mismatch, hybrid entity and hybrid transfer are introduced in Belgian tax law.
A hybrid mismatch is an arrangement resulting in either (a) a double deduction of expenses for both a Belgian company (or a Belgian PE) and a foreign enterprise (or establishment thereof), or (b) a deduction for one of these taxpayers and a non-inclusion in taxable income for the beneficiary (deduction without inclusion). A hybrid mismatch can only exist in case of associated enterprises, that are part of the same enterprise or that act under a structured arrangement. No hybrid mismatch can exist when the non-inclusion is due to the application of a tax regime that derogates from the standard tax law or to differences in the value attributed to a payment, including differences resulting from the application of transfer pricing rules.
A hybrid entity is any entity or arrangement that is regarded as a taxable entity under the laws of one jurisdiction and whose income or expenditure is treated as income or expenditure of one or more other persons (i.e. as a transparent entity) under the laws of another jurisdiction.
A hybrid transfer is any arrangement to transfer a financial instrument where the underlying return on the financial instrument is treated for tax purposes as derived simultaneously by more than one of the parties to the arrangement.
There will be 4 new taxable events to tackle hybrids.
(1) Disregarded PE mismatch rule – Belgian companies will be taxable on profits that are attributable to a foreign permanent establishment (PE) and that should be exempted pursuant to a tax treaty with an EU member state. However, this will only happen provided that this profit (i) has been realised in the context of a hybrid mismatch and (ii) is not taxable in the PE’s jurisdiction because of its being disregarded there.
(2) Reverse hybrid entity mismatch rule – Belgium will consider a hybrid entity, incorporated or established in Belgium, as a taxable person where one or more associated non-resident entities are located in a jurisdiction (or jurisdictions) that regard the Belgian entity as a taxable person. In such hypothesis, the hybrid entity’s income will be taxed in Belgium to the extent that income is not otherwise taxed under the laws of Belgium or any other jurisdiction. This rule will not apply to collective investment vehicles.
(3) Financial instrument mismatch – secondary rule – A taxable hybrid mismatch will exist where, due to a difference in characterisation of the instrument or its income, a financial instrument leads to a deduction in the hands of a foreign enterprise or its establishment, without inclusion in the hands of the Belgian company or establishment that is the (deemed) beneficiary under the laws of the other jurisdiction. This rule is subject to the so-called “financial trader” exception in relation to on-market hybrid transfers.
(4) Hybrid entity mismatch – secondary rule – A hybrid mismatch will exist where income paid by a foreign hybrid entity (or an establishment thereof) is deductible abroad from non-dual inclusion income, i.e. without inclusion in the taxable base of the Belgian company or establishment to which the income has been (deemed) paid under the other jurisdiction’s laws. This targets the situation where a foreign hybrid entity is considered as transparent in Belgium but as a taxable entity in the jurisdiction where it is located.
These new provisions will disallow the deduction of expenses in Belgium in the context of hybrid mismatches.
(1) Double deduction rule – Hybrid mismatch payments will be disallowed to the extent that (and as long as) there is a double deduction, for both the Belgian company or establishment and a foreign enterprise or establishment, whether during the taxable period of payment or any subsequent taxable period, from non-dual inclusion income (i.e. income that is not also included in the taxable income of the foreign enterprise or establishment). (2) Deduction without inclusion rules – The deduction of hybrid mismatch payments will be disallowed in 6 instances where a payment is deductible in Belgium without corresponding inclusion abroad:
- Financial instrument mismatch – primary rule – A payment under a financial instrument where (i) the deduction without inclusion would be due to a difference in characterisation of the instrument or its income, and (ii) the payment is not included in the taxable income of the beneficiary within a “reasonable period of time” (subject to financial trader exception).
- Reverse hybrid entity mismatch rule – Another instance where a hybrid mismatch payment will be disallowed is where such payment is made to a reverse hybrid entity, i.e. an entity that is considered as a taxpayer under Belgian laws and as a transparent entity under the laws of another jurisdiction.
- Hybrid allocation mismatch rule – A payment will not be deductible if made to an entity with one or more establishments, where the non-inclusion abroad is the result of differences in the allocation of payments made to the hybrid entity’s head office and its establishment, or between two or more establishments of that same entity, under the laws of the jurisdictions where the entity operates. The head office’s jurisdiction allocates the payments to the establishment located in another jurisdiction, while the latter allocates them to the head office, resulting in non-taxation of the income.
- Hybrid PE mismatch rule – A payment to an establishment that is regarded as a PE under the laws of its head office but that is disregarded as such under the laws of the establishment’s jurisdiction. By way of exception, the payment will be deductible if the corresponding income is taxable under the laws of the head office’s jurisdiction.
- Hybrid entity mismatch – primary rule – A hybrid mismatch payment will be disallowed to the extent that it would have been deducted without inclusion in the beneficiary’s taxable income. This targets situations where a Belgian entity is treated as taxable in Belgium but as transparent in the recipient’s jurisdiction.
- Deemed PE payments mismatch rule – A deemed payment between the head office and its establishment, or between two or more establishments, will not be deductible to the extent that it would have been deducted from non-dual inclusion income.
(3) Imported hybrid mismatches – This cover situations where hybrid mismatches established between interested parties in foreign jurisdictions but where the consequences are shifted to Belgium. This is the case, for instance, when a Belgian entity contracts an ordinary loan with a foreign entity that itself has concluded a hybrid loan with another foreign entity.
In such hypothesis, payments made in the context of a hybrid mismatch will be disallowed to the extent they finance (directly or indirectly) expenditure deductible in the hands of several foreign enterprises, a foreign enterprise and its establishment, several establishments of the same foreign enterprise, or a foreign enterprise and its establishment where no corresponding income is included in the beneficiary’s taxable base. By way of exception, these payments will be deductible where one of the jurisdictions involved has made an equivalent adjustment in respect of such hybrid mismatch.
(4) Tax residency mismatch rule – Finally, payments will not be deductible if they are made by a Belgian domestic company that is equally considered as a domestic company by one or more other jurisdictions, where the payments are deductible from income that is non-dual inclusion income. Deduction will be allowed, however, where the other jurisdiction is an EU member state with which Belgium has concluded a tax treaty that treats the company as a Belgian resident.
Foreign tax credits
To counter hybrid transfers that lead to multiple tax credits in various jurisdictions for the same withholding at source, the foreign tax credit will be limited proportionally to the part of the corporate tax that relates to the net taxable income from the hybrid transfer (i.e. gross income less payments in respect of the same hybrid transfer).