Tag Archives: BEPS

Reform of Corporation Tax Losses and Corporate Interest Restriction Regulations

Leave a reply

The Corporate Interest Restriction is one of two strands of the Governments modernisation of the UK tax system; with the other strand being the reform of corporation tax losses. My blog of 25 June made reference to the impact of the Corporate Interest Restriction (CIR) Regulations. Although it was mentioned in the context of both inward investment and property investment it is not restricted to those two arenas.

For many years the UK has been at the forefront of the Organisation for Economic Corporation and Development’s best practice, including measures against Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). One of the strands of BEPS is prevention of excessive tax deductions for financing costs. Typically the financing would be intra-group with the lender being in a tax advantaged jurisdiction and therefore high levels of intra-group debt or higher interest rates would save the group tax.

CIR for groups with UK interest deduction over £2m

CIR came into force on 1 April 2017 and only has a fiscal consequence for groups whose UK interest deduction is more than £2m. £2m was taken by the UK Government as being a sum which excluded the vast majority of organisations from the legislation. If UK interest is more than £2m then there are formulaic calculations to determine the tax relief which can be claimed. Tax relief can be claimed on sums as great as 30% of EBITDA (as adjusted for tax). The Government acknowledges that this ceiling can be particularly restrictive for certain groups and therefore it is possible to apply a different ratio; one which is more dependent on external financing and UK profitability. However, this alternative strategy needs management and therefore the relevant election should not be made before medium term profit forecasts are developed.

When the interest restriction applies a group company should be appointed to notify HMRC of the group’s interest restriction and how the group wishes for that restriction to be allocated amongst the group companies. In the absence of the election HMRC can allocate the restriction pro-rata between the companies and HMRC’s allocation may not be appropriate for the group’s tax profile.

Corporation Tax Loss Relief

CIR was not the only new matter introduced on 1 April 2017. There was a revision to the fundamentals of corporation tax loss relief which became effective from the same date. Prior to 1 April 2017 unrelieved trading losses could only be carried forward and offset against future profits of the same trade. Other types of losses had their own specific restrictions.

From Spring 2017 there was a relaxation of the use of carried forward losses in a way to generate greater flexibility. However, conversely there was a restriction on the amount of the brought forward loss which could be offset in any one year. The relaxation applies to all corporates with the restriction only applying to larger, more profitable, companies. This mismatch is designed to assist the SME sector.

The relaxation allows losses to be carried forward against total profits of the same company and therefore makes them more flexible. Additionally losses can now be carried forward against subsequent profits of certain group companies, and not just the future profits of the loss making company. Before accessing this flexibility there are certain conditions to be met and those conditions cannot be assumed to be satisfied. They need to be checked.

The restriction occurs if losses exceed £5m. Prior to April 2017 brought forward losses could be offset against subsequent income without a ceiling. From 1 April 2017 the first £5m of brought forward losses can be used without restriction. However if profits of the later period are greater than £5m then only 50% of the profit above £5m can be offset by losses brought forward.

Although the Government feel that setting a restriction above £5m will remove all SMEs from the legislation I do not believe this is the case. It is common for our property development clients to have phenomenal years as sites come up for sale. If there are brought forward losses (e.g. due to the cost of financing in the period of building) then our clients cannot guarantee that all the losses are available for offset against subsequent profits. We are having regular discussions with property clients about sales forecasts and the extent that sales may occur over a number of years. Although a spread of sales is more common for residential development it may also apply to commercial sites.

1 April 2017 was a watershed for corporation tax in the UK with the introduction of both CIR and the group loss relief rules. Undoubtedly there are groups who will benefit greatly from the new rules and also groups which will experience restrictions.

Overseas businesses setting up UK subsidiaries

1 Reply

With the Brexit deadline looming we are finding greater amounts of interest from overseas businesses wishing to set up in the UK. For some of these businesses (e.g. those based in the Republic of Ireland) the reasons for expanding into the UK are self-evident. Others come to the UK for more subtle reasons, such as benefiting from the relative weakness of Sterling.

Ease of company incorporation in the UK

Features of the UK landscape are the ease of company incorporation and the ability to have company directors who are all non-UK residents. When compared to the Republic of Ireland our 17% corporation tax rate is unattractive. However this does not appear to dampen the appetite for Irish businesses setting up subsidiaries in the UK.

Structuring for expansion into the UK

When considering expansion into the UK there are a number of decisions which have to be taken about structure. As identified in my blog on the development of the UK corporate tax landscape it is important to model the impact of financing on the UK results as well as modelling the quantum of any opening year losses.

Withholding taxes after Brexit

Typically Irish ownership would access the benefits of the EU Interest and Royalties Directive in order to avoid withholding taxes on intra-group interest payments. In advance of the UK withdrawal from the EU in 2019 the terms of the UK tax treaty may be more relevant and making it more important to register as a borrower under the treaty passport scheme.

As the UK does not have an outbound dividend withholding tax, our departure from the EU does not make dividend withholding taxes a concern. Although this may be efficient as a mechanism for the repatriation of profits out of the UK the impact of dividend income receipts in the home state would still need to be understood.

UK Boards and non-UK Directors

Many inward investment groups have non-UK directors on their UK Boards and this is a common mechanism to enable commercial control of the UK subsidiary by home state persons. Like many countries the UK has a concept of management of control for company tax residency and the impact of our domestic rules should be considered when determining directors numbers, residence and their powers.

Audit requirements

Even if the UK company may not be expected to be particularly large, one still has to consider consolidated accounts and their audit requirements in the home state. This may lead to obligations to audit the UK subsidiary and for the UK auditors to have tight reporting deadlines in order to fit in with group timetables. Typically our audit teams are required to audit the financial statements of the UK subsidiary which have been prepared under UK GAAP and provide GAAP adjustments for overseas parent consolidation. Although this is not necessarily relevant for investment from the Republic of Ireland it can be an important factor to timetable into UK work when reporting to other countries, such as the US.

Future visa requirements

No business is a success without the right people. Expansion into the UK regularly results in staff coming to the UK to manage the early development of the UK subsidiary. Nationals from EU countries have not had to consider visa issues. This may change in the future. The group parent should not assume that its employees can come to the UK without visas. For example an Irish parent company may second staff to the UK to manage the early stage of the UK subsidiary without considering that the staff are, say, Australians working in Dublin. Visa requirements for any secondments need to be explored.

Sending staff to the UK

The UK has tax breaks for movements of staff which may be of benefit. The extent to which the transfer is a temporary matter of a few months or a long term matter should be identified at the outset. This is to ensure that social security is paid to the right country and any relevant terms of bi-lateral social security agreements are applied. Even a short term transfer may result in PAYE obligations or reporting requirements which need to be managed.

Longer term staff transfers inevitably result in the individuals falling into the UK income tax net. Planning for salary equalisation is important when offering the individual a long term transfer. Also whilst developing their total remuneration package it is important that the impact of share options granted to secondees is understood in the UK and home state.

For both secondees and UK employees the HR policies associated with UK employment need to be identified and where appropriate, group policies flexed to meet UK employment laws.

Plan for setting up in the UK

The decision to come to the UK is a relatively easy one for many overseas businesses faced with the uncertainty of Brexit. For our friends in the Republic of Ireland it is possibly an easier decision to make, especially given our close histories, legislative approach and common language. However that does not prevent the need for planning by any group considering coming to the UK at both the tax level and the employee level. We are finding that the most successful businesses are those which engage with us on these matters at an early stage.

Be Careful of What You Wish For

Leave a reply

I recently overheard someone use the expression “be careful of what you wish for”.

From a tax practitioner’s perspective it reminded me of the recent kafuffle about the extent that the public should keep receipts for all cash payments.  We had the Labour Shadow Business Secretary, David Gauke, Ed Balls, David Cameron and a host of others wading in with their views.  It all died a death as quickly as it arose.  The sting in the tail was that of course certain MPs have claimed reimbursement of expenses without receipts.

The above isn’t the only recent situation where the powers that be could have been careful of what they wished for.

In the international tax arena the UK Government has been championing the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project (BEPS).  This seeks to provide consistency amongst countries as to the tax treatment of international profits and costs.  Its aim is to prevent artificial diversion of profit into, typically, low tax jurisdictions.  Broadly it does so by seeking to correlate the profits received by a country with the commercial effort that country puts towards generating them.  Although this is a worthwhile project, it had the knock on effect that the UK had to consider its own patent box regulations.  Patent box is the legislation which provides a lower rate of corporation tax on certain profits.  It is created in a way that acts as an incentive for research and development to be undertaken.  It targets highly mobile capital and provides an incentive for that capital to be attracted to the UK.  The logic being that the capital results in highly skilled employment in the UK and therefore creates jobs here.  Patent box is not a concept unique to the UK as many of our European neighbours have similar legislation.  Each countries’ implementation differs.

In the eyes of some of our competitors the difficulty that they had with the UK patent box was the relatively loose correlation between the tax breaks and work being done in the UK.  Reverting back to BEPS it could be argued that the correlation was not sufficiently strong to meet the basis on which BEPS is based.

After discussions with other jurisdictions, notably Germany, the UK Government have confirmed that the existing regime will continue in its current form until 2016 and be abolished by 2021.  Depending on the view you take this is either a U-turn or the normal life cycle of a tax incentive.  The cynic would suggest the former.

For those undertaking R&D in the UK, the proposals are unlikely to change their ability to claim the patent box incentives.  For those who undertake their research outside the UK, either under UK management or sub-contracting all work to third parties, they may find themselves at a disadvantage after 2016.  The conclusion is therefore one needs to maximise claims under the current regime and consider the future structure of their research function once details of the changes are announced.  Even though we have a Budget in the next few weeks we must be cognitive that an election is coming up and therefore it may well be that announcements of any variations do not occur until we have certainty of the composition of a future Government.