Tag: EU

Another win for SAPA

Posted on | by Paschalis Paschali

Client Alert: IOANNIDES DEMETRIOU LLC has achieved a significant win for its client, the Paphos Sewerage Board (SAPA) in the arbitration relating to the claim raised by the Saur-Iacovou JV consortium on 12/03/22 based on article 19.1 of the contract for the Operation and Maintenance of the Paphos Sewerage Board Biological Unit. located in Achelia, which involved an additional payment of €2,400,000 until the end of the 8- year contract. A final decision has been issued by the arbitrator Mr. Costas Clerides (former Attorney General of the Republic of Cyprus) which rejected the said claim in its entirety and awarded the legal costs of the Paphos Sewerage Board as the successful party to the proceedings.

View Paphos mayor Mr. Phedon Phedonos’ release here.

The case was handled by our Director, Demetris Kronides.

Evaluating EU Sanctions Policy: Insights from Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Posted on | by Paschalis Paschali

Introduction

Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) stands as a pillar of judicial oversight within the EU, providing a mechanism for private parties to challenge the legality of EU acts and serves as a vital instrument for ensuring legal integrity, accountability, transparency and the protection of fundamental rights.

Through the recent judgments of the General Court of the European Union on the cases of Russian oligarchs, Petr Aven and Mikhail Fridman, who successfully challenged their inclusion on the EU sanctions list, we examine its scope, standing requirements, and grounds for annulment of EU acts and explore the implications of Article 263 in the context of EU sanctions policy.

Bringing an action for annulment under Article 263

The EU Courts have jurisdiction to review the legality of acts of EU institutions (European Council, European Parliament, Commission, European Central Bank and other institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the EU). Embedded within Article 263 of the TFEU lies the essence of judicial review, affording third parties the opportunity to contest the legality of EU legislative acts and acts intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis such third parties.

Distinguishing between privileged applicants (EU countries, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission), semi-privileged applicants (the Court of Auditors, the ECB and the Committee of the Regions), and non-privileged applicants (legal and natural persons amongst others), Article 263 limits non-privileged applicants’ standing to those acts that affect them particularly and requires private parties to satisfy stringent standing requirements and to demonstrate that the reviewable act is either addressed to them or is of direct and individual concern to them.

An action for annulment must be initiated within 2 months of the act’s publication or of its notification to the applicant. If the act is not published or notified, the deadline runs from the point at which the applicant gained knowledge about it by other means.

Article 263 TFEU enumerates grounds for annulling EU acts, including lack of competence, procedural irregularities, infringement of EU treaties or any rule of law relating to the application of the EU treaties, and misuse of powers.

If the applicant is successful, the General Court may declare the contested act void, usually from its entry into force. The General Court’s judgment is subject to appeal before the ECJ, on points of law only.

The Case of Aven and Fridman: Unraveling the Implications

In a watershed moment, the recent judgments by the General Court in Cases T-301/22, Aven v Council and T-304/22, Fridman v Council dealt a significant blow to the EU’s sanctions regime against Moscow.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Council of the European Union adopted acts placing Petr Aven and Mikhail Fridman, major shareholders of Alfa Group, a conglomerate including one of Russia’s major banks, on the EU sanctions list. The Council alleged their association with sanctioned individuals, including Vladimir Putin himself, and support for actions and policies undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty, leading to the freezing of their funds and economic resources.

In order to justify the inclusion of Fridman’s and Aven’s names on the disputed sanctions lists, the Council relied on articles published in the media and on several websites which concerned the control of Alfa Group by the applicants and the financing of a charity project run by Mr. Putin’s daughter and on an open letter signed by Russian and American journalists, intellectuals, activists and historians, in which the authors protested against the invitation of the applicants to the Atlantic Council’s headquarters in Washington.

The General Court upheld the applications filed by Fridman and Aven, concluding that the reasons provided in the initial acts lacked sufficient substantiation, rendering the inclusion of Aven and Fridman in the sanctions lists unjustified. While acknowledging a potential association between Aven, Fridman and Vladimir Putin or his circle, the Court asserted that the evidence relied upon, does not demonstrate their involvement in actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, or independence and found no proof of their provision of material or financial support to Russian decision-makers responsible for Crimea’s annexation or Ukraine’s destabilization, nor any benefits received from such decision-makers.

The successful challenge by Petr Aven and Mikhail Fridman not only exposed flaws in the EU’s sanctions mechanism but also shed light on the hasty assembly of evidence, often relying on questionable sources such as press coverage.

The judgment’s implications extend beyond the realm of legal scrutiny, sparking criticism of the EU’s sanctions policy and its effectiveness in addressing geopolitical challenges. Some argue that the judgment signifies a collapse of European sanctions policy and a declaration of impunity for acts undermining international stability. The designation of the judgment’s delivery as a ‘Day of Oligarch Triumph’ underscores the gravity of its consequences.

Conclusion

As the dust settles, questions loom over the future of EU sanctions policy and the role of judicial oversight in upholding accountability. The judgment serves as a reminder of the need for transparency, robust evidence, and adherence to legal standards in EU decision-making processes.

Article 263 TFEU once more emerges as a vital instrument for ensuring legal integrity and upholding the rights of individuals and entities within the EU and by evaluating its recent application, it becomes evident that the principles of judicial review are essential safeguards against arbitrary decision-making within the EU.

Follow Ioannides Demetriou LLC on LinkedIn for more articles by our lawyers, news and updates.

Cyprus’ Path in the European Green Deal: Integrating the Just Transition Mechanism

Posted on | by Paschalis Paschali
the European Green Deal #EUGreenDeal

As the European Union (EU) embarks on a transformative journey towards a greener and more sustainable future through the European Green Deal (EGD), the question of ensuring that no one is left behind takes a central stage. This article aims to analyse the measures that the government of Cyprus is undertaking to achieve its 2030 and 2050 climate targets and to assess how the concept of social inclusion is endorsed along the way.

National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP)

Cyprus, like other EU nations, has embraced the ambitions of the EGD, aiming to tackle climate change and move towards sustainability. [1]  The NECP is a vital part of this, mandated by EU regulations from 2021 to 2030. Its main objective is to devise cost-effective policies to meet energy and climate goals, driving economic growth and addressing environmental challenges. [2] Approved by Cyprus’ Council of Ministers in January 2020, it outlines the energy sector’s current status, past policies, and future trajectory to achieve national goals by 2030. Its three key pillars focus on emission reductions, energy efficiency, and increasing renewable energy sources.

For emissions, Cyprus targets a 21% reduction in non-ETS sector emissions compared to 2005 levels. Strategies include promoting natural gas, boosting renewable energy, improving carbon sinks, enhancing energy efficiency across sectors, and reducing emissions in transport, agriculture, and waste. [3]

Regarding energy efficiency, Cyprus aims for a final energy consumption of 2.0 megatonne of oil equivalent (Mtoe) and a primary energy consumption of 2.4 Mtoe by 2030. The plan includes energy efficiency obligations for distributors, low-interest loans for efficiency projects, support programs for households and businesses, voluntary agreements with businesses, and various initiatives for efficient lighting, water, and transportation.

Lastly, Cyprus aims to increase the share of renewable energy sources (RES) in its energy consumption. Targets include RES constituting 23% of gross final energy consumption, 26% of gross final electricity consumption, 39% in heating and cooling, and 14% in transportation.

To achieve these targets, Cyprus has adopted a wide-ranging approach, including various support schemes for RES, incentives for electric vehicles, and integrating RES and energy efficiency into public buildings. Efforts also focus on enhancing RES utilisation in the transportation sector.

Solar water heater adoption rates are impressive, with over 90% of households and 50% of hotels utilising these systems. However, effective energy storage solutions are crucial to fully harness solar potential. [4] Initiatives like the experimental energy storage system in Nicosia and EU projects aim to develop policies for integrating energy storage effectively, boosting photovoltaic self-consumption in the Mediterranean.[5]

To address energy security, Cyprus is implementing Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) imports through the “CyprusGas2EU” project, diversifying energy sources and reinforcing security. Support for projects like the “EuroAsia Interconnector” and “EastMed Pipeline” will further eliminate energy isolation. The EuroAsia Interconnector, connecting Cyprus’ electricity network to the EU continental network, will facilitate RES development, reduce CO2 emissions, and enhance Cyprus’ position in the regional energy sector. [6] This project will also pave the way for widespread adoption of solar energy and sustainable practices, promoting both environmental and economic sustainability. [7]

Future trajectory

Importantly, Cyprus has submitted an updated draft of its NECP to the European Commission for review and approval. This revision is prompted by institutional obligations, failure to meet existing targets, and changes in European energy and climate goals. The revised draft includes, inter alia, commitments to reduce GHG emissions by 32% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels, increase carbon dioxide removals from land use, achieve a 42.5% penetration of RES in gross final consumption by 2030, and contribute to the EU’s mandatory energy efficiency improvement target. [8]

Additionally, Cyprus aims to design policies to support low-emission growth, laying the groundwork for achieving zero emissions by 2050. The Long-Term Low GHG Development Strategy for 2050 aligns Cyprus with the European objective of transitioning to a climate-neutral economy by 2050, emphasising a commitment to a greener future.[9] This strategy complements the NECP and envisions a shift towards clean technologies, promoting innovation and new business models, mitigating climate change impacts, enhancing economic competitiveness, and addressing environmental challenges.

Nevertheless, transitioning to carbon neutrality and renewable energy adoption presents a series of social challenges that require proactive solutions. Therefore, as Cyprus embarks on its journey towards a greener future, the integration of the Just Transition Mechanism (JTM) takes a central role in ensuring that this transition is not only environmentally sound but also socially equitable.

Just Transition Mechanism

The JTM is a critical component of the EGD, acknowledging the socio-economic realities of member states.[10] It provides a framework for financial and policy support to facilitate the transition to cleaner and more sustainable economies while safeguarding livelihoods and communities.[11]Each member state’s unique circumstances further underscore the necessity of adaptable strategies to harmonise environmental and economic aspirations.[12]

In terms of Cyprus, it has recently received the approval for its Partnership Agreement and Just Transition Plan from the EU, entailing over €1 billion in funding from 2021 to 2027. This funding will support various initiatives aimed at promoting economic, social, and territorial cohesion, facilitating the green and digital transition, and fostering competitive, inclusive, and sustainable growth. [13]

One of the most important aspects of the Agreement is the ‘Thalia 2021-27’ Cohesion Policy operational program.[14] A multi-annual, multi-fund development initiative, the Thalia program outlines Cyprus’ strategic plan for utilising resources allocated through the Cohesion Policy Funds.[15]

Central to this initiative is the Just Transition Fund (JTF), which will support an array of vital interventions. The strategic goal is to reduce GHG emissions at the power station in Dekelia and of energy-intensive businesses in general.[16] Recognising the need for social inclusion, Cyprus plans to allocate a portion of the JTF budget to modernise labour market services and support vulnerable populations, women, and youth. Additionally, initiatives to address the shortage of qualified human resources through green education initiatives are emphasised. The program prioritises equal opportunities, non-exclusion, and non-discrimination, ensuring gender equality and compliance with fundamental rights.

In conclusion, Cyprus’ proactive approach aligns with the EGD, addressing climate change, promoting economic growth, and ensuring social inclusion. However, and despite the series of green measures and initiatives that are underway, the nation faces a substantial gap between its commitments and actual outcomes.[17] To improve results and make progress toward the 2030 and 2050 targets, the government of Cyprus must enhance its efficiency in the public sector and collaborate closely with the private sector to streamline not only the processes but also the procedures for implementing all its ambitious projects.

References and URLs:

[1] General Secretariat of European Affairs, ‘CY National Strategy for EU Affairs’ (November 2021)

[2] ‘National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs)’ <https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-strategy/national-energy-and-climate-plans-necps_en>

[3] ‘Cyprus’ Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan’ (January 2020)

[4] Theodoros Zachariadis, ‘Monitoring EU Energy Efficiency First Principle and Policy Implementation’ (Odyssee Mure, November 2021)

[5] ‘Invest Cyprus – CEO Interviews 2018’

[6] ‘Commission Participates in Launch of EuroAsia Electricity Interconnector’

[7] EuroAsia, ‘Significant Benefits for Cyprus from Construction of the EuroAsia Interconnector | EuroAsia Interconnector’ (26 July 2023)

[8] ‘PRELIMINARY DRAFT UPDATE CONSOLIDATED NATIONAL PLAN OF CYPRUS ON ENERGY AND CLIMATE OF CYPRUS 2023’ (27 July 2023)

[9] Department of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, and Rural Development and Environment, ‘Cyprus’ Long-Term Low GHG Emission Development’ (September 2022)

[10] ‘The Just Transition Mechanism’

[11] Aliénor Cameron and others, ‘A Just Transition Fund – How the EU Budget Can Best Assist in the Necessary Transition from Fossil Fuels to Sustainable Energy’ [2020] Policy Department for Budgetary Affairs Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union

[12] Sebastiano Sabato and Boris Fronteddu, ‘A Socially Just Transition through the European Green Deal?’ [2020] SSRN Electronic Journal

[13] ‘Partnership Agreement and Just Transition Plan for Cyprus’ (European Commission – European Commission)

[14] ‘ΘΑΛΕΙΑ 2021-2027- Θεμέλια Αλλαγής, Ευημερίας, Ισότητας Και Ανάπτυξης’ (2022)

[15] ‘Short Description – ΘΑλΕΙΑ 2021-2027’ (21 June 2022)

[16] Green Deal: Pioneering Proposals to Restore Europe’s Nature by 2050 and Halve Pesticide Use by 2030’

[17] European Commission, ‘2023 Country Report – Cyprus’, (2023), COM(2023) 613 final

Recent EU Corporate Tax Proposals and their possible impact on the Cyprus Tax System

Posted on | by Paschalis Paschali

In the last few years, the European Commission has been very active in the corporate tax field, producing a number of legislative proposals. The most important one was, arguably, the Directive on Minimum Effective Tax Rate, which was approved in Council in December 2022. Member States were given until the 31 December 2023 to incorporate the provisions of the new Directive into domestic law. The provisions of this Directive were analysed in a previous newsletter.

In this newsletter, we examine the legislative tax proposals which are still in the pipelines. These are the proposed Unshell Directive, the proposed Directive on Faster and Safer Relief of Excess Withholding Taxes, the proposed BEFIT Directive (Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation), the proposed Transfer Pricing Directive and the proposed Directive on Head Office Tax.

THE UNSHELL PROPOSAL

The Unshell proposal was first published as a draft Directive in December 2021. The aim of this proposal was to establish transparency standards around the use of shell entities to enable tax authorities to detect abuse more easily. There is a filtering system (gateways) comprising of several substance indicators. Undertakings will need to show that they satisfy the substance indicators, otherwise they will be presumed to be “shells”. Such a finding could lead to penalties, a denial of a tax residency certificate and unavailability of exemptions under the Parent-Subsidiary and Interest and Royalties Directive.

If adopted as proposed, the Unshell proposal will introduce a heavy compliance burden of reporting, preparation of rebuttals and appeals, not just for MNEs but also for smaller undertakings involved in cross-border transactions. Although the European Commission was expected to publish a revised version of this draft Directive in 2023 to meet the concerns of some stakeholders, this has not happened.

If this proposal is adopted, Cyprus and other traditional holding company jurisdictions are likely to be affected. Of course, much would depend on the gateways and substance indicators that are eventually approved. In any case, advisors would need to assess which undertakings may come within the scope of the rules, whether they can benefit from any carve-outs and how they can ensure they remain low-risk in order to be exempt. If reporting of minimum substance is inevitable, then diligent preparation of documentary evidence will be crucial to ensure the rebuttal of the presumption of a shell.

THE FASTER DIRECTIVE

The Directive on Faster and Safer Relief of Excess Withholding Taxes (FASTER Directive) was proposed by the Commission in June 2023. This proposed Directive is aimed at streamlining the withholding tax reimbursement process making withholding tax procedures in the EU more efficient and secure for investors, financial intermediaries and tax administrations. The Directive also seeks to remove obstacles to cross-border investment and to curb certain abuses.

Three options are set out in the Commission’s proposal.

Under the first option, Member States would continue to apply their current systems (i.e. relief at source and/or refund procedures) but would introduce a common digital tax residence certificate (eTRC) with a common content and format which would be issued/verified in a digital way by all Member States. There would also be a common reporting standard to increase transparency as every financial intermediary throughout the financial chain would report a defined set of information to the source Member State. It would be accompanied by standardised due diligence procedures, liability rules and common refund forms to be filed on behalf of clients/taxpayers using automation.

This second option builds on the elements included in the first option but makes it compulsory for Member States to establish a system of relief at source at the moment of payment that allows for the application of reduced rates under a tax treaty or domestic rules. Under this option, tax administrations would have to monitor the taxes due after the payment takes place.

The third option also builds on the first option, with the added requirement that Member States applying a refund system should ensure that the refund is handled within a pre-defined timeframe, through the Quick Refund System. Member States can introduce or continue to implement a relief at source system.

Of all the options, the third option is considered (by the Commission) to be the preferred option. While the second option would lead to even higher cost savings for investors, the third option enables Member States to retain an ex-ante control over refund requests. This is likely to be more politically feasible in all Member States.

Even though Cyprus does not, in general, levy withholding taxes other than on certain outbound payments if the recipient is a company resident in a jurisdiction featured in the EU’s list of non-cooperative jurisdictions, the proposed Directive is likely to have an impact on the Cyprus tax system. The development of a harmonised digital certificate of residence will help speed up the procedures for relief of excess withholding taxes from other jurisdictions.

Of course, Member State tax administrations will need to be equipped with tools to deal with the relief/refund procedures in a secure and timely manner and to train the relevant staff supervising such tools.

BEFIT

In September 2023, the Commission published the much-awaited BEFIT Directive (Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation). This proposal replaces the previously proposed Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base but the overall aim is the same: to set out a new framework of tax rules to help all companies in a group to determine their tax base on the basis of common rules. The new rules will be mandatory for groups operating in the EU with an annual combined revenue of at least €750 million. Smaller groups may choose to opt in.

All members of the same group (the ‘BEFIT group’) will calculate their tax base in accordance with a common set of rules applied to their already prepared financial accounting statements. The tax bases of all members of the group will then be aggregated into one single tax base, with losses automatically set off against cross-border profits.

Tax returns will be filed both at the level of the filing entity and each group member. Member State authority representatives (the ‘BEFIT team’) will assess and agree on the content and treatment of the BEFIT Information Return. Each Member State where the multinational group is present will be allocated a percentage of the aggregated tax base under a transitional formula. Very importantly also, each Member State can then adjust their allocated tax base according to their own national rules, calculate the profits, and tax at their national corporate tax rate.

BEFIT is expected to reduce tax compliance costs for large businesses. However, a close reading of the proposal suggests that there are some differences with Pillar 2 (and the Directive on Minimum Effective Tax Rate) which is likely to increase the compliance burden of in-scope groups.

In addition, although the BEFIT’s procedural rules were meant to provide a one-stop shop for corporate taxation of MNEs, quite the opposite, they seem to lead to a two-tier compliance mechanism. There is the double filing of returns, but also the possibility of parallel operation of double (and multiple) audits in the Member States involved. (See the IBFD Taskforce’s assessment of the BEFIT.) This is highly unsatisfactory.

Furthermore, the ability to make national adjustments to the allocated part is likely to give rise to tax (base) competition, which to an extent, defeats the objective of having a common tax base.

Whilst there are likely to be very few (if any) Cypriot in-scope groups, nevertheless, the existence of an additional tax base could be attractive to smaller groups that might choose to opt in. Therefore, if the BEFIT Directive is adopted, advisors should assess whether the new tax base is more beneficial than the Cyprus tax base for any Cypriot group with non-resident subsidiaries, and whether a transition to the new system should be encouraged.

TRANSFER PRICING DIRECTIVE

The draft Transfer Pricing Directive was proposed at the same time as the BEFIT proposal, in September 2023. This Directive aims to harmonize transfer pricing rules within the EU, in order to ensure a common approach to transfer pricing problems. As stated in the preamble (page 2), the “proposal aims at simplifying tax rules through increasing tax certainty for businesses in the EU, thereby reducing the risk of litigation and double taxation and the corresponding compliance costs and thus improve competitiveness and efficiency of the Single Market”.

This objective is achieved by incorporating the arm’s length principle into EU law, harmonizing the key transfer pricing rules, clarifying the role and status of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and creating the possibility to establish common binding rules on specific transfer pricing issues.

The draft Directive contains a common definition of associated enterprises (and therefore the transactions covered). It encompasses a person (legal or natural) who is related to another person in any of the following ways:

  • significant influence on their management;
  • a holding of over 25% of their voting rights;
  • a direct or indirect ownership of over 25% of their capital; or
  • a right to over 25% of their profits.

It is clarified that a permanent establishment is an associated enterprise. This is not always the case under national tax laws.  

The draft Directive also adopts key elements of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines such as the accurate delineation of transactions undertaken, comparability analysis and the five recognised OECD Transfer Pricing methods.

Very importantly, the draft Directive provides for mechanisms to enable corresponding and compensating adjustments. There is a process for applying corresponding adjustments on cross-border transactions within the EU that aims at resolving, within 180 days, any double taxation that follows from transfer pricing adjustments made by an EU Member State. A framework is also introduced for compensating adjustments, which must be recognised by Member States.

In order to ensure a common application of the arm’s length principle it is expressly stated that the latest version of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines will be binding when applying the arm’s length principle in Member States.

Broadly, the common definition of associated enterprises is very welcome, as this concept is not harmonised across Member States. However, the 25% threshold is different from the criteria set out in the BEFIT Directive and the Directive on Minimum Effective Tax Rate. This is likely to cause difficulties in coordinating the various rules.

In addition, the 180 days fast-track process is very attractive, as it will help speed up the resolution of disputes. The framework introduced for compensating adjustments is also very important as not all Member States accept compensating adjustments which can lead to double taxation.

If adopted, this Directive will have an impact on Cyprus transfer pricing rules, mostly in the context of streamlining corresponding adjustments. From a literal reading of Art 33(1) and (5) of Cyprus’ Income Tax Law, it would seem that only upwards compensating adjustments are accepted by the Cyprus tax authorities – unless of course there is a tax treaty in place which provides for upwards and downwards adjustments. The current practice suggests that the Cyprus tax authorities are unwilling to allow downwards adjustments. Also, the law is silent on compensating adjustments, but again it would seem that on the basis of a literal reading of Art 33(1) and (5), only if the compensating adjustments would result in an upward adjustment will they be accepted by the Cyprus tax authorities. If the Directive is adopted, these practices will have to change.

As for the other provisions of the Transfer Pricing Directive, whilst Cyprus now broadly follows the OECD’s Transfer Pricing Guidelines, its transfer pricing regime is a rather new regime. Therefore, a harmonised EU regime will likely have spillover effects as regards the interpretation and application of the newly adopted concepts.

HEAD OFFICE TAXATION DIRECTIVE

Under the new Head Office Taxation Directive (HOT Directive), qualifying SMEs with permanent establishments in other Member States will be able to calculate their tax liability based only on the tax rules of the Member State of their head office.

There are a number of conditions determining eligibility of SMEs, which are scattered in the proposal. Broadly, the proposed regime will only be open to EU tax resident companies (of a form listed in the Annex) with EU permanent establishments. Non-EU permanent establishments are excluded from the scope of the Directive.

There are also size-related requirements. In order for companies to be eligible, they must not exceed at least two of the following three criteria, on a yearly basis: (i) total balance sheet of EUR 20 million; (ii) net turnover of EUR 40 million; (iii) average number of employees of 250.

The draft Directive excludes from the scope of the regime SMEs which are part of a consolidated group for financial accounting purposes in accordance with Directive 2013/34/EU and constitute an autonomous enterprise. There is some uncertainty in this eligibility condition, which is likely to be addressed in a revised draft.

SMEs would only file one single tax return with the head office Member State. This return would then be shared with other Member States where the permanent establishments are located. Collection will take place at the Member State of the head office, but revenues will be shared with the tax authorities of each permanent establishment.

Audits, appeals and dispute resolution procedures will remain domestic and in accordance with the procedural rules of the respective Member State. Joint audits may also be requested by tax authorities. The proposed Directive will amend the Directive on Administrative Cooperation (the DAC) to enable the exchange of information between Member States for the proper functioning of the Head Office Tax Directive.

If a qualifying SME opts into this regime, then it must apply the rules for a period of five fiscal years, which can be renewed. The regime would cease to apply before the expiration of the five-year term if either (i) the SME transfers its tax residence out of the head office Member State or (ii) the joint turnover of its PEs exceeded an amount equal to triple the turnover of the head office for the last two fiscal years.

Broadly, the proposed Directive will create a one-stop-shop regime whereby the tax filing, tax assessments and collections for permanent establishments will be dealt with through the tax authority in the Member State of the head office.

The fact that the tax base of permanent establishments will be calculated according to the tax rules of the head office might generate tax competition. Cyprus and other Member States will strive to have attractive head office tax provisions in order to attract qualifying SMEs. Of course, this will also lead to an increase in the workload of the Cyprus tax authorities, as they would act as a one-stop-shop, dealing with the tax filing and assessment of the various components of the SME, as well as the collection and payment of revenues to other tax authorities. Therefore, adequate resources will need to be devoted to the Cyprus tax authorities, in order to be able to perform their role in the context of this proposed Directive.   

It should be pointed out that the proposed Directive does not directly impact Cyprus’ transfer pricing rules. The proposed rules will simply enable permanent establishments of qualifying SMEs to have their profits calculated according to the tax rules of the Member State of the head office. Therefore, assuming we have a qualifying Cyprus head office with Greek permanent establishments, the Cyprus tax rules will apply to determine how the profits of the Greek permanent establishments will be taxed. Those taxable profits will be subject to the Greek tax rates. However, the prior question of what profits will be attributed to the Greek permanent establishments (which will then be subject to the Cyprus tax rules) is most likely to be determined by Greek tax rules on profit attribution to permanent establishments. Unfortunately, this important point is not clear in the proposed Directive and is likely to give rise to disputes.

For information on any of the issues raised in this newsletter, please get in touch with us.

THE IMPACT OF EU LAW ON THE CYPRUS CORPORATE TAX SYSTEM

Posted on | by Paschalis Paschali

Distinguishing the Concepts from the Misconceptions

For an effective tax planning strategy, businesses in Cyprus need to be fully aware of the concepts of taxation on a European level and how they affect Cyprus at present and how they may affect it going forward. This article aims to give an informed overview as a first step to gaining such an understanding.

There is often a misconception that the EU dictates all Cyprus tax laws. Whilst this is true as regards indirect taxes such as VAT, customs and excise which are largely harmonized, technically, the power to levy direct taxes, including corporate taxes, remains within the exclusive powers of Member States.

However, these powers must be exercised consistently with general EU law, that is, the EU’s fundamental freedoms, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the state aid prohibition. This obligation is derived from the supremacy of EU law over domestic law. In terms of tax law this general EU law and the various Directives are considered as “hard law”.

Cyprus’ corporate tax laws are primarily set out in the Income Tax Law (Law 118(I)/2002, as amended) and the Special Contribution for Defence Law (Law 117 (I)/2002, as amended). There are also important provisions in some of Cyprus’ pre-accession general tax instruments: the Capital Gains Tax Legislation of 1980 (Law 52/1980, as amended) and the Assessment and Collection of Taxes Legislation of 1978 (Law 4/1978)

Since Cyprus acceded to the EU, there have been few changes to its corporate tax system which were necessary as a result of EU legislation (usually, Directives).  This was because in anticipation to join the EU in 2004, Cyprus had already overhauled its tax system, including its corporate tax system, to ensure compatibility with the acquis Communautaire.

Accordingly, at the time of accession to the EU, Cyprus had already incorporated in its domestic law the then existing EU corporate tax law concepts: namely, the Parent-Subsidiary Directive, the Interest and Royalties Directive, the Merger Directive, and the Mutual Assistance Directives dealing with recovery of taxes and exchange of information.

Furthermore, pre-accession, Cyprus legislation was assessed under the Code of Conduct on Business Taxation, which is considered as “soft law”. Within the context of taxation although soft law is not, technically speaking, legally binding, nevertheless, it carries important political weight and must be followed. Numerous potential harmful tax measures were therefore identified and repealed at the beginning of 2003.

However, as we all know, law in general, and specifically EU law is not static. Since Cyprus’ accession to the EU, several incorporated Directives have been amended. Obviously, the amendments had to be again incorporated in Cyprus laws, as under EU law, directives (and their subsequent amendments) must be adopted by Member States within the time frame provided, otherwise, they become directly effective.

For example, when the Parent-Subsidiary Directive was amended in order to withdraw the exemption of dividends received when these were deductible in the country of the paying company, this amendment was incorporated into Cyprus tax laws (Art 8(20) of Income Tax legislation). Similarly, when the 1977 Directive on Mutual Assistance (Directive 77/799/EEC) was replaced with the 2011 Directive on Administrative Cooperation (Directive 2011/16/EU), the changes had to be incorporated in Cyprus tax law. In fact, this Directive has been amended several times since 2011 and each time, Cyprus has had to amend its tax laws to ensure compliance with the Directive.

Furthermore, since Cyprus’ accession, new Directives have been adopted – for example, the infamous Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD I & II) and the Tax Dispute Resolution Mechanisms Directive. The provisions of ATAD I & II were subsequently incorporated in Cyprus Income Tax Law (Arts 11A, 11B, 11C, Art 11(16)(a), Art 33B and Art 36A as amended by Law 3 of 80(I)/2020). The Tax Dispute Resolution Mechanisms Directive was incorporated in Art 36B, 36C and 36D of the Income Tax Law (as amended by Law 151(I)/2019).

Cyprus is now gearing up to adopt the Directive on Minimum Effective Tax Rate, which was approved in Council in December 2022. Member States were given until the 31 December 2023 to incorporate the provisions of the new Directive into domestic law.

There are also a number of other legislative tax proposals in the pipelines, which have not yet been approved in Council: for example, the proposed “Unshell” Directive, the proposed Directive on Faster and Safer Relief of Excess Withholding Taxes and the (not yet proposed) SAFE Directive which will look at the activity of tax enablers.

Recently, the Commission has also  proposed three very important Directives: the BEFIT Directive (Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation), the Transfer Pricing Directive and the Directive on Head Office Tax.

In addition to EU legislative instruments that must be incorporated into domestic legislation, like all Member States, Cyprus needs to closely follow the jurisprudence and the precedents emanating from tax litigation at the Court of Justice. This is necessary so as to ensure that Cyprus domestic law remains compatible with EU primary law (i.e. the fundamental freedoms, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the state aid prohibition etc). For example, if the tax legislation of another Member State is found to be in breach of freedom of establishment and Cyprus contains similar tax rules, these must be amended. Similarly, if a tax provision or administrative practice of the tax department of another Member State is investigated by the Commission and found to be in breach of the state aid prohibition, if Cyprus has a similar tax provision or administrative practice, this must be repealed.

Failure to do so could lead to an infringement procedure by the Commission. Furthermore, affected taxpayers could also sue the Cyprus government in domestic courts on the basis of the Francovich principle of state liability.

Apart from legislative amendments, Cyprus has had to follow closely the work of the Code of Conduct Group, to ensure compatibility with the Code of Conduct on Business taxation. Although this is soft law, as explained above, it has significant political force. In fact, since 2004, Cyprus’ tax system was formally investigated twice by the Code of Conduct Group.

The first investigation focused on the Cyprus Intellectual Property Regime which provided for a deductible expense for corporate income tax purposes, calculated as 80% of the qualifying profits (Art 9(1)(e) of Income Tax Law). The effective rate on the profits qualifying for the CIPR was 2.5%. This regime was found not to be harmful.

The second investigation focused on the Notional Interest Deduction rule (Art 9B of Income Tax Law). The amended version of the legislation was found in 2020 not to be harmful.

Furthermore, following the Code of Conduct Group’s Guidance on defensive measures in the tax area towards non-cooperative jurisdictions, Cyprus’ has had to introduce withholding taxes to payments of dividends, interest and royalties flowing to countries included in the EU’s list of non-cooperative jurisdictions. In the latest update to this list, Russia was added.

Moreover, there have been important changes as a result of the international tax community’s initiatives. For example, even though Cyprus is not an OECD member country nor included in the Inclusive Framework due to Turkey blocking its membership, nevertheless, Cyprus has been following closely the work of the OECD/G20 and its recommendations. Cyprus has signed up to the Multilateral Instrument. It also updated its Transfer Pricing Regime in light of the OECD’s Transfer Pricing Guidelines.

Whilst Cyprus has been broadly compliant with EU (hard law and soft law) obligations and OECD/G20 standards, it is currently being asked by the EU to revamp aspects of its corporate tax system which are perceived to be facilitating aggressive tax planning. Other Member States such as Luxembourg and Malta have also been asked to amend their tax systems to curb aggressive tax planning.

In the Council’s 2020 country specific recommendations for Cyprus, in paragraph 26 it was reiterated that tackling aggressive tax planning was key to improving the efficiency and fairness of tax systems. Furthermore, in the Cyprus Recovery and Resilience Plan, there is a reform objective to increase the effectiveness, efficiency and fairness of the tax system by combatting tax evasion and aggressive tax planning practices by multinational enterprises (MNEs) by June 2026 (Reform 10 of component 3.5).

In the more recent Commission 2023 Annual Report on Taxation, it is stated that under the Recovery and Resilience Facility “several Member States have committed to address aspects of their tax systems that facilitate [aggressive tax planning], with key milestones (including the establishment of withholding taxes on outbound payments or a similar defensive measure) expected to be completed by the end of 2023 (e.g. HU) and in 2024 (e.g. CY, IE)”. It is expressly stated that country specific recommendations have been put on hold for some Member States, including Cyprus, in order to take account of the progress made in the context of the Recovery and Resilience Facility.

Going forward it should be noted that Cyprus’ corporate tax laws are currently being evaluated and legislative changes are expected in some areas. Broadly, although EU hard law has had a rather limited impact on the Cyprus corporate tax system after the country’s accession to the EU, it would seem that lately, many of the significant constraints or drivers for reform are derived from EU soft law. This is likely to change if the legislative initiatives that are in the pipeline, especially BEFIT, are eventually approved in Council and adopted.

For any information on any of the issues raised in this newsletter in the context of your business strategy and longer term tax planning please get in touch with us.

Digital nomads, international remote working and tax implications (Part II)

Posted on | by Paschalis Paschali

In the previous part, we briefly touched upon the type of tax issues that digital nomads (and/or their employers) might encounter. In this part, we review the legal position in Cyprus. We also review how some jurisdictions have dealt with some of the tax implications affecting international remote workers for non-resident companies and whether they gave rise to a permanent establishment.

So far, the Cyprus tax authorities have adopted a light touch approach. This is facilitated by the Cypriot legislation’s objective test for tax residency of individuals. As of 2017, an individual is a tax resident of Cyprus if it satisfies either the ‘183-day rule’ or the ‘60-day rule’ for the tax year. The 183-day rule is satisfied for individuals who spend more than 183 days in any one calendar year in Cyprus. The 60-day rule for Cyprus tax residency is satisfied for individuals who, cumulatively, in the relevant tax year do not reside in any other state for a period exceeding 183 days in aggregate, are not considered tax resident by any other state, reside in Cyprus for at least 60 days, and have other defined Cyprus ties.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Cyprus tax authorities followed the OECD’s non-binding guidance and as such, the presence of persons within Cyprus (or abroad) due to restrictions related to the pandemic were not taken into account when assessing the existence of a permanent establishment. Similarly, the tax residency of a foreign company or a non-resident individual were not affected by extended stays in Cyprus as a result of the pandemic. However, the provisions of this guidance are no longer relevant after the lifting of all restrictions. Therefore, the 183-day rule and the 60-day rule are to be strictly adhered.

For digital nomads working from their holiday home in Cyprus or from a temporary location, even if they do not meet the test for tax residency, they could still trigger a permanent establishment for their employer/company. For this, an assessment of all the facts needs to be made to determine whether the arrangement has sufficient permanency. Furthermore, Cyprus legislation and any underlying tax treaties between Cyprus and the state of the employer need to be reviewed.

It is useful to keep abreast of how other jurisdictions have dealt with some of the tax issues relating to digital nomads.

In 2022, the Spanish tax authorities issued guidelines and later on a binding ruling to confirm that individuals who stayed at home to work remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic were doing so by an extraordinary event. This was not at the employer’s request. The activity lacked a sufficient degree of permanency or continuity and as such, it did not create a permanent establishment for the employer.

Whether after the termination of the public health measures the home office in Spain would give rise to a permanent establishment in Spain, this depended on whether the home office was at the disposal of the foreign employer (in this case a UK employer).

In assessing this, a number of factors were taken into account, such as whether the activity previously performed by the employee changed after he moved to Spain, whether the move was for a purely personal decision, whether the employer had asked the employee to move to Spain for a specific business reason, whether the employer bore the costs of the move, whether the employer had an office in the UK which could be used by the employee etc.

In 2022, a number of rulings were given by the Danish tax authorities relating to international remote work. One ruling found that a CEO of two Norwegian companies who was working from home three days per week was a permanent establishment. By contrast, in another ruling, it was found that a managing director working from home due to personal reasons was not a permanent establishment. One important factor was that the director was not involved in sales-related activities taking place in Denmark. Similarly, a CFO working from home two days a week for a Swiss employer was not a permanent establishment for similar grounds. Although the CFO was also a member of the board of directors, this was not determinative as his functions primarily related to activities in Switzerland.

The Swedish tax authorities have also updated their guidance on remote working. According to the updated guidance, working from home due to government restrictions or force majeure cases (e.g. the COVID-19 pandemic) will not give rise to the existence of a permanent establishment. Similarly, if an employee works from home for personal reasons and this is not required or imposed by the foreign employer and there is no commercial interest for the foreign employer, then the employee’s home will not be considered to be at the disposal of the foreign employer and as such, will not give rise to a permanent establishment.

More recently, the Dutch tax authorities issued a ruling accepting that a foreign EU company did not have a Dutch permanent establishment as a result of having three employees who worked fully remotely from their home offices in the Netherlands. It was crucial that the home offices were not at the disposal of the employer. It was also important that the employees had no authority to bind the company, the foreign company was subject to tax where it was based and, very importantly, the employer offered an office but the employees preferred to work from home. This appears to be the first ruling involving multiple employees.

Of course, these rulings do not bind the tax authorities of other countries, including Cyprus, but they provide useful guidance. It would appear from some of the rulings issued so far that someone generating sales, or a management team or senior staff could give rise to a permanent establishment in Cyprus for the employer/company. For senior management or employees creating significant value for the employer, it is advisable to obtain a tax ruling from the Cyprus tax authorities before any international remote working arrangement is approved by the employer.

We can help you in this process and protect you and your employee from triggering any unexpected tax liabilities. Of course, given Cyprus’ very competitive tax regime and relatively low tax rates, it might be tax efficient to create a permanent establishment in Cyprus, or even transfer your tax residence. Currently, many incentives are offered by the Cypriot government for relocation to Cyprus, especially for non-domiciled individuals, which might make the change of tax residency a very appealing option. However, the transfer of tax residence, whether by an individual or a company needs to be carefully planned, in order to avoid creating dual tax residency. A relocation before you break your previous tax residency could give rise to double taxation of the employee’s worldwide income.

Our experienced lawyers can help you navigate this complex area whether you prefer to avoid the creation of taxable presence in Cyprus, or whether you wish to transfer your tax residency as an employer or that of your employees in Cyprus. We can assist you with all the technical formalities (e.g. registration as a local employer, maintaining payroll in Cyprus etc.) and we can help you obtain any necessary tax rulings from the tax authorities for a seamless transition.

For more information, please get in touch with us.

New EU Directive on improving the gender balance among directors of listed companies and related measures (EU 2022/238): Women on Boards of Listed Companies

Posted on | by Paschalis Paschali

In the context of the EU Gender Equality Strategy 2020–2025, the EU Parliament has adopted a new directive aiming to close the gender gap on corporate boards of large (the “Directive”), with listed EU companies imposing at the same time the obligation for transparent assessment procedures on the basis of the candidates’ merits, irrespective of their gender.

Pursuant to the said Directive, Member States must set an objective to ensure that at least 40% of non-executive director positions at listed companies are held by members of the underrepresented sex. If Member States choose to apply the new rules to both executive and non-executive directors, the target would be 33% of all director positions.

 Listed companies that are not subject to this latter objective, must set individual quantitative objectives with a view to improving the gender balance among executive directors. Also, Member States must ensure that listed companies which do not achieve the objectives referred to above (40% and 33% respectively), as applicable, adjust the process for selecting candidates for appointment or election to director positions. Hence, if the targets set are not being met, companies will need to explain how they intend to meet these objectives.

To ensure compliance with the requirements of the Directive, listed companies will be obliged to provide information, once a year, regarding their respective boards’ gender representation and measures being undertaken to achieve the applicable quotas. On the basis of the information provided by the listed companies, a list of those companies satisfying either of the Directive’s requirements (executive, non-executive directors, all directors) annually will be published by each Member State.

The Directive exempts from its application SMEs, i.e. companies that employ fewer than 250 persons and have either an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 50 million or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million.

Finally, Member States are required to implement “effective, proportionate and dissuasive” penalties for infringements by listed companies. Τhe Directive further obliges Member States to ensure that in the performance of public contracts and concessions, listed companies comply with applicable obligations relating to social and labour law in accordance with the applicable EU law.

Key dates:

The Member States must adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 28 December 2024.

Listed companies in the EU must meet the targets set above by 30 June 2026.

Comment:

Generally, Cyprus enhanced its position in the gender equality field (there has been an increase in women actively involved in politics) having of course considerable room for improvement while laying solid foundations at a socio-political level. Cyprus has adopted a National Action Plan on Gender Equality 2019 – 2023 setting various measures aiming the promotion of equal participation in decision-making. It remains now to be seen how the Directive’s provisions will be implemented at national level, undoubtedly bringing about a positive effect for the country’s economy and a safeguard of equal labour opportunities especially for women’s employment in the companies concerned.

Court of Justice (EU) ruling on accessing information of beneficial owners (AML Directive)

Posted on | by Paschalis Paschali

On 22 November 2022 the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) ruled that the provision of Directive (EU) 2015/849, as amended (“AML (EU) Directive”) providing that Member States must ensure that information on the beneficial ownership of legal entities is accessible in all cases to any member of the general public is invalid.

In addition to granting access to the public on beneficial owner information, the AML (EU) Directive also allows Member States to provide for an exemption to the public’s access on a beneficial owner’s information where the access would expose the beneficial owner to “disproportionate risk, risk of fraud, kidnapping, blackmail, extortion, harassment, violence or intimidation, or where the beneficial owner is a minor or otherwise legally incapable”. This exemption for restricting access “in exceptional cases” and on a “case-by-case basis”, did not prevent the CJEU from ruling that the provision for granting the right to such access is invalid.

The judgement concerned CJEU’s joined Cases C-37/20, Luxembourg Business Registers and C-601/20, Sovim. The two cases were referred to the CJEU following a request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg (Luxembourg District Court) pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The concerned provision

The question referred to the CJEU concerns, inter alia, the provision of Article 30(5)(c) of the AML (EU) Directive which reads as follows:

Member States shall ensure that the information on the beneficial ownership is accessible in all cases to:

(a) […]

(b) […]

(c) any member of the general public.

The persons referred to in point (c) shall be permitted to access at least the name, the month and year of birth and the country of residence and nationality of the beneficial owner as well as the nature and extent of the beneficial interest held.

[…]

Conflict with the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights

In declaring invalid the provision permitting the general public’s access to information on beneficial ownership, the CJEU stressed in its decision that the concerned provision constitutes a serious interference with the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 7 (Respect for private and family life) and Article 8 (Protection of personal data) of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Effect on Cyprus AML legislation

The Cyprus AML Law transposing the respective AML (EU) Directive includes a similar provision permitting members of the general public to have access “in all cases” to information on the beneficial owner’s name, the month and year of birth, the nationality, the country of residence and the nature and extent of the beneficial interest held.

The CJEU’s decision is expected to impact the general public’s access “in all cases” on information concerning beneficial owners. It remains to be seen whether the AML (EU) Directive will provide express grounds for the public’s access to such information or whether such grounds will be left to the discretion of each Member State, however, such grounds must be based on a proportionate and balanced approach without violating the Charter’s rights.

In the meantime, the Cyprus AML Law will need to be amended so that access of the public to information on beneficial owners is subject to grounds which are aligned with the EU’s Charter on Fundamental Rights and specifically Article 7 (Respect for private and family life) and Article 8 (Protection of personal data).

As of 23 November 2022, the Cyprus Department of Registrar of Companies and Intellectual Property suspended the access to the register of beneficial owners for the general public, in response to CJEU’s decision. Obliged entities will continue to have access to information maintained in the beneficial owner’s register by submitting a solemn declaration confirming that the information is requested within the context of performing customer due diligence.

Our services

Ioannides Demetriou LLC advises on matters concerning regulatory AML compliance and the protection of fundamental rights such as your right to the protection of personal data and your right for private and family life.

Reach out to our team to ensure that your regulatory obligations are protected in a manner that respect and safeguard your fundamental rights.

You can contact us directly by calling + 357 22 022 999 or by email at [email protected]

The information provided in this article does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice; instead, all information contained in this article is for general informational purposes only. If you require assistance with any legal matter, including a matter referred to in this article, you should contact one of our attorneys to obtain advice tailored to your specific circumstances.