Tag: Ioannides Demetriou LLC

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.

Seminar on Recent Developments in EU Tax Law, Taxpayers’ Rights and the Impact on Cyprus

Posted on | by Paschalis Paschali

NEWSLETTER by Professor Christiana HJI Panayi, Special Counsel for Tax

On 30th November 2023, Ioannides Demetriou LLC & Nobel Trust Ltd organised a seminar entitled “Recent Developments in EU Tax Law, Taxpayers’ Rights and the Impact on Cyprus”. The keynote speaker for this event was Professor Philip Baker, KC, OBE. I was also a speaker in this seminar, covering in detail the issues discussed in my last newsletter.

Professor Philip Baker is a leading expert in international and EU tax law. He is a practicing barrister and King’s Counsel, practicing from chambers in Field Court, Gray’s Inn.  Additionally, he is a Visiting Professor at the Law Faculty of Oxford University and a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London.

Professor Baker has a particular interest in taxation and the European Convention on Human Rights and is widely considered as an authority on this area of law. Therefore, it was a great privilege to hear Professor Baker’s presentation in this seminar.

Professor Baker first gave a general overview of the legal framework for the protection of taxpayers’ rights and the important function of these rights. He talked about the expanding powers of tax authorities and the need for safeguards and limits. Some examples of taxpayers’ rights include the confidentiality of personal data, rights during investigations and audits as well as trials, rights during enforcement of taxes etc.

He explained that there are different levels of protection of these rights: protection under domestic law (e.g. under the tax law, and/or administrative law, and/or constitutional law), protection under international law (e.g. the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights) and protection under regional laws such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR). The protection offered by the CFR on taxpayers’ rights, as relevant to the audit process, investigations, information orders and penalties was discussed in more detail in a previous newsletter.

Professor Baker discussed how rights under the ECHR, the CFR and general EU law have an important impact on issues such as data protection, exchange of information and beneficial ownership registers.

As far as data protection is concerned, the relevant rights are Arts 8 of the ECHR, Arts 7-8 of the CFR but also Arts 16 TEU and Art 39 TEU. The GDPR legislation is also very important. All these rights impose restrictions on the use of data and obligations for the protection of data by authorities. There are of course limitations to the protection offered by these rules, as shown in some cases litigated at the Court of Justice, which were briefly discussed in the seminar.

As far as automatic exchange of information is concerned, Professor Baker explained that although this is now widely spread as a result of FATCA and subsequent OECD/G20 but also EU developments, this does not mean that it is immune from attack under the existing legal framework. In the past, warnings were sounded by, inter alia, the European Data Protection Board, as regards the inadequate protection of taxpayers’ data due to the roll-out of automatic exchange of information. With the intensification of automatic exchange of information both internationally and in the EU context, the possible tensions with the legal framework for the protection of taxpayers’ rights should not be underestimated by all relevant parties: tax administrations, banks, (tax) data collectors and taxpayers. Professor Baker also predicted that there is a likely to be a challenge to FATCA and the OECD’s Common Reporting Standard soon. ‘This is a time bomb about to explode’, he warned.

Finally, Professor Baker discussed issues pertaining to public registers of beneficial ownership. Following the direct challenge to the lawfulness of public access to beneficial ownership registers in the SOVIM case, Cyprus, in addition to other Member States have closed their registers. Other Member States have kept them open. Professor Baker questioned whether public beneficial ownership registers are lawful under EU law and whether access only to those who can show a legitimate interest would be sufficient to comply with Arts 7 and 8 CFR.

Professor Baker concluded his presentation by arguing that there needs to be a balance between rights to privacy/data protection and the disclosure of wrong-doing and tax evasion. How this balance can be achieved by the relevant actors (e.g. tax authorities and financial institutions) is a difficult question which can only be addressed by careful examination of the various layers of legal principles pertaining to this area.

Recording of Professor Baker’s and Professor HJI Panayi’s presentations

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

Expert Witnesses under the New Civil Procedure Rules

Posted on | by Paschalis Paschali

The new Civil Procedure Rules, which have entered into force on the 1st of September 2023, have brought about monumental changes in the way in which cases will be heard before the Cypriot Courts.

A very important change comes with Part 34 of the new Regulations, which concerns the evidence given to the Court by Experts. Part 34 has completely revised what was in force up until now in relation to Expert evidence. The ultimate purpose of this new Part 34 is to limit the testimony of Experts so as to resolve the dispute faster and with a reduced costs burden. If the Expert ignores his obligations towards the Court, there is a real risk that the Court will decide that this testimony cannot be taken into account.

The general principle that Experts must be objective and impartial, of course, still applies.  

One of the two very important changes brought about by Part 34 is that, whereas until recently (before the entry into force of the New Civil Procedure Rules) each party in Court proceedings, selected the Expert whose testimony it wished to adduce to the Court, without first being obliged to submit a request, this unfettered right will no longer exist.

The summoning of an Expert by the parties can now only be achieved by applying to the Court. A disputing party, which wishes to file a relevant Expert Report with the Court, may not do so without prior permission, and when such permission is requested, the issues to be dealt with by that Expert must, inter alia, be specified.

However, what must be borne in mind by both the parties to the dispute and the Court, is that the right of the Court to limit the testimony of the Expert cannot be exercised arbitrarily and must always be exercised in the light of the overriding objective of a achieving a fair trial. In addition, the facts of each case should be taken into account, as well as suggestions/positions of the parties and there should be no general instructions from the Court on these issues.

The second very important change brought about by Part 34, is that the Court is now given the power to order that the testimony be provided by a joint Expert if the disputing parties think it appropriate for an Expert witness to give evidence on a particular matter. However, in the event of disagreement between the parties as to the person of the joint Expert, the Court itself is invited to select such an Expert from a list drawn up by the parties (unless otherwise instructed). It should also be noted that, in accordance with the relevant (English) case-law on the subject, it has been held that, where a party agrees to the appointment of a joint Expert, this does not constitute an obstacle to requesting additional appointment of an Expert if there is good reason to contest the joint Expert’s Report.

Furthermore Part 34 places a raft of stringent requirements on the content of Expert Reports and requires Experts to state explicitly whether there are conflicting opinions on a particular matter and whether the Expert can opine on a particular matter with or without reservation. Furthermore, the Court now is afforded the power to investigate the precise instructions that were given the Expert by the party adducing the Expert evidence and the Expert must include in his Expert report a summary of his opinion so as to make it easier for the Court to understand his opinion and decide upon it. Finally, Expert Reports must now contain a Statement of Truth signed by the Expert. Understandably, these heightened requirements aim at ensuring that the Expert evidence adduced before the Court will be of the highest quality.

In conclusion, it is plainly evident that under Part 34 parties will now have to put particular care into choosing Experts, giving instructions to Experts and in readying the Expert Report so that it can be successfully adduced as evidence before the Court.   

Winding-up vs Striking-off

Posted on | by Paschalis Paschali

Under the current legal framework, there are various ways by which a company may cease to exist: voluntary winding-up, compulsory winding-up, winding-up under court supervision, striking off. The process and consequences of each of these methods are briefly analysed below. 

Voluntary winding up by members

A voluntary winding up procedure is initiated by the Company’s members and presupposes that the Company is capable of paying all its debts within a period of 12 months from the commencement of winding up. For this purpose, a Declaration of Solvency is prepared by the Directors confirming the above, which is essentially a statement in the form of an affidavit, signed by the majority of the Directors before the court registrar, accompanied by a statement evidencing the Company’s assets and liabilities. In view of this, the auditors of the company need to prepare up-to-date financial statements. The Declaration of Solvency must be made within 5 weeks immediately preceding the passing of the resolution for winding up and be delivered to the Registrar of Companies (“RoC”) for registration before that date.

A voluntary winding up is deemed to commence at the time of passing of a resolution by the members for the company’s winding up. The members also appoint the liquidator, whose appointment is advertised in the Official Gazette within 14 days and relevant forms are filed with the RoC. Upon the appointment of the liquidator, the directors’ powers cease to exist and the liquidator proceeds with liquidation of the company’s assets, repayment/settlement of the company’s financial obligations including tax liabilities and payment of any dividends/surplus to the company’s members. The liquidator presents a statement of the actions performed during liquidation at the final general meeting, notice for which is published in the Official Gazette at least 1 month before the date of the meeting. Within a week following the final meeting, the liquidator files copy of the reports and accounts with the RoC. The company is deemed dissolved after 3 months from such filing.

Voluntary winding up by creditors

If at any stage during a voluntary liquidation by members it appears that the company is unable to pay its debts, then a voluntary liquidation by members is by operation of law transformed to a voluntary liquidation by creditors. Under such circumstances, the company convenes a creditors’ meeting in which a liquidator is nominated for the purposes of winding up the affairs of the company and distributing its assets. If there is a disagreement between the liquidator proposed by the creditors and that of the members, the proposal made by the creditors prevails. Furthermore, in the event that creditors deem appropriate, they may decide to appoint an Inspection Committee consisting of up to 5 persons. Apart from the involvement of creditors, and the liquidator’s duty to convene creditors’ meetings to present an account of the winding up process, the process otherwise resembles voluntary winding up by members. Within a week following the final meeting, the liquidator files copy of the reports and accounts with the RoC. The company is deemed dissolved after 3 months from such filing.

Winding up with the Supervision of Court

At any time after a resolution authorising the voluntary winding up has been passed by the Company, and upon the application of the company’s creditors, contributors or any other person, the Court may issue an order allowing the continuance of the winding up under Court’s Supervision. The court may also order the appointment of an additional liquidator, who may exercise all his powers without the sanction or intervention of the Court, subject to any restrictions imposed by the Court in the same manner as if the company were being wound voluntarily.

Compulsory winding-up

A compulsory winding-up may be ordered by the Court upon filing of a relevant petition by the Company, any creditor, or contributor, on the following grounds:

  • The company has passed a special resolution for winding up by the court;
  • The company has omitted to complete its statutory obligations and/or commitments;
  • The company has not commenced operations within one year from its incorporation or its business has been halted for a whole year;
  • In case of a public company, the number of members is reduced below seven;
  • The company is unable to pay its debts;
  • If in the opinion of the court, it is just and equitable that the company be wound up.

A compulsory winding up is deemed to have commenced at the time of filing of the petition for the winding up (or passing of the special resolution, if applicable).

Upon issuance of a winding-up court order, a copy of the said order, must be delivered to the RoC within 3 working days. The RoC thereafter proceeds with the registration of the order and its publication on the official website of the Registrar of Companies and Official Receiver.

Strike-off

An alternative way for a company to be dissolved, is by the way of its striking-off from the Register of Companies. This is typically a simpler and faster process than liquidation and it may be voluntary or involuntary.

This route is available for non-active or non-operating companies (dormant companies) and/or companies the businesses and/or operations of which have ceased and which have no longer any assets or liabilities and do not intend to carry on any business in the future. Furthermore, companies which have failed to pay annual government fees and/or make statutory filings may be struck off the register by the RoC after the expiration of three (3) months from relevant publication in the Official Gazette.

A dormant company may voluntarily apply for strike off by submitting a relevant request to the RoC. The company in its capacity as the applicant must ensure that it has complied with all of its statutory and ancillary obligations, as provided by the Companies Law and has settled all its affairs including its obligations to corporation taxes, VAT, Social Insurance, creditors and that there is no prohibiting court order against the Company. Once the registrar is satisfied that the company has honoured its relevant obligations, it proceeds with strike-off as requested.

Reinstatement

A company which has been struck off from the register either voluntarily or involuntarily may be reinstated and be regarded as never struck off.

Any interested party (e.g. member/shareholder of the company, creditor or whoever deems that they have been damaged by the actions of the company before its strike off) may request by way of an application to the court for the reinstatement of the company. This application can be made within the period of 20 years from the date of strike-off. If the court is satisfied that the company at the time of its strike off had been conducting business or was still in operation or if it is deemed fair for the company to be reinstated then the court may order the reinstatement of the company.

Provided that the RoC is satisfied that all the requirements of the law are complied with, it proceeds to the reinstatement of the company, the update of the register of the RoC, and to the publication of its reinstatement in the Official Gazette. Upon reinstatement of its name to the register the company is regarded as existing and never struck off before.

Administrative reinstatement of a company

 In case that a company is struck off from the register of companies for non-compliance with the Companies Law (i.e. for failure to submit any document required by the law or for failure to pay the annual government fee or in case a company is struck off from the register because the RoC has reasons to believe that the company is not operating), the said company may be reinstated through the procedure of the administrative reinstatement. In contrast with the procedure described above, in which a court order is required, the procedure of administrative reinstatement does not require the acquisition of a court order and upon company’s reinstatement, the company is deemed to have continued its existence as if it had never been struck off.

Reinstatement can take place with the submission of the relevant statutory form to the RoC together with all ancillary documents within 2 years of the date of strike off.

Submission of the form can be effected by a company director or company member.

If the RoC is satisfied that all legal requirements have been met, they will re-instate the company and issue a certificate of reinstatement with the date it has been re-instated and update the companies register. The re-instatement will be published in the Official Government Gazette.

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.

Cyprus New Pre-Action Protocols: A mere formality or a substantive change of mentality?

Posted on | by Paschalis Paschali

In an attempt to modernize and expediate the legal procedures in our country, new Civil Procedure Rules have come into force since the 1st of September 2023, thus changing drastically our legal system. The just and proportionate as to costs handling of the cases, is placed at the heart of the reforms, as reflected in the overriding objective codified in Part 1 of the new Rules. In fact, the new Rules require the Court to handle all cases proactively by encouraging the parties to cooperate with each other, to identify the issues of dispute at an early stage and to facilitate the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures if necessary. To this end, the new Rules introduce certain Pre-Action Protocols that the parties are expected to follow before the initiation of legal proceedings before the Court.

It is worth noting that up to date, parties in litigation were not obliged to engage to any kind of pre-action conduct, apart from very limited circumstances such as in instances where a creditor of a company was obliged to send a 21-days’ notice of demand before filing a winding-up petition against the debtor company (see Art. 211 and 212, Cap. 113). The establishment therefore, of a formal mechanism which promotes the cooperation of the parties at a pre-action stage is certainly innovative.

The new Pre-Action Protocols aim at enhancing the pre-action communication and exchange of information between the parties, while the ultimate purpose they serve is the effective settlement rather than the adjudication of claim. The parties shall comply with the said protocols in a substantive way. Non- substantive adherence with the protocols’ requirements e.g. by omitting to disclose to the other party adequate information or evidence required by the protocol, may be considered as breach of the same and the Court may impose sanctions to the party in breach. In instances, for example, where, to the judgment of the Court, the non-adherence with the pre-action protocols has led to the initiation of an action, the claim of which could have been settled, the Court may order the party in breach to pay the total or part of the amount of the costs incurred. It is therefore evident that, through the imposition of sanctions, a more pragmatic approach as to the compliance of the protocols is adopted rather than merely a theoretical one.

Certain kinds of claims, such as personal injury claims, require the use of a specific Pre-Action Protocol as provided by the new Rules. It is however remarkable that even for claims for which no specific type of Pre-Action Protocol is required to be used, the Rules provide that the parties must act reasonably regarding the exchange of evidence and information and in a way so as to avoid the filing of an action before the Court. Parties are discharged from the obligation to engage in any sort of pre-action conduct only in instances where their claims are considered to be urgent, in instances where the claim is close to become time-barred or in instances where there are sufficient reasons not to engage to pre-action conduct. In such instances the reasons for the non-engagement must be outlined in the statement of claim.

In light of the above, it is obvious that from 1st September 2023 onwards, parties will be obliged to adhere to some kind of pre-action conduct. Potential omission from their part to do so will have to be accompanied with reasons for their non-compliance, while non-compliance for no good reasons may lead to them being penalized in relation to the legal costs incurred. It is therefore evident, that the new Rules attempt to introduce a  new mechanism which will encourage potential litigation parties to settle their claim in an effective and cooperative way prior to submitting their action before the Court.

This, is believed to be achieved through the exchange of evidence and information at an early stage, contrary to what used to be the case until today where proceedings initiated with the exchange of pleadings, which by default did not include evidence. As a result, parties were unable to assess the strength of their case and therefore, settlement could not easily be reached.

Consequently, the new reforms seem to “push” towards a more settlement-based legal system rather than a more adversarial one. A system that would perhaps place litigation at the top of the pyramid of our legal system and that would render it as a solution of a last resort when it comes to the resolution of a dispute.

What is certainly inarguable is that the application of the new Civil Procedural Rules must be accompanied with a change of culture, mindset and philosophy by all legal representatives who will definitely need to embrace and uphold this freshly-introduced mentality.

BIM and the Cypriot construction industry, a construction lawyer’s perspective

Posted on | by Paschalis Paschali

What is BIM?

BIM, which is the acronym for Building Information Modelling is not new. In fact, BIM as a concept was first developed in the 1970s. The acronym BIM crept into existence sometime in the late 1980s and the protogenic BIM software, albeit quite limited in its  functions, was  first issued in the mid 1990s. Nowadays, the technology has progressed to such an efficiency that most developed construction markets, irrespective of location, have shifted to BIM.

Such is the level of growth and acceptance of BIM that in 2011, just 13% of industry professionals surveyed by UK construction software provider NBS were actively using BIM software, and 43% had yet to hear of the technology. A decade on, according to the annual NBS BIM Report, 73% of practices now use BIM, while just 1% remain unaware.

A very apposite yest easily comprehensible explanation of what BIM is and how it functions is that it is software which creates digital representations of the physical and functional characteristics of spaces. In short, it is software which is used to plan, design, construct, operate and maintain buildings.

In truth though, BIM is much more than mere computer software. It is a new construction process centred around the complete collaboration of all the parties involved in the construction process through the sharing of information throughout the planning and construction process in real time

BIM software allows for the creation of the 3D models of what is actually to be built so that the Employer, Architect, Contractor, Civil engineer, M&E engineer, QS and Interior Designer can use the model to control the design, cost and the construction process itself. Most significantly BIM is relied upon as a tool for quick and independent problem identification and remedial decision-making, from project inception to handover.   BIM is naturally most beneficial when implemented at the beginning of project so that  the planning and tendering process is done through BIM. Thereafter the model can be further developed as the project moves along its life cycle.

BIM model rendering
BIM model rendering

What does BIM do?

Simply put, everyone associated with the project works and in fact designs and builds using the same 3D model and all aspects of the planning and design are inputted into the BIM software. Any and all matters and/or issues relating to every aspect of the construction process are viewable to all and can be resolved so as to identify and eradicate any potential error before an error occurs or to deal with any necessary alteration of any aspect of the project.

BIM software flagging up a clash between the Architect’s plans and the M&E Engineer’s plans

A notable and, in terms of Cyprus, very relevant example of BIM operation is the instance of a variation. A variation, once decided upon will be inserted into the 3D BIM model by the Architect and is instantly and contemporaneously viewed by all other parties. In principle the cost of the variation can be calculated by the software itself since the software can be linked to the BOQ. Also, the software, which is linked to the planning and construction schedules can be used to develop the extension or saving of time calculation that the variation warrants. Then the Contractor and any other party whose work is affected by the variation proceeds with its execution, thereby minimising the potential or time wasting and costs involved in disputing or arguing about the implications in time and costs in relation to the variation.

BIM and Sustainability

We are all becoming aware of the need for sustainability. The BIM model can interact with specific sustainability software to carry out sustainability analysis so as to achieve optimum comfort and design optimisation as well as energy efficiency.

It is significant to note that one is able to track and attain Sustainability Certifications by the interlinking of BIM and sustainability software.

Finally, BIM software also allows for facility management as it may be integrated with computer-aided Facility Management Systems to ensure a smooth transition from the handover stage to the facility management stage once the project is completed and the Employer takes over its operation.

When BIM is utilised by a proficient Project team, the software allows for the archaic 2D modelling (i.e. plans on paper) construction process to move to 7D.

The 7 dimensions are as follows:

3D = Interactive plans

4D = Time calculation

5D= Cost calculation

6D= Sustainability

7D= Facility Management

Energy efficiency gauge on BIM model

How will BIM change the Cypriot construction industry?

Through BIM design, issues will be identified and resolved before they enter the critical path for construction. This means that parties will no longer be forced to argue about cost and extension of time claims since these factors will be calculated by the BIM software itself.

Projects will be planned and executed in the most cost effective and sustainable manner and budgets will be monitored much greater accuracy.

The adoption of BIM will effectively usher in a new era of construction in which most disputes associated with the construction process are resolved by the software itself. One can only imagine the decrease in cost to the public purse if government projects were tendered for and constructed with the use of BIM.

At the same time Contractors bidding for government projects will benefit from the increased certainty, transparency and objectivity that BIM will introduce. As a result the market will become much more competitive due to the renewed confidence in how the project will be run.

Most importantly BIM will promote greater confidence, cooperation and trust in the beleaguered construction industry of Cyprus due to the minimisation of disputes that lead to delays in payments and protracted and increasingly expensive legal disputes.

An Employer who uses the BIM model will benefit from more competitive prices due to the elimination of the uncertainties that BIM can achieve.

Even though constructing with the use of BIM has a cost, this cost is by no means restrictive in large development and public projects. In fact the opposite is the case. By using BIM the Employer, whether private or the government will end up saving money for the plethora of reasons outlined above.

BIM vs Lawyers

One could think that BIM could spell bad news for lawyers since the software eliminates many of the reasons for disputes that occur during the construction process. This is, however not the case. Recent case law in the United Kingdom and in the US has flagged up a plethora of BIM related legal disputes. After all, BIM works through human input. BIM has not yet reached the stage where it can eliminate human error. As shown above BIM can greatly reduce the effects of human errors as it can identify it and possibly aid in resolving the effects of it on site but the capacity for human error still remains a risk.

Recent disputes that have reached the courts have involved questions like:

Determining liability: Questions arise as to who bears responsibility for design errors and other human errors imputed into the BIM software. If numerous parties are sharing and using the same model then it becomes harder to ascertain who is at fault for the error once the error occurs.

Responsibility issues: A breakdown of communication can occur when not all parties on the project are using BIM (which sometimes is precisely the case). Sometimes the project might be both on BIM and on 2D plans which if not checked thoroughly might have discrepancies between them which can lead to errors which are then built into the project, and which will have to later me remedied.

Finally, ownership / title issues: Disputes as to who has ownership and/or copyright of the BIM software relating to a project are the most common form of dispute. This usually happens when there is a breakdown in relationship and the party most in control of the BIM pulls the plug and locks the other parties out of using it to finish the project.

With the above in mind, even though BIM will help prevent or resolve a large percentage of traditional disputes, it will not go as far as to eradicate disputes altogether. Even with BIM, disputes as to workmanship, design, cost and time will still occur, but simply to a lesser extent. Coupled with the BIM related disputes mentioned above there will still be ample ground for lawyers to “cross swords” in construction.  

Parties will therefore do well to look to lawyers with the relevant legal experience and expertise in understanding BIM, its implementation and the legal issues that arise through its use. Contract clauses will have to be drafted with BIM usage in mind and parties will need to incorporate the use of this technology in the actual terms of the contract itself, both in relation to the terms relating to the construction as well in relation to the clauses regulating the dispute resolution mechanisms of the contract. Simply put, lawyers will not be out of a job anytime soon but rather their scope of operations will evolve to include BIM.

Using BIM now

Readers operating in the Cypriot construction industry may be excused for thinking that BIM is years away from becoming a significant factor in the Cypriot construction industry. We are however confident that that is not the case and the situation will change rather rapidly.

One of the main reasons supporting this view is the commonly held belief that the current state of the construction industry in Cyprus is not sustainable. This is one of the few things that both Employers and Contractors agree upon.

The time is therefore ripe for the introduction of BIM into the construction market. In this context it is significant to note that BIM can be used on a project even if all parties to the process do not yet know how to use and/or do not yet have access to the relevant software. The fact of the matter is that if an Employer wishes it to be so, any Cypriot project can be run on BIM starting tomorrow.

We are currently working with construction professionals operating in Cyprus with long standing international experience working with BIM. They are very well placed to advise on and to provide BIM implementation by assisting clients in the construction and development of the models required for BIM to operate on a project and in setting out the necessary BIM process and procedures in relation to the project, irrespective of its stage of development or construction.

For any related queries and/or more information on how BIM can be put to use on your construction project please contact the Construction and Real Estate team at Ioannides Demetriou LLC.

All photos and model depictions used in this article are the property of and have been graciously provided by DG Jones and Partners (www.dgjones.com).

State Aid and Taxation

Posted on | by Paschalis Paschali

Fiscal state aid is a hot topic right now, with a number of high-profile cases going through the European courts.

Under EU law, Member States are prohibited from giving an advantage in any form whatsoever to undertakings on a selective basis, unless it is justified by reasons of general economic development. 

The test is set out in Art 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU):

“[…] any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.”

The concept of state aid is wider than that of a subsidy, embracing not only positive benefits, such as subsidies, but ‘also interventions which, in various forms, mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which, without therefore being subsidies in the strict meaning of the word, are similar in character and have the same effect’.

An aid could include subsidies, interest-free or low-interest loans or interest rate subsidies, guarantees on preferential terms, supply of goods or services on preferential terms, capital injections on preferential terms etc.

In order to fall under the scope of Art 107 TFEU, the aid must be granted by a Member State or through Member State resources. This encompasses regional or local authorities and public bodies. There must be a burden on state resources, not just an incidental benefit given without a financial burden.

Very importantly, the aid must favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods (the ‘selectivity’ principle), which distort or threaten to distort competition, and must be capable of affecting trade between Member States.

The salient question is whether the recipient of the advantage is receiving a benefit that it would not have otherwise received under normal market conditions. The benefit should improve the undertaking’s financial position or reduce the costs that it would have had to bear.

The Commission does not need to prove that trade will be affected. It is sufficient to show that the measure threatens competition, i.e. that intra-EU trade may be affected and not necessarily permanently. For general guidance, see the Commission’s 2016 Notice.

Under Art 107(2) TFEU, certain types of aid such as aid of a social character or aid to help in case of a natural disaster are deemed to be compatible with EU law. Furthermore, aid may be compatible with the internal market if it falls within any of the six derogations laid down in Art 107(3) TFEU. These derogations have been construed strictly, though some of these proved essential in the context of past financial crises and the COVID-19 era.

Whether or not a measure is state aid for the purposes of this provision is a question that the courts both at European and national level have competence to decide. However, whether such state aid is compatible with the common market (i.e. whether it is lawful), is a question that the national courts do not have legal competence to deal with – only the European Commission at first instance.

The Commission has a pivotal role in the application of the state aid prohibition. It keeps constant review of existing aids offered by Member States. Furthermore, Member States are required to notify the Commission as to any plans to grant or alter state aid. The Commission may also ask the Court of Justice to order a Member State to recover illegal state aid.

Companies themselves may trigger investigations by lodging complaints with the Commission. In fact, during an investigation (or even prior to it), the Commission often invites interested parties to submit comments. A company may be affected by the state aid prohibition whether it is the recipient of aid or the competitor of the recipient. Recently, a direct action against a Commission decision brought by competitors of the beneficiaries of a state aid measure was allowed in the Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori case.

Aid given to a company must be repaid if it is unlawful or has not been properly notified or approved by the Commission. If repayment is demanded, within a period of four months, the taxpayer must reimburse the full amount of the financial benefit conferred, including interest, for up to a maximum of ten years prior to the start of an investigation. No recovery is necessary when the unlawful aid was given more than ten years before the Commission’s decision.

The state aid prohibition has become very high profile in the tax field. Tax measures that relieve the recipients of charges that are normally borne from their budgets such as reductions in the tax base, total or partial reduction in the amount of tax (exemption of tax credit), deferment, cancellation or even special rescheduling of tax debt are examples of fiscal state aid. Such tax measures are thought to be granted by the state or through state resources. This is because a tax exemption mitigates the charge that would normally be recoverable from the undertaking. Therefore, the state loses tax revenue. This loss of tax revenue is equivalent to consumption of state resources in the form of fiscal expenditure.

Recent state aid investigations have centred around tax rulings or advance pricing agreements given by Member State tax authorities to various multinationals. What was objectionable to the Commission in each of these cases was that the tax rulings given by Member States allowed the MNE beneficiaries to depart from market conditions in setting the commercial conditions of intra-group transactions, which led to significant tax reductions and very low effective tax rates.

Questioning discretionary practices of tax administrations is not something new in the area of state aid. As noted in the 1998 Commission state aid notice on business taxation, treating economic agents on a discretionary basis may mean that the individual application of a general measure takes on the features of a selective measure, in particular where exercise of the discretionary power goes beyond the simple management of tax revenue by reference to objective criteria.

In the last few months, decisions of the European Court of Justice on some of these cases have come out but we are still waiting for many more. What seems to be emerging from the Fiat and Starbucks appeals is that a tax ruling which does not seem to follow the OECD’s arm’s length principle does not necessarily mean that it falls within the scope of the EU’s state aid prohibition. It is important to assess the reference system of the investigated Member State in order to determine whether the tax ruling is an exception to that system and not whether it deviates from a general abstract arm’s length principle.

Of course as the arm’s length principle as well as the OECD’s Transfer Pricing Guidelines are now incorporated or closely followed by most Member States, including Cyprus, a tax ruling or advance pricing agreement given by the tax administration which allows a tax treatment incompatible with the arm’s length principle is very likely to fall foul of the state aid prohibition. Therefore, special caution should be taken by tax authorities in giving tax rulings, to ensure that the rulings are aligned with the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines. Furthermore, undertakings receiving beneficial tax treatment – whether through a ruling or advance pricing agreement or other mitigating measure – should bear in mind that if it is too good to be true, it is probably state aid and will need to be reimbursed at some point.

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

Trademark protection in the Metaverse

Posted on | by Paschalis Paschali

As the Metaverse continues to grow and evolve, it brings about exciting opportunities and challenges for businesses and creators alike. With virtual worlds becoming a significant part of our digital lives, intellectual property protection becomes crucial in this immersive digital realm. In this article, we will explore how trademark protection in the Metaverse has been addressed so far.

The Metaverse can be described as a virtual universe where users interact with one another and digital content in real-time. It encompasses virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and other immersive technologies. Within this vast digital landscape, brands and trademarks play a crucial role in distinguishing products and services, fostering consumer trust, and promoting healthy competition.

Recently, in a groundbreaking ruling, a New York court applied trademark infringement analysis to non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and found that a collection of digital images called ‘MetaBirkins,’ featuring fur-covered handbags attached to an NFT, could confuse consumers with the luxury fashion brand Hermès Birkin bag. Hermès argued that the MetaBirkins collection infringed its trademark for the word ‘Birkin’ violated its trade dress rights, and involved cyber-squatting and unfair competition. The court upheld all of Hermès’ claims and awarded the brand $133,000 in damages. This decision has significant practical implications, suggesting that existing trademark rights on physical goods can potentially be enforced against their unauthorized use in virtual environments. It also highlights the importance of balancing fundamental rights when addressing trademark infringements related to NFTs and new forms of artistic expression. Additionally, the ruling raises questions about the distinction between owning the digital images and owning the ownership rights to the NFT in terms of legal action against infringement.

Although this decision has no binding effect in Europe, significantly, it indicates that existing trade mark rights on physical goods could potentially be enforced against their unauthorised use in virtual environments, in spite of the fact that the trade mark proprietor is not yet active in the metaverse or in the market of NFTs certified digital assets.

While most businesses have trademark registrations for “real world” goods/services, some are extending their trademark portfolios to include virtual goods and services. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has provided guidance to brand owners on describing metaverse and NFT-related goods/services and the appropriate NICE classes to use. According to the guidelines, classes 9 (downloadable virtual items), 35 (retail store services encompassing virtual products), 41 (online entertainment services), and 42 (minting of NFTs) are relevant for trademark registrations related to the Metaverse. Generic terms like “virtual goods” or “non-fungible tokens” are not sufficient and must be further specified, such as “downloadable virtual goods, namely, virtual clothing” or “downloadable digital files authenticated by non-fungible tokens.”

There are also several infringement issues to address, including whether reproducing a trademark in the metaverse constitutes an infringement. Mere reproduction of a mark by an avatar in the metaverse may not satisfy the criteria for trademark infringement, similar to how wearing a T-shirt with a third-party logo does not infringe in the real world. However, offering an avatar design or accessory service using a third-party trademark or using a third-party trademark for a virtual store front likely constitutes infringement.

As the Metaverse continues to shape the digital landscape, the EU is proactively addressing trademark protection to safeguard brand owners’ rights. The established trademark protection framework, through institutions like the EUIPO, enforces legal remedies, prevents consumer confusion, and fosters international cooperation. This concerted effort ensures that the Metaverse remains a secure and innovative space for businesses, creators, and consumers alike. By upholding trademark rights, the EU promotes a thriving virtual environment where brands can flourish while providing users with a trusted and engaging experience.

Ultimately, the level of trademark protection in the Metaverse will depend on the legal and regulatory developments that emerge as the concept evolves and becomes more established. It is advisable for brand owners and businesses to closely monitor the legal landscape and consult with legal experts who specialize in intellectual property and emerging technologies to understand the specific implications and protections related to trademarks in the metaverse.

Get in touch for a consultation with our team.

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.