EU Locations for IP – Corporate Tax Planning
The Netherlands deserves credit for establishing the first patent box back in 2007. Currently, the Dutch ‘Innovation Box’ provides for an effective Dutch tax rate of approximately 5 per cent for either patents or IP derived from innovation. For the latter to apply, the Dutch company must obtain an R&D grant and, critically, the 5 per cent rate should only apply to the extent that the IP profits are further developed through identifiable R&D activities (via transfer-pricing study).
In practice, this can result in only a portion of total IP profits benefiting from the reduced rate.
Nonetheless, the Innovation Box can still be advantageous, especially if EU member states are already the location of actual R&D activities.
The Dutch expat regime allows key personnel to be temporarily transferred to the Netherlands and benefit from an approximate 36 per cent effective income tax rate (the normal rate is over 50 per cent). English is also a widely spoken second language in the Netherlands, while the country boasts a number of highly respected universities and research centres.
Example: Conducting financing regulations would deny treaty benefits
Despite its small size, Luxembourg has used its tax and legal flexibility to make a big impact in IP tax planning – particularly as regards information technology, e-commerce and biotechnology. Many internet giants, such as Amazon and eBay, already have personnel and operations there.
Luxembourg has heavily invested in its high-tech infrastructure (with high rankings in a number of key ICT operational criteria) and there is already a sizeable pool of high-tech expat talent. Its IP box regime provides an effective tax rate of 5.8 per cent, with a relatively broad range of IP rights, including patents, software copyrights, trademarks, designs, models and domain names (although know-how, trade secrets and other key IP types are still excluded).
The government is active in attracting IP-related operations and talent. Also, IP tax planning using more conventional methods (besides the IP box) can still result in an efficient tax rate, and this can be combined with a strong business case. The new coalition government recently announced a bold reform package, including further measures to attract innovation and IP, such as updating the IP box regime.
Malta is also worth mentioning. The Malta patent or copyright box can result in a zero effective tax rate – the lowest among common IP location candidates in the EU.
However, Malta’s weak spots might be substance and infrastructure (personnel, functions, facilities, etc), which will certainly become increasingly important for sustained IP tax planning into the future.
Ireland has attracted a large amount of IP from a variety of industries, including ICT, e-commerce and biotechnology. This is due partly to its 12.5 per cent corporate tax rate, 25 per cent R&D credit system, and IP tax regime (a wide range of IP, including patents, copyrights, marketing intangibles and know-how, and a related capital allowance of 15 years or the economic life of the IP).
As for business case, the Irish Industrial Development Agency has the most active promotional offices among its EU counterparts, including an office in the heart of Silicon Valley. Ireland can be an easy sell for US MNCs, given its large English-speaking population, relatively low costs of labour, and similar, flexible common-law legal system. However, the luck of the Irish might be wearing thin. With its national debt far above 100 per cent of GDP, Ireland is also attracting a lot of attention in terms of anti-tax avoidance, both in the EU (there is pressure for Irish tax reform in light of the country’s bail-outs) and US Congress.
Ireland has already changed its domestic law under pressure from the US in an attempt to shut down one loophole often used in IP tax planning (so-called ‘stateless’ non-Irish resident companies).
Double Irish Arrangement
The double Irish tax structure was pioneered in the late 1980s by companies such as Apple Inc. However, various measures intended to counter such arrangements have been passed in Ireland as early as 2010. In 2013, the Irish government announced that companies which incorporate in Ireland must also be tax resident there. This counter-measure is proposed to take effect in January 2015.
It is called double Irish because it requires two Irish companies to complete the structure. One of these companies is tax resident in a tax haven, such as the Cayman Islands or Bermuda. Irish tax law currently provides that a company is tax resident where its central management and control is located, not where it is incorporated, so that it is possible for the first Irish company not to be tax resident in Ireland. This company is the offshore entity which owns the valuable non US rights that are then licensed to a second Irish company (and this one is tax resident in Ireland) in return for substantial royalties or other fees. The second Irish company receives income from the use of the asset in countries outside the US, but its taxable profits are low because the royalties or fees paid to the first Irish company are tax-deductible expenses. The remaining profits are taxed at the Irish rate of 12.5%.
For companies whose ultimate ownership is located in the United States, the payments between the two related Irish companies might be non-tax-deferrable and subject to current taxation as Subpart F income under the Internal Revenue Service’s Controlled Foreign Corporation regulations if the structure is not set up properly. This is avoided by organizing the second Irish company as a fully owned subsidiary of the first Irish company resident in the tax haven, and then making an entity classification election for the second Irish company to be disregarded as a separate entity from its owner, the first Irish company. The payments between the two Irish companies are then ignored for US tax purposes.
An advertiser pays for an ad in Germany.
The ad agency sends money to its subsidiary in Ireland, which holds the intellectual property (IP).
Tax payable in Ireland is 12.5 percent, but the Irish company pays a royalty to a Dutch subsidiary, for which it gets an Irish tax deduction.
The Dutch company pays the money to yet another subsidiary in Ireland, with no withholding tax on inter-EU transactions.
The last subsidiary, although it is in Ireland, pays no tax because it is controlled outside of Ireland, in Bermuda or another tax haven.
However, companies such as Google, Oracle and FedEx are declaring fewer of their ongoing offshore subsidiaries in their public financial filings, which have the effect of reducing visibility of entities declared in known tax havens.
Major companies known to employ the double Irish strategy
Abbott Laboratories, Adobe Systems, Apple Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Facebook, Forest Laboratories, General Electric, Google, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, Oracle Corp., Pfizer Inc., Starbucks, Yahoo.
Our company licensing services
— What we do and do not do
Our company is EXCLUSIVELY engaged in assisting worldwide clients, either individuals or corporate entities, to get duly and properly licensed with local Regulators and Financial Authorities to get respective official licenses to legally carry out their cryptocurrency or financial related business activities.
TBA & Associates Tax Business Advisors does not provide or carry out any sort of Cryptocurrency or Financial services!
Disclaimer: While TBA & Associates strives to make the information on this website as timely and accurate as possible, the information itself is for reference purposes only. You should not substitute the information provided in this article for competent legal advice. Feel free to contact TBA Customer Services for advice on your specific cases.