BEPS, Private Equity, tax and ethics

comment - 24 February 2015

BEPS, Private Equity, tax and ethics

The OECD’s Action Plan on BEPS was published in July 2013 with a view to addressing perceived flaws in international tax rules and consultations have started. This is not a subject that should be ignored or left to tax experts, but is something that all stakeholders should engage with. The tax profile of private equity investment is straightforward and non-abusive and this message needs to be clearly made. If not, bad policy is likely to ensue.

The tax profile of private equity partnerships is remarkably straightforward. The general partner is an SPV and the limited partners typically comprise pension funds, family offices, insurance companies, banks, sovereign wealth funds, not-for-profit organisations, educational endowment funds, charities, and other investment funds based in a broad range of onshore jurisdictions (as money always resides onshore). Many of these limited partners can, in general, benefit from tax treaties in their jurisdictions of residence. From a tax perspective, it is therefore important that the structure of the fund is tax neutral for the partners involved, which can be achieved through co-investment (in the legal form of a tax transparent partnership agreement). Co-investment means that the partners are deemed to invest directly in the portfolio companies and not in a fund vehicle (whether good or bad in nature). All that is relevant in determining the application of taxing rights, consequently, is the location of the partners and the portfolio companies. The fund should be irrelevant.

This picture is complicated slightly where private equity partnerships invest on a cross-border basis and the tax position of the partners could vary from deal to deal requiring different procedures. It would be impractical for them to take advice each time there was a deal; therefore, to mitigate this problem and to achieve administrative simplicity (e.g. by avoiding multiple relief claims), general partners often choose to incorporate acquisition vehicles in a common third country that is well known and perceived as low risk. The obviousness of this approach should be immediately apparent. Operationally, these acquisition vehicles have a dual purpose:

+ holding activities – namely, holding participations (i.e. qualifying shareholdings) in relevant portfolio companies. Returns are usually tax exempt and should be ignored when considering treaty abuses; and

+ financing activities – these typically take the form of back-to-back loans with a small profit margin being realised by the acquisition vehicle. These loans are priced in the context of a negotiated transaction and, therefore, determining the correct price of the back-to-back loan on a cost plus basis should not involve complexity.

The use of acquisition vehicles often results in little or no tax saving in a private equity context (as withholding taxes are rarely an issue) and it would be unfortunate if BEPS-inspired anti-abuse rules had the effect of exaggerating the costs of these vehicles (by imposing uncommercial substance requirements) and diverting taxing rights away from the proper jurisdictions. This, after all, would result in the very base erosion and profit shifting that BEPS is meant to be avoiding.

Private equity partnerships and, where relevant, acquisition companies, should be understood as simple investment platforms. Unlike multinational companies, platforms do not generate wealth and, therefore, should not ordinarily be taxable. Wealth is generated by the investment activities of the partners and in the portfolio companies themselves, and this is where taxing rights should fall. Accusing passive investment platforms of ‘aggressive tax avoidance’ or the jurisdictions that host them is conceptually absurd. Unfortunately, however, this fact is not widely understood and is politically inconvenient.

For a copy of the Aztec Group’s latest response, please click here.


previous comment / James McCarthy

Brexit: what next for alternative investment funds industry?

After a period of market and political turbulence, the dust has (for now at least) started to settle. Yet despite share prices rebounding and Sterling stabilising, the long-term ra... Read More

Loading image Loading...

If you would like to discuss outsourcing to the Aztec Group or are considering migrating a fund or SPV, please call James Duffield, Head of Business Development, on +44 20 3818 0250.

Aztec Group Guernsey

Aztec Financial Services (Guernsey) Limited
PO Box 656, East Wing, Trafalgar Court
Les Banques, St Peter Port, Guernsey, GY1 3PP

Telephone: +44 1481 749700
Facsimile: +44 1481 749749

LocationDownload PDF Details

Aztec Group Jersey

Aztec Financial Services (Jersey) Limited
Aztec Group House, PO Box 730
11-15 Seaton Place, St Helier, Jersey, JE4 0QH

Telephone: +44 1534 833000
Facsimile: +44 1534 833033

LocationDownload PDF Details

Aztec Group UK - London

Aztec Financial Services (UK) Limited
2 Throgmorton Avenue

Telephone: +44 20 3818 0250

LocationDownload PDF Details

Aztec Group Luxembourg

Aztec Financial Services (Luxembourg) S.A.
8, rue Lou Hemmer, L-1748, Luxembourg – Findel
Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Telephone:+352 246 160 6000
Facsimile: +352 246 160 6016

LocationDownload PDF Details

Aztec Group The Netherlands

Aztec Financial Services (Netherlands) BV
Spaces Zuidas, Barbara Strozzilaan 201
1083 HN Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Telephone: +31 20 794 4820
Facsimile: +31 20 794 4821

LocationDownload PDF Details

Aztec Group UK - Southampton

Aztec Financial Services (UK) Limited
Forum 3, Solent Business Park
Parkway South, Whiteley, Fareham, PO15 7FH

Telephone: +44 238 202 2300
Facsimile: +44 238 202 2309

LocationDownload PDF Details

Aztec Group Sweden

Cetza Financial Services (Sweden) AB
Strandvägen 7a, 114 56, Stockholm, Sweden

Telephone: +46 8 124 488 88
Facsimile: +46 8 124 488 99

LocationDownload PDF Details