Luxembourg Breakfast in Zurich (9 March 2017)

Luxembourg Breakfast in Zurich (9 March 2017)

In partnership with SECA, Swiss Private Equity & Corporate Finance Association.

The Luxembourg Private Equity and Venture Capital Association organizes its 4th annual discussion and exchange forum.

9 March 2017


7.45 a.m.  – Registration & Breakfast

8.30 a.m. – Welcome by Paul Junck, LPEA

8.35 a.m. – Discussion Panel with Q&A

Anja Grenner, Fund Services Leader, SGG Group (moderator)
Philipp Mueller, Senior Vice President at Partners Group
Stephanie Aldag, Executive Director, Senior Legal Counsel, Adveq
Christoph Merz, Senior Product Manager, responsAbility Investments AG
Benjamin de Zordi, Tax Partner at PwC Switzerland
Christian Hertz,
Director Legal, Luxembourg Investment Solutions
Tobias Wieczorek, Senior Manager, KPMG Luxembourg
Harald Strelen, Partner, TaxInvest

11.00 a.m. – Networking & Farewell Drinks

[avia_codeblock_placeholder uid="0"]

Luxembourg introduced the Reserved Alternative Investment Fund (“RAIF”) in July 2016. This fund operates and is taxed just like the SICAR and SIF, the known Luxembourg vehicles for investments in Private Equity, Venture Capital and Real Estate. Unlike the SIF or the SICAR, the RAIF does not have to be authorized by the Luxembourg financial regulatory authority. It is only indirectly regulated at the level of its authorized Alternative Investment Fund Manager (“AIFM”) and its depositary pursuant to the AIFMD, both of which it has to appoint no matter the size of the RAIF. That way the RAIF combines all the advantages of the existing vehicles for alternative investments with a quick time-to-market.

In this workshop participants will have the chance to learn more about the diverse structuring options, see practical examples and possibilities of converting existing vehicles into RAIFs.

This workshop will also discuss the consequences Brexit may have on Luxembourg as a financial hub and what this could mean for Swiss Fund promoters. Luxembourg AIFMs, together with AIFM service providers, will report how this topic has evolved in recent months and what they expect for the medium and long run.

As in previous years Swiss fund managers that are familiar with Luxembourg structures will participate in the discussion panel and share their experience with the audience.

This will also be the occasion to take stock of the progress made regarding ESMA’s decision to allow Swiss AIFMs to benefit of the third country regime in fund distribution.

Swiss and Luxembourg lawyers, tax experts, service providers and fund distributors will point out relevant trends in the field of taxation. Some of the topics that will be discussed include among others Transfer Pricing, BEPS, the application of the Parent-Subsidiary-Directive, all of which impact the structuring of PE and VC Funds already.

This workshop gives participants the chance to engage with experts from Luxembourg and Switzerland on the changing parameters in the field of fund structuring and distribution.



LPEA Roadshow Sponsors



Meet us at the Au Premier

Zürich HB
Bahnhofpl. 15
8001 Zürich

New article 56bis LIR and Circulaire LIR n°56/1-56bis/1 : Threat or Opportunity?

New article 56bis LIR and Circulaire LIR n°56/1-56bis/1 : Threat or Opportunity?

by Philippe Neefs, Partner, KPMG Luxembourg

On 22 December 2016 the Luxembourg Parliament voted the new article 56bis of the Luxembourg Income Tax Law (LITL). This provision gives taxpayers and tax authorities more guidance on how to apply the arm’s-length principle. The new article can be seen as a transposition of the late 2015 OECD BEPS reports (actions 8-9-10) into national law.

Below we highlight the most important implication of that new provision which encompasses the OECD five comparability factors approach.

Par.7 of the new Art 56bis (“..transactions between the parties can be disregarded for transfer pricing purposes, if [part of] the transaction does not possess the commercial rationality of arrangements that would be agreed between independent parties…”) will impact future transfer pricing work because a taxpayer will always have to be prepared to be able to document the commercial rationale behind intercompany transactions as part of its transfer pricing documentation. The legislator did not take into account the caveat given by the State Council, where this provision could only be applied exceptionally.

As an example of “non-recognition”, we can consider the case where a guarantee on a loan is put in place between related entities and that the Luxembourg tax authorities consider that an independent party would never enter into this contract as a guarantor and that there is a lack of commercial rationale for such transaction. This could alter the credit rating of the entity for transfer pricing purposes, impact the arm’s length interest rate to be paid and finally the remuneration to be left by the Luxembourg intra-group financing entity. Attention will need to be paid for this in pre-structuring documentation. Therefore, a description of the Luxembourg value chain will be worth taking into account any non-tax reasons.

On 27 December 2016, in light of the above mentioned article, the Luxembourg Tax Authorities published a new Transfer Pricing Circular aiming at clarifying the transfer pricing rules for companies principally performing intra-group financing transactions (Circulaire du Directeur des contributions L.I.R. n° 56/1 – 56bis/1 du 27 décembre 2016).

In this respect, Luxembourg is adapting its legal framework to take into account the latest international and European evolutions. As stated on the official website of the Luxembourg Government, the new Circular follows the discussions between Luxembourg and the European Commission’s DG for Competition.

The scope of application of the new Circular remains the same as under the 2011 Transfer Pricing Circulars. Notably, it applies to all entities realizing intra-group financing transactions, while holding activities remain out of its scope.

In this new Circular, strong emphasis is put on the analysis of the risks assumed by the companies performing the intra-group financing transaction under review. In that regard, different factors will need to be taken into account such as the solvency of the borrower, the potential guarantees for specific financing transactions, the costs in relation with the financing transactions or the actual value of the underlying assets.

The Circular further provides that if the companies have a similar functional profile to the entities regulated under the EU Regulation n° 575/2013 that transposes the Basel Accords and such companies have an amount of equity complying with the solvency requirements under this Regulation, then it is considered that these companies have enough capital to support the risks assumed. Moreover, as a safe harbor it is considered that these companies comply with the arm’s length principle if their remuneration corresponds to a return on equity equal to 10% after taxes. In practice, it is not expected that many Luxembourg companies will fall into the above-described category due to the particular nature of the required functional profile.

All other companies should perform an analysis to determine the necessary capital at risk using the widely accepted methodologies in this area. These companies must have the financial capacity to assume such risks. The level of capital at risk should correspond to the functional profile under review, meaning that the required equity at risk should decrease when the risks borne become more limited. It must be noted that there is no reference anymore to the minimum required capital at risk of 1% of the financing volume (capped at EUR 2 million) that could be derived from the application of the 2011 Circulars.

Furthermore, the Circular provides that in order to be able to control the risks (i.e., decision-making capacity), the company performing the intra-group financing transaction should comply with the following substance requirements:

  1. The Luxembourg residence of the members of the board of directors or managers empowered to engage the entity in particular, the majority of board members should be Luxembourg resident or, if non-Luxembourg resident, should be taxable for at least 50% of their income (listed in the Circular) in Luxembourg;
  2. The company should have qualified employee(s) to control the performed transactions. However, the company could outsource some functions that do not have a significant impact on the control of the risks. This requirement will certainly be debated a lot in the near future;
  3. The fact that the entity is not considered as a tax resident of a foreign jurisdiction.

Linked to the above article 56bis, the Circular provides that if one or several transactions cannot be observed between independent parties and no commercial rationale could be identified, then such transactions should be disregarded in order to comply with the arm’s length principle.

The Circular provides in addition for a measure of simplification for which a taxpayer can opt should the following conditions be fulfilled:

  1. No Transfer Pricing study has been prepared;
  2. The intra-group debt receivables are financed by intra-group debt payables; and
  3. The company fulfills the substance requirements (as outlined above).

It will be considered that such companies comply with the arm’s length principle if their remuneration corresponds to a return on the financed assets of at least 2% after taxes. These cases will be subject to the information exchange process.

The Circular provides that it remains possible to obtain an advanced pricing agreement, based on the facts and circumstances of each case, if the conditions outlined in the Circular are respected.

The Circular stipulates that any advanced pricing agreement issued before the entry into force of article 56bis LITL should not be binding upon the Tax Authorities as from 1 January 2017, for the fiscal years following 2016.

Although it is not indicated, it can be interpreted that a Luxembourg entity carrying out an intra-group financing activity that has not the so-called organizational and economic substances would be considered as “conduit” and that Luxembourg may exchange spontaneously that information with the debtor’s jurisdictions. It can then be anticipated that a tax audit in those jurisdictions may be initiated and that the beneficial ownership of the Luxembourg entity will be questioned.

A review of the previously filed advanced pricing agreements, as well as past defensive Transfer Pricing documentation, in light of this revised legal framework will need to be carried out.

The conclusion would be that Luxembourg taxpayers will need to develop agile documentation (any change provides opportunity) in order to fit with these new developments, where Luxembourg certainly wants to be in a level playing-field situation.

– Lastly, please do not forget the non-public country-by-country (CbC) reporting transposing the EU Directive 2016/881 of 25 May 2016 into Luxembourg law. E-Notifications about the reporting entities for MNE groups having a fiscal year-end in 2016 (and a fiscal exercise starting as of 1 January 2016) must be provided on an exceptional basis no later than 31 March 2017 (instead of 31 December 2016 as initially foreseen in the Law).

Above all, I wish you all the best for 2017, which certainly will be an inspiring and challenging year for all of us!

Luxembourg taxpayers will need to develop agile documentation (any change provides opportunity) in order to fit with these new developments

Philippe Neefs

Partner, Head of Private Equity

KPMG in Luxembourg

Breakfast Conference on BEPS (June 8th 2016)

Breakfast Conference on BEPS (June 8th 2016)

LPEA Tax Committee

Société Générale Securities Services
Espace du Forum    Niveau -1
21, Rue d’Epernay
L-1490 Luxembourg

Moderated by Julien Bieber, Partner, KPMG

8:30   Registration and breakfast

9.00   Welcome by Jean-Pierre Gomez, Head of Regulatory and Public Affairs, Société Générale Securities Services

Introduction to BEPS and its implementation by the EU and certain member states
            Flora Castellani, Tax Director, KPMG

9:30   Consequences on typical PE investment structures
Frank van Kuijk, Tax Adviser, Loyens & Loeff
David Roach, Tax Technical Expert, PwC

10:00  Closing

Save the date and reserve your seat by registering below.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has now almost completed its Action Plan against Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). The European Commission (EC) is pressing strongly for all its recommendations and even additional measures to be implemented across Europe through a proposal for an Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive.

The question is not whether this tax climate change will impact Private Equity, but when and to what extent: what about interest deduction rules, substance requirements, hybrid financial instruments and country-by-country reports?

Join us for a networking breakfast during which tax experts will explain the current status of the implementation of BEPS and how to adapt quickly to the new tax environment.

Société Générale Securities Services

Espace du Forum Niveau -1
21, Rue d’Epernay
L-1490 Luxembourg