Budget Report, economy uk, budget economic, Treasury, Corporate Tax, Pensions, reform, R&D, Research and Development - ukbudget.com
 
Budget Report, economy uk, budget economic, Treasury, Corporate Tax, Pensions, reform, R&D, Research and Development - ukbudget.com
 

Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC)

The long awaited foreign profits consultation document has been deferred and is now promised before summer. In the meantime a number of targeted anti-avoidance measures have been introduced. These target companies which have sought to retain income offshore by falling within CFC exemptions, so that the income concerned is not subject to UK tax. Examples of structures which may be caught include:

  • Exempt activities holding company structures which rely upon income not being recognised for accounting purposes e.g. by using partnerships;

  • Decontrolled structures e.g. by using trusts;

  • Planning which seeks to reclassify income using discretionary trusts; and

  • Planning which aims to allow companies to satisfy an acceptable distribution policy by excluding certain income from the ‘chargeable profits’ calculation.

The definition of control for CFC purposes has been considerably widened and may inadvertently catch commercial structures where shareholders have significant rights to income or capital but without actual control. The motive test may be available for arrangements which exist for ‘wholly commercial purposes’.

The legislation is effective for income accruing post 12 March 2008.

Interestingly in paragraph 11 of the Budget Note the changes to the definition of gross income of a holding company are said to “put beyond doubt that gross income of a CFC includes any income to which it is entitled”. This would suggest that HMRC are leaving open the possibility to challenge Exempt Activities holding company structures under existing law despite the comments in HMRC’s International Tax Manual that gross income should be taken as the amounts received or receivable “as shown in the accounts for the accounting period in question”.

Companies that may be affected are advised to review their international structures as a matter of urgency with a view to putting in place alternative arrangements if appropriate.

Our view
Overall, we welcome the deferral of the consultation on Foreign Profits, as we think it means that the Treasury is working hard on dealing with a wide range of issues in a complex area.  It is important that the UK has a competitive regime for the taxation of international activities, so as not to deter UK-headquartered groups.  Unfortunately, there must now be some doubt as to whether the legislation will be ready for April 2009.

Some of the anti-avoidance changes are understandable.  Others - particularly the partnership changes - are unwelcome, not least because such structures may well qualify for exemption under the proposed new Foreign Profits rules.