- The parent company has a permanent location and a real economic presence in Cyprus (it had seven employees and incurred substantial costs for the rent of office space, accounting and auditing services);
- The parent company was engaged in managing foreign investments in several subsidiaries in different countries and controlling the results;
- The parent company received dividends resulting from its investments;
- The parent company makes use of the income in entrepreneurial activities (it enjoyed the economic benefits from the income);
- The parent company had sufficient own capital, and also invested part of the income received in acquiring other investments.
Based on the above the court decided that the Cypriot parent company in the present case was the beneficial owner of the dividends received. According to the court the Cypriot holding company was not a mere intermediary because it was able to independently determine the economic fate of the received dividends.
Despite the fact that this decision relates to beneficial ownership of Russian-sourced income, it clearly provides points of reference which criteria, from a beneficial ownership perspective, should be taken into consideration when determining taxpayer’s entitlement to benefits under a double tax treaty from the perspective of Russia.
Comparison Cypriot structure Russian case vs. the February 26, 2019 (C-117/16) CJEU decision
Recently the CJEU considered a similar issue in respect of withholding tax on dividend distributions from a Danish company to its Cypriot parent company (C-117/16). In this case the CJEU found that the Cypriot parent company acted as a mere intermediary and was not the beneficial owner of the dividends received.
The CJEU denied the assumption of real economic presence in Cyprus. The activities of the Cypriot parent company (corporate and treasury management), the lack of personnel and the limited expenses (directors fee of appr. € 1.000) were not considered sufficient for assuming an economic nexus. Hence, the Cypriot company was not entitled to the benefits of the EC Parent-Subsidiary Directive.
Observing the significant differences in terms of Cypriot substance (for instance no personnel vs. seven employees) between the CJEU case and the Russian Arbitrage Court of Appeal the decision seems reasonable. In this respect it is noteworthy that the Russian Tax Authorities challenged the beneficial ownership of a Cypriot holding company that employed seven employees and incurred substantial costs for the rent of office space, accounting and auditing services.
Some takeaways
MNE’s that hold subsidiaries in Russia with intermediate holding companies for instance in Luxembourg, Cyprus or the Netherlands should monitor these developments. In respect of the Netherlands we note that article 10(2) of the DTAA Netherlands – Russia states that 5% dividend withholding tax can be withheld from the beneficial owner of the dividends if it is a company which holds (among other requirements) 25% of the capital of the company paying the dividends. The beneficial ownership clause in article 10(2) of the DTAA Netherlands – Russia is in principle comparable to the beneficial ownership clause in the DTAA Russia – Cyprus.
DISCLAIMER
The information contained in this blog is of general nature and does not address the specific circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Hence, the information in this blog is intended for general informational purposes and cannot be regarded as advice. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information and great care has been taken when compiling this blog, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future.
No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. We do not accept any responsibility whatsoever for any consequences arising from the information in this publication being used without our consent.
