No Match Found
Brexit: Implications for Austrian income tax, new UK/Austria Double Taxation Agreement in force
by Ines Hofbauer-Steffel
Constructive dividends vs. repayment of capital
by Martina Gruber and Nicholas Walters
Import VAT – Who can claim a deduction?
by Rupert Wiesinger, Helene Breit and Markus Leitner
Brexit: Implications for Austrian VAT
by Rupert Wiesinger and Rene Adam
No-deal Brexit: Implications for British citizens under Austrian immigration law
by Ursula Roberts and Martina Holzer
No-deal Brexit: Implications for your cross-border employees under Austrian social insurance law
by Evelyn Kappel and Daniela Messner
Although Brexit has been postponed to a later date this year, the issue remains highly topical. As it cannot be anticipated whether a formal agreement on the terms of the UK’s departure from the EU will be reached, Austria has introduced measures that would apply in the event of a “hard Brexit”:
IFRS 2 requires an entity to reflect the effect of equity-settled share-based payment transactions such as the granting of stock options to employees in its financial statements and P&L statement. In the case of stock options that are either settled by issuing new shares or by granting treasury shares to employees upon vesting, the fair value of the stock options at grant date has to be recognised as a (notional) employment expense over the vesting period and credited to equity. According to the Austrian Financial Reporting and Auditing Committee (AFRAC), the IFRS 2 treatment also applies under local Austrian GAAP. As the determination of taxable income in Austria is based on local GAAP, the question arises whether such (notional) employment expenses can be treated as tax-deductible expenses for Austrian corporate income tax purposes.
On 31 January 2019, the Austrian Supreme Administrative Court (VwGH) ruled that (notional) employment expenses of this kind in accordance with IFRS 2 are not tax-deductible as the company does not incur any costs when granting the stock options. According to the decision, a tax-deductible expense may only be claimed if the stock options are settled by granting treasury shares where the respective acquisition costs of the treasury shares are higher than the strike price that has to be paid by the employees in accordance with the underlying stock option plan.
The decision referred to a purely domestic scenario in which a publicly listed company resident in Austria granted stock options to its Austrian employees. The decision does not provide any guidance on the tax treatment of expenses related to stock options granted by a foreign parent company to the employees of an Austrian-resident subsidiary if these expenses are recharged by the non-resident parent company to Austria. In such scenarios, it has to be analysed on a case-by-case basis whether the Austrian subsidiary could potentially claim such recharges as tax-deductible expenses.
Recent Austrian court rulings have addressed the question whether non-arm’s length payments to a company shareholder should be classified as constructive dividends or as repayment of capital for tax purposes.
In separate cases, the Austrian Supreme Administrative Court (VwGH) and the Austrian Federal Fiscal Court (BFG) came to conflicting conclusions when assessing the existence of a “hidden” repayment of capital. However, both decisions gave different reasoning in their technical analysis. This difference in reasoning may have tax consequences in Austria:
A distribution by way of a repayment of capital (“Einlagenrückzahlung”) is tax neutral under Austrian tax law, unless the repayment exceeds the tax book value in the shares, whereas a constructive dividend (“verdeckte Gewinnausschüttung”) is subject to 25% WHT. In order to provide evidence, the companies have been required to maintain two special tax accounts (internal financing and tax equity accounts) since 2015.
BFG (RV/7105237/2015, 28 December 2018):
A loss-making Austrian GmbH granted its grandparent company a loan (cash from a transaction). The Austrian tax office assessed this to be a constructive dividend and levied 25% Austrian WHT. In its analysis, the BFG made two notable points:
This case is currently pending at the VwGH. The final decision will be of interest, as the VwGH case described below implies a different outcome.
VwGH (Ra 2018/15/0037, 22 November 2018):
This case questioned the nature of a non-arm’s length payment and the Tax Office assessed it to be a constructive dividend. Unlike the BFG, the VwGH held that no profit is required for a constructive dividend to be paid – gross income during the year may be sufficient. The VwGH does not dispute that a constructive dividend always applies if there is insufficient evidence of repayment of capital.
The VwGH also seems to be stricter with regard to standards of evidence. Although the VwGH has not deemed it obligatory to maintain a tax equity account, it has clearly indicated that such an account and its entries are a strong means of proving that no taxable constructive dividend is given.
It will be interesting to see whether the VwGH repeats its view that the existence of gross income is sufficient for the payment of constructive dividends. If so, the burden of proof for a “hidden” repayment of capital could hardly be met. This implies that non-arm’s length transactions might then face 25% WHT in Austria, which may be either fully or partially refunded upon application, depending on the relevant double tax treaty or the Parent-Subsidiary Directive. We recommend carefully maintaining these special tax accounts.
Under certain conditions, import VAT on goods imported to Austria can be claimed as input VAT. As it is frequently unclear who is legally entitled to deduct the import VAT, we provide a short overview here of the main points to be considered.
In order to deduct import VAT as input VAT in Austria, it is not decisive which legal entity is mentioned as recipient of the goods on the respective invoices or on the import documents. Instead, the following conditions have to be met:
The decisive criterion for the deduction of import VAT as input VAT is that the importer of the goods is deemed to have the right to dispose of the imported goods as owner at the time of import and subsequently uses the goods for his own business purposes.
According to the case law of the ECJ and the Austrian Administrative Court, it is also decisive that the costs incurred in connection with the import of the goods (e.g. import VAT) are included in the price of outgoing transactions or in the price of goods supplied by the taxable person in the course of his business activities. Freight forwarders, carriers, commercial agents, etc. who are involved in the import of the goods but do not have the right to dispose of the goods as owner are thus not entitled to deduct import VAT. Even if they temporarily store the imported goods on behalf of the owner or become debtors of the import VAT, they are still not entitled to deduct import VAT as input VAT.
In determining who is deemed to have the right to dispose of the goods as owner, neither contractual agreements nor Incoterms but the place of supply rules are decisive. If the place of supply of the goods is deemed to be where the transport of the goods begins, the person to whom the goods are sold upon importation is deemed to be owner of the goods and thus entitled to deduct the import VAT. Special rules apply to installation supplies, chain transactions and toll manufacturing arrangements.
For import VAT deduction under the Austrian VAT Act, it is a requirement that import VAT has been paid to the customer’s authorities. Who paid the import VAT is not decisive. The Austrian tax authorities also allow the deduction of import VAT if the import VAT is paid by a third party, provided that the other conditions have been fulfilled.
If the deferment scheme is used, the import VAT will be debited from the tax account of the importer.
The above-mentioned conditions for import VAT deduction have to be met at the time the goods are imported to Austria.
Import VAT is not deductible in cases of (suspected) fraud, i.e. if the taxable person knew or should have known that the business transaction in question or another transaction in the supply chain related to fraud.
Now that the deadline for the withdrawal of the UK from the EU (“Brexit”) has been extended to October 31, 2019, the scenario in which the UK leaves without a deal (“no-deal Brexit”) might have become less likely.
However, from a VAT perspective, the legal changes that would need to be made and thus the implications of a no-deal Brexit for supplies of goods and services can already be anticipated to a large extent.
In the event of a no-deal Brexit, the UK would become a third country from an EU perspective, which would especially affect cross-border supplies. In particular, changes to the VAT treatment and reporting obligations can be expected in the following areas:
Given the new Brexit deadline, one of the main current uncertainties is the question as to how input VAT refund claims would be processed in the event of a no-deal Brexit, as well as what the filing deadlines for such claims would be. This applies to both UK businesses in Austria and Austrian businesses in the UK.
Moreover, future invoices might need to be adapted if there are differences in the obligatory invoice requirements (as defined in the Austrian VAT Act) for certain supplies of goods or services before/after a no-deal Brexit
If the United Kingdom leaves the European Union without a withdrawal agreement (and without national transition arrangements), British citizens would lose their right of residence and freedom of movement for employment purposes in Austria under European law and would have to be treated as third-country nationals.
In order to soften the effects of a possible ‘hard Brexit’, national transitional arrangements have been proposed in Austria in the form of the Brexit Accompanying Act 2019 (BreBeG).
The Brexit Accompanying Act aims to simplify eligibility requirements for British citizens and their non-EU national family members when applying for residence or work permits, as long as they were legally resident in Austria before Brexit. If an application is submitted on time (within six months after a no-deal Brexit), they would be permitted to remain and work in Austria until a binding decision has been reached by the Austrian authorities. It will be possible to obtain written confirmation from the competent authority as proof of this.
British citizens who move to Austria after Brexit would not have any advantage over third-country nationals. They would require a residence and work permit before beginning to work in Austria.
Experience has shown that the processing time for applications of third-country nationals can be up to 3.5 months from the date of submission.
If the withdrawal agreement between the EU and the UK is not ratified, the EU regulations (Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009) on the coordination of social security systems will cease to apply in the UK from the day after Brexit date. The EU regulations envisage that citizens only need to hold health insurance in one member state and they regulate the exchange of healthcare services and other social benefits between the UK and Austria.
An option that has previously been considered is to reactivate the bilateral agreement between Austria and the UK that existed before Austria joined the EU. Currently, the social insurance providers assume that in the event of a ‘no-deal Brexit’ only the national provisions of the Austrian General Social Insurance Act (ASVG) will apply. Therefore employee assignments to the UK or from the UK might be treated in the same way as employee assignments to/from states with which Austria does not have any social security arrangements (e.g. China).
A1 and S1 forms will lose their validity after exit date in the event of a disorderly Brexit.
A ‘no-deal Brexit’ would create the following risks:
Copyright and Publisher: PwC Österreich GmbH Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, Donau-City-Straße 7, 1220 Vienna, Austria
Editor: Christof Wörndl, email@example.com
The above information is intended to provide general guidance only. It should not be used as a substitute for professional advice or as the basis for decisions or actions without prior consultation with your advisors. While every care has been taken in the preparation of the publication, no liability is accepted for any statement, option, error or omission.
PwC refers to the PwC network and/or one or more of its member firms, each of which is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.