נמרוד ירון ושות׳ https://y-tax.co.il/en/home-english/ מיסוי בינלאומי ומיסוי ישראלי Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:21:03 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.2 https://y-tax.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cropped-android-chrome-512x512-1-32x32.png נמרוד ירון ושות׳ https://y-tax.co.il/en/home-english/ 32 32 Trusts in purchasing property in Mexico by a foreign resident https://y-tax.co.il/en/trusts-in-purchasing-property-in-mexico-by-a-foreign-resident/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=trusts-in-purchasing-property-in-mexico-by-a-foreign-resident Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:17:49 +0000 https://y-tax.co.il/?p=34036 Purchasing property in Mexico by someone who is not a resident of Mexico – restrictions on purchasing The law in Mexico prohibits non-Mexican citizens from directly owning real estate in restricted areas. As defined by law, these restricted areas are located within 100 kilometers or less from any of Mexico’s borders and 50 kilometers or […]

The post Trusts in purchasing property in Mexico by a foreign resident appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>

Purchasing property in Mexico by someone who is not a resident of Mexico – restrictions on purchasing

The law in Mexico prohibits non-Mexican citizens from directly owning real estate in restricted areas. As defined by law, these restricted areas are located within 100 kilometers or less from any of Mexico’s borders and 50 kilometers or less from any coastline.

Also, ejido lands—lands granted by the Mexican government to the indigenous people of Mexico—cannot be owned by foreigners.

However, this restriction can be bypassed by purchasing real estate in Mexico in two ways: through establishing a trust known as a “Fideicomiso” or by using a Mexican corporation.

Establishing a trust with a Mexican bank

As mentioned above, the restriction on purchasing real estate in Mexico’s restricted areas can be circumvented by having the purchase and ownership of the property held by a trustee or a resident Mexican corporation. This condition can be met through a Mexican bank, which effectively acts as the trustee and creator. In the Mexican property registry, the bank will be registered as the owner of the property.

Although the Mexican bank is registered as the legal owner, the beneficiary of the trust will be the foreign buyer who enjoys all the rights associated with property ownership—such as occupying, renting, selling, transferring to an individual (local/foreign) or a business entity, and of course, appointing future beneficiaries in the event of death.

All decisions regarding the property are made by the beneficiary, while the trustee bank is responsible for carrying them out in practice. The trust is legally limited to a period of up to 50 years but can be renewed thereafter.

If the beneficiary is dissatisfied with the bank, they have the right to change the trustee—that is, to switch banks at any time they desire without being forced to sell the property and terminate the existing trust.

To establish a trust in Mexico, several requirements must be met

  1. Approval from the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs – This is necessary to ensure that foreign investment complies with Mexican laws regarding property ownership by non-citizens.
  2. A Mexican bank acting as the trustee – The bank will hold the legal title to the property, acting on behalf of the foreign beneficiary.
  3. A contract signed and ratified by a Mexican public notary – This formalizes the establishment of the trust and ensures that the agreement is legally binding under Mexican law.

Additionally, there are restrictions specific to establishing a trust with a bank

  1. The trust can only hold and purchase one property at a time.
  2. In cases where the size of the purchased property exceeds 2,000 square meters, the foreign buyer (beneficiary) must present a commitment letter stating that they will invest a specific amount of money (as per Mexican law relative to the size of the property) to obtain a purchase permit from the Mexican government.

The tax implications of a trust for an Israeli resident are influenced by several key factors:

The tax treaty between Israel and Mexico is designed to prevent double taxation, which benefits Israeli investors by potentially reducing their tax liabilities.

To read the full article on the tax treaty for the prevention of double taxation and the tax regime in Mexico, you can click on the following link.

According to Israeli law, the existence and establishment of a trust must be reported if the creator (purchaser) and/or beneficiary is an Israeli resident. Such a trust is considered Israeli for tax purposes and is therefore subject to taxation in Israel. This requirement ensures transparency and compliance with Israeli tax laws. Similarly, in the case of establishing a Mexican corporation, an Israeli resident must report their income and profits from foreign business activities, as well as the fact of holding a foreign corporation. This reporting is necessary to align with Israeli tax regulations and effectively manage Israeli residents’ international tax obligations.

Additional articles on international taxation:

The post Trusts in purchasing property in Mexico by a foreign resident appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>
SAFE agreement https://y-tax.co.il/en/safe-agreement/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=safe-agreement Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:24:53 +0000 https://y-tax.co.il/?p=34027 What is a SAFE agreement and what are its tax implications? Simple investment agreement SAFE simple agreement for future equity. The primary purpose of a

The post SAFE agreement appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>

What is a SAFE agreement and what are its tax implications?

Simple investment agreement SAFE simple agreement for future equity.

The primary purpose of a SAFE (Simple Agreement for Future Equity) is to provide investors with a future right to equity in a company while giving the company immediate investment funds. This agreement helps mitigate the main challenge for potential investors in startup companies, which is the valuation gap.

A SAFE resolves this by delaying the valuation assessment until a time when the value can be more concretely established.

Another problem that SAFE agreements address is the lengthy and comprehensive due diligence process often required in traditional funding rounds. The assumption with a SAFE is that future funding rounds conducted by venture capital firms or through public offerings will include a prospectus or detailed due diligence, thereby establishing a more substantiated valuation than what an early-stage investor might be able to assess.

The mechanism of a SAFE

The SAFE (Simple Agreement for Future Equity) mechanism typically sets the valuation according to a future fundraising valuation, providing the investor with a discount on this later valuation. Upon receiving the investment, the company records an obligation to the investor, enhancing the investor’s priority in the order of creditors. This obligation is then converted into shares of the company at a rate that is preferential to the issuance or new fundraising price.

The SAFE agreement is designed to simplify the capital raising process for startup companies more than the more commonly known mechanism—convertible loans.

The exact terms of a SAFE agreement vary, but the basic principle is that the investor commits a certain amount of capital to the company at signing, and in return receives shares in the company, subject to contractual commitments regarding the timing of the allocation at a later date. The events that allow the investor to receive their equity option depend on the agreement and vary from contract to contract. The price per share is not agreed upon at the time of the agreement’s conclusion. Instead, the investors and the company negotiate the terms under which the future shares will be issued.

Tax implications of a SAFE agreement

Can vary depending on the investor’s profile. For example, an investment from a foreign company with special relations with the recipient company could be considered as an interest-bearing loan subject to withholding tax in Israel under various sections of the Income Tax Ordinance and the General Contract Law.

In contrast, if the investor controls the recipient company, the investment might receive tax exemptions on cost adjustments, while the same amount constitutes an expense for the company.

Additionally, the company’s service providers, employees, and other related parties might face different tax consequences from such an investment. In certain cases, the drafting and execution of the agreement require expertise in tax law, particularly in international taxation and transfer pricing. Entrepreneurs are advised to consult with a tax expert in all cases and not to underestimate the initial investments, even if they are not substantial.

The solutions to potential exposures in such agreements can vary, ranging from the way the agreement is drafted, to expert opinions, decisions from the tax authority, or transfer pricing studies. For more detailed guidance on this topic, you can contact us.

The post SAFE agreement appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>
Request form for non-deduction of tax at source in the UK https://y-tax.co.il/en/request-form-for-non-deduction-of-tax-at-source-in-the-uk/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=request-form-for-non-deduction-of-tax-at-source-in-the-uk Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:17:31 +0000 https://y-tax.co.il/?p=34020 Request for tax relief from the HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs) – reducing tax deduction at source and tax refund in England The tax

The post Request form for non-deduction of tax at source in the UK appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>

Request for tax relief from the HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs) – reducing tax deduction at source and tax refund in England

The tax treaty between the UK and Israel dictates the tax payment or tax deduction at source for income related to both countries. For example, the tax deduction at source for royalties that must be paid by a non-resident of the UK is 20%. However, according to the tax treaty between Israel and the UK, an Israeli resident will not need to pay any tax deduction at source at all for his royalties’ income.

To receive the relevant tax reliefs, one must complete the Form DT-Individual – Double Taxation Treaty Relief and submit it to the British tax authority.

This form allows individuals, who are residents of countries with which the UK has signed a treaty to prevent double taxation, to request tax relief or withholding tax deductions established in the treaty for incomes from pensions, certain annuities, interest, or royalties originating from the UK.

The form is lengthy and contains many sections. Some of these sections are not relevant to every form filler, so it is important to ensure that all required sections are completed.

In this article, we will address some of the parts that make up the form:

Part A: Filling in Personal Details and Establishing Residency

This section includes filling in personal details of the applicant and, if applicable, a representative. Additionally, in this section, a signature from the tax authority of the resident country is required to confirm that the applicant is indeed a resident. If the tax authority refuses to sign the form, a residency certificate can be attached instead.

Part B: Details about Residency for Tax Purposes and Activities in the UK

In this section, the applicant must provide details related to their tax residency status, such as whether they have been a resident of the country all along or alternatively, from when they are considered a resident for tax purposes of that country. The applicant must also fill in details related to their activities and income in the UK. These details include specifying and detailing their trade or business in the UK, if any, the tax benefits they receive for their UK income from their country of residency, if any, etc. It’s important to note that some treaties require that the individual be taxed in their country of residency before they can receive tax relief in the UK. This section distinguishes between residents of Bahrain, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates and residents of other countries with which the UK has a treaty. Residents of these countries need to provide slightly different details to the British tax authority – HMRC. These details include, addressing the type of residency in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, explaining why the individual is considered a resident of the country, and referring to concepts such as permanent establishment, center of vital interests, etc., for Bahrain, Hong Kong, Kuwait, and Qatar, and distinguishing for which pensions tax relief can be obtained for the Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands.

Part C: The Income for Which the Application Is Submitted

This part includes sections for each type of income covered under this form, and the applicant needs to fill in the relevant section for them. The details required from the applicant include the source of income, amount of income, etc. It is important to attach supporting documents to the application form that corroborate the information mentioned in this section. For example, for income from interest, loan agreements should be attached; for income from royalties, royalty agreements should be attached, etc.

Part D: Tax Paid in the UK

If tax has already been paid in the UK for the income in question and a refund is requested, this part should be filled in with details about the source of income, the date of income, the amount of income, and the tax deducted.

Note:

  • There is no need to attach tax receipts to the application form, but they should be kept in case they are needed to support the claim.
  • If the request for relief from withholding tax is approved, it is important to update the British tax authority if there are changes in the details provided in the form.
  • If the form submitter requests a refund, they can calculate the amount of the refund themselves, by calculating how much was actually paid versus how much should have been paid according to the treaty. The British tax authority can calculate this themselves if the form submitter does not wish to.

Our office handles approvals for withholding tax, reducing withholding, and requesting tax benefits, and assists in filling out the relevant forms.

The post Request form for non-deduction of tax at source in the UK appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>
Proposal to amend the Income Tax Ordinance – Change in the definition of a resident https://y-tax.co.il/en/proposal-to-amend-the-income-tax-ordinance/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=proposal-to-amend-the-income-tax-ordinance Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:10:17 +0000 https://y-tax.co.il/?p=34015 Considering relocation abroad? Unsure about leaving Israel? New legislation will attempt to prevent you from doing so. Now more than ever, many Israelis are considering

The post Proposal to amend the Income Tax Ordinance – Change in the definition of a resident appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>

Considering relocation abroad? Unsure about leaving Israel? New legislation will attempt to prevent you from doing so.

Now more than ever, many Israelis are considering undergoing the process of moving to work overseas. Due to the complexity of the process, it is important to carry it out with close and professional guidance in the correct manner and with precise adaptation to your personal data.

Recently, a dramatic bill regarding the amendment of the Income Tax Ordinance concerning the determination of who is an Israeli resident for tax purposes was placed on the Knesset’s table. (This bill is only the first part of a reform in international tax rules). A link to the bill’s memorandum can be found here.

Currently, according to the definitions of ‘resident’, ‘Israeli resident’, and ‘foreign resident’ in Section 1 of the Income Tax Ordinance, an individual’s residency is determined based on a qualitative test that examines, on an individual basis, the totality of their family, economic, and social ties, with the assistance of several presumptions that are open to challenge.

This situation allows many taxpayers who leave Israel, and thus are considered foreign residents from the time of departure, to have a significant tax advantage by meeting the ‘center of life’ test. When examining an individual’s center of life, various characteristics are considered including the location of their permanent home, there and their family’s place of residence, their usual place of work or employment, the center of their economic interests, and their activities in organizations, unions, or various institutions.

When a taxpayer is considered an Israeli resident due to the presumption of days, our office often succeeds in defending the taxpayer with expert opinions and determining that they are not an Israeli resident. This option is now going to be cancelled in light of the law memorandum to amend the Income Tax Ordinance that was published these days, proposing to establish several absolute presumptions mainly based on the number of days the individual and their family spend in Israel, which, if met, will regard the individual as either an Israeli resident or a foreign resident, as applicable. For this purpose, two types of absolute presumptions (which cannot be rebutted) will be established – the first type, absolute presumptions that, if met, will regard an individual as an Israeli resident, and the second type, absolute presumptions that, if met, will regard an individual as a foreign resident.

These days, a dramatic bill has been proposed to amend the Income Tax Ordinance regarding the definition of who is considered an Israeli resident for tax purposes. This proposal, one side, creates certainty for taxpayers: a person who meets the days of stay test will unequivocally fall under the law’s application without needing to examine their family, economic, and social ties. Conversely, many Israelis who previously did not meet the day-count presumption but were considered under the center of life test enjoyed significant tax benefits by not being taxed on their overseas income solely based on the center of life test. Previously, it was possible to ‘elegantly evade’ the Israeli tax net even in cases where the taxpayer spent a significant number of days in Israel; now, this presumption is irrefutable. Take, for example, a situation where a person stayed in Israel for 184 days but their family and all their business are in France, and they themselves stayed in France for 182 days. According to the law amendment, that person would be considered an Israeli resident! According to internal law in France, the authorities would claim that this person is entirely a resident of France since their center of life is in France. In such a situation, there is no choice but to refer to the tax treaty between the two countries and assess the person’s residency based on the treaty’s tie-breaker tests. It should be noted that the tax treaty overrides domestic law, so presumably, despite the complexity, there would be a solution for that resident.

The impact of the law amendment on existing legislation

This proposal, one side, creates certainty for taxpayers: a person who meets the days of stay test will unequivocally fall under the law’s application without needing to examine their family, economic, and social ties. Conversely, many Israelis who previously did not meet the day-count presumption but were considered under the center of life test enjoyed significant tax benefits by not being taxed on their overseas income solely based on the center of life test.

Previously, it was possible to ‘elegantly evade’ the Israeli tax net even in cases where the taxpayer spent a significant number of days in Israel; now, this presumption is irrefutable.

For example, a situation where a person stayed in Israel for 184 days but their family and all their business are in France, and they themselves stayed in France for 182 days. According to the law amendment, that person would be considered an Israeli resident! According to internal law in France, the authorities would claim that this person is entirely a resident of France since their center of life is in France.

In such a situation, there is no choice but to refer to the tax treaty between the two countries and assess the person’s residency based on the treaty’s tie-breaker tests. It should be noted that the tax treaty overrides domestic law, so presumably, despite the complexity, there would be a solution for that resident.

When it comes to countries with which Israel does not have a tax treaty at all, such as Cyprus, the risk of double taxation is almost certain. There is a belief that this specific legislation amendment aims to impact Israeli migration to Cyprus and make it more difficult for Israelis to move there with their families.

Many in the field believe it is no coincidence that the new legislation is being introduced close to the consequences of the governmental/judicial reform. Following the new legislation, many Israelis are considering moving to live somewhere close outside Israel and still trying to continue managing their businesses in Israel. Cyprus is a good alternative, but it does not have a tax treaty with Israel. Our office is in contact with the Treasury for the purpose of drafting a treaty to prevent double taxation and represents Cyprus in this context, but the State of Israel is not ready to advance negotiations on this issue at this stage. If the new legislation passes and the definition of residency indeed changes, it will prevent many Israelis from moving to Cyprus and still managing their businesses in Israel without encountering double taxation. Our office assesses that the legislation amendment aimed at stopping relocation to Cyprus is one of its objectives, reinforced by the existing exception in Section 1(b)(c) of the amendment, which provides significant relief to countries that have a treaty with the State of Israel.

We estimate that if the legislation passes, there will be many more cases that will reach the treaty’s tie-breaker test and the mutual agreement procedures between the countries, which will create unnecessary complexity and sometimes even real double taxation payments until the countries reach an agreement.

It is important to emphasize that this is still a bill that has not yet been legislated in the Knesset, but it is at advanced stages. Therefore, if you have already left Israel but have not yet completed the disconnection process with the relevant authorities here in Israel, such as the Income Tax Authority and the National Insurance Institute, or if you are considering leaving Israel and relocating your residence to countries outside Israel, it is advisable to handle the disconnection process with the tax authorities here in Israel before the law amending the Income Tax Ordinance (place of residence of an individual), 2023, is legislated.

Why is the timing of reporting residency termination/relocation abroad so crucial?

An Israeli resident moving to reside in another country, as long as they have not reported the residency termination to the Income Tax Authority, remains liable for tax on all their income, both in Israel and abroad. Additionally, they are eligible to deduct various withholdings from their taxable income according to the Income Tax Ordinance and claim the tax paid abroad as a credit against their tax liability in Israel. Even if someone has technically left Israel and considers themselves a foreign resident, as long as they have not reported this to the tax authorities and completed the entire disconnection process, they are exposed to taxation both in Israel and in the country, they moved to.

Conversely, if a report of residency termination is duly made, as a foreign resident, they may enjoy an exemption from reporting to the Israeli tax authorities about income earned abroad from employment. It is important to mention that before leaving Israel, it is important to seek professional advice regarding the tax implications in the country you are moving to and to understand in advance the tax implications for you and your business activities in the other country. Our office has extensive knowledge and experience as well as many collaborations with a number of countries worldwide, which is an advantage when deciding which country to move to, correctly and accurately calculating the economic and tax aspects that will apply to you.

New resident definitions:

Israeli resident – one who meets at least one of the following alternatives:

  1. Someone who stayed more than 183 days in Israel and also stayed in Israel in the year after that tax year or the year before it for more than 183 days.
  2. Someone who stayed more than 100 days in the tax year, and 450 days in that year and the two years preceding it combined (unless they stayed in a country that has a tax treaty with Israel for more than 183 days in each of those three years and was a resident of that country – a residency certificate from that country is required).
  3. If someone stayed in Israel for more than 100 days and their spouse or partner (including common-law) meets one of the above alternatives for an Israeli resident.

In each of these alternatives – the person is considered an Israeli resident without the ability to appeal.

Foreign resident – one who meets at least one of the following alternatives:

  1. Someone who was in Israel for less than 30 days (unless in the first 30 days of the first tax year being examined or the last 30 days of the last tax year being examined they stayed in Israel for 15 days or more).
  2. Someone who, together with their spouse, stayed in Israel for less than 60 days in each of the tax years being examined (unless in the first 60 days of the first tax year being examined or the last 60 days of the last tax year being examined they stayed in Israel for 30 days or more).
  3. Someone who, together with their spouse, stayed in Israel for less than 100 days and they are residents of a country that has a tax treaty with Israel (a residency certificate from that country is required) and stayed in it for more than 183 days (unless in the first 100 days of the first tax year being examined or the last 100 days of the last tax year being examined they stayed in Israel for 30 days or more).

For the definition of “foreign resident,” “tax years being examined” are one of the following alternatives:

  1. The tax year and the three tax years following it;
  2. the tax year, the tax year before it and the tax year after it;
  3. the tax year and the two tax years before it.

Note that the definition of a foreign resident does not introduce anything new, as in fact, none of the taxpayers who meet these definitions would have been considered an Israeli resident even before the legislation. Thus, it is not a relief.

One refreshing change that includes the law amendment is the treatment of known partners as equal to spouses – a change that, in our opinion, should have occurred as a correction to the definition of a spouse in Section 1 of the Income Tax Ordinance.

provides full professional support for the entire disconnection process against all tax authorities and various entities to minimize tax exposures during the transition and to allow you to adjust in the destination country ‘peacefully’ and with full confidence.

Our office offers comprehensive professional assistance throughout the entire process of disconnecting from all tax authorities and related entities. This support aims to reduce tax liabilities during the transition and ensure that you can settle into your new country of residence smoothly and confidently.

The post Proposal to amend the Income Tax Ordinance – Change in the definition of a resident appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>
Options for controlling shareholders and for self-employed https://y-tax.co.il/en/options-for-controlling-shareholders-and-for-self-employed/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=options-for-controlling-shareholders-and-for-self-employed Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:06:28 +0000 https://y-tax.co.il/?p=34010 Classification of the grant of options as employment income and the date of tax payment – options granted to a controlling shareholder/option granted to service

The post Options for controlling shareholders and for self-employed appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>

Classification of the grant of options as employment income and the date of tax payment – options granted to a controlling shareholder/option granted to service providers.

When a company grants options to employees, the prevailing preference for both companies and startups as well as for employees is to apply the capital gains track under Section 102 of the Income Tax Ordinance, such that a 25% capital gains tax is applicable and the tax is deferred until the sale date (or the date the shares are transferred from the trustee to the employee). For more information on the possible taxation routes for an option according to Section 102 of the Ordinance, click here.

When dealing with individuals who are not employees as defined in Section 102 of the Ordinance, the ‘tax benefits’ of the section do not apply. In such cases, marginal tax may already apply at the time the options are granted according to Section 2 of the Ordinance (Section 2(1) – earnings or profits from business, or Section 2(2) – earnings or benefit from employment). This means taxation at a higher rate according to tax brackets – up to 50% tax, and also the tax date – at the time the options are granted.

As part of tax planning and consulting, our office examines the case and the options for minimizing taxes according to the following order of preference:

  1. Firstly, we examine whether it is possible to qualify for the capital gains track of Section 102, considering various interpretations.
  2. If not, we will attempt to apply Section 3(9), so that at the very least – the tax event date will be deferred, and the employee or service provider will not be required to pay for the tax benefit before actually receiving any income.

As for the first option – checking whether Section 102 can be applied – the employee must not be a controlling shareholder. If dealing with a director of the company who is not a controlling shareholder, the section can be applied to them, subject to certain conditions. If an employee receives several options that make them a controlling shareholder, in many cases, we can make a separation that allows at least partial application of the section. Sometimes this requires reviewing agreements and drafting opinions, but in many cases, it is very beneficial for that employee.

Occasionally, the mere fact that someone is employed via an invoice does not prevent them from being defined as an employee, and this is assessed based on the criteria for establishing employee-employer relations as stated in case law, including the tests of obedience and supervision, the equipment test, and more.

As for the second option, namely, when we conclude that it is not possible to benefit from the capital gains track and the application of Section 102 of the Ordinance, under certain circumstances, there is room to argue that the income from options should not be taxed at the time of grant according to Section 2 of the Ordinance, but rather to defer the tax event as stipulated in Section 3(9) of the Ordinance. This is subject to certain conditions, including that the options are not traded on a stock exchange.

Tax planning as detailed in this article can lead to very significant savings in the taxation of options granted to controlling shareholders or service providers, and many of our clients have already benefited from these savings.

The post Options for controlling shareholders and for self-employed appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>
Exemption from tax on a property received as an inheritance from abroad https://y-tax.co.il/en/exemption-from-tax-on-a-property-received-as-an-inheritance-from-abroad/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=exemption-from-tax-on-a-property-received-as-an-inheritance-from-abroad Wed, 24 Apr 2024 11:43:46 +0000 https://y-tax.co.il/?p=34005 Exemption from tax on a property received as an inheritance from abroad – approval for step up in income tax | Israeli resident | tax

The post Exemption from tax on a property received as an inheritance from abroad appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>

Exemption from tax on a property received as an inheritance from abroad - approval for step up in income tax | Israeli resident | tax on capital gains.

Inheriting a property raises questions related to Israeli taxation, international taxation, and money laundering. Sometimes these questions arise from a desire to sell the property and sometimes from banks refusing to transfer the money into the country.

The discussion about the future capital gains from selling the properties is a small part of the process of realizing an inheritance from abroad. This process begins with legal, economic, and accounting examinations of the properties abroad—checks conducted by an accountant or tax consultant.

Tax planning regarding their realization according to the interface between local law and Israeli law, proving the source of the funds, and assisting in transferring the inheritance proceeds to Israel while minimizing taxes and expenses are crucial.

The tax authority has introduced the possibility of receiving tax rulings (pre-rulings) in advance for events that may have significant tax implications, such as purchases, sales, mergers, or splits of companies, loans, public offerings, etc. Some of these paths are considered “green tracks,” meaning they do not require prior approval from the tax authority, only reporting. Despite this, the tax authority often invites representatives for discussions even on submissions that were supposed to be part of the green tracks.

One of the most important tracks relates to tax exemption concerning a property received as an inheritance from abroad. Sometimes, a property received as an inheritance is subject to high tax—both in the country of origin (the country of residence of the decedent) and in the heir’s country. Some tax treaties help solve some of the issues, but without going through a process with the tax authority, the sale of the property will incur full capital gains tax on the entire sale proceeds (since the cost basis is zero!).

Since Israel does not have an inheritance tax (a tax that naturally applies to the heir) and does not have an estate tax (a tax that naturally applies to the estate or the decedent), economic logic requires establishing a new cost and acquisition date for the property received as an inheritance.

The acquisition date is supposed to be the day of the decedent’s death, and the cost is supposed to be the property’s value at the time of inheritance. It is always necessary to ensure that the tax treatment is minimal both in the country of the decedent and in Israel, but this article will only refer to the taxation that applies (or will apply in the future) in Israel.

Form 905 on the green track—step-up, refers to a common issue where a property abroad is given as a gift or inheritance to an Israeli resident by a non-resident. Receiving a property as a gift or inheritance does not constitute a taxable event, but when an Israeli resident comes to sell it, they will be forced to pay capital gains tax. The core of the issue is how the tax payment in Israel for the sale will be calculated and how the tax payment can be significantly reduced.

The “continuity of tax” principle

Section 88 of the Income Tax Ordinance, establishes the principle of tax continuity or tax preservation. This principle states that when an Israeli resident receives a property as a gift or inheritance, they essentially step into the shoes of the gift-giver or decedent, and the law sees them as if they were the original purchasers themselves. This means that the value of the property at the time of sale will be estimated to be its original cost when the decedent or gift-giver purchased it.

For example, suppose an Israeli resident inherited an apartment in the United States that was purchased by the decedent in 2018 for $800,000. Three years later, the Israeli resident sells the apartment he received as an inheritance for a million dollars. The principle of tax continuity dictates that the resident will be liable for capital gains tax on a total amount of $200,000—the profit, and therefore capital gains tax will be imposed on him. The principle mentioned in the example is logical, but to obtain approval for the acquisition date and purchase cost—an active step needs to be taken against the tax authority, and it is not always simple.

If the step-up approval is not received, the taxpayer will be required to pay capital gains tax for a theoretical profit of a million dollars, thus paying an amount of $250,000, a higher amount than all the profit accumulated in the apartment.

What is the proposed solution for the issue of capital gains?

Income Tax allows a request for a pre-ruling on the issue through the Step-up mechanism. The request stipulates that the tax authority will see the heir or gift recipient from a non-resident as if they had purchased it according to its current market value on the day of receipt. Thus, in practice, capital gains tax in Israel will be imposed on the sale of the property only on its growth in value from the day of receiving the inheritance or gift.

The request is submitted by a representative through Form 905 (see the attached link below).

It is advisable to submit the request as soon as possible after receiving a property as an inheritance or a gift. The disputes that arise during the discussions on the request usually revolve around the following issues:

  1. Valuation of the property at the time of receipt;
  2. Establishing a “new” acquisition date according to the law in the country of origin or in Israel;
  3. The issue of offsetting losses from the transferred assets or part of them;
  4. The position of the tax authority is not to approve a step-up for a non-marketable asset;
  5. A request for a step-up submitted significantly late – there is no certainty that it will be accepted. The tax authority may view this as a situation where the taxpayer decided not to perform a step-up and changed their decision after a certain period based on the circumstances (akin to a mistake in the feasibility of the transaction).
  6. Often, discussions are held regarding the depreciation required by the decedent and other issues.

As part of the tax ruling (pre-ruling), the heir is required to comply with several restrictions, including that a loss generated from the sale of the property will not be allowed for offset. Also, losses incurred by the heir or gift recipient before the day of death, or before the day of receiving the gift, will not be allowed against profits generated as a result of selling the property received as an inheritance or gift. In addition to the restrictions regarding the offsetting of losses, the tax ruling will determine that no depreciation for tax purposes is allowed for the property.

Link to the form:

Form 905: Establishing the original price and day of acquisition when receiving a property abroad STEP UP.

To conclude, receiving property as a gift or inheritance from a non-resident can involve significant tax implications at the time of sale if not properly prepared in advance.

Although it seems like a simple process at first glance, there are many issues related to it that are uncertain and heavily dependent on litigation against the tax authority, and it is important to seek assistance from a tax expert.

Our office specializes in tax consulting, tax planning, and obtaining tax rulings from the tax authority, handling complex inheritance cases- contact us for more information!

The post Exemption from tax on a property received as an inheritance from abroad appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>
Employee options – Forms for green tracks https://y-tax.co.il/en/employee-options-forms-for-green-tracks/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=employee-options-forms-for-green-tracks Wed, 24 Apr 2024 11:37:14 +0000 https://y-tax.co.il/?p=34000 What is a “green track”? A ‘Green Track’ is a streamlined process whose primary goal is to shorten procedures with the tax authority in certain

The post Employee options – Forms for green tracks appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>

What is a "green track"?

A ‘Green Track’ is a streamlined process whose primary goal is to shorten procedures with the tax authority in certain areas. This process is designed to establish predefined frameworks and criteria, allowing the tax authority to make a taxation decision based on the declarations and commitments of the applicants, through the filling and submission of a specific form for each type of request. The specific forms for each request are constructed in a fixed template of general details, a description of the facts, a detailed request, the requested tax arrangement and its terms, and a declaration and commitment. Our office handles all stages of the request, starting from the submission stage up to the receipt of the required tax decision, including assessment discussions and representation in front of the professional department at the tax authority, while paying attention to accuracies and important points that could prevent significant exposures. In this article, we will focus on the area of employee options and shares.

Detail and explanation of the forms found within the Green Track.

Form 906: Allocation of Units for Share – RSU (Restricted Stock Unit)

For RSU share allocations to be included under the tax tracks of Section 102 of the Income Tax Ordinance (the Ordinance), it is required to approve this before allocating the shares to employees and to establish that these shares will become options in the future of the employees. Only then, after the vesting period, will it be possible to apply the tax provisions of Section 102 of the Ordinance to the shares, even though these are shares at the time of their allocation without any additional realization from the employees.

To view the form, click here.

Form 911: Repricing of Employee Options

This is a request from the tax authority’s manager intended to regulate anew the pricing of employee options in cases where a change has occurred in the benefit to employees, such as when the market value of the company’s shares drops or for any other reason.

To view the form, click here.

Form 912: Net Exercise of Options for Employees in a Public Company (NET EXERCISE)

The purpose of this referral to the tax authority with a request to be included in the Green Track is to ensure that the tax liability of the employees at the time of exercising the options is not adversely affected by the implementation of a net exercise mechanism. Net exercise is a taxation mechanism that taxes only the amount of the benefit, simplifying the direct taxation procedures and bypassing the technical process of option allocation, share purchase, sale, and taxation.

To view the form, click here.

Form 916: Switching from Section 3(i) Option Plan to Section 102 Capital Track with a Trustee

Section 3(i) of the Ordinance defers the tax obligation on the benefit received by a controlling shareholder until the options are exercised, subject to meeting certain conditions. An allocation track under Section 3(i) is taxed at employment income rates, which can be as high as 50%. This request is intended to switch the option plan allocated under Section 3(i) to an option plan under Section 102 of the Ordinance, a capital track with a trustee for controlling shareholders who are also employees. The choice of the allocation track at the time of allocation is crucial in terms of the taxation of the shares at the time they are exercised. Therefore, it is important to consult with a professional expert in the field before choosing the allocation track.

To view the form, click here.

Form 917: Switching Option Plans from Non-Trustee to Trustee-Based

There are various types of employee option allocation plans. This request is designed to change the allocation track from a non-trustee to a trustee-based employee option allocation plan. This means that the trustee holds the options allocated within the framework of the allocation and acts as the tax authority’s executing hand against the allocating company.

To view the form, click here.

Form 922: Adjustment Mechanisms for Changes in Capital, Distribution of Benefit Shares, and Dividends

This request is intended to protect the level of benefit for the employee in the case of a decrease in the share value at the time of exercising the options compared to the share value at the time of receipt. For this purpose, adjustment mechanisms have been set up to address changes in the company’s capital structure as a result of capital changes and/or distribution of benefit shares and/or distribution of dividends/rights.

To view the form, click here.

Form 926: Allocations to Employees under an ESPP (Employee Stock Purchase Plan) with a Trustee

This request is designed to apply the provisions of Section 102 of the Ordinance to the shares issued to employees under the ESPP in the capital gain track with a trustee. This involves a compensation plan for employees who have the right to purchase shares of the parent company where they are employed and have voluntarily made payments from their salary (exercise premium) during the option vesting period.

It should be noted that there is also Form 927, which serves the same purpose, but should be filled out when there is no trustee.

To view Form 926 (with trustee) click here.

To view Form 927 (without trustee) click here.

Form 928: Exchange of Options/Shares Allocated as Part of a Company Share Sale Transaction

In the case of a Merger/Acquisition Involving a Company that Has a Share Allocation Plan under Section 102 of the Ordinance, it is crucial to obtain a tax decision to preserve the continuity of the employee’s rights under the existing plan, while canceling the options and allocating equivalent options for the rights that were canceled. To obtain this decision, certain conditions detailed in the ‘Green Track’ must be met to maintain the continuity of rights under Section 102 of the Ordinance.

To view the form, click here.

It is important to be mindful and consult with professionals who specialize in all aspects of employee option taxation even at the decision-making stage of a new allocation/change in an existing allocation. This is due to the importance of complying with the conditions and restrictions of Section 102 of the Ordinance to apply the preferred tax rules of Section 102. Contact us, and we will coordinate an introductory meeting with you as soon as possible.

The post Employee options – Forms for green tracks appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>
Employee Options – Limitations and Solutions for Applying Section 102 https://y-tax.co.il/en/employee-options-limitations-and-solutions/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=employee-options-limitations-and-solutions Wed, 24 Apr 2024 11:28:49 +0000 https://y-tax.co.il/?p=33991 As a rule, everyone wants their options to fall under the 25% capital gains tax track stipulated in Section 102 of the Ordinance. Everyone also

The post Employee Options – Limitations and Solutions for Applying Section 102 appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>

As a rule, everyone wants their options to fall under the 25% capital gains tax track stipulated in Section 102 of the Ordinance. Everyone also hopes that Section 102 will apply to the options granted to them, given the deferral of the tax event until the shares are sold or received from the trustee.

However, many clients who consult with us do not meet the conditions of Section 102 and the 25% capital gains tax track. In some of these cases, a relevant solution can be found through specific tax planning advice.

Main Obstacles and Possible Solutions

 

The first obstacle

Is the definition of an employer in Section 102, which only applies when the options are granted by an ’employing company’ as defined in Section 102. This includes an Israeli company, a sister company of an Israeli company, or a parent or subsidiary of an Israeli company. Therefore, if the client is employed in Israel by a foreign company without a related entity in Israel, they cannot benefit from Section 102 but would instead receive stock warrants typical of options received by an investor in the company, and Section 3(i) of the Ordinance would apply—resulting in earlier taxation at marginal rates.

Is there a solution?

Sometimes, through tax minimization consulting. Occasionally, it may be relevant for the foreign company to establish a permanent establishment in Israel, subject to approval by the tax authorities and with additional implications. At times, it is indeed relevant for the foreign company to open a subsidiary in Israel (for other reasons as well). It is also possible to try to apply for a ruling if there are significant and substantive reasons for applying Section 102 of the Ordinance.

The second obstacle

Is the definition of an employee. To benefit from the conditions of Section 102, one must fit the definition of an employee outlined in this section. An employee is defined as ‘including someone who holds a position in the company, except for a controlling shareholder’. That is, an employee who holds 10% of the rights in the company or the right to appoint a manager and becomes a controlling shareholder as a result of the allocation—Section 102 will not apply to the options.

Is there a solution?

 Each case should be discussed on its own merits; sometimes we recommend separating the options so that at least some of them may fall under Section 102.

The third obstacle

Involves freelancers who provide services and issue invoices to the company.

The solution

Is to examine whether an employee-employer relationship exists according to the criteria of jurisprudence and whether Section 102 could apply (provided that the additional conditions specified in Section 102 are met).

How are those options that do not fall under Section 102 taxed?

Such options are taxed as employment income or business income at marginal rates according to Section 2 of the Ordinance and often according to Section 3(i) of the Ordinance at marginal rates, depending on the case facts and, among other things, if the option is tradable. In cases where there is no connection to employment and it is purely an investment, entirely different rules apply.

In summary, there are limitations and complexities to applying Section 102 of the Ordinance, but expertise in the field can yield significant tax savings. For more details, contact us.

The post Employee Options – Limitations and Solutions for Applying Section 102 appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>
Recharge Agreement https://y-tax.co.il/en/recharge-agreement/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=recharge-agreement Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:48:35 +0000 https://y-tax.co.il/?p=33635 Recharge Agreement – Introduction: On January 27, 2021, Income Tax Circular 1/2021 was published. The purpose of the circular is to regulate the issue of

The post Recharge Agreement appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>

Recharge Agreement - Introduction:

On January 27, 2021, Income Tax Circular 1/2021 was published. The purpose of the circular is to regulate the issue of payments to a parent company for granting options or shares to employees of the subsidiary (an agreement known colloquially as the Recharge Agreement).

The circular specifies when payments by a subsidiary to the parent company, which allocated options or shares for the benefit of employees, constitute compensation for the allocation and when these payments are classified as dividends.

Intercompany liability for the allocation of a financial instrument (allocation of options or shares) between the subsidiary and the allocating parent company.

What does Income Tax Circular 1/2021 stipulate regarding the Recharge Agreement?

Income Tax Circular 1/2021 concerning the Recharge Agreement establishes four conditions under which a payment is considered a debt repayment – compensation and not a dividend.

Any payment that does not meet these rules will be considered a dividend and will be subject to tax.

These rules are relevant and significant for many Israeli companies in the high-tech, pharmaceutical, and medical equipment sectors.

Additionally, the rules are relevant for all types of companies operating with the cost-plus method with international companies. Although this is a strict circular, there is an advantage in increasing certainty in the field. Since there are quite a few disagreements between the tax authority and representatives and taxpayers, certainty is beneficial.

Our Transfer Pricing Department will proactively contact relevant clients during the next week to explain the implications of the circular in each case.

Recharge Agreement – Background:

One of the most common forms of employee compensation is equity compensation through stock options. Often, the compensation is not provided through shares of the employing company itself but through shares of the parent company or another company within the same group.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Kontira case of 2018 established that when a portion of employees’ salaries is paid in options, the expense of the salary for the options component, as recorded in the accounting, should be seen as a cost in calculating the income that the company must declare.

Meaning, the cost of allocating options to employees of a subsidiary generally forms part of the cost base on which the subsidiary’s profit, providing services to the parent company, is calculated.

For example, in an international transaction between related companies with special relations, the transaction must be reported according to market conditions. Meaning the pricing of the service provided by the company must be by what is accepted in market prices, known as “cost+”.

The Kontira ruling states that the pricing of the service cost must include the component of employee compensation through options because it is considered a payroll cost. Therefore, this component will be calculated in cost+ according to the percentage of pricing set in the market for the said service.

However, the Kontira ruling did not address cases where the options themselves belong to a foreign company – thus leading us to the tax issue. The question arises in which cases payments by the employing company (usually Israeli) to the parent company that allocated the financial instruments given to employees, constitute compensation for the allocation that the parent company bore on behalf of the company, and when these payments are classified as dividends.

Frequently, the Tax Authority has discovered that the compensation was made in much higher amounts than what was reported in the profit and loss statements of the employing Israeli company. A difference that, in the opinion of the Tax Authority, could be classified as a dividend distribution subject to tax. It’s important to note that according to the Tax Authority’s position, compensation from an Israeli company to a foreign company within the framework of a debt repayment that is not subject to tax is a position requiring reporting (see Reporting Required Positions 2019). The purpose of the circular, as mentioned, is to regulate when the compensation is taxable and when it is not.

What are the conditions for a reimbursement to be considered as an expense for labor costs incurred by the contracting company on behalf of the employing company, and not as a dividend?

  • The reimbursement must be up to the amount of labor expenses recorded in the financial statements of the employing company for the provision of capital equipment.
  • It should be final and not contingent upon further work and agreed upon in advance. This means that the companies must sign a reimbursement agreement before the work begins.

In addition to the payment, several other conditions must be met:

  • The payment to the contracting company will be made only for options or shares that have vested.
  • The payment for each vested option or share is according to the value established in the records, following accepted accounting rules.
  • The payment to the contracting company is made under an agreement that was signed in writing before the provision of the capital equipment.
  • All expenses related to the provision of the capital equipment are included as expenses/costs following the rules of Section 85A of the Ordinance and the customary accounting practices.

If the payment exceeds these conditions, it is classified as a dividend and taxed accordingly. It is important to emphasize that these conditions apply not only to payments to a parent company but also to payments to another company belonging to the same group (due to the special relationships between the companies).

What are the practical implications?

The purpose of the circular is to regulate the working methods between related companies and to encourage them to operate in an organized manner according to predefined and fixed agreements, to prevent the misuse of the reimbursement mechanism to reduce the tax liabilities of the companies in Israel.

 The circular clearly outlines the boundaries of the sector and defines cases in which payments from a recharge agreement are either non-taxable debt repayment or when they are dividends.

Even in cases where a payment exceeds the provisions of the circular and is taxable as a dividend, at least it will not be subject to an alternative assessment, providing some certainty to the taxpayers.

In such cases, the importance of a professional in the field of taxation is highlighted. To schedule an initial consultation, click here.

The post Recharge Agreement appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>
Claims against Swiss banks – cross-border fees https://y-tax.co.il/en/claims-against-swiss-banks-cross-border-fees/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=claims-against-swiss-banks-cross-border-fees Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:25:05 +0000 https://y-tax.co.il/?p=33624 Claims against Swiss banks – cross-border fees. Do you have or have you had a Swiss bank account? You probably are owed money! Cross-border fees

The post Claims against Swiss banks – cross-border fees appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>

Claims against Swiss banks – cross-border fees. Do you have or have you had a Swiss bank account? You probably are owed money!

Cross-border fees are payments that banks receive from advisors or distributors. Often, these payments are made secretly and are not disclosed to customers, even though the customers ultimately bear the cost of these fees. 

What happened in Switzerland?

In recent years, regulatory bodies in Switzerland have begun to demand higher transparency from institutions, organizations, and banks. Consequently, many payments that Swiss banks had secretly made to external asset managers to attract new clients to various banks were exposed. Due to growing concerns about potential conflicts of interest, Swiss banks are now required to disclose cross-border fees and implement measures that ensure fair and transparent working methods when dealing with asset managers. The ultimate goal of these changes is to protect client interests and create a fairer financial landscape in Switzerland.

Swiss cross-border fees are a very significant component of the financial system, with annual claims exceeding 4 billion Swiss francs, and an estimated amount of 16.2 billion dollars in unclaimed cross-border fees as of 2020. It’s worth noting that about 13% of banking profits in Switzerland come from various forms of cross-border fees, demonstrating the extensive nature of this practice. Depending on the investment period and the specific financial products involved, clients can receive a refund of between 4-7% of their portfolio value. However, Swiss law limits claims to the last ten years starting from June 2012. Unlike Switzerland, accounts in Liechtenstein extend this to a 30-year window.

It’s important to note that there is no law requiring banks to notify about this, so in practice, the bank simply waits quietly until the limitation period expires, knowing that it can then pocket those fees which, according to the law, it is obligated to return to the clients.

How do I recover lost money?

With increasing awareness of cross-border fees and their potential implications, there has been a rise in claims for the recovery of money. Customers who were previously unaware of these refunds have filed legal claims against banks, calling for the return of these funds. Cases that have been examined already show that the banks breached their duty of trust by not disclosing the presence and amount of the cross-border fees, which could have affected client investments. To substantiate their claims, customers are expected to provide proof that they were not aware of the banks’ conduct, emphasizing how the lack of transparency adversely affected their financial well-being.

The outcomes of such claims depend on the specific circumstances, jurisdictional authority, and the strength of the evidence. However, the increase in awareness and legal actions highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in the financial industry, particularly among banks. To initiate a claim for a specific account, the client needs to provide basic information such as name, address, date of birth, the specific bank involved, estimated amounts, and estimated dates. Following this, a tailored contract is prepared for the client’s signature. The average time to settle a claim is between 9 to 12 months, depending on the specific bank involved. Surprisingly, recent claims have an impressive success rate of over 90%.

Our office is in constant contact with a Swiss company experienced in filing such claims and assists in recovering the money. The fee for such cases is derived only from the money the client received. (If you didn’t receive it – you don’t pay!).

The post Claims against Swiss banks – cross-border fees appeared first on נמרוד ירון ושות׳.

]]>