Category Archives: Article

Legal and Tax aspects of VAT

podcast on VAT and Tax | Rany Schwartz

YEtax Partner Rany Schwartz talks VAT Taxation

Duns100 Interviews Partner Rany Schwartz on VAT Taxation issues. The below is a translated transcription of the original online Hebrew publication 2.08.22

Listen to the podcast (in Hebrew) here

 

Problems involving taxes can be an expensive matter. What can cause these kinds of issues?

No one likes being audited. Even if you’re certain you’ve operated entirely above board, when someone actively looks for issues they’re likely to find them. Sometimes these are just small deviations, but often we’ll discover that we’ve been operating long-term in a way that, in hindsight, turned out to be problematic. Whether this is the result of poor advice or just an innocent mistake, it’s liable to cost us a lot of money – this is essentially an opportunity for the tax authorities to collect money that belongs to the State.

How does the VAT system work?

I collect value added tax (VAT) for the State, hold it, and then transfer it to the tax authorities. After that, any retroactive claims by the authorities can result in a considerable deficit on my part, since I’ve already spent that money.

Our experience allows us to identify the major flaw in this method: you can’t truly know who you’re doing business with. Generally, we don’t have the ability to do comprehensive due diligence, which that means we need to be very cautious. For example, if I work with a vendor and know they are in financial straits, what’s most important to me is understanding that if I pay them for services rendered, I must be certain they transfer that VAT.

Even after I’ve already paid the VAT to them?

That’s exactly the point, it’s input VAT! I paid VAT to the vendor out of my own pocket in order to receive a service, and in turn they must pass that VAT on to the tax authorities. If they haven’t done so, I am expected to pay an indemnity to the State. While it is possible to defend against these charges in some cases, it isn’t in others. It depends whether I made a point of looking into the client or vendor beforehand – whether or not they are a registered business, who is receiving the service. Invoices must be issued only to the service recipient, not the payer. Otherwise, the tax authorities can label them fictitious invoices. This term has lost a lot of its meaning!

My first tip, whether you’re providing or receiving services, is to know who you’re doing business with, determine if they are the appropriate vendor and what their circumstances are.

What else can create VAT problems?

Here’s another common example: it may turn out, after the fact, that an invoice issued for services provided lists the details of a licensed dealer that are not those of the vendor itself.

Why does this happen?

It may be that the vendor wants to provide a certain service but has not licensed to do so due to some sort of limitations. They may use external companies that “assist” by providing invoices on their behalf – at best, this practice is a legal gray area; in extreme cases, they could be using fake invoices outright. You may ask, why should this concern me as the service recipient? In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that it is the responsibility of the service recipient to ensure that the issuer of the invoice is a licensed dealer. For instance, if someone provides me with an invoice issued by “Company X Ltd.” – who is Company X Ltd.? It is my responsibility to verify whether the person providing me with the service is authorized to do so.

What are other classic VAT pitfalls?

Is my transaction subject to regular VAT or is it VAT exempt? I, of course, assume that it’s a zero-rate VAT service. Why? Because I read it somewhere. I’m joking, obviously – but the fact is that it would be to my benefit to assume so since zero-rated VAT means I can reduce my prices by 17% and be more competitive. But what happens if it turns out afterwards that the service I provided was in fact subject to regular VAT? I’ll be forced to absorb that loss, since I can’t reasonably approach my customers and demand additional payment. Therefore, it’s prudent to thoroughly check the legalities.

Which businesses are at highest risk to be audited?

In terms of VAT fraud, the businesses involved are most often service-based and less frequently trade in goods. Two industries at high risk are human resources and construction services. When it comes to trade in goods, transactions on certain high-VAT goods may have a high number of fraudulent invoices – for example fuels and precious metals. Particular caution is needed when using a manpower service, such as a cleaning service. These need to be a serious part of the risk calculation for any contractor or dealer.

How can I lower my risk?

First and foremost, Work closely with professional advisers who provide good service. It’s not enough to just have a tax adviser or accountant that knows the law; you should have one that really guides you through every step and decision.

They should instruct and assist you with a high level of service and consideration, so you’ll be able to call on them at any time for advice on day-to-day dilemmas you encounter. The challenge is that many times people are more focused on doing successful business and less on the compliance. That’s why having an adviser available to keep track on those issues. Someone you can really depend on.

Second, do your homework and know what you’re dealing with. Launching a business is a responsibility that goes beyond simply waking up every morning and selling a product. You also a responsibility to maintain a bookkeeping system and understand how to use it, whether that means producing receipts and invoices in a timely manner or managing a computer system.

What should I check in tax invoices?

An invoice must be legally valid. That sounds simple, but here’s where it can become complicated: “legally valid” means both from a formally and substantively. Formally, that means the invoice must contain all the details required by law. First, you must have a licensed dealer number and contact information. Second, the invoice must be addressed to the recipient of the service or goods, including their official details as registered with the authorities. The invoice must contain full details of the nature and scope of the service provided in the transaction, or the types and quantities in the case of goods.

Substantively, the invoice must reflect the transaction between the parties actually providing and receiving the services, otherwise it is not legal, and therefore considered fictitious. This is dramatically significant.

Sometimes it’s just a matter of simple human error that ends up being labelled as fictitious, which seems like an overstatement.

To the average person, “fictitious” implies dishonesty or something that doesn’t actually exist. Obviously, there is a big difference between an intentionally fictitious, or fake, invoice and those that meet that legal definition. But in our professional sphere, invoices with errors are considered legally noncompliant and therefore fictitious. I’ll discuss the consequences of a flawed invoice that is determined to be illegal or fictitious. There is a range of outcomes, starting with the fact that the invoice cannot be used to offset the input taxes included in the transaction. Other consequences are more severe, including invalidation of the business’s books, which has much more significant financial consequences and possibly even criminal liability. After all, tax offenses are criminal offenses for all intents and purposes. As such, the consequences can be severe.

The State has created more and more systems for taxation. Obviously, it’s better to avoid problems. But if I did end up with a problem as a result of human error and discovered that I owe back payment on VAT, what could be done to manage the damage?

Let’s tackle this question in two parts.

In one scenario, let’s say this was the result of a bona fide mistake. Should you try to fight? Absolutely. It’s not the end and it is unequivocally worth the effort. The tax authorities often assume auditees will not fight the findings of an audit. The authorities’ goal is to recover as many taxes as possible, so they have a vested interest in interpreting any legal gray areas that turn up in the course of an audit in the most restrictive way possible. However, that does not mean the auditee must immediately accept their conclusions without question and pay. Legitimate differing interpretations of tax law are the basis for legal deliberations like these, and therefore there is little risk in appealing the conclusions in most cases. You can insist on your legal interpretation, and even if an assessment is issued, there’s no reason to panic. Assessments can be appealed, and failing that, an appeal as of right can then be issued to the district court, and the disputed taxes don’t need to be paid during this process.

My recommendation is not to give up, especially when it comes to legitimate civil disputes of interpretation.

On the other hand, these problems could be the result of poor judgement rather than an unintended mistake. Unlike the previous scenario, the auditee does have a lot at risk in this second scenario. Rather than just the taxes being at stake, the consequences now are much more severe sanctions, potentially even criminal prosecution resulting in heavy fines or even curtailing of freedoms in the extreme cases. Therefore, it’s critical to proceed with caution in this scenario. There is a significant difference between specialists in the field of taxation, and at this point the interpretation and legal protection required makes it a matter for lawyers rather than accountants.

Any final VAT advice?

My recommendation is not to leave anything to chance. Don’t assume you’ll get lucky and avoid being audited. Instead, assume you will need to be prepared for an audit at any moment and manage your taxes with the appropriate level of thoroughness and care.

Rany Schwartz - YEtax Partner Tax Litigation Israel

Rany Schwartz

meet our team VIEW ALL PRACTICE AREAS

Israel Digital Assets and Currency

2022 Recommendations Regulations
Israel Digital Assets and Currency

In tradition with the decades long fiscal encouragement of Israel’s Ministry of Finance’s of industry and innovative initiatives, on August 18, 2022 a draft proposal for reinstatement of tax benefits for investors in high tech and innovative companies was published as an intended temporary order for ‘Encouragement of Knowledge-Intensive Industry’ 5772-2022.

Against the background of the expiration at the end of 2019 of previous similar tax benefits under the Budget Law of 2011 – 2012 5771-2011 the proposal seeks to grant, this time around:

  1. a tax credit to an individual, and to certain companies that are ‘individually owned’ or ‘tax transparent’ (as per Sect 76 of the Income Tax Ordinance) and partnership who make an investment in start-up companies up to an amount of 25% of the amount invested (with a maximum of 3,5 M NIS – U$ 1 M);
  2. deferral of tax on a capital gain from the sale of shares of a “preferred company” which owns a “technological enterprise” when a new investment in an R&D company is made, or when there is a share for share exchange;
  3. recognition of the amount of the investment in shares as an expense for tax purposes;
  4. withholding tax exemption for foreign investing ‘financial institutions’ on interest, discount and linkage differentials on convertible loans to a qualifying Israel corporate recipient for financing provided of at least 10 M U$;
  5. a special depreciation on IP for five years when at least 80% control in an Israel based “preferred” company is acquired – at a minimum purchase price of 20 M U$, and the company owns IP in the framework of a ‘technological enterprise’[1] by a qualifying acquirer (of which the average revenue in three previous years over NIS 75 M NIS) Various additional terms apply, among which minimum increases of R&D expenses and the filing of a request for recognition with the innovation authorities. Also such a depreciation is proposed for an Israel based corporate investor which acquires a similar foreign company

If accepted the temporary order would apply until the end of 2025 with a possibility of extension

In parallel an extension has been proposed of the tax benefit of recognition of a deductible capital loss for an investor up to the sum of the invested amount in an Israel based R&D company at the occasion of the public offering of the company. A capital loss may be recognized up to a maximum NIS 5 million (approx. 1,45 M U$). This significant benefit would be in effect, if accepted, until the end of 2028.</

These proposals are still pending today in January 2023 and are expected to revive once the new government of Israel picks up steam.

[1] Law for Encouragement of Capital Investment 1959

Henriette Fuchs - Women in Tax

AUTHOR: <a
Heriette Fuchs

Posted in Uncategorized  |  Tagged

“Angel” Tax Benefits for Investment in Innovation

Israel : Proposals revival “Angel” tax benefits for investment in innovation

In tradition with the decades long fiscal encouragement of Israel’s Ministry of Finance’s of industry and innovative initiatives, on August 18, 2022 a draft proposal for reinstatement of tax benefits for investors in high tech and innovative companies was published as an intended temporary order for ‘Encouragement of Knowledge-Intensive Industry’ 5772-2022.

Against the background of the expiration at the end of 2019 of previous similar tax benefits under the Budget Law of 2011 – 2012 5771-2011 the proposal seeks to grant, this time around:

  1. a tax credit to an individual, and to certain companies that are ‘individually owned’ or ‘tax transparent’ (as per Sect 76 of the Income Tax Ordinance) and partnership who make an investment in start-up companies up to an amount of 25% of the amount invested (with a maximum of 3,5 M NIS – U$ 1 M);
  2. deferral of tax on a capital gain from the sale of shares of a “preferred company” which owns a “technological enterprise” when a new investment in an R&D company is made, or when there is a share for share exchange;
  3. recognition of the amount of the investment in shares as an expense for tax purposes;
  4. withholding tax exemption for foreign investing ‘financial institutions’ on interest, discount and linkage differentials on convertible loans to a qualifying Israel corporate recipient for financing provided of at least 10 M U$;
  5. a special depreciation on IP for five years when at least 80% control in an Israel based “preferred” company is acquired – at a minimum purchase price of 20 M U$, and the company owns IP in the framework of a ‘technological enterprise’[1] by a qualifying acquirer (of which the average revenue in three previous years over NIS 75 M NIS) Various additional terms apply, among which minimum increases of R&D expenses and the filing of a request for recognition with the innovation authorities. Also such a depreciation is proposed for an Israel based corporate investor which acquires a similar foreign company

If accepted the temporary order would apply until the end of 2025 with a possibility of extension

In parallel an extension has been proposed of the tax benefit of recognition of a deductible capital loss for an investor up to the sum of the invested amount in an Israel based R&D company at the occasion of the public offering of the company. A capital loss may be recognized up to a maximum NIS 5 million (approx. 1,45 M U$). This significant benefit would be in effect, if accepted, until the end of 2028.</

These proposals are still pending today in January 2023 and are expected to revive once the new government of Israel picks up steam.

[1] Law for Encouragement of Capital Investment 1959

Henriette Fuchs - Women in Tax

AUTHOR: <a
Heriette Fuchs

Posted in Uncategorized  |  Tagged

Liability for Land Appreciation Tax

Land Appreciation Tax - article by Roy Grilak Yetax Real Estate lawyer

YEtax Real Estate Tax expert Adv. Roy Grilak shares his contribution and additional insights from his interview by Globes Israel on the matter of Land Appreciation Tax

Original Hebrew publication in Globes written by Ela Levi-Weinrib

How will the Supreme Court ruling over capital gains tax affect other cases?

In the case ruling of Shlomo Nehama, the issue in dispute was regarding the liability for Land Appreciation Tax for the sale of a luxury apartment that was sold for NIS 45 million. Immediately after the sale, the tax authority knocked on the Nechama’s door and demanded a tax on the sale. At the heart of the dispute between Nechama and the tax authority was a renovation which he carried out in the luxury apartment he purchased. Until that renovation, the apartment was completely naked (no toilet, shower, kitchen, etc.), and was considered an empty “shell of an apartment.

In the sale of a residential apartment, the seller is granted an exemption from Land Appreciation Tax, while the sale of an apartment shell that is not suitable for living, does not qualify for an exemption. The problems of the tax authority were with the timing of the renovation, with the quality of the finish that is not suitable for a luxury apartment and also with the fact that the purchaser was not interested in the renovation at all and wanted to design the apartment as he wants.

Land Appreciation Tax - article by Roy Grilak Yetax Real Estate lawyer

Following Nechama’s appeal to the District Court, the district ruling determined that this is a legitimate tax planning, which is within the limits of the law. The tax authority did not give up and filed an appeal to the Supreme Court with the claim that the renovation is an artificial transaction, lacks a business purpose and its entire purpose is tax avoidance.

Now, in a long and reasoned ruling, the judges of the Supreme Court ruled by majority opinion that this is not an artificial renovation and that there is no significance to the finish and “prestige” of the renovation or to the gap between it and the level of “prestige” of the apartment. According to them, even turning an empty property into a residential apartment for the sole reason of taxation does not necessarily point to artificiality.

We learn from this ruling that taking an initiative in order to “enter” the scope of tax exemption is a legitimate action. The message that comes out of the ruling is the confirmation of the Supreme Court’s well-known statement that the right to tax planning is part of the taxpayer’s property rights, and he is entitled to economize his steps in order to pay the minimum tax possible. The fact that Nehama hurried before the amendment to the legislation came into force in order to benefit from an exemption from Land Appreciation Tax, is a legitimate tax planning, since he acted in accordance with the law.

It seems that the Supreme Court criticized the position of the Tax Authority by stating that the main goal is the collection of Real Tax, in light of the language of the law and its purpose, and the Tax Authority should not try to give a different interpretation that will result in tax collection at the highest possible rate.

Roy Grilak

AUTHOR:
Roy Grilak

OECD will push for crypto tax and reporting before end of 2024

Digital Assets - YEtax - crypto tax

The market cap of crypto-assets was estimated – at the end of 2021

– close to $3 trillion, and 110 million crypto wallet holders are suspected globally[1]. According to the World Economic Forum, as of March 2022 there are 18,142 crypto-currencies and 460 exchanges. Cryptocurrency and blockchain are here to stay and as they continue to move up into mainstream, their economic significance is too big for the taxing authorities world-wide to ignore.   Governments are hurrying to design new tax and reporting rules for crypto; also for Israel the involvement of its tax payers in virtual currencies has substantial significance, in more than one way.

Many regulating international organizations are eager to develop policies to control, regulate and tax the trading and ownership of crypto.   And this time, again, it is the tax bureau of the OECD who are picking up the glove: the OECD has been preparing for over 2 years to table a proposal for the taxation on crypto and create reporting obligations for virtual transactions.  So now, at the end of March, OECD tabled the first part of its plans, and its’ ambition is to have everything in place by the end of 2024.

The crypto’s speedy history

Only a year after Nakamoto’s 2009 paper on Bitcoin, the first pizza was bought with bitcoin in May 2010, followed by Bitcoin reaching parity with the US dollar already in February 2011. After the launch of Ethereum in 2015, after some critical hard forks in subsequent years, after the first decentralised autonomous organisation (“DAO”) saw daylight, after the 2017-2018 initial coin offerings’ boom, and after the 2019 creation of Libra, starting 2020 also institutional investors investment in virtual assets.

Tax authorities and regulators around the world have been thinking how to tackle the many aspects and challenges of digital currencies. In 2018, the Financial Conduct Authority’s taskforce issued it’s a report regarding crypto-assets followed by other reports from numerous organisations among which the European Central Bank, IMF, European Commission, FATF, the US Federal Reserve, and that of the US Financial Stability board landed this year, in February.

Policy makers are wrestling to figure out which are the right monetary policies, how to secure consumer and investor protection, safeguard market stability, stop money laundering, find suitable accounting rules, and, last but not least, force crypto trading in a tight corset of tax legislation and compliance. All of these should actually encourage the new ecosystem and the development of game-changing technologies in fact serves public interest; their take on matters is not per se hostile to crypto and they are aware that the technologies underlying the world of digital assets offer immense alternative applications, far beyond fin-tech alone.

Unlike conventional monetary means, today, crypto does not involve the intervention by traditional financial intermediaries nor a central administrator  with visibility on crypto ownership or transactions.  A recent research report by the EU claimed that €850 million[2] (US$985 million) in tax could have been collected, on Bitcoin dealings alone (the largest of the virtual currencies) in 2020, when national tax rules would have applied.

Global Tax Ambassador; the OECD

After the OECD’s BEPS tax plans put the dormant OECD organization back on the map in 2015, quire dramatically, it became the ‘legislator of the new international tax order’. So, also this time around OECD’s tax committee will act with the speed of lightening and turn draft crypto tax plans – meant for discussion – into reality in no time, probably also now without stopping a second to breathe or listen.  The same happened with the BEPS reports. It is time to get prepared.

OECD’s obligatory standard for exchange of financial information by banks and financial institutions (the CRS), which was published in 2014, seeks to ensure transparency regarding cross-border financial investments to prevent tax evasion. However, crypto-assets are not under the reach of the current CRS rules. And even if they were, crypto can be owned by individuals in cold wallets or in crypto exchanges that are – today – not under any disclosure obligations.

In its’ original 2015 BEPS Action 1 Report, Taxing the Digital Economy, the OECD already mentioned governments wanting a slice from the global virtual currency trading.

In 2020 the G20 ordered that framework for the exchange of crypto information would be designed, driven by their concern that the invisibility of digital assets undermines global tax transparency. Digital assets such as cryptocurrencies, utility tokens and NFTs bypass traditional intermediaries, like banks and brokers, and conventional tax reporting mechanisms. Any reporting solutions would have to be integrated into the existing global exchange of financial information, the Common Reporting Standard (“CRS”). A report from the Accounting Office of the US government – based on statistics from the US tax authorities – shows that taxpayer compliance is above 95% when third party information reporting exists, while it is below 50% when no such rules exist.

After the OECD put together a first detailed inventory of taxation of crypto world wide, Taxing Virtual Currencies, in 2020, its think-tank set out to develop a plan to achieve  crypto transparency and propose amendments to the CRS to bring new financial assets and crypto intermediaries under its reach.   In the mean-while, the Biden administration already – in March this year – issued an executive order laying out U.S. efforts to regulate the crypto world and its intention to create a US central bank digital currency “CBDC”.    OECD wants to prevent a chaos of regulatory policies across the globe by pulling all countries together in a unified framework.

So, in March this year, OECD released already its’ detailed proposal for a Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (“CARF”) including a set of intended amendments to the global CRS, to embrace crypto. The proposals predict crypto exchange of information bringing ‘digital intermediaries’ under stringent and serious reporting obligations. And OECD wants everything in place by the end of 2024.

CARF

The OECD, EU and US all aim strap the reporting-net around the new generation of digital “middlemen” – digital assets service providers – including crypto exchanges, custodians and crypto wallet providers. Unlike institutions in the conventional financial sector, most digital asset service providers do not yet have systems or process required for the kind of compliance that will be demanded.

The CARF rules are connected to the concepts and due diligence requirements in the current CRS, and the anti-money laundering (AML) and countering financial terrorism (CFT) guidelines; digital currency service providers will have to run know-your-client (KYC) on their customers’, ensure clients are registered with the tax authorities, collect and exchange financial information, ensure data are stored in a compliant manner and classify corporate clients. These are all huge tasks that may require separate compliance departments and dedicated software.  There are not a small burden for small intermediaries.   Certain voices in the industry claim that still disclosure may not be guaranteed, because anyone with a good lap-top can access decentralized finance applications without a traditional custodian or broker allowing circumvention of the reporting rules by setting up an own Bitcoin node.  The CARF is not exhaustively clear which crypto assets are in scope and does not detail which rules apply to decentralised finance (DeFi) and who would be the responsible persons for trading through smart contract transactions, such as a DAO, which have no intermediaries and are accessible by anyone with an internet connection.

Digital service providers may have to comply with OECD’s CRS, EU’s DAC-8 and the US’s FATCA reporting regulations, they will also have to demonstrate that their processes and controls are sufficient, and their directors will be personally responsible for ensuring compliance. In 2021 the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) already ruled that digital asset service providers must obtain a “license” and should be supervised.

The costs of IT solutions and other investments required for service providers will raise a very high barrier for new intermediary businesses wanting to enter the market; and this may actually frustrate market competition.

Tax and reporting of crypto within 2 years

The OECD’s draft of the CARF, predicts that reporting regulations such as the Common Reporting Standard (CRS), the eighth EU Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC-8) and the US’s Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) will soon apply to digital asset service providers, if OECD has it its way, by the end of 2024.

The OECD is now internalizing the responses to its plans from the public received at the end of April, and the basis thereof it will finalise the rules and its’ amendments to the CRS.    The G20 are expecting that the OECD will report back with a final text by October 2022 at the occasion of the next G20 summit. And – as has been customary – the G20 will probably approve without much ado.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/647374/worldwide-blockchain-wallet-users/

[2] Thiemann, A. (2021), Cryptocurrencies: An empirical View from a Tax Perspective, JRC Working Papers on Taxation and Structural Reforms No 12/2021, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Seville, JRC126109.

Henriette Fuchs - Women in Tax

AUTHOR:
Henriette Fuchs

Posted in Uncategorized

Technology and Taxation

Yetax - Corporate Tax | Technology and Ta

Aspects of Taxation In
The Establishment Of Start-Ups

Adv. Amit Gottlieb, Partner and Adv. CPA Dvir Saadia

Original Hebrew article published in Bizportal

Transformation of a great idea into an incredible success and one which generates profit is a protracted road. It is not without reason that most start-ups fail to meet their potential. Generally, the initial focus is on the implementation of the “idea”: characterizing the target audience, setting goals, developing a model for generating revenue and evaluating the expenses required to implement such an “idea”. It is precisely at this stage that one tends to overlook a principal aspect that has far-reaching implications – the TAXATION aspect.

Taxation aspects, in their complexity, are often cast aside in the early stages of the start-up, thus for example an entrepreneur who is targeting the European market may tend to incorporate his company in the target country. On the face of it, it makes sense to do so. In practice, tax aspects follow the development of the start-up from its early days and also to the exit stage, whilst understanding and planning of tax aspects throughout the start-up’s activity can generate higher profitability for the entrepreneurs, decrease tax expenses, and sometimes serve as the basis for its preservation and success.

In the majority of cases, tax matters arise at a later stage and making changes could be in many cases expensive or impossible. Investors and even future buyers may be reluctant to enter the venture solely due to tax exposure or incorrect construction of the tax framework. So how does one go about this properly, as of the development stage at home through to initial funding, and to the “exit” stage.

Examining the structure and manner of incorporation

The natural tendency to incorporate as a company in the future operating country is not always correct. In fact, the type of activity, the target audience, the location where development is to be carried out and future aspirations are fundamental aspects that affect the place and the manner in which the start-up should be incorporated. Proper incorporation can save a lot of tax (such as in the case of capital investment incentive laws), enable effective offsetting of losses and also lead to the maximization of profit in the future.

The natural tendency to incorporate as a company in the future operating country is not always correct. In fact, the type of activity, the target audience, the location where development is to be carried out and future aspirations are fundamental aspects that affect the place and the manner in which the start-up should be incorporated. Proper incorporation can save a lot of tax (such as in the case of capital investment incentive laws), enable effective offsetting of losses and also lead to the maximization of profit in the future.

Use of alternative payment mechanisms

Cash (or liquidity) is the beating heart of any start-up, certainly at its starting point, enabling flexibility in its management and development. One way to maintain cash flow is to use alternative means of payment – such as paying service providers and employees with shares/warrants. Various mechanisms exist in different countries for making cashless payments, however it is important to remember that these mechanisms entail a tax consequence, both for the company and the recipient, and thus serious consequences during the funding and exit stages.

Technology and Taxation - YEtax

Using freelancers

Globalization, technological advances, and more so the recent Covid pandemic, have led to the operation of entities in different parts of the world as independent service providers. The expansion of this phenomenon has given rise to a number of material taxation issues such as: Does the withholding tax obligation apply when paying such employees? Should VAT be added to the payment? Moreover, do the said freelance workers form a “permanent establishment” in their country of operation with regards to the corporation? Correct and proper planning of such issues will prevent exposure, excess tax liabilities and the need for proceedings vis-à-vis the tax authorities.

Turning the dream into reality – recruiting investors

Facing the initial funding stage? Before you sign and agree for any investment, it is essential to discuss how the investment should be made: whether it’s a capital investment in the company’s shares, or an investment through a SAFE mechanism or even a convertible loan, there are many options by which the funding can be carried out. Beyond the commercial aspect, there is a tax effect both on the manner of funding within the company itself and amongst its shareholders. For example, the manner of funding can affect the company’s expenses, i.e., while obtaining funding through a convertible loan, or cause changes of the controlling shareholders in the company, affecting related parties and requiring the application of transfer pricing rules.

And with regards to transfer prices, it is important to remember that even though the global expansion of your company is a welcome move, global activity within a group of companies around the world consequently requires the application of transfer pricing rules, meaning, pricing of the transactions in accordance with market prices.

The sale of the shares or “Exit”

Execution of a profitable sale of your shares shall trigger a tax event – that’s basic – but usually there is a time difference between the date of signing the share sale agreement and the date of “closing” and sometimes even between the date of receiving the consideration. Sometimes the consideration itself is uncertain / postponed / contingent on the continuation of the transaction or on milestones. In each of these cases, the question of the date and calculation of tax arises.

Moreover, the applicable tax rate to the sale of the shares, amounting to 30% (plus 3% surtax) by a shareholder who is deemed “substantial”, as opposed to 25% (plus 3% surtax) for one deemed an unsubstantial shareholder, depending on the question of its classification as “substantial” according to control indices, and the tax differences may be significant.

It emerges that failure or late examination of the tax aspects pertaining to a start-up may significantly impact the return therefrom, implicate on your cash flow (inter alia when a structure prevents optimal utilization of the foreign taxes paid or of the losses, resulting in “tax accidents” arising from improper incorporation and poor operation of the structure) that have the power to transfigure a successful idea into a dream that didn’t meet its potential. Appropriate tax decisions must be made in the early stages in conjunction with the technological and business decisions pertaining to the venture.

Skip to content