Excess cash in a Belgian M&A context
Published on :
18/10/2024
18
October
Oct
10
2024
“You can have too much of a good thing” and while cash is king, in a Belgian M&A context, this old saying turns out to be true.
In the context of M&A transactions involving one or more individual sellers who are tax residents in Belgium, « excess cash » has become a hot topic. This results from the Belgian tax system under which while private individuals may benefit from a full tax exemption on the capital gains they realize on shares (except under particular circumstances), a 30% Belgian withholding tax is levied on any dividends received.
In this framework, Belgian private individual sellers tend to leave amounts of cash that exceeds the target companies’ operating needs (so called “excess cash”) on their balance sheet, hoping that the buyer will agree to take this cash into account when determining the acquisition price, bearing in mind that a buyer which benefits from the participation exemption acquiring 100% of the target’s shares can - immediately or shortly after the transaction - upstream (free of tax) these funds to, e.g., reimburse the acquisition debt(s).
Although these operations had been under the scrutiny of the Belgian tax authorities for several years, unless in (very) specific circumstances, it was only in 2012 with the introduction of the new general-anti abuse rule in the Belgian Income Tax Code (“GAAR”) that the tax administration found a legal basis for contestation.
Synthetically, the Belgian GAAR renders a legal act, or a set thereof linked by a joint intent that are constitutive of tax abuse unenforceable against the tax administration. In such a case, the tax administration can impose the operations conducted as if the abuse had not taken place.
The application of the GAAR by the Belgian tax authorities led to the groundbreaking decision issued on September 6th, 2022, by the Court of Appeal of Antwerp. In short, in this rather complex case:
- A private individual seller had transferred a part of its shares in the target group to a third-party buyer for c. €14.35m while leaving an “excess cash” of c. €6.34m on the balance sheets. The net cash position of the target group was factored in the acquisition price;
- The buyer largely financed the acquisition with bank debts that were repaid with the cash left in the target group, up streamed inter alia through a loan (this was agreed upon between the parties before the closing);
- The individual seller was assisted in this transaction by an external advisor who considered but dismissed a distribution of the excess cash prior to the closing because of the tax costs it entailed. From the different documents reviewed by the Court of Appeal, including the external advisor’s report, it was clear that the financing structure was put in place to avoid the 30% withholding tax due on the distribution of the target’s cash to the individual seller prior to the closing;
- The Court of Appeal of Antwerp confirmed the joint intent between (i.) the share deal, (ii.) the payment of the acquisition price and (iii.) the upstream of the cash and considered that these operations, taken as a whole, were constitutive of tax abuse at the level of the individual seller, even though the latter was not involved in each operation taken individually;
- As a result, based on the Belgian GAAR, the Court of Appel of Antwerp reclassified the capital gain realized by the individual sellers as a taxable dividend received up to the amount of the target company’s cash it considered excessive.
Now, relying on the precedents set by the Court of Appeal of Antwerp and the Belgian Supreme Court, the Belgian tax authorities are on the hunt for potentially abusive transfers of cash-rich entities by Belgian taxpayers and although it has always been a topic of discussion between sellers and buyers, excess cash is now more relevant than ever in a Belgian M&A context.
Indeed, although the seller is primarily responsible for the taxes to be paid on a (deemed) dividend they receive, under the standard Belgian tax statutes of limitations, the tax administration can only go back three years to claim evaded taxes from the seller, while they have a five-year window to act against the company if they consider it should have withheld the tax due on the (deemed) dividend distributed. One cannot therefore exclude that the Belgian tax authorities try to recover the withholding tax from the company rather than from the individual seller in a scenario like the one presented to the Court of Appeal of Antwerp.
However, it is important to note that, in this case, it was obvious that the target company had excess cash and the tax authorities could prove that it was intended to be allocated to the reimbursement of the acquisition loans immediately or closely after the closing. Of course, it would be more challenging for the Belgian tax authorities to prove the existence of an excess cash issue and a Court may refuse to apply the Belgian GAAR even to a sale of a cash-rich company if the debts incurred for the acquisition were serviced through the future profits of the target company’s activities and the cash is invested by the company itself (after the sale).
Finally, although the decisions summed up above do not shed much light on the concept of excess cash which can be difficult to apprehend in practice, one can find guidance in the past Belgian Ruling Office’s decision on the so-called “plus-values internes” / “interne meerwaarden” cases and the criteria developed and used by the Ruling Office from 2012 and 2017 to assess the existence of excess cash.
History
-
Excess cash in a Belgian M&A context
Published on : 18/10/2024 18 October Oct 10 2024Expertise / Tax law“You can have too much of a good thing” and while cash is king, in a Belgian M&A context, this old saying turns out to be true. In the context of M&A tran...
-
Belgium Reinforces its Arsenal Against Foreign Low-taxed Entities… and Risks Further Frustrating EU Freedom of Movement
Published on : 18/10/2024 18 October Oct 10 2024Expertise / Tax lawDisregarding entities for tax purposes when they benefit from foreign low-taxed regimes is the latest trend in the Belgian set of rules to fight tax evasion....