Cyprus: The amended Cyprus IP box regime
International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cyprus: The amended Cyprus IP box regime


Zoe Kokoni

The Cyprus House of Representatives approve legislative proposals for a revised intellectual property (IP) box regime on October 14 2016.

The changes are significant and will have a direct impact on existing or planned structures.

The relevant amendments intend to harmonise the domestic legislation with recommendations under Action 5 of the OECD's BEPS Project and the conclusions adopted by the ECOFIN Council on December 8 2015.

The revised legislation has retroactive effect from July 1 2016. The specific provisions comprising the new IP box regime in Cyprus are summarised below.

Qualifying intangible assets

Qualifying intangible assets refer to assets that were acquired, developed or exploited by a person in the course of his business (excluding IP associated with marketing) and which pertains to research and development activities for which economic ownership exists. Specifically, these assets are:

  • Patents as defined in the Patents Law;

  • Computer software;

  • Other IP assets that are non-obvious, novel and useful, where the person which utilises them in the further development of a business does not generate annual gross revenues exceeding €7.5 million ($8 million) (or €50 million for a group of companies) and which should be certified by an appropriate authority either in Cyprus or abroad; and

  • Utility models, IP assets that provide protection to plants and generic material, orphan drug designations and extensions of protections of patents, all of which should be legally protected.

It should be noted that rights used for the marketing of products and services such as business names, brands, trademarks, image rights, etc. are not considered as qualifying intangible assets.

Qualifying profits

Qualifying profits (income) relates to the proportion of the total income that relates to the fraction of the qualifying expenditure, as well as the uplift expenditure that was incurred for the qualifying intangible asset. Such income, for example, consists of royalties in connection with the use of the qualifying intangible asset and capital gains arising on the disposal of a qualifying intangible asset, among others.

Overall income

The overall income refers to the total income arising on the qualifying intangible asset within a specific tax year reduced by the direct costs for generating this income.

As with the previous IP box regime, 80% of the overall income as defined above is treated as a deductible expense, and in the same manner as losses only 20% of the loss can be carried forward or be surrendered for the purpose of group loss relief.

Qualifying expenditure

Qualifying expenditure for a qualifying intangible asset relates to the total R&D costs incurred in any tax year wholly and exclusively for the development, improvement, or creation of qualifying intangible assets and where costs are directly related to the qualifying intangible assets.

Examples of such qualifying expenditure includes wages and salaries, direct costs relating to the R&D, including costs that have been outsourced, supplies related to R&D, installations used for R&D, among others.

An uplift expenditure is added to the above mentioned qualifying expenditure which is the lower of:

  • 30% of the eligible costs; or

  • The total amount of the cost of acquisition and outsourcing to related parties aimed at R&D in connection to the eligible intangible asset.

Accounting records

Proper books of accounting and records of income and expenses must be kept for each intangible asset by any person who wishes to claim the above described benefit.

Zoe Kokoni (

Eurofast Taxand Cyprus

Tel: +357 22699222


more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Experts from TP tech provider Aibidia also warned ITR that companies ignoring pillar two is a ‘huge issue’ and a ‘red flag’
Hanno Berger was originally handed an eight-year sentence over an estimated $11 billion tax fraud; while in other news, France calls for minimum tax on the super-rich
Amount B is meant to increase simplicity and reduce uncertainty, but US TP specialists claim it may lead to controversy
Tax Foundation economist Alan Cole also signalled that pillar two has a 'considerable chance' of failing
The Labour Party is working hard to convince business that it will bring stability to tax policy if it wins the next UK general election. But it will be impossible to avoid creating winners and losers
Burrowes had initially been parachuted into the role last summer to navigate the fallout from the firm’s tax leaks scandal
Barbara Voskamp is bullish on hiring local talent to boost DLA Piper’s Singapore practice, and argues that ‘big four’ accountants suffer from a stifled creativity
Chris Jordan also said that nations have a duty to scrutinise the partnership structures of major firms, while, in other news, a number of tax teams expanded their benches
KPMG has exclusive access to the tool for three years in the UK, giving it an edge over ‘big four’ rivals
But the US tax agency’s advice is consistent with OECD guidance and shouldn’t surprise anyone, other experts tell ITR
Gift this article