International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

Luxembourg’s intellectual property box regime: One year later

Sponsored by

AdobeStock_88525014_Luxembourg 630 x 570

Luxembourg’s new and old IP regimes co-exist while the country gradually aligns itself with international tax standards. Taxpayers should not the criteria for the new intellectual property (IP) box regime.

Luxembourg introduced an IP box regime on January 1 2018 to align itself with international tax requirements and, more specifically, Action 5 of the OECD/G20’s BEPS project.

The regime adopted the ‘nexus approach’, under which research and development (R&D) expenses are considered an indicator of the activity necessary for the taxpayer to benefit from the preferential regime.

Innovation and R&D activities are top priorities for Luxembourg’s economic diversification strategy and IP regime which, due to compliance with the international standards, will help ensure global competitiveness.

The previous IP box regime was abolished on July 1 2016 because it was not in line with the nexus approach, but transitional rules allow the old regime to be maintained for five years, i.e. until June 30 2021. Although the two regimes will co-exist for several years, they cannot apply simultaneously, and a taxpayer election to apply the new regime is irrevocable.

As was the case under the old regime, an 80% exemption from corporate income tax and municipal business tax is available on the net adjusted and compensated income from qualifying IP rights and there is a full exemption from net wealth tax.

Qualifying IP rights include patents in the broad sense and copyrighted software, provided the assets were created, developed or improved after December 31 2007.

Qualifying income for purposes of the IP box regime is net income, defined as gross qualifying income less annual expenses related to the qualifying IP right. Additionally, the net income should be:

  • Adjusted: Net losses incurred during previous tax years on the eligible IP right must be taken into account as soon as the taxpayer is in a net positive income position (notably, negative IP income is a broad concept); and

  • Compensated: Negative adjusted qualifying net income on an IP asset must be compensated by any other adjusted positive qualifying net income generated by another IP asset held by the taxpayer.  

The portion of net income that can benefit from the exemption is determined by application of the nexus ratio, computed on a cumulative basis, which establishes a direct relationship between the qualifying expenditure (numerator) and the overall expenditure (denominator):

Qualifying expenditure includes all R&D expenditure incurred by the taxpayer or an unrelated party in connection with a qualifying IP right, as well as R&D expenditure incurred by a permanent establishment in a European Economic Area country under certain circumstances. A 30% uplift applies to qualifying expenditure capped at the amount of overall expenditure.

Overall expenditure comprises qualifying expenditure, IP acquisition costs and payments made to a related party for R&D activities.

Documentation in line with the transfer pricing rules under BEPS Actions 8-10 must substantiate all transactions taking place within an intragroup context. Documentation also must justify the tracking of the eligible expense, total expense and eligible income in relation to each qualifying IP right.

In certain cases, the taxpayer may be able to use a product/service-based approach where expenditure and income are tracked and traced to products, services or families of products/services arising from qualifying IP assets.

This article was written by Thierry Bovier, Christophe De Sutter and Nathalie Taranti of Deloitte Luxembourg.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

COVID-19 and an overworked HMRC may have created the ‘perfect storm’ for reduced prosecutions, according to tax professionals.
Participants in the consultation on the UN secretary-general’s report into international tax cooperation are divided – some believe UN-led structures are the way forward, while others want to improve existing ones. Ralph Cunningham reports.
The German government unveils plans to implement pillar two, while EY is reportedly still divided over ‘Project Everest’.
With the M&A market booming, ITR has partnered with correspondents from firms around the globe to provide a guide to the deal structures being employed and tax authorities' responses.
Xing Hu, partner at Hui Ye Law Firm in Shanghai, looks at the implications of the US Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act for TP comparability analysis of China.
Karl Berlin talks to Josh White about meeting the Fair Tax standard, the changing burden of country-by-country reporting, and how windfall taxes may hit renewable energy.
Sandy Markwick, head of the Tax Director Network (TDN) at Winmark, looks at the challenges of global mobility for tax management.
Taxpayers should look beyond the headline criteria of the simplification regime to ensure that their arrangements meet the arm’s-length standard, say Alejandro Ces and Mark Seddon of the EY New Zealand transfer pricing team.
In a recent webinar hosted by law firms Greenberg Traurig and Clayton Utz, officials at the IRS and ATO outlined their visions for 2023.
The Asia-Pacific awards research cycle has now begun – don’t miss on this opportunity be recognised in 2023