All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

Colombia reorganisations: Are they really tax free?

Sponsored by

eygreece.png
Colombia should build on international experiences

Aleksan Oundjian of EY looks at the tax framework for mergers in Colombia and explains why a more balanced and competitive tax environment is required.

It is easy to forget that the tax reorganisation regime in Colombia is not as neutral as one would hope, and through limitations, some neutrality transforms into tax deferrals and more recently, into potential loss of tax shields.

Tax elements of mergers

Suppose you are a foreign entity looking to purchase a business in Colombia and for that you incorporate an investment vehicle in the country – a special purpose vehicle (SPV) – to purchase the shares of a Colombian entity. Unless there are specific drivers to keep the SPV after the purchase, simplifying the structure would be a natural step, for which you would likely merge the SPV with the newly acquired company. You can conduct a tax-free upstream or downstream merger, and different factors are considered here to determine the most convenient or legally viable mechanism.

From a tax standpoint, care should be given because under the tax reorganisation regime the tax cost that survives is the tax cost of the company being ‘sold’. Tax law states that the company being sold is the company being absorbed, while the purchasing company is the absorbent. In other words, if the SPV is absorbing the newly acquired entity, the shareholders will have the tax cost represented in the purchase price paid for that entity.

However, if the absorbing entity is the business you acquired, the tax cost of the shareholders is basically the equity they placed into the SPV. As most acquisitions combine equity and debt to finance a purchase, on a downstream merger the shareholders lose the tax cost originated in the purchase price.

For example: The SPV is created with 300 in equity and 700 debt. SPV buys the shares in Company A for 1000. The tax cost of Company A shares for the SPV is 1000. The tax cost of the shares in the SPV is 300.

Upon a downstream merger, the shareholder remains with the tax cost of the SPV ‘sold’, thus their tax cost in the merged Company A would be 300, losing 700 in the operation.

You do not pay taxes upon the merger, but if you were to sell the shares in Company A for the same 1000 you paid, they would have to recognise a taxable gain of 700. Was there truly a gain? No, but the reorganisation regime eliminates your tax cost and creates a greater tax basis in the future.

Tax shields are other key elements that have become more restrictive when in the context of reorganisations processes.

In the context of a merger, the amount of losses that the absorbing company can use is limited by the equity contribution of that same company. This means that if the company being absorbed has 100 in tax losses, and its participation in the unified equity was 30%, the absorbing entity would only be entitled to use 30 of the total losses. This also meant that if the absorbing company has shields of its own, those tax shields were not affected as the limitation only applied to an absorbing entity in a merger, or to a resulting entity where a new company was created.

Judicial viewpoint

On October 2020, Decision 23419 of the Supreme Tax Court was issued stating that the limitation of the rule applies to any type of merger, which means that a company that has a tax shield will see its tax shield diluted by virtue of the merger, even if the absorbed entity has no tax losses.

This decision was a surprise, as tax authorities had already recognised that the limitation applied over the losses being shifted into an existing entity by way of the merger, but not over shields that the absorbing entity already had. This affects the tax-free condition on a reorganisation, opening a door to challenges and litigations over an issue that was already clear between the authorities and taxpayers.

Tackling limitations in Colombia

The indirect tax regime is another example where Colombia lacks in development. The regime taxes any type of international reorganisation without considering that such operations can happen within a group and no actual tax capacity is or should be manifested.

Tax free reorganisation regimes should be mindful that neutrality is not only manifested in the lack of payment of a tax, but also that the tax attributes, shields, etc. of such companies are not lost, restricted or otherwise punished.

In the context of a tax reform being prepared with the participation of a tax benefit committee of experts, it would be of great use for Colombia to revisit these rules and ensure that such systems are properly constructed to guarantee neutrality. Colombia should build on experiences from the US and other countries in the OECD (as Colombia is now a member of), to make the system more balanced and competitive in an international context as the country seeks to remain competitive and attract investments.

 

Aleksan Oundjian

Partner, EY Colombia

E: aleksan.oundjian@co.ey.com

 

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

This week Brazil’s former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva came out in support of uniting Brazil’s consumption taxes into one VAT regime, while the US Senate approved a corporate minimum tax rate.
The Dutch TP decree marks a turn in the Netherlands as the country aligns its tax policies with OECD standards over claims it is a tax haven.
Gorka Echevarria talks to reporter Siqalane Taho about how inflation, e-invoicing and technology are affecting the laser printing firm in a post-COVID world.
Tax directors have called on companies to better secure their data as they generate ever-increasing amounts of information due to greater government scrutiny.
Incoming amendments to the treaty could increase costs on non-resident Indian service providers.
Experts say the proposed minimum tax does not align with the OECD’s pillar two regime and risks other countries pulling out.
The Malawian government has targeted US gemstone miner Columbia Gem House, while Amgen has successfully consolidated two separate tax disputes with the Internal Revenue Service.
ITR's latest quarterly PDF is now live, leading on the rise of tax technology.
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted firms, teams, and practitioners for the 2022 Americas Tax Awards – winners to be announced on September 22
‘Care’ is the operative word as HMRC seeks to clamp down on transfer pricing breaches next year.
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree