Highlights of the Greek participation exemption regime on capital gains

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Highlights of the Greek participation exemption regime on capital gains

Sponsored by

eygreece.png
Greece has introduced a new regime regarding the taxation of capital gains on share transfers

Konstantina Galli of EY Greece discusses the new regime that impacts the taxation of capital gains on share transfers.

In an effort to attract investments through Greek investment vehicles, Greece introduced a new regime into its domestic legislation, regarding the taxation of capital gains on share transfers. 

This regime provides for the tax exemption of capital gains derived by Greek tax resident companies from the sale of shares held in Greek and EU subsidiaries, provided they hold a minimum participation of 10% for a period of at least two years, and subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set under the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (EU PSD).

The so-called ‘participation exemption regime’ (PER), applicable as of July 1 2020, also provides that such income is not further taxed, neither at the distribution nor at the capitalisation of the corresponding profits.

On the other hand, business expenses associated with the participations being disposed of within the context of the PER, including potential tax losses resulting from their transfer are, in principle, not recognised as tax deductible. 

By way of derogation, these losses can be recognised for tax deduction after January 1 2020, under certain conditions. In essence, the above provision applies on share transfers up to December 31 2022, while the transferred participation should exist, be valuated and booked/recorded up to  December 31 2019. 

In case the losses, when realised, are lower than valued, the tax deduction is limited to the lower amount, while, conversely, if the realised losses are higher, the tax deduction is again limited to the lower amount coming from the valuation.

In March 2021, the Independent Authority for Public Revenue (IAPR) issued a circular (E.2057/2021) providing guidelines on the application of the above-mentioned regime. 

The circular clarified that as disposal of shares – falling within the ambit of the PER – is considered any act of transfer, such as the sale, contribution of shares to cover the initial or any subsequent increase of a company’s capital, exchange of shares and transfer of shares within the context of corporate law for capital decrease or dividend distribution in kind.

In addition, it was clarified that the starting point of the minimum holding period is the acquisition date of the (at least) 10% participation being disposed of (regardless of the acquisition method), while any corporate transformation resulting to universal succession does not affect the two-year holding period calculation. 

The last point, specifically, refers to Circular POL. 1185/2018 on the fulfillment of the EU PSD conditions for the application of dividend withholding tax exemption, in the context of corporate transformations. Circular POL. 1185/2018 stipulates that the starting point of the minimum holding is not affected in cases where universal succession takes place at the level of the dividend recipient company. 

It has not yet been clarified what happens in cases of corporate transformations resulting to universal succession at the level of the dividend distributor company (i.e. demergers, spin-offs, etc.), as, in absence of any reference in relevant law provisions or guidelines issued by the Greek tax administration, it is not clear whether the above provisions could interpretively apply in these cases as well.

In addition, no reference is made to corporate transformations, for which the universal succession concept does not apply, such as share-for-share transactions, although, by way of contrast, it seems that the starting point of the minimum holding period for PER application purposes, would be the date of the transaction, by means of which the respective participation was acquired.

Generally, asset transfers carried out through tax-neutral corporate transformations, provide tax deferral until a subsequent transfer that is not protected by such regimes is performed. 

Another point for clarification is whether the deferral would still be protected in case such transformations would be followed by a tax-neutral transfer of the acquired participations, under the PER, especially if effected within a short period from the transformation. As long as respective transactions are carried out for valid commercial and economic reasons, it is expected that the tax deferral should not be affected.

The introduction of the PER was, undoubtedly, a highly anticipated development by the Greek market, considering that the profits from participations (either as dividends or as capital gains from the sale of subsidiaries) are tax-exempt in most EU/EEA countries. 

The PER also constitutes a major breakthrough, not only strengthening Greece’s competitiveness among other EU/EEA countries, but also making Greece a holding jurisdiction worth considering for both domestic and international group structures, especially if seen in conjunction with the recent developments and trends in Greek taxation (e.g. the reduction of the standard CIT rate, enhanced tax incentives for R&D, etc.). 

The next step would be the expansion of the regime to subsidiaries established in non-EU countries.  

Konstantina Galli

Associate partner, EY Greece

E: konstantina.galli@gr.ey.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

As ITR data reveals that 2025 saw more than double the amount of private client hires than 2024, it seems firms are jostling for position
The US multinational paid 20% more tax in 2025 than 2024, it said; in other news, more than 25,000 HMRC staff have been upskilled on AI
Belt and Road Initiative countries face tax incentive conundrums due to pillar two, but relatively few countries would seek to scrap the project, ITR has heard
Hany Elnaggar examines how the OECD’s global minimum tax is reshaping the GCC’s investment incentive landscape, shifting the region from rate-based competition toward substance-driven economic positioning
The acquisition of a two-partner practice from Stephenson Harwood means that Charles Russell Speechlys has the largest private client team in Asia, the firm claimed
Complex and constantly shifting rules on global mobility mean ‘the risk is too great’ for staff to work abroad on personal time, EY’s Maureen Flood tells ITR
While it’s great that the OECD is alive to multinationals’ fears of being caught in a compliance trap, the ‘common understanding’ illustrates a worrying lack of readiness
Rising demand for specialist expertise has fuelled the growth in tax partner headcounts, Cain Dwyer found; in other news, Switzerland has been urged to reconsider pillar two
An OECD report on the taxation of the digital economy is expected by the end of 2026, according to the group of nations
Trophy assets are evolving from personal indulgences to structured investments, prompting family offices to prioritise tax efficiency, governance discipline, and cross-border compliance
Gift this article