Luxembourg’s intellectual property box regime: One year later

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Luxembourg’s intellectual property box regime: One year later

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_deloitte.png
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 & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

A lack of commitment from major jurisdictions and the associated compliance burden are obstacles facing the OECD initiative
Richard Gregg is no longer fit and proper to be a tax agent, said the TPB; in other news, MHA completed its acquisition of Baker Tilly South-East Europe
Recent Indian case law emphasises the importance of economic substance over mere legal form in evaluating tax implications, say authors from Khaitan & Co
PepsiCo was represented by PwC, while the ATO was advised by MinterEllison, an Australian-headquartered law firm
Three tax experts dissect the impact of a 30% tariff that has shaken up trade relations between South Africa and the US
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2025 Americas Tax Awards
As we move into an era of ‘substance over form’, determining the fundamental nature of a particular instrument is key when evaluating the tax implications of selling hybrid securities
It stands in stark contrast to a mere 1% increase in firmwide revenue since last year
It follows a court case concerning a Freedom of Information request lodged by the founder of a software company
After years of deafening silence, the UK tax authority is taking overdue action against corporates that fail to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion
Gift this article