LexGo

Luxembourg Lower Court Delivers Judgment on the Scope of Hidden Dividend Distributions
21/10/2020

In its judgment handed down on 25 September 2020, the Lower Administrative Court (Tribunal Administratif) considered the scope of hidden dividend distributions under Luxembourg law.

In the case at hand, the taxpayer (a company) had booked in its 2013 and 2014 financial accounts provisions for bonuses to be paid to its managing director (who was also the shareholder) and to the managing director’s wife (who was an employee of the company), that the company had not yet paid out. The Luxembourg tax administration took the view that these bonuses were excessive compared to market practice and sought to requalify the deemed excessive part of the provisions as hidden dividend distributions and subject them to 15% withholding tax.

At issue was therefore (i) whether the wife, who was not a shareholder, could fall within the scope of “interested person” for the purposes of the definition of dividend distribution and (ii) whether accounting provisions could fall within the meaning of hidden dividend distributions.

The Lower Administrative Court confirmed a number of interesting points. First, Article 164(3) of the Luxembourg income tax law defines hidden dividend distributions as an advantage conferred directly or indirectly by the company to a shareholder, group company or interested person that a third party would not have received. As regards the meaning of “interested person” the Court held that no direct relationship between the company and that person is required but that the advantage must be motivated by a shareholder interest - thus a person with sufficiently close links with a shareholder (such as a spouse) may receive a hidden dividend distribution.

However, the Lower Administrative Court also held that, in the absence of effective payment to the intended recipient, the provisioning of bonuses could not be lawfully qualified as a hidden dividend distribution since it did not give rise to an effective distribution, i.e.: an impoverishment of the Company to the benefit of a third party. The Court acknowledged that while the provisions had diminished the company’s profits, it took the view that only effective payment of the bonuses could give rise to a hidden dividend distribution. Implicit in the Court’s reasoning is that the shareholder and his spouse had not in fact received an advantage from the company.

Related : Bonn Steichen & Partners

[+ http://www.bsp.lu]


Click here to see the ad(s)
All articles Corporate law

Lastest articles Corporate law

COVID-19: Luxembourg extends the possibility to hold company meetings remotely until 30 June 2021
04/11/2020

Since the Covid-19 pandemic continues to impact the good governance of legal entities, the Luxembourg Government decided t...

Read more

Beneficial owner information: CJEU asked for preliminary ruling affecting justifications to tempo...
12/10/2020

IN A PENDING CASE AGAINST LUXEMBURG BUSINESS REGISTERS, THE LUXEMBOURG DISTRICT COURT SUBMITTED A REFERRAL TO THE COURT OF...

Read more

Holding meetings in companies
29/09/2020

While the coronavirus pandemic situation continues to have an impact on the sound governance of companies and other legal ...

Read more

COVID-19 - Virtual shareholder and board meetings allowed until 31 December 2020
25/09/2020

Virtual shareholder and board meetings allowed until 31 December 2020

Read more

LexGO Network