Writing in the AIMA Journal, PwC Australia's tax team of Ken Woo, Tax Partner, Grahame Roach, Tax Director, and Darren Mack, Tax Director, PwC Australia discussed Australia's new investment manager regime.
The team writes: "Australia is in the process of finalising its own investment manager regime (IMR) with the aim to reduce tax uncertainty, and disincentives for certain widely held funds seeking to invest in Australia and use Australian intermediaries. Foreign funds that are unable to rely on a tax treaty with Australia have been potentially exposed to Australian tax on gains on Australian investments, and on foreign investments where the use of an Australian intermediary gave rise to a permanent establishment."
Australia's IMR has been introduced in three parts through a series of announcements, consultations, draft legislation and enacted law. The PwC team explains that the final tranche (or Element 3) of the IMR was released as an exposure draft legislation on 4 April 2013.
"Broadly, these new rules will operate retrospectively from the 2012 income year. The legislation provides an exemption from Australian income tax available for certain widely held foreign funds on portfolio (and in certain cases some non-portfolio) investments, and limits the exemption to foreign funds resident in countries with which Australia has an effective exchange of information agreement."
An entity will be an IMR Foreign Fund provided that at all times during an income year:
The 'widely held test' means that an entity will be widely held if:
The 'closely held test' is breached where 10 or fewer members have a participation interest in the
The PwC team explains that in applying the widely held and closely held tests, funds are required to:
The team writes that it is not uncommon for a significant proportion of the voting rights in a fund to be retained by a small number of entities that are responsible for the management of the fund. Accordingly, direct participation interests that are voting interests are not counted to the extent that the widely held and closely held tests require the identification or calculation of a direct participation interest of one entity in another entity.
As it stands, the draft legislation includes a 'start-up' rule to complement the existing 'wind-down' rule. "Consistent with the existing 'wind-down' rule, the widely held and closely held tests will be deemed to be satisfied when a fund is in a defined start-up phase. Integrity rules are proposed to ensure that this start-up phase rule will only apply in respect of entities that ultimately become IMR foreign funds, and to ensure that the start-up and wind-down phase rules cannot be used consecutively."
Broadly, gains and returns granted exemption by the IMR are those arising from:
PwC Australia explains that the following are not qualifying investments under the draft legislation:
In determining whether the foreign fund has a portfolio or non-portfolio interest in another entity, the direct participation interests of the foreign fund and its associates are now considered.
Looking forward, the PwC tax team recommends that the IMR should draw the appropriate balance between encouraging foreign investment and preventing potential abuse. They write: "Accordingly, there are certain aspects of the rules which may warrant further consultation - for example: the widely held and closely held tests. Does the 10% rule inappropriately disqualify funds with significant carried interest arrangements or profit allocations? Should there be relief for inadvertent breaches? Exchange of information (EOI) requirement. Is the EOI requirement globally competitive? Should funds resident in Luxembourg and Hong Kong be excluded? Foreign widely held entities. Should this category be broadened? Entities such as endowments, foundations, charities and sovereign wealth funds have significant capital to invest. Start up concession. Will funds be in a position to access the start up concession? Should there be relief for funds which genuinely attempt to satisfy the tests, but due to commercial or market factors are unable to do so?"
The team recommends that foreign funds should reconfirm that they would still qualify as an IMR Foreign Fund and which investments would be protected. "As the IMR has evolved through announcements, there has been a tendency to quickly conclude that funds and investments qualify for the concession. However, now that the rules are clearer, considerable care and diligence is needed to confirm this. The consequences of a surprise outcome make this critical."
This piece first appeared in Opalesque's Alternative Market Briefing.
This article was published in Opalesque's Asia Pacific Intelligence our monthly research update on alternative investments in the Asia-Pacific region.