Fri, Oct 31, 2014
A A A
Welcome Guest
Free Trial RSS
Get FREE trial access to our award winning publications
Asia Pacific Intelligence

PwC Australia writes on the new investment manager regime for AIMA Journal

Monday, July 08, 2013

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:

  • It is not an Australian resident;
  • It is not a resident trust estate;
  • It is a resident of an information exchange country;
  • The entity does not carry on or is not able to control a trading business in Australia;
  • It satisfies the widely held test;
  • It does not breach the closely held test; and
  • The entity gives the Commissioner of Taxation a statement within three months of the end of the income year.

The 'widely held test' means that an entity will be widely held if:

  • It is listed; or
  • It has at least 25 members; or
  • It is specified in the regulations (which have not been drafted to date).

The 'closely held test' is breached where 10 or fewer members have a participation interest in the
entity of 50% or more in the fund, and introduces an additional requirement that a total participation
interest of 10% or more cannot be held by a single member (including those interests held by the single
members' relatives).

The PwC team explains that in applying the widely held and closely held tests, funds are required to:

  • Trace through interposed entities to underlying individual investors and treat the individual as a member but not interposed entities.
  • Count an individual and his/her relatives as a single member.
  • Calculate the notional members of "Foreign widely held" entities (foreign superannuation funds, foreign life insurance companies, or an entity established by an exempt government agency for the purposes of funding pensions) by multiplying their participation interest in the relevant fund by 50.
  • Disregard a nominee but include the other entity which it holds the investment on behalf of.

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:

  • Portfolio interests (i.e., less than 10%) in qualifying investments.
  • Non-portfolio (i.e., 10% or more) interests in non-Australian investments where the return or gain is attributable to an Australian permanent establishment of the fund which arises only because the fund engaged an Australian intermediary.

PwC Australia explains that the following are not qualifying investments under the draft legislation:

  • investments in "taxable Australian real property" (i.e. Australian real property or certain mining rights over Australian land) or "indirect Australian real property interests" (broadly, an interest of 10% or more in a land rich entity); or
  • generally, those that give the foreign fund the right to vote at a meeting of the Board of Directors or participate in making financial, operating or policy decisions in respect of the operation of the issuer of the investment.

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.
Asia Pacific Intelligence
Asia Pacific Intelligence
Asia Pacific Intelligence
Today's Exclusives Today's Other Voices More Exclusives
Previous Opalesque Exclusives                                  
More Other Voices
Previous Other Voices                                               
Access Alternative Market Briefing


  • Top Forwarded
  • Top Tracked
  • Top Searched
  1. Macks aim to raise $750m for real estate debt fund[more]

    From Therealdeal.com: Father-son duo William and Richard Mack and former Blackstone Group managing director Peter Sotoloff are starting a new real estate debt fund. Together, the trio hopes to raise more than $750 million for the private equity fund, according to the Wall Street Journal. The fund wi

  2. Manager Profile - Seth Klarman: Lessons for retail and institutional investors[more]

    From Valuewalk.com: Seth Klarman is virtually unknown outside value circles, despite his impressive record and value of assets under management. On average Baupost has returned 19% p.a. despite holding a large portion of its assets in cash. During the financial crisis, Seth Klarman’s funds lost some

  3. North America - FATCA leads 75% of U.S. expats to consider dropping citizenship[more]

    From International-adviser.com: Nearly three quarters of American expats are considering the renouncement of their citizenship following July’s introduction of the “absurd” Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). The findings, which were revealed in a survey by deVere, come alongside the news th

  4. Goldman in talks to acquire IndexIQ[more]

    From Bloomberg.com: Can Goldman Sachs put ETF investors on a liquid diet? Goldman is in talks to acquire IndexIQ, Reuters has reported. Index IQ is a small exchange-traded-fund firm known mostly for products that replicate hedge fund strategies, called "liquid alternative" ETFs. While IndexIQ has 11

  5. Other Voices: CALPERS dilemma should be a warning to hedge funds wanting institutional investors[more]

    From Ian Hamilton, founder of IDS Group. A quick comment on the CALPERS’ disinvestment from the hedge fund market and the jitters it is causing. Pension Funds should not be sheep and follow CALPERS’ decision as the issues that CALPERS has with hedge fund investments are in many ways unique t