Sign up for tax alert emails    GTNU homepage    Tax newsroom    Email document    Print document    Download document

May 4, 2020
2020-5674

Israeli Tax Authority releases draft circular for comments on payments to a parent company under recharge agreements for grant of stock-based compensation

Executive summary

The Israeli Tax Authority (ITA) recently released for consultation1 a draft circular on payments to a parent company under recharge agreements for the grant of stock-based compensation (SBC) to the employees of its subsidiary (the Draft Circular).

The purpose of this Draft Circular is to outline the ITA’s position as to the intercompany charge payments between the Israeli company that employs the relevant employee to which the SBC is being granted and the parent company that issues the relevant capital instruments, and its classification as debt repayment versus dividend distribution.

For this analysis, the considerations set forth by the ITA are whether the payment is conditioned by the vesting of the instrument, the fair market value (FMV) of the instrument at the time of grant, the date on which the recharge agreement was signed (compared to the issuance date of the capital instruments), and whether the SBC costs were included in the cost base in accordance with the Kontera Case ruling.

This circular also aims to clear Reportable Position no. 70-2019 that was published last year which created uncertainty with respect to such intercompany charges. This Draft Circular corrects this Reportable Position.

Due to the significant impact of the Kontera Case, multinationals with operations in Israel should closely review this Draft Circular and examine its potential impact on their recharge payments and overall SBC costs. Those with recharge payments and agreements not in accordance with the conditions of this Draft Circular, as well as those not in compliance with the Kontera Case, should consider either aligning themselves with the ITA position or managing the risks involved, including the impact on the tax provision.

Detailed discussion

The background of the Draft Circular addresses to the cases in which SBC is issued to an employee of an Israeli company (the Employing Company) for capital instruments of the (direct or indirect) parent company (the Granting Company), and the Granting Company charges the Employing Company for the payment of such capital instruments that were issued (the Intercompany Charge). A reference is also made to the 2018 Supreme Court Kontera Case,2 where it was ruled that expenses incurred by an Israeli Research and Development (R&D) subsidiary of a United States (US) parent relating to employee stock option plans should be included in the cost base for calculating the cost plus remuneration, and where there was no reference to the treatment of the Intercompany Charge, if and as exists between the Granting Company and the Employing Company.

The Draft Circular then determines under which circumstances the payment by the Employing Company to the Granting Company for the participation in the payroll expenses will be classified as a debt repayment, and in which cases it will be considered a dividend distribution and therefore may trigger withholding tax accordingly. It is clarified that the mere recharge payment should not be viewed as a deductible expense by the Employing Company, and such expense shall be recorded in accordance with the relevant GAAP, regardless whether an Intercompany Charge exists, and will (or will not) be tax deductible in accordance with the Israeli Tax Ordinance (ITO).

In order for a payment to the Granting Company to be considered as a participation in payroll expenses (rather than a dividend), it has to be not higher than the amount of expenses recorded in the Employing Company’s financial statements at the time of grant, and it has to meet the following conditions:

  1. The payment to the Granting Company is conditioned by the vesting of the capital instruments. In other words, the charge will be recorded and recognized only once the capital instrument is vested.
  2. The payment to the Granting Company for any vested capital instrument is based on its FMV at the time of grant, according to the accounting records of the expense.
  3. The payment to the Granting Company is according to a recharge agreement between the companies that was signed prior to the grant of capital instruments.
  4. The entire SBC expense was included in the cost base for purpose of Section 85A of the ITO (Transfer Pricing in International Transactions), according to the Kontera Case.

It is clarified that the abovementioned conditions will be analyzed per capital instrument and per employee, rather than as a whole.

The Draft Circular then stipulates that any payment that does not meet these conditions will be classified as a dividend, even if it was paid to a group company that is not the direct or indirect parent of the Employing Company.

When all those conditions are met, but the recharge agreement provides that the payment to the Granting Company will be the intrinsic value at the realization date of the capital instrument, the payment to the Granting Company at the realization date up to the FMV as it was at the grant date according to which the accounting expense was recorded (or had to be recorded) will be considered as participation in payroll costs, and any additional amount will be considered as a dividend.

A company that has a recharge agreement with the Granting Company and the payments thereunder meet all relevant conditions under this Draft Circular, which are therefore classified as debt repayment for the participation in payroll expenses, is exempt from reporting reportable position no. 70-2019, which generally classifies such participation as a capital investment, and any following payment as a dividend (or capital reduction, as the case may be).

The Draft Circular also provides several examples to demonstrate the application of its provisions.

Impact

This Draft Circular, together with the Kontera Case, should serve as an indication of the high scrutiny by the ITA of multinationals operating in Israel and specifically those with R&D centers in Israel.

Those multinationals should closely review this Draft Circular and consider its potential impact on their recharge payments and overall SBC costs, and monitor upcoming developments and publications on this matter. Those with recharge payments and agreements not aligned with the conditions of this Draft Circular, as well as those incompliant with the Kontera Case, that may face reclassifications of recharge payments into a dividend, should consider either aligning themselves with the ITA position or managing the risks involved, including the impact on the tax provision.

It is important to emphasize that this is still draft for discussion and there is no certainty when and if this circular will become final. Nevertheless, it is expected that field assessing officers will use this Draft Circular to present this position in tax audits.

Endnotes

1. Comments are due by 17 May 2020.

2. See EY Global Tax Alert, Israeli Supreme Court rules stock based compensation to be included in cost base for transfer pricing, dated 2 May 2018 (the Kontera Case).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For additional information with respect to this Alert, please contact the following:

EY Israel, Tel Aviv
Ernst & Young LLP (United States), Israel Tax Desk, New York

ATTACHMENT

 
 

The information contained herein is general in nature and is not intended, and should not be construed, as legal, accounting or tax advice or opinion provided by Ernst & Young LLP to the reader. The reader also is cautioned that this material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader's specific circumstances or needs, and may require consideration of non-tax and other tax factors if any action is to be contemplated. The reader should contact his or her Ernst & Young LLP or other tax professional prior to taking any action based upon this information. Ernst & Young LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect the information contained herein.

 

Copyright © 2024, Ernst & Young LLP.

 

All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, retransmitted or otherwise redistributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including by photocopying, facsimile transmission, recording, rekeying, or using any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from Ernst & Young LLP.

 

Any U.S. tax advice contained herein was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions.

 

"EY" refers to the global organisation, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients.

 

Privacy  |  Cookies  |  BCR  |  Legal  |  Global Code of Conduct Opt out of all email from EY Global Limited.

 


Cookie Settings

This site uses cookies to provide you with a personalized browsing experience and allows us to understand more about you. More information on the cookies we use can be found here. By clicking 'Yes, I accept' you agree and consent to our use of cookies. More information on what these cookies are and how we use them, including how you can manage them, is outlined in our Privacy Notice. Please note that your decision to decline the use of cookies is limited to this site only, and not in relation to other EY sites or ey.com. Please refer to the privacy notice/policy on these sites for more information.


Yes, I accept         Find out more