Related transaction or simulation?
Patrick Gordinne Perez2024-12-13T17:40:24+00:00Transactions between related parties are the great unknown for small entrepreneurs. Transactions between partners and the company are very important and have legal and tax repercussions.
For example, if you are a representative of a company that is in turn a director of another company :
If you are a representative of a company which, in turn, is a director of another company, set the appropriate remuneration.
Otherwise, if you have a majority shareholding in such a company, the tax authorities could penalise you.
What is a linked transaction?
Everything you need to know about related party transactions
In business, Related Party Transactions are a fundamental concept that refers to transactions between related parties, i.e. between companies or individuals that are economically linked....
Business-to-business linkages
Representative of the majority shareholder
Appointment of a representative
The position of director of a company can be held either by a natural person or by a legal person (another SA or SL, for example).
In the latter case, the company appointed as administrator must appoint a natural person as its representative to exercise the functions of the position (signing the annual accounts, convening shareholders’ meetings, etc.).
This type of appointment is common.
For example, in some groups of companies it is done for commercial or corporate image reasons, placing the “head” or main company of the group as the administrator of the subsidiaries.
But there is a risk
Well, in these cases it is necessary to act with caution to avoid a related-party transaction or simulation: if the representative of the management company is also a majority shareholder of that entity, it is advisable to ensure that the remuneration that the representative receives for his position is similar to what the company is receiving for carrying out the management functions.
If the management company receives a higher remuneration than that which it then pays to the representative, there is a risk that the tax authorities will regularise the situation, either by considering that there is simulation, or by considering that it is a related-party transaction which has not been properly valued.
In practice, the response of the tax authorities in these cases is not always the same and may vary from one case to another.
See the consequences of each type of regularisation…
Simulation
Interposed company
In the first place, the tax authorities may consider that there is simulation and understand that the management company is only an intermediary company whose sole purpose is to allow its representative (who is at the same time its majority shareholder) to remansestrate profits in it and defer his personal income tax.
In other words, the tax authorities may consider that the activity of the management company is merely instrumental and unnecessary, with the natural person appearing as its representative being the person who is the sole agent .
Regularisation
In these cases of simulation, the tax authorities act as follows:
- Firstly, it charges to the representative’s personal income tax all the remuneration received by the management company for the exercise of that position, deducting the remuneration that the representative has already declared for being a representative.
- On the other hand, the intermediary company recovers the Corporate Income Tax (IS) paid on the remuneration received as director.
Related-party transaction
At market prices
Another situation that may arise is that the tax authorities consider that there is a related-party transaction (for services provided by the agent to the management company of which the agent is a majority shareholder) which should therefore be valued at arm’s length.
Internal comparable
In these cases, in order to determine the market value, the tax authorities usually use the comparable free price method, taking as an internal comparable the amount of remuneration that the management company receives for carrying out its duties.
In other words, the tax authorities consider that the individual representative should receive the same remuneration for his functions as that received by the management company for the exercise of the directorship.
Primary adjustments
If it turns out that the representative is being paid less, the following primary adjustments are made:
- It increases the representative’s personal income tax base (by increasing his taxable income) by the difference in valuation.
- And it reduces the IS tax base of the management company due to the higher chargeable expense.
Secondary adjustment
In addition, the tax authorities make a second adjustment so that the price difference in relation to the market value is taxed according to its economic nature.
In this case, since there is a partner/partnership relationship between the two parties, this price difference in favour of the partnership should be classified as:
- Contribution to equity for the part that is proportional to the share of the representative in the company.
- Income for the company for the part that does not correspond to the representative.
Is there a link between the representative and the company?
It could be questioned whether in these cases it is correct to apply the rule on related-party transactions, since the Corporate Income Tax Act itself considers the directors and administrators of an entity to be related to it, except in respect of the remuneration for the exercise of their functions.
However, in this case, the functions performed by the representative are not strictly speaking those of a director, but rather they are functions performed outside and outside the functions of that position, so the tax authorities can require their valuation at market prices.
Penalty regime
Similar regularisation
Simulation or linking
As you can see, the impact on the representative’s IRPF and on the IS of the management company are similar whether the tax authorities regularise the situation “by simulation” or “by related-party transactions”.
Only if the representative’s shareholding in the company is less than 100% may there be a higher cost in the second case – derived from the secondary adjustment and the existence of liberalities – forcing the company to declare higher income.
More penalties with tying
In terms of penalties, in general the tax impact of an adjustment for connected transactions is higher than in the case of a simulation.
Check what the costs are in your case and do your best to have the inspector regularise the situation in the least burdensome way for you.
Penalty for simulation
Fraudulent methods
Please note that in the case of simulation, given that the Inland Revenue considers that fraudulent methods have been used (in this case, an intermediary company), it considers the offence committed to be very serious and can therefore impose higher penalty percentages (between 100 and 150%).
Netting
However, the tax authorities must net the basis for the penalty.
In other words, it must calculate it by the difference between the higher IRPF tax payable by the representative and the IS tax paid in excess by the management company.
Do not allow it to take as the basis for the penalty only the amount of IRPF not paid by the representative.
As a result, the final penalty is greatly reduced.
Penalty if there is a related-party transaction
Obligation to document?
If the tax authorities treat the transaction as a related-party transaction and value it at market prices, the applicable penalty will depend on whether or not there was an obligation to document:
- If there was an obligation to document and it was not documented, a penalty of 15% of the adjustment to the representative’s personal income tax base is applicable, and the penalty for failure to pay is not applicable.
- If there was no obligation to document, the penalty for non-payment of between 50 and 100% of the total amount of personal income tax not paid is applicable. It is not possible to net the basis for the penalty.
Due to this method of calculation, in most cases the penalty resulting from the Inspectorate considering that a related-party transaction has not been correctly valued is higher than the penalty resulting from considering that there is simulation.
Remember
Establish a remuneration for the position of representative similar to that being received by the management company.
This will avoid the perception of simulation or a mispriced related party transaction.