The Supreme Administrative Court of Finland (SAC) has recently issued three rulings concerning the tax exemption regime of investment funds in section 20a of the Income Tax Act (ITA). The judgments are based on a ruling (C-342/20) by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued in spring 2022, in which the CJEU ruled that section 20a of the ITA conflicted with EU law. You can read more about that case here.
23.12.2022
New Finnish case law considering the tax exemption of foreign investment funds
Lotta Manu & Mikko Alakare
Related services
Tags
The tax exemption provision, section 20a of the ITA, entered into force in 2020. The reasoning behind the legislative change was to include the qualifying criteria for a tax-exempt investment fund in tax law. The provision states that to meet the tax exemption criteria, a foreign fund must be contractual, open-ended and open to the public as well as have at least 30 investors. In addition, alternative investment funds (AIF) are still deemed tax-exempt if their capital value is at least 2 MEUR, their investors are professional or equivalent, and they distribute at least 3/4 of their annual profits to the investors. AIFs that invest mainly in real estate assets are required to distribute at least 3/4 of their annual profits. The provision is based on the assumption that funds that are established under Finnish law automatically fulfil the criteria.
After the CJEU’s ruling, it has already been established that other than contractual funds may also be deemed tax-exempt in Finland if the fund is otherwise comparable to a Finnish tax-exempt investment fund.
SAC 2022:139
The first ruling, SAC 2022:139, was issued on 12 December 2022. The case concerned a Luxembourg FCP, a contractual umbrella fund whose sub-fund A invested mainly in real estate assets. The fund, and therefore also sub-fund A, had only one direct unitholder.
Section 20a(4) of the ITA refers to chapter 16a(4) of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Act, which provides that a special investment fund investing in real estate should have at least ten unitholders. The question before the SAC was therefore whether the sub-fund A fulfils the conditions for tax exemption, even though it has only one direct unitholder.
In its ruling, the SAC stated that, considering the wording of section 20a(4) of the ITA and the government proposal on its inclusion as well as the principle of legality in taxation, the tax exemption in this case is only conditional on the profit distribution criteria included in the wording of section 20a of the ITA. Consequently, the provision was not deemed to establish any other conditions for the tax exemption.
SAC 2022:142
The second ruling, SAC 2022:142, was issued on 14 December 2022. The case concerned the comparability of an AIF fund to a tax-exempt investment fund under section 20 of the ITA for the tax year 2019 and to an alternative investment fund under section 20a of the ITA for the tax year 2020. The relevant factor in this case was also the number of unitholders.
The fund in question was a French FPCI, a contractual alternative investment fund, which had 33 external investors in total. However, 18 of these investors belonged to a group consisting of regional banks and their group companies. In its preliminary ruling, the Central Tax Board had considered that the group was a single entity and therefore the total number of unitholders would be below the required 30, meaning that the fund would not meet the criteria for tax exemption under section 20a of the ITA.
In its ruling, the SAC held that the investor group was not to be considered a single entity. Therefore, the fund had more than 30 unitholders and fulfilled the conditions for tax exemption in this respect. For the tax year 2020, the SAC stated that, as a closed fund, to qualify for the tax exemption under section 20a(3) of the ITA, the fund must also fulfil the profit distribution criteria.
SAC 2022:138
The third recent ruling of the SAC, issued on 12 December 2022, concerned a sub-fund of a Luxembourg alternative investment fund established as an FCP. The fund invested mainly in real estate assets. The case focused on the question whether it was relevant for the comparability analysis that the fund had invested more than 1/5 of its assets in construction or development projects, which is not allowed for Finnish tax-exempt real estate funds. Even though the requirement is not spelled out in the tax exemption provision, section 20a of the ITA, the SAC concluded that since more than 1/5 of the fund’s assets were invested in development projects, the fund did not qualify for tax exemption. The court noted that the Finnish tax exemption regime for real estate investments in development projects has been capped to 1/5. Therefore, SAC stated that even if the requirement on the nature of the real estate investments may restrict the free movement of capital, it is acceptable as the fund, based on its investment structure, is not objectively comparable to a Finnish real estate fund.
Conclusions
These decisions were expected after the judgment of the CJEU in spring 2022. Following the SAC’s rulings, it is becoming even more clear that section 20a of the ITA must be interpreted taking into account the requirement of objective comparability that has been emphasised in CJEU’s case law. Although the rulings were not surprising, they provide certainty to non-resident funds considering investments in Finland.
Our experienced team is happy to discuss these cases with you in more detail and to assist you, for example, in withholding tax reclaim processes and with structuring your investments in Finland. Please do not hesitate to contact us.
Latest news
Latest references
WithSecure – Sale of open source data collection product and business
We advised WithSecure Oyj in the sale of its open source data collection product and business to Patria Oyj. The divested business combining software and services falls outside WithSecure’s current strategy. Through the sale, WithSecure sharpens its focus on the Elements portfolio. WithSecure is a global cyber security company (listed on NASDAQ OMX Helsinki) with more than 35 years of industry experience. WithSecure offers partners flexible commercial models, ensuring mutual success across the dynamic cyber security landscape. Patria is an international company in the defence and security industry offering defence, security and aviation life cycle support services and technology solutions. As a result of the transaction, Patria will open a new office in Oulu and 10 WithSecure experts currently working in the business area will join Patria.
Case published 30.9.2024
A. Ahlström – ESG advisory and corporate sustainability due diligence process planning
We advised A. Ahlström in establishing a corporate sustainability due diligence process plan which incorporates best practices and tailored solutions based on our expertise within relevant business sectors. Our comprehensive ESG offering also included tailored training for members of the investment team and management team and the board of directors of several portfolio companies. ‘The ESG team at Castrén & Snellman provided us with legal and practical advice around the ESG regulatory tsunami that we need to incorporate in our ESG work,’ comments Camilla Sågbom, Director, Sustainability and Communications, at A. Ahlström Oy. A. Ahlström is a family-owned industrial company, developing leading global specialist positions in Forest & Fiber and Environmental technology sectors.
Case published 5.9.2024
Vapaus Bikes Finland – Series A funding round
We represented Vapaus Bikes Finland Oy, a company offering employee benefit bikes, in its international EUR 10 million Series A funding round. The investors behind the funding are private equity investors Shift4Good and Superhero Capital Ltd as well as Tesi together with the European Guarantee Fund of the European Investment Bank. The equity-based funding will support the company’s international expansion, software development, platform automation, and the growth of its concept for the second-hand market of bikes. Vapaus Bikes Finland is at the forefront of sustainable mobility services and has been a pioneer in the Employee Benefit Bikes sector since late 2020. It has been ranked among Finland’s fastest growing companies. Shift4Good is an impact venture capital fund focused on the decarbonisation of the transportation sector. Tesi (officially Finnish Industry Investment Ltd) is a state-owned, market-driven investment company that invests in venture capital and private equity funds and directly in Finnish startups and growth companies.
Case published 21.8.2024
City of Rovaniemi – Former employees ordered to pay damages in an investment decision matter
We successfully acted for the City of Rovaniemi in a matter concerning offence in public office and damages claims in relation to a significant investment decision made by the city. The defendants were the city’s former municipal corporate officer, who was in an employment relationship, and a city treasurer, who was in a public-service employment relationship and acted as the supervisor of the municipal corporate officer. The criminal matter related to the City Board’s decision to invest EUR 2 million of the city’s funds in bonds offered by a newly established investment company in accordance with a decision prepared by the defendants. A significant part of the company’s operations involved quick loan business. The main legal question in the matter was whether the investment of public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and whether regulation on offences in public office therefore becomes applicable even to a person in an employment relationship. The municipal corporate officer in an employment relationship was charged with aggravated abuse of public office based on her negligence in the preparation and presentation of the investment decision as well as based on a conflict of interest due to the fact that she had invested her own money in a company that received funding from the investment target presented to the City Board. The charges of an offence in public office against the city treasurer concerned his position as the supervisor and reporter of the city’s investment activities. He was also involved in the preparation and presentation of the City Board’s decision. The processing of the matter started in the District Court of Lapland in June 2022. In its judgment given in August 2022, the District Court stated, based among other things on our argumentation, that the investment of public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and that regulation on offences in public office can therefore be applied to the municipal corporate officer. The District Court deemed that the conduct of the former municipal corporate officer fulfils the characteristics of abuse of public office and that the conduct of the former city treasurer fulfils the characteristics of violation of official duty with respect to the preparation of the investment decision, but the right to bring charges had become time-barred. Punishments could therefore not be imposed on the defendants, but the defendants were ordered to jointly and severally pay the city approximately EUR 114,000 in damages plus interest for late payment. The city treasurer’s share of the amount was 10%. The prosecutor accepted the judgment but the other parties appealed it to the Court of Appeal. Acting for the city, we pursued claims for both punishment and damages in the Court of Appeal. The Rovaniemi Court of Appeal processed the matter in November and December 2023. In its judgment given in June 2024, the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment with respect to the abuse of public office and violation of official duty. The Court of Appeal deemed that the municipal corporate officer had failed in her duty to declare the conflict of interest. In addition, she had failed in her duty to ensure that the prepared decision was in compliance with the city’s investment guidelines and that it had been properly put out to tender. The Court of Appeal also found that the text of the investment proposal was insufficient and misleading and that the municipal corporate officer’s conduct was intentional. As regards the city treasurer, the Court of Appeal held that he had failed in his duty to ensure that the investment proposal to the City Board complied with the investment guidelines, that the presentation was not misleading and that risks were taken into account as required by the investment guidelines. With the judgement, the Court of Appeal took a clear position that abuse in public offices and when exercising public authority is not acceptable. The judgment is also significant as it declares that investing public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and that the liability for acts in office therefore becomes applicable even to persons in employment relationships. In addition, a key question for the Court of Appeal to assess was defining the amount of economic damage in a matter related to investment activities. The Court of Appeal held based on our arguments that the conduct of the municipal corporate officer and the city treasurer had caused damage to the city. The Court of Appeal increased the amount of damages to EUR 210,000 with the city treasurer’s share limited to 10%. The amount was increased because the Court of Appeal deemed that the city had suffered damage not only in terms of the loss of capital but also in terms of the loss of estimated return on investment. The judgement is not final.
Case published 21.8.2024