Tax: Changing the foundations
Recent changes have liberalised the Swiss foundation law, bringing in greater tax advantages
April 26, 2006 at 08:03 PM
5 minute read
Switzerland's Foundation Law changed at the beginning of this year, thanks to a raft of statutory amendments which liberalised the regime. Under the Swiss federal tax law, the limit on tax deductions for donations to charitable foundations has been increased from 10% to 20% of the net income (natural persons) or the net profits (legal entities) of donors. The cantons are still allowed to set their own limits. Under the previous law, only cash contributions were deductible. Now, however, the value of donations of other kinds of assets is also deductible. Consequently, the making of other kinds of donations, especially real estate, intangible property (e.g. software) and artworks, will be simplified and promoted.
The law now recognises, for the first time, that charitable foundations do not render a service subject to VAT if they list the name of the donor and the name of his or her company or its logo in a neutral form in publications (such as advertising). The same applies if the beneficiary of a charitable foundation refers to the charitable foundation in publications in the same manner. According to the revised laws, donations of money or property with a value of up to 20% of the net profits of a corporation, limited liability company or a mutual company to a charitable organisation may be justified as business expenses and should, therefore, not be considered a concealed profit distributed to a closely related third-party.
The law also introduced a new audit requirement. An independent auditor must review the accounting records and assets of a foundation annually and issue an audit report. In order to make the audit possible, the law also includes a new obligation to maintain accounting records and imposes the same recordkeeping requirements applicable to corporations on foundations. The Federal Council issued a regulation concerning the independent auditors of foundations which exempts some foundations from the audit requirement and imposes more stringent requirements on others. The relevant supervisory authority can excuse a foundation from the audit requirement if it does not publicly seek donations and for two consecutive years its total assets were less than SFR200,000 (£90,000).
Foundations which (i) publicly solicit donations and in two consecutive fiscal years have received donations in excess of SFR100,000 (£45,000); (ii) in two consecutive fiscal years exceed two of the following measures: total assets in excess of SFR10 million (£4m), turnover in excess of SFR20 million (£8m), 50 full-time employees; (iii) are required to prepare consolidated financial reports; or (iv) have outstanding debt securities, are required to appoint a specially qualified auditor. The new audit requirements should lead to more transparency and reduce the work of supervisory authorities. It should increase the public's confidence in foundations, especially charitable ones.
The previous Foundation Law lacked a catalogue of duties to be observed in the case of over-indebtedness or impending insolvency. Now the law borrows the rule from corporate law that the ultimate management body is required to prepare interim balance sheets based on liquidation values and to deliver them to the auditors if there are justifiable reasons to believe the foundation is over-indebted or over the longer term can no longer meet its obligations. If the auditors determine that the foundation is, in fact, over-indebted or that it cannot meet its obligations over the long term, the interim balance sheet must be submitted to the supervisory authority. The supervisory authority will require the ultimate management body to initiate remedial measures and if it does not do so, the supervisory authority will itself initiate these measures.
Significant flexibility is provided by the introduction of the concept of a reservation of the right to change the purpose of the foundation. A donor can, at the time of establishment of the foundation, reserve the right to change its purpose. This makes it possible, after the lapse of 10 years from establishment or, if applicable, the last change of purpose, for a change of purposes to be made by the responsible federal or cantonal authority at the donor's request. If the foundation has a charitable or public purpose and is therefore not subject to taxation, then the new purpose must continue to make its tax-free status possible. If the foundation was established by a donor which is a legal entity, then the right to change the foundation's purpose expires after 20 years. The Association of Grantmaking Foundations in Switzerland issued its Swiss Code of Best Foundations Practice which sets forth 22 recommendations for the good governance of foundations.
The liberalisation of the Foundation Law is essentially positive. It results in more readily available tax advantages. The introduction of minimum accounting standards and mandatory audits increases transparency. The regulations concerning over-indebtedness and insolvency are a first step towards improved protections for creditors. Overall, the liberalisation helps Switzerland maintain its leading position for such institutions and has made Swiss foundations significantly more attractive.
Dr Ueli Sommer is a managing associate at Walder Wyss & Partners in Zurich.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEU Parliament Gives Blessing to New EU Competition Chief Ribera Rodríguez
2 minute readSimpson Thacher Becomes Second Firm to Launch in Luxembourg in 2 Days With A&O Shearman Hires
3 minute readHSF Hires Trio for Luxembourg Launch, Builds Private Capital Practice
To Thrive in Central and Eastern Europe, Law Firms Need to 'Know the Rules of the Game'
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250