Clara Demers
Manager | Management consulting

When it comes to business transfers, setting up a family council can be a winning strategy for ensuring the sustainability of a business.

Over the next few years, many Quebec businesses will be transferred to buyers from within the family circle.

In some cases, it’s also possible that external buyers will also be involved, but the fact remains the same: multigenerational management is an issue that family businesses must face.

Starting an entrepreneurial succession process is a long and complex project. In the context of a family succession, the stakes, emotions and feelings are put to the test. It’s like airing problems and issues that are usually private.

Preserving the harmony thanks to a family council

The family council is a key structure when the family grows and the family-business relationship becomes more complex. It provides an opportunity for family members to express themselves. However, setting up a family council is not automatic.

It’s important to understand the family history, ties and relationships between family members. When we undertake a business succession assignment, it’s essential to have a human approach and a proper grasp of all aspects involved.

This is even more true in a family succession context. It’s almost like interfering in people’s private and professional lives; some discussions will be easy, but others will be more difficult and painful. The complexity of the case will determine whether or not to involve a family council. In complex family succession cases, a family council can be very useful for all parties involved.

What is seen in most cases is that when the future management team, which includes external members and others from within the family circle, meets, some things may be left unsaid. And if they are not addressed, these unspoken things can be detrimental to the proper functioning of the management team. That’s where the family council may have a role to play.

When setting up the family council, it’s important to define a broad framework and structure that includes all family members. It’s also essential to identify a common goal. Achieving this goal requires active listening and honest participation by all.

The family council’s mission is to preserve family harmony while ensuring the business’s stability. To achieve this, everything depends on good communication between the participants.

The family council as a place of exchange

Our approach to the practice is very human; our desire is to satisfy everyone, and in order to achieve this, we must let everyone express themselves and hear them. We set up a family council in which we play the role of mediator. This council meets about twice a year and offers all family members the opportunity to share their opinions and resolve certain situations.

The family council is an ideal place to communicate, exchange and set policies and procedures concerning family members, such as hiring them in the organization.

Family council sessions are not family meetings; their purpose is to resolve situations and address concerns. In a family succession context, there is tension and disagreement. Our role is to guide these meetings, but to do so, all family members must be present.

Family councils are opportunities for everyone to express themselves and be heard. It’s not about interfering in family life, but rather it’s a window where everyone can speak and be heard.

What do the external buyers think?

This approach is very well received by external parties taking over, who encourage and respect this practice. It’s also in their interest to put all the chances on their side to ensure the sustainability of the business. Moreover, the family council is not a decision-making forum, so this does not bother external buyers who are in favour of such an action. Instead, it helps preserve harmony.

Preparing the next generation

The family council also helps to raise awareness and prepare the future generation that will take over the business. By valuing members, they act on the family’s behalf to preserve its heritage, which will have a positive impact on the company’s sustainability.

For more information, feel free to contact our team.

22 Jan 2020  |  Written by :

Clara Demers is your expert in management consulting at Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton. Contact her...

See the profile

Next article

Building on the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative that culminated in the Multilateral Instrument (MLI), which has achieved fundamental changes to treaties, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Secretariat continues to pursue an in-depth and comprehensive international tax reform.

In the fall of 2019, the OECD’s Secretariat issued a consultation document on digital taxation (“Pillar 1”). This document proposed new taxation rules to ensure that digital businesses pay tax in the jurisdictions in which they operate even if they do not have a traditional physical presence (nexus or a permanent establishment).

In November2019, the OECD Secretariat issued the Global Anti-Base Erosion Proposal (GloBe”) – Pillar 2 document in which it outlined its proposals to further reform international taxation. As discussed below, the proposals are far-reaching, and the OECD has received over 3,000 pages of feedback from various stakeholders.

Pillar Two’s objective is to implement a worldwide minimum income tax system and to ensure that there is also a minimum amount of cash tax is paid by multinationals (MNEs). At this time, the Secretariat has not indicated an income threshold; hence, it could apply to larger MNEs (for example those that are subject to transfer pricing country-by-country (CbC) rules because their sales are greater than €750 million) and to smaller entities. Also, the Pillar Two proposal has not specified what the minimum target income tax rate should be.

Components of Pillar Two – GloBE

The four components of the GloBE are:

  • An income inclusion rule to allow a jurisdiction to tax the income of a foreign branch or a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) if that income is taxed at an effective rate that is below the minimum rate;
  • An undertaxed payments rule to deny a deduction or impose a withholding tax on payments to a related party if that payment is taxed at an effective rate that is below the minimum rate;
  • A switch-over rule to support the income inclusion rule that would introduce a treaty provision that would allow a switch from an exemption to a credit method if income of a permanent establishment (PE) is taxed at an effective rate that is below the minimum rate. This rule could also apply to immoveable properties that are not part of a PE;
  • A subject to tax rule to support the undertaxed payment rule by subjecting payments that are taxed at a rate below the minimum rate subject to withholding tax and/or by denying the tax treaties’ benefits.

There is a significant overlap between the four components of GloBE and it is far from clear how they will interact with each other or whether countries will be provided a choice as to the means to be used to achieve the Pillar Two objective of establishing a minimum effective tax rate.

Tax base and consolidated financial statements

The GloBE suggests that consolidated financial statements should be used to determine the tax base. The use of consolidated financial statement raises a number of issues, such as:

  • The choice of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) to be used (US, Japanese, International Financial Reporting Standards or local GAAP);
  • The impact of items denominated in foreign currencies on the Currency Translation Account (CTA);
  • The taxation of foreign exchange operations and the choice of currency for the payment of taxes;
  • The impact of permanent and temporary differences;
  • The appropriateness of changes to the tax base as a result of accounting principle changes;
  • The ability to audit consolidated financial statements by local taxation authorities;
  • The ability to standardize tax rules – for example to take into account the diversity of tax treatment for the deductibility of stock-based compensation, the deductibility of interest expense, etc.

Interaction between Pillar One and Pillar Two

The interaction between Pillar One and Pillar Two proposals is unclear. Presumably, Pillar One on digital taxation would apply to a MNE before Pillar Two applies. Therefore, it would seem logical that any taxes paid as a result of the application of Pillar One would be taken into account in computing the minimum taxes paid on income. However, the interaction and the interdependency of the two Pillars need clarification.

Another critical element that has not been addressed is to determine how and where the tax would be collected according to the organisational structure of the company. We believe that the GloBE proposal should be applied at the ultimate parent level. For example, A owns B and B owns C. A would apply the GloBE provisions to the income generated by B and by C. And, as long as A applies the GloBE proposal to the income generated by B and by C, B would not apply the provisions to the income generated by C. However, the proposal could also be interpreted as being applicable at each level in the organisational structure where a branch or a subsidiary is controlled by a member of the group. The determination of which legal entity or entities in the group are within the scope of the proposal is another critical issue that needs to be addressed. A bottoms-up approach toward taxation at each level in the organisational structure would be immensely complex and time consuming for taxpayers.

Lastly, the interaction with a particular jurisdiction’s CFC rules must be taken into account, otherwise, double or triple taxation could arise.

Too soon for GloBE?

As noted above, BEPS has introduced important changes to tax systems within the OECD. As a result, significant measures to protect countries’ tax base have recently been introduced in various countries including the following:

  • Interest deductibility rules (generally based on a percentage of EBITDA – earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization);
  • CFC legislation that should contribute to achieve a minimum taxation rate if it is properly implemented;
  • Anti-hybrid legislation that eliminates tax arbitrage obtained from exploiting various tax classifications by the countries;
  • Tightening of rules to limit tax benefits that may be obtained with regard to intellectual property;
  • The introduction of a principal purpose test in tax treaties which will greatly limit the ability to obtain lower withholding tax rates in the source jurisdiction if taxpayers do not have substantive economic presence in the country of residence via the MLI;
  • Modifications to transfer pricing guidelines (BEPS action items 8-10);
  • Tax treaty provisions regarding PE status (BEPS action 7).

We believe that the OECD should continue to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of these recently introduced changes and should continue to study measures that reform international taxation with approaches similar to GloBE or Pillar One proposals.

If the enacted measures outlined above do not achieve the tax policy objectives of protecting national taxation bases and of having MNEs paying a minimum tax due to meaningful CFC legislation, the introduction of GloBE type measures should then be seen as a means to this end.

Torn world – is there sufficient consensus to implement international tax changes?

The Pillar One and the Pillar Two proposals can only be achieved if there is a consensus among jurisdictions – otherwise double taxation will result.

In early December, the US Treasury Secretary indicated that the US has “serious concerns” with respect to certain aspects of Pillar One (digital taxation) proposals that could constitute a mandatory departure from the arm’s length principle and from the related nexus rules. The Secretary also announced that the US fully supports a GILTI-like Pillar Two proposal (“Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income” ) – perhaps by restricting the type of changes that the US is likely to accept in order to reach a consensus on reforming international taxation.

International taxation and digital taxation will continue to fuel discussions within the international community, including G20. For example, the Office of the US Trade Representatives (USTR) outlined a proposal on December 2 to impose additional duties of US$2.4 billion on French products (including champagne, cheese, cast-iron cookware) in response to the recently introduced French digital service tax.

For a more in-depth discussion of the issues raised by the GloBE proposals, please consult our detailed comments to the OECD.

21 Jan 2020  |  Written by :

Marie-Pierre Pelletier is a taxation expert at Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton. Contact her today!

See the profile

Next article

We begin this third edition of 2019 by considering the amendments issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Interest Rate Benchmark Reform (amendments to IFRS 9 Financial Instruments, IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement and IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures).

We then look at the current IASB Exposure Drafts that are out for comment and move on to IFRS related news at Grant Thornton and other news.

We conclude with a summary of the implementation dates of recently issued standards.

A list of the documents currently out for comment by the IASB and their respective comment deadlines is available at ifrs.org.

We are currently finalizing a new publication strategy for 2020 and, as a result, some of our publications will change in the upcoming months. Watch this space!

Download the document below.

Next article

Would you like to reduce your income taxes? Although tax planning should be a year-long activity, there is still some time left to implement a few tax strategies that will help reduce your tax bill.

Furthermore, there are certain new measures coming into effect beginning in 2020 that should be taken into consideration.

The following are a few simple, effective strategies that can be implemented before the end of 2019 or early in 2020.

Don’t hesitate to contact your Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton advisor who can help you determine the measures that apply to your situation.

Read the document below.