AIMA

The Alternative Investment Management Association

Alternative Investment Management Association Representing the global hedge fund industry

Independent Agent Exemption for Discretionary Investment Managers

Stuart Porter, Akemi Kito and Jan-Erik Velse

PricewaterhouseCoopers, Tokyo

Q1 2008

As widely announced, Japan’s 2008 tax reforms introduced an independent agent exemption into Japanese tax law with effect from 1 April 2008. Reaction to the changes by foreign fund managers with business operations in Japan or those contemplating set-up and Japanese fund managers seeking to expand their foreign investor base, has been universally positive. This article summarises the background to the reform and the guidance subsequently issued by the Financial Services Agency (FSA).

Background

On 21 December 2007, the FSA announced the basic concepts of a plan for strengthening the competitiveness of Japan's financial and capital markets. Part of the plan called for encouraging foreign fund managers to participate in Japanese markets by removing taxation risk of the fund, in carrying out business through independent agents in Japan.

Under Japanese law, a non-Japanese resident may cause a permanent establishment (PE) to arise, where it conducted business through an agent in Japan who acted in a discretionary capacity on its behalf, regarding the conclusion or negotiation of contracts (Agent PE). For Japanese fund managers, unlike many other jurisdictions and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Model Tax Convention on Income, and on Capital (Model Tax Convention), Japan had neither a general independent agent exemption nor the equivalent of a safe harbour trading rule or investment management exemption, for the management of foreign registered and domiciled funds (Foreign Funds) by Japanese based advisers. Since many Foreign Funds were not themselves eligible under a double tax treaty with Japan or were not considered qualified for tax exempt status, pursuant to Japanese tax principles, this lack of an OECD standard independent agent exemption, under Japanese law created a tax exposure for Foreign Funds and their investors, where the Japanese based investment advisers acted formally or in practice as decision makers. By comparison, other major fund management centres have safe harbour rules that allow investment managers to invest and trade in securities on behalf of Foreign Funds, within set parameters, without subjecting them to the risk of Agent PE taxation.

In practice, this risk contributed to the restriction of investment management activities in Japan and often the location of regional investment managers in Hong Kong and Singapore, with the Japan team acting as nondiscretionary advisers/researchers. The graph below highlights that whilst the number of licensed investment advisory companies increased significantly, from 195 in 1987 to over 800 by mid-2007, the number of discretionary investment management companies stagnated.

Registered investment advisory companies (IA) and discretionary investment management companies (DIM)

PwC

Source: Japan Securities Investment Advisers Association

Change to Japanese Tax Law

The definition of an Agent PE was amended for Japanese tax law purposes to exclude:

“…a person who conducts business activities associated with the business of the foreign corporation independently of the foreign corporation….and in the ordinary course of his business”

This exemption is broadly in line with Article 5 of the OECD’s Model Tax Convention and is consistent with many other taxation regimes of OECD member countries. However, the amendment did not contain any language specifically defining the scope of the exception, nor did the change provide a safe harbour for certain activities conducted by an agent in Japan. Rather, a case-by-case analysis as to the independence of each agent is required. Further commentary and the equivalence of a safe harbour rule for Foreign Funds came with the issuance of the guidance following the press release by the FSA on 27 June 2008, outlining a collection of “Reference Cases” and a “Q&A” on practical application together with the “Guidance” and a subsequent joint presentation, entitled “Minimising the PE Risk of Fund Managers” by the FSA, the National Tax Agency (NTA) and the Ministry of Finance (MOF) held on 4 July 2008.

The Guidance: Independent Agent and the Four Tests

Independent Agent

The Guidance starts with the OECD standard in the Model Tax Convention. For an agent to be considered an independent agent, such agent must be legally and economically independent and must be acting in the ordinary course of its business when providing services as an agent.

Whether an agent is independent is a question of facts and circumstances; however, the Guidance provides the following indications of what facts would be relevant in making this determination:

Legal independence • The agent must have sufficient discretion to act as an agent, relying on its own special skill and knowledge in carrying out the role of agent, and not be subject to detailed instructions or to comprehensive control by the principal.
• An agent who is a subsidiary of the principal does not, of itself, preclude the agent from being independent of its parent company.

Economical independence • An element of entrepreneurial risk must be borne by the agent.
• Whilst not determinative, the number of principals represented by the agent is relevant, as is the dependency on a single principal for the agent’s income.

Ordinary course of Business • This is to be considered by examining the business activities that the agent customarily carries out when acting as an agent.

The Four Tests for a Discretionary Investment Manager

The Reference Cases then clarify the meaning of an independent agent in the context of an investment management business, i.e., restricted to where a foreign general partner (FGP) or foreign investment manager (FIM) of a Foreign Fund enters into a discretionary investment agreement with a Japanese discretionary investment manager (DIM) registered under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Law, and the DIM conducts certain investment activities.

These four tests are more of a safe harbour rule where the circumstances apply; since meeting the four tests is taken as satisfying the meaning of an independent agent in the context of a discretionary fund management business.
Where applicable, the DIM will be treated as an independent agent of the Foreign Fund if it satisfies all of the following four tests:

1. “Detailed instruction” testThe FIM may provide broad discretion to the DIM but not detailed instructions; and the DIM must have enough discretion to make decisions when acting as an agent in order to be considered legally independent. The Guidance then states that the DIM should have enough discretion to make decisions on - the kind, issues, amounts or prices of securities to be invested, including the contents and timing of any derivative transactions to be conducted, as well as whether the securities shall be purchased or sold, by what method and at what timing. The Guidance also provides examples of the application of this test in the areas of risk management, asset allocation, investment restrictions (e.g., negative limits), investment policy, investment approvals, exchange of information and oversight.

2. “Shared officers” testOne half or more officers of the DIM should not concurrently serve as officers or employees of the FGP or the FIM.

3. “Remuneration” testThe DIM receives remuneration that adequately reflects its contributions made; and a DIM will fail this test if it does not receive remuneration which corresponds to the amount of the total assets to be invested under the discretion of the DIM or the investment income of the Foreign Fund.

4. “Diversification capacity” testThe DIM should have capacity to diversify its business or to acquire other clients, without fundamentally altering the way the DIM conducts its business or losing economic rationality for its business where the DIM exclusively or almost exclusively, deals with the Foreign Fund or the FIM (with exceptions for a start up period).

 


Concluding Comments

Scope

The Guidance is limited to Foreign Funds that are established as foreign partnerships or foreign corporations without access to any double tax treaty with Japan. Moreover, the Guidance only applies to specific investment activities, by which is meant activities of portfolio investment and these do not extend to the advisory or management of investments particularly of note covering private equity, real estate and non-performing loans where, by comparison with portfolio investment, income is generated through control of the investment. However, the approach to an independent agent in the Guidance should generally assist in principle in the application of the equivalent OECD/treaty based test from the Japanese perspective.

Flexibility

The NTA has been willing to respond to individual enquiries by fund managers, either in the form of an advance confirmation (written responses) or confirmation with a relevant tax office (oral response), in the application of the four tests including where, for certain reasons, a Foreign Fund or FIMs circumstances may not strictly meet all of the four tests and some flexibility is being sought.

Policy Changes and Final Remarks

This tax reform does not eliminate the Agent PE taxation risks for Foreign Funds or the need to manage these risks. However, it does generally align Japan’s taxation policy in this regard with the approach of the OECD and in global fund management centres.

The reform process was notable for the active involvement of the FSA in framing Japanese tax policy in consultation with MOF and the NTA, and also for the collaborative consultation that involved discussions amongst government agencies, industry bodies (including AIMA), advisers, asset managers and other interested parties.

Finally, it does remain to be seen whether this change itself will lead investment managers repatriating to Japan, as moving away from the prevailing model of having the Japan team acting as nondiscretionary advisers/researchers does bring enhanced regulatory oversight, compliance costs, and a higher individual tax burden for portfolio managers residing in Japan and corporate tax costs for the DIM.

Back to Listing

Main Menu

  1. Home
  2. About
    1. Our Core Objectives
    2. AIMA's Policy Principles
    3. Meet the team
    4. AIMA Council
    5. Global Network
    6. Sponsoring Members
    7. Global Partners
    8. FAQs
    9. Opportunities at AIMA
  3. Join AIMA
    1. Benefits of Membership
    2. Membership Fees
    3. Application form
  4. Members
    1. AIMA Annual Reports
    2. AIMA Governance
    3. AIMA Logo
      1. Policy note
    4. AIMA Members' List
    5. AIMA Review of the Year
    6. Committees and Working Groups
    7. Weekly News
    8. Update Profile
  5. Investors
    1. AIMA Investor Services
    2. AIMA Members' List
    3. Investor Steering Committee
    4. Update Profile
  6. Regulation
    1. AIMA's Policy Principles
    2. Asset Management Regulation
      1. EU Asset Management Regulation
        1. AIFMD
        2. European Capital Markets Regulation
        3. MiFID / MiFIR
        4. UCITS
          1. ETFs and Structured UCITS
        5. Venture Capital
        6. Shareholder Rights Directive
      2. US Hedge Fund Adviser Regulations
        1. Registration and Reporting
        2. Incentive-Based Compensation
        3. JOBS Act
      3. Asia Pacific Asset Management regulation
      4. Other Jurisdictions’ Asset Management Regulation
      5. Regulation of NBFCs / SIFIS
      6. Supervision
        1. UK regulatory reform
        2. European Supervisory Authorities
        3. US Self-Regulatory Organisations
      7. Remuneration
        1. UK
        2. US
        3. CRD IV and CRR
        4. AIFMD
        5. MiFID
      8. Shadow Banking
      9. Volcker Rule
      10. Other
    3. Markets Regulation
      1. Bank/Capital Regulation
        1. Capital Requirements Directive
        2. EU Bank Structural Reforms
      2. Derivatives/Clearing
        1. EMIR
        2. MiFID / MiFIR
        3. MAD / MAR
        4. Dodd-Frank Act Title VII
        5. Hong Kong
        6. IOSCO
        7. Singapore
      3. High Frequency Trading
        1. ESMA Guidelines
        2. MiFID / MiFIR
        3. MAD / MAR
        4. Flash Crash
        5. IOSCO
        6. Germany
        7. CFTC Automated Trading
      4. Insurance Regulation
        1. Solvency II
      5. Market Abuse
        1. MAD / MAR
        2. Indices as Benchmarks
      6. Position Limits
        1. MiFID / MiFIR
        2. CFTC Position Limits
      7. Resolution of Financial Institutions
        1. Europe
          1. EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive
          2. EU Non-Bank Recovery and Resolution
        2. CPSS-IOSCO
        3. Financial Stability Board
        4. UK
        5. USA
      8. Short Selling
        1. EU Short Selling Regulation
        2. Hong Kong Short Selling Regulation
        3. US Short Selling Regulation
        4. Short Selling Bans
      9. Securities Settlement
      10. Shadow Banking
        1. International Shadow Banking
        2. EU Shadow Banking
      11. Trading
        1. MiFID / MiFIR
        2. Dodd-Frank Act
    4. Tax Affairs
      1. EU Savings Directive
      2. FAIFs and FINROFs
      3. FATCA
      4. FIN 48 and IAS 12
      5. Financial Transaction Tax
      6. Investment Manager Exemption
      7. UK Offshore Funds Regime
      8. Other
    5. Search
    6. Resources
      1. Guidance Notes
      2. Jurisdictional Guides
      3. Noticeboard
        1. BEPS
        2. Dealing Commission
        3. Derivatives
        4. FATCA
        5. FTT
        6. High Frequency Trading
        7. MiFID / MiFIR
        8. Other Hot Asset Management Topics
        9. Other Hot Markets Topics
        10. Position Limits
        11. Trading
        12. UK Partnership Tax Review
        13. Volcker Rule
      4. Hedge Fund Manager Training
      5. Quarterly Regulatory Update
      6. Webinar Programme
      7. Regulatory Compliance Association
        1. About the Regulatory Compliance Association
        2. RCA Curricula and initiatives for alternative investment firms
        3. Meet the regulators and Sr. Fellows
  7. Education
    1. AIMA Journal
      1. Recent issues
      2. Search AIMA Journal articles
      3. AIMA Journal Archive
    2. The Extra Mile: Partnerships between Hedge Funds and Investors
    3. 'Apples and apples' - How to better understand hedge fund performance
    4. AIMA/KPMG reports on state of global hedge fund industry
    5. Roadmap to Hedge Funds
    6. ‘Capital Markets and Economic Growth – Long-Term Trends and Policy Challenges'
    7. Guides for institutional investment
    8. Industry-standard DDQs
    9. Sound Practices
    10. Industry Guides
    11. CAIA
      1. FAI
    12. Services to Start-up Managers
    13. Useful Websites
    14. 'The Alternative Answer'
    15. Glossary
    16. AIMA's Investor Steering Committee Paper
  8. Events
    1. AIMA Events
    2. AIMA webinars
    3. Industry events
  9. Media
    1. Press Releases & Statements
    2. AIMA's blog
    3. Media Coverage
      1. Articles by AIMA
        1. Archive
      2. AIMA in the news
      3. Video interviews
      4. Industry news
    4. Media Contacts
    5. Press Materials

Sub Menu

  1. Education
    1. AIMA Journal
    2. Bibliography
    3. CAIA Designation
    4. Research
    5. Roadmap to Hedge Funds
    6. AIMA's Investor Steering Committee Paper
    7. Glossary
  2. Regulatory, Tax, Policy & Government Affairs
    1. AIMA Position Papers
    2. AIMA Responses
      1. Australian Tax Office
      2. Authority for the Financial Markets
      3. Committee of European Banking Supervisors
      4. Committee of European Securities Regulators
      5. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
      6. Dubai Financial Services Authority
      7. European Commission
      8. European Securities and Markets Authority
      9. Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority
      10. Financial Services Authority (UK)
      11. Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau
      12. Guernsey Financial Services Commission
      13. HM Revenue & Customs
      14. HM Treasury
      15. Independent Commission on Banking
      16. IOSCO
      17. Monetary Authority of Singapore
      18. Securities and Exchange Board of India
      19. Securities and Exchange Commission (USA)
      20. Securities and Futures Commission
      21. Singapore Exchange
      22. The Takeover Panel
      23. US House of Representatives / Senate
      24. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
      25. Financial Stability Oversight Council
      26. Financial Stability Board
      27. US Treasury
      28. Internal Revenue Service
      29. US Federal Reserve
      30. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)
      31. Council of European Union
      32. Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing
      33. House of Lords
    3. AIMA Summaries
      1. CESR
      2. European Commission
      3. Financial Services Authority (UK)
      4. HM Revenue & Customs
      5. HM Treasury
      6. IOSCO
      7. Securities and Exchanges Commission
      8. FSOC
      9. CFTC
    4. Guidance Notes
    5. Jurisdictional Resource
    6. AIMA Noticeboard
      1. EU Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers
      2. FSA Remuneration Code
      3. Short Selling
      4. US Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
      5. UK Stewardship Code
      6. Securities Law Directive
      7. EU Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers - Level II
      8. EU Directive on Markets in Financial Instruments (MiFID)
      9. International Financial Centres
      10. Bribery Act
      11. Market Abuse Directive
      12. MF Global
      13. FATCA
      14. FTT
      15. Other Tax Issues
    7. AIMA Regulatory Update
  3. Sound Practices
    1. Due Diligence Questionnaires
    2. Guides to Sound Practices
  4. Start-Up Service Providers
  5. Useful Websites