Tax Law

Tax incentives for early-stage innovation investors

HomePrivate: BlogCommercial lawCorporate lawTax incentives for early-stage innovation investors

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

2–3 minutes

The Australian Government has tabled the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Bill 2016 (Bill) to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA).  The purpose of the Bill is to encourage innovation and foster an entrepreneurial and risk taking culture.  According to the summary of the first reading of the Bill it seeks to address the difficulties faced in raising capital by many Australian Early Stage Innovation Companies (ESICs), by connecting relevant start-ups with investors that have both the requisite funds and business experience to assist entrepreneurs in developing successful and innovative companies.

What changes does the Bill propose?

The Bill creates a new Subdivision 360-A ‘Tax incentives for early stage investors in innovation companies’, of the ITAA which allows entities that acquire newly issued shares in a qualifying ESIC to receive a non-refundable carry-forward tax offset of 20 per cent of the value of their investment subject to a maximum offset cap of $200,000. In addition, investors may disregard capital gains realised on shares in qualifying ESICs that have been held for between one (1) and ten (10) years, and must disregard any capital losses realised on these shares held for less than ten (10) years.

What investments qualify for the scheme?

Qualifying investors must invest directly, or through a company, trust or partnership in qualifying shares of the ESIC. Qualifying shares are newly issued equity interests in the ESIC. Whilst there are no restrictions on the investor’s residency, the investor must not be affiliated with the ESIC.

Moreover, there is total annual investment limit of $50,000 for retail (non-sophisticated) investors. Moreover, the investor must not be affiliated with the ESIC.

What is a qualifying ESIC?

Qualifying ESICs are Australian-incorporated companies that pass a two-limb test:

  1. The early stage limb – the company must be in the early stage of its development. A company will satisfy this limb if:
    1. it has been recently incorporated or registered in the Australian Business Register; and
    2. it has total expenses of $1 million or less; and
    3. it has assessable income of $200,000 or less; and
    4. it is not listed on a stock exchange.
  2. The innovation limb – the company must be developing new or significantly improved innovations with the purpose of commercialisation to generate an economic return. To satisfy this test, a company can either:
    1. fulfil a principle-based definition (which takes into account matters such as the company’s potential for high growth); or
    2. have at least 100 points for meeting certain objective activity-based criteria.

If enacted when will the amendments commence?

The Bill is proposed to commence on 1 July 2016.  In four (4) years the Government aims to review the tax incentive to determine if it is delivering on its policy outcomes. There may even be scope to extend the incentive to indirect investments through an Australian Innovation Fund, depending on stakeholder feedback.

Links and further references

Legislation

Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Bill 2016

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth)

Other links

ESIC Directory

Further information about corporate law

If you need advice to ensure that an investment in your early stage investment company is likely comply, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion: 


Related insights about corporate law

  • Drag-along provisions challenged in Mobile Asset Case

    Drag-along provisions challenged in Mobile Asset Case

    The case of Mobile Asset Holdings Ltd [2026] ATP 7 (Mobile Asset Case) concerned a proposed special resolution to insert drag-along and tag-along rights into the company constitution of Mobile Asset Holdings Ltd ACN 614 791 043 (Mobile Asset).[1]  Ultimately, the Australian Takeovers Panel (Panel) decided that Mobile Asset could not hold a general meeting…

    Read more …

  • Breach of duties as oppression – Our Jim & Felicja Superfund v Lindenfels

    Breach of duties as oppression – Our Jim & Felicja Superfund v Lindenfels

    The case of Our Jim & Felicja Superfund Pty Ltd as trustee for the Jim & Felicja Superannuation Fund v Lindenfels Pte Ltd [2026] FCA 307 (Superfund v Lindenfels) is a reminder that shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth) (Corporations Act) must be established on its own terms, particularly where a…

    Read more …

  • What ASIC’s new DIN laws mean for Australian directors

    What ASIC’s new DIN laws mean for Australian directors

    The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has announced that, from 1 July 2027, obligations surrounding director identification numbers (Director IDs) will change.  The amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) which are set to commence will require that companies provide Director IDs to ASIC.  This article will briefly explain the function of…

    Read more …

  • WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…

    Read more …

  • Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 (ACCC v TPG), the High Court of Australia (High Court) drew a distinction between mere puffery and representations with the intention of marketing.  This article explores the decision in ACCC v TPG and the distinction between puffery and…

    Read more …

  • Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    The Federal Court recently dismissed Australia Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) claim in Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490 (ASIC v Nuix) that Nuix Limited breached its obligations under section 674 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  Nuix Limited (Nuix) successfully contested ASIC’s allegation that it had breached…

    Read more …

  • Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    Modern awards and enterprise agreements set out the minimum terms and conditions of employment for most Australian workers performing different roles.  The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) provides a mechanism by which an employer and an individual employee may, by agreement, adjust the operation of certain terms in their Award to better suit theircircumstances. …

    Read more …

  • Coercive control and shareholder oppression

    Coercive control and shareholder oppression

    The Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Qld) came into effect on 18 March 2024, by adding chapter 29A to the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (Criminal Code).  This chapter establishes a separate offence of “coercive control’, which stems from domestic violence offences and involves the use of…

    Read more …

  • Overview of the Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026

    Overview of the Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026

    On 1 April 2026, the Australian Government introduced the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 (Cth) (Bill) to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and Australian Consumer Law (ACL).[1]  If passed, the reform will take effect on 1 July 2027.  The Bill’s amendments aim to protect consumers from manipulative…

    Read more …

Send this to a friend