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

  • e-Signatures – legally binding on companies?

    e-Signatures – legally binding on companies?

    E-signatures are becoming increasingly popular, but are they legally binding? Find out in this article, which examines the Adelaide Bank case and reveals the limitations of e-signatures when it comes to executing a deed. Click through to learn more.

    Read more …

  • IP contracts subject to restrictive trade practice provisions

    IP contracts subject to restrictive trade practice provisions

    Learn how the repeal of Section 51(3) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) affects businesses licensing or assigning intellectual property (IP) rights and the penalties associated with a breach with this comprehensive guide.

    Read more …

  • Company funds must be used for company purposes

    Company funds must be used for company purposes

    This article examines the legal principles behind when it is permissible to use company funds, focusing on the case of Re D G Brims and Sons Pty Ltd (1995) 16 ASCR 559, which established that company funds must only be used for company purposes and not to pay for legal costs of proceedings for the…

    Read more …

  • The running account defence to unfair preference claims

    The running account defence to unfair preference claims

    Creditors who have been paid by a customer on credit may find themselves facing an Unfair Preference claim letter from a liquidator. Learn more about the defences available to creditors and how to protect yourself from repaying more than your fair share.

    Read more …

  • Unfair preferences & the set-off defence

    Unfair preferences & the set-off defence

    Under section 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) an unfair preference is defined as a transaction, such as payment of an outstanding debt, between a company and an unsecured creditor which results in that unsecured creditor receiving more than it would have received if it had to prove in the winding up of the…

    Read more …

  • Need a reseller agreement?

    Need a reseller agreement?

    This article provides an overview of the considerations when entering into a Joint Venture, including inputs, outputs, legal and tax implications of different Joint Venture vehicles. Get the facts you need to make an informed decision.

    Read more …

  • Unfair preferences – the Doctrine of Ultimate Effect

    Unfair preferences – the Doctrine of Ultimate Effect

    Explore the Doctrine of Ultimate Effect, running account defence and more in this article by Dundas Lawyers. Learn how these concepts can provide a defence to an unfair preference claim under Section 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

    Read more …

  • Bullying in the workplace by a body corporate

    Bullying in the workplace by a body corporate

    This investigation reveals the legal implications of workplace bullying in a body corporate. Find out what the Obligations of Reasonableness and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) mean for workers and how to apply for an order to stop the bullying.

    Read more …

  • Director’s duties – the case of MG Corrosion Consultants PL v Gilmour

    Director’s duties – the case of MG Corrosion Consultants PL v Gilmour

    The case of MG Corrosion Consultants Pty Ltd v Gilmour [2014] FCA 990 serves as a reminder of the need for Directors to uphold their obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Uncover the Courts findings and the implications for Directors.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend