Tax Law

Tax incentives for early-stage innovation investors

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

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

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

  • Registration of .au domain names – what does this mean for businesses?

    Registration of .au domain names – what does this mean for businesses?

    From 24 March 2022, any persons with a verified connection to Australia will be able to apply for a domain name ending in .au, also known as a direct name or second level name (Direct Name).  Any business can apply for a Direct Name as long as they meet the eligibility criteria under the .au…

    Read more …

  • Director’s right to review company records

    Director’s right to review company records

    As a director, it is important to understand your obligations and rights, including the right to access the company books. Explore this further in this article, which examines the case of Oswal v Burrup Holdings Limited [2011] FCA 609 and the implications of a company refusing a director access.

    Read more …

  • Use of a competitors trade marks for comparative advertising

    Use of a competitors trade marks for comparative advertising

    Comparative advertising can be a powerful tool, but it must be done within the bounds of the law. Learn more about the legal implications of comparative advertising in Australia, including the case of GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 1.

    Read more …

  • Uber found in breach of Australian privacy laws

    Uber found in breach of Australian privacy laws

    This article provides an overview of interesting decisions of Australian Courts in Corporate Law, Technology Law and Intellectual Property. With cases on Trade Marks, Copyright, Defamation, Negligence, Joint Ventures and Confidential Information, it is an invaluable resource for anyone interested in these areas.

    Read more …

  • Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code 2021 update

    Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code 2021 update

    The Therapeutic Goods Administration has released the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code 2021 (Cth), introducing changes to distinguish between physical and online therapeutic goods, updates to medical device and medicine advertising, and more. Get the details to stay informed and ensure compliance with the new rules.

    Read more …

  • 7-Eleven customer survey: implied consent?

    7-Eleven customer survey: implied consent?

    The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner found 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd are in breach of the Australian Privacy Principles (APP’s). Learn more about the findings, implications, and how businesses can comply with the APP’s.

    Read more …

  • Use of confidential information – the springboard injunction

    Use of confidential information – the springboard injunction

    This article examines the UK decision of Forse & ors v Secarma Ltd & ors [2019] EWCA Civ 215, which discussed the legal concept of a springboard injunction, and its implications in Australia. The Court must consider similar principles to determine if an injunction should be granted.

    Read more …

  • Is it a debt? – legal test and creditors’ statutory demands

    Is it a debt? – legal test and creditors’ statutory demands

    This article examines a Court decision that could have a significant impact on creditors making statutory demands. Learn more about the case of Matrix Group Co Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 1042, and the implications for creditors, as well as relevant legislation and case law.

    Read more …

  • Director identification numbers now a reality

    Director identification numbers now a reality

    The Federal Government has passed a law requiring all directors to obtain a Director Identification Number (DIN). Learn more about the implications of this law, including the potential penalties for non-compliance.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend