Sign in Subscribe
23 min read

Cross-Border Pharmaceutical Royalty Transactions

Cross-Border Pharmaceutical Royalty Transactions

Introduction

The pharmaceutical royalty market has become increasingly sophisticated, with specialized funds and institutional investors acquiring rights to future royalty streams from universities, biotech companies, and research institutions across borders. When a U.S.-based buyer acquires royalty rights from sellers in Europe—particularly in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Switzerland—a complex web of tax and legal considerations comes into play.

This report analyzes the mechanics of cross-border royalty transactions in these four key European jurisdictions, examining how domestic tax treatment, withholding tax obligations, treaty relief procedures, and anti-avoidance measures shape deal structures. Based on research current through November 2025, this analysis addresses the critical questions facing institutional investors: How are royalty transfers executed legally? What taxes do sellers face? How can withholding taxes be mitigated? And what planning structures are available within the constraints of modern anti-abuse rules?

Each jurisdiction presents its own opportunities and challenges. The landscape has been reshaped by OECD BEPS initiatives, the implementation of the Multilateral Instrument, and domestic anti-avoidance measures targeting treaty shopping and base erosion. Understanding these dynamics is essential for structuring efficient and compliant royalty acquisitions.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice. The author is not a lawyer or financial adviser. All information presented here is derived from publicly available sources including tax summaries, regulatory guidance, and international tax treaties. Details of specific transactions and tax rules may have changed since publication. Readers should conduct their own due diligence and consult with qualified legal and financial professionals before making any investment or business decisions.

Overview of Royalty Transfer Mechanics

The Basic Transaction Structure

In a typical royalty monetization, a seller assigns its rights to future royalty income from a drug or patent license to a buyer in exchange for an upfront payment. This transaction requires several key elements:

Legal Assignment: The transfer must involve an assignment of either the underlying intellectual property rights or the royalty contract itself. The assignment must comply with:

  • Contractual terms (many license agreements require licensee consent for assignment)
  • Local law formalities (registration requirements, written instruments)
  • Third-party notice requirements (ensuring the buyer's rights are enforceable)

Beneficial Ownership: The buyer must qualify as the "beneficial owner" of the royalties for tax treaty purposes—not merely an agent or conduit. This is critical for accessing treaty benefits that reduce or eliminate withholding taxes.

Structural Considerations: Transactions may be executed:

  • Directly: U.S. buyer acquires rights directly from European seller
  • Via SPVs: Buyer establishes a special-purpose vehicle in a tax-efficient jurisdiction to hold the royalty rights, both to ring-fence liabilities and optimize tax outcomes

Key Due Diligence Points

Each country's legal framework generally permits such assignments, but buyers must verify:

  • The royalty stream is secure and the underlying license is valid
  • All necessary consents have been obtained
  • The assignment is structured as a true sale (not a loan) for tax purposes
  • Patent assignments are properly registered where relevant
  • The transaction doesn't trigger unexpected tax obligations

United Kingdom

The UK provides a well-established framework for royalty transfers. Assignments of patent royalties or other IP-derived income require a written assignment deed. No specific governmental approval is needed, though patent assignments can be recorded at the UK Intellectual Property Office to give notice of the new owner.

Key Considerations:

  • Structure the deal as a true sale of an intangible asset (not a loan)
  • Obtain licensor consent if required by the underlying license agreement
  • Conduct extensive due diligence on the IP and license to ensure the royalty stream is secure and assignable

Tax Treatment for UK Sellers

Seller Type Tax Rate Special Considerations
UK Corporations 25% (standard rate) Subject to corporation tax on worldwide profits
With Patent Box Election 10% (effective rate) Must meet OECD nexus requirements and conduct qualifying R&D
UK Charities/Universities 0% (typically exempt) Exempt if proceeds used for charitable purposes

Corporate Sellers

For UK corporate sellers, lump-sum proceeds from selling royalty rights are taxable under the Intangible Fixed Assets regime (Part 8 CTA 2009). The default corporate tax rate is 25% in 2025.

Patent Box Benefits: The UK offers a significant incentive through its Patent Box regime, which taxes qualifying patent income at an effective 10% rate. To qualify:

  • The company must have developed the patent or conducted substantial R&D
  • Must comply with OECD nexus rules (requiring the company's own R&D to substantiate the IP income)
  • Income must be from qualifying patents

For a UK biotech selling royalty rights on a self-developed patent, electing into the Patent Box can reduce the tax burden from 25% to 10%—a substantial savings.

Universities and Charitable Institutions

Many UK universities are registered charities and enjoy tax exemption on most income and gains when funds are used for charitable purposes. This means:

  • University sales of royalty rights typically incur no corporation tax
  • The exemption applies if proceeds support educational/research missions
  • Licensing revenue from university research is usually considered related to charitable aims (advancement of education/science)

Important: If the activity is purely commercial and outside the charitable purpose, the exemption may not apply. Each institution's status must be examined to confirm exemption.

Withholding Tax on Royalty Payments

UK Domestic Rules

The UK imposes a default 20% withholding tax on royalties paid from the UK to non-UK residents. This applies to:

  • Patents, know-how, trademarks, and other IP used in the UK
  • Payments where the payer is required to deduct 20% and remit to HMRC

Treaty Relief: UK-U.S. Example

The UK-U.S. tax treaty sets withholding tax on royalties at 0%. Under Article 12 of the treaty:

  • Royalties arising in the UK and beneficially owned by a U.S. resident are taxable only in the U.S.
  • The UK should not impose any withholding tax
  • Most modern UK treaties completely eliminate or significantly reduce royalty withholding
Country Treaty WHT Rate Notes
United States 0% Complete elimination of UK WHT
Germany 0% Via treaty provisions
France 0% Via treaty provisions
Switzerland 0% Via treaty provisions

Obtaining Treaty Relief

To access treaty benefits at source, the foreign recipient must obtain advance clearance from HMRC:

  1. File form DTTP (Double Taxation Treaty Passport scheme) or appropriate DT-Company form
  2. Certify U.S. tax residency and beneficial ownership
  3. Obtain HMRC approval before paying royalties gross or at reduced rate
  4. Maintain compliance with Limitation on Benefits (LOB) clauses

The US-UK treaty includes an LOB article to prevent treaty shopping. The UK buyer must be the actual beneficial owner—not merely an agent or conduit.

Critical Note: If clearance isn't obtained in time, the payer must deduct 20% and the recipient would then reclaim the excess—but upfront clearance is the norm for regular royalty streams.

UK Anti-Avoidance Measures

Offshore Receipts in Respect of Intangible Property (ORIP)

The UK introduced ORIP rules in 2019 to impose a 20% UK tax on royalties paid to low-tax jurisdictions in connection with UK sales. Key features:

  • Can impose tax even if the payer is offshore
  • Can override tax treaties in certain situations
  • Targets situations where foreign IP owners with no UK presence receive royalties driven by UK consumers

In Practice: ORIP generally won't apply to U.S. buyers if:

  • The U.S. is a treaty country
  • The structure isn't designed to avoid UK tax
  • Proper treaty procedures are followed

However, routing royalties through a no-tax entity in a non-treaty haven could trigger ORIP withholding.

General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR)

The UK's GAAR can disallow tax advantages from abusive arrangements. Transactions designed solely or mainly to avoid tax could be challenged.

Other Measures

Measure Purpose Impact on Royalty Transactions
Hybrid Mismatch Rules Implement OECD BEPS Action 2 Can deny deductions for royalty payments in hybrid arrangements
Diverted Profits Tax (DPT) Prevent profit shifting 31% rate if royalties diverted to low-tax affiliate without substance
Principal Purpose Test (PPT) Anti-treaty shopping Via Multilateral Instrument for many treaties

Tax Planning Opportunities in the UK

1. Patent Box Regime

For UK sellers, the Patent Box is the primary planning tool:

  • Reduces effective tax rate to 10% on qualifying patent income
  • Requires genuine R&D contribution
  • Must comply with modified nexus approach (effective since 2021)
  • Significantly lowers seller's tax cost on royalty sale proceeds

2. Amortization of Acquired Intangibles

UK corporate buyers can benefit from intangible asset amortization rules:

  • Cost of acquired IP rights can be amortized over useful life
  • Fixed 6.5% annual amortization available for certain older IP assets acquired from related parties (since April 2019)
  • Must weigh UK tax deductions against exposure to UK tax on royalty income

3. Use of SPVs and Treaty Jurisdictions

Historically, U.S. investors have used EU-based SPVs (Ireland, Netherlands, Luxembourg) to acquire European royalties:

  • Pre-Brexit: EU Interest & Royalties Directive allowed 0% WHT between associated EU companies
  • Post-Brexit: UK no longer benefits from EU directives
  • Current Strategy: Direct US-UK treaty already provides 0%, so intermediaries less necessary for UK royalties
  • Multi-Country Portfolios: SPVs in low-tax treaty jurisdictions can be useful for diversified European holdings

Critical Requirement: Any SPV must have genuine substance to withstand:

  • Principal Purpose Test (PPT) challenges
  • LOB clause scrutiny
  • GAAR examination

The SPV should have genuine business activities, local employees or functions, and not be a mere shell.

Germany

Under German law, royalty rights are generally transferable through an assignment agreement under the German Civil Code, unless the underlying contract forbids assignment.

Transfer Methods:

  • Full Patent Assignment: Registered at the German Patent and Trademark Office
  • Partial Assignment: Of payment rights under specific licenses
  • Usufruct Arrangement: On the payment right

Special Considerations for German Universities:

  • Often organized as public-law entities or foundations
  • May need governmental consent to sell major assets
  • Subject to public procurement or statutory procedures in some cases
  • Generally no notarization required except for certain technology transfers

German-Source Royalty Rule: If the royalty pertains to a German-registered patent, German law may treat the royalty income as German-source, potentially triggering tax obligations regardless of where the assignment is executed.

Tax Treatment for German Sellers

Seller Type Combined Tax Rate Components
Corporate Sellers ~30% 15% federal corporate tax + ~0.825% Solidarity Surcharge + ~14% local trade tax
Public Universities 0% Exempt via governmental immunity
Non-Profit Entities 0% Exempt on income related to tax-privileged purposes

Corporate Sellers

For German companies, proceeds from selling royalty rights are taxed as business income at approximately 30%:

  • No separate lower capital gains tax rate for companies
  • Gains on sale of intangible assets included in taxable income
  • Tax book value (development costs or purchase price) can be deducted
  • No special participation exemption for IP sales (only for share sales)

Key Difference from Other Jurisdictions: Germany notably does not offer a patent box or reduced tax rate for IP income—instead, it implemented the "royalty barrier" rule to discourage profit shifting to low-tax jurisdictions.

Universities and Public Research Institutions

German public universities are typically exempt from corporate taxation:

  • Public-law entities enjoy governmental immunity
  • Non-profit organizations (Gemeinnützige Körperschaften) have tax exemption on income related to their tax-privileged purposes
  • Royalty sales linked to research missions typically remain tax-exempt
  • Proceeds must be devoted to further research/education to maintain exemption

Complexity: If a university's IP commercialization is done through a separate for-profit entity (tech transfer GmbH), that entity would be taxable like any company.

Withholding Tax on Royalty Payments

German Domestic Rules

Germany imposes withholding tax on royalty payments to non-residents:

  • Base Rate: 15% withholding tax
  • Solidarity Surcharge: 5.5% on the tax
  • Total: 15.825% combined rate

German-Source Determination: Germany considers a royalty German-source when:

  • The payer is German, OR
  • The intellectual property is registered in Germany, OR
  • The royalties relate to rights exploited in Germany

This broad definition means a U.S. buyer owning a German patent could face German WHT on worldwide license income attributable to German use.

Treaty Relief: Germany-U.S. Example

The Germany-U.S. tax treaty provides 0% withholding on qualifying royalties:

  • Royalties paid to a U.S. beneficial owner are taxable only in the U.S.
  • No source-country tax if recipient is beneficial owner
  • Covers patents, trademarks, designs, and most IP royalties
Treaty Partner WHT Rate Treaty Basis
United States 0% Article 12 of Germany-U.S. treaty
United Kingdom 0% Via treaty provisions
Switzerland 0% Via treaty provisions
France 0% Via treaty and EU provisions

Obtaining Treaty Benefits: German Procedures

Germany's process for claiming treaty relief is notably strict:

  1. File Application: With the German Federal Tax Office (BZSt) for relief at source or refund
  2. Demonstrate Substance: Section 50d(3) of the Income Tax Act requires real economic substance
  3. Prove Not a Conduit: BZSt examines whether recipient has business operations, employees, office
  4. Obtain Exemption Certificate: Allows German payer to pay royalties without withholding

Timeline Warning: Without an exemption certificate, payers must withhold and recipients claim refunds—which can be a slow process. Recent updates in 2021 and 2025 streamlined procedures and released updated guidance and forms.

German Anti-Avoidance: The Royalty Barrier

Section 4j ITA: License Barrier Rule (Lizenzschranke)

Germany's "royalty barrier" is one of the most aggressive anti-avoidance measures in Europe:

Feature Details
Introduced 2018 (Section 4j ITA)
Target Related-party royalty payments to preferential regimes
Original Threshold Low tax = <25% effective rate
Current Threshold Low tax = <15% effective rate (from 2024)
Effect Disallows German payer's deduction for royalties

How It Works:

  • German company pays royalties to related party in low-tax jurisdiction
  • If recipient's effective tax rate is below 15%, deduction denied
  • Aimed at royalties routed to IP boxes in tax havens or certain patent box regimes not meeting OECD nexus standards
  • Overrides treaty non-discrimination clauses

Controversial Application: German tax auditors have begun applying the royalty barrier to payments benefiting from the U.S. FDII regime (Foreign-Derived Intangible Income), viewing FDII's 13.125% effective rate as a "preferential regime."

Impact on Arm's-Length Royalty Sales: The royalty barrier primarily targets related-party payments. For arm's-length sales to U.S. buyers, the licensee and buyer likely aren't related, so Section 4j may not apply. However, it demonstrates Germany's aggressive stance on IP income structures.

Section 50d(3): Anti-Treaty Shopping

Germany's anti-treaty-shopping rule (updated effective mid-2021):

  • Denies treaty WHT relief if foreign recipient is a mere letterbox entity
  • Lacks business purpose or if third-country owners wouldn't qualify for treaty
  • Applies principal purpose test similar to BEPS standards
  • Examines genuine economic activity and predominant motive

For U.S. Buyers: As long as the buyer is the direct recipient, qualifies as U.S. tax resident, and has no disqualifying owners, the treaty 0% should apply straightforwardly.

Tax Planning in Germany

1. Absence of Patent Box, Focus on Anti-Base-Erosion

Germany does not offer a patent box or reduced rate for IP income:

  • Early critic of patent box regimes
  • Normal ~30% corporate rate applies to all business income
  • Companies can amortize acquired intangibles over useful life (5-15 years)
  • No distinction between capital gains and ordinary income for corporate sellers

2. Tax-Neutral Reorganizations

One strategy to defer tax:

  • Contribute royalty-generating IP into a subsidiary
  • Sell subsidiary's shares (not the IP directly)
  • Benefit: Germany's participation exemption makes capital gains from share sales 95% exempt from corporate tax
  • Pitfalls: Buyer purchases a company (with potential liabilities), anti-avoidance rules may tax built-in gains on IP

Caution: Requires careful adherence to the Reorganization Tax Act and consideration of Section 50i or "IP transfer" rules.

3. Using Foreign Holding Companies

U.S. buyers might use European holding companies to mitigate withholding:

Classic Structures:

  • Luxembourg or Netherlands SPVs
  • Rationale: No royalty WHT outgoing, favorable treaties with Germany
  • Germany doesn't levy WHT on royalties to EU companies under EU Interest & Royalties Directive (25% ownership required)

Current Challenges:

  • Germany's Section 50d(3) denies reduced rates if the SPV is a conduit
  • Must have real substance (employees, office, not passing >50% of earnings as deductible payments to non-treaty parents)
  • ATAD anti-abuse changes impose substance requirements

Swiss Alternative: A Swiss SPV with real function may raise fewer red flags:

4. BEPS and MLI Implementation

Germany has implemented the Multilateral Instrument (MLI) for many treaties:

  • Note: Not the U.S. treaty (U.S. didn't sign MLI)
  • Treaties with France, UK, Switzerland now have Principal Purpose Test (PPT)
  • Must ensure bona fide commercial reasons for any routing beyond just tax savings

Summary: Germany's approach is characterized by:

  • Full taxation of sellers (no special low rate)
  • Withholding tax mitigated by treaties
  • Strong anti-avoidance measures (treaty shopping rules, royalty barrier)
  • Effective planning requires substance in any holding structures

France

France permits assignment of royalty rights, though certain formalities must be observed:

Transfer Methods:

  • IP Assignment: Transfer underlying IP, register with French patent office (INPI) for enforceability
  • Receivable Assignment: Transfer right to future royalty payments (cession de créance)
  • Hybrid: Assign IP to buyer, with buyer granting back a license to seller (if needed)

Legal Requirements:

  • Written assignment agreement required
  • Patent transfers should be registered with INPI
  • Royalty receivable assignments may require notification to debtor (licensee) under Article 1690 of the Civil Code
  • Public entities may need government approvals for significant asset sales

French Research Institutions:

  • CNRS, Institut Pasteur, and other research bodies often have tech transfer subsidiaries
  • Public entities may need adherence to public accounting rules
  • Legally feasible with attention to debtor notice and IP registration

Tax Treatment for French Sellers

Seller Type Standard Rate Patent Box Rate Qualifying Conditions
Corporate Sellers 25% 10% Must meet nexus requirements
Public Universities 0% N/A Exempt on educational/research activities
Recognized Foundations 0% N/A Exempt on mission-related income

Corporate Sellers and France's Patent Box

France's standard corporate income tax rate is 25% as of 2025. However, France offers a significant incentive:

Innovation Box Regime (Article 238 French Tax Code):

  • Reduced 10% tax rate on qualifying patent income
  • Covers royalties and capital gains on sale of patents
  • IP must be developed by the company or acquired and further developed
  • Aligned with nexus approach since 2019
  • R&D underpinning IP must be conducted in France or EU

Application to Royalty Sales: If a French biotech sells future patent royalties (effectively disposing of patent rights), it can potentially benefit from the 10% rate on the gain, assuming:

  • Development and nexus criteria are satisfied
  • Transaction structured as assignment of intangible yielding capital gain
  • Falls within the regime's ambit

Deductions: French companies can deduct tax book value of assets sold. If R&D was capitalized or patent acquired at cost, this offsets part of the gain.

Universities and Non-Profit Research Organizations

Public universities in France are typically not subject to corporate tax:

  • Part of public administrative sector
  • Royalty proceeds generally accrue to state or governed by public finance rules
  • Not taxed as corporate profits

Foundations and Associations:

  • Organizations reconnues d'utilité publique usually enjoy tax exemptions
  • Income used for scientific or educational purposes remains exempt
  • Example: Institut Pasteur (officially recognized foundation) is exempt on mission-related income
  • Non-profit carrying on lucrative activity unrelated to mission can become taxable

Principle: Licensing out research results generally viewed as furthering innovation, so typically falls within exempt purposes.

Withholding Tax on Royalty Payments

French Domestic Rules

France imposes withholding tax on royalties paid to non-residents:

Scenario WHT Rate
Standard Non-Resident 25%
Non-Cooperative Jurisdiction 75% (punitive rate)
Treaty Relief Available 0% to 10% (varies by treaty)

The 25% WHT applies to payments for use of or right to use:

  • Trademarks
  • Patents
  • Copyrights
  • Know-how
  • Similar rights from French sources (Article 182 B of CGI)

Payment Mechanism: French company must withhold 25% of gross royalty and remit to French Treasury unless treaty or EU directive exemption applies.

Treaty Relief: France-U.S. Example

The France-U.S. tax treaty (1994) sets royalty WHT at 0% for most royalties:

  • Article 12 provides royalties arising in France and paid to U.S. beneficial owner are not taxed in France
  • Exception: Some treaties have different rates for motion picture films or broadcast rights
  • U.S. treaty treats industrial royalties as exempt (exclusive taxing right to residence state)
Treaty Partner Standard Royalty WHT Notes
United States 0% Exclusive taxation by residence state
United Kingdom 0% (Except possibly film royalties)
Germany 0% Via treaty and EU interplay
Switzerland 0% Via treaty provisions

Claiming Treaty Relief: Modernized Procedures

Since 2020, France allows applying treaty rates at source for passive income:

Simplified Process:

  1. Provide Certificate of Residence: Cerfa 5000 form certified by foreign tax authority
  2. Complete Form 5001: Application of reduced rate for royalties
  3. Confirm Beneficial Ownership: Attestation that recipient is true beneficial owner
  4. French Payer Applies 0% at Source: No need for withholding then refund

EU Interest & Royalties Directive:

  • No WHT on royalties between affiliated EU companies
  • Requires 25%+ common ownership for at least 2 years
  • Post-Brexit, UK no longer qualifies
  • Anti-abuse clause requires arrangement not primarily to obtain exemption

French Anti-Avoidance Provisions

1. Beneficial Ownership Requirement

French tax authorities scrutinize whether recipient is true beneficial owner:

  • Treaty benefit can be denied if recipient is just a conduit
  • Classic substance-over-form test

Controversial "Subject-to-Tax" Condition: French courts have held that a treaty resident must actually be taxed on income in its state to claim treaty protection. If U.S. recipient is tax-exempt or enjoys specific exemption (pays no tax on royalty), French authorities might deny WHT exemption.

Planning Implication: U.S. buyers should use taxable entities to avoid "double non-taxation" challenges.

2. General Anti-Abuse Rule

France's "mini-abus de droit" rule (introduced 2019):

  • Disregards arrangements with main purpose of obtaining tax advantage contrary to law's object
  • Tax treaties now include Principal Purpose Test via MLI
  • Creating artificial structure solely to exploit treaty's 0% rate can be struck down

3. Article 155 A CGI

Targets situations where French performer or inventor routes income to offshore entity:

  • Mainly deals with services
  • Can apply if French inventor sets up foreign company to receive royalties while work performed in France
  • For unrelated U.S. buyer paying fair value, likely not relevant

4. Non-Cooperative Jurisdictions (NCJ) Penalty

If royalty paid to entity in NCJ (French blacklist): WHT jumps to 75%

  • Encourages payments only to cooperative jurisdictions
  • U.S. not on blacklist

Tax Planning Opportunities in France

1. Patent Box for French Sellers

The 10% patent box rate is attractive for qualifying French corporate sellers:

  • Reduces tax burden from 25% to 10%
  • Must satisfy development and nexus criteria
  • Significant savings on royalty sale proceeds

2. Using French Entity (Less Common for U.S. Buyers)

A U.S. buyer could use a French company to receive royalties:

  • Would be taxed in France then repatriate
  • Could use 10% patent box on royalty income
  • Most U.S. buyers avoid this due to relatively high standard rate (25%)
  • Prefer structures with lower overall tax exposure

3. EU Intermediary Structures

Before using SPVs, consider:

  • EU Interest & Royalties Directive benefits for affiliated companies
  • Must meet ownership and holding period tests
  • Post-BEPS anti-abuse clauses require economic substance
  • Post-Brexit UK considerations

4. Documentation and Reporting

Proper documentation essential:

Summary: France imposes 25% WHT by default, but treaties can eliminate this tax (0% for U.S., UK, Germany, Switzerland). Sellers' tax can be as low as 10% with patent box qualification. French anti-abuse rules require genuine substance and proper treaty usage.

Switzerland

Switzerland offers exceptional flexibility for royalty transactions under the Swiss Code of Obligations:

Legal Framework:

  • Written agreement required for IP or royalty assignment
  • No general prohibitions on assigning receivables or intellectual property
  • Patent assignments recorded in Swiss patent register
  • License contracts assignable subject to licensee consent

Swiss Universities:

  • ETH Zurich, University of Zurich typically public institutions
  • Commercialization often through tech transfer offices or spin-offs
  • Public universities may need adherence to public finance rules for major asset sales
  • Civil law permits such transfers

Unique Features:

  • Sometimes structured as "usufruct" on IP (buyer gets income, seller retains ownership)
  • More commonly: outright assignment or SPV structure
  • Emphasis on contract terms and debtor notification

Tax Treatment for Swiss Sellers

Seller Type Tax Rate Range Special Incentives
Corporations 12% to 21% Varies by canton (federal + cantonal + communal)
With Patent Box 3% to 5% (effective) Up to 90% cantonal exemption + federal 8.5%
Universities/Non-Profits 0% Tax-exempt on public purpose income

Corporate Sellers and Switzerland's Patent Box

Switzerland implemented major tax reforms in 2020 (Federal Act on Tax Reform and AHV Financing - "TRAF"):

Patent Box Features:

Effective Tax Calculation:

  • Federal tax: 8.5% (still applies)
  • Cantonal/communal tax: Significantly reduced via 90% exemption
  • Overall effective rate: Often drops to just 3-5%

Example: Swiss biotech in Zurich sells rights to future drug royalties:

  • Canton Zurich implemented patent box
  • 90% exemption at cantonal level
  • Federal tax 8.5% applies on remaining income
  • Effective rate: ~3-5% instead of ~19%

Additional Incentives:

Minimum Tax: Cantons must ensure at least 30% of company's profit is taxable after all special deductions.

Swiss Universities and Non-Profit Institutions

Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology and cantonal universities are government entities:

  • Don't pay income tax
  • ETHs and cantonal universities exempt

Private Foundations:

  • Not-for-profit research foundations get exemptions at federal and cantonal level if pursuing charitable purposes
  • Licensing income used to fund research typically tax-exempt
  • Examples: Ludwig Institute, other recognized foundations

Principle: Monetizing invention to reinvest in research remains within exempt purpose.

Withholding Tax: Switzerland's Unique Advantage

No Withholding Tax on Royalties

Switzerland stands out because it does not levy withholding tax on royalty payments under domestic law:

Payment Type Swiss WHT Rate
Dividends 35% (Verrechnungssteuer)
Certain Interest 35%
Royalties 0% (no WHT at arm's length)

Key Points:

  • Swiss withholding tax of 35% applies to dividends and certain interest
  • Royalty payments to non-residents are exempt from Swiss WHT
  • No general statutory WHT on royalties for use of IP

Limited Exceptions

Swiss WHT on royalties could occur only in specific scenarios:

  • Excessive royalties above arm's-length rates to related party
  • Excess might be recharacterized as hidden profit distribution subject to 35% WHT
  • Anti-avoidance measure if Swiss company overpays foreign affiliate to shift profits

In Bona Fide Transactions: With foreign buyer receiving contractually agreed arm's-length royalties, no WHT applies.

Treaty Provisions (Mostly Theoretical)

Switzerland has tax treaties stipulating royalty rates:

Treaty Partner Treaty WHT Rate Practical Impact
United States 0% Aligns with domestic law (no WHT)
UK, Germany, France 0% Via treaty provisions

Since domestic law doesn't impose WHT, treaty provisions mostly theoretical. However, treaties would cap any future WHT Switzerland might introduce.

Significant Advantage: Switzerland's lack of royalty WHT makes it attractive as:

  • Paying jurisdiction for royalties
  • Intermediate holding location for IP
  • Can pay out royalties globally without source tax

Special Cases

Swiss PE Income: If foreign company has Swiss permanent establishment receiving royalties, those would be taxed as Swiss income of the PE (but not a withholding situation).

Dividend WHT: If U.S. buyer sets up Swiss affiliate to hold royalties, and affiliate pays U.S. parent:

Arm's Length Requirement: Swiss law requires related-party payments meet arm's length pricing. Authorities could invoke:

  • Transfer pricing adjustments if licensee overpays
  • Thin capitalization rules if royalties disguising dividends
  • Hidden profit distribution rules for payments above market rates

Tax Planning Opportunities in Switzerland

1. Patent Box and Low-Tax Cantons

Switzerland's new patent box regime is highly competitive:

Strategic Use:

  • U.S. buyer establishes Swiss subsidiary in favorable canton (Zug, Lucerne, etc.)
  • Benefit from ~9% base CIT rate
  • Apply patent box for up to 90% exemption
  • Combined with R&D super-deductions (up to 50% extra)

Example - Canton Lucerne:

Advance Tax Rulings: Common practice in Switzerland:

  • Obtain ruling from cantonal authorities
  • Confirms treatment of specific structure
  • Provides certainty

2. Asset Step-Up on Migration

Swiss tax law allows step-up in tax basis for assets imported:

  • Via migration or asset deal
  • Future amortization benefits from high depreciable basis
  • Step-up amount taxed separately at special rate or sometimes not taxed immediately

Planning Strategy:

  • U.S. buyer acquires royalty via Swiss entity
  • Gets cost step-up
  • Amortizes IP for Swiss tax purposes
  • Combined with patent box: Nearly eliminates Swiss taxable income for period

3. No WHT and Superior Treaty Network

Using Switzerland as intermediary can reduce foreign WHT:

Advantages:

Requirements:

  • Swiss company must have real substance
  • Not just mailbox entity
  • Switzerland agreed to BEPS minimum standards
  • MLI PPT in many treaties
  • Swiss Federal Tax Administration issues certificates of residency
  • Ensures company engages in legitimate business

Germany Consideration: Switzerland's patent box not considered harmful by Germany so far (unlike some other regimes).

4. Substance and Anti-Abuse Compliance

While Switzerland historically had favorable rulings, increased transparency under international pressure:

Anti-Abuse Measures:

  • Can deny treaty benefits if arrangement fails PPT
  • Foreign parent funneling royalties through Swiss shell with no real function would be problematic
  • Swiss GAAR: Doctrine of abuse of law exists
  • Arrangements with no purpose except tax avoidance can be ignored

Legitimate Use Standards:

  • Use of patent box with actual business activities protected
  • Managing IP, employing people for R&D or IP management
  • Not considered abusive—precisely what new regimes intend to attract

Exchange of Information:

5. U.S. Tax Considerations (FDII/GILTI)

From U.S. perspective, structure choice impacts taxation:

Direct U.S. Receipt:

  • May benefit from FDII (Foreign-Derived Intangible Income)
  • 13.125% effective rate on qualifying income

Via CFC (e.g., Swiss Sub):

  • May trigger GILTI inclusions (Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income)
  • Taxed at 10.5% effective rate

Calculation Example:

  • Swiss structure: ~5% Swiss tax + GILTI 10.5% = ~15.5% total
  • U.S. FDII: 13.125% direct
  • Swiss patent box + expense deductions could yield <5% effective
  • After GILTI gross-up, still might be competitive

Germany's View: German authorities' focus on FDII as "harmful regime" shows interplay complexity—one country's incentive is another's tax avoidance concern.

Optimization: Buyers seek to optimize globally, not just locally. Interplay of Swiss patent box, U.S. GILTI/FDII, and foreign tax credits creates complex planning opportunities.

Comparative Analysis: Cross-Jurisdiction Summary

Seller's Tax Burden

Country Corporate Rate Patent Box Rate University/Non-Profit
UK 25% 10% (with nexus) 0% (charity exemption)
Germany ~30% None available 0% (public entity exemption)
France 25% 10% (with nexus) 0% (public purpose exemption)
Switzerland 12-21% 3-5% (effective, 90% cantonal exemption) 0% (exempt)

Withholding Tax on Outbound Royalties (to U.S.)

Country Domestic WHT Treaty WHT (U.S.) Relief Procedure
UK 20% 0% DTTP form, advance clearance
Germany 15.825% 0% BZSt application, exemption certificate
France 25% 0% Cerfa 5000/5001, residence certificate
Switzerland 0% 0% No WHT, arm's length required

Anti-Avoidance Measures

Country Key Measures Impact on Planning
UK ORIP, GAAR, PPT, DPT Requires substance in any SPV structure
Germany Section 50d(3), Royalty Barrier, PPT Very strict substance requirements, deduction limitations
France Beneficial ownership, subject-to-tax, Article 155 A Must use taxable entity, prove substance
Switzerland PPT, AEOI, arm's length rules Moderate anti-abuse with substance focus

Planning Opportunities

Strategy UK Germany France Switzerland
Patent Box ✓ (10%) ✗ (None) ✓ (10%) ✓✓ (3-5%)
No Royalty WHT ✗ (20% domestic) ✗ (15.825%) ✗ (25%) ✓ (0% domestic)
Treaty 0% WHT to U.S. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Charity Exemption ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
SPV Structuring Moderate Difficult Moderate Attractive

Key Structuring Considerations

1. Direct Acquisition vs. SPV Structure

Direct U.S. Acquisition:

  • ✓ Simplest structure
  • ✓ Clear beneficial ownership
  • ✓ Treaty benefits readily available
  • ✗ May miss local tax incentives
  • ✗ Consolidated U.S. tax exposure

SPV Structures:

  • ✓ Can optimize using patent boxes
  • ✓ Ring-fence liabilities
  • ✓ Multi-country portfolio management
  • ✗ Requires genuine substance
  • ✗ Anti-abuse scrutiny
  • ✗ Additional compliance costs

2. Substance Requirements for SPVs

To withstand anti-treaty-shopping rules across all jurisdictions:

Minimum Requirements:

  • Local office and employees
  • Real business functions (IP management, licensing administration)
  • Board meetings in jurisdiction
  • Adequate capitalization
  • Strategic decision-making authority
  • Not mere conduit for parent company

Enhanced Substance (Germany):

  • Section 50d(3) particularly strict
  • BZSt examines <50% pass-through test
  • Requires genuine economic activity
  • Not just tax savings motive

3. Optimal Jurisdictions for IP Holding

Switzerland Advantages:

  • Lowest effective tax rate (3-5% with patent box)
  • No withholding tax on outbound royalties
  • Superior treaty network
  • Stable regulatory environment
  • History of IP management

UK Advantages:

  • Strong legal framework
  • Patent box available (10%)
  • EU experience and expertise
  • English language and common law

Netherlands/Luxembourg (Brief Mention):

  • Historically popular for SPVs
  • EU Interest & Royalties Directive benefits (pre-Brexit for UK deals)
  • Now face increased scrutiny
  • Must demonstrate genuine substance

4. Treaty Clearance Procedures

Country Advance Ruling Processing Time Key Forms
UK Recommended Moderate DTTP, DT-Company
Germany Required Can be slow BZSt application
France At source Streamlined (since 2020) Cerfa 5000, 5001
Switzerland Not applicable N/A No WHT

5. BEPS Implementation Impact

All four jurisdictions have implemented OECD BEPS measures to varying degrees:

Common Features:

  • Principal Purpose Test (PPT) in treaties via MLI
  • Country-by-Country Reporting
  • Automatic Exchange of Information
  • Transfer pricing documentation

Jurisdiction-Specific:

  • Germany: Most aggressive (royalty barrier, Section 50d(3))
  • UK: Moderate (ORIP for specific situations)
  • France: Subject-to-tax requirement emerging
  • Switzerland: Focused on substance requirements

Practical Transaction Workflow

Phase 1: Due Diligence (Months 1-3)

Legal Review:

  • Verify IP ownership and validity
  • Review underlying license agreements
  • Check assignment restrictions
  • Assess third-party consents required

Tax Analysis:

  • Determine seller's tax status
  • Calculate expected tax on proceeds
  • Model withholding tax scenarios
  • Evaluate treaty benefits available

Jurisdictional Structuring:

  • Decide on direct acquisition vs. SPV
  • Select optimal jurisdiction for holding entity
  • Assess substance requirements
  • Model effective tax rates

Phase 2: Structure Implementation (Months 3-6)

Entity Setup (if using SPV):

  • Incorporate holding company
  • Establish local presence
  • Hire key personnel
  • Set up bank accounts

Treaty Clearances:

  • File applications with tax authorities
  • Obtain certificates of residence
  • Secure advance clearances for reduced WHT rates
  • Document beneficial ownership

Assignment Documentation:

  • Draft and execute assignment agreements
  • Obtain necessary third-party consents
  • Register IP transfers where required
  • Notify licensees of new payment recipient

Phase 3: Post-Closing (Ongoing)

Tax Compliance:

  • File required tax returns
  • Maintain documentation for treaty benefits
  • Monitor for law changes
  • Annual beneficial ownership certifications

Substance Maintenance (SPVs):

  • Maintain local operations
  • Hold regular board meetings
  • Perform genuine management functions
  • Document business purpose

Monitoring:

  • Track royalty payments
  • Ensure proper withholding (if any)
  • Update for treaty changes
  • Respond to tax authority inquiries

1. BEPS 2.0 and Pillar Two

The OECD's Pillar Two initiative establishes a global minimum tax of 15%:

Impact on Royalty Structures:

  • Patent boxes below 15% may face top-up tax
  • Switzerland's 3-5% effective rate could be subject to top-up
  • Top-up tax payable in parent jurisdiction or via Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax (QDMTT)
  • May reduce benefits of ultra-low-tax IP holding structures

Implementation Timeline:

  • Many jurisdictions implementing from 2024-2025
  • U.S. position uncertain (GILTI may or may not qualify)
  • Planning must account for potential 15% minimum

2. Digital Services Taxes and IP

Several countries implementing Digital Services Taxes (DSTs):

  • May impact pharmaceutical digital platforms
  • Licensing through digital channels could face additional taxes
  • Coordination with Pillar One still uncertain

3. Increased Transparency Requirements

Country-by-Country Reporting:

  • Large multinationals must report income, tax, and activities by jurisdiction
  • Increased scrutiny of IP holding structures

Mandatory Disclosure Rules (DAC6 in EU):

  • Cross-border arrangements must be reported
  • Hallmarks include treaty shopping and conduit structures
  • Failure to report = penalties

4. Germany's Evolving Royalty Barrier

Germany's royalty barrier threshold dropped to <15% from 2024:

  • More aggressive than original <25% threshold
  • Application to U.S. FDII controversial
  • May challenge more structures than previously

5. Post-Brexit UK Adjustments

Changes:

  • UK no longer benefits from EU Interest & Royalties Directive
  • Reliance on bilateral treaties increased
  • New UK-EU trade agreement doesn't cover direct taxation

Planning Impact:

  • May see more direct UK-U.S. structures
  • Less routing through EU intermediaries for UK deals

6. Switzerland's Continued Competitiveness

Despite international pressure, Switzerland remains attractive:

  • Patent box with 90% relief highly competitive
  • No royalty WHT significant advantage
  • Strong substance requirements protect legitimacy
  • Likely to remain favorable for genuine IP management

Published by:

Sebastian Gensior

Member discussion