The consultant asks whether participants in funds that absorbed a SICAV have the same deferral rights as those receiving a liquidation share under the transitional provision 41. The DGT responds that the operations and their fiscal basis are different, so they are not equivalent.
Question posed: Whether, following the entry into force of the forty-first transitional provision of the Corporate Tax Law, unitholders in investment funds resulting from the merger by absorption of variable capital investment companies by said funds have, for the purposes of subsequent transfers to other collective investment schemes, the same treatment as unitholders in investment funds resulting from the reinvestment of the liquidation proceeds allocated to them upon the dissolution with liquidation of certain variable capital investment companies carried out in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned forty-first transitional provision, on the basis that in both cases a similar situation of tax neutrality and deferral occurs upon the extinction of a variable capital investment company.
The operations involving the transfer of fund units resulting from a SICAV merger are not assimilated to the regime of the forty-first transitional provision of the LIS. In mergers, the deferred income shall be taxed when the fund units are transferred, without the application of the deferral for reinvestment of the liquidation proceeds. The applicable treatment is that of ruling V2932-16, where reinvestment only defers the entirety of the income if the requirements of article 94 of the LIRPF were met at the time of the merger.
What is published here, applied to a company or a specific case. The first meeting is free.