There will be some disruption to PruAdviser access on Sunday 26 May between 1pm and 2pm due to planned maintenance work.

Corporate-owned bonds

Author Image The Technical Team
11 minutes read
Last updated on 6th Apr 2019

Overview

Understand the corporation tax implications of a company investing in an insurance bond.

Key points

  • Companies commonly hold cash on the balance sheet that is surplus to working capital requirements.
  • With interest rates at historically low levels, companies are increasingly seeking a better return for that cash.
  • Investment bonds offer a tax-efficient investment vehicle for corporate money.
  • Companies can invest in onshore and offshore bonds. 

Holding surplus cash

For a variety of reasons, it is common for a company to hold cash on the balance sheet surplus to working capital requirements. The company will receive gross interest from the bank and pay corporation tax annually on the interest earned.

Corporation tax rates

  • From 1 April 2015: corporation tax rate of 20%
  • From 1 April 2016: corporation tax rate of 20%
  • From 1 April 2017: corporation tax rate of 19%
  • From 1 April 2020: corporation tax rate of 17%

With interest rates at historically low levels, companies are increasingly seeking a better return for that cash. Low volatility is generally important as those funds will be required for business purposes at some point.

Bonds are taxed under the 'loan relationship' rules, the remit of which extends well beyond insurance bonds. 

Although complex in nature, in very broad terms, these rules require the taxation treatment of the item in question (in this case an insurance bond) to follow the accounting treatment. To understand the tax treatment of a corporate owned insurance bond, it is therefore necessary to consider the accounting treatment. There are a number of accounting standards that a company might use – principally historic cost and fair value.

Historic cost

The bond is simply shown in the balance sheet at the end of the company's accounting period at the original premium amount, regardless of the actual surrender value. No annual gain (or loss) is recognised in the company accounts, meaning no corporation tax consequences arise. The company achieves tax deferral until there is a disposal event such as full surrender, partial surrender or death of last life assured.

Fair value

In this case, the balance sheet at the end of the accounting period will include the bond at its surrender value at that date. That means the movement in value (either a gain or loss) has been processed through the profit and loss account. That movement has corporation tax consequences. The company does not achieve tax deferral since the increase in value will be subject to corporation tax (any decrease is potentially relievable for corporation tax purposes).

Historic cost v fair value

‘Micro entities’ can use historic cost accounting for insurance bonds. Larger companies use fair value rules when accounting for insurance bonds.

It had been the case previously that 'small' companies used historic cost, with large companies obliged to use fair value. The reason for this was that small companies used a set of less complicated accounting standards known as the Financial Reporting Standard for Smaller Entities (FRSSE) which permitted historic cost accounting. FRSSE was however withdrawn, meaning the majority of large and medium-sized UK entities now apply FRS 102 (see below) when preparing their annual financial statements. As mentioned above, ‘micro entities’ eg contractor type companies, will use historic cost accounting for insurance bonds.

With a micro entity being small in size, it can enjoy the least complex and comprehensive financial reporting requirements possible by applying FRS 105. Overall, the financial accounts will be straightforward, require limited disclosure of information and will be constrained as regards accounting policies. In particular, no assets can be measured at fair value or a revalued amount. In other words, historic cost will apply. Note that the company may opt up to a more comprehensive accounting regime if it considers that FRS 105 doesn’t meet its needs.

Accounting standards are complex and the recognition of the bond in the accounts is, in every case, a matter for the accountant to determine.

What is FRS102?

FRS 102 is the main new UK Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP) standard. It replaces all of the current Financial Reporting Standards (FRSs) and Statement of Standard Accounting Practices (SSAPs).

FRS102 replaces over 70 accounting standards and Urgent Issues Task Force interpretations, spanning more than 2,400 pages with one succinct standard of a little over 300 pages. It reflects developments in the way businesses operate and uses up-to-date accounting treatment and language. In short, FRS102 is concerned with wider issues than insurance bonds.

While format requirements of the Companies Act remain, in many cases the terminology used in FRS 102 differs from old UK GAAP. For example, a profit and loss account is now an "income statement" under FRS102, and a balance sheet is a "statement of financial position".

Under FRS102, "basic financial instruments" (see the definition of basic financial instruments below) can be valued at historic cost but a typical insurance bond would not fall within the definition. Insurance bonds falling outside the definition of a 'basic financial instrument' will be accounted for under the fair value regime.

When the company makes a part or full disposal, this is called a 'related transaction'. The profit (or loss) on that is treated as a non-trading credit (NTC) or a non-trading debit (NTD). Where the bond in question is onshore, then relief is obtained for the basic rate tax deemed paid within the fund. This amounts to 25% of the NTC profit on disposal. That amount can be offset against the company's overall corporation tax liability for the accounting period in question. If it exceeds the company's tax liability then the excess is not repayable and neither can it be set off against any prior or future accounting periods.

Small entities

There is a category of businesses called ‘small entities’. A company will qualify if it does not exceed two or more of the following criteria:

  • Turnover: £10.2m
  • Balance Sheet: £5.1m
  • Number of employees: 50

These entities are required to use the FRS102 accounting rules outlined above (ie fair value for a typical insurance bond) but have reduced presentation and disclosure requirements

Micro entities

Very small companies (eg contractor type companies) can continue with historic cost. A company qualifies if it doesn’t exceed two or more of the following criteria:

  • Turnover: £632,000
  • Balance Sheet total: £316,000
  • Number of employees: 10

Under this regime, no assets can be measured at fair value or a revalued amount and instead must be held at cost.

Do the normal bond chargeable event rules apply to companies?

No. Following Finance Act 2008, the loan relationship rules apply and not chargeable event gain rules (5%s do not apply to companies). As mentioned above, the loan relationship rules have a much wider remit that just investment bonds.

Offshore bonds

The examples below consider a company investing in a UK bond. If the company invests offshore then the position is as follows. 

In the same manner as a UK bond, under fair value rules, any increase in value will be subject to corporation tax with any decrease potentially relievable for corporation tax purposes. When the company makes a full or part disposal and a profit arises, there will be no grossing up of that profit required and accordingly no tax treated as paid for offset against the company’s corporation tax liability. This is logical, as that mechanism is in place simply to give the company a measure of relief similar to the basic rate tax treated as paid on chargeable event gains on UK policies owned by non-corporates (ie individuals and trustees).

If a micro entity invests in an offshore bond, then how is that taxed under historic cost rules? As with a UK bond, no annual gain (or loss) is recognised in the company accounts, meaning no corporation tax consequences arise. When the company makes a full or part disposal and a profit arises, then no ‘basic rate’ adjustment mechanism is required and that profit is taxable at the prevailing corporation tax rates.

Example – bond investment accounting

Fair Value Ltd has an accounting date of 31 March. In September 2016 it invests £200,000 in a UK bond which is valued at £220,000 by 31 March 2017.

Accounting Period Ended (APE) 31 March 2017 - bond valued at £220,000
- Non-trading credit (NTC) £20,000 x 20% = £4,000

APE 31 March 2018 - bond valued at £215,000
- Non-trading debit (NTD) £5,000 (no tax payable)

In October 2018 the company surrenders 50% for £120,000 when the bond is worth £240,000. By 31 March 2019, bond is valued at £127,500

APE 31 March 2019
50% of bond surrendered for proceeds of    £120,000
50% of value at 31 March 2018                    (£107,500)
NTC on part surrender                                 £12,500

Also there is an overall profit of £20,000 (50% yielded proceeds of £120,000 yet 50% of premium cost £100,000). Gross up @ 100/80 = £25,000. Therefore tax credit = £5,000

Annual movement £127,500 less 50% of £215,000 = £20,000

Total NTCs £12,500 + £5,000 + £20,000 = £37,500
@ 19%                                                       = £7,125
Tax credit                                                    (£5,000)
Tax due                                                        £2,125

Reconciliation
31 March 2017 - tax paid £4,000
31 March 2018 - tax relieved against other profits (£950)
31 March 2019 - tax paid £2,125

In total the company has so far suffered £5,175 corporation tax.

No tax will have been payable on the encashment due to the tax paid within the fund. So the company should only have paid tax on the overall growth. At 31 March 2019 the bond is worth £127,500. Bearing in mind that only 50% of the bond remains in force, then how much was 50% of original premium? The answer is £100,000. Therefore, since inception the 50% remaining in the bond has grown by £27,500 and if corporation tax rates had remained at 20% then that would have given rise to a figure of £5,500 tax suffered. The tax suffered was only £5,175, and the reduction of £325 can be explained as follows:

31 March 2018 – (£5,000) relieved at 19% rather than 20% = (£50)

31 March 2019 – £37,500 taxed at 19% rather than 20%      = £375

Difference                                                                          £325

Example continued – encashing a bond

Now let's assume that Fair Value Ltd encashes the bond in April 2019 for £127,500. The bond has therefore not changed in value since 31 March 2019. This disposal occurs in APE 31 March 2020.

The full surrender is called a 'related transaction'. This means we recognise the fact that the life fund has suffered tax at a rate equal to basic rate.

We must calculate 'PC' which is the profit from the contract.

PC equals proceeds of £127,500 less £100,000 (50% of original cost) = £27,500

PC is also obtained by summing the previous NTCs & NTD shown in Appendix II = £20,000 less £5,000 plus £12,500 = £27,500

PC must be grossed up to reflect the tax suffered within the fund

  • £27,500 x 100/80 = £34,375
  • £34,375 - £27,500 = £6,875 (this is a NTC)

Corporation tax due on the NTC = £6,875 x 19% = £1,306
Tax treated as paid                                             = (£6,875)
Available for offset                                             = £5,569

Overall reconciliation

The company invested £200,000 and it has received proceeds of £120,000 plus £127,500. Total gain therefore of £47,500. Given that this is an onshore bond then the company would not expect to pay any corporate tax due to the tax suffered within the fund.

31 March 2017 -  £4,000 tax paid
31 March 2018 - (£950) tax relieved against other profits
31 March 2019 -  £2,125 tax paid
31 March 2020 - (£5,569) tax relieved against other profits
Total                    (£394)

If corporation tax rates had remained at 20% then the above total would have reconciled to zero. This would have been achieved as follows:

31 March 2017 -  £4,000 tax paid
31 March 2018 - (£1,000) tax relieved against other profits
31 March 2019 - £2,500 tax paid
31 March 2020 - (£5,500) tax relieved against other profits
Total                  (£Nil)

Example continued – identical investment but historic cost accounting

Let's now consider the exact same bond purchase and surrender as was the case for Fair Value Ltd, but let's assume a micro entity using historic cost accounting.

Micro Entity Ltd also has an accounting date of 31 March. In September 2016 it too invests £200,000 in a UK bond. In October 2018 it also surrenders 50% for £120,000 when bond is worth £240,000. And it also encashes the bond in April 2019 for £127,500.

APE 31 March 2017 – changes in value during an accounting period are not recognised under historic cost accounting. Therefore no tax consequences.

APE 31 March 2018 – changes in value during an accounting period are not recognised under historic cost accounting. Therefore no tax consequences.

APE 31 March 2019 – gain of £20,000 but no corporation tax due as a result of tax suffered within the fund.

APE 31 March 2020 – gain of £27,500 but no corporation tax due as a result of tax suffered within the fund.

Definition of a basic financial instrument

An insurance bond would need to satisfy the following conditions contained in 11.9 of FRS102

(a) Returns to the holder are:
(i) a fixed amount;
(ii) a fixed rate of return over the life of the instrument;
(iii) a variable return that, throughout the life of the instrument, is equal to a single referenced quoted or observable interest rate (such as LIBOR); or
(iv) some combination of such fixed rate and variable rates (such as LIBOR plus 200 basis points), provided that both the fixed and variable rates are positive (eg an interest rate swap with a positive fixed rate and negative variable rate would not meet this criterion). For fixed and variable rate interest returns, interest is calculated by multiplying the rate for the applicable period by the principal amount outstanding during the period.
(b) There is no contractual provision that could, by its terms, result in the holder losing the principal amount or any interest attributable to the current period or prior periods. The fact that a debt instrument is subordinated to other debt instruments is not an example of such a contractual provision.
(c) Contractual provisions that permit the issuer (the borrower) to prepay a debt instrument or permit the holder (the lender) to put it back to the issuer before maturity are not contingent on future events other than to protect:
(i) the holder against the credit deterioration of the issuer (eg defaults, credit downgrades or loan covenant violations), or a change in control of the issuer; or
(ii) the holder or issuer against changes in relevant taxation or law.
(d) There are no conditional returns or repayment provisions except for the variable rate return described in (a) and prepayment provisions described in (c).

Labelled Under:
Corporate

© Prudential 2019