Economic Substance

Published: 17 Oct 2019
Type: Insight

Economic Substance:  International Tax Co-Operation (Economic Substance) Law, 2018


The Cayman Islands’ International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Law, 2018 (ES Law) and The International Tax Co-Operation (Economic Substance) (Prescribed Dates) Regulations, 2018 (ES Regulations) came into force on 1 January 2019. The regime became applicable immediately to new relevant entities incorporated or registered after that date. For existing relevant entities, there was a six-month transition period which ended on 1 July 2019.

The ES Law is supplemented by the Cayman Islands guidance for economic substance for geographically mobile activities (ES Guidance Notes), version 2.0 of which was published on 30 April 2019.

A “relevant entity” is only in scope of the Cayman Islands economic substance requirements if and to the extent that it conducts any “relevant activity”. Cayman Islands exempted companies, limited liability companies (LLCs), limited liability partnerships (LLPs) and foreign companies registered in the Cayman Islands will be considered to be “relevant entities” unless they meet the definition of “investment fund” or “domestic company” under the ES Law, or are “tax resident outside of the Cayman Islands”, as contemplated under the ES Law and within ES Guidance Notes.

Relevant activities include banking business, distribution and service centre business, financing and leasing business, fund management business, headquarters business, holding company business, insurance company business, intellectual property business and shipping business.

Whilst many clients have already undertaken the exercise of classifying their Cayman Islands entities for purposes of the ES Law, we continue to get enquiries from persons with existing entities seeking guidance on the regime and its application to their circumstances. We strongly recommend that anyone who has not yet addressed the implications of the ES Law on their Cayman entities do so as a matter of urgency. Appleby would be pleased to assist in this endeavor. Please contact a member of our Regulatory Team or your usual Appleby contact.

Additionally, we encourage those who have already undertaken the classification exercise to remain mindful of certain developments that are still anticipated to occur before year end, as discussed below.

ES Regulations and Guidance Notes

In an industry update circulated on 26 July 2019, the Department of International Tax Cooperation (DITC) advised, among other things, that version 3.0 of the ES Guidance Notes was being drafted and that the next iteration of the notes would include sector-specific guidance for each relevant activity, as well as guidance for investment funds. Working groups from industry sector groups met with the DITC at the end of August 2019. The consultation period has now concluded, and version 3.0 of the ES Guidance Notes is anticipated to be released towards the end of October or at the beginning of November 2019.

On 10 September 2019, the Cayman Islands government (through Cabinet) amended the ES Regulations to include provisions relating to “MNE Groups”. “MNE Group” refers to any group that includes two or more enterprises for which the tax residence is in different jurisdictions or includes an enterprise that is resident for tax purposes in one jurisdiction and is subject to tax with respect to the business carried out through a permanent establishment in another jurisdiction”. MNE Groups are specifically excluded from the definition of “domestic company” under the ES Law in order to ensure that a company which is carrying on business both within the Cayman Islands and also business exterior to the Cayman Islands cannot avail itself of the exemption from the definition of “relevant entity” for domestic companies. Corresponding changes to the ES Guidance Notes version 2.0 were published on 17 September 2019.

ES Notification and Reporting

Exempted companies, foreign companies, LLCs and LLPs will each be required to file a notification form under the ES Law (ES Notification). The ES Notification will be filed via the General Registry system of the Registrar of Companies of the Cayman Islands. The notification form will be separate from the General Registry’s annual return for companies but, in terms of timing, the completion and filing of the ES Notification will be a prerequisite to filing the annual return. The below reference document published by the DITC shows exactly what each entity will have to disclose in the ES Notification form:

Entities claiming to be exempt by virtue of tax residence elsewhere will be required to support their claim with additional information that follows the OECD’s Nominal Tax Jurisdiction schema, which is still in development.

Timing

  • October 15 – ES Notification form released
  • Late October/early November – sector specific guidance notes
  • July 2020 – ES Portal should be live
  • December 2020 – first ES return due

Economic Substance Online Tool

Appleby has an online Economic Substance Entity Classification Questionnaire which offers guidance through the economic substance regime of the Cayman Islands (as well as the regimes of Bermuda, the BVI, Guernsey, the Isle of Man and Jersey).  It was developed by our legal and regulatory experts and is available online free of charge.  If an entity is in scope of a jurisdiction’s economic substance requirements, the Questionnaire will provide a summary of steps required to meet those requirements.

Share
More publications
The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
28 Apr 2026

The Interplay Between Supervision Applications and Winding Up on the Just and Equitable Ground: Re Atlas Capital Markets LLC

In its recent judgment in Re Atlas Capital Markets LLC [2026] CIGC (FSD) 19, the Grand Court considered itself bound to make a supervision order pursuant to s.131(b) of the Companies Act, notwithstanding that the company was the subject of a pending just and equitable winding up (J&E) petition when its voluntary liquidation was commenced; and rejected an attack on the joint voluntary liquidators’ (JVLs) independence, which was principally based on a misreading of the JVLs’ evidence and lacked any objective foundation. The authors, who successfully represented the JVLs in obtaining the supervision order, discuss this important judgment further below – which is believed to be the first decision on the interplay between supervision applications and J&E proceedings under the Companies Act – and offer their views on the guidance that shareholders petitioning on the just and equitable ground may derive from it in future cases.  The challenge to the JVLs’ independence was rejected on the well-established principles which Doyle J discussed in Re Global Fidelity Bank [2021] 2 CILR 361, and is not discussed in further detail below.

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
23 Apr 2026

ReConnect 2026: Practical takeaways for Reinsurers, Cedants and Investors doing business in the Cayman Islands

The Cayman International Reinsurance Commercial Association (CIRCA) held its annual conference, [Re]Connect, last week at the Ritz-Carlton, Grand Cayman. This year’s [Re]Connect has once again demonstrated Cayman’s growing influence in global reinsurance and the strength of the jurisdiction’s regulatory, professional and commercial ecosystem. The event brought together 675 registered delegates, including reinsurers, cedants, major US law firms, audit firms, tax practices, asset managers, overseas regulators, industry leaders and rating agencies – as well as Appleby Cayman’s [Re]Insurance Team, with Miriam Smyth, Regulatory Counsel, speaking on a panel of experts on structuring, licensing and operating a Cayman insurer.

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
23 Apr 2026

FamilyMart and Beyond: The Continuing Influence of the Privy Council’s Landmark Decision on Shareholder Litigation

The Privy Council's decision in FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corp [2023] UKPC 33 is a landmark ruling that distinguishes the arbitrability of underlying shareholder disputes from the court's exclusive jurisdiction over just and equitable winding-up of a Cayman company.

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Regulation, Regulation, Regulation

The article discusses updates to global trust guidance and regulation, as well as beneficial ownership and the regulatory burden on trustees that comes with increased transparency.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Prospects of Asian Companies in U.S. Listings in 2026

Nasdaq introduced a series of rule changes in 2025 to raise minimum requirements for public float and offering size for certain new listings.

Website-Code-Cayman
20 Apr 2026

Avoiding The Nuclear Option: Buyout Orders In Just And Equitable Winding Up Proceedings

With the Cayman Islands being a preferred jurisdiction for the incorporation of investment vehicles, inevitably cases will arise where non-controlling shareholders complain that they are being unfairly prejudiced by conduct of those in control, and necessarily pursue those complaints by way of proceedings to wind up the subject company on the just and equitable ground. Where such complaints are well-founded, the outcome will often be an order putting the subject company into official liquidation.  But the Cayman courts also have the jurisdiction in such cases to make a range of other orders as alternatives to taking that nuclear option, and are indeed obliged to consider whether any of those alternative orders would provide a more appropriate solution to the complaints.[1] The Grand Court was recently required to conduct that analysis in the case of Re Position Mobile Ltd SEZC.[2]  The petitioning shareholder in that case had satisfied the Court that it would be just and equitable to wind up the company – since it had justifiably lost confidence in the probity of those in control, due to their serious and sustained misconduct and mismanagement – but positively sought a buyout order[3] as an alternative to a winding up.  The Court thus proceeded to consider whether the buyout order, or any other alternative order, would be more appropriate than ordering a winding up, and concluded that a buyout order was the fairest and most appropriate form of relief in the circumstances of that case. The authors will discuss the guidance which the Position Mobile case provides in that regard below, which should be considered together with the guidance provided by Re Madera Technology Fund (CI) Ltd,[4] particularly in respect of the approach that the Cayman courts can be expected to take when setting the appropriate valuation date for a buyout order, with a view to ensuring that the valuation is fair to each side.[5] [1] See Re Virginia Solution SPC Ltd (unrep. 28 July 2023, CICA) at [61]. [2] [2026] CIGC (FSD) 10 [3] Requiring the respondent shareholders to purchase its shares at a fair price. [4] (unrep. 21 Aug. 2024, Richards J). [5] For further detail, see the authors’ article on the Madera Technology case at https://www.applebyglobal.com/publications/no-looking-back-investor-held-to-buyout-at-current-value-of-shares/.

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
7 Apr 2026

No Claim, No Injunction: What Does a Limited Partner Actually Own?

What equitable proprietary interest, if any, does a limited partner hold in the assets of a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership, and is that interest is sufficient to ground a proprietary injunction? These questions lie at the heart of Parker J’s recent judgment in the matter of Charitable DAF HoldCo, Ltd (in Official Liquidation), in which the Grand Court refused proprietary injunctive relief sought by joint official liquidators against former directors and associated entities. The judgment holds that the Company, as a limited partner in a Cayman ELP, had no equitable proprietary interest in the Fund’s underlying assets of the quality required to found the relief sought. While the court did not exclude the possibility of an LP having proprietary rights in an ELP’s assets, it held that on the particular facts of the case such rights were excluded.

Appleby-Website-Cayman2
30 Mar 2026

The Regulation of Cayman Islands Tokenised Funds – Clear Rules Now in Place

On 5 March 2026 the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) (Amendment Bill), 2026, the Mutual Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 and the Private Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 were passed by the Parliament of the Cayman Islands with unanimous support, providing welcome clarity that Cayman Islands tokenised funds are regulated within Cayman’s existing Mutual Funds Act (MFA) and Private Funds Act (PFA) framework and do not fall within the scope of the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Act (VASPA).

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
19 Mar 2026

Key Regulatory Requirements of SIBA Registered Persons in the Cayman Islands

Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (Revised) (SIBA) attract regulatory requirements including annual reporting requirements with key filing deadlines falling in January and, typically, December each year. The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA)’s recently issued General Industry Notice to the effect that all SIBA Registered Persons will be additionally required to submit a Prudential Information Survey for the 2025 calendar year (by 31 March 2026) has signaled CIMA's continued focus on enhancing the resilience, transparency and prudential soundness of the securities investment business (SIB) sector in the Cayman Islands. Accordingly, this briefing reviews some of the other key regulatory and reporting obligations that attach to Registered Persons under SIBA, CIMA’s associated Rules and Statements of Guidance (SOG), the applicable Anti-Money Laundering Regulations (Cayman AML Regulations) the Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Common Reporting Standard) Regulations (Revised) (Cayman CRS Regulations) and, where applicable, The International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Act (Revised) (ES Act).