Economic Substance in the time of COVID-19

Published: 26 May 2020
Type: Insight

The International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Law (Revised) (the ES Law) came into force in the Cayman Islands (the Islands) on 1 January 2019.

Under the ES Law a “relevant entity” conducting any “relevant activity” is required to satisfy a 3-branch economic substance test (the ES Test) in respect of that activity. It must:

  1. conduct Cayman Islands core income-generating activity in relation to that relevant activity;
  2. be directed and managed in an appropriate manner in the Islands in relation to that activity;
  3. having regard to the level of relevant income derived from the relevant activity carried out in the Islands –
    • have an adequate amount of operating expenditure incurred in the Islands;
    • have adequate physical presence (including maintaining a place of business or plant, property and equipment) in the Islands; and
    • have an adequate number of full-time employees or other personnel with appropriate qualifications in the Islands.

Cayman, like many other jurisdictions, introduced its ES Law in response to international pressure to demonstrate ‘substance’ for entities established within its tax neutral borders. It goes without saying that drafters of the ES Law did not have the Coronavirus and COVID-19 in their thoughts when formulating the ES Test. In all honesty, who but an elite group of epidemiologists and pandemic experts did? The reality though is that the ES Law continues to impose certain obligations on ‘relevant entities’ carrying on ‘relevant activities’, and in so doing, it raises the spectre of how does, or can, an entity comply with these obligations in the face of disruption as unprecedented as COVID-19?

Consider the case of a newly-incorporated Cayman Islands exempted company (Cayco), intent on carrying on a relevant activity and therefore required to meet the ES Test from the time of commencing its business activities. How would Cayco satisfy each prong of the ES Test in the current environment?

With borders closed and many businesses shuttered for the foreseeable future, commencing operations through physical premises in the Cayman Islands is likely to prove nearly impossible at this time. Fortunately, the ES Law does provide for the outsourcing of core income-generating activities to another provider within the jurisdiction, so long as the relevant entity is able to monitor and control the carrying out of that activity by that other person.

Core income-generating activities are specific to the type of relevant activity in which Cayco will engage. Within some sectors, such as those related to financial services, Cayman-based outsourcing options have been steadily expanding. Even where outsourcing is viable though, Cayco may find it challenging to assess its outsourcing options and settle on an appropriate partner in such uncertain times.

With respect to the “directed and managed” prong of the test, on 21 March 2020 the Department for International Tax Cooperation (DITC) (through a Ministry of Financial Services industry update) acknowledged that COVID-19 may impact travel in 2020, which may in turn affect the ability of some entities to hold their board of director meetings in Cayman during the year. The DITC went on to confirm that “where board of director meetings are required to be held virtually during this period of uncertainty, it would take that into consideration on a case-by-case basis when determining whether an entity has passed or failed the ES test in reporting, which is due in 2021”.

By its nature the final prong of the ES Test is a measure of proportionality – “having regard to the level of relevant income”. If Cayco has relevant income, it will have to assess whether its operating expenditure, premises and employees are adequate in relation to that income. In an era where hiring freezes and layoffs are the norm, work permits applications are largely on hold, commercial properties may only be shown via video and where many non-Caymanian residents within the Islands find themselves by necessity exploring a return to their home countries, how does Cayco successfully ramp up its operation, ensuring all the while that it is well positioned to comply with the ES Test? The problem is decidedly more acute where Cayco’s business operations require those with specific skill sets, already in short supply.

In late March the DITC announced an extension to the 2019 ES notification filing deadline from 31 March 2020 to 30 June 2020. That move, coupled with its pronouncement on board meetings during 2020, demonstrate some appreciation for the challenges facing existing market participants. All indications though appear to be pointing to COVID-19 continuing to dominate economies the world over for the balance of this year and possibly into 2021. It remains to be seen whether the DITC will revisit the ES Test to address market realities and the new economic landscape.

Share
More publications
Website-Code-Cayman-2
30 Jul 2026

Contingent Creditors, Standing And The Winding Up Jurisdiction: Analysing Re Petrosaudi International

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has delivered a highly significant judgment in Re PetroSaudi International.[1] The Court clarified the circumstances in which an alleged contingent creditor will have standing to petition to wind up a company under section 94(1)(b) of the Companies Act, and confirmed that there is no jurisdiction to make a winding up order on an ex parte without notice basis.[2] Our article analyses the Court of Appeal’s decision, and considers its implications for insolvency practitioners.

Website-Code-Cayman-1
30 Jul 2026

Final Means Final: Wei v Wang and the Common Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Cayman Islands

English Court Reaffirms Pro-Enforcement Approach to Foreign Judgments In Wei v Wang [2026] EWHC 1892 (Comm), the Court confirmed that exceptional avenues of review do not undermine the finality of a judgment and reiterated the limited scope of the natural justice defence.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
28 Jul 2026

Drelle Overturned in Latest UK Supreme Court Decision

The United Kingdom Supreme Court in its recent decision in Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2026] UKSC 29 (Drelle SC) has overturned the controversial decision of the English Court of Appeal in Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 (Drelle CA), and in doing so has provided welcome clarity on the effect of unrecognised foreign judgments in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency contexts. This is likely to have a wide-reaching impact – not only in the UK but also offshore – and particularly in the British Virgin Islands following the recent decision in JJW Hotels & Resorts Holding Inc v Rhodes (BVIHCM2025/0296) (JJW Hotels) (which relied heavily on Drelle CA), and in the Cayman Islands where previous authorities had recognised the ability, in the corporate context, for petitioners to present winding up petitions on the basis of an unrecognised foreign judgment.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
24 Jul 2026

Thalassa Investments LP: Section 22 and Specific Discovery - Strategic Considerations for Limited Partners Seeking Information and Documents

In Thalassa Investments LP [2026] CIGC (FSD) 32, the Grand Court refused an application by limited partner petitioners for specific discovery from the general partner in just and equitable proceedings to wind up a Cayman Islands ELP. The ruling was against the backdrop of serious lack of probity allegations made against the general partner by the petitioners. Notwithstanding those allegations, the Grand Court declined to make orders requiring discovery of various categories of documents to be used at trial.   The ruling brings into focus the multiple routes potentially open to limited partners seeking information and/or documents from an ELP where there are allegations of mismanagement by the general partner. The limited partner may issue substantive proceedings (or, as in this case, present a just and equitable winding up petition) against the general partner and partnership, and then obtain documents through the usual discovery process. Alternatively, the limited partner may pursue its substantive right to true and full information under section 22 of the Exempted Limited Partnership Act first in order to help inform the bringing of a substantive claim, as was the approach in the Neoma (Abraaj) and the Port Fund litigation. Thalassa illustrates that the nature of the information sought, who holds it, and the legal basis on which disclosure is sought are all highly relevant to the outcome. The decision also highlights that section 22 and discovery serve different purposes, are governed by different legal tests and can produce different outcomes. The strategic question is not whether section 22 or the discovery process may be preferable in the abstract, but which legal framework best aligns with the limited partner’s objectives and the nature of the information sought.

Appleby-Website-Banking-and-Asset-Finance
13 Jul 2026

Guide to Loans & Secured Financing in the Cayman Islands 2026

This guide provides local insights into the legal and regulatory framework governing bank lending and finance. It covers key topics including bank loans versus debt securities, common forms of bank loan facilities, bridge financing, the roles of agents, trustees and lenders, and governing laws. It also examines the regulatory landscape, including capital, liquidity and disclosure requirements, the use of loan proceeds, cross-border lending, and interest rate and currency restrictions. In addition, the guide explores security interests and guarantees, the impact of fraudulent conveyance and similar doctrines on bank loan financing structures, intercreditor arrangements, loan terms and structures, and recent market developments.

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring
9 Jul 2026

A Warning to Litigants Seeking Funding: English High Court Clarifies the Limits of Litigation Privilege

Important for Cayman litigants, funders and attorneys given the growing use of third-party funding in disputes.

Appleby-Website-Fraud-and-Asset-Tracing
8 Jul 2026

A Cautionary Tale in Interim Injunctive Relief: Lessons from Dixon v Seymour

In a recent judgment of Chief Justice Ramsay-Hale, the Cayman Grand Court provided guidance on the necessary components of an application for interim injunctive relief. The ruling illustrates how an ex parte application may fail to satisfy the American Cyanamid test when unsupported by proper evidence.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
7 Jul 2026

CIMA’s 2026 Reinsurance Thematic Review: Focus Points for Boards

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has published its 2026 Thematic Review of Reinsurance Companies (Thematic Review). This reflects fieldwork conducted by CIMA between mid-2025 and Q1 2026 at selected Class B(iii) and Class D licensed reinsurers. The focus being on compliance with the Insurance Act (as revised) and other applicable legislation, regulations, rules and statements of guidance as issued by CIMA centering around stress-testing, cash flow testing frameworks, capital and collateral adequacy management, and corporate governance. Corporate governance weaknesses account for 68% of all findings with the remaining 32% spread across stress-testing, cash flow testing capital and collateral adequacy. Notwithstanding these findings, CIMA has noted several good practices across all areas including, importantly, comprehensive risk management frameworks covering key risk areas and strong capital and collateral adequacy monitoring processes. With Cayman’s reinsurance sector having grown to an institutional scale, and over 110 licensed reinsurers writing in the order of US$30 billion in annual premiums against over US$100 billion in assets, this latest Thematic Review demonstrates development in CIMA’s supervisory expectations of Cayman’s licensed reinsurers. It represents a reflection of the jurisdiction’s increasingly sophisticated and maturing reinsurance market and reinforces that CIMA’s expectations align closely with the standards that onshore counterparty cedants, rating agencies and US state regulators already expect. We take this opportunity to review certain of the key findings alongside CIMA’s cross-sectoral 2026 Thematic Review on Outsourcing, note some of the good practices highlighted by CIMA and make some associated recommendations for Cayman reinsurers.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
25 Jun 2026

CIMA Enforcement Action in Focus: Reminders and Recommendations

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has recently published a number of Enforcement Notices that provide helpful context for regulated entities, including Licensees and Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (Revised) (SIBA), seeking to understand and meet their ongoing regulatory obligations in the Cayman Islands. In early June 2026, CIMA exercised its enforcement powers under SIBA Section 17 to cancel the registrations of several SIBA Registered Persons on the basis that it had reasonable grounds to believe that such Registered Persons had failed to meet certain key regulatory obligations. The Appleby Team takes this opportunity to review the relevant findings and CIMA enforcement action; and to highlight certain key obligations that attach to regulated entities in the Cayman Islands.