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
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).