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
Appleby-Website-Funds-and-Investment-Services
28 Oct 2026

Side Letters: Preferential Terms, Practical Challenges

Side letters are a common feature of Cayman Islands investment funds. This article outlines the legal framework governing side letters, the key considerations for fund operators when negotiating and granting preferential terms, and the implications of side letters for subscription financing arrangements.

Appleby-Website-Arbitration-and-Dispute-Resolution
22 Oct 2026

Grand Court Sees Through "Specific Performance" Label And Stays Redemption Claim In Favour Of HKIAC Arbitration

We are pleased to report on our recent win in the Cayman Grand Court: a stay of Cayman proceedings concerning a US$87m+ redemption claim in favour of HKIAC arbitration. Doyle J found that the claim for "specific performance" was "entirely artificial and a mere device" intended to escape the arbitration clause. The Appleby team comprised John McCarroll SC, Damon Booth and Ray Leung (Hong Kong), and Andrew Jackson and Zuhair Farouki (Cayman). Andrew Ayres KC appeared as leading counsel.

Appleby-Website-Cayman1
21 Oct 2026

The Cayman Islands LLC at ten: what fund finance has learned

Ten years on, the Cayman Islands LLC is an established part of fund finance practice. A useful question is how an LLC’s contractual flexibility affects lender diligence, security and enforcement, and when an exempted company remains the more efficient financing vehicle.

Website-Code-Cayman-1
1 Sep 2026

The Executor's Year in the Law of the Cayman Islands

Of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, the suit which stands at the centre of Bleak House and which concerned an estate drawn into the administration of the Court of Chancery, Dickens wrote that 'this scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means'. The complaint was not the novelist's invention. It was directed at a state of affairs in which the beneficiary dissatisfied with the conduct of an administration had in substance one remedy, a decree for general administration, which took the whole estate into the hands of the court and kept it there, upon occasion until there was little left to distribute.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
26 Aug 2026

Comparative Analysis of Cayman and BVI Companies as Listing Vehicles

This article provides an in-depth company-law comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Cayman Islands and BVI companies as listing vehicles, with a view to assisting businesses in selecting the appropriate jurisdiction of incorporation for their listing vehicle.

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring
13 Aug 2026

Restructurings Frustrating Creditors And The Enforcement Of Arbitral Awards: The English High Court's Decision In State Oil Company Of Azerbaijan v Mansimov

The English High Court has issued a significant judgment on the enforcement of arbitral awards, the reach of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the limits of the Marex tort, with potential relevance to the Cayman Islands' Fraudulent Dispositions Act.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
7 Aug 2026

New CIMA Rules on AML/CFT/CPF Compliance and Financial Sanctions Issued in the Cayman Islands

On 20 July 2026, further to an industry consultation, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) published the following two new Rules set to introduce binding risk management, governance, sanctions screening and other compliance requirements for regulated financial service providers in the Cayman Islands: (i) Rule on Effective Compliance Programmes for the Prevention and Detection of Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Proliferation Financing for Financial Services Providers (AML Rule); and (ii) Rule on Compliance with Financial Sanctions and Targeted Financial Sanctions (Sanctions Rule and, together with the AML Rule, the Rules). All CIMA-regulated financial services providers, including investment funds, insurers and reinsurers that are conducting ‘relevant financial business’ as defined under the Proceeds of Crime Act (Revised) (POCA) (FSP), are encouraged to review and update their documented framework of AML/CFT/CPF and sanctions compliance policies, procedures, controls, oversight and reporting mechanisms (Compliance Programmes) to ensure compliance with the Rules by the time they come into force on 18 September 2026.

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

Good faith in action, not just belief: the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa and its significance in the Cayman Islands

May a company director depart from a strategy his board has agreed, in the sincere belief that he knows a better route to the company’s success? In Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court held that, whatever the answer, a director cannot pursue his own strategy by concealing it from, and misleading, his fellow directors. The Court confirmed that the good faith duty is not confined to a director’s sincerely held view of the company’s best interests; it also governs the means by which the director acts. The decision is an authoritative statement of the content of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and is likely to be influential in the Cayman Islands. The decision will interest directors, those who advise or appoint them, and stakeholders affected by directors’ conduct.

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.