Finland has seen the rise of very positive new breed of business accelerators in recent years. They are called professional board members. Many of them are also angel investors and experts in various topics like law, business, internationalization, finance, technology etc. Professionalism towards Board of Directors work has been a much welcomed change into the old culture where only founders/owners of the company used to occupy board seats, entirely despite of their competence in actual board work. Finland has benefited tremendously from this new level of professionalism; networks, specific expertise in advising growth, finding funding, providing valuable insight, advice, mentorship, sparring and acting as a credible list of known names that back the company up by being members of its board (which is legally liable if the company behaves badly, mind you). Countless growing companies have benefited from these board professional experts who make it their professional competence to really excel in responsibility carrying, decision making and strategic level board work.
The basic business of a professional board member has up until now gone as follows:
A professional board member, or a group of them, establishes a company, often a limited liability company. Then the company offers its employees (the board pros) to startups and other firms as professional board members. The people sit on the board of directors, carry on the legal responsibilities associated with board work, and help the company in a multitude of ways; often relating to their own specific field of expertise. Many companies have had more than one professional board member contributing throughout the years. They also often do assignments for the company outside the scope of normal board work: like for example work extensively on the company's sales, technology, financing plans or other such major engagements that might often result in weeks of work. I have even seen board professionals who work on jointly creating marketing materials for the company, or participate in trade shows and conferences for the company in other countries etc. Often also this is done together with business angel activities: investing into the very same companies that then become clients to professional board member services.
Naturally this is also something that the Vigo accelerators often do: they invest into their portfolio company, and a manager from the accelerator team often takes up a board seat.
For all of this activity it has been the standard business model that the professional board member company sends an invoice (often a monthly invoice, or per project invoice) to the company it is helping, and this relationship has been quite similar to normal management consultant work - with the exception that the person is a member of the board of directors of the client company, and that the work is typically much more longer term and larger/wider (more strategic) in scope.
Naturally many VC funds and VC firms do this as well: they have venture managers, investment directors and partners who frequently sit at the boards of their portfolio companies - and just as frequently do more extensive projects for the companies and often mutually agree upon sending an invoice as compensation for their work to the company.
Well all of this is now illegal in Finland. Here's why:
Finland's Supreme Administrative Court in alliance and ruling based on advice from the Finnish tax authorities has made a very interesting recent ruling. It can be found here:
http://www.kho.fi/paatokset/54322.htm
From the case you can read between the lines that the "company X" they are talking about is in fact Capman, Plc. a VC firm listed in the NASDAQ OMX stock market.
This decision stacks on top of previous decisions made by the tax authorities, and now as combined to the previous decisions forms the final link in declaring all of professional board member work to be illegal.
Here's what the ruling means together with the old rulings and rules from recent years:
1) anything paid to the board member is considered as income, and under the income tax. This is despite the form of payment: even if you pay in stocks, in options, or in anything the result is the same; they are all considered income.
2) while the person is a board member he or she cannot do any consultancy work at all for the company: any such work cannot be invoiced from the company, it has to be paid as income instead (and taxed as direct income) - and this situation forms a temporary relationship of employment between the parties.
3) while the person is a board member the company cannot pay for or compensate in any way for any travel, flight tickets or such costs: these are also always considered income and in some cases this also can form a relationship of employment between the parties. The logic here however has been that since a board member is not a "normal" employee of the company; the company cannot pay him for travel costs. The tax authorities expect the board member to pay for all travel himself, or then pay income tax for all the travel cost the company pays for him. This changes if the board member is doing a consultancy assignment that is paid to him as regular income (thus forming an employment relationship) if this is the case then travel costs can be paid. But if there is no consultancy agreement, no income salary, just regular board work: then travel cannot be paid without avoiding this.
With that ruling they effective just ended professional board of directors work in Finland. A situation where a person is a member in, let's say, 8 different boards; all this becomes quite impossible. He would pay income tax from 8 different sources and would be frequently temporarily employed by all of those companies when ever there is a more time demanding task or any travel associated.
So now, all professional board members will either have to:
I) Resign their board assignments and become consultants. (my own tax advisor recommended to me that I should do this)
or
II) Become employees of the company they help and pay income tax from everything they do and get compensated for.
You cannot act as a professional, offering board member services and advice, and invoice for your services anymore. Not even if you are a partner in a VC firm and you sit on the board of your portolio company: even then you aren't allowed to do this.
For Vigo Accelerators this means that either;
a) their managers can't have board seats in portfolio companies at all.
b) or they will have to have separate roles; one
manager is a board member and is banned from doing any consultancy at all, while another manager does all the consultancy (the acceleration) without being a board member.
Or they can also, do c) act as up until now and pay huge amounts of income tax personally for accelerating all those startups.
That's how Finland encourages growth, entrepreneurship and economic success. What a wonderful climate to be in!
This is very very sad for Finnish growth companies.
This also pretty much kills the new breed of professional business accelerators from growing and rising any further: now that the whole practice is declared illegal and made totally idiotic in terms of taxation, now there won't be any more professional board members then... great.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://tane.li/trackback/142
Comments
More links, please...
Wed, 2011-06-22 18:11 — Herbert Havu (not verified)Hi Taneli,
Could you please elaborate on your statement that all income is considered personal?
The ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court only covers the compensation for the role as the board member and typically it should be quite easy to separate this money from other payments, since the compensation of the board member should be defined by the Annual General Meeting?
In my opinnion the ruling for the board membership compensation is correct - persons are elected as board members, not companies. There is also a significant difference in the responsibilities of board members and consultants.
Further on the income definition
Wed, 2011-6-22 21:03 – taneliThe tax authorities take on defining all work done by a board member as personal income comes from several cases that have been recently inspected, appealed and turned down.
Thus there is a group of named and numbered recent tax cases where a company has been inspected, and that has been their decision: to tax all work done by board members as income, regardless of the arrangement.
This has not been taken all the way to the supreme administrative court yet - and I could imagine it will be in the future..
My own tax wise-men are saying that the annual general meeting should only decide explicitly that "no compensation is given to any of the board members" and then that would be a better situation than deciding on a compensation at all.
The details of the decision (from those few companies) say that no consultancy work what so ever by a board member can be done as an invoiced service = it is all considered to be the same as payment for board duty and considered personal income. Only if the company can prove that it is innocent (company = guilty until proven to be innocent by itself. As per usual in tax cases); by presenting the tax authorities with a separate agreement that has a very detailed description of the tasks of the consultant, separate pricing for each item of work and each deliverable, liability for the consultant, a separate detailed assessment of the quality of the consultancy work, a detailed report of all the results of the consultancy work, CVs and summaries of the consultant itself, detailed hour log of each hour spent doing the consultant work, etc. IF the company doesn't provide ALL of those listed above; then it's automatically considered as personal income (and there be fines), and even if the company provides all of that; even then they can consider it to be personal income.
Generally Finland is moving towards being "taxed to death". Not a good direction at all as regulation, intervention and complex tax laws only ever increase.
A bit more elaboration would be nice
Wed, 2011-06-22 20:12 — Jussi Mononen (not verified)The SAC ruling as such is not very surprising - the tax ruling has been enforced for several years and most competent auditors have not allowed any other arrangement. This ruling, as such, also does not make professional board memberships illegal in any sense – it simply reaffirms the status quo and makes board memberships slightly less financially lucrative (not that I am saying being on the board is necessarily great business).
But as for the inability to undertake consulting work as a consultant as opposed to an employee and the inability to invoice costs are news to me. Could you provide links to the relevant decisions or regulations? I'd hate to break the law without knowing about it myself.
Furthermore, the whole issue can be fairly easily sidestepped by restructuring board memberships as memberships in an advisory board that does not have the same legal function as the board of directors. While it is possible that the taxman may try to rule this out at some point, to my knowledge this is perfectly workable right now.
A reading of the Finnish Companies Act actually strongly suggests that the Board of Directors is not intended as a vehicle for developing the company but instead ensuring corporate governance and actions of the management are within the law and treat all shareholders equally. Corporate development functions can (and apparently should) be organized differently.
Vigo accelerators and tax payers?
Thu, 2011-06-23 00:32 — Simo (not verified)Interesting. From what sources are the Vigo accelerators funded from? I hope not from the tax payers pocket?
- Simo
Vigo's and tax payers
Thu, 2011-6-23 08:23 – taneliVigos are private companies. Not funded out of the tax payers money to any greater extent than as per usual in a very socialistic country like Finland.
Naturally many Vigos have invoicing that is partially paid for by Tekes money. However this is quite common in Finland, as the country has a rather oversized regulation jungle and "support system": just about everything in society is in the end tied to tax payers money. Around 56% of Finland's GDP is public sector; which makes the situation very grave indeed; an economy like that doesn't have a good prognosis and is very likely to slide downhill.
Post new comment