Economic substance requirements in the Cayman Islands

Published: 7 Dec 2018
Type: Insight

The Cayman Islands government has published draft legislation that will require certain Cayman Islands entities carrying on specified activities to have ‘adequate substance’ in the Cayman Islands. Any relevant entity that may be impacted by this legislation will wish to monitor these developments closely.

Background

The Cayman Islands is an early adopter of the Common Reporting Standard, is compliant with FATCA, and is recognised as a jurisdiction committed to tax transparency. Our anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing legislative regime meets and in some cases exceeds international standards and our commitment to compliance is unwavering. The Cayman Islands government and financial services industry together have a long history of working closely and cooperatively with key intergovernmental organisations to ensure that our regulatory framework remains sound.

One of these intergovernmental groups, the EU Code of Conduct Group (the Code Group), assessed the tax policies of a range of countries, including the Cayman Islands, in 2017. Following assessment by the Code Group, Cayman was included in a list of jurisdictions which are required to address the Code Group’s concerns about ‘economic substance’. Like their counterparts in BVI, Bermuda, Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man, the government of the Cayman Islands has been working closely with the Code Group to ensure that those concerns are adequately addressed. As a result of this engagement, a bill to provide for an economic substance test, called the International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Bill, 2018 (the Bill), has been published in advance of a special sitting of the Legislative Assembly.

Applicability

The Bill applies only to “relevant entities.” A relevant entity is any of the following (except for investment funds, which are specifically carved out):

(a) a company, other than a domestic company, that is:

(i) incorporated under the Companies Law; or (ii) a limited liability company registered under the Limited Liability Companies Law, unless its business is centrally managed and controlled outside of Cayman and it is tax resident outside of the Islands;

(b) a limited liability partnership that is registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Law, 2017, unless its business is centrally managed and controlled outside of Cayman and it is tax resident outside of the Islands;

(c) a company that is incorporated outside of the Islands, registered under the Companies Law and centrally managed and controlled in Cayman (unless it is tax resident outside the Islands).

A relevant entity is only in scope of the economic substance requirements if it conducts any “relevant activity”. Relevant activities are:

Banking business

Distribution and service centre business

Finance and leasing business

Fund management business

Headquarters business

Holding company business

Insurance business

Intellectual property holding business

Shipping business

Each of the above activities is defined in the Bill, and we expect that further guidance will be issued to assist in determining if a particular entity is carrying on a relevant activity. Appleby is actively involved in the guidance consultation and we will prepare sector-specific briefings once all particulars are published.

The Economic Substance Test

A relevant company conducting relevant activities is required to satisfy a 3-branch economic substance test. It must:

(1) conduct Cayman Islands core income generating activity in relation to that relevant activity (“Cayman Islands core income generating activity” being any activity that is of central importance to a relevant company in terms of generating income that is being carried out in or from within the Islands);

(2) be directed and managed in an appropriate manner in or from within the Islands in relation to that activity;

(3) having regard to the level of relevant income derived from the relevant activity carried out in or from within the Islands –

(i) have adequate operating expenditure incurred in or from within the Islands;

(ii) have adequate physical assets or physical presence (including maintaining a place of business) in the Islands; and

(iii) have adequate employees in the Islands.

Holding companies are required to meet a reduced test for economic substance, while at the other end of the scale high risk intellectual property holding companies will face more onerous requirements. Additional guidance will be prepared which we expect will give clarity to these requirements. There will not be a ‘one size fits all’ approach.

Outsourcing of core income generating activities within the jurisdiction is permitted and counts towards satisfying the substance requirements so long as the relevant company is able to monitor and control the carrying out of that activity by that other person.

Filings

Relevant entities will be required to file a notice with the designated authority stating whether or not they are carrying out relevant activities. Those carrying out relevant activities will be required to file a basic return setting out particulars as to income, expenses, assets, management, employees, physical presence and other matters. These filings will be examined by the designated authority to ensure that such entities have adequate economic substance in the Islands. Those lacking adequate substance will be given direction on how to meet the test and may face a fine of up to $10,000. Continued failure to meet the test in the following year may result in higher fines and could lead to the entity being struck off the register.

What Can Appleby do to Help?

All relevant entities will need to undertake an internal review to determine what measures, if any, they might need to take in order to achieve compliance. In most cases, we believe that compliance will be a straightforward matter. We will have a clearer picture once the legislation has been passed and guidance has been circulated for consultation, likely in late-December. At that time, we will be in touch with more information about how we expect this new legislation to impact our client base in the form of sector-specific client briefings.

In the meantime, if you have any questions, please reach out to your usual Appleby contact.

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).