The situation
The group’s software, its development set-up and its revenue streams
A Dutch SaaS group sells planning software to hospitals. The code is written by its own developers in Rotterdam and by a Polish subsidiary in Gdańsk, which invoices the Dutch parent for development at cost plus a mark-up. The parent books all the licence revenue. The auditors asked whether anyone has looked at IP regimes.
The CFO wants a memo before year end. It has to say which entity could use which regime, what the qualifying asset is, how the Polish development work affects the calculation, and what records must exist from now on. Each answer depends on a chain of conditions, and the contracts decide several of them.
What the research has to settle
The rules behind the answer
- Both regimes follow the nexus approach
- The Dutch innovation box and the Polish IP box both follow the OECD modified nexus approach. The benefit is limited by the share of qualifying development spending in the total spending on the asset.
- Related-party development counts against you
- Under the nexus approach, development bought from related parties does not count as qualifying spending for the owner. Work bought from the Polish subsidiary can reduce the Dutch benefit, so the structure is part of the answer.
- The Dutch entry ticket
- The innovation box requires a qualifying intangible asset, generally supported by an R&D declaration under the WBSO scheme, with further conditions for larger taxpayers. The research confirms which apply to the group.
- Poland requires separate records
- The Polish IP box applies to qualified income from qualifying IP rights, which include copyright in computer programs. The taxpayer must keep separate records that link income and costs to each right.
How it runs in azta
From the question to the document
The question, as you would type it
Dutch BV owns SaaS software developed partly in-house and partly by its Polish subsidiary at cost plus. Could the BV use the Dutch innovation box, could the Polish subsidiary use the Polish IP box, and how does the subsidiary’s development work affect the nexus calculation in each case?
You start with
The group’s software, its development set-up and its revenue streams
- 01
Describe the group and the IP
Give who develops, who owns the copyright, how development is charged and where revenue is booked. azta searches the Dutch and Polish tax acts.
Cited research· Free - 02
Read the conditions
Open the innovation box and IP box provisions in the reader, in Dutch and Polish, with their in-force status.
Atlas statute reader - 03
Draft the memo
Ask for a memo by entity with eligibility, the nexus effect and the records needed. Edit it in Canvas.
Canvas · Ask azta· Pro - 04
Export for the board pack
Export the memo to Word for the CFO’s review and the transfer-pricing advisors.
Word export· Pro You send
A memo on IP regime eligibility in each country and the records needed
What you get
A memo on IP regime eligibility in each country and the records needed
CFO memo · draft
IP regimes for the planning software
Netherlands. The software can be a qualifying asset if the development is covered by WBSO declarations. Development invoiced by the Polish subsidiary is related-party spending and does not count as qualifying spending for the BV, which lowers the share of income that can benefit.
Poland. Whether the subsidiary has qualified income depends on the development agreement. If it creates the code and transfers the copyright to the BV for a fee, that income may qualify. If it only provides services and never holds the copyright, it does not. The agreement needs reading before a position is taken.
Records and next steps. Both regimes need records that link development spending to the asset. We recommend keeping them from the start of next year, whichever regime is used, and reviewing the development agreement with the transfer-pricing advisors.
Outcomes on your numbers
What azta is worth on this task
Pro pays for itself after
12 minutes a month
At €140 an hour, that is all the time Pro (€27 a month) has to take off your desk to cover its price.
Example figures. Replace them with your own.
- Hours back a year
- 40
- Capacity at your rate
- €5,544
- More IP regime memos a quarter
- 0.8
- Return on Pro
- 17.1×
- Research
- Drafting
- Your review
A scenario you set, not a promise. The hours that come back go to another client, or deeper into this one.
Want these numbers on your team’s real workload?
Book a demoSources azta searches here
- wetten.overheid.nl
- Belastingdienst
- Dziennik Ustaw
- EUR-Lex · Curia
What stays with you
- The development records and cost allocation.
- The decision to claim and the transfer-pricing position.
- WBSO applications and any advance rulings.
Frequently asked questions
- Can azta calculate the nexus fraction?
- No. It explains the formula and the inputs each regime uses, with citations. The calculation is yours.
- Does it cover IP regimes in other countries?
- Yes. Name the country and azta researches its regime from the national legislation.
- Can we upload the development agreement?
- Yes. azta reads it and points to the clauses on ownership and fees it relied on.
