Which Business Assets Can Be Transferred Offshore? A Practical Guide for Australian Business Owners

Introduction

If you are an Australian business owner, it is tempting to assume you can simply move any business asset offshore to reduce your taxation. Not every asset transfers cleanly, & each type carries its tax consequences depending on how value is actually created.

This guide explains which business assets can move offshore, which cannot, & what Australian business owners must resolve before initiating any transfer. The aim is clarity on the tax implications for your business before any asset leaves Australia.

Interactive Tool: Check Your Risk Before Moving Assets Offshore

Why Not Every Asset Can Simply Be Moved Offshore

Understanding the Regulatory Framework & Economic Substance

An offshore transfer is not judged only by the documents describing it. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) examines whether the economic substance matches the legal form, including who performs, manages & controls activities connected with an intangible asset.

Practical Compliance Guideline 2024/1 (‘PCG 2024/1‘) applies to new & existing arrangements from 17 January 2024. It treats development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, & exploitation (DEMPE) activities performed in Australia for an intangible asset held offshore as an intangibles’ migration arrangement, even where the legal ownership sits with an offshore entity.

As a result, Australian business owners can face higher review risk when the offshore entity lacks qualified staff or capacity to control those activities.

The Risks of Ignoring Legal Form & Tax Outcomes

Moving an asset offshore without clear documents, evidence of commercial reasoning or appropriate recognition of Australian activities can create a mismatch between the transaction’s legal form & its economic substance & may warrant offshore compliance reviews & structure remediation. The ATO may examine whether the arrangement creates a transfer pricing benefit or lacks evidence supporting its stated commercial rationale.

PCG 2024/1 uses risk factors including:

• the receiving entity’s substance;
• the tax outcome; and
• any reduction in Australian taxable income.

Arrangements with a higher risk rating may attract further ATO engagement, including a review or audit. In addition, Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act, 1936 (Cth) (’ITAA’) & general anti-avoidance rules, may apply where the arrangement is entered into or carried out for a dominant or principal purpose of obtaining a tax benefit.

The Asset Types Most Commonly Transferred Offshore & Why

Intellectual Property & Intangible Assets

Intellectual property is suited to cross-border structuring because it is not physical, so rights connected with trademarks, patents, software, or other intangible assets can be held or used by an offshore entity. That flexibility does not mean the Australian taxation consequences disappear.

The ATO examines whether the legal arrangements match:

• the commercial activity;
• the value contributed; and
• the income generated.

The Australian staff performing DEMPE functions for IP held offshore are treated as creating an intangibles’ migration arrangement. A mismatch between Australian activity & offshore ownership can increase review risk for Australian business owners.

Passive Investment Assets & Financial Instruments

Cash, financial instruments, & passive investments are distinct from intangible assets because they are financial rather than non-physical commercial rights. There is no separate rule confirming that every passive investment asset is easier to transfer offshore than an active business or physical property.

The relevant cross-border concern remains whether:

• related-party dealings are conducted on arm’s-length conditions; and
• an Australian entity receives a transfer pricing benefit.

Offshore arrangements that do not reflect the commercial value or substance of the dealings can attract ATO review, making the expected international tax outcome less certain.

The Assets That Are Difficult or Impractical to Transfer Offshore

Customer Contracts & Supplier Relationships

Moving pre-existing customer contracts or supplier relationships offshore is not a paperwork exercise. For Australian business owners, the ATO examines whether the change has a genuine commercial rationale or instead creates a transfer pricing benefit for an offshore entity.

The arrangement also needs evidence supporting its arm’s length nature. Without that support, the transfer can face closer review because the income-producing relationships remain connected to the Australian business, even if the contracts are held by an offshore entity. As a result, the tax implications of the cross-border restructure can become harder to defend when legal ownership changes without a clear commercial reason.

Australian Operations & Management Services

Calling an arrangement “management services” does not change where the work is performed or where commercial value is created. The ATO is concerned with arrangements where staff in Australia perform all functions for an offshore entity, or direct third-party providers to carry out those functions.

The commercial risks take two forms:

1. No arm’s length compensation: shifting Australian assets or operations offshore without arm’s length compensation or proper recognition of their underlying commercial value can create a transfer pricing benefit; while
2. Failed deductibility tests: related-party service fees may fail the benefits tests required for deductibility under Taxation Ruling TR 1999/1.

The result can be an offshore structure that carries Australian operations, Australian taxation exposure, & additional cross-border review.

The Tax Consequences of Transferring Assets Offshore

Capital Gains Tax on Disposal or Deemed Disposal

Moving an intangible asset to an offshore related entity is not simply a change in ownership records. Transferring an asset to an offshore related entity is a CGT disposal event, & the ATO can substitute market value as the proceeds if the transfer price is below arm’s length.

A nil or low consideration transfer on non-arm’s length terms can therefore leave the Australian entity with a taxable gain despite receiving little money from overseas. The tax cost of transferring an asset offshore can sometimes exceed the benefit the offshore structure is designed to achieve, so this calculation must happen before any transfer is initiated, including where offshore asset protection structures form part of the commercial objective.

The Impact of Practical Compliance Guideline 2024/1 on Intangibles

An offshore structure involving intellectual property is assessed by reference to what the entities actually do, not only where legal ownership sits. PCG 2024/1‘s point-scoring framework considers factors such as:

• The receiving entity’s substance: including whether it has qualified staff able to manage, perform or control DEMPE activities;
• The tax outcome: including whether the arrangement reduces Australian taxable income or benefits from a specified jurisdiction, tax concession, deduction or offset; and
• The form of the arrangement: including whether the receiving entity is newly established or whether legal agreements support the stated arrangement.

A higher risk rating can lead to further ATO engagement, including review or audit, making the evidence behind the offshore arrangement central to its tax consequences.

What Arm’s Length Pricing Means for Asset Transfers Between Related Entities

Navigating Transfer Pricing Rules Under Division 815

An offshore transfer cannot be priced simply to move value away from Australia. For Australian business owners, the relevant question is whether the related-party conditions reflect what independent parties would have agreed for the asset, its value, & the functions connected with it.

Under Division 815 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (‘ITAA 1997‘), the analysis or methodology used to determine arm’s length conditions must not give the parties a transfer pricing benefit. The ATO reviews whether Australian activities, intangible assets, & associated profits have been properly recognised & rewarded.

An underpriced transfer can leave the Australian entity with an inappropriate transfer pricing benefit, creating additional tax exposure when the arrangement is reviewed.

Identifying Transfer Pricing Benefits & ATO Focus Areas

The ATO focuses on cross-border dealings where non-arm’s length conditions allow an Australian entity to gain a transfer pricing benefit. That concern extends beyond asset sales to related-party service fees paid offshore, particularly where the services do not provide the benefit required for deductibility.

The ATO identifies arrangements where offshore management services are claimed even though the relevant functions are performed by Australian staff or third-party providers directed by Australian employees. Fees that fail the required benefits tests may not be deductible.

What to Work Through Before Any Asset Transfer Is Initiated

Assessing the Development Enhancement Maintenance Protection & Exploitation Framework

An offshore IP structure depends on where value is created, not only where legal ownership is recorded. For Australian business owners, the DEMPE functions performed by Australian staff can determine the asset’s true economic ownership.

A mismatch between the Australian activities & the offshore entity’s ability to manage or control those activities can produce a higher risk rating & increased review exposure.

Gathering Evidence & Documenting Commercial Rationale

An offshore asset transfer requires evidence showing that its legal form matches its commercial substance. PCG 2024/1 identifies evidence about the commercial reasons, business decision-making, market value, tax outcomes & profit outcomes as relevant to the ATO’s assessment.

The records expected for an intangibles’ arrangement can include:

• Executed legal agreements, guidelines, manuals, policies, & governance documents.
• Transfer pricing documentation, intangible asset registers, IP registration records & R&D stage-gate documents.
• Financial models, cash-flow evidence, annual reports & foreign tax returns showing the tax & profit outcomes.

The tax cost of transferring an asset offshore can sometimes exceed the benefit the offshore structure is designed to achieve, & this calculation must happen before any transfer is initiated. In addition, weak evidence can make the commercial rationale, valuation, & arm’s-length nature of the arrangement harder to establish.

Conclusion

For Australian business owners, transferring assets offshore requires balancing commercial rationale with strict tax compliance. A transfer to a related offshore entity triggers a CGT disposal event, where tax authorities may apply market value if transfer prices fall below arm’s length. Additionally, ongoing local DEMPE activity can create an intangibles’ migration arrangement, regardless of foreign legal ownership. Evaluating the tax cost versus expected benefit must therefore take place before initiating any asset transfer. 

Australian business owners considering an offshore asset transfer should speak with WealthSafe’s specialists about an offshore compliance review & structure remediation for tailored legal & tax advice. WealthSafe helps develop structures that are legally supported, commercially coherent, properly documented, & aligned with how the business actually operates.

Frequently Asked Questions