Tomorrow we current a proposal to enhance our entrepreneurial ecosystem (see full here) that we’ve got ready a gaggle of lecturers, legal professionals, entrepreneurs and buyers. On this undertaking, we attempt to suggest options to facilitate the work of entrepreneurs, with particular consideration to SMEs and entrepreneurs, within the labor, administrative, industrial and monetary spheres. It’s about simplifying regulation to save lots of paperwork and cash, but additionally to offer authorized certainty, since nothing is costlier than not having the ability to predict how a lot money and time one thing will price.

One of many points that continues to create extra insecurity within the company sphere is the remuneration of directors. Few subjects have been the topic of so many articles and seminars, as a result of few points have led to so many judgments, tax inspections, registry {qualifications} and statutory modifications, all at huge price to firms. The issue is thought (see right here and right here) however I attempt to summarize it: the Supreme Court docket, in a number of judgments (Huarte and Mahou instances), enshrines the so-called “bond doctrine”, which supposes that the supervisor’s industrial relationship absorbs some other; The consequence is that any quantity charged by an organization administrator must be lined by the bylaws, which should not solely present for remuneration but additionally the precise remuneration system used and the parameters to use it. If not, the remuneration is not going to be deductible as an expense for the corporate. This meant an important insecurity each within the mercantile registers and particularly in relation to the Treasury, and an infinite rigidity for the businesses, compelled to vary the statutes each time the remuneration programs or their parameters have been modified. The reforms of the Company Tax Regulation by Regulation 27/2014 and of the Capital Firms Regulation (hereinafter LSC) by Regulation 31/2014 gave the impression to be geared toward deactivating the bond doctrine within the fiscal and industrial spheres. Within the latter, referring the willpower of the remuneration system for government Administrators to a contract supplied for in artwork. 249.Three LSC; within the fiscal, establishing in any case the deductibility of the remuneration. Nonetheless, the Judgment of the Supreme Court docket of February 26, 2018 resuscitated the controversy within the industrial sphere, and the very unlucky decision of the TEAC of 17-7-2020 (commented here) within the prosecutor, understanding that the STS implies the upkeep of the doctrine in the identical phrases as earlier than the aforementioned reforms. The state of affairs of uncertainty has been, if attainable, aggravated by the Law 5/2021, which clouds what – little – that appeared clear, and that’s that for listed firms it was not needed for the remuneration programs to be acknowledged within the bylaws in the event that they have been lined by the remuneration coverage authorized by the Board.

It’s true that the reform of the LSC of 2014 creates a system that’s not totally coherent, as acknowledged in STS 2-26-2018. However after all the TEAC’s “gatopardesca” interpretation is inadmissible, which suggests that every part stays precisely the identical after two legislative reforms geared toward altering the system. The brand new reform should present safety and on the identical time defend the pursuits concerned in a balanced manner: it should in any case permit the Board to regulate the remuneration, which signifies that the companions can know and modify it (which is what STS 26-2 advocates -2018); however it should additionally permit these companions to change the remuneration programs with out having to completely modify the statutes (additionally within the line of the STS, which speaks of larger flexibility).

What we suggest within the ebook that we current is the next.

  1. Restrict the necessity for statutory proof to the paid or unpaid nature of the directors, leaving to the overall assembly the willpower of the remuneration ideas and the full most quantity. The vital factor is that the Board has management of the full remuneration, however it doesn’t add something to regulate or transparency, and it does take away flexibility, that the programs should be included in statutes. All this, with out prejudice to the truth that the companions can degree up every of the capabilities. That’s, they could at all times resolve to repair the remuneration ideas within the statutes or the assembly might decide the distribution among the many directors.
  1. Admit the distinction between the remuneration of directors of their capability as such and of their capability as executives, however submit each to the management of the overall assembly.
  2. Give the Board the best flexibility when establishing the remuneration programs and their utility to the completely different directors, which mixes flexibility and transparency (because the agreements of the board may be recognized and contested by the companions).

In precept, neither the STS cited nor the decision have an effect on listed firms, as a result of in these the management by the Common Assembly happens by means of the approval of the remuneration coverage, with a extra demanding content material after the reform by Regulation 5/2021 . It’s true that the artwork. 529 octodecies refers after the reform to the truth that the remuneration of government administrators have to be in accordance with the bylaws, which has raised whether or not this means the necessity for the remuneration objects to be recorded in bylaws. I perceive that the literal, systematic and finalist interpretation results in the other conclusion, as has been argued here MARIN BENITEZ. In my view, to provide coherence to the system, it could be sufficient to change article 529.septdecies by deleting the reference to remuneration programs.

The proposed wording can be as follows. I encourage readers to touch upon it – and criticize it – each on this weblog and by taking part in tomorrow’s presentation.

Article 217. “Remuneration of directors”:

  1. The place of administrator is free, except the bylaws set up in any other case. In the event that they set up that it’s remunerated, the remuneration of the directors will likely be decided in accordance with the next sections.
  2. The remuneration objects have to be decided by decision of the overall assembly, and will likely be in drive till their modification is authorized. Except set by the overall assembly, the executive physique will decide the precise utility of all or among the ideas to the directors it determines. It could be envisaged that completely different programs for the administrators of their situation of such and for the administrators with government capabilities.
  3. Remuneration objects might consist, amongst others, of a number of of the next:a) a hard and fast allocation, b) attendance charges, c) revenue sharing, d) variable remuneration with indicators or common reference parameters, e) remuneration in shares or linked to its evolution, f) severance pay, so long as the termination was not motivated by failure to carry out the capabilities of administrator g) financial savings or pension programs deemed applicable.
  4. The utmost quantity of the annual remuneration of all of the directors have to be authorized by the overall assembly and can stay in drive till its modification is authorized. For non-annual remuneration, the overall assembly will approve the utmost quantities for every idea. The maximums could also be set in absolute phrases or by reference to the standards set by the overall assembly. Totally different maximums could also be established for the completely different teams of directors relying on their positions, their nature as government administrators, or different standards established within the resolutions.
  5. Except the overall assembly determines in any other case, the distribution of remuneration among the many completely different directors, regardless of the administration system, will likely be established by their settlement and, within the case of the board of administrators, by settlement thereof. These agreements should keep in mind the capabilities and tasks attributed to every administrator, which can be completely different even when they maintain the identical place.
  6. Within the occasion that there’s a board of administrators, it corresponds to it to set the remuneration of the administrators for the efficiency of government capabilities and the phrases and situations of their contracts with the corporate, in accordance with the provisions of article 249.3, with respect to what’s established within the statutes and within the resolutions taken by the overall assembly.
  7. The remuneration of the directors should, in any case, preserve an inexpensive proportion with the significance of the corporate, the financial state of affairs that it had always and the market requirements of comparable firms. The remuneration system established have to be geared toward selling the profitability and long-term sustainability of the corporate. and incorporate the required precautions to keep away from extreme risk-taking and the reward of unfavorable outcomes.

Article 218. “Remuneration by means of revenue sharing”:

  1. When the remuneration system features a participation in the advantages, the bylaws and, failing that, the overall assembly will particularly decide the participation or the utmost share thereof. Within the latter case, the overall assembly will decide the relevant share inside the most established within the bylaws or by the Common Assembly. (218.2 and 218.2 stay the identical).

529.septdecies. 1. The remuneration of the capabilities that the administrators are referred to as to hold out of their capability as such, as members of the collegiate physique or its committees, should adjust to the provisions of the statutes and the remuneration coverage authorized in accordance with the provisions of the article 529 novodecies


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here