Strategic Memorandum: Tax Implications of Business Restructuring under the Nigeria Tax Act, 2025

1.0 Introduction: Navigating the New Tax Landscape for Corporate Restructuring

The Nigeria Tax Act, 2025 (the “Act”) represents a significant consolidation of the country’s fiscal legislation, introducing a specific, unified framework for the tax treatment of business restructuring. For the leadership team, a clear understanding of these new rules is of paramount strategic importance. It enables the optimization of tax outcomes for any future mergers, acquisitions, sales, or transfers of business units, ensuring that transactional value is preserved and compliance risks are mitigated.

Read: Rent Relief, Crypto Tax, and a New 4% Levy: Inside Nigeria’s Massive 2025 Tax Overhaul

This memorandum provides an authoritative analysis of the key provisions governing business reorganization. It focuses on the pivotal regulations within Section 190 of the Act, which now dictates the tax implications for critical financial elements such as capital allowances, carried-forward losses, Value Added Tax (VAT), and chargeable gains. We will now examine the core provisions of the Act that define the different restructuring models and their distinct tax consequences. 

Read Tax System Shake-Up: Cross River State Bans Cash Payments, Freezes New Assessments with Immediate Effect

2.0 Core Framework for Business Restructuring under Section 190

Section 190 of the Act is the cornerstone provision for all business restructuring activities. It establishes clear and distinct rules for different transactional structures, primarily distinguishing between a merger of businesses and a sale or transfer of a business that results in cessation. The choice of structure is not merely a legal or operational decision; it carries significant and divergent tax consequences that must be carefully evaluated at the outset of any transaction planning.

2.1 Merger of Two or More Businesses

Under Section 190(1)(a), a merger is treated for tax purposes as a continuation of the old businesses within the new or surviving entity. This approach is designed to be tax-neutral, preserving the existing tax attributes of the merging entities and preventing the transaction itself from triggering immediate tax liabilities. The key outcomes are as follows:

• Continuity: The transaction does not trigger a deemed cessation of the old businesses or the commencement of a new one. The surviving entity seamlessly continues the tax history of its predecessors.
• Chargeable Gains: Assets are transferred to the new or surviving entity without triggering chargeable gains tax.
• Capital Allowances: Qualifying assets are deemed transferred at the residue of their qualifying capital expenditure. Critically, any unutilised capital allowances of the merging businesses are available for use by the surviving entity.
• Tax Losses: All unabsorbed tax losses of the merging entities are carried over and are available for the surviving entity to offset against its future profits.
• Withholding Tax Credits: Any taxes deducted at source from payments made to the merged entities are available as credits to the surviving entity.

2.2 Sale or Transfer of a Business (Resulting in Cessation)

In stark contrast, a sale or transfer of a business that leads to the permanent cessation of that business is treated as a terminal event for the seller and a new beginning for the buyer, as outlined in Section 190(1)(b). This structure resets the tax position of the acquired business and its assets. The key outcomes include:

• Cessation: The statutory rules governing the cessation of a business are applied to the selling entity, which may trigger balancing charges or allowances.
• Chargeable Gains: The transfer of assets is considered a disposal and is fully subject to chargeable gains tax.
• Capital Allowances: Assets are recognized by the buyer at their sale value, establishing a new basis for future capital allowance claims. Any unutilised allowances of the seller are not available to the buyer.
• Tax Losses: The unabsorbed losses of the old business are forfeited and are not available for the buyer to use against future profits.
• Withholding Tax Credits: Taxes deducted at source from the old business are not available for use by the buyer.

Comparative Overview: Merger vs. Sale/Transfer

The table below provides an at-a-glance comparison of the divergent tax treatments.

Having established this fundamental distinction, the following section provides a deeper analysis of these critical implications.

3.0 Detailed Analysis of Critical Tax Consequences

Understanding the specific mechanics of how capital allowances, losses, and VAT are treated is crucial for accurately forecasting the financial impact of a restructuring deal and for structuring the transaction optimally. This section delves into these critical areas.

3.1 Capital Allowances: Continuity vs. Reset

The treatment of capital allowances highlights the core difference between the two restructuring models.

• In a merger, assets are transferred at the “residue of the qualifying capital expenditure” (Sec. 190(1)(a)(iii)). This allows the surviving entity to continue claiming capital allowances as if no transfer had occurred, preserving the existing depreciation schedule and future tax shields.
• In a sale, assets are transferred at their sale value (Sec. 190(1)(b)(ii)). This effectively resets the basis for capital allowance for the purchaser. While this may result in a higher depreciable base if assets have appreciated, it terminates the existing allowance schedule and any unutilised allowances from the seller are lost.

3.2 Treatment of Tax Losses: Preservation vs. Forfeiture

The outcomes for carried-forward tax losses are starkly different and represent a major strategic consideration.

• Under Section 190(1)(a)(vi), a merger allows the surviving business to utilize the unabsorbed losses of the merged entities. These tax losses can be a significant financial asset, reducing the future tax burden of the combined enterprise.
• Conversely, under Section 190(1)(b)(v), these valuable losses are forfeited in a sale or transfer that results in business cessation. The buyer cannot use the seller’s historical losses to offset future profits from the acquired business.

3.3 Value Added Tax (VAT) Implications

The Act provides a clear and favourable VAT treatment for qualifying business reorganizations. Based on Sections 190(6), 190(7), and 157, VAT is generally not applicable to business restructurings that fall under Section 190.

The key condition is that the transfer must qualify as a “going concern.” Section 190(7) specifies that the transfer of a business (or a part capable of separate operation) is not treated as a taxable supply for VAT purposes, provided that the purchaser is a registered taxable person or becomes registerable as a result of the transfer. This provision prevents a significant cash flow cost, as the Act specifies that such a transfer “shall not be treated as a supply of goods or services for the purposes of VAT”.

4.0 Overarching Compliance and Anti-Avoidance Framework

Beyond the specific rules for mergers and sales, the Act establishes essential “guardrails” to ensure that restructuring transactions are commercially justifiable and not undertaken purely for tax avoidance. Adherence to this framework is critical for the validity of the chosen tax treatment. Failure to comply with these overarching rules can result in the tax authority disregarding the intended tax treatment, potentially nullifying the benefits of choosing a merger structure under Section 190(1)(a).

4.1 The Arm’s Length Principle for Related Parties

Section 192 mandates that any transaction between related parties—a common scenario in corporate reorganizations—must be conducted on terms and conditions equivalent to those that would exist between independent, unrelated parties. The tax authority has the explicit power to review and adjust the terms of any such transaction to bring it into conformity with the arm’s length principle.

4.2 Disregard of Artificial or Fictitious Transactions

Under Section 191, the tax authority is empowered to disregard any transaction it deems to be artificial or fictitious. Crucially, Section 191(3)(b) explicitly states that a transaction between connected persons that is not conducted at arm’s length is deemed to be artificial or fictitious. This provision directly links the arm’s length requirement to the very legitimacy of the transaction for tax purposes.

4.3 Mandatory Prior Notification

Section 190(4) introduces a critical procedural requirement: the relevant tax authority must be notified of any proposed business restructuring prior to commencing the arrangement. This is not an optional step; it underscores the need for proactive and transparent engagement with the tax authorities before the transaction is executed.

5.0 Strategic Recommendations for Executive Decision-Making

The Nigeria Tax Act, 2025 provides a new level of clarity that can be leveraged for strategic advantage. The following recommendations are designed to guide leadership in planning and executing business restructurings to achieve optimal, compliant, and defensible tax outcomes.

1. Select the Restructuring Model Based on Tax Attributes The choice between a merger and a sale/transfer must be a strategic decision driven by the tax profile of the entities involved. If the primary goal is to preserve valuable tax assets, such as significant unabsorbed losses or the continuity of capital allowances on key assets, a merger structure under Section 190(1)(a) is strongly recommended. Conversely, if these attributes are negligible or a step-up in asset basis is desired, a sale may be appropriate despite the immediate tax costs, provided management is prepared for the chargeable gains tax liability that this structure will trigger.
2. Ensure Defensible Asset Valuation Given the stringent anti-avoidance rules in Sections 191 and 192, it is absolutely essential to conduct any related-party restructuring at arm’s length. We recommend obtaining independent, third-party valuations for any significant assets being transferred. This will substantiate the transaction values and provide a robust defense against potential challenges or adjustments by the tax authority.
3. Prioritize Proactive Tax Authority Engagement Compliance with the mandatory notification requirement in Section 190(4) is non-negotiable. Early and formal notification to the relevant tax authority should be an integral part of any restructuring project plan. This step not only ensures procedural compliance but also opens a channel for communication that can mitigate potential disputes down the line.
4. Review VAT Status for “Going Concern” Transfers To secure the VAT exemption on a business transfer as a going concern, Section 190(7) requires that the acquiring entity must be a registered taxable person (or become one due to the transaction). This status should be confirmed as part of the pre-transaction due diligence to avoid any unexpected VAT liabilities.

In conclusion, the Nigeria Tax Act, 2025 provides a clear but strict framework for navigating the tax implications of business restructuring. Successful outcomes will depend on careful, proactive planning and a deep understanding of the critical distinctions between available structural options. We recommend that tax counsel be involved at the earliest stages of any proposed transaction.