Listen to this article
0:00 / 0:00

Key Takeaways

  • Panama's territorial tax system can leave foreign-sourced royalty income outside its tax net, but this advantage depends on how the structure is set up.
  • Bare IP ownership is exposed where DEMPE functions and economic substance are absent, so the company must reflect real activity behind the rights held.
  • Without a treaty network, withholding tax on inbound and outbound royalties can erode returns and complicate cross-border licensing arrangements.
  • Reputation and counterparty scrutiny mean a Panama IP structure suits some cases better than others, and practical workarounds may be needed when it is a constrained choice.

A Panama IP holding company earns its appeal from one feature: foreign-sourced royalty income falls outside the Panamanian tax base under a territorial system that taxes only income arising within the country. For a foreign group centralising trademarks, patents, software, or brand rights and licensing them to operating companies abroad, a Panamanian sociedad anónima (S.A.) can hold those rights and receive royalties without triggering local income tax, provided the underlying income genuinely originates outside the country. The territorial principle is set out in the national tax code and summarised by the PwC tax summaries.

This article explains how that exemption works, what it costs in compliance terms, and where the structure breaks down, including the new economic substance rules and the persistent reputational and treaty-network limits.

The structure fits foreign-owned IP that generates royalties from non-Panamanian licensees, group brand portfolios for Latin American or global businesses, and owners who want USD-denominated banking. It is a poor fit where licensees sit in countries that levy withholding tax on outbound royalties and have no treaty with Panama, where the IP is developed locally, or where the owner expects a preferential IP-box rate. No patent box, no reduced royalty rate, and no notional deduction regime exist in Panamanian law.

This material is most relevant to foreign business owners and their advisers weighing a Panamanian vehicle against treaty-rich alternatives in Europe and Asia.

The territoriality principle is the foundation of the whole structure. Income is taxed only to the extent it reflects operations carried out within the country, so royalties earned from foreign licensees exploiting IP abroad sit outside the local tax net entirely.

That exemption covers foreign-sourced dividends, royalties, and capital gains as a matter of law, not concession. An entity with no local-source income is not required to file a local income-tax return, although it must keep accounting records for at least five years under Law 52 of 2016, and beneficial ownership data must be maintained in the SSNF registry.

The position is changing. A new economic substance law preserves territoriality but adds an exception: foreign-source passive income, royalties included, stays untaxed only where the entity meets fresh reporting and substance conditions, with an annual return obligation arriving for in-scope businesses from fiscal year 2027.

Where royalty income is instead characterised as local-source, the standard corporate rate of 25% applies, with an alternative minimum base for companies earning above USD 1.5 million. That rate matters only if any part of the royalty stream is treated as arising within the country.

The exemption is now conditional

For an entity inside a multinational group, the territorial exemption on royalty income is no longer automatic. Failure to meet the substance and reporting test can subject the income to a final 15% tax on net taxable income.

Panama

Company Incorporation in Panama

Set up your company in Panama with Expanship handling registration end to end.

Learn more

The vehicle is the sociedad anónima under Law 32 of 1927, the general corporations statute. No dedicated IP-holding company form exists; intellectual property is simply held as a corporate asset within the S.A. framework.

An S.A. may own IP registered in any jurisdiction. The company can be recorded as legal owner in the USPTO, EUIPO, UKIPO, or any other national or regional register, and the local law imposes no restriction on holding foreign-registered rights through a Panamanian entity.

Where rights are registered locally, the General Directorate of the Industrial Property Registry (DIGERPI), part of the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, administers trademarks, patents, and industrial designs. A trademark application runs roughly eight to ten months through substantive examination, a publication window for oppositions, and certificate issuance, with protection dated from filing and lasting ten years subject to indefinite renewal.

Software is protected as copyright under the Berne Convention framework rather than by a separate patent statute. Merely owning IP through the company triggers no sector licence, unless the activity is bundled with regulated financial, fund, or virtual-asset business.

A Panamanian holding entity can license its IP to unrelated third parties and to group operating companies in any country. The discipline that protects the structure lies in the paperwork.

Intra-group licence agreements should be written and executed before royalties begin to flow. Each agreement needs to identify the IP, the territory, the term, exclusivity, sub-licensing rights, and the royalty rate or its calculation method.

How a payment is labelled drives tax treatment in the payer's country. Characterising a flow as a royalty rather than a service fee changes the withholding tax the licensee must apply, and transfer pricing analysis shapes that characterisation.

There is a reverse-flow point worth holding in mind. Where the Panamanian company itself pays royalties to a foreign IP owner, those outbound payments attract local withholding only if they relate to local-source income and are deducted as an expense; declining the deduction removes the withholding charge, which is a usable lever for a pure foreign-source vehicle.

On governing law, the local courts will generally respect a choice-of-law clause, so many advisers draft cross-border licences under English or New York law for enforceability while keeping Panamanian law available as an option.

Panama

Ongoing Compliance in Panama

Keep your Panama entity compliant with filings, returns, and statutory obligations.

Learn more

Related-party royalty rates must meet the arm's-length standard: the terms two independent parties would have agreed. The accepted methods follow the OECD framework, including Comparable Uncontrolled Price, Resale Price, Cost Plus, the Transactional Net Margin Method, and Profit Split.

Compliance has a fixed annual rhythm. Form 930, the transfer pricing report detailing each related-party transaction, is due within six months of fiscal year-end, while the supporting study covering functional analysis, comparability, method selection, and benchmarking is not filed but must be kept and produced on request.

Certainty is the weak point. There is no advance pricing agreement programme, so a group cannot lock in a royalty rate with the tax authority in advance, and although a mutual agreement procedure operates under existing treaties, mandatory binding arbitration is not generally available.

That gap carries a concrete risk. If a licensee country adjusts the royalty price and no corresponding adjustment is available, the same profit can be taxed twice, an exposure that grows wherever no treaty links the two countries.

Documentation is the only pre-emptive tool

With no APA mechanism, a contemporaneous arm's-length study is the sole way to defend the royalty rate. Inadequate transfer pricing documentation is among the most common compliance failures for entities here.

This is where a passive Panama IP structure is most fragile. The country has no domestic DEMPE safe harbour, but licensee-country tax authorities apply BEPS Action 8 to 10 principles when deciding whether the holder is entitled to keep the royalty return.

An entity that holds title but performs none of the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, or exploitation functions is open to challenge abroad. The licensee's authority may deny the royalty deduction or reallocate the return to whichever entity actually performs those functions.

Domestic law now compounds the problem. Law 526 of 2026, enacted on 28 May 2026 and applying from fiscal year 2027, defines economic substance as the real existence and use of human resources, assets, premises, management, control, risks, and operating expenses appropriate to the passive income earned.

IP-holding entities within a multinational group are squarely in scope, and the rules set no minimum revenue, asset, or income threshold. What matters is group membership and receipt of covered passive income, not the amounts involved.

IP licensing does not qualify for the simplified test reserved for non-habitual equity holding. An entity that actively exploits rights faces the full three-condition test:

  1. Adequate human resources and premises locally, meaning qualified, paid personnel dedicated to the principal activity.
  2. Strategic decisions taken and risks assumed within the country in respect of the income-generating assets.
  3. Operating expenditure incurred locally and commensurate with the activity.

Substance cannot be assembled at filing time; it must exist throughout the period. An entity that fails the test loses the territorial exemption on the covered income, which then bears a final 15% tax.

The candid finding is a double exposure. A title-only structure with no real staff, decision-makers, or DEMPE activity inside the country risks both denial of royalty deductibility abroad under BEPS and loss of the local tax exemption from 2027.

Panama

Panama Incorporation Pricing

See transparent pricing to incorporate and maintain a company in Panama.

View pricing

Treaty coverage is thin. There are 17 double tax agreements in force, with Mexico, Spain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Singapore, France, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Italy, and a handful of others, and no treaty exists with the United States.

That last point is decisive for many groups. Any structure with US licensees or a US-connected parent gets no treaty relief, and the same applies to Canada, Germany, China, Brazil, Australia, and India, all outside the network.

Two directions of flow need separate treatment.

  • Inbound (a foreign operating company pays royalties to the holdco): the withholding the payer applies depends on its own domestic rules and any treaty with Panama. Outside the 17 partners, full domestic source-country rates apply, often 15 to 30% or more.
  • Outbound (the holdco pays royalties to a foreign IP owner): domestic law applies an effective 12.5% withholding (25% on a deemed 50% base), which can be eliminated where the payer does not deduct the payment as an expense.

Where a treaty does apply, relief is not automatic. The withholding agent must apply to the Revenue Office (DGI) with documentation showing the recipient satisfies the relevant treaty article, and the DGI issues a formal decision. The country also signed the BEPS Multilateral Convention, in force from 1 March 2021, so anti-abuse rules such as the principal purpose test apply to covered treaties.

The honest conclusion: for groups whose principal markets lie outside the treaty network, no relief is available and full foreign withholding rates bite. This makes Panama a weak IP holding jurisdiction for those groups.

The reputational picture is mixed and matters more for IP structures than most. FATF removed the country from its grey list in October 2023, and it sits on neither the FATF grey nor black list.

The EU position is less favourable. The jurisdiction remains on the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes, and although the European Commission delisted it from the AML high-risk list in July 2025, MEPs had opposed that step in an April 2024 resolution. The OECD also lists it for deficiencies in tax-information exchange.

The legacy of the "Panama Papers" continues to colour how counterparties read royalty arrangements, which are easily perceived as profit-shifting conduits. Structures with no substance attract heightened scrutiny from both tax and AML angles.

Banking reflects this. Correspondent banking relationships bear the brunt, and many EU and US banks apply elevated enhanced due diligence even after the FATF delisting. Payment processors such as Stripe, PayPal, and Wise Business generally accept local corporate accounts but require enhanced KYC, beneficial ownership disclosure, and business-purpose evidence, with acceptance turning on the processor's risk appetite.

The candid finding stands: the reputational history and the continuing EU tax-haven listing make these structures a material compliance and reputational risk for groups with EU-regulated counterparties, EU-based investors, or publicly traded parents.

Two distinct questions arise: where the IP is registered, and where the holding company sits. They do not have to be the same place.

Local registration through DIGERPI protects rights only within the national territory. A trademark takes roughly eight to ten months, with a two-month opposition window after publication, and confers no protection in the foreign markets where the IP is actually exploited. The US trade.gov guide sets out the local registration process in detail.

Copyright is easier. As a Berne Convention party, the country grants automatic literary and artistic protection across member states, so software and creative works need no local registration.

For most foreign groups, the IP stays registered abroad while the local S.A. holds it. The company can appear as legal owner in the USPTO, EUIPO, UKIPO, or any other registry, and a US-registered trademark continues in force in the company's name without any local IP filing.

Two practical points follow. Rights must be registered and enforced country by country under local law, since a foreign registration does not protect the owner here and vice versa. Any assignment of foreign-registered IP to or from the company must be recorded in the relevant foreign registry; DIGERPI has no jurisdiction over foreign registrations. Membership of WIPO and the Paris Convention allows priority claims and Madrid System applications through the jurisdiction.

Several measures can make the structure more defensible, though each adds cost and complexity.

  • Build real substance. To satisfy Law 526 from fiscal year 2027, engage a qualified resident employee or director with genuine IP management duties, hold board meetings and make IP strategy decisions locally, keep a real office, and document DEMPE activity as it happens.
  • Consider outsourced management. Substance can in some cases be met through professional management companies, provided the arrangement is genuine; this is confirmed for reduced-test entities, and for full-test IP entities the bar is higher and should be checked against the implementing regulations expected within about 90 days of enactment.
  • Use the deductibility lever. For outbound royalties, declining to deduct the payment removes the 12.5% local withholding, which suits a pure foreign-source vehicle.
  • Route through treaty partners where possible. For royalties from a treaty country such as the Netherlands, Spain, or Ireland, use the treaty to cut source-country withholding, but follow the DGI application process and ensure the entity has enough substance to satisfy the treaty's anti-abuse and limitation-on-benefits tests.
  • Interpose a credible IP-registration vehicle. Holding high-value IP registered in litigious markets through a US LLC or Netherlands B.V. owned by the local S.A. preserves treaty access and enforcement credibility at the registration level, with Panama as the ultimate passive parent.
  • Document transfer pricing from day one. With no APA route, pre-emptive arm's-length studies and licence agreements drawn up before royalties flow are the only available risk mitigation.
  • Bank locally. Opening the corporate account with an established domestic bank such as Banco General, Global Bank, or Banistmo avoids the heaviest EDD applied by European and US banks; be ready to evidence genuine activity, UBO transparency, and source of funds.

Where an operating licensee sits in an EU member state, its bank and auditor will flag payments to a listed jurisdiction, and addressing this may require interposing a transparent intermediate entity in a non-listed country, with the added cost that brings.

The overall assessment is that this is a functional but constrained IP holding jurisdiction. It delivers genuine territorial exemption on foreign-sourced royalties, low setup cost, and USD banking, but it lacks a patent box, has a thin treaty network, offers no APA process, carries lasting EU listing and reputational risk, and now demands demonstrable substance for group IP entities from 2027.

The territorial exemption on foreign royalties is real, but it is shrinking into a conditional benefit that only an entity with genuine local substance can rely on once Law 526 applies from fiscal year 2027. For a group whose licensees and markets lie outside the 17-treaty network, particularly any structure touching the United States, the missing treaty relief and the EU listing risk usually outweigh the headline exemption.

Before committing, model the source-country withholding on your actual royalty flows and price the cost of building defensible substance; if both numbers are heavy, a treaty-rich alternative with an IP-box regime will often serve the same purpose at lower long-run risk.

Expanship sets up and runs Panama IP holding companies for foreign owners, from forming the sociedad anónima and putting compliant intra-group licence agreements in place to preparing for the economic substance requirements that apply from fiscal year 2027. The same team supports the wider needs of a foreign-owned entity operating through the jurisdiction.

  • Incorporation of the sociedad anónima and structuring of the IP holding vehicle
  • Registered agent and registered office services
  • Economic substance assessment and tax registration support
  • Ongoing compliance management, including beneficial ownership filings and Form 930
  • Accounting and bookkeeping aligned with the five-year record-keeping rule
  • Introductions to established local banks and guidance on KYC documentation

To discuss whether the structure fits your group, contact Expanship Panama.

Royalties from foreign licensees exploiting IP abroad fall outside the local tax base under the territorial system, so they are not subject to income tax there. From fiscal year 2027, however, an entity within a multinational group keeps that exemption only if it meets the new economic substance and reporting requirements, failing which the income can bear a final 15% tax.

No. There is no patent box, no preferential royalty rate, and no notional royalty deduction regime; the benefit is the territorial exemption on foreign-source income, not a reduced statutory rate. Groups seeking an IP-box rate should compare jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, Ireland, or Singapore.

The paying country applies its full domestic withholding rate, often between 15 and 30% or more, because no treaty reduction is available. With only 17 treaties in force and none with the United States, this gap affects groups whose markets lie in places like the US, Canada, Germany, China, or Brazil.

No. The sociedad anónima can be recorded as legal owner in the USPTO, EUIPO, UKIPO, or any other foreign registry, and the IP stays in force in that register under the company's name. Local registration through DIGERPI protects rights only within the national territory and is needed only where the IP is exploited there.

Law 526 of 2026 requires qualified local personnel and premises, strategic decisions and risk-taking carried out in the country, and operating expenditure commensurate with the activity. IP licensors face this full three-condition test rather than the simplified regime, and the substance must exist throughout the period rather than be arranged at filing.

They may. The jurisdiction remains on the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes, so an EU licensee's bank and auditor will apply enhanced due diligence to payments made to the entity. Managing this typically requires strong substance documentation and sometimes a transparent intermediate entity in a non-listed country.

Legal Disclaimer

The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, or professional advice. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the content, laws and regulations are subject to change, and the application of laws can vary widely based on specific facts and circumstances.

Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel tailored to their individual situation. Expanship and its authors disclaim any liability for actions taken or not taken based on the content of this article.

For specific advice regarding your business setup, compliance requirements, or any legal matters, please consult with qualified legal and tax professionals in the relevant jurisdiction.