| This article is part ofa series on | ||||||||
| Corporate law | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Ashell corporation is acompany orcorporation with no significant assets or operations, often formed to obtain financing before beginning business. Shell companies were primarily vehicles for lawfully hiding the identity of their beneficial owners, and this is still the defining feature of shell companies due to the loopholes in the global corporate transparency initiatives.[1] It may hold passive investments or be the registered owner of assets, such asintellectual property or ships. Shell companies may be registered to the address of a company that provides a service setting up shell companies, and which may act as the agent for receipt of legal correspondence (such as an accountant or lawyer). The company may serve as a vehicle for business transactions without itself having any significantassets or operations.
Shell companies are used for lawful purposes such as holding assets ortax avoidance. However, they can also be used for illegal purposes such astax evasion, hiding stolen assets, ormoney laundering.[2] Anonymity, in the context of shell companies, relates to anonymity of beneficial owners of the company.[1] Anonymity may be sought to shield personal assets from others, such as a spouse in the event of divorce, from creditors, or from government authorities.
Shell companies' legitimate business purposes are, for example, acting as trustee for a trust, and not engaging in any other activity on their own account. This structure createslimited liability for the trustee. A corporate shell can also be formed around a partnership to create limited liability for the partners, and other business ventures, or to immunize one part of a business from the risks of another part. Shell companies can be used to transfer assets from one company into a new one while leaving the liabilities in the former company. Shell companies are also used for privacy and security reasons by wealthy individuals and celebrities.[1] Accordingly, shell companies may be used to generate both pecuniary and non- pecuniary private benefits by their beneficial owners.[3]
TheU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission definesshell company as follows:[4][5]
Shell company: The termshell company means a registrant, other than an asset-backed issuer as defined in Item 1101(b) of Regulation AB (§ 229.1101(b) of this chapter), that has:
(1) No or nominal operations; and
(2) Either:
(i) No or nominal assets;
(ii) Assets consisting solely of cash and cash equivalents; or
(iii) Assets consisting of any amount of cash and cash equivalents and nominal other assets.
— [6]
Some shell companies may have previously had operations that shrank due to unfavorable market conditions or company mismanagement. A shell corporation may also arise when a company's operations have been wound up, for example following atakeover, but theshell of the original company continues to exist.[7] The termshell corporation does not describe the purpose of a corporate entity; in general it is more informative to classify an entity according to its role in a particular corporate structure; e.g.holding company,general partner, orlimited partner.
Shell companies are a main component of theunderground economy, especially those based intax havens. They may also be known asinternational business companies,personalinvestment companies,front companies, ormailbox companies. While these terms are generally used interchangeably in practice, their meanings are not the same and each term is generated to refer to a different theme of illegality.[1] Shell companies can also be used for tax avoidance. A classictax avoidance operation may utilize favorabletransfer pricing among multiple corporate entities to lower tax liability in a certain country; e.g.Double Irish arrangement.
Aspecial purpose entity, used often in the context of a larger corporate structure, may be formed to achieve a specific goal, such as to createanonymity.
According to a 2013 experimental study, where the researchers requested anonymous incorporation in violation of international law, one in four corporate service providers offered to provide services in violation of international law.[8]
Shell companies can be used to transfer assets of one company into a new company without having the liabilities of the former company. For example, whenSega Sammy Holdings purchased the bankruptIndex Corporation in June 2013, they formed a shell company in September 2013, called Sega Dream Corporation, into which were transferred valuable assets of the old company, including theAtlus brand and Index Corporation'sintellectual property.[9] This meant that the liabilities of the old company were left in the old company, and Sega Dream had clean title to all the assets of the old company. The former Index Corporation was thendissolved. Sega Dream Corporation was renamed as Index Corporation in November 2013.
WhenHilco purchasedHMV Canada, they used a shell company by the name of Huk 10 Ltd.[10] in order to secure funds and minimize liability. HMV was then sued by Huk 10 Ltd., allowing Hilco to regain assets and dispose of HMV Canada.
As another example, the use of a shell company in a tax haven makes it possible to move profits to that shell company, in a strategy oftax evasion. A United States company buying products from overseas would have to pay US taxes on the profits, but to avoid this, it may buy the products through a non-resident shell company based in a tax haven, where it is described as an offshore company. The shell company would purchase the products in its name, mark up the products and sell them on to the US company, thereby transferring the profit to the tax haven. (The products may never actually physically pass through that tax haven, and be shipped directly to the US company.) As the shell company is not based in the United States, its profit is not subject to US income tax, and as it is an offshore company in the tax haven jurisdiction, it is not taxed there either. Under the tax haven law, the profits are deemed not to have been made in the jurisdiction, with the sale deemed to have taken place in the United States. As US personal income tax is significantly less important than corporate income tax, US company executives would claim a salary (or fees, consulting fees, etc.) from the company's profits.
In addition, there are several shell companies that are used by broadcasting groups to circumventFCC limits on television station ownership. For example,Sinclair Broadcasting Group forms local marketing agreements with stations owned byCunningham Broadcasting andDeerfield Media; nearly all of the stock of Cunningham Broadcasting is controlled by trusts in the name of the owner's children.[11] Other examples includeNexstar Media Group controlling television stations owned byMission Broadcasting andVaughan Media.
Typical countries of domicile of shell companies areoffshore financial centres likeIreland,Liechtenstein,Luxembourg,Switzerland,Isle of Man, and theChannel Islands includingGuernsey andJersey in Europe,Bahamas,Barbados,Bermuda,Cayman Islands, andVirgin Islands in the Caribbean,Panama in Central America, andHong Kong andSingapore in Asia. Shell companies are usually offered by law firms based in those countries.[12] The process of establishing a shell company can sometimes be done very quickly online.[13]
In 2021 anonymous corporations were made illegal in the United States with the passage of the Corporate Transparency Act as part of theWilliam M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. Exemptions were included which are meant to limit its scope to the entities most likely to be used for illicit purposes. Companies which are exempt from the act include foreign companies that do not formally register to do business and companies that fall into one of 24 enumerated categories, which include companies that employ more than 20 people, have revenues above $5 million, and a physical presence in the United States, as well as churches, charities, non-profits, trusts and partnerships. Companies that are banks, broker-dealers, public issuers, and insurance companies are also exempt.[14][15][16][17]
Due tofederalism in the United States, shell companies are often set up in states such asDelaware,Nevada, andWyoming due to advantageous tax regimes.[18][19]
Shell companies have been used to commit fraud, by creating an empty shell company with a name similar to existing real companies, then running up the price of the empty shell and suddenly selling it (pump and dump).
There are also shell companies that were created for the purpose of owning assets (including tangibles, such as a real estate for property development, and intangibles, such asroyalties orcopyrights) and receiving income. The reasons behind creating such a shell company may include protection against litigation and/or tax benefits (some expenses that would not be deductible for an individual may be deductible for a corporation). Sometimes, shell companies are used fortax evasion ortax avoidance.[20][2]
In 2013 theInternational Consortium of Investigative Journalists published a report called "Offshore Leaks" with information about the use and owners of 130,000 shell companies. Many of the shell companies belonged to politicians and celebrities from around the world and were being used for tax evasion and hiding financial assets.[21]
In 2016 a leak of 11.5 million documents to the German newspaperSüddeutsche Zeitung revealed information about owners of more than 214,000 shell companies administered by the law firmMossack Fonseca in Panama. The shell companies were used by politicians, businessmen, autocrats, and terrorists from around the world for tax evasion and other illegal activities.[12]
After India's decision todemonetise ₹500 and ₹1000 rupee notes on 8 November 2016,[22][23][24] various authorities noticed a surge in shell companies depositing cash in banks, possibly in an attempt to hide the real owner of the wealth. In response, in July 2017, the authorities ordered nearly 2,000 shell companies to be shut down whileSecurities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) imposed trading restrictions on 162 listed entities as shell companies. A high-level task force found that hundreds of shell companies were registered in a few buildings inKolkata. Many of those were found to be locked, with their padlocks coated in dust and many others which had office space the size of cubicles.[25]
Since shell companies are very often abused for various illegal purposes, regulation of shell companies is becoming more important to prevent such illegal activities.
Currently British overseas territories and crown dependencies are only required to tell the true name of owners of shell companies upon request from official law enforcement agencies. However, since 2020 they are forced to publish these names in a public register in order to prevent anonymous use of shell companies.[26]
The new customer due diligence (CDD) rule from 2016 requires that banks know the identities of beneficial owners of legal entity customers, enabling them to disclose this information to law enforcement agencies, thus aiding in the identification true business owners and their tax liabilities. Thereby, the rule aims to prevent the anonymous misuse of shell companies. The rule is administered by theFinancial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).[27] In January 2021, anonymous shell companies were effectively banned via a provision in theWilliam M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.[28] In 2025 however the US Treasury department announced it would not enforce this law, and thus shell companies would not be required to follow the law requiring they disclose their owners and beneficiaries.[29] On March 21, 2025, FinCEN announced an interim final rule removing the reporting requirement for domestic businesses.[30]
A "Task Force on Shell Companies" was constituted in 2017 under the chairmanship of the Revenue Secretary to the Government of India and Corporate Affairs Secretary to Govt. of India, for effectively tackling malpractice by shell companies in a comprehensive manner.[31]
Within theEuropean Union outlined here, the problem has arisen of the lack of a common definition at Community level of shell companies, often also defined by the specific legislation of Member States as non-operating companies.[32]
To compensate for this absence and with the aim of preventing, identifying, and combating the misuse of shell companies for tax purposes, on 22 December 2021, theEuropean Commission adopted a proposal for anEU directive (n. 565/2021).[33] Also known as “Unshell” or "ATAD 3 - Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive,“ the proposal would aim to support Member States in identifying shell companies located in the EU that are used exclusively for tax purposes, through an ”access test" that assesses the percentage of passive income, the degree of cross-border operations of the entity, and the possible outsourcing of management functions.[34]
This proposal for a directive from the Commission No. 565 of 2021 would have amended a previousEuropean Union directive, namely directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation.[35][36]
As can be inferred from the text of the proposal itself, theEuropean Union would be competent to enact legislation in this area by invoking Article 115 of theTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union.[37]
According to theEuropean Union's special legislative procedure, the proposed directive would have required a unanimous vote in theCouncil of the EU, after consultation with theEuropean Parliament and theEuropean Economic and Social Committee[38].
However, despite the legal basis having been correctly identified, theCouncil of the EU formally announced its decision to abandon the draft directive in question inECOFIN Report 9960/2025, published on June 18, 2025.[39]
As can be inferred fromECOFIN Report 9960/2025 itself, on May 27, 2025, the Working Party on Trade Questions (WPTQ)[40] noted that there is an overlap between the tax risk indicators provided for in the Unshell proposal and those contained in the DAC6 directive, which trigger a reporting obligation to the tax authorities as a result of a presumption of aggressive tax planning.[41]The WPTQ itself justified its decision not to issue the Unshell directive by noting that it could have led to duplication of communications and an increase in administrative burdens that would have been incompatible with the objectives of simplification and reduction of the regulatory burden sought by theEuropean Union institutions.[42]
One of the reasons for deciding to abandon the preparatory work on the directive was therefore the fact that directive 2018/822[43] had already been issued within theEuropean Union, providing for the mandatory automatic exchange of information on cross-border arrangements subject to notification (DAC6).[44]The acronym DAC stands for Directive on Administrative Cooperation; it was issued with the aim of ensuring greater fiscal transparency through mandatory reporting, by intermediaries or taxpayers themselves in cases where there is no obligated intermediary, of certain cross-border transactions within a predetermined time frame. The exchange of information is made possible by the creation of a central register accessible toEU Member States.[45]
The European Union has been pursuing regulatory measures to address the use of “shell entities” fortax purposes. The proposed Unshell Directive (ATAD III) aims to introduce a unified substance test forEU companies, establishing minimum criteria for economic presence and activity. Three major Member States —France,Germany, andSpain — illustrate distinct regulatory approaches and challenges in implementing such measures.
French companies may be affected by the “gateway test” of the Unshell Directive, which assesses whether more than 75 % of income is passive, whether management is outsourced, and whether premises or staff are lacking.[46]Entities failing the substance test risk losing benefits under bilateraltaxtreaties andEU directives (Parent-Subsidiary Directive, Interest & Royalties Directive), unless they provide evidence of real business activity.[47]Annual reporting obligations require disclosure of employees, premises, bank accounts, and governance details.[48]
German-resident companies are subject to the same substance test, evaluating staff, premises, and decision-making functions.[49]Entities presumed to be shells may be denied standardtax residence certificates or receive one marked as “shell,” affecting treaty andEU directive benefits.[50]Domestic rules on treaty-shopping may still apply in parallel, so passing the Unshell test alone may not fully shield a company from scrutiny.[51]
Spanish entities are also subject to the gateway test and must report detailed information, including staff, premises, bank accounts, and decision-making structures.[52]Presumed shell entities risk loss oftreaty benefits, limited residency certification, or flow-through treatment unless they rebut the presumption.[53]Commentators warn that the administrative burden may disproportionately affect small companies and cross-border start-ups.[54]
In Italy, the concept most closely corresponding to Anglo-Saxon "shell companies" is the category of "società di comodo" (non-operating companies), a statutory anti-avoidance tool used to identify entities lacking genuine economic activity. Italiantax law applies presumptions of non-operativity, which companies may rebut by providing evidence of substantive operations, such as actual business premises, employees, and commercial activity.[55]
Italianjurisprudence has repeatedly stressed that the formal existence of a company is not sufficient when its economic reality is inconsistent with its declared activity. The ItalianCourt of Cassation has held that the creation or use of shell-type entities to issue invoices for non-existent transactions constitutes a criminal offence under Legislative Decree 74/2000.[56]Recent decisions also address the interaction between the Italiansocietà di comodo regime andEU VAT law. An Italiancourt has ruled that entities deemed non-operating do not automatically lose their right to deductVAT, finding that a blanket denial would be inconsistent with Directive 2006/112/EC and that taxpayers must be allowed to demonstrate the substance of their transactions.[57]Italian parliamentary and academic sources have also linked domestic "società di comodo" rules to the broaderEU debate on the proposed Unshell Directive, noting potential overlaps and inconsistencies between national presumptions of non-operativity and the EU-level substance test.[58]
