How a UK Founder Sold His Israeli Startup and Avoided a NIS 21M Innovation Authority Redemption Fee

Result: A US acquisition closed with the IIA-funded know-how kept in Israel, replacing a redemption of up to NIS 21M with a capped royalty licence · Timeline: 4 months · Challenge: Moving IIA-funded technology abroad on exit · Authority: Israel Innovation Authority · Financial Impact: Exposure cut from up to NIS 21M to a royalty ceiling of about NIS 5.25M

Background

A British software engineer in London had spent six years building an Israeli company that developed computer-vision technology for industrial inspection. He owned the company outright, never lived in Israel, and ran it through an Israeli general manager and a team of a dozen engineers in Herzliya. Over those six years the company had drawn roughly NIS 3.5 million in Israel Innovation Authority R&D grants, which had funded much of the core development. When a US industrial-automation group offered to buy the company, the founder assumed the hard part would be the price. He was wrong. The hard part was that the buyer wanted to take the technology to its own R&D centre in the United States, and that intention collided with a rule most foreign founders never read when they took the grants.

The Challenge

Grant money from the Israel Innovation Authority is not a gift. It comes with a lasting string attached: the know-how it funds is meant to stay and be developed in Israel. Moving that know-how out of the country is permitted, but only with the Authority's prior approval and, usually, a payment. That payment is what threatened this deal.

The US acquirer's model was consolidation. It ran a single global R&D centre and wanted the Israeli team's source code, models, and patents transferred to the United States, with the Israeli entity wound down after a transition period. From the buyer's side this was ordinary post-acquisition housekeeping. Under Israeli law it was a transfer of IIA-funded know-how outside Israel, and it carried a redemption fee that scales with the grants the company received. With NIS 3.5 million in grants behind the technology, the exposure ran into eight figures. A fee of that size, landing on the seller, does not just reduce the proceeds. It can break the economics of the whole transaction, because neither side budgeted for it and each expects the other to absorb it.

There was a second layer. The founder was a UK resident selling shares in an Israeli company, so the gain sat inside two tax systems at once. Israel taxes the capital gain on the sale of shares in an Israeli company and the buyer is required to withhold against it, while the United Kingdom taxes its residents on worldwide gains. Getting the IIA question wrong would not only cost the redemption fee, it would distort the numbers feeding into both the Israeli withholding and the UK capital gains position.

In Practice: Under Section 19B of the Encouragement of Industrial Research, Development and Technological Innovation Law 1984, transferring know-how funded by the Israel Innovation Authority to a party outside Israel requires the prior approval of the Authority and triggers a redemption payment capped at six times the grants received, reduced by royalties already paid. The company had drawn NIS 3.5 million in grants, so an outright transfer abroad exposed the deal to a redemption of up to roughly NIS 21 million, less the NIS 900,000 the company had already paid the Authority in product royalties. The IIA Research Committee ordinarily rules on a transfer application within 8 to 12 weeks.

What We Did

The first thing we did was reframe the buyer's objective. The buyer did not actually need the know-how to sit in the United States. It needed to use the know-how, to control it commercially, and to integrate the product into its own platform. Those are not the same thing, and Israeli law treats them very differently.

We proposed keeping the Israeli company alive as the owner and continuing developer of the technology, with the Israeli engineering team retained in place, and granting the US parent a licence to use and commercialise the know-how through the group. The Innovation Authority has a dedicated route for exactly this: a multinational group can license IIA-funded know-how to a foreign affiliate, provided the funded company keeps developing the technology in Israel, in exchange for ongoing royalties that are capped at a modest multiple of the grants rather than the six-times redemption that an outright transfer abroad attracts. The technology stays Israeli on paper and in practice. The buyer gets everything it needs commercially.

We filed the application with the Israel Innovation Authority, setting out the retention of the Israeli team, the continued R&D roadmap in Herzliya, and the licensing terms to the US parent. In parallel we modelled the two paths side by side for the buyer's deal team so the commercial people could see the gap: an outright transfer meant a redemption of up to NIS 21 million payable now, while the licensing route meant a royalty stream capped at 1.5 times the grants, spread over years and paid out of actual licensed revenue. Presented in cash terms, the choice made itself.

On the cross-border tax, we coordinated with the founder's London accountant and an Israeli tax adviser. We obtained an Israeli withholding determination so the buyer withheld the correct amount against the capital gain rather than a conservative over-withholding, and we made sure the Israeli tax paid would be creditable against the UK capital gains tax under the UK-Israel double tax treaty, so the same gain was not taxed twice. The IIA structure fed cleanly into this, because there was no sudden NIS 21 million redemption distorting the seller's net position.

In Practice: The Israel Innovation Authority's multinational-licensing route lets a funded company license its know-how to a foreign group member while continuing to develop it in Israel, in exchange for royalties of about 5% of the licensed revenue capped at 1.5 times the grants received plus interest, instead of the six-times redemption for an outright transfer abroad. Keeping the R&D and the know-how in Israel reduced the founder's exposure from a potential NIS 21 million payable on closing to a royalty ceiling of roughly NIS 5.25 million payable over years out of real revenue, and the Authority approved the structure in about 10 weeks.

The Outcome

The acquisition closed four months after we were instructed. The Israeli company continued as the legal owner and developer of the technology, the Herzliya team stayed employed, and the US parent took a licence approved by the Innovation Authority. The redemption fee that had threatened to swallow a large part of the founder's proceeds never became payable, because there was no transfer of the know-how out of Israel to trigger it. In its place stood a capped royalty obligation tied to actual licensed revenue, which the buyer accepted as an ordinary cost of holding an Israeli R&D asset.

The founder's net proceeds came through with the Israeli capital gains withholding set at the correct treaty-aligned rate and credited against his UK tax, so the gain was taxed once, not twice. He walked away with the number he had negotiated on price, rather than that number minus an unbudgeted eight-figure fee.

Key Takeaways

What this case illustrates for foreign founders selling an IIA-funded Israeli company:

1. Innovation Authority grants attach a permanent condition to the technology, and it surfaces at exit. The grants are cheap capital while the company is building, but the know-how they fund is expected to stay in Israel. A buyer who wants to move the technology abroad triggers a redemption fee that can reach six times the grants received under Section 19B of the R&D Law 1984. Founders who discover this during due diligence, rather than before signing a term sheet, are negotiating from the back foot.

2. A licence that keeps the know-how in Israel usually beats an outright transfer abroad. The multinational-licensing route caps the ongoing royalty at about 1.5 times the grants, paid from real revenue over time, against a redemption of up to six times payable at once. Buyers rarely need the technology to physically sit at their headquarters; they need to use it and control it commercially, and a licence delivers that. Reframing the buyer's objective is often worth more than negotiating the fee itself.

3. The IIA position and the cross-border tax position have to be solved together. A sudden redemption fee distorts the seller's net proceeds and the numbers that drive Israeli capital gains withholding and UK capital gains tax. Fixing the Innovation Authority structure first, then aligning the Israeli withholding with the UK-Israel treaty so the gain is credited and not taxed twice, is what protects the founder's actual take-home from a deal, not just the headline price.

---

Facing a Similar Situation?

If your Israeli company has taken Innovation Authority grants, the exit is where those grants are repaid in full or restructured away, and the difference can run to millions. The point to raise it is before the term sheet is signed, when there is still room to shape whether the technology moves abroad or stays in Israel under a licence. Handled early, the Innovation Authority rarely blocks a sale; handled late, it can reprice the whole deal.

Contact us for a confidential consultation about selling an IIA-funded Israeli company.