A Member Firm of Andersen Global

Blog

DUBAI // Community leaders, businessmen and diplomats from five countries in the Association of South-East Asian Nations region met in Dubai on 21.08.2016.

The meeting was part of plans for further cooperation before the group’s 50-year celebrations next year.

The gathering of expatriates from the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand was the first in Dubai for consuls, industry leaders and citizens of Asean countries.

“This is our first public diplomacy programme and we need interaction as a prerequisite to build our community,” said Yubazlan Yusof, the consul general of Malaysia.

“If Asean wants to succeed, we must make sure to link people together, such as the civil society and the NGOs.”

Last year, Asean countries established the Asean Economic Community.

The group seeks to create a globally competitive single market, with a free flow of goods, services, labour, investments and capital across the 10 member states.

The region has a collective population of 622 million.

Filipinos make up the biggest group of Asean expatriates in the UAE, with more than 700,000.

Presently, there are about 1 million people from the Asean region who work and live in this country.

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) of the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) on July 5, 2016, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Paris EUROPLACE, the organization in charge of developing and promoting the financial marketplace in Paris.

The MoU is intended to enable closer collaboration on possible joint financial activities and common interests that support growth and development in the financial sectors of France and Abu Dhabi.

The MOU will allow Paris EUROPLACE and the FSRA provides a framework for the exchange of information on banking, financial services, securities legislation, and regulations in each market, the ADGM said.

As part of the MOU, the ADGM and Paris EUROPLACE will explore mutually beneficial projects and discussions to facilitate long term investment opportunities, infrastructure financing, and new innovations in the areas of financial technology (fintech) and green finance.

The ADGM offers firms a number of benefits, including exemption from taxes guaranteed for 50 years, and relaxed rules on the repatriation of profits. The zone permits 100 percent foreign ownership.

For more details reach us at [email protected]

DUBAI: The International Monetary Fund on 19.07.2016 raised its 2016 growth forecast for the Middle East and North Africa after a rebound in oil prices, but maintained its cautious outlook for Saudi Arabia.

The region, along with Afghanistan and Pakistan, is set to see economic growth of 3.4 percent this year, better than a previous projection of 3.1 percent, the IMF said.

At the same time it cut the growth forecast for 2017 to 3.3 percent, down from 3.5 percent in April, citing fallouts from “terrorism” and geopolitical tensions in its World Economic Outlook Update.

The region includes major oil exporters like the Gulf Arab states, Iraq, Iran and Algeria, as well as oil importers such as Egypt, Morocco and others.

Following the lifting of international sanctions in January, Iran’s oil exports have reached more than two million barrels per day, close to their pre-sanction levels.

“In the Middle East, oil exporters are benefiting from the recent modest recovery in oil prices while continuing fiscal consolidation in response to structurally lower oil revenues,” the IMF said. “Geopolitical tensions, domestic armed strife, and terrorism are also taking a heavy toll on the outlook in several economies, especially in the Middle East, with further cross-border ramifications,” it said.

The IMF maintained its growth projections for Saudi Arabia, the world’s top crude oil exporter, at 1.2 percent for this year and raised it slightly to 2.0 percent for 2017.

The economies of the Kingdom and its oil-exporting peers in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have been hit hard by the slide in oil prices which began more than two years ago. They have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues, prompting them to take austerity measures and resort to borrowing to plug the huge budget deficits.

The IMF has praised the reform measures while insisting that more needs to be done.

In a report last month, the IMF said the value of oil and natural gas exports in the GCC states and Algeria was projected to fall by almost $450 billion this year compared with 2014.

For more details reach us at [email protected]

RIYADH: A researcher has defined three key elements in the differences and similarities between the policies of the positive representation the United States has adopted during its renaissance in over 50 years of progress, and the Saudi Vision 2030 launched by Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, noting that the assets of the Kingdom at the historical and cultural levels that qualify the country to realize the objectives of this vision in a similar way to the effects of the correctional policies followed by the US.

The researcher, Dr. Fadel Al-Omari, said in a recent study he conducted on the policies of positive representation, he defined three key elements to apply such policy here in the Kingdom, with some similarities and differences due to the nature of the institutions and the regulations in the country.

The US differs from the Kingdom in that America intended to compensate minorities that suffered de jure discrimination and exclusion resulting in inadequate qualifications and this is accepted in the United States. While in the Kingdom there is Islamic Shariah law that protects all groups in society in a just way.

In present times, the US differs from the Kingdom in seeking to prevent discrimination against individuals, especially minorities, and therefore enacted policies to amend state law and policies in dealing with some categories. While in the Kingdom such legislation already exists.

The similarities between the US and the Kingdom present in the diverse nature of society at the level of the race, color, sex, belief and other forms of diversity, and the need to protect this diversity.

This diverse nature is not confined only to the two countries, but it is the characteristic of most developed large nations and countries worldwide. And although the mechanisms to realize this diversity is different, it is an acceptable goal in Saudi society as it is in the United States.

For more details reach us at [email protected]

Update India-Singapore treaty

The 2005 Protocol to the India-Singapore treaty (the ‘2005 Protocol’) provides for exemption of Indian tax on gains from the alienation of shares in an Indian company by Singapore residents, subject to certain conditions being met. However, this exemption is contingent upon the availability of similar benefit to a tax resident of Mauritius under the India-Mauritius treaty.

The government of India issued a press release on May 10, 2016, announcing that India and Mauritius had signed a protocol amending the India-Mauritius treaty. This protocol will give India the right to tax capital gains on the alienation of shares in an Indian company, subject to certain grandfathering provisions during the transition period from April 1, 2017 to April 1, 2019.

Given the amendment to the India-Mauritius treaty, there is uncertainty over the capital gains tax treatment under the 2005 Protocol.

Other treaty updates

Ecuador – A new tax treaty with Ecuador was ratified and entered into force on December 18, 2015.

Luxembourg – A revised treaty with Luxembourg was ratified and entered into force on December 28, 2015, which replaces the existing agreement. However, the tax sparing relief provisions of the 1993 treaty will continue to apply for five years from the date the new treaty takes effect.

Rwanda – A new treaty with Rwanda entered into force on February 15, 2016.

San Marino – A new treaty with San Marino was ratified and entered into force on December 18, 2015.

Seychelles – A new treaty with Seychelles was ratified and entered into force on December 18, 2015.

Thailand – A revised treaty with Thailand entered into force on February 15, 2016.

United Arab Emirates – The Second Protocol amending Singapore’s standing tax treaty with the United Arab Emirates entered into force on March 16, 2016. The revised terms in the Second Protocol include longer threshold periods to ascertain the presence of a permanent establishment (PE) and lower withholding tax (WHT) rates for dividends and interest income.

For more details reach us at [email protected]

China and Bahrain signed a Protocol to the China-Bahrain double tax treaty (DTT) (the Protocol) on September 16, 2013. In May 2016, China’s State Administration of Taxation (SAT) issued SAT Public Notice [2016] No.31 to announce that the Protocol entered into force on April 1, 2016 and will be applicable to the income derived on and after January 1, 2017.

The Protocol revises certain articles set out in China-Bahrain DTT signed in 2002. Key changes include:

  • re-defining relevant concepts in the DTT, such as ‘chinese tax’, ‘competent authorities’, ‘resident of a contracting state’, etc.
  • raising the restricted income tax rate levied on dividend derived by corporate beneficial owners from 5% to 10%
  • clarifying the provisions of eliminating double taxation in China, and
  • updating the Article of ‘Exchange of Information’ (EoI).

For more details reach us at [email protected]

The 2016 Budget Statement was delivered by Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat on March 24, 2016. Proposed changes include:

  • An increase in the corporate tax rebate for Years of Assessment (YAs) 2016 and 2017 (income years 2015 and 2016) from 30% to 50%. The rebate amount remains capped at 20 thousand Singapore dollars (SGD) per year.
  • The introduction of a new investment allowance for automation equipment which will allow taxpayers to claim an additional 100% tax allowance for approved capital expenditure (net of grants) incurred on qualifying projects, subject to a cap of SGD 10 million per project.
  • Enhancement of the existing mergers and acquisitions (M&A) scheme which allows a qualifying Singapore company to claim a deduction for 25% of the cost of acquisition, capped at SGD 20 million, for qualifying share purchases. The cap on the cost of acquisitions is increased to SGD 40 million. The cap on stamp duty relief available under the scheme for the acquisition of Singapore shares is likewise increased from SGD 20 million to SGD 40 million.
  • The acquisition cost of qualifying intellectual property rights (IP) can be claimed over five years. Taxpayers will now be given the option of electing to claim the allowance over five, ten or, 15 years. An anti-avoidance rule has also been proposed which will allow the Singapore tax authority (IRAS) to substitute the open market value of the IP for the acquisition price or disposal price (as the case may be) for the purpose of computing the writing down allowance.
  • A new Business and Institution of a Public Character (IPC) Partnership Scheme is introduced to allow companies a 150% deduction for specified expenses when they send their employees to volunteer and provide services to an approved charity (IPC), subject to certain caps.
  • Certain incentives have been renewed and/or enhanced. Renewed incentives include the safe harbour rule on exemption of gains on divestments of ordinary shares, the double tax deduction for internationalisation, the exemption for Not-for-Profit Organisations, and the Land Intensification Allowance which was extended with minor tweaks to the qualifying conditions.
  • Renewal and enhancement of the Finance and Treasury Centre incentive including reduction of the concessionary tax rate from 10% to 8%, although the business requirements to qualify for the scheme will be increased.
  • The tax incentives for approved trustee companies, marine hull and liability insurance, specialised insurance business and captive insurance have been renewed and subsumed under broader umbrella incentive schemes for the financial and insurance sectors respectively. In general, the concessionary tax rates will be aligned accordingly with those provided for under the respective umbrella schemes.
  • Expansion of the scope of qualifying income under the Maritime Sector Incentive and Global Trader Programme.
  • In contrast, it was announced that the Productivity and Innovation Credit scheme will not be extended beyond YA 2018. The Approved Investment Company scheme and tax exemption on income derived by non-residents trading specified commodities in Singapore via consignment arrangements have also been withdrawn.

For more details reach us at [email protected]

Foreign Tax Credit Rules Notified: Clarity for Indian Taxpayers Going Global

  • Huge relief to taxpayers in terms of providing for procedural mechanisms to effectuate foreign tax credit as envisaged under the Income Tax Act and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements.
  • Rules remove anomalies that existed in the draft form especially in terms of clarity of timing mismatches across jurisdictions, foreign exchange fluctuation, disputed foreign income and ease in documentation requirements.
  • Several longstanding pain points not addressed such as the issue of claiming underlying tax credit for dividend distribution tax and tax sparing. 


Background

Recently, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”) has released a Notification dated June 27th 2016 which amend the Income tax Rules 1962 to provide for a separate segment on Foreign Tax Credit Rules, 2016 (“Rules”). The Rules provide clarity on the mechanism of obtaining foreign tax credit in India, of foreign taxes paid. The intended beneficiaries of the Rules are Indian residents that earn foreign sourced income.

A draft version of the Rules (“Draft Rules”) was released for comments from stakeholders earlier this year on April 18th 2016, and these rules have now been notified in final form. The Rules are based on the recommendation of the Tax Administrative Reforms Commission (“TARC”) headed by Dr. Parthasarthy Shome. The TARC Report, discussed from an administrative perspective, the issues faced by resident taxpayers in availing foreign tax credit, and recommended a course of action to ease this process.

The ability for a resident to obtain foreign tax credit has been provided under s. 91 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”), which is in the nature of unilateral relief where a tax treaty is not in place, or typically Article 23 of the relevant tax treaty, if applicable. The need for obtaining a tax credit arises where there is an unintended double taxation due to principles of residence based and source based taxation in different jurisdictions.

Analysis

The Rules aim to provide a computation mechanism, operational clarity and procedural requirements associated with availing foreign tax credit in India.

Eligibility: The newly introduced Rule 128 provides that a resident taxpayer can claim a credit for foreign taxes paid in (a) a treaty jurisdiction i.e. a country/ specified territory with which India has a double taxation avoidance agreement or an exchange of information agreement, and (b) in any other country where income tax includes excess profits tax or business profits tax charged by the central or local authority in that country.

To claim a credit, two requirements envisaged are (i) the foreign tax must have been paid, and (ii) credit may be claimed for the year in which the corresponding income is offered to tax in India

Timing mismatch: The Rules also attempt to address timing mismatch issues which arise due to the difference in the tax year systems between the source country and resident country (India) – for example. In the US, taxes could be paid on a calendar year basis (Jan- Dec), as opposed to India where taxes are paid on a financial year basis (Apr – March). In such cases, the Rules provide that where income is taxable across two years, credit shall be proportionately distributed across those years based on when income is offered to tax in India.

While this had earlier not been addressed in the Draft Rules, which only provided for credit being obtained in the year in which the income corresponding to such tax was offered, for the amount of foreign tax paid without accounting for possible timing mismatch, the CBDT seems to have taken into account the recommendations of TARC, and suggestions by the stakeholders to address such timing differences.

Taxes covered: The Rules also specify that the credit shall be available against the amount of income tax, surcharge and cess payable under the Act but not against interest, fee or penalty in respect of the tax payable. This is in line with judicial precedents in the context of tax treaties, which have held tax relief to be available in respect of surcharge and education cess, in addition to regular income taxes on the basis that these taxes are “substantially similar” to income taxes. This reduces the ambiguity amongst taxpayers on the eligible taxes, and should reduce long drawn litigation on this subject.

Disputed tax: The Rules provide that no credit shall be available for any amount of foreign tax which is disputed in any manner by the taxpayer. Therefore, a tax credit is not applicable in a situation where foreign tax was paid by the taxpayer on demand during scrutiny by the foreign tax authorities, but such taxes have been disputed by the taxpayer, under appeal proceedings.

The Draft Rules had not taken into account cases where dispute has been settled, but this clarity has been brought in the final Rules. In this regard, the Rules further provide that if (i) a dispute is finally settled and (ii) the taxpayer furnishes evidence of settlement of dispute along with (iii) an evidence that the tax liability has been discharged and (iv) an undertaking that no refund in respect of such amount has been claimed within six months from the end of the month in which the dispute is finally settled, credit of such disputed tax shall be allowed.

Depending on the tax administrative efficiency of the concerned foreign jurisdiction, it may take several years for the final dispute to be resolved. This time gap may lead to an undesirable situation where taxes have been doubly paid in India and a foreign jurisdiction for a long duration for a transaction which was, in the first place not taxable.

Computation: The Rules provide that the tax credit shall be the aggregate of amounts of credit computed separately for each source of income, arising from a particular country/ territory.

Further, credit in India shall be available to an amount which is the lower of the taxes paid in India or foreign taxes paid. The Rules also provide clarity on foreign exchange fluctuation. They state that the credit shall be based on conversion rate (telegraphic transfer buying rate) on the last day of the month immediately preceding the month in which taxes were paid. This should help in reducing any incremental costs due to foreign exchange fluctuation, if there is a significant gap between payment of foreign taxes and obtaining credit in India.

Certain jurisdictions such as Singapore follow a credit pooling system where tax credits are not divided into various heads. This mechanism enables businesses to effectively utilize tax credits and avoid double taxation due to characterization issues. However, the Indian system seems to follow the more traditional form of credit – segregated on the basis of income sources.

Credit for MAT: The Rules also provide that foreign tax credit may also be available for Indian taxes paid, which are in the nature of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT). That said, the Rules are unclear on how the computation mechanism would work in such a case, as there may be a mismatch in the source of income tax – between MAT and taxes paid in the foreign country. Clarity that foreign tax credit in case MAT is applicable, shall be available for foreign corporate taxes paid would be useful.

The Rules further provide that if foreign tax credit is availed of in respect of MAT, the taxpayer shall not be entitled to set off MAT against corporate taxes paid in future – a credit mechanism which has been provided under the MAT related provisions. A limitation has also been provided that if the foreign tax credit available is higher than the MAT credit, the lower amount shall be considered.

Documentation: Foreign tax credit shall be allowed on the taxpayer furnishing a statement of income offered for tax for the previous year in the foreign jurisdiction, and of foreign taxes deducted or paid in the foreign jurisdiction in a prescribed form (Form No. 67).

Proof of payment of taxes: The Rules further provide that the statement should specify the nature of income and the amount of tax deducted or paid by the taxpayer, as provided by (a) the tax authority of the country outside India, or (b) from the person responsible for deduction of such tax, or (c) signed by the assesse, if accompanied by an acknowledgment of the payment of such tax in the form of bank counter foil, challan or a receipt of online payment as proof depending on mode of payment, or proof of deduction if tax has been deducted.

This flexibility afforded in the Final Rules, is a departure from the Draft Rules, which provided only for validation from the foreign tax authorities – a long winded unworkable process.

Timeline: The above requirements should be furnished on or before the due date for filing of income-tax returns.

Carry backward of losses: Lastly, the Rules specify that Form No. 67 shall also be furnished in a case where the carry backward of loss of the current year results in refund of foreign tax for which credit has been claimed in any previous year or years.

Conclusion

The Rules come a welcome relief to global Indian businesses earning significant income abroad. While the ITA as well as double taxation treaties provided for a credit from a substantive law perspective, practically it was a difficult and cumbersome process in the absence of well laid out procedural rules. The CBDT has been cognizant of these difficulties, and in line with the recommendation of the TARC (which was constituted to simplify tax administration), aimed to provide procedural simplicity for availing foreign tax credit through a comprehensive set of rules.

Importantly, the Rules have removed anomalies that existed in the draft form, by taking into account representations made by stakeholders, and interested parties. Welcome changes include – clarity on timing mismatches across jurisdictions, foreign exchange fluctuation, disputed foreign income and ease in documentation requirements.

That said, there are several longstanding pain points that still need to be addressed in the foreign tax credit sphere – such as ability to claim underlying tax credit for dividend distribution taxes, buyback taxes and tax sparing which are unique to the Indian tax system.

For more details reach us at [email protected]

On 23 June 2016, the people of the United Kingdom (UK) voted to exit the European Union (EU). The narrow margin of victory for Brexit and the strong reactions across the political and social spectrum were unexpected. This leaves the way forward unclear, especially for businesses.

There is uncertainty on the exact tax and other consequences of the withdrawal of UK from the EU, although it is expected that it will take about two years to settle down.

Tax impact of Brexit

The tax impact of an exit by the UK from the EU would depend on a number of factors, including the nature of the UK’s future relationship with the EU, which will only be clear in time. The UK is likely to follow one of the following models for its negotiations.

Type of negotiation models

Currently, it is difficult to determine the impact of Brexit, but it may be possible to obtain an idea on how the UK and the EU will operate after the Brexit. There are various models, like the Swiss model and the Norwegian model, which deal with the UK will handle post-Brexit operations with its EU neighbors.

  • Swiss Model (Bilateral Arrangement Model)
    • Switzerland is not a part of the EU or the European Economic Area (EEA). However, there are a series of bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the EU. These treaties enable Switzerland to participate in specific EU policies or programmes. For example, insurance, pensions and fraud prevention treaties.
    • Post-Brexit, the UK may enter into a standalone free trade agreement with the EU or a series of agreements to cover individual trade sectors. The drawback of the Swiss model would be that it will not give UK the same market access which it would have as a member of the EU or EEA.
  • Norwegian Model (EEA Model)
    • The European Economic Area (EEA) comprises of all members of the EU together with three non-EU countries – Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Members of the EEA are a part of the European Single Market. There is a free movement of goods, services, people and capital within the EEA. Membership fees are charged to the EEA to be a part of the single market.
    • Post Brexit, the UK may join the European Economic Area by paying membership fees on the same basis as these other countries. Therefore, there is a possibility that the UK will retain access to the common market. The drawback of the Norwegian model is that the UK would have to pay membership fees.

There has been a lot of discussion on the changes for tax and compliance after Brexit, but it is not clear at the moment as it depends on the nature of the UK’s future relationship with the EU. However, we can explore some of the changes that could be of use as far as tax and compliance are concerned. Listed below are the tax areas, which will be affected by the Brexit.

Impact on Customs Duty

  • The first impact of Brexit would fall on customs duties. The EU is a customs union as well as a single market i.e. the customs duty is regulated by EU Directives and Regulations and the duty rates are also set at the EU level. As a customs union, there are no customs duties within the EU’s territory and EU member states share common external tariffs with third countries. Collected imports duty into the UK is transmitted to the EU.
  • Post Brexit, the UK would cease to be a part of the customs union and therefore cannot enjoy the relaxation provided by the EU customs union.
  • Around 50% of UK’s exports are to the EU and only 10% of exports from the EU are to the UK. It is expected that the UK would enact new rules and regulations to regulate customs duty which is currently regulated through EU Directives, Regulations and Council Decisions. If so, exports between the UK and the EU would need to go through customs procedures like any other non-EU country. However, tariffs are regulated internationally by the World Customs Organisation and pursuant to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Thus, the UK must also abide by these regulations.
  • The impact of a Brexit on customs duty would purely depend upon on the UK’s post-Brexit approach to customs duty. It is expected that the UK would enter into some form of customs agreement with the EU.

 

Impact on Value Added Tax

  • Presently in the UK, VAT is levied on supplies made within the UK, intra-community transactions with other EU member states and imports. UK VAT law was required to incorporate EU directives which ensured supplies made within EU members would be treated differently or beneficially and would not be considered at par with sales made to non-member states.
  • Post Brexit, EU directives will no longer be applicable and other member states will be treated as a separate country for VAT purposes. It will trigger import/export provisions; in simple words, VAT will be charged according to the provisions of supplies between the UK and non-EU member states and intra-community VAT charging provisions will be replaced. It may increase the procedural compliances and ultimately the cost of compliances. Predictably, there may not be a significant financial net impact on VAT on account of the Brexit.    
  • It is predicted that the UK may extend the zero rate list as the EU Directives will not be applicable. The UK will loose all the benefits of EU member states except which those which are generally applicable to non-member states such as ’The Mini One Stop Shop (MOSS)’ non-union scheme, for the supply of digital services to the consumers in EU.
  • The above impacts are considered based on the current UK VAT law. The exact tax implications of the Brexit will be determined only after the actual negotiation takes place between the UK and the EU to determine the exit terms.


Impact on Corporate Income Tax

  • Currently, there is no single corporate tax system in the EU as it is applicable for VAT. There exists a Parent-Subsidiary Directive between EU countries to prevent double taxation. This prohibits the levying of taxes (including withholding tax) on intra-group dividend, interest and royalty receipts and payments.
  • The EU Mergers Directive simplifies the reorganisation of groups based in more than one EU member state. Mergers result in the transfer of assets and liabilities between one or more receiving companies. The Directive provides for the deferral of taxes that could be charged on the difference between the market value of the asset and the tax value during mergers of companies situated in the EU member states.
  • For the EU, the Brexit may fast track the introduction of Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB – a single set of regulations that companies operating within the EU could use to calculate their taxable profits) as the UK had been a major opponent to the introduction of CCCTB.
  • As for Parent Subsidiary Directives, Post-Brexit, these directives would not apply in the UK. A UK-based company with subsidiaries in EU member states would need to rely on the UK’s arrangements of double tax treaties with each member state to prevent double-taxation on intra-group dividends, interest payments and royalties.
  • Post Brexit, UK’s domestic tax rules would apply instead of the EU Mergers Directives which may lead to levy of ’exit charges’* on the transfer of assets and liabilities between UK and EU companies within the same group.
  • If the UK joins EEA (i.e. if the UK negotiates any kind of agreement for free movement of people, goods, services, capital, etc.) there will be no major impact. Assuming the UK will not join EEA, they may amend their tax laws to revert to its former position.

 *Exit charges are the charges triggered in the home jurisdiction in effect of the change in tax residence of an individual or on the transfer of taxable assets between the corporate from home jurisdiction to another jurisdiction.


Impact on Withholding Tax on Interest, Dividend and Royalty

  • Many harmonising directives have been implemented by the EU to support the freedom of establishment. The most important directives are the Parent-Subsidiary Directive and the Interest and Royalty Directive.
  • The Parent-Subsidiary Directive abolishes withholding tax on dividends paid between associated companies within the EU. The Interest and Royalties Directive prohibits withholding taxes on intra-group interest and royalty payments made within the EU.
  • Post Brexit, the above directives would not be applicable to the UK. It could have the following impact:
    • For groups with a UK parent and EU subsidiaries or EU parent and UK subsidiaries, double taxation of dividends may arise.
    • Withholding tax cost could arise due to payment of interest and royalties into the EU from the UK or to the UK from EU subject to the applicable double tax treaties.


Impact on Social Security and Pension

  • The EU social security regulations apply to EU nationals moving to another EU country to perform work. As per the regulations, if an EU national is paying social security and health insurance in the home country, he may be exempted from paying these contributions in the other EU country where he has been posted. The insured EU national must provide the A1 and S1 forms, where applicable, to prove he is insured in the home country.
  • This would mean that UK employees who work in another member country would be eligible for exemption in that country if they are paying social security contributions in the UK. Similarly, EU nationals of another member country posted to work in the UK, can also apply for exemption from paying NIC contributions in the UK by providing form A1.
  • Currently, UK pensioners living in the EU have their state pensions protected as they are upgraded annually in relation to the wage price index. Therefore, the state pension would increase every year for retirees living in the EU member state or the EEA. If the pensioner lives outside these countries, the pension is frozen at the rate at which the individual left the UK.
  • Post-Brexit, the UK would no longer be a part of the EU social security system. This means that EU nationals working in the UK would no longer be eligible for exemption and may have to pay the social security contribution in the UK and in that EU member state. Alternatively, UK may sign a bilateral agreement with the EU, which for example Switzerland has, according to which it is treated as an EU member with respect to social security. In addition, UK may enter into social security agreements with individual EU countries to claim this exemption.
  • In relation to pensioners, the UK government will have to decide the state pension treatment for UK retirees living in other EU member states. Such retirees could be treated as if they were to retire in any non-EU country, where their pension is frozen at the time of leaving the UK. Presumably, UK could also enter into a renegotiation process with the EU member countries where state pensions could be marked against the wage price inflation and not be frozen.
  • As long as the UK remains a part of the EU, UK nationals working across EU have their pension and health care protected. After the exit, these advantages would be up for negotiation, possibly on a country-by-country basis.


Impact on Immigration

  • Currently, the principle of free movement of people among EU member states exists. A national of one EU country has the right to live and work in any other member state of the EU. About 1.2 million Brits live in other EU countries and about 3 million non-British EU citizens are live in the UK. They were allowed to move freely within the EU with minimal paperwork because of the EU rules.
  • Britain’s exit from the EU may change this free movement. The impact of Brexit on migration will depend on the kind of relationship that the UK would establish post-Brexit.
    • One of the possibilities is that the UK could negotiate a new treaty with the EU that continues to allow free movement between the UK and the EU. Like Norway and Switzerland, UK may implement free movement as part of their economic cooperation agreements with the EU. This will limit the impact of Britain’s exit on immigration.
    • Another possibility is that the EU withdrawal may result in the end of free movement and the introduction of entry formalities for EU nationals who want to work in the UK. This would mean that people moving to or from the UK would be subject to the same visa rules that apply to non-EU nationals moving to an EU member country. This will have a profound impact on migration and it would be difficult for EU citizens to live and work in the UK.

Impact on Data Protection

  • The current EU data protection regime is based on the Data Protection Directive. In the United Kingdom, the EU Data Protection Directive is implemented through the Data Protection Act 1998. The European Union will be introducing General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which will be effective from May 2018.
  • The Information Commissioner (Chief of Data Protection Act in the UK) has stated that UK businesses will continue to prepare for GDPR noting that data protection laws will remain relevant.
  • Post-Brexit, if the UK chooses to leave the EU but remains part of European Economic Area (EEA) then nothing would change for the UK and it would still have to comply with the EU Data Protective Directive and upcoming General Data Protection Regulation. However, if the UK chooses to leave the EU without joining the EFTA (European Free Trade Association), then the country would be free to revise its data protection framework and deviate from EU standards and the upcoming GDPR would not apply to the UK.

In such situations, the UK Data Protection Act will need to be amended to prove that the UK is a ’safe third country’. If it fails to prove this, then data transfer to the UK would be subject to strict regulations.

For more details reach us at [email protected]

To boost the employment and job creation in India, the government, in a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 20 June 2016, further liberalised the foreign direct investment (FDI) regime. These changes come as a part of the second round of reformative steps following the initial announcement in November 2015. Now, most sectors would fall under the automatic approval route, except for a small negative list.

As per the announcement, changes introduced in the policy include increasing sectoral caps, bringing more activities under the automatic route and easing of conditionalities for foreign investment. These amendments seek to further simplify the regulations governing FDI in the country and make India an attractive destination for foreign investors. Details of these changes are given below.
100%

100% FDI in brownfield projects is allowed under the automatic route.

FDI up to 49% is allowed under the automatic route and beyond 49%, under the government approval route.

Sector

Changes in FDI norms

Sectoral Cap

Liberalisation

Food industry

FDI under the government approval route for trading, including through e-commerce, with respect to food products manufactured or produced in India, is permitted

100%

FDI allowed in the sector.

Defence sector

FDI permitted under:

  • Automatic Route – 49%
  • Government approval route – Beyond 49%

100%

FDI beyond 49% is allowed under the government approval route for cases resulting in the access to modern technology in the country or for the reason to be recorded.

The condition of access to ‘state-of-art’ technology has been done away with.

Pharmaceutical

Brownfield

  • Automatic route – 74%
  • Government approval route – Beyond 74%

100%

FDI up to 74% in brownfield projects is allowed under the automatic route.

Broadcasting carriage services

New entry routes/sectors introduced:

    1. Teleports (setting up of up-linking HUBs/teleports);

    2. Direct to Home (DTH);

    3. Cable networks (Multi System Operators (MSOs) operating at a national or state or district level and undertaking upgradation of networks towards digitisation and addressability);

    4. Mobile TV;

    5. Headend-in-the-Sky broadcasting services (HITS)

    6. Cable networks Infusion of fresh foreign investment, beyond 49% in a company not seeking license/permission from a sectoral ministry, resulting in a change in the ownership pattern or transfer of stake by existing investors to new foreign investors, will require FIPB approval.

100%

The entry route for the sector has been reviewed and new sectoral caps have been prescribed.

Civil aviation sector

Brownfield

  • Automatic route- 100%

 

 

Scheduled Air Transport Service/Domestic Scheduled Passenger Airline and regional Air Transport Service

  • Automatic route – 49%

  • Government approval route – Beyond 49%

 

100%

 

100%

100% FDI in brownfield projects is allowed under the automatic route.

FDI up to 49% is allowed under the automatic route and beyond 49%, under the government approval route.

Private security agencies

FDI permitted under:

  • Automatic route – 49%

  • Government approval route – 49% to 74%

74%

FDI up to 49% is allowed under the automatic route and beyond 49% but up to 74% is permitted under the government approval route.

Animal husbandry

FDI in animal husbandry (including breeding of dogs), pisciculture, aquaculture and apiculture is permitted under the automatic route.

100%

It has been decided to do away with the requirement of ‘controlled conditions’ for FDI in these activities.

Other changes in the FDI Policy

Establishment of branch office, liaison office or project office

If the principal business of the applicant is defence, telecom, private security or information/broadcasting and it proposes to establish a branch office, liaison office, project office or any other place of business in India, there is no need for RBI approval or separate security clearances (where FIPB approval or license/permission by the concerned Ministry/Regulator has already been granted).

Single brand retail trading
Approval for the proposed relaxed local sourcing norms up to three years and a relaxed sourcing regime for another five years for entities undertaking single brand retail trading of products having ‘state-of-art’ and ‘cutting-edge’ technology.

The aforesaid changes introduced in the FDI Policy will take effect as per due process.

For more details reach us at [email protected]

Follow Us

Recent Posts