Blog

In the referendum held on 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom voted in favour of exiting the European Union. Although the two-year exit process is yet to commence, consideration should be given to the tax implications that may arise, especially with regard to customs, excise and value added taxes.

Transactions between the United Kingdom (UK) and the countries of the European Union (EU) are currently considered to be intra-community transactions, with an obligation to pay VAT (through a reverse charge mechanism) on assets sent and received. This allows for the free movement of goods, and the situation is similar for the provision of services.

After Brexit (a two-year process that is, at the time of publishing, yet to commence), the sale and purchase of assets between Italy (or other EU member countries) and the UK may no longer be considered intra-community transactions. Instead, assets shipped from Italy to the UK would be classed as export supplies, while incoming goods from the UK would be classed as imports. 

With regard to the provision of generic services pursuant to Article 7-ter of Presidential Decree 633/72, formal requirements would change. Services provided should therefore be identified as “not subject to” transactions. With regard to services received, the Italian taxable entity would be required to apply the reverse charge mechanism, issuing a self-billing invoice. Completion of the invoice received from the British service provider would no longer be necessary. In addition, it would no longer be obligatory to declare the transactions on the Intrastat summary lists pursuant to Article 50, paragraph 6 of Law Decree 331/1993.

Another consequence of a completed Brexit would be the loss of the simplifications that are currently applied among the EU member states. Entities established in the UK would therefore be able to identify themselves as non-resident entities for VAT purposes in Italy only through the appointment of a tax representative in accordance with Article 17, paragraph 2 of Presidential Decree 633/72 and no longer through the identifying procedure set out in Article 35-ter of Presidential Decree 633/72.

It is likely that a similar situation would arise when a taxable Italian entity intends to operate in the UK. It should be noted that, in the future, a British entity that purchases assets in Italy and subsequently resells them to another Italian taxable entity, not creating any domestic tax position, would need to go through a process to recover the VAT paid on the purchase. This process will be much more cumbersome than that which is currently in place for member states.

Some repercussions are also foreseen in e-commerce where, in the case of direct e-commerce, the British operator must necessarily appoint a tax representative in one of the member states. Another consequence would be the loss of the right of Italian economic entities to request a refund for taxes paid in the UK (the non-resident tax refund in accordance with Article 38-bis of Presidential Decree 633/72).

On June 29, 2016, the Belgian Parliament adopted the ‘programme law’ (introduced on June 2, 2016) that contains the introduction into Belgian tax law specific transfer pricing documentation requirements (published in the Belgian Official Gazette of July 4, 2016). These requirements are based on Action 13 of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)/ G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. Only minor adjustments with no effect on the technical content of the draft programme law were made.

The relevant articles of the programme law introduce a three-tier documentation approach as provided under BEPS Action 13: Master file, local file, and country-by-country reporting (CbCR). According to the newly adopted documentation requirements, Belgian entities of a multinational group that exceed one of the following criteria need to submit to the tax authorities a master file and a local file (the detailed form that is part of the local file only when at least one of the business units of the entity has realised intra-group cross-border transactions of more than one million euros [EUR]):

  • operational and financial revenue of at least EUR 50 million, excluding non-recurring revenue
  • balance sheet total of EUR 1 billion, or
  • annual average number of employees of 100 full-time equivalents.

Belgian ultimate parent entities of a multinational group with a gross consolidated group revenue of at least EUR 750 million should file a CbCR. Under certain conditions, the Belgian entity that is not the ultimate parent entity of the multinational group may be required to file the CbCR directly with the Belgian tax authorities.

The master file and CbCR should be filed no later than 12 months after the last day of the reporting period concerned of the multinational group. The local file, however, should be filed with the tax return concerned.

The programme law also introduces specific transfer pricing documentation penalties, ranging from EUR 1,250 to 25,000.

Currently, the Royal Decrees covering the implementation measures of the newly adopted documentation requirements are being drafted. It is expected that these implementation measures will be finalised by the end of September or early October 2016.

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]

Follow Us

Recent Posts
WhatsApp Icon
IMC Logo IMC Group
WhatsApp Icon Start Chat