Finance Ministry to ease transfer pricing rules

by | posted in: Corporate Updates, Cross Border Transactions, M&As, Joint Ventures, Income Tax,e-Filing- Individuals, Firms, Companies | 0

The finance ministry is streamlining safe harbour rules and advance agreements, two mechanisms to determine the price of services rendered by a multinational to its subsidiary in India.

Safe harbour rules – directives on margins the tax authorities should accept for the transfer price declared by an assessee – have drawn a tepid response since they were introduced a couple of years ago. There is also a huge backlog in advance pricing agreements (APAs), an ahead-of-time understanding between a taxpayer and the tax authority on an appropriate transfer pricing methodology.

ALIGNING INDIAN TAXATION WITH BEST PRACTICES
Safe harbour rules

  • Government looking at lowering safe harbour margins to make it attractive for companies to opt for it
  • Government to make safe harbour definition unambiguous bringing in more clarity

Advance Pricing Agreement

  • With close to 550 cases pending, government looking at expediting clearances through:
  • Sector-specific approach to cases
  • Increasing manpower and filling up vacancies

The move would simplify the tax regime, reduce litigation and help improve the business environment, a finance ministry official said.

The steps will involve lowering the margins in safe harbour rules and definitions will be reworked to remove ambiguities. India announced the safe harbour rules in 2013, but the high margins of up to 25 per cent on total operational profits have made it unattractive for companies to use them.

“We are addressing issues related to transfer pricing to align it with best practices. We are revising the safe harbour rules that will include revisiting the definition and revising the margins, considered high by companies,” said a tax official.

Information technology (IT) and information technology-enabled services (ITeS) companies with transactions of up to Rs 500 crore have a safe harbour operating margin of 20 per cent and those with transactions above Rs 500 crore have a margin of 22 per cent. Knowledge process outsourcing companies have a safe harbour operating margin of 25 per cent.

Experts argue there is ambiguity in the definition of IT, ITeS and knowledge process outsourcing companies with a lot of overlap. Moreover, the margins decided in tribunals or in advance pricing agreements turn out much lower, ranging between 15 and 18 per cent.

“The definitions under the safe harbour rules are fuzzy and sometimes overlap, creating confusion over what rate should apply and which company will fall under which sector. We are expecting clarity on the definition,” said Rahul Garg, leader, direct tax, PwC.

Manisha Gupta, partner, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, said the safe harbour margins were high. “The government agrees to far lower rates at tribunals and in advance pricing agreements,” she said.

The lowering of safe harbour rates will ease the advance pricing agreement backlog. The government introduced the advance pricing scheme in 2012 and there are over 500 applications pending.

“We are considering sector-wise handling of cases by officers to expedite decisions,” the tax official said. “We have already made a request for an increase in manpower to clear the backlog. We expect a decision soon,” he added.

India has the highest incidence of transfer pricing litigation worldwide. The number of cases scrutinised has quadrupled from 1,061 in 2005-06 to 4,290 in 2014-15.

Among measures recently introduced, the government said an officer would be assigned not more than 50 important and complex transfer pricing cases. Officers typically audit more than 70 cases at a time.

Besides, the tax department has incorporated range and multi-year data in transfer pricing calculations to bring Indian laws in line with international practices. Earlier, single-year data and the arithmetic mean were used to arrive at transfer pricing.

Earlier this year, the finance ministry allowed rollback advance pricing agreements so that multinational companies could settle taxes for previous years as well.

“The burden on tribunals, high courts, Supreme Court and even on the APA team can be substantially reduced if the Indian government revamps the safe harbour rules (that is, devising calibrated and more reasonable margins for the sector consistent with the margins finally arrived at post-tribunal orders/MAP/APA and providing clarifications on what constitutes software development activities, KPO, contract R&D,” said a Deloitte & Taxsutra report on transfer pricing.

Approximately over 40 per cent of APA applications are from the IT/ITeS sector. Up to September 2015, more than 575 APA applications have been filed with the APA authorities. Fourteen of these APAs have been concluded, of which 12 are unilateral and two bilateral (with Japan and the UK).

Source:Business Standard

Global Financial Secrecy Index: Hong Kong, Singapore’s ranks rise

by | posted in: Corporate Updates, Cross Border Transactions, M&As, Joint Ventures, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, India & International - Corporate updates | 0

Hong Kong and Singapore have increased their ranking for financial secrecy, with the Chinese territory rising to number two, behind only Switzerland in a 2015 index of the world’s offshore havens, compiled by the Tax Justice Network (TJN).

Both the Asian financial hubs have made insufficient reforms to their corporate secrecy regimes, according to the London-based TJN, which campaigns for greater transparency in finance. Singapore’s ranking moved to fourth from the fifth place it held in the organisation’s previous index in 2013, when Hong Kong placed third.

“Singapore, in fourth place, poses many of the same threats that Hong Kong does: a lack of serious reforms to its corporate secrecy regime; a lack of interest in creating country-by- country reporting or in creating public registries of beneficial ownership,” the TJN said.

The two cities each account for about 4 per cent of the global market for offshore financial services, the organisation said. The hubs are well exposed to offshore flows because of rising assets under management and their status as regional financial hubs, according to the TJN.

“We do not have laws protecting bank secrecy and so we have never attracted foreign capital by such means,” a spokesman for Hong Kong’s Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau said in an e-mailed response to the TJN survey. “Hong Kong has all along been highly supportive of international efforts to enhance tax transparency and combat tax evasion,” the spokesman added.

The US was ranked third for its refusal to take part in a global system for exchanging bank data created by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/global-financial-secrecy-index-hong-kong-singapore-s-ranks-rise-115110301720_1.html

 

Relaxed tax residency rules to help MNCs

by | posted in: Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates, Cross Border Transactions, M&As, Joint Ventures, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, Income Tax,e-Filing- Individuals, Firms, Companies, India & International - Corporate updates | 0
While Indian-incorporated firms (Indian companies) are taxed at 30% plus dividend distribution tax (DDT), non-resident (foreign) companies are taxed at 40% on Indian income without DDT.

Foreign companies with Indian shareholders won’t have to pay taxes here for their worldwide income unless they are managed from India on an everyday basis. If these foreign companies are managed from outside India, whether or not they are promoted by resident Indians, they will have to pay taxes in India only for the income they earn in the country.

This major relaxation is being built into the place of effective management (POEM) rules being finalised by the finance ministry, government sources told FE. The POEM concept that was included in the I-T Act early this fiscal had raised fears among many multinational companies with Indian promoters or major shareholders that New Delhi would lay claim to taxes on their incomes attributable to other geographies.

While Indian-incorporated firms (Indian companies) are taxed at 30% plus dividend distribution tax (DDT), non-resident (foreign) companies are taxed at 40% on Indian income without DDT. Although the tax rates on foreign companies are higher, the prospect of subjecting the worldwide income to taxation here could have potentially hit many MNCs with Indian stakeholders.

The proposed lenient POEM rule, analysts said, would give the likes of UK’s Jaguar Land Rover (which has the Indian parent Tata Motors) a chance to convince the Indian tax authorities that the UK firm’s commercial decisions are taken by the local management there and avoid paying taxes for the income in the UK and elsewhere in India.

Similarly, foreign subsidiaries of state-owned oil companies such as ONGC Videsh’s Imperial Energy incorporated in Cyprus and ONGC Nile Ganga doing oil exploration in Sudan, Syria and Venezuela can potentially show that their managerial and commercial decisions are ‘in substance’ made at the local level although OVL, the Indian holding company, is under the direct administrative control of the government of India. The same is true for HPCL’s Singapore subsidiary Prize Petroleum International.

“Putting a management in place is a shareholder decision, not a management decision. Promoters getting into any other role would amount to overstepping shareholder rights, going by the strict interpretation of law. The POEM as a principle must cover only management decisions,” said Rahul Garg, leader, direct tax, PwC India.

According to experts, seeking permission from an Indian parent on a decision taken by an overseas subsidiary to see if it is in line with the global policy of the parent may not ordinarily amount to the parent exercising management control, unlike the parent passing on a centrally taken decision to the foreign associate. However, where the senior management of foreign associates of Indian firms are based in India or have common board members based in India, the overseas entity may find it hard to prove that management decisions are taken from outside India. Also, foreign associates of Indian companies lacking skilled managerial personnel or do not assume business risks on its own, could have a tough time convincing the taxman in India that they are not Indian residents.

Prior to the Finance Act, 2015, a company was considered an Indian resident if its control and management were wholly in India throughout the financial year. Since some Indian companies sought to avoid resident status and taxes on their worldwide income by holding one or two board meetings outside India, the government changed the residence definition saying that any company, the ‘place of effective management’ of which is in India, would also be a resident company. Tax residence is a place from where key management and commercial decisions necessary for running the company are, in substance, made. According to experts, this OECD definition of tax residence relies on the substance of the organisation’s structure than its legal form. The government is bringing out clarifications as there is not much global guidance on the concept.

Points to note:

* Mere shareholder rights with Indians won’t result in resident status
* Only managerial decisions taken here will make foreign firms Indian residents and liable to pay tax for entire global income here
* Foreign firm has to prove management independence to avoid tax residence if board members are common with that of Indian ones.

Source: http://www.financialexpress.com/article/economy/relaxed-tax-residency-rules-to-help-mncs/156692/

 

Ease of doing business in India – Related Party Transactions

by | posted in: Accounting Standards, Audit, Due Diligence, Company Incorporations, e-filing of MCA Returns, Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates | 0

Related party Transactions.

As part of its ongoing efforts to improve ease of doing business in the country, the Corporate Affairs Ministry has notified changes that further relax compliance requirements.

As another major step, the Companies Amendment Act, 2015 addresses “problems faced by large stakeholders who are related parties”.

In this new amendment, it replaces “special resolution with ordinary resolution for approval of related party transactions [Section 188] by non-related shareholders”.

Besides, related party transactions between holding companies and wholly owned subsidiaries have been exempted from the requirement of approval of non-related shareholders.

As per the amendment, the requirement of passing special resolution for approving certain related party transactions has been done away with. With this, certain related party transactions can now be approved through ‘ordinary resolution’ instead of ‘special resolution’.

Further, it has also been provided that for related party transactions between a holding company and its wholly owned subsidiary, no resolutions are required to be passed if the accounts of the holding and subsidiary company are consolidated and placed before the shareholders in a general meeting for approval.

Income Tax dept lowers pitch on tax demands on multinationals

by | posted in: Corporate Updates, Cross Border Transactions, M&As, Joint Ventures, Income Tax,e-Filing- Individuals, Firms, Companies | 0

The income tax department will withdraw from a few hundreds of tax cases with multinational corporations pending in tribunals by the end of this fiscal.

This marks a significant softening of approach given its high-pitched income reassessments for MNCs in recent years, mainly by contesting the pricing of their cross-border transactions.

Sources said the department, which has advance pricing arrangements (APAs) with 16 MNCs and aims to sign 150 such deals on the broad principles for future valuation of inter-country transactions for tax purposes, is willing to extend the conciliatory approach to transactions in the past four years too. Once the mutually agreed principles in an APA are applied to past transactions, the department would not pursue tax demands made earlier.

Wherever the department is the appellant in tribunals, it will withdraw the appeals. The move, part of the government’s efforts to reduce tax litigation and boost investor confidence, is set to benefit several large corporations including technology companies like Microsoft and IBM.

Tax tussles

* I-T department has resolved 45 double taxation disputes so far with the US bilaterally
* India and 16 MNCs have agreed on pricing of cross-border transactions under APA scheme, target 150 for the year
* APAs to allow agreements on pricing of transactions in the past years as well
* On this basis, tax department will withdraw from many disputes pending before tribunals

In the case of related-party cross-border transactions of MNCs alone, alleged tax dues has touched Rs 2.7 lakh crore. Earlier the government had decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court decisions of the Bombay High Court that held companies like Shell and Vodafone were not liable to tax on the alleged undervaluation of certain share transactions among group companies.

So far India has signed 16 APAs in the business of telecommunication, oil exploration, pharmaceuticals, finance, banking and software development and expects another 140 or so to be completed by the end of the fiscal. An APA is an agreement between the tax authority and companies on the principles of valuation of certain transactions, which will exempt the company from rigorous tax audits on cross-border deals.

Many of the tax demands raised on MNCs on cross-border transactions in the last few years have led to disputes. Scores of cases are pending with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The government wants to stop these disputes from escalating to the higher judiciary. The number of cases in which the tax department has received favourable orders from tribunals are not very encouraging.

Finance minister Arun Jaitley has promised that all legacy tax disputes would soon be resolved through administrative or judicial means.

While an APA between a company and the tax department will resolve a dispute in India, the possibility of double taxation would be fully addressed only when the tax authority in the company’s home country too becomes party to such agreement. The US, which is home to many technology firms facing tax disputes in India, has recently started steps to implement such “bilateral APAs”.

Source: http://www.financialexpress.com/article/economy/income-tax-dept-lowers-pitch-on-tax-demands-on-multinationals/148358/

Vodafone gets a reprieve in Rs. 8,500-cr transfer pricing case

by | posted in: Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates, Cross Border Transactions, M&As, Joint Ventures, Income Tax,e-Filing- Individuals, Firms, Companies | 0

The Bombay High Court on Thursday gave a favourable ruling to Vodafone in the transfer pricing case related to the sale of the company’s call-centre business to Hutchison and assignment of call options to Vodafone International.

The tax dispute, which dates back to 2007-08, arose after the tax authorities added Rs. 8,500 crore to the taxable income of the call centre unit. It had initially received a tax claim of about Rs. 3,600 crore.

While the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal had upheld the I-T department’s claim, the High Court has accepted Vodafone’s position that the Department had no jurisdiction.

The court was of the view that there is no transfer of the ‘call options’ and, hence, the transaction does not fall within the purview of transfer pricing.

The I-T Department can challenge this order in the Supreme Court.

“We will study the order of the Bombay High Court on the Vodafone transfer pricing issue and then take a call,” Revenue Secretary Hasmukh Adhia said.

The I-T Department had issued its draft transfer-pricing order in December 2011. In 2012, Vodafone India Services moved the High Court challenging the Department’s jurisdiction.

This is the second major victory for Vodafone in tax-related cases in India. In October, the Bombay High Court had ruled that Vodafone is not liable to pay Rs. 3,200 crore in taxes in a 2009-10 transfer pricing case.

However, a verdict is still awaited in the $2.5 billion capital gains tax case, where the Department had asked Vodafone to pay tax for acquiring Hutchison’s telecom operations in India.

(This article was published in the Business Line print edition dated October 9, 2015)
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/vodafone-gets-a-reprieve-in-rs-8500cr-transfer-pricing-case/article7740178.ece