Fresh transfer pricing trouble for MNCs

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

A new provision for secondary adjustment in transfer pricing, announced in the Union Budget for 2017-18, is likely to affect the cash flow of multinational corporations (MNCs) and the dividend distribution tax paid by their Indian subsidiaries. The provision has also sparked worry on Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) and service tax payable by the subsidiaries, as well as retrospective implementation from 2013-14.   Experts claim the provision is in line with the norms of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) —but its wording is giving rise to apprehension.

Transfer pricing is the value at which companies trade products, services or assets between units across borders, a regular part of doing business for a multinational.

A primary adjustment is made, by tax administration, to company´s taxable profits on transactions with an associated enterprise in a secondary jurisdiction.

At present, there is only primary adjustment on transfer pricing of an MNC´s subsidiary.

This means if the subsidiary concerned agrees to the tax adjustment provided by an assessment officer, or on its own makes such an adjustment, it will pay taxes on that amount.

For instance, a company claims it has earned Rs.400 crore, and the transfer pricing officer claims it has earned Rs.600 crore, using the arm´s length principle.

If the company agrees to the assessment and pays tax on this, it is called primary adjustment.

Under the existing law, the additional Rs.200 crore would not need to be shown in the books of the company.

A secondary adjustment arises when simultaneous changes are made in the books of accounts of the company as well. This is what new provision aims at —the additional Rs.200 crore would also have to be shown in the books of the Indian subsidiary of MNC concerned.

“The parent company might not want to part with this Rs.200 crore, as the subsidiary in India might not be significant for its strategy,” said Eric Mehta, partner, transfer pricing, PwC India.

“An MNC might have a global presence, with India only a small part of its affairs.” Sending the money to India would also face hurdles because of lack of a contractual arrangement, said Amit Maheshwari, partner, Ashok Maheshwary and Associates.

He added it would have an adverse effect on the cash flow and business operations of MNCs.

If the Indian subsidiary concerned does not get the required amount, say Rs.200 crore, within a stipulated period, it would be considered a loan to the parent or associate, attracting interest.

(The time period has not been specified in the Budget documents.) “In case, the total amount is brought to the books of the Indian company, it will give rise to higher dividend, which in turn, will give rise to higher dividend distribution tax,” said Mehta.

Also, if the payment is towards services rendered by Indian subsidiaries, the higher receipt in books will give rise to higher service tax liability, added Mehta.

Maheshwari said higher receipt and hence profit in the books would also give rise to MAT as profit on the additional income, in this case  Rs.200 crore, was not shown earlier in the books earlier.

It should be noted that MAT is applicable to book profits.

All this will, however, only apply if the primary adjustment of the Indian entity exceeds Rs.1 crore the previous year —along with other conditions.

The provision has also given rise to fear of retrospective application, as the condition of primary adjustment exceeding Rs.1 crore is effective from April 1, 2016 or previous years.

Currently, the assessment of 2013-14 is underway for transfer pricing purposes, said Mehta, pointing to the possibility of secondary adjustments made from that year.

He agreed the purpose of the provision might not be to have retrospective effect, but the wording does not prevent it.

Transfer pricing treaty for investors from cyprus

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

The government on Monday afternoon clarified that according to the amended Cyprus treaty, investors need to pay only 10% tax with retrospective effect from November 1, 2013, instead of the 30% tax they have already paid. While bringing in clarity on this matter, a lacunae as far as transfer pricing still remains.

The genesis of the problem lies in 2013. The government had, on November 1, 2013, blacklisted Cyprus as an investment destination through a notification. So, investments made through Cyprus attracted 30% tax (TDS) instead of 10% tax under the original India-Cyprus treaty.

The government had blacklisted Cyprus after the island country had refused to share some data related to investors with India.

The government also said that transfer pricing could also apply on returns given to Cyprus investors by Indian companies.

However, the government later amended the treaty (through a notification on December 14, 2016) after Cyprus agreed to co-operate on sharing investor data. Under the amended treaty, the higher taxation part was rescinded. But the transfer pricing portion still remains unclear.

What led to a cause of worry was the fact that many private equity investors had paid 30% tax between 2013 and 2016 on returns from Indian investments. The government clarification on Monday came as many foreign investors were worried that the 10% tax would not be applicable for the three years between 2013 and 2016. However, following Monday’s clarification, they can now claim refunds from the tax department.

Most of the investors used Cyprus as a pooling vehicle to invest in Indian real estate. Most of the investments were in debt vehicles. In some cases, while the equity investment were made either in listed or unlisted companies through Mauritius or Singapore, debt investments were made through Cyprus.

Transfer pricing conundrum
Transfer pricing is normally only applied in cases where two companies— one an Indian and another multinational— do a merger or acquisition. People close to the development said that some of the transfer pricing adjustments could be made in the coming months. In cases where the tax officers have already gone ahead with the transfer pricing procedures, it may not be possible to undo it, say experts.

Treat for genuine investors, though need for clarity in Tax Rules
This reworked Tax Treaty comes very much after India demonstrated flexibility and lifted the so called sanctions after Cyprus agreed to share information on tax evaders. The reworked tax treaty between India and Cyprus for effective information sharing is also a step towards global cooperation on tax transparency. It will provide relief to genuine investors in Cyprus. But investors loathe uncertainty. The need is for stability and certainty in the tax system, and therefore tax rules must be clear.

Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/56073396.cms

CBDT signs bilateral APAs with Japanese trading firm arm

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

The Central Board of Direct Taxes has signed bilateral advance pricing agreements with Indian arm of a Japanese trading company, a move that will help bring down transfer pricing disputes relating to intra-group transactions.

“The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) entered into a bilateral advance pricing agreement (APA) on August 2, 2016, with Indian subsidiary of a Japanese trading company. This is the first bilateral advance pricing agreement with a Japanese company having a rollback provision in it,” a finance ministry statement said today.
Overall, it is fourth bilateral APA signed by CBDT.

Signing of the pact is an important step towards ascertaining certainty in transfer pricing matters of MNC cases and dispute resolution, the statement noted.

The APA scheme was introduced in the Income-Tax Act in 2012 and the rollback provision in 2014.

The scheme intends to provide certainty to taxpayers in the domain of transfer pricing by specifying methods of pricing and setting the prices of international transactions in advance.

Its progress strengthens the government’s mission of fostering a non-adversarial tax regime, the statement said.

CBDT expects more APAs to be concluded and signed in the near future.

An APA, usually for multiple years, is signed between a taxpayer and the tax authority (CBDT in India) on an appropriate transfer pricing methodology for determining the price and ensuing taxes on intra-group overseas transactions.

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/cbdt-signs-bilateral-apas-with-japanese-trading-firm-arm-116080400879_1.html

Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) signs seven Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs)

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

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) entered into seven (7) Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) today, i.e., 18th July, 2016, with Indian taxpayers. Some of these agreements also have a Rollback” provision in them.

 

The APA Scheme was introduced in the Income-tax Act in 2012 and the Rollback” provisions were introduced in 2014. The scheme endeavours to provide certainty to taxpayers in the domain of transfer pricing by specifying the methods of pricing and setting the prices of international transactions in advance. Since its inception, the APA scheme has attracted tremendous interest and that has resulted in more than 700 applications (both unilateral and bilateral) having been filed in just four years.

 

The 7 APAs signed today pertain to various sectors of the economy like banking, Information Technology and Automotives. The international transactions covered in these agreements include software development Services, IT enabled Services (BPOs), Engineering Design Services and Administrative & Business Support Services.

 

With todays signings, the total number of APAs entered into by the CBDT has reached 77. This includes 3 bilateral APAs and 74 Unilateral APAs. In the current financial year, a total of 13 Unilateral APAs have been entered into so far.

 

The progress of the APA Scheme strengthens the Governments mission of fostering a non-adversarial tax regime. The CBDT expects more APAs to be concluded and signed in the near future.

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/government-press-release/central-board-of-direct-taxes-cbdt-signs-seven-unilateral-advance-pricing-116071800966_1.html

Intangible MNC assets may be taxed in case of a global merger and acquisition

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

A recent clarification by the government has created a stir among some multinationals which are concerned that their Indian entities might be taxed even in case of a global merger and acquisition with another global company.

More so, the worry is in case of multinationals that hold intangible assets in India, either through research and development centres, or are engaged in businesses where it is tough to value assets.

This is mainly because tax component, if at all, would be decided on valuation of the Indian entity, and whether valuation (Indian entity) accounts for more than half the holding entity outside India. This comes in the wake of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) announcing rules for determining fair market value in case of indirect transfer of shares of an Indian entity. Rules specify a method for determination of “fair market value” of foreign target company shares and Indian company shares. In case of an indirect transfer of shares or transaction, if the value of Indian assets is more than 50% of the foreign target company, this could lead to taxation in India.

So if an US-headquartered company invests in India through a Mauritius company and at any point in time there’s a change in ownership, the tax could be applied. The tax would be triggered in India if the ownership of the Mauritius company is changed, and if more than 50% of the total assets of this company (Mauritius company) are in India.

“If a multinational has a presence in India through an intermediate holding vehicle in a third country, and if there is an M&A deal at the intermediate holding entity level, the Indian entity can attract taxation in India,” said Amit Singhania, Partner at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas.

“While the 50% rule applies, valuing the Indian assets, particularly the right of management or control in an unlisted Indian company would be challenging,”  Singhania said.

Many multinationals are now rushing to their Indian tax consultants to find out which transactions could attract tax here. “Many multinationals that have a presence in India through Mauritius could face some tax in India even if there is an offshore M&A deal, especially where the seller is based in a country whose treaty does not exempt capital gains tax in India,” said Rajesh H Gandhi, partner, tax, Deloitte Haskins and Sells.

“However, more importantly, it could be challenging to identify and value some of the assets and determine the place where they are situated. This would be more relevant for assets like human resources, contractual rights and intangibles such as mobile applications, results of R&D or patents developed in India but registered elsewhere,” said Gandhi.

Industry trackers say that in case of an M&A at an international level, the shares of holding companies are transferred or merged, which is where the problem lies. Many experts also point out that information and documentation required to ascertain the valuation of Indian as well as an intermediary is not just complicated but tough to come by in many cases.

“If so, income tax would assume the Indian entity’s valuation is more than 50% of the holding entity,” said a consultant currently advising such a client. Experts point out that patents held by the Indian company, and some other assets too have to be valued. Not only valuing these intangible assets could have different views, in some cases, these patents or other intangible assets are developed in India but sit on the balance sheet of other group companies outside India.

Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/52474147.cms

Government looks to resolve 100 transfer pricing issues; seeks to sign more advanced agreements

by | posted in: Corporate Updates, Cross Border Transactions, M&As, Joint Ventures, Income Tax,e-Filing- Individuals, Firms, Companies, India & International - Corporate updates | 0
Due to new regulatory frameworks like Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), transfer pricing disputes could go up in all major economies

In a significant move towards a more progressive taxation policy the revenue officials have set an aggressive target of resolving about 100 transfer pricing issues by signing advance pricing agreements (APAs) with multinationals this fiscal, people close to the development said.

The government, through the Central Bureau of Direct Taxes (CBDT), had signed a record 55 APAs with multinationals in 2015-16. In all, the Indian government has signed 64 APAs, including 62 in the last two years. Now the government is getting more ambitious and officials are confident about achieving the target.

“We are already working on about 175 cases (APAs), and the target is achievable,” said a person close to the development. “Also, the officers who are dealing with the issue have now got fair amount of experience and work would be faster going ahead.”

Samir Gandhi, partner at Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP, said, “In last one year, we have seen that the government has been very active in resolving the transfer pricing cases through the APAs. Going forward it is very likely that we will see more number of cases being resolved.”

An APA is mainly an agreement between a tax payer—mostly multinationals— and tax authority— CBDT in India’s case—where the transfer pricing methodology is determined. The methodology to calculate taxes could then be used for an agreed period of time on the tax payer’s future international transactions.

Transfer pricing disputes are mainly related to the calculation of profit made by multinational companies and how they have been shifted to their parent. Many firms have gone to court, challenging the government’s transfer pricing calculations. In July 2012, the government introduced the APA programme, which allows companies and the revenue authorities to negotiate the rate at which tax is to be paid and avoid disputes. Of the total APAs signed last year, 53 were unilateral agreements while two were bilateral agreements.

A unilateral APA is an agreement between the tax payer and the tax authority of the country (CBDT). A bilateral agreement is signed by these two plus the tax authority of the country where the multinational is headquartered.

Industry trackers expect that some more “complicated” APAs would be signed this year. “Going ahead some of these cases (APAs) will involve relatively complex cases/transactions and also application of TP methodologies of profit split and TNMM (transactional net margin method),” said Gandhi of Deloitte. Industry experts said the shift from a time when India was considered to be one of the most aggressive in the world on transfer pricing to the current situation has happened in last two years.

“There are primarily two developments which have happened in last one year in the context of transfer pricing disputes,” said Rohan K Phatarphekar, partner and national head, global transfer pricing services, at KPMG. “One is the government’s agenda of having a non-adversarial tax regime and improving the ease of doing business, which has resulted in lesser amount of transfer pricing adjustments, and the other is the CBDT circular clearly laying out the guidelines as to when a case needs to be referred for transfer pricing assessment which has reduced the overall number of cases picked up for scrutiny,” he said.

Experts also pointed out that the government’s stance on liberal transfer pricing comes at a time when many multinationals face the prospect of increasing disputes across the world. Due to new regulatory frameworks like Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), transfer pricing disputes could go up in all major economies.

Companies and tax consultants said that not only is the Indian government going all guns to resolve old issues in last one year, but also there has been no major transfer pricing demand as officials did not take an aggressive stance. Currently there are about 650 pending cases in APA, according to a report by Deloitte.

Going ahead, a lot of disputes also set to be resolved due to mutual APAs signed between Indian authorities and their US counterpart. This is mainly because the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has started accepting bilateral APA applications with India from February 16, 2016, the Deloitte report said.

Source:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/51886742.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

NRIs with offshore bank accounts cannot escape investigation by tax authorities

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 | 0
Governed by rules and conventions of banking secrecy, banks in Switzerland and tax havens divulge information only after account holders give their consent.

Even NRIs with offshore bank accounts cannot keep the taxman at bay by obtaining quick relief from the court of law. In order to prove their innocence, such persons will have to instruct the overseas banks to share information on the accounts with the Indian tax office.

And, only after the details released by the bank show that the money lying in the account does not belong to the person who has been pulled up (for hiding offshore assets), can he escape the glare of tax officials.

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed the writ petition filed by an NRI — an alleged beneficiary of a trust linked to an account with HSBC Geneva — after she refused to sign the “consent waiver” form to let HSBC share the information on the account. Governed by rules and conventions of banking secrecy, banks in Switzerland and tax havens divulge information only after account holders gives their consent.

The court, in its order dated April 5, said, “In the normal course of human conduct if a person has nothing to hide and serious allegations/questions are being raised about the funds, a person would make available the documents which would put to rest all questions which seem to arise in the mind of the authorities.”

Since the court did not allow the withdrawal of petition, the order is likely to be used by the tax office which is trying to fish out bank account and transaction details from those it suspects to have accounts with HSBC Geneva.

According to the base note that the French government had shared with New Delhi, the petitioner Soignee R Kothari, along with six other individuals and two trusts, are beneficiaries of an account held by one White Cedar Investments with HSBC Geneva; the seven individuals in turn are beneficial owners of the two trusts.

As on 26 March 2006, the account had a balance of more than $44 million. The department had served Ms Kothari a notice to reopen assessment for the assessment year 2006-07.

She has later agreed (in a rejoinder before the court) to sign the consent waiver form with a modification — as ‘alleged beneficiary’ rather than ‘holder or beneficiary’ of the account in HSBC Geneva.

“With this, the Bombay High Court has precluded any alleged holder of overseas bank account from seeking alternative remedy by way of a writ. However, their right to contest any addition of income by the tax authorities would still survive. Thus, while NRIs can prove that they are outside jurisdiction of Indian tax authorities, they cannot wriggle out of investigation by virtue of being NRIs,” said senior chartered accountant Dilip Lakhani. The other six alleged beneficiaries of the trust are Arun Ramniklal Mehta, Russell Mehta, Viraj Russell Mehta, Rihen Harshad Mehta, Naina Harshad Mehta and Priti Harshad Mehta.

The court said that this bank statement if obtained from HSBC Geneva “would reveal and/or possibly give clues as to the source of amounts deposited in the Account No. 5091404580.” “If a person has nothing to hide, we believe the person would have co-operated in obtaining bank statements,” said

Source : http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/51870910.cms