Tax Break

John Fisher, international tax consultant

Archive for the category “Israel”

Fair fight?

The tough guys are in charge

Underdog Andy Ruiz’s technical knock-out of world heavyweight champion Anthony Joshua in their fight on June 2 was one of sporting history’s great surprises.

Similarly, civil court cases against the tax authorities are rarely won by the underdog, generally ending with a knock-out – technical or otherwise – of the assessee.

There was an exception back in February (I will explain shortly why the item is topical). It involved three flesh-and-blood Israeli residents who claimed a capital gains tax reduction on the sale of shares in the company they controlled. The basis of the claim was an article in the tax code declaring, in certain circumstances, that the part of the gain  reflected by retained profits in the company would be taxed as if those profits were distributed as a dividend. The company in question had a special tax status that offered a reduced rate of tax on dividends. The tax authority said ‘No Way Jose’ (pugilism and wresting belong to the same family of sports), and they ended up badly matched in the ring.

That’ll tell ’em

The advantage that the tax authority’s lawyers had going into the bout was that this particular article was enough to leave the fittest of fighters punch-drunk. It had been updated twice in the early years of this century – in both cases in response to serious tax reform – leaving assessees and their advisors swaying in confusion.

But, the referee was having none of it. The assessees convinced the referee with their parrying of a barrage of alternative arguments. And it was the referee himself who applied the killer blow,  sending the authority crashing onto the canvas.

The authority had declared in a non-legally binding circular some years back, that – while companies selling the shares of other companies with special status would benefit from the reduced ‘dividend’ tax, individuals would not. Earlier in his judgment, His Honour had already dismissed the entire argument as nonsense, but here was a circular offering no explanation or excuse for the bald-faced indefensible differentiation. Hoisted with their own petard. Count to ten, and out?

Not quite.

The tax authority sought leave to appeal. But, as they gathered their teeth from the canvas, they must have realized that – however low their chance of overturning the reasoned judgement that had floored their arguments one by one – they would be pummeled over their out-of-the-ring circular.

So, in the evident hope that nobody would notice them changing sports – they moved the goal posts. Earlier this month, the authority issued an uncharacteristically terse notice to tax representatives stating that companies selling their investments in other companies with a special tax status would not longer be entitled to the special dividend rates.

While – when the appeal is heard –  that may take the sting out of the judge’s most humiliating punch, there remans plenty more there to sink them.

Don’t worry, he won’t notice a thing

In any event, the authority’s action reeks of chutzpa – doubled by the fact that when  queried about it, they claimed not to understand what the fuss was about as the clarification was about companies rather than individuals There is sophistry, and there is circumlocution.

Were I the judge handling the appeal, I would invite the assessees to join the authority in the  witness box and give them leave to sort it out among themselves.

Who stole the punch line?

Not all double acts know they are funny

I am rarely amused by the pronouncements of the Israeli tax authority – au contraire, they often rile me. But, last week a public ruling had the effect of diverting my mind to the comedy double acts that had their origins in America’s Vaudeville and Britain’s Music Halls. Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello, Morecambe and Wise, The Two Ronnies. The list goes on and on.

The ruling concerned an oldie but goodie in the international VAT sphere. It contained absolutely nothing new (I will rant about that shortly – I am still at the amused stage), but did serve as a reminder to international tax advisors everywhere (in Israel) that corporate tax planning cannot be done in isolation. Corporate tax and VAT are a double act, with the direct tax as the funny guy, and the indirect tax as the straight man. If an international tax advisor does not deal with the two in tandem, they might just as well send in the clowns.

stan-laurel-1

I just don’t get it

There is a peculiarity in Israeli VAT law not shared – to the best of my knowledge – by the EU or other major operators of the tax. Services provided to foreign residents who are outside of Israel generally attract zero-rate VAT (a doublespeak way of saying there is no VAT). However, there are exceptions – particulary where the service agreement benefits, in addition to foreign residents, Israeli residents. And, as the 17% VAT is on the gross amount, and as the foreign residents cannot reclaim the VAT in the absence of a taxable presence in Israel, advisors need to pull their hair out thinking of structuring solutions.

The matter considered by the authorities involved a local company operating a Hebrew website to provide marketing services (and a little bit more) to foreign suppliers of goods. They charged a commission  for this service to the foreign suppliers. The  authorities were asked to rule that the charge should be zero-rated, as it was a service to a foreign resident. Despite also being  to the benefit of the Israeli resident customers,  the law has a  Get Out of Jail Free card –  VAT is zero-rated  if the marketing charge is included as part of the customs value of the subsequently imported goods (it wouldn’t work for imported services, and hence the need for careful structural planning in this sphere).

The ruling makes the zero rate conditional on proving, inter alia,  that the price of the imported goods is included in the import price. “Nothing wrong with that,’ I hear you mutter. Aye, but there’s the rub. There is a reason the tax authority has a ruling process – it provides certainty where there was doubt. And there is a reason the tax authority publishes condensed and sanitized versions of those rulings – so that the certainty exists across the board. All very noble.

95266_0

Have you declared the marketing charge?

The published ruling provided no information that was not known already. The law – as represented in the ruling – is entirely clear. What has never been clear – and why I read this document with keen interest – is: ‘What constitutes proof that the service is included in the value of the imports?’  ‘Ah! I hear you say; it is obviously included because it is one of the costs directly related to the sales to Israel’. All I can say is, that it is at times like this that you need a sense of humour. In discussions with the authorities over the years, they didn’t necessarily think it was so obvious if there wasn’t a specific reference in the import documentation to that element of cost (‘included in the import price’ – get it?)

I want to see them get out of that one.

So, if – as I suspect – the ruling request was seeking clarity on that issue, either it was provided and then excluded from the published summary, which would be scandalous; or it was not given at all, which would mean the whole process was a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Either way, it’s time for the tax authority’s scriptwriters to have a rethink about their material.

Tales from the Crypt…

Notre_Dame_de_Bayeux_couloirs

Cryptowhat?

In a landmark Israeli court case last week, it was decided that Bitcoins are assets, the profit on sale of which attracts capital gains tax. The case revolved largely, but not exclusively, around the question of whether such cryptocurrencies meet the description of – well – currencies, exchange differences arising from which are exempt from tax.

The judge waxed  lyrical on the technical definition of ‘currency’ in Israeli law, bringing back memories of the 1980s when Milton Friedmann’s Monetarists ruled the macro-economic world; if there is no – what you and I call – cash, there is no currency. Given the movement towards a cashless society since Friedmann’s death, some might argue that the  approach was a little primitive (although, in fairness, the judge did recognize the prospect for change). But, let’s face it, why be just primitive when you can be positively Neanderthal?

punk_rockers_4_by_fuatyildiz

We really have come a long way since the Stone Age

We all know that money came about as a way of avoiding the gross inefficiencies of barter. Instead of a hunter having to schlep home the two sheepskin jumpsuits he got for his wild boar and then swap one of them for a wife, some bright spark realized (possibly while taking a break from inventing the spark), that the supply chain could be streamlined. All it needed was something the supply of which couldn’t be tampered with by the caveman next door, that would maintain the relative values of the items being traded.  Somewhere down the line people left the caves, gold came gradually  to the fore, and it wasn’t until 1931 – with one world war behind it, and the human race less than a decade away from indisputedly proving that it hadn’t really got anywhere since the stone age – that the Gold Standard was ditched.

So,  all that was really needed in this case was to establish whether Bitcoins, or cryptocurrencies generally, can be described as replacements for barter. With that in mind, it is time for a fairy story that will prove that every decently educated five-year old could have judged this case, and saved the State a small fortune.

Once upon a time, there was a poor widow whose old cow stopped giving milk. She sent her son to market to sell the beast. On the way, the boy – who was always looking for the chance of a quick buck – met a man in a pinstripe suit who offered him a handful of, what his prospectus claimed were, magic beans. When the boy arrived home, proud of his financial prowess, his sensible mother summarily chucked the beans out of the window. The next morning the boy found a beanstalk where the new Maserati should have been. To cut a long story (and a long beanstalk) short, as every one of you knows, Jack ended up – through a morally questionable transaction – with a pile of gold (gold!), a goose that laid golden (made of gold!) eggs, and an annoying harp that was presumably ditched in the nearest lake.

Jack’s deal for the magic beans was purely speculative. Jack didn’t know what he was getting, and his mother’s reaction was absolutely logical. And, look how the story ended. No beans in sight. To give the tale a happy ending, the storyteller had Jack and his mum back in hard currency (gold) quicker than you could say ‘Jack and the Beanstalk’.

a1bfa0_572c60930c6a44c5b353a19659e6d1c2_mv2

How I learnt Economics

Bitcoins are magic beans (the analogy can be extended to marijuana shares by substituting magic mushrooms for magic beans). There is no way any self-respecting caveman, five year old, or fairy tale character would accept them in a barter transaction as long as their price continues to move all over the place.

There have been too many unnecessary court cases over the last couple of years in what are, to any self-respecting tax specialist with no patience for worthless sophistry, open and shut matters. (Take for example, Snow White and the 1.83 Meter Actor). On the other hand, there are lots of disputes involving genuinely controversial issues that are settled by compromise with the tax authorities when a judicial clarification would be to the advantage of society.

There must be a better way to ensure that honest taxpayers can live happily ever after.

 

 

 

 

Hand it over and nobody will get hurt

xl9zrbcxhn2sypx1olck

Automatic exchange of information between governments has been suspected for years

The ink on the page of my last post about the new softer, gentler approach to tax collection was not yet dry when Israel’s main financial daily ran a banner headline concerning the upcoming automatic exchange of information between tax authorities. The wording was a rather unimaginative: ‘ A flood of requests from foreign banks on the way: Demand  reporting of Israeli residency.’ Personally, I would have gone for the more catchy: ‘We will find you, and we will kill you.’ Game on.

The Common Reporting Standard, that – based on domestic legislation –  will require most  of the world’s tax authorities to collect data on foreign resident accounts from financial institutions in their jurisdictions and ship it out to the salivating jaws of the tax authorities of the account holders’ countries of residence, is at the door (see Tax Break January 7, 2019).

Daily_Mirror_800_FP

Not a word about tax evasion

What bothered me about the headline, and the accompanying two page article, was not the accuracy – in my younger days, I would periodically pull my hair out at the distorted product of an interview I had given to that particular journal on a hot topic. This piece, however, appeared researched and reasoned. My problem was that any reader of the newspaper, other than someone with a financial death wish, has already done what they had to do (compliance, voluntary disclosure, or expensive – and possibly regrettable – planning). Meanwhile, a colossal number of people who do not read the financial press, and may not be financially savvy, remain – incredibly – blissfully ignorant as their canoe careers inexorably towards the falls.

As the death knell for international tax evasion has grown louder in recent years, the Israeli tax authorities (in line with many of their international counterparts) have shown remarkable restraint in enabling errant residents with unreported income from abroad to come clean with minimum fuss (paying some tax and remaining friends). Voluntary disclosure programs have been renewed, extended (there is currently a program in force until the end of this year – albeit without the previous advantage of anonymity),  and-where relatively small amounts are involved – even made simple.

The trouble is that, in a country like Israel that does not require a tax return from most salaried employees, many people  don’t ‘think’ tax of their own volition. So, when Belgian Aunt Sophie left Yossi  the contents of a bank account in Switzerland which sensible Yossi didn’t touch – treating it as rainy day money – he also didn’t think to report the interest to the Israeli tax authorities. And, unprompted, he still doesn’t. He will presumably start thinking about it when he gets a summons to appear in court in his mail box. The tax authorities will have achieved exactly what they actively set out not to do – waste valuable resources crucifying people they are not interested in. As Jesus  is reputed to have said a mile and a half  from where I am now sitting: ‘Forgive them, for they know not what they do.’

The solution is so simple, it hurts.

maxresdefault (3)

I don’t care WHAT you were doing in the bank…

In the absence of a universal tax return, every resident over the age of 18 should be required to complete and submit a simple annual questionnaire (either online or offline) including such questions as: ‘Do you, or any of your children under the age of 18, have any access to the contents of a  foreign bank account?’ The answer ‘Yes’ to such questions should result in a compulsory tax return coming through the door. Failure to complete the form should result in a compulsory tax return coming through the door together with an appropriate fine designed to concentrate the  mind of even the most financially illiterate.

And, if that doesn’t work – the tax authorities need feel no guilt in unleashing the Spanish Inquisition.

 

 

 

Fishy business

9781534777651-uk-300

The good old days…

Among the moral influences on my childhood, and that of my fellow English countrykids, was Hilaire Belloc’s ‘Cautionary Tales for Children’. Entering the Land of Nod at night to the story of Jim who ran away from his nurse and was eaten by a lion, or Matilda who said lies and was burnt to death, none of us was likely to deliver on any 6-year-old’s lurking urge to commit mass murder or rob a bank. Our parents knew how to keep us on the straight and narrow – pure, unadulterated fear.

In a long(ish) career, I have always tried to avoid instilling fear in clients. Clear explanations, and the earning of trust, are usually enough to encourage action. However, there is one area of taxation  in Israel that sometimes demands a little more persuasion when it comes to foreigners, both corporate and individual, setting up businesses here –  professional bookkeeping. And from this month we have a Cautionary Tale all of our own, thanks to a judge in the Tel Aviv District Court.

The judgement reads like a funny children’s book:

הורדה (2)

‘101, 102…’

One fine day (that is approximately how the judgement starts) a woman walked into the local fishmonger operated by a Mr Katzav (Google translate: Mr Butcher). It seems they had an argument about the price (he wanted 108 shekels and she was only willing to pay 103 shekels). She ultimately insisted on paying him in notes and coins of small denominations, and stormed out of the shop. Waiting in the street were two comically ill-prepared tax inspectors who were there on a tip-off. They converged on the woman, in sight  – through the window – of a clueless Mr Butcher, and managed with difficulty to extract from her the details of her purchase. Thanks to nobody keeping proper track of what happened next (maybe no fewer than 3 inspectors are needed for that), there was some dispute as to whether the inspectors entered the shop 2 minutes or 10 minutes after the customer left. There was also some confusion as to whether Mr Butcher was on the telephone when they came in, and whether Mr Butcher decided to ring up the purchase (the cash was already in the till) just before or just after the inspectors identified themselves.

BN-VW488_RAMA64_8RH_20171030172148

Excellent powers of deduction

The bottom line was that none of the details really mattered (and the tax inspectors must have thanked their lucky stars for that). Once the judge had cleverly concluded that there was no way the officials could have been in the shop confronting Mr Butcher within anything close to 2 minutes – the mere fact that he was late in ringing up the purchase was enough to sink him.

Israeli bookkeeping regulations, based on statute and relying on case law, require any amount received to be registered ‘close to undertaking the transaction’. Motive is not relevant – the regulation is not designed just for tax evaders; it is also designed to prevent people honestly forgetting. So, ‘close to undertaking the transaction’ broadly means ‘immediately’ ie ‘right now’. (On the other hand, had Mr Butcher been able to show that it was a genuine mistake – wink, wink –  he would have probably been given a second chance, on condition nothing went wrong within the next 12 months.)

In the event, Mr Butcher’s accounting records were declared unfit for that year and, presumably,  the previous one. To be clear, that is a smelly state of affairs – the tax authorities can assume higher income than reported, and fines may be imposed.

While the non-registering of income is the most critical offense, there are a myriad bookkeeping rules for differing areas of business, right down to the specific layout of tax invoices. If practice is materially out of sync with the regulations, the same result can occur as with Mr Butcher. (Even the ‘second chance’ is scary as a sneaky follow-up audit could be expected during the probation period).

The takeaway should be that, anybody running even a one-man business needs to be sure that all details of the complex bookkeeping regulations are adhered to. That will, more often than not,  mean using the services of a professional bookkeeper.

hull

Hull – the UK’s current City of Culture

The first corporate liquidation in which I was involved, some 35 years ago, was of a Hull (a coastal town in Northern England) based fishery. They sent the records down to London. When we opened the boxes, the books stank in more ways than one.

Bog standard (almost)

4872b6edeccecee3df2209a342bba5bc

These days a bloke would do anything for a free ticket to Australia

Charles Dickens’s fecund imagination allowed Pip’s benefactor Magwitch to return to England  from transportation to an Australian penal colony, albeit at risk of judicial execution. By all accounts, thanks to the triple-knot of location, location, location, escape for  real-life transportees wasn’t all that simple. What the desperate convicts of the nineteenth century needed was the solution of the  twentieth – air travel. And, in a twist of fate, the first person to pilot a controlled flight in Australia (back in 1910) was none other than history’s greatest master of escape, Harry Houdini.

Well, by now, the world’s tax advisors are becoming used to the locks, double locks and padlocks being used to prevent international tax planners from thinking out of the box. But, the tax treaty signed (though not yet ratified) last month between Israel and Australia plonked a kangaroo, with a 10 ton weight in its pouch, on the box’s lid.

הורד (3)

Truth be told, the Wright Flyer never did move very much.

The treaty itself is not very exciting. It contains much of the usual – just about comprehensible – gobbledygook, together with a fair share of the totally ludicrous. An  example of the latter: SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT SHALL NOT BE REGARDED AS IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY. Thanks for that.

There is also an unhealthy obsession with the amount of time that needs to elapse before work on a  construction site or installation project by a resident of one country  becomes taxable in the other – too many numbers and too many conditions (and given the nature of trade between the two countries – not too many instances).

marmite_v_vegemite_0

Spreading the love (and hate)

At the end of the day – as with all treaties – it is withholding taxes that are the real bread, butter and Vegemite of the agreement. These fit within the ‘new normal’ of international double taxation treaties: 5% – 15% for dividends, 5% – 10% for interest, and 5% for royalties. It is the Australians who benefit from this much more than the Israelis. While, in the absence of a treaty, dividends from Israel can rack up upwards of 30% tax, as long as Australian corporate income is franked (ie the company paid tax in Australia), there is no Australian withholding tax. Similarly, Australia’s withholding tax on interest is 10% as opposed to Israel’s mainly 25%. Only when it comes to royalties are the tables  turned.

Among the sparse points of genuine interest is the question of whether the exemption on pensions from Australia to Israel applies to immigrants to Israel in their first 10 years of residence.That one will have the experts opining vigorously.

What makes this treaty ‘different’ is the (what I believe to be unique) ‘Article 28, Protocol’. Now, many treaties have protocols which are agreed explanations and adjustments to those carefully negotiated agreements.  The recent protocol (not yet in force) to Israel’s treaty with the UK (Tax Break  27/1/19) is effectively a new treaty. But, to have a section in the treaty that simply refers to an attached protocol as part of the treaty is – at first sight – circular and balmy.

https___blogs-images.forbes.com_theopriestley_files_2015_07_1984_3016Pyxurz-e1438359584320

No!! Not Hybrid Instruments!

However, closer inspection reveals all. Article 28 is to tax advisors what Room 101 was to Winston Smith in Orwell’s 1984 – the fulfillment of their greatest fear. Among all the normal explanations and clarifications, just in case anyone had any ideas about favourable interpretation of the treaty,  is a section that lists most of the goodies of the BEPS project, stating that nothing in the treaty can stop a country clobbering anybody who tries it on, whatever the wording. Game, set and match.

The Great Houdini’s most famous escape was from a water-filled tank in which he was inserted upside down, heavily manacled. Antipodean tax planners will  soon be standing upside down working out what to do next, together with their right-way-up Israeli counterparts.

Tell it like it is

image

Not a robot? Spot the quotes

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet’. That quote from Romeo and Juliet has occupied my thoughts this last week. As an Israeli judge found recently, the concept is only a ‘truth universally acknowledged’ to the extent the rose is inarguably a rose. And, in the process, the learned gentleman took pains and, dare I say liberties with the law, to rub compost in the face of the Knesset (Israel’s parliament).

Israel has had a Law for the Encouragement of Capital Investment for the last 60 years. Primarily a treasure chest of tax and monetary incentives to further the needs of the economy, it has been touched up and renovated periodically as the needs of the State changed and matured. In 2005, in an attempt to simplify a cumbersome process befitting a formerly socialist country,  a boost was given to those industrial enterprises that exported a pre-ordained percentage of their production.

industrial robotic arm building EXPORT word

Not a robot? You don’t need the word ‘export’ to understand ‘export’.

However, the word ‘export’ had to be expunged from the Law’s lexicon. Offering export incentives threatened a shower of fire and brimstone from the World Trade Organization and, specifically, those with whom Israel had free trade agreements (including the US and EU). So, the sophists engaged to draft the law came up with a need to meet one of the following requirements:

  • Income from a specific market must not be more than 75% of total income;
  • 25% or more of total income must be  from a specific market numbering at least 12 million residents.

That would avoid detection in a word search by nosy foreign governments,  while anyone with a brain that worked in accordance with evolutionary theory could interpret the law as demanding  at least 25% export, with no restrictions on the level of exports to any major foreign country. Why 12 million? Probably because it was a lot more than the population of Israel in 2005 (the number was updated a few years back to 14 million with an annual automatic increase).

5d3eb8bf05897c7c3984e5dfb4c892f4

How can we be sure anymore that the number of residents of New Zealand doesn’t include the sheep?

Well, populations have a habit of growing, and by sometime in 2012  Israel’s market, which included the residents of  Judea and Samaria aka the West Bank had grown to more than 12 million, and companies that sold exclusively to Israel decided to claim the benefits of the Law. The tax authorities told them, in no uncertain terms, to go fly a kite.

The courts got involved and agreed with the tax authorities (the tax authorities’ argument had layers not elucidated here). The appeal was heard this month.

Although, at bottom line, the appeal was thrown out, the judge disagreed with the tax authorities that Israel could not, in principle, be included in the second condition, offering a long and reasoned argument. The upshot would be that no exports were required at all – a surprising conclusion. Interestingly, in addition to arguing that exporting was not the clear intention of the law, he completely ignored the first (alternative) condition which, although not negating entirely the Israel-only possibility, made the whole thing Monty Pythonesque.

Benjamin Netanyahu, David Bitan, Oren Hazan

They are going to take the judge’s comments very seriously.

Faith in the judge was restored, however, towards the end of the 39 page judgement. Quoting from some of the committee discussions surrounding the 2005 amendment, he lambasted the parliamentarians for the underhand way in which they had sought to hide the export incentive from Israel’s trading partners, making clear that white man mustn’t speak with forked tongue. If, as a result, they got their wording in a twist, they deserved to be punished. He forcefully suggested that the legislature should update the wording of the law.

There is nothing new, or unique to Israel, about actively confusing laws. Back in the 1850s, the author of Little Dorrit invented a whole government department to promote the idea – the Office of Circumlocution. But, perhaps, times they are a changin.

Ain’t no Bonanza

JayLeno

Let’s face it. The bar was pretty low

Jay Leno once went walkabout in New York asking innocent passers-by if they could name a country beginning with the letter ‘U’. Apart from the usual camera induced deer-in-the-headlights non-responses, a few bright sparks came up with Uganda and Uruguay. At the close of the piece, as the camera faded out, Leno was heard asking: ‘Have you ever heard of the United States of America?’

Judging by the above experience, it can safely be assumed that, had Leno carried on to ask  the name of the alphabetically last of the 50 States, at least one person – having realized there was no State starting with Z – would have thought long and hard about Y and come up with Utah. Alternatively, still on Y, they might have gone for Wyoming. And Wyoming, dear readers,  is actually the correct answer.

the-virginian

Named ‘The Virginian’, filmed in California, and set in Wyoming. Only in America

Although there is a tendency to think of Wyoming as still set in the 19th century, with characters like Buffalo Bill, Wild Bill Hickock, Doc Holliday and Calamity Jane ambling around the state capital, Cheyenne, it was the birthplace – in 1977 – of one of the most important tax sanitizers in US history.

The Limited Liability Company (LLC) – a mongrel of the corporation and partnership with descriptive terminology all of its own – crawled along at cowboy pace until 1988 when the Internal Revenue Service issued a ruling that LLCs were transparent for tax purposes. At the speed of a Colt 45, American taxpayers could suddenly combine the limited liability of a corporation with the personal taxation of a partnership or sole trader. This was particularly important in America where, despite Reagan’s major tax reform two years earlier, there was no correlation between the tax paid by an individual (up to 28%), and that paid by a corporation (up to 34%) followed by 28% individual tax on a subsequent dividend (over 52% in total). Congress failed to recognize that inanimate companies – while being vehicles of tax liability – cannot pay tax. Unlike Shylock, if you prick them, they do not bleed. Human beings pay the tax – either through the higher prices suffered by the consumers, or the lower profits earned by the shareholders. There is little justification economically for wide differences in total rates.

privacy-data-ceo-jail-nakedsecurity

Companies don’t have anything to cuff, either

As it turned out, it took until 2018 for the tax rates to be aligned. In the meantime, the vast majority of American private businesses organized themselves as either sole-proprietorships (and partnerships) or – thanks to Wyoming’s pioneering spirit – the new fangled LLCs.

And, thereby, hangs a tale. It was all well and good that America – with the biggest economy in the world – knew how to treat her LLCs, but other countries struggled with defining their treatment under their own laws. They ended up one of the major ‘culprits’ in hybrid mismatch tax planning that was so fiercely attacked in the OECD’s BEPS initiative.

 

Put simply, tax transparent companies in Israel are a rare and specific phenomenon. On the principle that, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck, LLCs fit the bill as companies. Therefore, according to statute law, they are not transparent.  However, given the large exposure of Israelis to the American economy, ever since its big 2003 tax reform the Israeli Tax Authority has been finding accommodation for these hybrid beasts. As long ago as 2004 it produced a circular that reiterated the corporate nature of the LLC, but offered solutions to the availability of a foreign tax credit for US individual tax being paid (since the LLC is tax transparent in the US). If the LLC is deemed controlled and managed from Israel, despite being liable to Israeli corporate tax, a credit is given for the US individual tax on profits attributed to the US (up to the level of the corporate tax). Alternatively, the taxpayer can elect at first filing to be taxed on the profits in Israel at the member (Google translate: shareholder) level, with credit for the US taxes. Some have incorrectly interpreted that as complete transparency for the LLC. In fact the circular stresses that the LLC is a body of persons and, in practical terms, that means that losses of  one LLC cannot be offset against those of another. As LLCs are set up at the drop of a cowboy hat in the US, this represents a real problem for many Israeli investors. There are certain planning devices, but advisors have always been aware that the problem exists.

Remarkably, 15 years after the issuing of that circular, essentially an extra-statutory concession, some  jester with nothing  better to do recently inexplicably allowed – not for the first time – a no-hope case to be brought before the courts. The claimant had set off losses between LLCs – in defiance of the circular – basing his claim on (1) Israeli law determining that when a word is stated in the singular, it also means the plural, unless – inter alia – the context does not support that interpretation, and (2) an informal conversation with a senior tax officer who allegedly told him that the problem could have been solved if all the LLCs had been held under a single holding LLC.

הורד (2)

Why have they stopped us handing out the death penalty?

The judge swatted away the first argument – the context clearly didn’t support the multiple LLC claim. But, the second argument was even more off the wall. Whether or not the senior tax officer had been quoted correctly about forming a group of LLCs, THE CLAIMANT HAD NOT DONE SO. Robert Frost wrote a famous poem on the subject, ‘The Road Not Taken’

‘I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.’
His Honour politely demolished this argument, too. Had I been the judge, I would have been tempted to return to the cowboy country roots of the LLC and quote from Clint Eastwood’s 1976 Western, ‘The Outlaw Josey Wales’:
‘Don’t p**s down my back and tell me it’s raining.’

Monkey business

Chimp

Pass the monkey wrench

In its relentless efforts to clean us all up, the Israeli Tax Authority has just thrown another spanner in the works of the well-greased black market.

Meek householders faced by odd-job men  demanding cash as they flex their bulging muscles, not to mention seasoned mafiosi and disgraced politicians, will be questioning my timing. Surely,  the ‘Law for Restricting the Use of Cash’ was last year’s news, albeit that it only came into effect two months ago? The man with the leaky roof has already hardwired his brain with a little red light that goes off  when he hears – in a plethora of accents and grammatical constructs – the sum of eleven thousand shekels. Although that is not the final word (or number) on the maximum amount that can be paid in cash – it is a good trigger for the sweat glands to open. From October this year, not only those that demand cash, but those who pay it, will be liable to a fine if caught.

http___i.huffpost.com_gen_3454202_images_n-MONEY-RETRO-628x314

Cheques are so much easier

The reason for mentioning the incursion into the colourful world of banknotes now in particular is the helpful simulator the tax authority has recently uploaded to its website. The idea – it appears – is that Joe Public can check, in the space of less than a minute, whether a cash payment he plans to receive or make is permitted and, if not, the ‘damage’ if he is nabbed by the long arm of the law.

Having carefully read the authority’s professional circular, replete with numerical examples, and then tested the simulator with the same examples, I have – at time of writing – two criticisms. Firstly,  the simulator’s results in respect of penalties are wrong – someone forgot to program the simulator’s programmer with the correct terms of the law. But, what is a little boo-boo among friends? It is the second point that, in my humble opinion, is the real issue, and on which I feel compelled to dwell.

For a deterrent to be effective, those it targets must either live in abject dread of the terrible consequences of breaking the law: death by hanging, prolonged incarceration, financial ruin; OR they must be left to fear the unknown.

The moment taxpayers can punch the numbers into their smartphones and summon up the bad news – which, starting at 15% of the illegally paid amount, is an irritant rather than a life-destroying event – for many the fine simply becomes a refinement of the black market calculation.

hqdefault (1)

Joe Public

An example will help the explanation. The abovementioned Joe Public, a typically morally unchallenged householder, hires Art Dodger to redecorate  his house. Art gives Joe a price, but tells him that – if he pays 25% in cash, he will knock off the VAT.  Until the recent change, the only thing stopping Joe was his civic responsibility which – given that he is typically morally unchallenged – is probably handsomely outpriced by the discount. Art, on the other hand, has had to make a risk assessment before making his offer. He will not be declaring VAT and income tax. He probably reckons that – even if he is found out – he will get away with a slap on the wrist and paying both taxes with interest. All in all, the income tax saving is appealing.

maxresdefault

Art Dodger

Enter the new law, and the soon-to-be-corrected simulator. Art retains his sunny outlook about not getting caught. Joe, on the other hand, now knows he has a risk – and, thanks to the simulator, knows exactly how much as he sits across from Art at his kitchen table. Joe might – as the law (and its simulator) hopes – tell Art to forget it. On the other hand, he might – depending on the amount at risk – ask Art to improve his offer. If that happens – depending on how Art responds – the black market  just got more sophisticated.

If I were the tax authority, I would bury the penalty part of the simulator, defects and all, in a very deep hole. The black market is a scourge that, deep down and however much our moral compass waivers , we all want to be rid of. The new law is a step in the right direction.

Oh, and they could always reassign that programmer to ‘Tax Refunds’.

Embrace the Model Treaty

NUP_103319_0017

A real heavyweight of the small screen

When wheelchair bound ‘Ironside’ star Raymond Burr walked confidently down the aircraft steps at Lod Airport in 1974, the reaction of the Israeli public was something akin to the second coming. Still caught in the long shadow of the Yom Kippur War, Israelis were far closer to Tom Brokaw’s ‘Greatest Generation’ than  consumerist 1970s Western Society.  But, that didn’t stop them going bananas over an American TV personality.

Nearly half a century later, Israelis have taken their dubious place in western culture, and they can now fawn and slobber over their own lesser stars. Bar Refaeli – whose completely unearned claim to fame emanates from a combination of heaven-endowed gifts and an unearthly attachment to  silicone – has the nation goggle-eyed over her tax affairs. Based on tabloid rumors, she appears to be in a civil disagreement with the Income Tax Authority over whether she was justified in claiming not to be resident in either Israel or the United States while she shacked up with an Italian-American actor, and in a criminal disagreement over whether she – and her parents – hid critical facts from that same, august authority.

7c094d166d3a3a0f250488474839eb15890ff205

Tax inspectors are only human after all

More worryingly, the tax authorities themselves seem to have jumped on the media bandwagon with the announcement last week that a committee has been set up to review the criteria for tax residence with a view to establishing greater certainty. Oh dear.

Starting with  the last major tax reform in 2003, Israel has moved forward steadily with the removal of ambiguity about Israel tax residency in domestic law. There was a useful addition to the law in 2007, a requirement to report the basis for an aggressive non-residence position from 2016, and several landmark court cases in recent years. Furthermore, Israel now has double taxation treaties with substantially all the countries Israelis are likely to clear off to (Australia is taking up the rear), which take precedence over domestic law where there is a dispute.

What appears to have put up the Tax Authority’s blood pressure in the Refaeli case (and, in fairness, those of a few other mega-rich individuals) is the claim not to be resident anywhere. That was ably dealt with in a court case back in 2016 concerning a poker player, when the judge made clear that such cases would be rare in the extreme (he even quoted the classic case of a person living on a yacht in the middle of the ocean).

IKEA

Sometimes it needs more than the instructions

The problem, if there is one, does not arise  from Israel’s lack of certainty in defining residence. In fact, Israel – in broadly paralleling the OECD Model Treaty guidelines – has a very healthy approach, combining qualitative tests (a person’s center of life), and secondary quantitive tests (number of days present). The problem is that the United States, going it alone as always, relies – at the first level – on a purely quantitative approach. So, in theory at least, an individual like Ms Refaeli could make sure they did not hit the quantitative test in either country, while claiming ‘center of life’ in the United States, where they don’t really care. Hey presto! Not resident anywhere. Any effort to achieve more certainty – like in the United States pure quantitive approach – is probably doomed to abject failure.

judge

His judgment is not to be trusted…

In cases like Ms Refaeli’s, it is surely far safer to have an Israeli judge look qualitatively at the situation in the light of the facts, and then – as Her Ladyship dons her black cap – stare the  defendant coolly in the eye while pronouncing sentence.

 

 

Post Navigation