Tax Break

John Fisher, international tax consultant

Archive for the tag “Australian tax”

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.

Turning left at the end of the world

Australian prime minister leaving lunch meeting?

A few years ago the president of one of those numerous archipelagoes peppered across the Pacific Ocean made an accusatory statement about Australia that threatened a diplomatic incident. Listening to an interview on the BBC with the then Australian foreign minister my mind was tuned to expect a suitably circumlocutory diplomatic reply. “Frankly, he is talking a load of crap” was the actual response – the minister probably calculating that the Polynesian ruler would be too busy eating his mother-in-law to be bothered to take the matter further.

Mature Australian

 

The Aussies are a truly wonderful species – they say what they think and they do what they say and to hell with the consequences. In fact,  despite my buttoned up Britishness, some of my best friends are Australians and I can always expect to be sent home laughing at some outrageous statement that I could never have got away with myself. What I would not expect is to be taught a lesson  by them in the fundamentals of taxation. But that is exactly what is happening at the moment – and they are acting in a far more mature manner than their counterparts in Europe and North America – which, to be fair, is not saying much.

As of the beginning of July Australia is introducing two new taxes, neither of which are particularly loved by Labor prime minister Julia Gillard but appear important to her coalition partners, the Greens (that is the Green Party rather than Mr and Mrs Bruce Green of Wallamaloo Street, Perth). The Mineral Income Rent Tax (30%) which will apply to sectors of the hugely profitable mining industry is designed to redistribute wealth while the Carbon Tax is designed to substantially cut greenhouse gases. The Carbon Tax, initially fixed at a fairly random A$23 per tonne of carbon emissions will morph into a Cap and Trade system in 2015 allowing the market to decide the fair price while limiting overall emissions. As both taxes, especially the carbon tax, are regressive – they affect lower income people most because they up the price of basic goods like electricity – much of the revenue from the new taxes is to be funneled back to consumers by direct monetary grants and tax breaks as well as assistance to farmers and industry to meet lower  emissions targets.

But what really caught my eye was the expected effect of all this on this week’s Budget speech to be delivered to Parliament by Wayne Swan (not – as you might think – a gyrating contestant in the latest season of America’s Got Talent, but Australia’s Finance Minister and current holder of Euromoney’s Best Finance Minister Award).

There has been a lot of lobbying for a significant corporate tax rate cut to be partly funded by the revenue from the two new taxes. Currently at the unfashionably high rate of 30%, the recent Henry Tax Review recommended lowering the rate to a more competitive 25%.

Can I interest you in a factory in Dublin with 400 employees?

No way, mate! The government is determined to push the country into budget surplus in the next financial year, so the rate is going to drop all the way to…29% and to hell with any whinging possums who don’t like it. Here is a case of fiscal responsibility (Greeks might like to look that up) coupled with a gutsy position that racing to the bottom in tax rates is not some Holy Grail. The concept of competitive tax rates is problematic. While competition may be healthy in predominantly all sectors of the economy – that is not what taxes should be about. Taxes are about funding what is needed outside the scope of the market to maximise the lot of civil society as a whole. The fact that corporate taxes have been abused by countries from Ireland to the Baltic States – especially in their lust for the refugees from the American system – does not turn tax competition into a moral goal, let alone an ideal. The race to the bottom should not be confused with the Laffer Curve -seeking the rate at which government revenue is maximised is what fiddling with the tax rate should really be about.

The tax world needs more Australias. Amen.

Princess Alexandra showing Miss Goolagong what ladies ought to wear for tennis

Of course, Australia is not perfect. It did a pretty good job in the, not so distant, past of  making the indigenous population miserable – including forcibly removing children from their families which was heinous. When then prime minister Kevin Rudd made his famous apology in Parliament to the Aborigines in 2008 it took me back to the Wimbledon of my youth. In 1971 the Center Court rang to the Umpire’s call “Game, set and match to Miss Goolagong” as that exotic young lady took the Women’s Singles title. When she won it the second time ten years later, I had a creeping suspicion that she would take out a duster and can of silver polish to clean the winner’s dish – “Game, set and match to Mrs Cawley” was just too Australian. G’day, cobbers!

Post Navigation