Tax Break

John Fisher, international tax consultant

Archive for the tag “International Tax”

Apple bites back

Which idiot said that?

In Plato’s Republic, Socrates is presented with the cynical argument that the appearance of justice is more important than the reality of it, an idea taken up two millennia later by Machiavelli in The Prince.

The General Court of the European Union’s rejection yesterday of the EU Commission’s claim that Ireland had given illegal state aid to Apple to the tune of 13 billion euro, was greeted by a disingenuous self-righteous statement of the Emerald Isle’s three week old government, that Ireland has “always been clear that, based on Irish law, the correct amount of Irish tax was charged and that Ireland provided no State aid to Apple”. Apple quickly chomped in with: “This case was not about how much tax we pay, but where we are required to pay it” followed up by: “We’re proud to be the largest taxpayer in the world as we know the important role tax payments play in society”. Everyone west of the Irish Sea was taking the moral high ground, and justice appeared to be done.

Really? To quote an old Yiddish saying: ‘Don’t urinate down my back and tell me it’s raining’.

Tax is a three letter word ending in ‘x’

Way back in 2014 (see Taxbreak 8/10/14), the European Commission decided to go after Apple and the Irish government over tax rulings provided to the multinational that meant it paid an insignificant amount of tax in Ireland. As a central feature of its Celtic Tiger economic policy, Ireland had operated a low corporate tax rate for years (in the period in question, 12.5%) which was unashamedly geared to attracting US multinationals looking to set up operations beyond the IRS’s immediate grasp. This provided employment, and the taxes arising from employment. Nothing wrong with that. However, in an international tax world where competition for low tax was not only between economically mature states like EU member Ireland, but also tax havens that were unfettered by extraterritorial rules, the competition was fierce. The Irish tax authorities – who could not lower the headline tax rate because of domestic revenue requirements, and could not provide special rates for inbound investment under EU rules  –  were by no means alone in rubber stamping the ideas of international tax planners that cleverly sought to minimize taxable income in Ireland while not picking it up at home in the US until repatriation sometime (perhaps) in the future. And thus were born a slew of Irish registered companies managed and controlled from abroad (that were not Irish resident for tax purposes), the Irish taxable branches of which were endowed with generous transfer pricing policies that shifted the vast majority of their profits to nowhere. All legal from an international tax point of view; all remarkably smelly from a moral point of view. But the European Commission had a trump card to play – internal EU law banned Illegal State Aid, which is what they claimed schemes, like that agreed between the Irish Treasury and Apple, were.

In truth nobody comes out of this week’s court decision, rejecting the European Commission’s claim, smelling of shamrock. The European Commission appears to have completely mishandled its case, leaving the court no choice but to throw it out. But, in so doing, the court made some very important points. The Commission’s primary argument (and the basis for a 13 billion euro assessment) was that the non-resident Irish companies owned intellectual property and, as there were no real HQ activities offshore, all the income of the companies should be taxable in Ireland. The court remembered that Apple was a US group, not an Irish one. Although not stated specifically, that HQ activity belonged somewhere else. The critically important takeaway here is that, as BEPS-era transfer pricing seeks to reflect reality and ensure the tax pie of the digital economy is cut fairly across the globe, the big money belongs in the US, where, since the US tax reform, it is more likely to be taxed. Apple’s reaction about ‘not how much they paid but where’, would be entirely acceptable, had they paid tax in the US on that income in the years under discussion, which it appears they didn’t. That might also result in a question mark over their pride at being the largest taxpayer in the world.

The secondary argument of the European Commission was that, even if income attributable to HQ IP was not taxable in Ireland, the transfer pricing methodology was wrong. The decision accepted that examination of the methodology by the authorities for the purpose of the ruling had been, at best, sketchy, but – in order to prove illegal state aid – it was necessary to show that the transfer pricing used produced less profit in Ireland than the correct method. Although the peanuts paid to the Irish Treasury imply this was a no-brainer, the court had not been presented with the required analysis, and therefore could only rule that the case was not proven. A far cry from the government’s claim that the right amount of tax had been paid to Ireland.

Will he still be laughing after the appeal?

The decision is expected to be appealed. In the meantime, the threat of past Illegal State Aid will still hang over other cases, while EU members will have to be careful about chipping away at the US’s rightful share of digital economy income.

Two roads diverged…

How not to wear a mask

For the last three and a half months I have felt like the protagonist in Monty Python’s ‘The Day Nothing Happened’. As the real world has been fighting to keep its COVID-19 head above water, the tax world has been treading water.

A recent Israeli court case that surfaced last week, however, jolted the rose-tinted spectacles from my pre-crisis, nostalgia ridden face. I was reminded that the world was already mad way back then.

A judge in the Tel Aviv District Labour Court issued a judgement in a case involving Israeli residence for National Insurance purposes. The case revolved around an Israeli family that left Israel in June 2013, maintained Israeli residence for National Insurance purposes, had second thoughts at the end of 2017 (and requested a refund for payments from 2015), and then promptly came back to Israel in September 2018.

What was notable was not the judge’s refusal to instruct a refund, but rather the muddled approach to residence in the case.  Over the last three decades, I have become used to the lack of consistency of  the National Insurance Institute in dealing with international issues.  It now looks like things can only get worse.

They are supposed to move in concert

When it comes to defining income, the National Insurance Law is, albeit obliquely, joined at the hip to the Income Tax Ordinance. As a result, the National Insurance Institute derives an individual’s financial information from tax returns and/or local employers’ deductions reporting. Nothing silly about that.

When an Israeli resident goes abroad for a prolonged period, they often have an interest in trying to maintain their rights to national insurance benefits and health care. The published rule of the National Insurance Institute is that, if such an individual has ‘no income’ abroad, they pay a minimum monthly amount of NIS 177 (around $50). If, however, they have income, as an employee they pay up to 12% of their income, and as a self-employed individual substantially more. The exception is if there is a Social Security Totalization Agreement between Israel and the foreign country, when – depending on the specific circumstances – contributions will be restricted to one or other of the countries. For someone traveling to the United States (a popular destination for assignees and others) there is no such agreement, so Israeli residents are liable, in addition to US FICA contributions, to Israeli National Insurance payments with no set-off – which is potentially very expensive.

The good news, however, is that Israel and the US  DO have a double taxation treaty in respect of income taxes, such that – as long as non-residence can be established for income tax purposes according to the treaty – an employee of a US company will show no income on their tax return (if, indeed,  they file a return) which should lead the National Insurance Institute to charge NIS 177 per month if it considers residence is maintained according to its law. This, of course, is farcical logic – but not too painful.

The logic just became a little bit harder to swallow. The judge in the recent case had to decide on ‘residence’. The National Insurance Law does not contain a definition of residence, and relies on judicial precedent surrounding the concept of ‘Centre of Life’. That is the same overriding concept as in the Income Tax Ordinance, so it might be assumed that there was a clear road to consistency between the National Insurance Law and the Income Tax Ordinance to which, as previously stated, it is inexorably attached.

No such luck.

Firstly, the Income Tax Ordinance has developed over the years, providing a presumption of residence based on days in Israel, and a specific definition of foreign resident that provides a pretty clear exit route from Day One to anyone who can later prove that they were gone for at least 4 years. In the absence of any statutory guidance, the National Insurance Institute’s default period (always subject to alternative interpretation) is 5 years.

Secondly, the judicial precedent on which the judge  relied for her definition of ‘Centre of Life’ was not of the regular courts that hear tax cases, already implying a parting of the ways in interpretation.

At least nobody died

Thirdly, the judge’s interpretation of the existing precedent was, to put it euphemistically, surprising. Suffice to say, it didn’t correspond to anything familiar to this writer.

Maybe it is all a plot to drive the population to an early grave and close the social security funding gap. Fiendishly clever, if so.

Is the law an ass?

‘A fair decision? I’ll be the judge of that!’

Last Sunday, the High Court clipped the wig of a first-class judge – and the tax community in general – in a landmark decision overturning a lower court’s ruling. It reminded me of the reaction I received from a tax authority official to an article I wrote at the turn of the century for a national newspaper. But first, the case in a nutshell:

It involved the sale by an Israeli company of shares in a foreign subsidiary. With the clearly laudable intention of promoting tax neutrality, Israeli law includes a special provision that treats the capital gain on sale – to the extent there are sufficient accumulated profits in the company sold – to the same tax rate as that applying to dividends. Dividends between Israeli companies are normally exempt from tax, on the grounds that tax has already been paid, so that – while the entire transaction is considered one of capital gain– a portion of the gain is then exempt from tax. Tax neutrality comes in, because there is then no need to reduce taxation by physically distributing a dividend, withdrawing funds from the company that may be economically important to it.

The legal discussion revolved around whether such treatment should be extended to the sale of investments in foreign companies – the relief to taxation not coming from the exemption of intercompany dividends (which only apply within Israel), but rather the availability of a credit for foreign taxes paid which, in this situation, produced the same zero effect.

The lower court took a liberal view, concentrating on the ‘legislature’s intent’, and effectively recognizing that the wording of the law left something to be desired – in layman’s terms, ‘filling in the gaps’.  Foreign companies would be included. The higher court was far more prissy. The legislature clearly knew exactly what it was doing, the wording was clear, and the intention of the law was only to achieve tax neutrality in domestic transactions – who gives a fig about international ones?

I always thought it was Berk’s Law

Quite apart from the hypocrisy of a court that has built up a reputation for waving its gavel at any output of the legislature it doesn’t like the look of, the assumption that the legislature gets tax legislation right simply beggars belief.

Which brings me to that article I mentioned.

There was a piece of new legislation in the early 2000s (ironically, if my memory serves me correctly, it involved investment in foreign shares) that included three sub-paragraphs. Without the absent fourth (it was a question of working backwards) the legislation was without teeth. In my slightly cynical way, I suggested the scene at the meeting of members of the  Knesset Finance Committee as they worked into the night to complete the legislation. A senior tax official, drafted in to assist, looked at their watch and gasped. It was 11pm and they had to relieve the babysitter. The meeting came to a quick end, and paragraph 4 was never legislated.

Of course, the entire piece was pure fantasy. The article was duly published in the Business Section of the newspaper’s weekend edition.  As the new week began, I received a phone call from a senior tax official: ‘How did you know?’

You couldn’t make it up.

Perhaps because of its complexity, tax legislation is often notoriously incomplete. Thankfully, the tax authority often issues professional circulars, as well as rulings, that attempt to fill in the gaps. Indeed, in the very field of foreign tax credits, I don’t know where we would be without them on such topics as Trusts and Foreign Personal Vocation Companies.

The High Court should be a last resort for sanity. I rest my case.

Now is the winter of our discontent

How did they find me?

Years ago, before Millennials stalked the earth, I received a call from the Israeli tax authorities. ‘When is your client going to approach us regarding the capital gains tax on their transaction?’ I was duly impressed by the fact the inspector had read that morning’s paper and put two and two together, and was tempted to reply, ‘When they approach me’, but I opted for the benign, ‘All in good time’.

Once more unto the breach, my friends, once more

The fact was that, in the good old days, when the tax authorities wanted money, they had to get off their bottoms and sniff it out. I believe the thrill was in the chase. Not anymore.

Our friends at the Treasury now bless us with their annual shopping list of ‘Positions Requiring Reporting’. These are common tax planning devices where the taxpayer is told, ‘Do what you want, but you have to tell us about it if you are going to make a packet from it’. If all things go to plan, the sniffer dogs will be round before you can say, ‘Two tickets to South America, please’.

Thou hast slept well. Awake

The tax inspector is not as benign as he looks

The latest list, published last week, leans heavily on those coming out of the 10 year tax exempt hibernation granted to first time residents and veteran returning residents on their foreign income. As that particular jolly only entered the law in 2007, it is not surprising that the boys and girls gathering fuel for the engines of state have only woken up now –a year after the  first beneficiaries of the status  were required to report (the 2017 tax year, reporting in 2018).

What is irksome is that, apart from some of the positions being churlish (the income of CFCs and Foreign Personal Vocation Companies being taxable for the entire year even if the new resident’s 10 year period only expired on December 30th), there is at least one which is downright weird. The best way to understand it is to assume the authors of the list were having such a festive time in December while sitting in the comfort of their offices, pens at the ready, that they let the party get out of hand. I will explain.

Among the new positions, it is clarified that, if a dividend is paid from a foreign company after the end of the 10 year exemption period, but in that same year, despite the fact that the income of the foreign company accrued during the 10 year period, it is taxed normally. Fair dinkum. Dividends are a distinct ‘source of income’ in the tax ordinance, and the dividend appeared after the 10 year period. Although not presented in order, it is likely this led them on to the CFCs and Foreign Personal Vocation Companies where a ‘notional’ dividend is considered received on the last day of the year. Not nice that they didn’t split the year into ‘before’ and ‘after’ – it wouldn’t have hurt if, heaven forbid, they had taken the intention of the legislature into account – but there is little to do but gnash teeth.

Aye, there’s the rub

Then the authorities went a step further. Trusts settled by living parents (and certain others) for their Israeli resident children – known as Relatives Trusts – are, by default, required to pay  tax when a distribution is made. Provision is made in the law, and tax authority circulars, for the capital element to be deducted and losses and foreign tax credits to be taken into account, subject to proof being provided to the assessing officer. This approach is distinct from regular trusts that pay tax on an accumulative annual basis – a status that can also be elected by a relatives trust that chooses not to pursue the distribution route (also obtaining a beneficial tax rate). Beneficiaries in their 10 year exemption period are unequivocably entitled to an exemption from tax. But, what about those on the distribution route who receive distributions of income earned after the exemption period?

Fair is foul, and foul is fair

The authorities got carried away with their logic

Evidently pushing the dividend analogy one stage too far, they came to the conclusion that, as the tax event only occurs on distribution, no exemption will apply if the distribution is made after the 10 years. However, while dividends are a ‘source of income’ liable to be taxed in their own right, a distribution is not . What is more, the wording of the law clearly relates to the income derived or accrued abroad – not a million miles from the wording of the clause dealing with the 10 year exemption. It is hard to understand why the exemption would not apply.

I am not bound to please thee with my answers

The good news is that these positions are not legally binding – although their reporting will invite the prospect of audit.

But, let’s face it – the language of our laws isn’t up to Shakespeare’s standards.

Auld Lang Syne

Some cops will do anything not to be kissed on
New Year’s Eve

On New Year’s Eve, a man’s thoughts turn to the year that has just flown by. On the eve of a new decade, a man’s thoughts turn to the decades of his life that are lost. What has happened  since I sat glued to my grandparents’ gogglebox at five to midnight on Hogmanay in 1969? I wonder if that drunk lying on the roof of my car pretending his arms were a pair of windscreen wipers, as I inched away from Trafalgar Square in the first hours of 1980, is still alive? (Come to think of it, I never looked back to see if he was still alive when he fell off.)

Israel got back to agriculture in the end

Nostalgia was not quite the word that came to mind when I noticed the other day that the Israeli Income Tax Authority had once more extended Annex 1 to Instruction 34/93, while renewing a sweetener as a sop to the modern world.

When, early in my international tax career in this country, 34/93 hit the scene, it was something of an eye-opener. The instruction dealt with the requirements for deducting tax at source on payments abroad and, for the first time, included the country’s banks as gatekeepers. The upshot was that, with some specific exceptions, if you wanted to get money out of the country without resorting to a suitcase, it needed a request to the tax authority and, regularly, a long wait. 1993 was before the dotcoms and real estate tycoons lit up Israel’s economy internationally, so the parochial 34/93 was a bearable nuisance. There were two ‘get out of jail free’ cards – the special company (annex 1) which allowed largish companies to handle their own foreign withholding tax, and Certified Public Accountants, who could authorize many types of payment. The trouble was – and the reason special company status was used sparingly, and any sane Certified Public Accountant said ‘thanks, but no thanks’ – was that the responsibility for getting the withholding tax right rested on the payor – if the foreigner in some greasy foreign land did the unthinkable of lying, the noose was round the Israeli’s neck.

Fast forward a quarter of a century and 34/93 is still there. A small, but convincing, international economic superpower has to grapple with a system devised by those who dodged the comet that wiped out the dinosaurs. To add insult to injury, the authorities can’t even hide behind the bureaucratic safe harbor of ‘we are just renewing it’, since this year they reconfirmed an earlier change (I suppose we should be impressed that they managed to find a copy of the original instruction – it isn’t on the tax authority’s website). Whereas payments to a foreign resident for services provided abroad (the absolute ‘what the hell do I have to ask permission for this?’ payment) used to be permitted up to $60,000 without the need for approval, the sum was raised to $250,000 a few years back. ‘Not bad, what is he complaining about?’ I hear you mutter. What many companies and banks miss is that the sum is the total of all payments a specific company can make in the year for services abroad. From personal experience, that is about as daft as the original $60,000.

The sane approach, that many of us have been advocating for years, is for the recipient to be required to fill in a form with their details and their claim for treaty benefits etc. The onus would be on them to tell the truth. In the modern world, if they were found to have made a fraudulent statement, the authorities could claim the additional tax and penalties through future payments, or make contact with the tax authority in the recipient’s country of residence.

Where 34/93 belonged

Of course it is not all bad news in the Start Up Nation. Around two years after the Instruction was issued, I was asked to lecture a group of bank clerks on the rules. Around five minutes into my talk, there were fireworks. ‘If we do that, the customers will just trundle off to the bank down the road.’ End of lecture. I spent the rest of the half hour listening to what they actually did. Fascinating.

Happy New Year (God preserve us).

Miracle in the Holy Land

Choose one

Chanukah and Christmas – which coincide this year – are both, in their distinct ways, about miracles that took place within theoretical walking distance of where I am now sitting. Another miracle that took place last week would have needed the car – the Lod District Court ruled against the Israel Tax Authority (ITA) in, what should become, a landmark case.

That doesn’t happen often. The tax authorities are normally clever enough to strong-arm a compromise on issues where they are not steady on their feet, so that a large proportion of the cases that come to court are no-brainers to the detriment of the little man (who was just wasting his money and everybody’s time).

What was doubly miraculous about this case was that it involved a real multinational group (not like the open and shut case a few years ago involving a holding company in Holland that produced directors’ meetings minutes in Hebrew). From experience, multinationals don’t run to court. A combination of maintaining good relations with the government and its offshoots who provide handsome incentives for investment in Israel, the small amounts of money involved looked at globally, and the geographical complications of pursuing a case from thousands of miles away, encourage the good old compromise – paying to make the ‘problem’ go away.

Not this time. The case involved an international business restructuring ie moving activities around within an international group. The group is involved (successfully) in something incomprehensible (to me) to do with Broadband technology. The previously independent Israeli subsidiary licensed its intellectual property to a foreign group company (not strictly corporate restructuring, but the tax authorities thought it was), signed a cost-plus agreement with another group company for marketing services, and signed another cost-plus agreement with its parent company for R&D services. The business had changed.

These are the rules. Don’t argue.

The tax authorities waded in with their hot-off-the-press professional circular from 2018 on Multinational Enterprise Business Restructuring, the 34 pages of which most of the time boil down to a  simple message: if an Israeli company is part of an MNE (multinational enterprise) which enters into  business restructuring, changing the Israeli company’s business model, expect a capital gains tax bill for transferring part of the business abroad.  The ostensible basis for their position was the OECD’s mammoth ongoing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project, and specifically its ‘Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations 2017’, together with a recent Israeli court case.

If there is one word that comes to mind in all OECD professional announcements it is ‘nuance’. There is seldom an absolute conclusion that applies in all cases. The ITA appeared to miss that point. Fortunately, the judge seems to have had a better grasp of what the OECD was not saying, as well as an infinitely better grasp of the recent court case the ITA was referring to – after all, he was the judge on that case, too.

The MNE won the case and the ITA was ordered to pay costs.

Although the case has been clearly decided correctly, it is worrying. If it deserved to come to court at all, the arguments should have been different – more ‘nuanced’. Instead, it was left for the judge to give a lesson in OECD guidelines and pure logic, which is not his job.

Did someone say ‘Bar’? ‘Miracle’?

It can only be hoped that this will prove a sobering experience for the professionals at the ITA, which will  serve to raise the bar in transfer pricing disputes going forward.

Miracles do happen (sometimes).

Happy Chanukah and Merry Christmas

No time to die

In his latest movie, Quentin Tarantino – parodying Hollywood’s parody of itself – has a baddie refusing to die despite multiple wounds to her body. Finally, Leonardo DiCaprio (SPOILER ALERT) incinerates her with a flame thrower he happens to have next to his Beverly Hills swimming pool, and what’s left of her reluctantly succumbs.

Tax advisors also have a habit of never lying down. It is in their DNA to spy out loopholes in tax legislation whatever the good lawmakers throw at them. Indeed, that was never more clear to me than the first time I volunteered (for entirely client-centric reasons) to help the tax authority rewrite a terribly written professional circular. Every altered phrase brought another potential dodge.

After over four years of being knifed and shot at by the 15 Actions of the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, earlier this month the tax profession was presented with the public consultation document on the Global Anti-Base Erosion Proposal – Pillar Two, conveniently, but outrageously, granted the acronym GloBE. Classified under Action 1 on the digitalization of the economy, it is really designed to catch anything that was missed – the victors bayonetting the wounded.

There are four parts to the proposal. The income inclusion rule means that, if a multinational group shifts income to low tax jurisdictions (or, these days, high-tax jurisdictions with low-tax loss leaders), the parent country will be forced to pick up the discarded tax. The undertaxed payments rule would either not allow a deductible expense or impose withholding tax on payments to scantily taxed related parties. The switch-over rule which, despite its debauched Hollywood-friendly name, would simply allow the ignoring of tax treaties operating the exemption rule on foreign tax (for example, not taxing the profits of a foreign branch) in favor of the credit rule, where the income is taxed and a credit given for foreign tax paid. The subject to tax rule is slated to be instituted as a back-up to thwart the plans of any smart-ass who thought he could get round the undertaxed payments rule through the wonders of a tax treaty.

Down but not out

 The six-million-dollar-fee question is: ‘Are international tax planners about to bite the dust, go west, push up the daisies?’

What do YOU think?

The proposal, which despite my one-paragraph precis runs to 36 pages, gets lost in its own complexities. It has two significant problems: how to define profit; and how to define low-tax. The system has to be simple, so the temptation is to rely on that child of a lesser god – accounting profit. But, what is accounting profit? Those distant cousins – auditors or whatever accounting people call themselves these days – have so far not been able to settle on a single international set of financial accounting standards or generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). So what do you do when, for example, the parent company does not consolidate under its own jurisdiction’s rules and the group is a Wild West of different systems? And what about those, oh so important, permanent and temporary differences to tax accounting that occupy our tax-crazed minds? And, when push comes to shove, what is low-tax? As the OECD and its friend the G20 have chased tax havens into a corner, the world has become more sophisticated than when Ireland drunkenly adopted a – then unheard of – 12.5% tax rate decades ago. It’s not always the statutory tax rate, stupid.

So, along with transfer pricing, it looks like international tax planning will live to fight another day – it is just going to have to reconstitute itself like in some Hollywood B-horror movie…

Lost before translation

Balfour was Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary AND looked like John Cleese

At a conference in Lisbon a few years back, I listened to a delightfully amusing talk by a former British Foreign Secretary (who is NOT now Prime Minister). He mentioned a near diplomatic incident some years earlier when he was speaking at a dinner in Japan. His quote from Matthew: ‘The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak’ was translated as: ‘The whisky is good, but the meat is terrible’.

We have all smirked at some time or other over images of South East Asian signs ostensibly in English. The funny side is, however, sometimes lost when it comes to assembly instructions for cheap goods ordered over the internet from faraway lands, when we toil into the night trying to assemble them. The frustration is only exacerbated when we realize that some of the parts are missing or don’t fit, and there is nowhere to turn this side of Suez. (I would point out that last comment is not strictly true in my personal case). The High Street store has life in it yet.

Israel – the Start-Up Nation – prides itself on very expensive exports with excellent instructions (often an expert team sent abroad to install the very latest technology). On the other hand, we are still East of Suez, so something has to give in our relations with foreigners, the people who happen to make up most of the world.

An excellent example is Israeli trusts and their reporting requirements. The only thing the forms are missing is a label on the back stating: ‘Mad in Bangladesh’.

In case you’ve never seen it

By now, everybody knows that Israel’s fairly new trust tax law doesn’t fit reality. Gallant efforts by the tax authorities (and I mean that most sincerely, folks) to try and produce sensible practice out of it, most clearly resembles attempting to  sew Mama Cass into Marilyn Monroe’s ‘Happy Birthday, Mr President’ slinky dress.

In the last week alone, I was faced with two reporting howlers.

A trustee needed to report the formation of an Israeli resident trust. This would – according to the forms – inexplicably normally be done by the settlor. But, in accordance with the law, a trust that has been decanted from an existing trust looks to the settlor of the parent trust as the settlor. As is often the case in these circumstances, the settlor was in no position to file the forms because he was already dead. Choosing between a number of irrelevant options, the reporting accountant took a bash and ticked a vaguely relevant box. I was amazed when the trust’s  foreign advisor told me they were wrong, and pointed me to the ‘right’ box. And – in the world of wonky instructions for third world products – he was right. The English translation fitted the trust precisely. The only problem was – it was not a faithful translation of the official Hebrew which unfitted the trust precisely.

And then, I had to break the news to someone else that there is no form (I also thought there was, until I read them all in detail) for beneficiaries receiving cash distributions from a relatives’ trust on the 30% tax on distribution route. It isn’t really surprising – logic and intelligent interpretation of the law require tax on such distributions to be paid by the trustee, but the tax authority’s explanatory circular, as well as forms to be completed by the trustee, places the payment obligation on the beneficiary. On that basis, the reporting by the trustee is purely informative and no active tax file is opened. In the absence of access to the financial data of the trust (which is in the hands of the trustees), the beneficiaries cannot challenge the full 30% taxation on their distribution (the tax authorities talk loosely of the trustee convincing them – but, in their official eyes, what has he go to do with the price of cheese?), so there is already a mess. This is exacerbated by the fact that the line on the actual tax return for distributions from trusts is for both ‘liable’ and ‘exempt’ trusts. These terms have no meaning in Israeli trust tax law – but whatever they do mean (and I have my suspicions), without an accompanying form the tax authority cannot know who should be paying the tax (the trustee or the beneficiary). AND THERE IS NO FORM!

Tax returns in Israel are filed electronically. The days of the nice letter from Mrs Trellis of North Tel Aviv  to the nice tax clerk explaining the situation are over.

At a dinner in Tel Aviv a couple of years back, I listened to a delightfully amusing talk by a former British Foreign Secretary (who IS now Prime Minister). He referred to the residents of Bromley being a credit to their favourite son (or words to that effect). I turned to the British expatriate next to me and pointed out that Bromley’s favourite son was Charles Darwin. Reminds me of something, but I can’t (or should I say won’t?) put my finger on it.

Red Scotch Tape

And then came the 1970s

When Queen Victoria opened the Great Exhibition in 1851, Britain was the world’s leading industrial power, producing more than half its iron, coal and cotton cloth.

 Well, I don’t think Her Late Majesty would be very amused to hear from her great-great granddaughter how the country she bequeathed to her descendants in perpetuity is currently faring in that field (mind you, her grandson Kaiser Bill did a far bigger hatchet job on Germany).

Nothing highlights the shifting sands more starkly than the announcement the other day that, following World Trade Organization approval, the US is to apply ‘the biggest ever’ new tariffs to imports from the EU – and specifically the UK, France, Germany and Spain.

The British air industry knew when to be competitive

The issue has been brewing for 15 years, ever since the US first complained to the WTO that the EU was subsidizing Airbus and others to assist in their competition with Boeing and others. The EU was indeed found to have overshot the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and given until late 2011 to comply. The EU did take measures, but in 2012 the US requested the review of a compliance panel, and in 2018 the WTO determined there had been further violations. The WTO finally ruled last week in the US’s favor and the US Trade Representative was quick to issue a list of products to have their wings clipped through new import tariffs.

The list of products to be punished, represented by their Harmonized Tariff Schedule Codes, is long. The first item is, unsurprisingly, aircraft – the prices of which are to be hiked by 10% from later this month.

It is the next item – designed to hit Britain – that is gobsmackingly strange. You would have thought that it would be heavy turbines, trains or ships. No. It is single malt (and only single malt) scotch whisky – together with single malt Irish whiskey distilled in Northern Ireland, if there is such a thing. And no friendly 10% for them. 25% slapped drunkenly on the price.

It turns out that the most effective way to get at what was once ‘the workshop of the world’ is through premium brand whisky. But, it is all so unfair. Check on Wikipedia for ‘Aircraft Manufacturers of Scotland’, and you will be greeted by ‘Defunct Aircraft Manufacturers of Scotland’. In fact, tragically, Scotland’s biggest claim ever to aviation fame was probably the 1988 Lockerbie Disaster, for which they suffered more than enough.

So, sadly, the good people of Scotland (in the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that I am half Scot) are being made to pay for the shenanigans of their southern partners (who themselves are probably far less guilty than the Germans and French , both of whose record on air wars is abysmal).

Who are the Americans trying to kid?

I don’t know what hurts more – Britain’s descent from the industrial world to the spirit world, or the gross unfairness of trade wars. Not much can be done about the former, but the latter should be exorcised before the new mercantilism takes an unbreakable hold.

We are not amused.

One day more

Even he looks bored

Of all the hackneyed aphorisms that grate on my undertaxed mind, that one about nothing being certain except death and taxes has got to be prime candidate for the next cull of the English language.

So, I was both irritated and fascinated when it was brought to my attention that Monday last week was the first ever Tax Certainty Day. We have become used to ‘Days’ designed to make us more aware of everything from climate change to world health, but why a day to make us more aware of something we are all so painfully aware of already? After all, there is no Death Day (or is there?). My appetite for information was further whet by the news that the center of the celebrations was the City of Love itself.

Never underestimate the ability of tax to underwhelm.

It turns out that Tax Certainty Day is not about the inevitability of paying taxes, but rather about achieving certainty over how much to pay. It was marked at the OECD headquarters in Paris, where – rather than enjoying a day of tax non-deductible booze – the participants were presented with the OECD report on the 2018 Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) statistics. Add to that, presentations from Austria and France (the only justification for singling out these particular two countries apparently being the two world wars fought between them), and a suitably drab day must have been had by all.

Or not.

Somewhere else the scores mean nothing

Tax professionals like statistics, and this was a day for league tables of which countries had started and finished the most mutual agreement procedures (broadly, the discussions between international tax authorities to resolve disputes over taxing rights in specific international transactions), how long the procedures took on average, how many related to transfer pricing and how many to other transactions, how many were withdrawn, how many were not resolved, and so on.

Now, judging by the reporting of the occasion, these statistics must have been quite intoxicating, because there seemed to be a fair degree of back slapping for hitting the top of the various categories, and a degree of back turning to those at the bottom. This appears utter nonsense. While MAP is a competitive sport involving two opposing teams, there was evidently no category of winners, and it takes two to tango for timely dispute resolution. Manchester City’s emphatic 8-0 demolition of Watford last weekend did not entitle Watford to equal points for helping their opponents wrap up the game in the first half. Furthermore, quick resolution may just reflect a tax authority’s willingness to ‘have a go’ at charging a taxpayer while caving in as soon as they get around the table, or alternatively, their support of aggressive tax planning. It is perhaps not a coincidence that Malta came top in the speed stakes (2 months). Saudi Arabia, a country justly maligned for so much, was perhaps unfairly singled out as the only country sporting no MAPs. It could be that they are just very fair tax-wise to foreign companies (unfortunately I have no first-hand knowledge of that particular jurisdiction’s practices).

Coming to a cinema near you: ‘Tax, Lies and Red Tape’

Second in the league table of aphorisms for the gallows must surely be that one about lies, damned lies and statistics. Like guns, statistics are highly dangerous when they fall into the wrong hands.

Time for an International Statistics Awareness Day?

Post Navigation