Tax Break

John Fisher, international tax consultant

Archive for the tag “International Tax”

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.

Dead Wrong

images (2)

April fool!

It’s bad enough that, thanks to the controversy surrounding Brexit, the average Briton no longer lives with peace of mind. From April 1 they will no longer die with peace of mind.

A headline-grabbing exaggeration perhaps, but probate fees for opening a file to deal with a deceased person’s estate are due to jump from £155 to, in some cases, £6000 from next week. While the government insists it is a fee – in order to avoid a legal requirement to include it in the annual Finance Act – the Office for Budget Responsibility announced on March 15 that it would be included, alongside Inheritance Tax, as a tax for statistical purposes.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs  has been administering the controversial – and widely hated – Inheritance Tax since its inception in 1986.

8113305659_9bfcfd8f38_o

The Twilight Zone?

As in other countries imposing an Estate Tax or Inheritance Tax (there are many that have either cancelled or never adopted either) UK Inheritance Tax is  controversial for the wrong reasons. It is argued that it represents a double tax on already-taxed income, while at the same time not bringing in much revenue (other than from the good dead people of Guildford, the recently crowned inheritance tax capital of Britain). The first argument cries out for a different spin, and the second (it represents around 1% of tax-take) may anyway cease to be valid in the years ahead.

As taxes go, an Inheritance Tax makes a lot more sense than an Estate Tax.

An Estate Tax imposes tax on the estate of a dead person – beneficiaries receive what is due to them out of the post-tax value of the estate. There is, unquestionably, an element of double tax (although the likes of Thomas Jefferson and liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill gave the finger to that), and the fact that estate tax planning is entirely within the bailiwick of the donor (subsequently the ‘dead person’) such tax can often be minimized.

An Inheritance Tax imposes tax on the beneficiaries. In that case, the double tax argument is weakened – the dead person passes on their estate free of tax (but without a tax deduction for the transfer as they, rather than society, decide who is to receive it) and the beneficiaries – similar to the winner of a lottery – pay taxes on their windfall. As regards the level of collections, imposing tax on the beneficiaries also puts something of a spanner in the works of aggressive tax planning during the donor’s lifetime.

There are two types of inheritance tax  – accessions and inclusion. An accessions tax system provides the beneficiary with their lifetime tax-free inheritance threshold, and hits them with the prescribed rate of inheritance tax on  the balance of what they receive from any number of donors, while an inclusion tax  charges beneficiaries according to their marginal income tax rates  (plus an inheritance surcharge). While inheritance tax is always fairer than estate tax, the inclusion tax system is the fairest of them all – as it clearly works in favour of beneficiaries of smaller amounts and/or lower income.

Furthermore, in all cases (Estate Tax and both types of Inheritance Tax), the increased exchange of information between tax authorities mean it is increasingly difficult to hide assets ‘abroad’ – which should also substantially serve to increase the revenue collection.

83956121-616c-4044-b38c-de00c3f0b9b6-2060x1236

‘More tea, guv?’

Britain claims to have an Inheritance Tax. The problem is that – to all intents and purposes – no, it doesn’t. It has an Estate Tax. The government website (Gov.UK sounds like an initiative of the Kray Twins) talks to the donor. Other than in specific circumstances the tax is claimed from the estate. The tax-free threshold is given to the estate – and even in the case where specific gifts are given outside the will in the 7 years prior to death, they get first benefit of the tax-free amount. And the tax rate is fixed.

So, why is it called an Inheritance Tax?  We shouldn’t complain. At least it is called a ‘tax’ as opposed to the Probate Fee, which is a tax but the government can’t afford to call it that. And what about Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs?  Isn’t it a tax authority?

41BSCWFdzqL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_

At least they still call it a ‘tax’ return

Perhaps we shouldn’t ask too many difficult questions of a country with a tax year-end of April 5th.

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.’

Prospecting for tax

Cholera vaccination at Nyaragusu refugee camp in Tanzania

True heroes…

If you hear the term: ‘sans frontieres’, it is odds on that – after ‘French’ – the first thing that will come into your mind is ‘Medicins Sans Frontieres’, that truly remarkable international humanitarian medical NGO founded in 1971 and based in Switzerland. Add to that ‘Avocats Sans Frontieres’, the human rights lawyers, and a plethora other ‘Without Borders’ organizations, and your forehead will probably furrow as your thoughts turn to the altruism of Churchill’s ‘Never in the history of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few’, and Kennedy’s ‘Ask not what your country can do for you’.

JSF-TSR_10

… and true fools

As proof of my innate cynicism, when for the first time last week I came across  ‘Inspecteurs des Impots Sans Frontieres’ (Google translate: Tax Inspectors Without Borders), my agile memory leapfrogged all those worthy international bodies dating back to the early seventies. ‘Jeux Sans Frontieres’ – known on my TV set as ‘It’s a Knockout’ – was a banal  pan-European TV competition tracing its history to 1965. Similar to a well-funded kids’ birthday party, participants were required to engage in physical contests of the utmost idiocy. Europe had been laid waste twice in the preceding half century by the two most utterly mind-boggling catastrophes in the annals of mankind, and this was the reward.

hqdefault (2)

Tax inspector in the mind’s eye

Thinking my memory was treating the world’s tax inspectors to the respect only they deserved, I plunged first into an Economist article – the headline of which had introduced me to TIWB – and then the  OECD literature on the topic.

I was wrong.

TIWB was founded by the OECD and UN in 2015 around the time the world’s governments started to take international taxation cooperation seriously. Tax administrations with well-developed international tax audit capabilities, as well as retired tax inspectors, are now targeted to assist less fortunate administrations with developing their own tax audit capabilities.

41BSCWFdzqL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_

It just got harder

It turns out there are dozens of these projects going on around the world (there is even a bi-annual newsletter), and it is estimated that, for every dollar spent, a hundred dollars of tax avoiding revenue is collected.

Along with complex changes in rules, much of the stress over the last half-decade has been on transparency and the exchange of information. But, if a cash-strapped tax administration does not know what to do with all the data it receives on international groups  who exploit the system to the full – albeit within legal limits – little will happen. Projects based in the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe are closing the gap. According to the IMF, over 20% of tax revenues were still being lost to the legal playing of the system as recently as 2016.

It looks like it is time to take tax inspectors seriously. When American humorist Dave Barry was chosen for audit in an  IRS sample, he wrote a syndicated article of comical unctuousity to the Service: ‘The truth is that I have the deepest respect for the IRS, and for the thousands of fine men and women and Doberman pinschers who work there….IRS are regular people just like you, except that they can destroy your life.’

bdcc425eb92d602170d72e130af99294

I do, honestly

I have decided to  turn over a new leaf and show respect to tax inspectors whether with or without borders. They are good people. Really good people. Really.

Nexus, shmexus

images

What tax advisers think they look like

In my halcyon days as a tax adviser, a client conference meant lots of numbers thrown at a stark white screen via an overhead projector, the small audience looking pale and bored under the harsh fluorescent lighting. We, the professionals, were geeks that nobody wanted to talk to unless we were saving their cash, or saving their hides.

It transpires that  a quarter of a century is a long time in tax, and in recent years we have found ourselves in  conference centers bathed in blue light, no numbers in sight, talking (and talking) about ‘paradoxes’ and ‘paradigm shifts’, and other intelligent concepts that have as much to do with tax as that other famous three-letter word ending in ‘x’. It isn’t that much has really changed. It is just that we have learned to talk-the-talk and walk-the-walk in our designer suits. The meaning of the words – or their dubious relevance – doesn’t really matter. Conferences are all about the sound bytes and the press coverage. The public face of tax has had a makeover.  Meanwhile, real tax consulting – exactly as in the good old days – continues to be undertaken by consenting adults behind closed doors.

It is, therefore, with some trepidation and a shaking pen, that I find myself writing about – what might actually be – both a ‘paradox’ and ‘paradigm shift’  in international taxation.

PEMartin_01_1200

When physical nexus made sense

I refer, of course, to the OECD’s invitation for public input on the possible solutions to the tax challenges of digitization. The topic is not new (see Tax Break October 5th 2018), and is, indeed, Action 1 (of 15)  of the Base Earnings and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative that has been monopolizing the attention of tax practitioners for the last five years. However, it has for some time been looking like it would be sacrificed on the altar of disagreement and procrastination, as it requires a complete rethink of two of the pillars of the existing century-old system – nexus (connection to a country) and profit allocation (between countries).

On February 13th, the Inclusive Framework on BEPS (comprised of just about every self-respecting nation in the world – not to mention a few others) came up with a Public Consultation Document, the member countries having previously been divided on any way of moving forward. To be clear, it is stressed that the comments are ‘without prejudice’ (which I think means countries are not committed). Different countries have different interests – in the rawest of terms developing countries that are not hi-tech originators have a major interest in attracting tax from digital companies interacting with their populations, while the United States would ideally like to keep as much of Google and friends’ taxable income as possible for itself. The indisputable paradox here is that – in a world veering more and more towards trade wars and protectionism –  they  were able to come up with a series of alternative proposals, any one of which  – if adopted – will represent a paradigm shift in international taxation affecting everybody.

There are three proposals for tampering with profit allocation and nexus, with the aim of ensuring that taxable profit is allocated according to where value is created.

ob_70e1c7_big-brother-poster

No comment

The first proposal focuses on ‘user participation’. This is fairly specific to the ‘highly’ digitalized economy –  social networks, search engines and on-line marketplaces, where the activities and participation of these users contribute to the creation of the brand, the generation of valuable data, and the development of a critical mass of users, which helps to establish market power. For this purpose, nexus would no longer be only to where the company physically undertakes its business. but also to  where the users build part of its profits, with suitable allocation of those profits.

The second proposal is based on ‘marketing intangibles’ such as brand and trade name which are reflected in  favourable attitudes in the minds of customers and so can be seen to have been created in the market jurisdiction. There are also other marketing intangibles, such as customer data, customer relationships and customer lists  derived from activities targeted at customers and users in the market jurisdiction, supporting the treatment of such intangibles as being created in the market jurisdiction. Once again the definition of nexus would need to be expanded beyond the physical and profit allocated accordingly.

The third proposal relates to ‘substantial economic presence’ via digital technology and other automated means. Such presence could be evidenced by:  the existence of a user base and the associated data input;  the volume of digital content derived from the jurisdiction;  billing and collection in local currency or with a local form of payment;  the maintenance of a website in a local language;  responsibility for the final delivery of goods to customers or the provision by the enterprise of other support services such as after-sales service or repairs and maintenance; or  sustained marketing and sales
promotion activities, either online or otherwise, to attract customers. Same again, in terms of revolutionary forces in international tax.

As already mentioned, each of the proposed methods requires an overhauling of ‘nexus’, until now based on a level of  physical presence in a jurisdiction, and ‘profit allocation’ which – even in the BEPS world – suffers from the vagaries of the Old World Order.

Pending public comment – the deadline for which has been extended to March 6 – the bets are on  ‘Marketing Intangibles’ over ‘User Participation’, the former catching a wider cross-section of the digital industry in its net. ‘Substantial Economic Presence’ was a late arrival at the ball, and  – if the digital tax revolution is consummated – will likely be confined to the role of chaperone.

Will anything happen? There is no question that the BEPS project has achieved a momentum that could not have been predicted five years ago. The Americans are said to favour ‘marketing intangibles’ – although when they calm down from the sound bytes, soft blue light and dark suits, they might start to run the boring numbers and discover it (and any other change) is not in their best interests.

180926172233-trump-0926-exlarge-169

‘I am just the greatest ever paradox and paradigm shift!’

So, it looks like ultimate success in achieving the paradigm shift rests on the continued goodwill of the United States, which in the current political climate would be a paradox par excellence. But, we are living in interesting times.

Keep Calm and Carry On

co_henry_poster

About as intellectual as it got

The British have always been a supremely pragmatic people. It was thanks to a fickle king that they knocked religious hegemony on the head early on, and thanks to another misguided monarch that they got their revolution out of the way before the Rousseaus, Marxes and Engels of the world could fill the vacuum with an ideology. Indeed, it was the utterly pragmatic empiricist John Locke who tidied up the mess in the latter half of the seventeenth century.

It is, therefore, no surprise that – despite the cataclysmic events in Parliament surrounding Brexit – the British Government has been beavering away, preparing for the morning after (which, because Brexit is planned for the night of Friday March 29th, will be effectively Monday April Fools Day).

The big news from Davos last week was that Britain and Israel have confirmed ‘in principle’ a Free Trade Agreement similar to that enjoyed between the EU and Israel. With £10 billion of trade, that is eminently sensible for both parties. What received less coverage was the signing  a few days earlier of a protocol to the double taxation agreement between the two countries that dates back to 1962.

Protocols amend treaties. Hearing the words ‘protocol’, ‘tax’, ‘treaty’, ‘Israel’, ‘UK ” (not strictly a word) in the same sentence came as no surprise to my tax-attuned ear. What with all the OECD changes in respect of Base Earnings and Profit Shifting (BEPS) and the automatic exchange of information, protocols are the name of the day. The media reports (that all appeared to stem from the same press release) gave a few details of new provisions and mentioned the obvious. It was only when I downloaded and read the document (who, for heaven’s sake, ruins the party by reading primary sources these days?), that I realized the enormity of what had happened. Perfidious Albion, God bless her!

queen

What an interesting job

Israel and the UK initialed a new treaty to replace the 1962 one way back in 2009. I remember it well, because I was informally consulted just before initialling, and found a couple of boo-boos. In order for a treaty to take effect, each country needs to take it through whatever processes its domestic law requires – but the stages are identical: initialling, signing, ratifying. In the UK, following the signing,  an Order in Council is issued. That is a process where a Government representative rattles off the wording of a load of boring regulations while the Queen listens (yeh, sure!) and, in the case of a tax treaty or protocol, it goes to a delegated  legislation committee, where it is considered and then brought before Parliament. It can then be ratified.

The 2009 treaty hit a total snafu after initialling. The original 1962 treaty bore the wording: ‘the term “Israel” means the territory in which the Government of Israel
levy (sic) taxation’, and  ‘the terms “resident of the United Kingdom” and “resident of Israel” mean respectively any person who is resident in the United Kingdom for the
purposes of United Kingdom tax and any person who is resident in Israel for
the purposes of Israel tax’. It was widely understood that somebody in London (I hazard a guess, from the Foreign Office) decided that Israeli residents of Judea and Samaria aka the West Bank aka the Occupied Territories should not be included. That was never going to pass muster with  the Israeli Government, and both sides got back in their trenches for the next decade.

But, times change, and these days it might be cheekily argued that go-it-alone Britain needs Israel more than Israel needs Britain (although Britain is still a very-nice-to-have). And that treaty is seriously prehistoric. Meanwhile, as Professor Emeritus of Empire Building, Britain had to watch its step.

Then came the Eureka! moment. It was time to sign protocols with treaty partners. A month after  the UK’s High Commissioner in Cyprus signed with the Cypriots, a British government representative signed with the Israelis. But, there was a subtle difference. The Cypriot protocol ran to a familiar 3 pages; the Israeli protocol ran to an eye-boggling 19. The British and Israelis had effectively shoehorned the long-dormant new treaty into the Protocol, simply passing over the naughty bits.

220px-smileys

I wonder if Mel is one of George’s

The signatory for the British Government was one Mel Stride, Paymaster-General – a name and title which, together with the plot, could have come straight out of a John Le Carre novel.

All that now remains is for the Queen to cock a deaf’un, and for Parliament to be pre-occupied with Brexit. (Israel also needs to ratify).

As regards the new provisions, they can be easily found popping up all over the internet in the same form as they were initially announced.  What seems to have escaped the journalists’ attention is the long-awaited exemption on UK pensions received by Israeli residents (as opposed to the highly-specific exemption from withholding tax on interest and dividends to Israeli pension funds, which was included). New and potential expats, benefiting from a ten year tax exemption on foreign sourced income in Israel,  should be talking to their advisors.

The Celtic Tiger changes its stripes

boris-johnson-yes-minister-main (1)

I can’t wait for 2046

The biggest debunker of conspiracy theories has to be what the British call ‘the thirty year rule’  for the declassification of secret documents. It is not that the released documents reveal the truth (the really juicy ones are locked up for far longer); it is, rather, the realization that the behind-the-scenes machinations of government way back then were far more chaotic than anything we imagined at the time. Conspiracies need thought.

So, my conspiracy theory about Ireland’s mammoth tax bill  to pharmaceutical giant Perrigo towards the end of last year will probably be utterly disproven sometime in 2048. But, by then I will be either dead or too old to care. So, here goes.

The (undisputed) story:

In 2013 the (undisputed) Irish Elan Corp sold its interest in Tysabri, a multiple sclerosis drug, to Biogen Idec Inc for a lot of money. A few months later (undisputed) US corporation Perrigo Inc entered into an inversion transaction with Elan. The transaction involved the smaller Elan achieving ownership of Perrigo, with the Perrigo shareholders receiving a majority of the shares of Elan. The principal  (undisputed) advantage to Perrigo was a reduction in future tax. This would be achieved by (calculated conjecture) including future non-US acquisitions under the Irish parent, thus bypassing the then draconian US tax system, and engineering debt from the US to the Irish parent. The latter  would reduce US taxable income at 35%, and increase Irish taxable income at rates of between 0% and 25%, with the Irish foot secretly holding the scale at the lower end thanks to leprecaunish Irish wheezes such as the Double Irish and Single Malt schemes ( the Irish clearly chose names they were convinced could never be traced back to them).

zipperbeach-thin

Ireland is quite a distance

In December 2018 it became known that the Perrigo group (Elan had very cleverly changed its name to that of its new subsidiary) had been issued a bill by the Irish tax authorities for  €1.64 billion. The justification was the reclassification of  the profit on sale of the intellectual property to Biogen from trading income (somewhere between 0% and 12.5% tax) to capital gains (33%). Perrigo promptly announced  that  it was suddenly hard to run a US customer-service organization from the other side of the pond. It is now rumoured that the group is threatening shelving plans for expansion in Dublin unless, presumably, their appeal against the tax assessment is successful.

And now, the conspiracy theory:

As opposed to the $13 billion tax claim from Apple forced upon Ireland by the EU (poor Ireland), the issue  here is what one commentator called Tax 101 – the party trick of tax advisers worldwide walking the tax classification tightrope between capital gains  and trading income, ready at all times to pull the tax-saving bunny out of their moneybags. The sale of the IP was several months before Perrigo merged into Elan. It is to be presumed that Perrigo ordered a tax due diligence, and even if some bits and pieces were obscured by the Guinness, had some inkling of a potential €1.64 billion tax bill. Either they received an utterly obese indemnity from Elan’s shareholders, or there was a clear understanding from somewhere that lreland’s long-standing open-sewer policy of encouraging American investment at all moral cost meant that the authorities could be expected to stay out to a liquid lunch.

Fast forward to the beginning of 2018, and the US had a new tax law . The complementary regimes of Foreign-Derived Intangible Income on certain income of US companies from abroad, and Global Intangible Low Taxed Income of non-US subsidiaries, established a planning benchmark US effective tax rate  in either case of  around 13% . Add to that new inversion rules and restrictions on interest deductibility, and the question that comes to the befuddled mind is: ‘Why Ireland?’

So, what does a country do when its economic raison d’etre is disappearing down the  sewer? It takes a leaf out of Donald Trump’s book – and thinks protectionism. But, in the case of Ireland – other than its beer and whiskey industries – there was precious little of its domestic economy to protect. Other  than its tax advantage, that is.

main-qimg-13926df3433008a9ddfe757c1707b676

And where do you think you’re going?

In October 2018 the Irish budget included, as expected, Controlled Foreign Corporation provisions as required by the EU (see Tax Break 1/1/19). What wasn’t expected was the early imposition of an Exit Tax (which was not due until 2020). Companies wanting to expatriate from Ireland will now face a 12.5% ‘capital gains tax’ – or, in other words, they are pretty well stuck.

All this opened the door for the Irish Treasury to take off its kid gloves, and treat captive foreign companies just like any other. The Irish seem to be saying to Perrigo: ‘You can check out any time you like. But you can never leave.’ I wonder how many Irish-Americans there are in California.

 

Telling it like it isn’t

jet-set-tarmac_1

Very last call …

A rabbi, a priest and the secretary-general of the OECD walk into a bar… Not heard that one before? Read on.

Last Wednesday, January 2nd, as the 20th Knesset breathed its last before flatlining in the run-up to a General Election, the Finance Committee approved regulations paving the way for the introduction of the international ‘Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters’.

61um7xkkwvl._sx258_bo1,204,203,200_

Game over

The New World Order, where there is nowhere for the less-than-honest to hide their ill-gotten gains, has been heading this way to much fanfare for some time. Too long, in fact. Israel signed on to the G20/OECD 2014 initiative early on, and was committed to having the necessary legislation in place by January 1st 2017. This was to be followed by necessary bi- or multilateral agreements (it committed to two multilateral ones), necessary bilateral commitments to ensure  the other side would respect confidentiality – as well as being both legislatively and operationally sound – and technical guidance to Israel’s banks on how to provide data on accounts of foreign resident in standard international format (so they could be easily deciphered at the other end). Information exchange was to start in September 2018. In fairness, Israel didn’t score too badly other than on one rather critical point – although legislation was in place in mid-2016, well in time for the 2017 deadline, it could not come into force until accompanying regulations took effect.

Well, as the naysayers would have it, a miss is as good as a mile and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. By December 2018, there were only seven countries that were non-compliant: Antigua & Barbados, Brunei Darusallam, Dominica, Niue (is that a country or a spelling mistake?), Qatar, Sint Maarten and … Israel. This prompted a desperate letter from the secretary-general of the OECD to Israel’s prime minister, and the eleventh hour passing of the regulations last week, exactly two years and one day late. If you are going to be late, you might as well do it in style.

What went wrong?

The required regulations, as the American FATCA information exchange regulations before them, hacked at one of the mainstays of ultra-Orthodox society (and a much valued traditional Jewish institution)  – the ‘Gemach’. The concept is a simple one. Groups of largely anonymous donors provide money to an intermediary who generally disburses the funds as interest free loans to those in need. In the event the borrower is unable to repay, the donors (who have generally kissed goodbye to the money) have no recourse. Until now, these arrangements have had no legal or regulatory basis – essentially private arrangements that could run into incredibly large sums. When FATCA came along, Israel’s banks started closing Gemach accounts as they were unable to verify to the US authorities that there were no US ‘depositors’. On the other hand, as the chairman of the Finance Committee repeatedly protested, requiring a donor who gets nothing other than a place in Heaven out of the whole process to fill in forms for the tax authority is a kiss of death for the institutions.

A solution was found, with the evident acquiescence of the US authorities, for small Gemachim, and in August 2016 Gemachim generally were given two years grace, in which time they would – against their will – be brought under regulation, and they could organize their affairs to be compliant for the banks. To cut a long story short, after a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth, including the flat refusal of the Bank of Israel and Capital Markets Authority to supervise them (The Capital Markets Authority lost, and ‘won’ the job), the very last piece of legislation to pass its third reading in the 20th Knesset was the attrition-much-reduced Gemachim Law, which paved the way for the Chairman of the Finance Committee to agree to approve the information exchange regulations.

rowan-williams-009

The only thing crooked about him

Had the script of this farce been written by the 2008 financial crash’s moral voice, then Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the Finance Committee and Israel might have walked away with their heads held high. Williams had maintained that the ‘markets’ that bankers claimed dictated the path of the financial system, were – in Judeo-Christian – terms a form of idolatry, something man-made being attributed independent powers. He argued that modern financial transactions lacked the face-to-face component of yesteryear – it is much easier to default when lenders are obscured behind a curtain of intermediate transactions than when recognized at an individual or community level. Here were self-regulating funds that should not be collateral damage in the post-2008 meltdown regulatory war against the unfettered avarice of the players in the financial markets.

mattress

There are always the traditional methods

However, Anglicanism hasn’t had much of a look-in around these parts since 1948, and  the ‘guilty’ Knesset Finance Committee was chaired until last week by an ultra-Orthodox rabbi-politician not given to philosophical musings, but rather to horse-trading in the name of his flock. The reason there was a need for a law regulating the Gemachim was that a number of them, predominantly in the United States and Israel,  had been the facilitators of big-time money laundering and tax evasion. A war of attrition in the long process of arriving at the final wording,  holding the inevitable (and, hence, unforgiveably late) information exchange regulations hostage,  is considered  to have severely compromised the regulatory effect of the law. Any collateral damage ultimately suffered by the moral majority of Gemachim is thanks, therefore, to the unsavoury dealings of some of their number, rather than the excesses of the financial system.

The last weak joke of the 20th Knesset…

Before our very eyes!

hilarious-dad-jokes

The Ten Commandments weren’t supposed to be easy

When it comes to aphorisms, ‘Oldie but Goodie’ is high on my list of suspect examples. Generally quoted by the generation above mine to fill the void of laughter following a particularly hackneyed joke,  it only  rolls happily off the tongue when served with lashings of irony.

Such was my reaction to a ruling published by the Israeli tax authorities the other day. It stumbled through a long preamble, only to mention, before things really warmed up, that it was essentially in line with another ruling from Christmas week in 2016. It begged the question: ‘ Why waste busy peoples’ time knocking out another one?’ Was it because it was so enjoyable the last time, we had to be fed it again?

Not quite.

profumo_2443150b

‘Well they would, wouldn’t they?’

The new ruling, though causing no surprise to the cynics that make up the numbers in our profession, is well beyond a joke. The Man on the Clapham Omnibus would surely ask: ‘How could they?’

Well, they can, and they did, and it was obvious they would.

The ruling related to an individual who had left Israel for the US, breaking residency, and  subsequently returned home. As part of his US salary package, he received options with various vesting periods. The tax authorities had to decide what part of the financial benefit from exercising the options should be taxed in Israel.

Thus far, we were in 2016 country. That ruling, based on court precedent, established that the profit earned abroad from options exercised while the individual was still abroad would not attract any tax in Israel, as it was not sourced in Israel. So far, so good. Given that information, and asked an inane quiz question: ‘What  taxation would apply to the profit earned abroad during the vesting period if the options were simply exercised in Israel on the individual’s return to Israel?’, our Clapham Omnibus gent would reasonably have come up with: ‘Zero’. At that point, the trapdoor under his upper deck seat would have opened and sent him crashing into the arms of the conductor collecting fares below.

Fagan-300x168

‘You’ve got to pick a pocket or two’

The decision given, in 2016 and once again in 2018, was that – although Israel operates a standard modified personal tax basis (Israeli residents are taxed on their internationally sourced income, and foreign residents on their Israeli sourced income), as salaried employees are charged to tax in Israel on a cash basis, the entire amount should be charged to tax in Israel, even though it was not sourced in Israel.

askey

A rare oldie but goodie

The 2016 decision, with its literal accuracy but flawed concept (cash basis is a timing concept, not a country source concept), stopped there. Clambering to his feet, the bus inquisitee – still hoping for the holiday for two in Benidorm – would have accepted the challenge of the next question: ‘If the individual once more leaves Israel, and he subsequently exercises options abroad, part of the vesting period of which was while he was Israeli resident, what would be his tax in Israel?’ Easy! Already seeing in his mind’s eye his six-pack lying on the beach next to his bright yellow lilo, he would answer: ‘Zero! He is on a cash basis!’ At which point the floor would open up and – if he managed to avoid the rear axle of the bus – he would be left, not believing his bad luck, in the middle of the road, holiday dreams in tatters. All thanks to the November 2018 decision that – correctly – states that the income sourced in Israel is taxable in Israel with no reference to where it was received. The problem is that it also restates the 2016 ruling’s cash-basis conclusion, making it inconsistent and illogical.

The 2016 ruling brought a sardonic smile to my face. The 2018 ruling is laughable.

I think I’ll try this one on my kids.

It’s just not cricket

kazakhstan-borat-1478184247 (1)

He might still need more proof of residence than this

Last month’s news from India, that tax residency certificates would no longer be a must for  foreigners claiming treaty benefits, will come as a welcome relief to the finance departments of organizations doing business with that great country. Obtaining certificates of residence can be a pain in the neck, especially when they are needed quickly. When it comes to transparent partnerships, like accounting firms, the bureaucracy can be a nightmare.

Although at first sight this announcement may put India in a positive light, it is more a reflection of the relief to heads no longer banging against brick walls – the original requirement for certificates stemmed from a silly amendment to the law in 2012. There is so much that is daft about India’s approach to international taxation.

When I hear the words ‘India’ and ‘Tax’ juxtaposed, I invariably think of Kipling’s quote ‘Power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.’

India – the largest democracy on Mother Earth – has, when it comes to international tax, a split personality. On the one hand,  its appellate tribunals and courts wax more lyrical than anybody else on tax  issues brought before them. In 2017 it was estimated that nearly a quarter of a million disputes were awaiting resolution. Every international tax practitioner knows that, when examining the case history of OECD treaty articles, it is rare for a bon mot from India not to pop off the page. On the other hand,  India maintains primitive imperialist designs on the tax that rightly belongs to others (I wonder what Gandhi would have said). Its Dividend Distribution Tax, declared a tax on the distributing company rather than a withholding tax on the recipient, has deftly (and, I believe, uniquely) sidestepped treaty withholding restrictions, while its technical services tax has long-armed income that should have nothing to do with India. Then there was that beautiful moment a few years back when they followed seller Hutchison and buyer Vodafone up the food chain, and rather than going for  a bite out of the indirect seller’s cake, tried improbably  to extract it from the indirect buyer’s mouth. That’s chutzpah.

hindustan-ambassador-mk1_827x510_51486989059

It could have been worse. It is only an accident of history that they didn’t produce Austin Allegro doppelgangers

Perhaps, however, this recent loosening of the tax belt is not just a blip, but a symptom of something bigger. Since 2014 India has jumped a remarkable 65 places in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business rankings. Starting in 142nd place, it is today sandwiched at 77 between Uzbekistan (the butt of many of Borat’s jokes) and Oman. To show they were aware that the century had turned, they even stopped production of the Hindustan Ambassador in 2014 –  a copy of an early model of the Morris Oxford that the British replaced nearly sixty years previously. That’s progress.

Microsoft, IBM, Proctor and Gamble, Tesco, Wallmart, motor companies (thank heaven not British) – India is opening up for business. This has been accompanied by a massive reform in indirect taxation.

It is to be hoped that international direct taxation will be next. Wouldn’t it be nice if those legislators who draft the laws so suspectly could listen to those world-class judges charged with interpreting them so expertly? Or is that an encroachment upon the foundations of democracy?

Post Navigation