Artículo 12B: una solución del tratado tributario del Comité sobre Cooperación Internacional en Cuestiones de Tributación de la ONU para la tributación de ingresos digitales
Por Rajat Bansal
La tributación sobre los ingresos de las empresas multinacionales dedicadas a actividades digitales por las jurisdicciones de origen y las de mercado es actualmente el desafío más importante para la comunidad tributaria internacional. El actual conjunto de miembros del Comité en cuestiones de tributación de las Naciones Unidas finalizó, en abril de 2021, una medida de tratados tributarios para abordar este desafío. Este informe explica la justificación para la solución particular de agregar un nuevo artículo a la Convención Modelo de las Naciones Unidas, sus méritos y cómo esto puede ser beneficioso para todos los países, especialmente los en desarrollo.
Global Minimum Corporate Tax: Interaction of Income Inclusion Rule with Controlled Foreign Corporation and Tax-sparing Provisions
By Kuldeep Sharma, ADIT (CIOT,UK), FTI (Australia), Insolvency Professional (IBBI)
The OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS (the Inclusive Framework) agreed on 8 October 2021 to the Statement on the Two-Pillar Solution to Address the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy. The Two-Pillar Solution will ensure that MNEs will be subject to a minimum tax rate of 15%, and will re-allocate profit of the largest and most profitable MNEs to countries worldwide. Under these recommendations, inter alia, Pillar Two consists of two interlocking domestic rules (together the Global Anti-Base Erosion Rules (GloBE)), which includes an Income Inclusion Rule (IIR) to impose a top-up tax on a parent entity in respect of the low taxed income of a constituent entity. The IIR shall be incorporated in domestic laws of opting jurisdictions, and seems to have profound interaction with the Controlled Foreign Corporation (CFC) and tax-sparing provisions. The IIR operates in a way that is closely comparable to a CFC rule and raises the same treaty questions as raised by CFC rules, although there are a number of differences between the IIR and the CFC rules. In the context of IIR, there may be a case when the Ultimate Parent Entity (UPE) is taxed on the Constituent Entities’ (CEs) income and the spared tax is not considered as covered taxes for calculating the Effective Tax Rate (ETR) of the CE. This generates a situation for developing countries in which they have to shore up their ETR by overhauling their tax incentive regimes and retooling domestic legal framework for more effective taxation of MNEs to avoid losing a significant portion of their tax right/base to a developed country. Adoption of IIR (which is an extension of CFC rules) under Pillar Two is therefore going to create conflict with the tax-sparing rules. From the perspective of developing countries, the adoption of GloBE implies losing tax incentives as a tax policy instrument to attract foreign direct investment. This is why every country involved, but especially developing countries, should undertake a thorough examination to determine whether such measures are convenient for their interests in the long run.
Un albatros autour du cou des pays en développement – Clause NPF dans les conventions fiscales
Par Deepak Kapoor, IRS
L’inclusion dans les conventions en matière de double imposition d’une clause de la nation la plus favorisée (« NPF ») est une incarnation du principe fondamental de la non-discrimination et vise à permettre aux pays signataires de tirer également parti des perspectives en matière de commerce et d’investissement. L’objectif de dispositions telles que les clauses NPF et de non-discrimination dans les conventions fiscales est de favoriser l’équité entre les différents pays signataires. Dans les conventions fiscales conclues entre pays développés et pays en développement, les clauses NPF servent également d’outils de négociation pour obtenir de meilleurs taux d’imposition.
Cependant ces clauses ont aujourd’hui des effets négatifs pour les pays de source des revenus, qui sont pour la plupart des pays en développement. Lorsqu’elles sont appliquées entre deux pays également développés, les clauses NPF ne constituent pas, généralement, une source de danger potentielle, mais lorsque la convention est conclue entre un pays développé et un pays en développement, où l’un des pays reçoit plus d’investissements de l’autre qu’il n’en réalise, le danger est réel. De fait, des difficultés sont apparues récemment en raison d’interprétations divergentes de ces clauses par les tribunaux, qui ont contraint les pays source à appliquer, sur la base des termes contenus dans la clause NPF, un taux d’imposition plus avantageux que celui prévu dans la convention fiscale et à modifier son champ d’application, remettant en cause l’objectif et l’utilité même des clauses NPF.
Il ressort des procédures judiciaires intentées en Afrique du Sud et en Inde que les clauses NPF peuvent aboutir à une réduction de la fiscalité et entrainer une érosion involontaire de la base d’imposition des pays de source des revenus. Le problème réside également dans la rédaction et la formulation ambiguë des clauses NPF, qui entrainent des répercussions négatives inattendues pour les pays ayant pris des engagements dans le cadre de ces conventions. Il est aujourd’hui urgent pour les pays source de procéder à un examen approfondi des clauses NPF figurant dans les conventions fiscales existantes, de la manière dont elles s’articulent entre elles et des retombées négatives qu’elles pourraient avoir sur d’autres conventions.
Article 12B – Une solution de convention fiscale par le Comité fiscal des NU pour taxer les revenus numériques
Par Rajat Bansal
L’imposition sur les revenus des entreprises multinationales dans des activités numériques par les juridictions de la source ou de marché est actuellement le défi le plus important pour la communauté fiscale internationale. La composition actuelle du Comité fiscal des Nations Unies a finalisé, en avril 2021, un accord de convention fiscale pour relever ce défi. Ce rapport explique la raison d’être d’une solution particulière consistant à insérer un nouvel article dans le Modèle de convention des Nations Unies, ses mérites et comment il peut être bénéfique pour tous les pays, en particulier les pays en développement.
Conceptualisation d’un instrument multilatéral des Nations Unies (IML des NU)
Par Radhakishan Rawal
Les récentes modifications apportées au modèle de convention des Nations unies concernant les doubles impositions entre pays développés et pays en développement ont donné lieu à l’introduction de dispositions plus avantageuses pour les pays en développement en matière d’imposition des revenus, en permettant en particulier l’imposition des revenus étrangers. Il s’agit notamment des revenus tirés des services numériques automatisés, des rémunérations sur les logiciels, de plus-values et autres. Ces dispositions sont généralement intégrées, au terme de longues négociations, dans les conventions fiscales bilatérales. Une convention des Nations Unis, en tant qu’instrument multilatéral, permet en une seule négociation de modifier plusieurs conventions fiscales et contribue ainsi à ce que les pays en développement puissent percevoir plus rapidement des recettes fiscales. Le présent rapport sur les politiques examine la forme qu’un tel instrument multilatéral peut revêtir.
Streamlining the Architecture of International Tax through a UN Framework Convention on Tax Cooperation
By Abdul Muheet Chowdhary and Sol Picciotto
The architecture of international taxation at present is fragmented among multiple institutions. The UN Tax Committee, the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) and the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes are some of the key institutions which set multiple and overlapping international tax standards. The lack of a genuinely global international tax body has long been a lacunae in the international economic system and a disadvantage for developing countries, who are unable to participate in international tax standard setting as full and equal participants. This has been borne out most recently by the Two Pillar Solution for taxing the digital economy that has come from the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework. The G-77’s renewed demand for a global tax body shows the issue continues to remain a priority for developing countries.
This Policy Brief provides a way for bringing the existing plethora of institutions under unified, universal and democratic control through a UN Framework Convention on Tax Cooperation (UN FCTC). This idea builds on the long-standing idea of a UN Tax Convention, which has also been recommended by the UN FACTI Panel. A UN FCTC would function similarly to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCCC), through a Conference of Parties (COP) which would give the existing institutions such as the UN Tax Committee and Inclusive Framework mandates to work on. In this regard, it would replace the narrow mandates of the OECD and G20 with mandates coming from all the Parties to the UN FCTC, which could be all countries, both developed and developing. A UN FCTC thus provides a practical and realistic way forward for a genuinely universal, intergovernmental framework for international tax rule making under the auspices of the United Nations.
Making the UN Tax Committee’s Subcommittees More Effective for Developing Countries
By Abdul Muheet Chowdhary, Sebastien Babou Diasso, and Aaditri Solankii
New United Nations (UN) Tax Committee Members have been appointed by the UN Secretary-General and among them 13 out of 25 are from developing countries. The Committee sets international tax standards, vital for financing for development, and works mainly through its Subcommittees. However, an unhealthy trend over time has been the disproportionate involvement of business representatives in the Subcommittees, which can be harmful for promoting the interests of developing countries. This policy brief examines this trend and outlines some of the tools available to developing countries to promote their interests in the Subcommittees.
Developing Country Demands for an Equitable Digital Tax Solution
By Abdul Muheet Chowdhary
The taxation of the digitalized economy is the foremost challenge in international taxation today. Countries around the world, especially developing countries, are struggling with taxing the rising profits of major tech giants which operate on entirely new business models that have made traditional international tax rules obsolete. A “Two Pillar solution” is being negotiated in the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS that seeks to update these rules, re-allocate taxing rights and establish a global minimum tax. However, as it stands, the solution has very limited tax revenue benefits for developing countries and is administratively complex. For the solution to be durable, it must be equitable, and accordingly must incorporate the concerns of developing countries going forward.
Combatting Tax Treaty Abuse: Tools available under the BEPS Multilateral Instrument
By Kuldeep Sharma, ADIT (CIOT,UK)
The anxiety of taxpayers, consultants and advisors over the consistent application of Principal Purpose Test (PPT) provisions in tax treaties can now be put to rest as tax authorities are expected to consistently read the PPT provisions in conjunction with the preamble, i.e. the key to application of PPT provisions lies in the preamble of the treaty itself. This follows on taking a leaf out of the Preamble to the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion & Profit Shifting (MLI), Vienna Convention, Commentaries on PPT in the respective Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and United Nations (UN) Model Tax Convention (MTC), 2017 and Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) instructions on PPT which abundantly highlight on conjoint application of the preamble in the course of invocation of PPT provisions. Now, the entire focus of extending treaty benefits has shifted to undertaking bonafide transactions and preventing double taxation as against a tendency of securing tax savings through tax avoidance. Therefore, PPT as read with the preamble can clearly be invoked to combat treaty-shopping arrangements, abusive tax planning and abusive tax avoidance arrangements or transactions. At the same time, tax authorities in any part of the world may not be inclined to invoke PPT as read with the preamble in respect of any arrangement or transaction when taxpayers are able to discharge their onus establishing that (below mentioned conditions to be satisfied in tandem):
– genuine business and commercial reasons for a transaction exist;
– a purpose for the transaction cannot be ascribed to non-taxation or reduced taxation through tax evasion or tax avoidance;
– despite no tax advantages, the transaction would be carried out exactly in the same way; and
– it cannot reasonably be considered that one of the principal purposes of the arrangement or transaction is to obtain treaty benefits and that the object and purpose of the treaty is getting defeated.
An Albatross Around the Neck of Developing Nations – MFN Clause in Tax Treaties
By Deepak Kapoor, IRS
The Most Favoured Nation (“MFN”) clause in double taxation avoidance conventions epitomises the basic principle of non-discrimination and intends to bring parity in business and investment opportunities among treaty partner countries and jurisdictions. Inclusion of provisions like MFN and non-discrimination clauses in tax treaties are intended to promote equity among treaty partners. In the context of tax treaties between developed and developing countries, the MFN clauses also act as negotiating tools to bargain for better treaty tax rates.
However, lately these clauses have started demonstrating disadvantageous effects for the source countries, which are mostly developing countries. The MFN clauses generally do not appear to be creating potential risks if they are operational between two equally developed countries but when the relationship is between a developed and developing country, where one partner receives more investments from the other than it makes, such risks are inevitable. Lately, problems have started arising due to various interpretations of the MFN clauses by the courts forcing the source countries to extend benefits of reduced rates and restricted scope to treaty partner countries under the MFN rules. Such beneficial interpretations have gone beyond the basic objective and purpose of the MFN clauses.
In light of recent court cases in South Africa and India, it appears that the MFN clauses are creating opportunities for “reduced taxation” and leading to unintended erosion of tax base of source countries. The problem also lies with the ambiguous drafting and formulations of the MFN clauses, which eventually leads to unexpected negative outcomes for countries who have bound themselves with the future commitments. Therefore, a comprehensive review of existing MFN clauses in tax treaties, their cross connections and possible negative spill over effects to other treaties is the urgent need of the hour for the source jurisdictions.
Article 12B – A tax treaty solution by the UN Tax Committee for taxing digital incomes
By Rajat Bansal
Taxation of income of multinational enterprises engaged in digitalised businesses by source or market jurisdictions is currently the most important challenge before the international tax community. The current membership of the United Nations Tax Committee in April 2021 finalised a tax treaty solution to address this challenge. This brief explains the rationale for coming up with a particular solution of inserting a new Article in the United Nations Model Tax Convention, its merits and how it can be beneficial for all countries, especially the developing ones.
Recent changes to the United Nations (UN) Model Tax Convention have resulted in provisions that are more advantageous for developing countries in raising revenue through international taxation, i.e. taxation of foreign income. These include taxation of income from automated digital services, software payments, capital gains and others. Normally, these would be incorporated into bilateral tax treaties through time-taking negotiations. A UN Multilateral Instrument (MLI) provides a speedy manner for updating multiple tax treaties through a single negotiation. This will help developing countries in collecting revenue more quickly. This Policy Brief discusses the possible structure of such an MLI.
