Améliorer des règles du nexus pour une répartition équitable des droits d’imposition pour les pays en développement
Par Radhakishan Rawal
L’une des questions posées dans le Premier Pilier sur les discussions sur l’imposition de l’économie numérique est le seuil du nexus, c’est-à-dire le lien de rattachement au pays, qui déterminerait quelles entreprises multinationales (EMN) ont une présence imposable. Les grandes économies développées ainsi que les petites économies en développement peuvent être privées de droits d’imposition en raison des seuils des nexus tels que décrits actuellement dans la proposition du Premier Pilier. De plus, même si des seuils plus petits sont adoptés, certains pays peuvent encore se voir refuser des droits d’imposition. Un seuil financier n’a jamais été un paramètre de répartition des droits d’imposition entre les pays. Un ajustement mineur dans le processus de certitude fiscale pourrait résoudre le problème.
Cet article préconise d’accorder le droit d’imposition sur le montant A du Premier Pilier, qui couvre la portion principale des bénéfices imposables de l’économie numérique, à toutes les juridictions du marché, mais d’accorder les droits destinés aux juridictions fiscales concernées uniquement aux pays atteignant les seuils du nexus. Cette approche se traduira par une répartition équitable des droits d’imposition et garantira également qu’il n’y ait pas de charge supplémentaire dans le processus de la certitude fiscale, ce qui sera plus facile pour les pays en développement.
The Place of Multilateralism in Tax Reforms: Exclusionary Outcomes of a Purported Inclusive Framework
By Alexander Ezenagu
Countries have come to accept the wide application of international tax rules in both their domestic and international tax affairs. However, where international tax rules fall short of the legitimate expectations of countries and fail to provide necessary guidance, countries may be compelled to seek other sources of guidance. In this paper, it is argued that in the absence and failure of international tax rules to provide adequate guidance and encourage a fair tax system, countries should not be prohibited from exercising their fiscal sovereignty.
Statement by the South Centre on the Two Pillar Solution to Address the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy
The South Centre takes note of the Statement by 136 member jurisdictions of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework (IF) made on 8 October 2021, on a two-pillar solution to address the tax challenges arising from the digitalisation of the economy. The broad architecture of the agreement is now in place and it is clear to developing countries what they can expect from it.
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.
Improve nexus rule for fair distribution of taxing rights to developing countries
By Radhakishan Rawal
One of the open issues for Pillar One in the discussion on the taxation of the digital economy is the nexus threshold, which would determine which Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) have a taxable presence. Big developed economies or smaller developing economies both may be deprived of taxing rights as a result of nexus thresholds as presently described in the Pillar One proposal. Further, even where smaller thresholds are adopted, some countries may still be denied taxing rights. Financial threshold was never a parameter of distributing taxing rights between the countries. A minor tweaking of the tax certainty process could address the issue.
This article recommends giving the taxing right over Amount A of Pillar One, which covers the main portion of taxable profits from the digital economy to all the market jurisdictions, but to give rights related to affected tax jurisdictions only to those countries meeting the nexus thresholds. This approach will result in a fair distribution of taxing rights and will also ensure that there is no additional burden on the tax certainty process, which will be easier for developing countries.
Opportunities and Challenges: Tax Cooperation and Governance for Asia-Pacific Countries
By Sakshi Rai
An informal technical meeting was organised on April 8th 2021 by the Secretariat of the High Level Panel on International Financial Accountability, Transparency and Integrity for Achieving the 2030 Agenda (FACTI Panel) for tax officials from the Asia-Pacific, to discuss the relevance of the Panel’s recommendations in the context of the region as well as to familiarise tax officials with its final report.
Comments on Discussion Draft: Possible Changes to the United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention Between Developed and Developing Countries Concerning Inclusion of software payments in the definition of royalties
The South Centre Tax Initiative (SCTI) offers its comments on the discussion draft on inclusion of software payments in the definition of royalties. As is well known, this is an important issue that developing countries have been fighting for, for a while now. The SCTI supports the proposed change which seeks to insert the phrase “computer software” in article 12(3) of the United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention Between Developed and Developing Countries. The COVID-19 pandemic adds special urgency to resolving this long-pending issue as revenue from software payments made from developing countries continues to increase.
