1 / 22

PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

Tax. | 1. PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION. Permanent establishment & Profit attribution - Recent developments. April 23, 2010 CA Darpan Mehta. Disclaimer.

liam
Télécharger la présentation

PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tax | 1 PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  2. Permanent establishment & Profit attribution - Recent developments April 23, 2010 CA Darpan Mehta PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  3. Disclaimer This presentation provides general information existing at the time of its preparation. The presentation is meant for general guidance and no responsibility for loss arising to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any material contained in this publication will be accepted by the Presenter. It is recommended that professional advice be taken based on the specific facts and circumstances. This presentation does not substitute the need to refer to the original pronouncements | 3 PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  4. Contents Recent controversies on Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) and profit attribution Seagate Singapore International BBC Worldwide Limited Aramco Overseas Company BV Case Study: Attribution of profits to an Agency PE Whether arms length remuneration to Agency PE extinguishes tax liability Judicial Precedents | 4 PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  5. Recent controversies on Permanent Establishment and Profit Attribution PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  6. Seagate – Background 1/3 Singapore India • Facts of the case • Seagate Singapore International Headquarters Pvt Ltd (‘Seagate’): • Tax resident of Singapore • Manufactures and sells hard disk drives to Original Equipment Manufacturers (‘OEMs’) in India • Proposed Venture: • To enter into arrangements with Independent Service Providers (‘ISPs’) who will stock the disks in India and supply it to OEMs on a Just-in-Time basis • Questions before the AAR • Whether ISPs would constitute a PE? • If so, what would be the income attributable to the PE, if it has been remunerated on an arms length basis? Invoice ISPs Bonded Warehouse OEMs Disk Delivery Fees Applicant Agreement with ISPs Purchase Order • Proposal to put a Vendor Management Inventory model • Agreement with ISPs to stock and deliver on JIT basis • Operating system of ISPs to support electronic data interchange, furnish receipt, sale advice and inventory reports PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  7. Revenue: The warehouses of ISPs would constitute a ‘fixed place of business’ and thus would result into a PE of Seagate. Alternatively, can be constituted as agency PE Seagate: Applicant would not have any premises or facilities neither any installations owned, leased or at its disposal in India Goods would be stored in warehouses of ISPs in India wherein it would have a restricted right of entry No employees would be based in India No other physical presence in India Seagate – Contentions of the Revenue and Applicant 2/3 PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  8. Seagate – Ruling of the AAR 3/3 • Whether ISPs constitute a PE? • Demarcated space in the warehouse constitutes a fixed place PE in India • Fixed place meaning ‘distinct situs’ or an ‘earmarked place’ with racks and electronic services • As per the agreement with ISPs • ISPs to provide adequate warehouse space at a specified location • Applicant’s representative to have the right to enter the warehouse premises for the purposes of physical inventory, inspection, audit, repackaging etc • Both applicant and ISP act in cohesion to ensure that goods are delivered promptly • Following facts are not conclusive • Ownership / Possession / Operation of ISP’s warehouse • Merely outsourcing the operations to ISP’s (and not applicant’s employees) • Income attribution to PE • For computing profits of the PE in relation to the sales activity: • Treat ISP as a separate and distinct enterprise wholly independent of Seagate • Amounts paid to the ISPs and other expenses, incurred should be deducted from attributable profits For a PE under fixed rule: (i) place of business (ii) degree of permanent set up (iii) place of business at the disposal of the foreign enterprise PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  9. BBC – Background 1/3 • Facts of the case • BBC Worldwide Limited (‘BBC’): • Tax resident of UK • Sister concern of the BBC Group which operates the BBC World News Channel (‘the Channel’) • Proposed Venture: • BBC appointed BBC Worldwide (India) Private Limited (‘BWIPL’) (a group company) as its authorized agent • In consideration, BWIPL received a commission of 15% of the advertisement revenues received by BBC from Indian advertisers • Questions before the Tribunal: • Any additional income which remains to be taxed in India, in the hands of BBC, despite of payment at arms length basis? UK BBC (UK) Revenue Appointment of agent for sale of airtime in India Commission @ 15% BBC (India) sale of airtime in India Revenue India Advertisers • Agreement entered between: • BBC and BBC India under Airtime Sales Agreement • Agent’s role: • solicit orders for sale of advertisement airtime on the Channel • collect payments from Indian advertisers • remit the payments received • Remuneration: • Commission of 15% of the gross advertisement revenues received by BBC PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  10. Revenue: Dependent Agent PE Besides soliciting orders, BWIPL also engaged in activities of sales promotion, airtime and sponsorship, identifying new clients and distributors Morgan Stanley - not applicable Functions, Assets and Risk analysis (‘FAR’) is not carried out Wrongly equated the assessment of Indian agent with that of dependent agent PE Presumptive rate of tax Since no different sets of figures of receipts and expenditure - Circular 742 dated May 2, 1996 would be applicable BBC: Reference was drawn to transfer pricing order of the subsequent year wherein the tax authority has accepted the Fair Transfer Price (‘FTP’) on a FAR Analysis BWIPL been remunerated on the basis of a FTP Commission received by BWIPL fully represented the value of the profits attributable to its services - Circular 23 of 1969 BWIPL was remunerated on an arm’s length basis, no further income could be brought to tax Reference to following circulars and judicial precedents: SET Satellite (Singapore) Private Limited (Bom) (307 ITR 205) Morgan Stanley and Company Inc (SC) (292 ITR 416) DIT v Galileo International Inc (180 Taxman 357) BBC – Contentions of the Revenue and Applicant 2/3 PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  11. Tribunal held: The case has direct applicability of: Apex Court in the case of Morgan Stanley Bombay High Court in the case of SET Satellite (Singapore) Rate of 15% is appropriate as also followed by SET Satellite (Singapore) BBC had filed its country-wise accounts for India with the tax authorities and difference arose because of foreign exchange fluctuation Circular 742 would have been applicable only if: BBC is a non-resident foreign telecasting company; BBC does not have a branch office or PE in India and BBC does not maintain country wise accounts of its operations BBC - Ruling of the Delhi ITAT 3/3 If the correct arm’s length price is applied and paid to the agent in India, nothing further would be left to be taxed in the hands of the foreign enterprise PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  12. Aramco – Background 1/3 Saudi Arabia • Facts of the case: • Aramco Overseas Company BV (‘Aramco BV’): • Tax resident of Netherlands • Subsidiary of Saudi Arabian Oil Company • (‘Saudi Aramco’) • Aramco BV to provide the following to Saudi Aramco and group companies: • Supply Chain Management services (SCM) • Technical, financial and administrative support • Aramco BV gets remunerated on cost plus 5% mark up • Proposed venture of Aramco BV • Setup a liaison office in India (‘Aramco India’) to provide similar services to its group companies • Undertake Procurement Support Services (‘PSS’) for the purpose of export of goods required by Saudi Aramco and group companies • Questions before the Tribunal: • Income arising on account of PSS to be rendered by Aramco India, in connection with exports to Saudi Aramco / group companies be taxable in India? Saudi Aramco Export of goods • Agreement for SCM • Cost + 5% mark up Netherlands Aramco BV India Agreement to render PSS Aramco India • Agreement between Saudi Aramco and Aramco BV • Proposal to set up Indian office for assisting with PSS PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  13. Revenue: The fact that the actual export was done by Aramco India does not detract from the position that the goods purchased by the applicant through the support of its regional office were meant to be exported Aramco India mainly facilitated the purchases made by the applicant No direct link as a purchaser of goods nor as an agent of such purchaser Aramco: PSS activities in India: Undertaken by Aramco India for its group companies The activities are directed towards purchase of goods for the purpose of export The income tax law exempts income arising from such activities even if purchaser is any other non-resident Aramco India was to be funded by reimbursements with no profit element thereon Aramco – Contentions of the Revenue and Applicant 2/3 PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  14. Aramco - Ruling of the Delhi ITAT 3/3 • Ruling • Exemption from tax only if: • Operations are confined to purchase of goods in India for the purpose of export • No exemption if the service provider is neither – • the purchaser of goods nor • an agent of such purchaser • Merely by facilitating purchases made by a non-resident does not provide exemption • Applicant was unable to factually substantiate that it rendered the PSS as an agent • Failed to file any documents or give authenticated evidence to support the contention • Applicant’s income does not arise in India from purchase operations but from support services rendered in connection with purchases by third parties • The applicant’s income is based on mark-up allowed on the costs and not on the volume or value of purchases • If purchase operations are not undertaken on ones own account or as an agent of group company, tax liability arises in India PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  15. Has the AAR expanded the scope of PE in Seagate ruling The use of the word ‘occasional delivery’ with reference to the fixed place rule of Article 5(1) Restricted rights, since the warehouse may not be at the disposal of Seagate The conclusive facts The specific demarcation of warehouse space for Disks The restricted rights of entry & inspection of the premises Single vs dual entity approach Takeaway from Seagate ruling? Any inferences from the Aramco ruling? Key discussion points PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  16. Case study: Attribution of profits to an Agency PE PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  17. Relevant facts 1/2 Facts of the case: X is a Singapore based manufacturer X sells its products to customers in India through its selling agent Y Y undertakes the entire sales activity X has no presence in India As per the agency agreement between X and Y, Y acts for the account and at the risk of X in performing marketing, sales and distribution activities in India In return, X pays Y a commission, calculated as a percentage of sales revenue Key questions: What is the appropriate FAR for Y; Is this FAR different from the FAR of the Agency PE that X has in India Applying the principle that arms length remuneration to Y extinguishes further tax liability for X Manufacturing goods X Singapore India Agreement for selling agent Revenue Y Sale of goods Customers Revenue | 17 PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION Impact of Circular No 7 of 2009

  18. FAR Analysis for the Sales function 2/2

  19. Arms length remuneration to Agency PE extinguishes tax liability PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  20. Whether arms length remuneration to Agency PE extinguishes tax liability 1/2 | 20 PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  21. Whether arms length remuneration to Agency PE extinguishes tax liability 2/2 | 21 PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

  22. Tax | 22 PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION PE & PROFIT ATTRIBUTION

More Related