a global-game changer? - assets.kpmg.com a global game-changer? 2018 kpmg, an australian partnership...

A global game-changer?An analysis of the Trump tax reforms

March 2018

KPMG.com.au

http://www.kpmg.com.au

2 A global game-changer?

© 2018 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

The recently legislated tax reforms in the United States of America (U.S.), through the Conference Committee H.R.1 Bill, are a global game changer.

Global macroeconomic modelling by KPMG Economics suggests Australian GDP will be permanently reduced by 0.3% (or $5.1 billion in today’s dollars) in the medium term, equivalent to about 25,500 jobs, as a direct consequence of the U.S. tax reforms. These are likely to be conservative estimates. Depending on how aggressively global firms, in particular U.S. firms, behave given the incentives contained in the legislated tax reforms, there is a real risk that our modelling has under-estimated the amount of capital that would otherwise have come to Australia will now get allocated to economic opportunities elsewhere.

The remainder of this report briefly discusses the nature of the tax reforms enacted in the U.S. on 22 December 2017, the transmission mechanism by which domestic tax reform in the U.S. will impact Australia’s economy, estimates of what that impact will be and when, the incentives that are now in place for global firms as a consequence of these U.S. tax reforms, and how capital flows to Australia could be affected.

Introduction


3A global game-changer?


On 22 December 2017, President Donald Trump signed the H.R.1 Bill, previously known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, into law. The passing of H.R.1 represents the most comprehensive reform to the U.S. tax code in over 30 years and took effect on 1 January 1 2018.

Towards the end of 2017 the Republican Leadership released its “Big Six” tax reform principles in its “Unified Framework on Tax Reform” which outlined the broad areas of policy agreement between the House, Senate and Administration. This was followed by the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee – the chief tax-writing committee in the House of Representatives1 – releasing the proposed tax reform legislation, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in early November 2017, which was then approved by the full House in the middle of the same month and referred to the Senate.

Before this referral the U.S. Senate was also considering the prospect of tax reforms, with its Chairman releasing his own “Chairman’s mark” of proposed tax reform legislation in early November. Following several amendments, the full Senate voted on the bill, and narrowly passed it, 51-49, on 2 December 2017.

The passing of their own versions of the tax reform bill by both the House and the Senate triggered the appointment of a joint conference with representatives (or ‘conferees’) in the first week of December. By mid-December the conference committee approved the report of its agreement on H.R.1, which represented a compromise bill, blending elements of the previously passed House and Senate versions of the bill.

Several days later, on 19 December, the House passed the conference agreement by a vote of 227 to 203, while later that day the Senate

determined that three provisions, including the descriptive title of the bill, being the name “the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act”, violated budget reconciliation rules – known as the Byrd Rules 2 – that were being used to move the legislation through the Senate with fewer than 60 votes.

The three offending provisions were removed, which opened the way for the Senate to pass the legislation by a vote of 51-48. Because the House and the Senate must pass identical versions of legislation before such legislation is transmitted to the President, the Senate version was returned to the House shortly after noon on 20 December, approving it by a vote of 224-201.

President Trump signed the new U.S. tax legislation into law on 21 December 2017.

The global business environment changed that day. Purposefully. And it only took 18 months for it to happen.

Fast Reform

Why are some of the U.S. tax reforms legislated for only 10 years?The Byrd Rule works by limiting the form of legislation that can progress through the U.S Congress under a ‘budget reconciliation’ process, which allows budget-related bills to be passed with a simple majority as opposed to requiring 60 votes from the 100-member Senate.3 The Byrd Rule states reconciliation bills, such as H.R.1, cannot contain ‘extraneous’ provisions, which are defined to include anything that does not relate to federal revenue and expenditure, but also importantly, any measures that add to the U.S. Federal deficit after 10 years. As the House and Senate draft versions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act produced large and increasing annual deficits, including in 2027, the bill was amended by the Senate Finance Committee to introduce a sunsetting of the tax reforms associated with individuals and small business pass-through changes on 31 December 2025. This amendment disabled the triggering of an ‘extraneous provision’ associated with creating a long-term deficit, thereby allowing the Senate to vote under the ‘budget reconciliation’ rules. However, the political reality is that U.S. tax reforms are highly likely to be extended beyond the end of 2025, which means the U.S. deficit is also highly likely to be larger than that forecast by the JCT.

1 https://waysandmeans.house.gov/about/

2 Named after Robert Byrd, a Democratic senator who represented West Virginia for 51 years

3 60 votes are ordinarily required to advance legislation under the Senate’s cloture rules for debate



Individual tax reform

For individual taxpayers in the U.S., reforms have been made tax rates, as well as to deductions and credits. However, many of the changes affecting individual taxpayers have only been legislated through until the end of 2025, after which time the reforms will necessarily revert to their pre-H.R.1 levels unless additional legislation is passed in the future.5

Seven tax brackets have been retained within the tax arrangements for U.S. individuals, but the ‘breakpoints’ for the brackets and the tax rates applied to some brackets have changed. Table

1 and Table 2 below summarise the brackets and rates for the different types of tax filers pre- and post-introduction of the H.R.1 tax reform.

In addition to these bracket and rate changes, the standard deduction has also been increased from $12,700 to $24,000 for joint filers and from $6,350 to $12,000 for individual filers (with annual indexation). At the same time, deductions for personal exemptions have been repealed, while the child tax credit has been enhanced and the phasing out of thresholds has also been substantially increased.

The fiscal impact of these tax reforms has been partially offset by a number of changes to long-standing arrangements, including the capping the home mortgage interest deductions, elimination of deductions for home equity loan interest, and the capping the deduction for state and local taxes at $10,000.

Another major individual taxpayer reform has been a doubling in the amount of exemption (now to $10 million, indexed for inflation) associated with taxes on estates, GST, and gifts, again through to the end of 2025.

Highlights of the H.R.1 Tax Reform Package

The H.R.1 tax reform package contains measures that have been broadly grouped into three categories: individual tax reform, business tax reform and international tax reform. The key reforms in each of these three categories are discussed below. A full explanation of the H.R.1 tax reforms can be found on the KPMG US publication, Conference Agreement for H.R. 1 – Initial Observations.4

Married Filing Joint Married Filing Separate Head of Household Single

Tax Rates If taxable income is Tax Rates If taxable income is Tax Rates If taxable income is Tax Rates If taxable income is

10% $0 - $19,050 10% $0 - $9,525 10% $0 - $13,600 10% $0 - $9,525

15% $19,051 - $77,400 15% $9,526 - $38,700 15% $13,601 - $51,850 15% $9,526 - $38,700

25% $77,401 - $156,150 25% $38,701 - $78,075 25% $51,851 - $133,850 25% $38,701 - $93,700

28% $156,151 - $237,950 28% $78,076 - $118,975 28% $133,851 - $216,700 28% $93,701 - $195,450

33% $237,951 - $424,950 33% $118,976 - $212,475 33% $216,701 - $424,950 33% $195,451 - $424,950

35% $424,951 - $480,050 35% $212,476 - $240,025 35% $424,951 - $453,350 35% $424,951 - $426,700

39.6% $480,051 or more 39.6% $240,026 or more 39.6% $453,351 or more 39.6% $426,701 or more

4 See https://home.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/us/pdf/2017/12/tnf-conference-agreement-dec18-2017.pdf).

5 With the exception of the elements of the Act that (i) repeal the Affordable Care Act’s individual shared responsibility payment, and (ii) the substitution of a new, lower inflation index for individual rate brackets

Table 1: Individual Tax Brackets and Rates by type of Filer, U.S. pre-H.R.1

Source: KPMG US



Business tax reform

The centerpiece of tax reform package is the permanent reduction of the corporate income tax rate in the U.S. from 35% to 21% from 1 January 2018.6

Other major business tax reforms are:

• The (temporary) introduction of expensing as the principal capital cost recovery regime, increasing the first-year “bonus” depreciation deduction to 100% and allowing taxpayers to write off immediately the cost of acquisitions of plant and equipment, including both new and used property. The 100% bonus depreciation rule applies through to 2022, and then phases down over the succeeding five years.

• Non-corporate owners (i.e., owners who are individuals,

trusts, or estates) of certain partnerships, S corporations and sole proprietorships are now able to claim a 20% deduction against qualifying business income. Again, this reform is not permanent, and will expire for tax years beginning in 2026.

To assist in paying for these tax reforms, the H.R.1 also incorporates a number of revenue-raising provisions, including:

• Repealing section 199 domestic manufacturing deduction (beginning in 2018);

• Limiting the deductibility of net business interest expense to 30% of adjusted taxable income. This provision would start with a broader definition of adjusted taxable

income, but would significantly narrow that definition beginning in 2022;

• Limiting the carryover of net operating losses to 80% of taxable income and eliminating the carryback for losses arising in tax years beginning after 2017;

• Narrowing the scope of the rules relating to contributions to capital;

• Modifying the deductibility of business entertainment expenses;

• Providing significant changes for taxation of the insurance industry; and

• Requiring certain research or experimental (R&E) expenditures to be capitalised beginning in 2022.

Table 2: Individual Tax Brackets and Rates by type of Filer, U.S. post-H.R.1

Source: KPMG US

Married Filing Joint Married Filing Separate Head of Household Single

Tax Rates If taxable income is Tax Rates If taxable income is Tax Rates If taxable income is Tax Rates If taxable income is

10% $0 - $19,050 10% $0 - $9,525 10% $0 - $13,600 10% $0 - $9,525

12% $19,051 - $77,400 12% $9,526 - $38,700 12% $13,601 - $51,800 12% $9,526 - $38,700

22% $77,401 - $165,000 22% $38,701 - $82,500 22% $51,801 - $82,500 22% $38,701 - $82,500

24% $165,001 - $315,000 24% $82,501 - $157,500 24% $82,501 - $157,500 24% $82,501 - $157,500

32% $315,001 - $400,000 32% $157,501 - $200,000 32% $157,501 - $200,000 32% $157,501 - $200,000

35% $400,001 - $600,000 35% $200,001 - $300,000 35% $200,001 - $500,000 35% $200,001 - $500,000

37% $600,001 or more 37% $300,001 or more 37% $500,001 or more 37% $500,001 or more

6 Special rules would provide fiscal-year filers with a blended tax rate for their tax year straddling January 1, 2018


International tax reform

H.R.1 makes make fundamental changes to how the U.S. taxes multinational entities.

Broadly, the U.S. tax reform has shifted its approach with dealing multinational companies from one of worldwide taxation with deferral to a participation exemption regime with current taxation of certain foreign income.

It does this by adopting a number of key measures, being:

• A 100% deduction for dividends received from 10%-owned foreign corporations;

• A minimum tax on “global intangible low-taxed income” (GILTI);

• The establishment of an additional deduction for foreign derived intangible income (FDII), which in effect gives rise to a standard 21% company tax rate on a fixed 10% return on U.S. depreciable assets, and an effective tax rate of 13.125% on any excess return that is attributable to the export of goods and services;

• The deemed repatriation of previously untaxed ‘old earnings’7 at a 15.5% and 8.0% tax rate on

earnings attributable to ‘liquid assets’ and ‘illiquid assets’ respectively; and

• The introduction of a ‘Base Erosion Anti-Abuse Tax’ (‘BEAT’) for tax years beginning after 31 December 2017. This new tax imposes a minimum tax on certain deductible payments made to a foreign affiliate, including payments such as royalties and management fees, (revised treatment of) hybrids, a new special deduction for certain foreign-derived intangible income, and rules for outbound transfers of intangibles, but excluding cost of goods sold.

7 In June 2017 McKinsey estimated the amount of untaxed profits of U.S. companies that are sitting as offshore cash reserves are in the range of $1.5 trillion to $2.5 trillion (depending on whether banks and other financial institutions are included).




The Congress of the United States Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) has estimated H.R.1 will reduce tax revenues over the 10 years from 2018 to 2027 by nearly US $1.5 trillion, of which reforms to individual income taxation and business income taxation will cost about US$1.1 trillion and US$650 billion respectively, while reforms to international tax will generate additional tax revenue of more than US$320 billion. The budget revenue effects of H.R.1 by major individual reforms are presented in Table 3.

Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Tax Reforms on the U.S. Economy

Individual Tax Reform 2018-2022 2018-2027

Change of rates and brackets -668.7 -1,214.2

Standard deductions -402.6 -720..4

Repeal of deduction for personal exemptions 670.1 1,211.5

20% deduction for qualified business income -229.5 -414.5

Child tax credit -308.1 -573.4

Repeal of itemized deductions, interest on mortgage debt, etc 345.3 668.4

Increase Individual AMT Exemption Amounts and Phase-out thresholds -314.7 -637.1

Other 164.2 -167.3

Sub-total – Individual tax reform -744.0 -1,126.6

Business Tax Reform

21% Corporate Tax Rate -620.8 -1,348.5

Extension, expansion and phase down of bonus depreciation -119.4 -86.3

Limit of net interest deductions to 30% of adjusted taxable income 90.2 253.4

Modification of net operating loss deduction 68.5 201.1

Other 63.3 326.5

Sub-total – Business tax reform -518.2 -653.8

International Tax Reform

Participation Exemption Scheme deduction for dividends received -107.2 -223.6

Transition tax revenue from participation in exemption system 176.0 338.8

GILTI 48.6 112.4

BEAT 51.7 149.6

Other 19.1 -52.8

Sub-total – International tax Reform 188.2 324.4

Net Total -1,074.0 -1,456.0

Source: Joint Committee on Taxation, JCX-67-17, 18 December 2017

Table 3: Estimated Budget Effects of the Conference Agreement for H.R.1 (US$ Billions)



Various public and private sector organisations have analysed the macroeconomic effects of the H.R.1 tax reforms, including the JCT8, the Tax Foundation9 and the Tax Policy Center10. Each of these have applied different analytical frameworks and models to assess the aggregate impacts of the tax reforms, which makes it challenging to compare and contrast the findings of each organisation. However, the estimates of the impact of the H.R.1 tax reforms on U.S. GDP range from +0.4% to +2.8% by the end of 2027. That is, the level of U.S. GDP in 2027 has been estimated to be 0.4% to 2.8% higher than otherwise would have been the case if not for the H.R.1 tax reform.

The U.S. capital stock is expected to be between 1% and 5% higher as a

consequence of the H.R.1 reforms, primarily because of the lower corporate tax rate, bonus depreciation, and the deductibility of certain pass-through business income. Domestic business investment would also be boosted indirectly from the H.R.1 reforms, since the after-tax cost of capital in the US will decline because of the lower corporate tax rate. However, this business investment activity could be even further boosted if the untaxed profits sitting as offshore cash reserves are brought onshore after the introduction of deemed repatriation provisions contained within H.R.1. This could amount to at least $1.25 trillion11 of extraordinary investment funds available to finance new capital and businesses within the U.S.12

Further, employment is expected to be between 0.3% and 0.6% higher than the base case, driven by new investment activity and the reallocation by labour of work over leisure time (as a consequence of lower marginal tax rates). Higher aggregate employment and increased wages result in greater consumption activity; anticipated to be about 0.7% higher than the base case.

The JCT recognises that the international tax reforms are going to change the playing field for multinational corporations by creating incentives to locate economic activity in the U.S. Specifically, the JCT economic modelling includes additional domestic investment activity due to the H.R.1 reforms involving taxation of foreign source income of U.S. multinationals.

8 https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5055

9 https://files.taxfoundation.org/20171220113959/TaxFoundation-SR241-TCJA-3.pdf

10 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/comparing-estimates-macroeconomic-effects-tax-policy-growth-rates-vs-levels

11 Estimated to be $1.5 trillion less $232.5 billion

12 This assumes the offshore cash reserves do not represent normal cash holdings for a company, but rather reflect unspent funds that have not been allocated for investment purposes because of the previous company tax arrangements in the U.S.



The tax reforms contained within H.R.1 have been described by President Trump and the GOP as being ‘pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-worker, and pro-American’.13 As discussed above, while the magnitude of the estimated economic stimulus differs between organisations that have evaluated its macroeconomic consequences, the analysis completed by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Tax Policy Center and the Tax Foundation all conclude the net impact is positive to the U.S. economy and living standards.

But do these tax reforms help raise the global tide such that all countries lift with it; or do these tax reforms lift the U.S. to the detriment of other countries, and in particular what are the consequences for Australia?

KPMG Economics in Australia has analysed the H.R.1 tax reforms using KPMG’s Global Macroeconomic Model (GMM). From a technical perspective our GMM has been configured so that economic agents are assumed to form model-consistent expectations on the future values of wages, exchange rates, interest rates and equity prices; while it also incorporates explicit fiscal rules designed to ensure that government debt stabilises at sustainable levels. This means over the medium term the direct tax rate on household income adjusts endogenously to maintain fiscal solvency.

One of the key impacts of the H.R.1 tax reforms is an increase in the level of U.S. government debt14, which causes short and long bond rate yields to increase relative to the base case, making U.S. government securities relatively more attractive to global investors, which results in the demand for U.S. dollars rising and the U.S. currency appreciating.

These financial market effects act as a mechanism by which the domestic U.S. H.R.1 tax reforms are transmitted through to other countries. That is, the corollary of the appreciation in the U.S. dollar is a corresponding depreciation in the Australian dollar (AUD), which makes the cost of imported goods and services relatively higher in Australia. Domestic inflation jumps initially with the exchange rate shock, and settles marginally higher compared to the base case, inducing a monetary policy

response of higher interest rates, ‘crowding out’ investment activity as a consequence.

The depreciation in the exchange rate lifts demand for Australian exports after an initial period of adjustment. However, over the medium term U.S. import demand falls as foreign goods and services are substituted by domestically produced goods and services that have expanded as a result of the new investment activity that was stimulated as a direct consequence of the H.R.1 tax reforms. Australia’s export activity follows that of the rest of the world and eventually dips below the base case levels and stays there into the medium term.

Flow-through Impacts on Australia

13 See https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/pro-growth-pro-jobs-pro-worker-pro-family-pro-america/

14 The JCT notes in X-69-17 ‘interest rates begin to rise as Federal debt increases due to the proposal’ (p.5) and ‘the increase in debt created during the budget period is expected to continue to exert some upward pressure on interest rates [in the second decade]’ (p.8)



Lower investment activity and reduced medium term export activity puts downward pressure on wages growth, and while still nominally positive, the ‘imported’ inflation (from higher prices of foreign goods and services) has the effect of reducing the real wage in Australia. Declining real wages and higher import prices cause consumers to reduce their spending, which further weakens economic activity in Australia. The net effect of these impacts is a reduction in Australia’s GDP by about

0.3%, or $5.1 billion in today’s dollars, in the medium term (equivalent to about 25,500 jobs) after experiencing a slightly stimulatory effect in earlier years owing to higher export demand.

Chart 1 presents the key components of Australian GDP and how they are anticipated to change as a consequence of the introduction of the H.R.1 tax reforms in the U.S.

This fall of 0.3% in Australia’s GDP might not sound like much, but to put

it in context, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research15 in London has recently analysed the potential impact of a scenario where the European Central Bank (ECB) looks to reduce its debt built up from its €2 trillion program of quantitative easing. On the basis that the ECB reduces its balance sheet by half, or €1 trillion, NIESR has estimated GDP for the Euro Area would be lower by 0.3% two years after the announcement of any quantitative tightening program.

15 National Institute Economic Review No, 243, February 2018



The Global Investment Landscape Has Changed

The Joint Committee of Taxation identified in its assessment of the H.R.1 tax reform package that ‘the macroeconomic estimate projects an increase in investment in the United States, both as a result of the proposals directly affecting taxation of foreign source income of U.S. multi-national corporations, and from the reduction in the after-tax cost of capital in the United States due to more general reductions in taxes on business income’ and ‘the permanent reduction in the corporate income tax rate continues to provide an incentive for maintenance of a higher capital stock (relative to baseline levels)’.

In other words, the H.R.1 tax reforms make investing in the U.S. comparatively more attractive than under the old tax regime, and as a consequence investors have an incentive to direct their locationally free capital into the U.S. rather than other countries.

For example,

• the one-time transitional tax arrangements are intended to deter inversions16, thereby, at minimum, maintaining the corporate taxpayer base in the US or, at best, increasing it;

• the GILTI provisions are intended to drive ownership of intangible property to the U.S., which would have the effect of lifting corporate tax revenues in the U.S.;

• the foreign derived intangible income (FDII) provisions create the incentive for sales of goods and services to foreign countries, thereby encouraging U.S. firms to increase their participation within

the global marketplace. The FDII also creates the incentive for any sales of U.S. produced goods and services to be transacted from the U.S. head office rather than through a subsidiary of the U.S. company operating in a second country; and

• the BEAT provisions incentivise foreign multinationals to headquarter their operations and domicile their intellectual property assets in the U.S.

And with up to at least $1.2 trillion of ‘cash’ available for immediate investment that has been parked offshore by U.S. corporates, there is the potential for significantly higher domestic investment activity in the U.S. than has previously been forecast under the former tax regime.

These H.R.1 reforms are game changers and the rest of the world has realised it. In the middle of December 2017, just as it was becoming apparent that the H.R.1 tax reforms were looking likely to pass, the finance ministers of France, Germany, Italy,

Spain and the UK sent a letter to the US treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, saying that the proposed reforms were ‘at odds’ with free-trade international rules as they were discriminatory against foreign companies. The letter also highlighted that some of the reform measures of H.R.1 would ‘contravene’ the rules of the World Trade Organization’s principles, create double taxation, and be distortive with regard to international trade (Financial Times, 12 December 2017).

For Australia the biggest impact will not be the exchange rate adjustment, or the interest rate effect, or even the impact on exports. Rather, the biggest impact is likely to come from whether the company and international tax changes in the U.S. will choke off foreign direct investment into Australia from U.S. investors; or even potentially from non-U.S. foreign investors who may now divert their capital to the U.S. that otherwise might have come to Australia.

16 Tax inversion, or corporate inversion, is the practice of relocating a corporation’s legal domicile to a lower-tax nation, or tax haven, usually while retaining its material operations in its higher-tax country of origin

KPMG.com.au

The information contained in this document is of a general nature and is not intended to address the objectives, financial situation or needs of any particular individual or entity. It is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute, nor should it be regarded in any manner whatsoever, as advice and is not intended to influence a person in making a decision, including, if applicable, in relation to any financial product or an interest in a financial product. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.

To the extent permissible by law, KPMG and its associated entities shall not be liable for any errors, omissions, defects or misrepresentations in the information or for any loss or damage suffered by persons who use or rely on such information (including for reasons of negligence, negligent misstatement or otherwise).

© 2018 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

March 2018. N16402DTL

Australia has relied on the U.S. as a source of debt and equity for decades. The U.S. is the single largest foreign investor in Australia; investing about one and a half times more than investors from the UK, and nearly 10 times more than investors from China. As a small, open economy that relies on the world to supplement our own savings for investment, if global capital decides Australia is no longer as attractive as the U.S. as an investment destination, solely because of more competitive company and international tax regimes, then the negative economic impacts modelled above are likely to be understated.

As KPMG has said before, and this analysis reinforces it, company tax matters. It influences whether a company – particularly a foreign

company – invests in one country or another; which in turn creates jobs and grows wages for our workforce and generates additional tax revenues for the government. Politicians and economists the world over argue about the size and timing of new investment created through a more competitive corporate tax environment, including some suggesting that it only matters at the margin. However, our analysis has shown that, in the global economy where every country is chasing a finite amount of new investment dollars, even the margin matters.

While Australia has been arguing about the merits or otherwise about tax reform, the U.S. has implemented its own. And quickly. And the global business environment has now changed dramatically as a result.

Brendan RynnePartner, Chief EconomistKPMG AustraliaT: +61 3 9288 5780 E: [email protected]

Grant Wardell-JohnsonPartner, Economics and Tax CentreKPMG AustraliaT: +61 2 9335 7128 E: [email protected]

http://www.kpmg.com.au

mailto:gwardelljohn%40kpmg.com.au?subject=

https://www.linkedin.com/company/kpmg-australia

https://www.facebook.com/KPMGAustralia/

https://twitter.com/kpmgaustralia

https://www.youtube.com/user/kpmgaustralia

http://www.instagram.com/kpmgaustralia

a global-game changer? - assets.kpmg.com a global game-changer? 2018 kpmg, an australian partnership...

Documents