article 7 - attribution of business profits
Post on 13-Feb-2016
73 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1
Article 7 - Attribution of business profits
Presenters : CA Sanjiv Chaudhary
CA Nidhi Maheshwari
24 May 2013
2
The Journey Ahead……
3
Backdrop- Why Attribution?...
• Residence Country – generally taxation of global profits
• Right of source country to tax profits of foreign enterprise operating in its jurisdiction – when Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) exists i.e. Source Based Taxation
- Only those profits which are attributable to PE in the source country
Attribution of profits – the next biggest controversy
4
Attribution of business profits of foreign enterprises- Governing Provisions
Under Income Tax Act and Rules (‘Domestic Law’):
– Section 9(1)(i) of the Act read with Rule10
Under Tax Treaty:
– Article 7 of Tax Treaties read with the provisions of the Act
Beneficial provisions of the Act or the Tax Treaty can be applied
5
Attribution under the Act
6
Attribution of profits under the Act (1/2)
Section 9(1)(i) of the Act:
“The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India:-
all income accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India, or through or from any property in India, or through or from any asset or source of income in India, or through the transfer of a capital asset situate in India.”
Explanation 1(a) to section 9(1)(i) of the Act:
“In the case of a business of which all the operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only such part of the income as is reasonably attributable to the operations carried out in India”
7
Attribution of profits under the Act (2/2)
• Rule 10 of the Income-tax Rules:
In any case in which the Assessing Officer is of opinion that the actual amount of the income accruing or arising to any non-resident person whether directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India …………………………………… cannot be definitely ascertained, the amount of such income for the purposes of assessment to income-tax may be calculated :
(i) at such percentage of the turnover so accruing or arising as the Assessing Officer may consider to be reasonable, or
(ii) on any amount which bears the same proportion to the total profits and gains of the business of such person (such profits and gains being computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act), as the receipts so accruing or arising bear to the total receipts of the business, or
(iii) in such other manner as the Assessing Officer may deem suitable.”
8
Rule 10(i) - Presumptive Method
- Income computed at such percentage of the turnover as the AO may consider reasonable- Ad hoc profits are estimated as attributable to the operations in India
Rule 10(ii) - Proportionate Method
- Profits computed in ratio of India receipts to total receipts of the business- Proportionate profits based on worldwide income is attributed to the operations in India- Difficult method as worldwide income of the enterprise is to be computed under the Act
before applying proportionate method- In case of different businesses, relevant business income needs to be considered
Rule 10(iii) - Discretionary Method
- Such method as is deemed fit by tax authorities – AO may devise any mechanism on facts and circumstances of the case.
Methods prescribed under Rule 10
9
• CBDT Circular No. 23 dated 23 July 1969 – Now withdrawn
Non-Resident selling goods from outside India to Indian customers on principal-to-principal basis through Agents in India
– If the agent’s commission fully represents the value of the profit attributable to his service; it should prima facie extinguish the assessment.
– This principle is now well established including by Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley
Relevant CBDT Circulars (1/2)
10
• CBDT Circular No. 5 dated 28 September 2004 – relevant extracts are reproduced below:
“Paragraph 2 contains the central directive on which the allocation of profits to a Permanent Establishment is intended to be based. The paragraph incorporates the view that the profits to be attributed to a Permanent Establishment are those which that Permanent Establishment would have made if, instead of dealing with its Head Office, it had been dealing with an entirely separate enterprise under conditions and at prices prevailing in the ordinary market. This corresponds to the “arm’s length principle”. Paragraph 3 only provides a rule applicable for the determination of the profits of the Permanent Establishment, while paragraph 2 requires that the profits so determined correspond to the profit that a separate and independent enterprise would have made. Hence, in determining the profits attributable to an IT-enabled BPO unit constituting a Permanent Establishment, it will be necessary to determine the price of the services rendered by the Permanent Establishment to the Head office or by the Head office to the Permanent Establishment on the basis of “arm’s length principle”.
Relevant CBDT Circulars (2/2 )
11
Indian scenario: Some key judicial precedents (1/2)
Ad hoc Attribution – A few instances• Taxability of trading profits where sale is concluded in India
- 10% of supply – Annamalis Timber 41 ITR 781 (Madras HC)
• Taxability of offshore supplies where PE played some role- 20% of global profits – NETWORKS, OY : 96 TTJ 1 (Delhi ITAT, SB)
• Taxability of offshore supplies where PE was involved in marketing activities- 35% of the global profits (50% manufacturing, 15% R&D) – Rolls Royce (Delhi HC)
• Taxability of CRS activities where agency PE played marketing activities- 15% of the total revenues - Galileo International Inc : 114 TTJ 289 (Del. ITAT)
• Taxability of back office operations where PE looks after operations and marketing activities of overseas affiliates- Global adjusted profits x India assets/Global assets : eFunds 42 SOT 165 (Delhi ITAT)
12
Indian scenario: Some key judicial precedents (2/2)
Principles of Attribution - Legal Position
• Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co (1950) SCR 335
- Profit apportionment on the basis of business activities, manufacturing profits taxable in the jurisdiction where manufacturing takes place
• Morgan Stanley (292 ITR 416) (SC)
- Profits attribution to PE based on functions assets and risks analysis
• Rolls Royce Singapore Pvt Ltd (ITA No 1278/2010) dt August 30, 2011
- TP principles should be applied to determine profits attributable to PE
• Hyundai Heavy Industries : 291 ITR 482 (SC)
- Even if supply is considered to be integral part of installation, supply is not attributable to PE because it is at arm’s length; Direct billing to customer represents arm’s length
• Instruction No. 5 of 2009 (withdrawing Instruction 1829), Para 4
13
Attribution under Tax Treaties
14
Enterprise
Residence State Source State
Art 5: Constitution of
PE
Framework of OECD Model - Article 7
Article 7(1) - Charging provision
Article 7(2) - Basis of profit attribution
Article 7(3) - Elimination of double taxation
Article 7(4) - Limitation
15
Article 7(1) - Scope of taxation
Article 7(1): The profits of an enterprise of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein. If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the profits that are attributable to the permanent establishment in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 may be taxed in that other State.
Key aspects:•PE test for each source of income
•No guidance on how to interpret the term ‘profits of an enterprise’
•Existence of PE must for attribution
•Business should be carried on
- Preparatory activities do not trigger attribution
•Only profits attributable to such PE is taxable in the source country
•Applicability of Minimum Alternate Tax
16
Force of Attraction Rule
17
The profits of an enterprise of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein. If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other State but only so much of them as is attributable to (a)that permanent establishment; (b)sales in that other State of goods or merchandise of the same or similar kind as those sold through that permanent establishment; or(c)other business activities carried on in that other State of the same or similar kind as those effected through that permanent establishment
Force of Attraction Rule – UN MC
‘Force of attraction’ rule not present in OECD Model Convention
Does exist in the US Model Convention
18
Force of Attraction Rule
International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation - International Tax Glossary
“Principle under which a country may tax a foreign enterprise in respect of income it derives in that country if the enterprise maintains a permanent establishment there, irrespective of whether that income is derived through or otherwise economically connection with the permanent establishment……”
Different kinds of Force of Attraction in context of DTAA’s entered by IndiaType 1:
- Once activities are same / similar - Without specific requirement of role by PE
Type 2:- Business reasons for not routing the direct business of HO through PE- Tax avoidance motive need to be established
Comparision vis a vis explanation to section 9(1)(i) – Whether treaty can create a charge.
19
Force of Attraction…
Examples Type 1:
Article 7(1) of India USA DTAA
“The profits of an enterprise of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein. If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other State but only so much of them as is attributable to (a) that permanent establishment ; (b) sales in the other State of goods or merchandise of the same or similar kind as those sold through that permanent establishment ; or (c) other business activities carried on in the other State of the same or similar kind as those effected through that permanent establishment.”
Some other countries having similar Force of Attraction rule.
Cyprus Denmark Indonesia New Zealand Italy
20
‘Directly and indirectly’ - Whether connotes ‘force of attraction’ rule?
Article7(1) states that profit “directly or indirectly” attributable to the PE….. Taxable…
•Protocol to Article 7 clarifies, as under:“………….,it is understood the words directly or indirectly mean, ………….,
that where a permanent establishment takes an active part in negotiating, concluding or fulfilling contracts entered into by the enterprise, then, ………………………, there shall be attributed to the permanent establishment that proportion of ………………… contribution of the permanent establishment to those transactions bears to that of the enterprise as a whole. It is also understood that profits shall be regarded as attributable to the permanent establishment to the above mentioned extent, even when the contracts in question are made directly with the head office of the enterprise ………………
Examples: Type 2
21
Force of Attraction Rule - Motive of Tax Avoidance
Article7(1) as per UN Model Convention• With an additional para, as under:
“The provisions of sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) above shall not apply if the enterprise proves that such sale or activity could not have been reasonably undertaken by the permanent establishment.” or
“may be considered attributable to that permanent establishment if it is proved that: (i) this transaction has been resorted to in order to avoid taxation in the Contracting State where the permanent establishment is situated, and (ii) the permanent establishment in anyway was involved in this transaction.”
22
Force of Attraction under the ITA? (1/2)
Income tax Act
Provisions of section 5(1) and 5(2) provides that income is taxable in India if it is received in India or deemed to be received in India or accrues or arises in India or is deemed to accrue or arise in India
Section 9 covers income which is deemed to accrue or arise in India
23
Force of Attraction under the ITA (2/2)
“9(1) The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India:
All income accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from business connection in India, or through or from any property in India, or through or from any asset or source of income in India, or through the transfer of a capital asset situated in India.
[Explanation 1]. For the purposes of this clause
(a) In the case of a business of which all the operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only such part of the income as is reasonably attributable to the operations carried out in India; …”
Arguably, no force of attraction under the ITA – Do ‘force of attraction’ rules under the Indian tax treaties become meaningless?
24
Example: Attribution of Profit – Force of Attraction
Outside India
PE sells garments manufactured by HO
HO
Customers in India
Customers in India
Direct sale of garments by HO in India
Sale of pharmaceuticals in India
Type 1 Force of Attraction
In India
PE
25
Example: Attribution of Profit – Force of Attraction
Outside India
Negotiation and conclusion of sale of garments manufactured by HO
HO
Customers in India
Customers in India
Negotiating sale of pharmaceuticals in India
Conclusion of sale of pharmaceuticals
Type 2 Force of Attraction
In India
PE
26
Similar Goods – Examples
Commercially
interchangeabl
e and under the
same brand
name
Sellin
g D
eskt
op
Selling
Laptop
Similar
27
Similar Business activities – Examples
Characteristic
and use are
similarProv
idin
g AM
C
Serv
ices
Providing
system
installation
services
Not Similar
28
Article 7(2): Approaches to determine profit
• Approaches to determine profit:
- relevant business activity; or
- functionally separate entity.
• Recommended approach – OECD report suggest functionally separate entity approach as preferable
• Profit should be determined by applying the arm’s length principle – OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines could be applied
29
Article 7(2)
Independent entity approach
For the purposes of this Article and Article [23A] [23B], the profits that are attributable in each Contracting State to the permanent establishment referred to in paragraph 1 are the profits it might be expected to make, in particular in its dealings with other parts of the enterprise, if it were a separate and independent enterprise engaged in the same or similar activities under the same or similar conditions, taking into account the functions performed, assets used and risks assumed by the enterprise through the permanent establishment and through the permanent establishment and through the other parts of the enterprise
30
Authorized OECD Approach: An outline
Determiningthe profits
of a PE
Functional / factual analysis
to determine the Activities
and conditions of the PE
Step1: Hypothesising the PE as a distinct
and separate enterprise
Functions performed
Assets used
Risk assumed
Capital and funding
Recognition of dealings
Step 2: determining the
profits of the PE
Comparability analysis
Applying transfer pricing
methods to attribute profits
31
Single v/s Two taxpayer approach - Meaning
Two tax payer approach mooted
32
Article 7(3) - Provisions
Where, in accordance with paragraph 2, a Contracting State adjusts the profits that are attributable to a permanent establishment of an enterprise of one of the Contracting States and taxes accordingly profits of the enterprise that have been charged to tax in the other State, the other State shall, to the extent necessary to eliminate double taxation on theses profits, make an appropriate adjustment, the competent authorities of the Contracting states shall if necessary consult each other
33
Article 7(4) - Provisions
Where profits include items of income which are dealt with separately in other Articles of this Convention, then the provisions of those Articles shall not be affected by the provisions of this Article
34
Effective Connection Vs Attribution
Article 12(3) of the OECD Model Convention:
“The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply if the beneficial owner of the royalties, being a resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in the other Contracting State in which the royalties arise through a permanent establishment situated therein and the right or property in respect of which the royalties are paid is effectively connected with such permanent establishment. In such case the provisions of Article 7 shall apply.
Bechtel (AAR) ( 228 ITR 487)
Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. Vs DIT (SC) (288 ITR 408)
Worley parsons services Pty. Ltd. (AAR ) (313 ITR 273 )
Specific Article vs. Attribution to PE
35
Relevant extracts - Worley Parsons Services Pty. Ltd. In re. AAR ruling:
“…the prerequisite for attracting the exclusion clause is that "the services in respect of which the royalties are paid are effectively connected with the PE". It must be noted that the effective connection should be between the royalty generating services and the PE. The expression 'services' is significant and should be given due weight. It is not enough that there is a PE of the non-resident in the source country carrying out some activities in connection with the project or the work. The PE may be effectively connected with the project and the contract from a broader perspective but the connection contemplated by para 4 of art. XII is in respect of the services that fall within the purview of royalty. The PE or fixed base set up in the source country should be engaged in the performance of royalty generating services, irrespective of what other activities it performs. At least, it should facilitate the performance of such services. The terminology 'effective connection' denotes a real and intimate connection. Clear co-relation between the services which give rise to royalty income and the PE is a key factor for the purpose of exclusion of paras 1 and 2 of art. XII.
Specific Article vs. Attribution to PE
36
Basic construct of India Tax Treaties
Article Key ProvisionsArt 7(1)
Basic Rule • Income Attributable to PE • Force of Attraction Rule (if any) or Indirect attribution
Art 7(2) Computation Hypothesis
As if PE is • a distinct and independent enterprise • engaged in same or similar activities • under same or similar conditions
Art 7(3) Expense Deduction
• Actual Expense incurred, incl. reasonable allocation of General & Admin Overheads
• Whether in source state or in HO state• Subject to domestic law• No deduction for HO payment (except reimbursement of actual
expenses)
Others (varies from Treaty to Treaty)
• Applying Apportionment method in case of difficulty (reasonable) • Methodology applied consistently Y-on-Y• Exception (Purchase activity)
37
Computation of Profits Attributable to PE
38
Article 7(3) of Indian DTAA’sPrinciples of computation of Income of PE• In determining profits of a PE
– Deduction shall be allowed for expenses (including executive & general administrative)
– Incurred for the PE
– Incurred in or outside the source country
– In accordance with and subject to limitations of domestic law
• No deduction – amount paid by PE to the HO or to any other offices of the enterprise, except reimbursement of actual expenses
– For use of patents or other rights in the form of royalties, fees or other similar payments
– For specific services performed or for management in the form of commission
– For money lent in the form of interest (exception for banking enterprises as explained by CBDT Circular 740)
• Similarly, income received by PE from HO for aforesaid purposes shall be ignored
39
Computation of profits attributable to PE under the Act
• Attribution of income to the extent of operations / activities carried in trade
• Nothing attributable if activities are preparatory or auxiliary in nature e.g. purchasing of goods
• No specific mechanism provided for attribution of profits–Transfer pricing rules can be applied–Rule 10 of the Income-tax Rules can be applied
Function / Asset / Risk analysis imperative to determine profit attribution – Morgan Stanley
40
Computation of profits attributable to PE under the Act
Rule 10 – Method of Attribution under the Act:• Determination of actual profits if it can be ascertained
• Methods prescribed in Rule 10 are not accurate methods
– These involve estimation and subjectivity
– Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT, 103 ITR 548 (SC)
• Can be followed only when the AO is of the opinion that profits cannot be definitely ascertained
– Rule is last in priority list and is to be applied in exceptional situations
Rule 10(i) - Presumptive Method• Adhoc profits is estimated as attributable to the PE
41
Computation of profits attributable to PE under the Act
Rule 10(ii) - Proportionate Method– Proportionate profits based on world income is attributed to the PE
– Difficult method as World income of the enterprise is to be computed under the ITA before applying proportionate method
– In case of different businesses relevant business income be considered
Rule 10(iii) - Discretionary Method– Attribution in some other method
42
Computation of profits attributable to PE under the Act
Specific provisions for computing profits:– All provisions applicable as is applicable to resident
enterprise for e.g. section 32, 40(a), 43B, etc,.– Section 44C – Branch– Section 44D and 44DA – Taxability of royalties and FTS – Section 115JB – MAT provisions
43
Computation of profits attributable to PE under the Act
Presumptive basis of taxation– Income is computed on presumptive basis
– Provisions of sections 28 to 44 not applied
– Applied in case of specific types businesses/assesses
– It is not in line with the principles laid down in Article 7(2)
Examples– Shipping business (u/s 44B) - 7.5% of gross revenue
– Business of Exploration (u/s 44BB) - 10% of gross revenue
– Business of Aircraft (u/s 44BBA) - 5% of gross revenue
– Turnkey Power Projects (u/s 44BBB) - 10% of gross revenue
44
Example: Attribution of Profit – Fixed place PE
SalesLess: Expenses incurred-Cost of garments imported (to be on arm’s length basis based on FAR)-Personnel cost of branch employees-Rent of branch office premises-General administrative expenses of HO – Rs. 20,000 (10% allocable to PE)-Depreciation on branch assets-Royalty on intangible assets (assuming economic ownership rests with HO)Total expensesProfit attributable to PE
Rs. 1,00,000 Rs. 70,000 Rs. 3,000 Rs. 5,000 Rs. 2,000 Rs. 2,000 Rs. 3,000 Rs. 85,000 Rs. 15,000
US
India
PE sells garments manufactured by F Co.
F Co.
Customers in IndiaBranch
Profit & Loss A/c of Branch as a PE of F Co. for India tax purpose:
45
Example: Attribution of Profit – Service PE
US
IndiaOnshore Activities
F Co.
Customers in India
Total man days spent on job Offshore man days Onshore man daysProject revenue Revenue attributable to India (PE only on account of onshore)Less: Expenses incurred -Personnel cost-Depreciation on India assets (Assuming all assets acquired from India)-Royalty for know-howTotal costProfit taxable in India
1000 mandays 600 mandays 400 mandays Rs.1,000,000 Rs. 400,000
Rs. 75,000 Rs. 75,000 Rs. 100,000 Rs. 250,000 Rs. 150,000
Ren
derin
g of
lega
l se
rvic
es
Offshore Activities
Service PE
46
Example: Attribution of Profit – Agency PE …
SalesLess: Cost of goods paid to F Co. (Based on FAR / TNMM)
Less: Commission @ 20% of sales (agent sufficiently remunerated)Profit attributable to PE
Rs. 100,000Rs. 80,000Rs. 20,000Rs. 20,000NIL
Dependent Agent
US
India
F Co.
Customers in India
Sup
ply
of g
arm
ents
to
agen
t
Pay
men
t of c
omm
issi
on
Sale of garments to final customer
Credit / Inventory risk by HO
47
APA route for Permanent Establishment
As per the recently issued APA Guidance with FAQs by the income-tax department, APA application may be possible in case the applicant admits PE in India (FAQ no. 23)
48
Landmark Judgements
49
Morgan Stanley and Co – SC Ruling
Supreme Court of India Facts
Activities outsourced by MS Co. to Indian group entity MSAS:
- Equity / fixed income research
- Account reconciliation;
- IT enabled services, etc
MS Co. staff visited India for monitoring/quality control (stewardship)
MS Co. staff deputed to MSAS- MSAS reimburses salary cost to MS
Co.
- Employees deputed continue to be employed with MS Co., which pays salary to the deputees outside India
MS Co.
MSAS
India
USA
Activities Outsourced
Remunerated at arms
length price
50
ProfitAttribution
NO
PE definition under Section 92F(iii) of the IT Act is inclusive so as cover various types of PE under DTAA such as Service PE, Agency PE, Construction PE, etc.
Profits of PE determined based on what an independent enterprise under similar circumstances might be expected to derive
Profits of MS Co. which have economic nexus with PE attributable
AE that constitutes PE and is remunerated on arms length basis taking into account all risk taking functions of the multinational enterprise – no further attribution
If TP analysis does not adequately reflect functions performed / risks assumed by the enterprise – there would be need to attribute profits for those functions / risks
Ruling:
Morgan Stanley and Co – SC Ruling
Service PE was Upheld
51
Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT 158 Taxman 259 (SC)• All income of turnkey projects not assessable in India merely due to PE• Only part of income attributable to the operations carried out in India by
PE taxable• Offshore supply not taxable if property in goods passed outside India• The fact that the contract signed in India is not material• If services have been rendered outside India and have nothing to do
with the PE then they cannot be attributable to the PE• Offshore services – sufficient territorial nexus – apart from utilization in
India, need to be rendered I India or have a live link to fall within Article 12 of the DTAA (This resulted in insertion of an Explanation to Section 9(1) by FA 2007 w.r.e.f. 1.6.1976)
• In Jindal Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v DCIT (2009) 182 Taxman 252 (Kar), the Court has held that criteria of rendering services in India as laid down by the Supreme Court has not been done away by the Explanation
52
Galileo International Inc – Delhi HC
Airlines
Galileo Inc.
Travel Agent TA
Distributor
Telecom Service Provider
Payment Payment
Does not charge fees
Does not charge fees
Does not charge fees
Services of Distributor
Provides support services and Equipments
Fees
approaches
Passengers
Payment
Lines &
Nodes
Line
s &
N
odes
INDIA
Server
USA
53
Ruling:
Profit Attribution YES
“…On the basis of such analysis of functions performed, assets used and risk shared in two different countries, the income can be attributed. In the present case, we have found that majority of the assets i.e., host computer which is having very large capacity which processes information of all the participants is situated outside India. The CRS as a whole is developed and maintained outside India. The risk in this regard entirely rests with the appellant and that is in USA, outside India. However, it is equally important to note that but for the presence of the assessee in India and the configuration and connectivity being provided in India, the income would not have generated. Thus the initial cause of generation of Income is in India also. On the basis of above facts we can reasonably attribute 15 per cent of the revenue accruing to the assessee in respect of bookings made in India as income accruing or arising in India and chargeable under section 5(2) read with section 9(1)(i) of the Act.”
Galileo International Inc – Delhi HC
Fixed and Agency PE was Upheld
54
Ruling:
Profit Attribution YES
“…since the revenue attributable in respect of the booking made in India is only 0.45 Euro (15 per cent of Euro 3) and commission paid to Interglobe was Euro 1, there was no income which was taxable in India.”
Upheld by Delhi High Court subsequently
Galileo International Inc – Delhi HC
55
Rolls Royce Plc – Delhi Tribunal Ruling
Facts RRIL’s liaison office (‘LO’) carried out activities only in
respect of RR Plc LO’s key responsibility includes securing orders and
solicit request for quotation/purchase orders for RR Plc’s products
The employees of RR Plc visit India frequently and use premises of the LO
Employees of RRIL participate in meetings with customers where significant matters regarding contracts with RR Plc are discussed and decisions are taken
RR Plc on various occasions designated RRIL as sole contact point in respect of certain customers (eg. to send orders/quotations/acceptances, etc)
RRIL marketed certain after sales/other services provided by RR Plc to present/potential customers of RR Plc
RRIL provided certain advise/recommendations to RR Plc as regards certain customer proposals
RR Plc
India
UK
Indian Customer
Service Agreement Reimbursement
of Cost + Mark Up
Equipment SalesRRIL
RRIL (India LO)
Services
56
Ruling:
All profits directly and indirectly attributable to the PE to be considered
However, under Article 7(4) of the Treaty, computation could be on proportionate basis
Since no specific P&L provided, computation to be under Rule 10
50% to be attributed to manufacturing 15% to be attributed to R&D 35% to be attributed to marketing Only marketing done in India Hence profits to be attributed to India – 35%
YESProfit Attribution
Rolls Royce Plc – Delhi Tribunal Ruling
Fixed Place & Agency PE was Upheld
57
Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd vs. DCIT (Mum HC)
India Agent (dependant)
Arms length remuneration
Existence of an Agency PE
Agency Agreement
Fee
Customers (Advertisers)
Singapore
India
Sing Co (Business of creating,
marketing & distributing TV channels)
58
Ruling:
No further profit
attributable to Dependent agent PE in
India
CBDT Circular 23 of 1969 is applicable to SET Singapore since:− it’s business activities in India where wholly channeled
through its agent (SET India); − the contracts to sell (the ad slots) are made outside India; and
the sales are made on a principal to principal basis
Thus, if commission to SET India fully represents the value of the profit attributable to its service - it should prima facie extinguish the assessment.
Under Article 7(2) profit attributable to a PE would be the profit it might be expected to earn it were a separate and independent entity carrying out similar activities – i.e. the arm’s length profit
Dependant agent paid commission @ 15% - Circular 742 recognizes that Indian agents of FTCs generally retain 15% as service charges
Since, commission paid to SET India is at arm’s length - no further profits can be attributable to its activities in the hands of SET Singapore’s PE in India in terms of Circular 23 r.w. Article 7(2)
Considering the Morgan Stanley judgment, if the correct arms length price is applied then nothing further would be left to be taxed in the hands of the FCo
since
Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd vs. DCIT (Mum HC)
Agency PE was Upheld
Whether principle laid down holds good even
after withdrawal of Circular 23?
59
Convergys Customer Management Group Inc – Delhi Tribunal
Facts CCM was a company incorporated in the
USA
CCM procured services from CIS on principal to principal basis :
- IT enabled call centre services
- Back office support services ;
- CCM staff visited CIS for supervision/direction and control
- CCM also provided certain hardware and software assets on free of cost basis to CIS CIS
CCM
India
USA
Services Subcontracted
Overseas Customers
60
Relying on the CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2004, Supreme Courts decision in case of Morgan Stanley and OECD Guideline, the Tribunal held that no further profits can be attributed to a PE once an arm's length price has been determined
However, the taxpayer had submitted that it does not prepare India specific accounts, therefore the attribution of profits on the basis as disclosed in the TP study for assets and software cannot be accepted.
Further in the facts and circumstances of the case PSM was not the correct method for attribution of profits to the taxpayer’s PE in India.
Departmental observation that further attribution was required for entrepreneurial services for managing risk related to the service delivery performed in India by CCM was held to be completely without any basis.
Convergys Customer Management Group Inc – Delhi Tribunal
Fixed Place PE was Upheld
ProfitAttribution
Yes
61
The Tribunal held that department’s methodology was not acceptable and made the following observations:
With regard to Revenue’s approach in considering revenue of CCM as a multi-national enterprise as the starting point, :
Revenue of taxpayer cannot be considered as revenue of the PE
Department ought to have considered the expenditure incurred outside India for arriving at the profit of CCM with regard to the contracts wherein services have been procured from CIS
Provisions of Section 44C of the Act having been invoked in
attributing income of the taxpayer without allowing the cost incurred to earn the revenue outside India (thereby attributing the entire receipts) was incorrect.
Convergys Customer Management Group Inc – Delhi Tribunal
Fixed Place PE was Upheld
ProfitAttribution
Yes
62
The Tribunal prescribed the correct approach to arrive at attributable profits as under:
Computing global operating income percentage of the customer care business as per annual report
Above percentage to be applied to the end-customer revenue with regard to contracts/projects subcontracted to CIS to arrive at operating income from Indian operations.
The operating income from India operations to be reduced by the profit before tax of CIS to arrive at profit attributable to Indian PE
Estimation of profit based on above residual profit
For the purpose of attribution on residual profits, reliance was placed on two Supreme Court rulings that had dealt on profit attribution to Indian PEs. In the case of Anglo French Textile Co, 10% attribution was held reasonable and in Hukum Chand Mills Ltd., 15% attribution was held reasonable. The Tribunal held that the adoption of the higher figure of 15% for attribution of the Taxpayer’s PE will meet the ends of justice.
Convergys Customer Management Group Inc – Delhi Tribunal
Fixed Place PE was Upheld
ProfitAttribution
Yes
63
• LLP, UK based Law firm (fiscally transparent for UK tax purpose) rendered legal advisory services to clients having Indian projects
• LLP did not have Office / branch in India
• Personnel of LLP rendered services in India / overseas
• LLP filed Nil tax return in India
Facts
• Applicability of ‘Force of attraction’ rule for offshore services
Issues for Consideration
ClientsLLP
Partners and Staff members of LLP visited India for
rendering services
Provision of legal advisory services
LLP Fiscally transparent for UK tax purpose; Partners of LLP are liable
to tax
UK
India
Indian Projects
Service Providers – Force of Attraction
64
Service Providers – Force of Attraction
Applicability of Force of Attraction
Overruled recently by ITAT SB in Clifford Chance; SB concluded that reliance on UN commentary is not required and profits shall be attributed to PE on the basis of its contribution; Article 7(3) clearly explains the scope and ambit of the profits indirectly attributable to the PE.
• Profits indirectly attributable to PE’ incorporates the Force of Attraction rule
• Services rendered not only in India but also in UK are taxable
• The same observations were also made by the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Linklaters LLP. Reliance was placed by the Tribunal on the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of the UN Model Convention as well as on the UN Model Convention Commentary
65
Key takeaways
66
Key takeaways
• PE – a dynamic concept
– Especially with emergence of economic and technological advancements
• Attribution – very contentious in practice
• Documenting functional analysis – key defense
• Attribution vis-à-vis arm’s length payments
• OECD commentary vs. Indian judicial precedents
Well documented Transfer pricing policy- Important to defend claims from
revenue authorities
67
Q & A
68
Thank You
top related