International tax and the Australian wine industry: Is your client’s product destined to sail the seven seas?

The export market for Australian wine continues to grow at a rapid rate, with imported wines also playing a role in market share in sales in Australia. It is estimated that over 60 per cent of all Australian wine is exported, while 12 per cent of wine consumed in Australia has overseas origins. In addition to understanding the size and direction (import or export) of wines, the foreign locales also play an important role in any tax considerations. While the export market for Australian produced alcohol continues to grow, it is into the Asian market that the most significant inroads are occurring. Sales into China of bottled wine over $7.50 per litre recently overtook the volume sold our traditional partners of the United States and Canada. It is becoming easier for even small to medium sized businesses to export their services or products overseas. However, it is vital for those businesses to understand the tax rules applying to any international transactions. Specifically, one of the first tax regimes that importers and exporters need to understand once they decide to establish a presence overseas is transfer pricing. These are the rules that govern the cross-border prices of goods, services and other transactions entered into between related parties. This paper is Part 2 of the seminar presented on transfer pricing and international tax issues which are particularly relevant to the wine industry. The predominant focus of Part 2 is to discuss four key areas likely to affect international expansion. First, the use of the available transfer pricing methodologies for international related party transactions is discussed. Second, the affects that double tax agreements will have on taking a business offshore are considered. Third, the risks associated with aggressive tax planning through tax information exchange agreements is reviewed. Finally, the paper predicts future ‘trip-wires’ and areas to ‘watch out for’ for practitioners dealing with clients operating in the international arena.

Thin capitalisation – the multinational tax avoidance strategy the budget forgot

We have already seen major amendments to Australia’s tax regime to tackle base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS). Several more significant measures were announced in the federal budget, most notably the diverted profits tax, aimed at multinationals which shift tax to a lower taxing jurisdiction. Yet to date, a very simple tax minimisation strategy has been largely ignored in the ongoing reforms and was ignored in the federal budget. Excessive debt loading is a problem that not been afforded the same attention as other aggressive tax planning strategies adopted by multinationals.

A new legal avenue for pricing GHG emissions? To trade or to tax?

In a September 2010 media release the Prime Minister of Australia presented the terms of reference for the newly established Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. Although the Committee is charged with considering climate change mitigation measures in general, specifically the Committee must consider an appropriate mechanism for the establishment of a carbon price. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the mechanisms to be considered by the Climate Change Committee, including the use of emissions trading and carbon levies in other jurisdictions. This article argues that for any effective investigation of a carbon price for Australia to occur, a thorough knowledge of other jurisdictions’ methods for carbon pricing is essential.

Inefficient tax slugs all homebuyers

Housing affordability is more than just house prices. It also includes ready access to public transport, schools, good road networks, and of course access to all the basic utilities. However, local governments don’t have the money to build all the infrastructure new housing estates need. So developer charges were introduced as a “user pays” method of funding new urban infrastructure. These charges are levied on property developers by local authorities at the time of planning approval. Some think these costs are passed back to the original land owner by way of lower land prices. But property developers claim these charges are instead added on to new house prices, with a negative impact to housing affordability. When new house prices increase, existing house prices are also dragged up, extending the housing affordability issue throughout the community. However, new research by QUT has uncovered evidence that these costs are not merely passed on to homebuyers, but are passed on at significantly over-inflated rates. In an Australian first, the study empirically examines the impact of developer charges on housing affordability, providing evidence that developer charges are passed on to all homebuyers in the community. So while policy makers think they are charging developers for the provision of infrastructure in new communities, the cost is really being borne by all homebuyers.