The inherent international tax regime and its constraints on Australia's sovereignty

On 1 November 2011 the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, the Honourable Bill Shorten MP, announced that Australia would be undertaking a reform of the ‘transfer pricing rules in the income tax law and Australia’s future tax treaties to bring them into line with international best practice, improving the integrity and efficiency of the tax system.’ Mr Shorten stated that the reason for the reform was that ‘recent court decisions suggest our existing transfer pricing rules may be interpreted in a way that is out-of-kilter with international norms.’ Further, he stated that ‘the Government has asked the Treasury to review how the transfer pricing rules can be improved, including but not limited to how to be more in line with international best practice.’ He urged all interested parties to participate in this consultation process. On 16 March 2012, an Exposure Draft and accompanying Explanatory Memorandum outlining the proposed amendments to implement the first stage of the transfer pricing reforms were released. Within the proposed changes is the explicit embedding of the use of the OECD’s Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital and Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations to help determine the arm’s length price. Does this mean that Australia engages in an international tax regime?

Australia's adoption of an international tax regime : to engage or not to engage?

On 1 November 2011 the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, the Honourable Bill Shorten MP, announced that Australia would be undertaking a reform of the ‘transfer pricing rules in the income tax law and Australia's future tax treaties to bring them into line with international best practice, improving the integrity and efficiency of the tax system.’ Mr Shorten stated that the reason for the reform was that ‘recent court decisions suggest our existing transfer pricing rules may be interpreted in a way that is out-of-kilter with international norms.’ Further, he stated that ‘the Government has asked the Treasury to review how the transfer pricing rules can be improved, including but not limited to how to be more in line with international best practice.’ He urged all interested parties to participate in this consultation process.

The inherent international tax regime and its constraints on Australia's sovereignty

Neither an international tax, nor an international taxing body exists. Rather, there are domestic taxing rules adopted by jurisdictions which, coupled with double tax treaties, apply to cross-border transactions and international taxation issues. International bodies such as the OECD and UN, which provide guidance on tax issues, often steer and supplement these domestic adoptions but have no binding international taxing powers. These pragmatic realities, together with the specific use of the word ‘regime’ within the tax community, lead many to argue that an international tax regime does not exist. However, an international tax regime should be defined no differently to any other area of international law and when we step outside the confines of tax law to consider the definition of a ‘regime’ within international relations it is possible to demonstrate that such a regime is very real. The first part of this article, by defining an international tax regime in a broader and more traditional context, also outlining both the tax policy and principles which frame that regime, reveals its existence. Once it is accepted that an international tax regime exists, it is possible to consider its adoption by jurisdictions and subsequent constraints it places on them. Using the proposed changes to transfer pricing laws as the impetus for assessing Australia’s adoption of the international tax regime, the constraints on sovereignty are assessed through a taxonomy of the level adoption. This reveals the subsequent constraints which flow from the broad acceptance of an international tax regime through to the specific adoption of technical detail. By undertaking this analysis, the second part of this article demonstrates that Australia has inherently adopted an international tax regime, with a move towards explicit adoption and a clear embedding of its principles within the domestic tax legislation.

International tax cooperation in the Post-GFC era

Over the last five years we have observed the fallout from the global financial crisis (GFC). International cooperation and jointly adopted policies have dominated many of the solutions to the problems which have arisen. Initially, many nations in response to the GFC, implemented a two pronged short term solution by undertaking fiscal intervention and delivering rescue packages aimed at first, bailing out financial institutions and second, preventing or minimising the impact of a recession. Both programs involved large amounts of domestic spending. It was difficult in early 2007 to foresee the reduction that nations were about the face in domestic revenue collected. Five years on, not only have the first line effects of the GFC reduced the revenue raised by governments around the world, but the consequential costs associated with the rescue packages have also depleted domestic revenue bases. The response by stakeholders has been to attempt to secure domestic revenue bases through fiscally sustainable measures. Domestic sovereignty allows the levying of taxes as a nation chooses. However, rather than raise domestic taxes, revenue may also be increased by stemming the flow of income and capital to low and no-tax jurisdictions. The intervening five-year period since the GFC allows a unique insight into the response by nations and international organisations to tax evasion, tax avoidance and aggressive tax competition through the cross border flows of capital and the resulting affect that the GFC has had on international tax cooperation. By investigating the change in the international tax landscape over the last five years, which reveals the work done by stakeholders in developing fiscally responsible responses to the problems that have arisen, it may be possible to predict the trajectory of the international tax landscape over the next five years.

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.

International tax cooperation and capital mobility

Includes bibliography

Double tax agreements and the international allocation of business income in Australia

Increasingly, the effectiveness of the present system of taxation of international businesses is being questioned. The problem associated with the taxation of such businesses is twofold. A system of international taxation must be a fair and equitable system, distributing profits between the relevant jurisdictions and, in doing so, avoiding double taxation. At the same time, the prevention of fiscal evasion must be secured. In an attempt to achieve a fair and equitable system Australia adopts unilateral, bilateral and multilateral measures to avoid double taxation and restrict the avoidance of tax. The first step in ascertaining the international allocation of business income is to consider the taxation of business income according to domestic law, that is, the unilateral measures. The treatment of international business income under the Australian domestic law, that is, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) and Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth), will depend on two concepts, first, whether the taxpayer is a resident of Australia and secondly, whether the income is sourced in Australia. After the taxation of business profits has been determined according to domestic law it is necessary to consider the applicability of the bilateral measures, that is, the Double Tax Agreements (DTAs) to which Australia is a party, as the DTAs will override the domestic law where there is any conflict. Australia is a party to 40 DTAs with another seven presently being negotiated. The preamble to Australia's DTAs provides that the purpose of such agreements is 'to conclude an Agreement for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income'. Both purposes, for different reasons, are equally important. It has been said that: The taxpayer hopes the treaty will prevent the double taxation of his income; the tax gatherer hopes the treaty will prevent fiscal evasion; and the politician just hopes. The first purpose, the avoidance of double taxation, is achieved through the provision of rules whereby the Contracting States agree to the classification of income and the allocation of that income to a particular State. In this sense DTAs do not allocate jurisdiction to tax but rather provide an arrangement whereby the States agree to restrict their substantive law. The restriction is either through the non-taxing of the income or via the provision of a tax credit.

Advance pricing arrangements : an Australian Tax Office success or a legislative failure?

Australia’s domestic income tax legislation and double tax agreements contain transfer pricing rules which are designed to counter the underpayment of tax by businesses engaged in international dealings between related parties. The current legislation and agreements require that related party transactions take place at a value which reflects an arm’s length price, that is, a price which would be charged between unrelated parties. For a host of reasons, it is increasingly difficult for multinational entities to demonstrate that they are transferring goods and services at a price which is reflective of the behaviour of independent parties, thereby making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the relevant legislation. Further, where an Australian business undertakes cross-border related party transactions there is the risk of an audit by the Australian Tax Office (ATO). If a business wishes to avoid the risk of an audit, and any ensuing penalties, there is one option: an advance pricing arrangement (APA). An APA is an agreement whereby the future transfer pricing methodology to be used to determine the arm’s length price is agreed to by the taxpayer and the relevant tax authority or authorities. The ATO views the APA process as an important part of its international tax strategy and believes that there are complementary benefits provided to both the taxpayer and the ATO. The ATO promotes the APA process on the basis of creating greater certainty for all parties while reducing compliance costs and the risk of audit and penalty. While the ATO regards the APA system as a success, it may be argued that the implementation of such a system is simply a practical solution to an ongoing problem of an inherent failure in both the legislation and ATO interpretation and application of this legislation to provide certainty to the taxpayer. This paper investigates the use of APAs as a solution to the problem of transfer pricing and considers whether they are the success the ATO claims. It is argued that there is no doubt that APAs provide a valuable practical tool for multinational entities facing the challenges of the taxation of global trading under the current transfer pricing regime. It does not, however, provide a long term solution. Rather, the long term solution may be in the form of legislative amendment.

A nation’s role in addressing base erosion and profit shifting : balancing sovereignty with international collaboration and coordination

The notion of sovereignty is central to any international tax issue. While a nation is free to design its tax laws as it sees fit and raise revenue in accordance with the needs of its citizens, it is not possible to undertake such a task in isolation. In a world of cross-border investments and business transactions, all tax regimes impact on one another. Tax interactions between sovereign states cannot be avoided. Ultimately, the interactions mean that a nation must decide whether to engage in both collaboration and coordination with other nations and supranational bodies alike or maintain an individualised stance in relation to its tax policy. Whatever the decision, there is arguably an exercise in national sovereignty in some form. In the context of an international tax regime, whether that regime is interpreted broadly as meaning international norms generally adopted by nations around the world or domestic regimes legislating for cross-border transactions, rhetoric around national fiscal sovereignty takes on many different forms. At one end of the spectrum it is relied upon by financial secrecy jurisdictions (tax havens) as a defence to their position on the basis that ‘other’ nations cannot interfere with the fiscal sovereignty of a jurisdiction. At the other end of the spectrum, it is argued that profit shifting and international tax avoidance if not stopped is, in and of itself, a threat to a nation’s fiscal sovereignty on the basis that it threatens the ability to tax and raise the revenue needed. This paper considers a modern conceptualisation of sovereignty along with its role within international tax coordination and collaboration to argue that a move towards a more unified approach to addressing international base erosion and profit shifting may be the ultimate exercise of national fiscal sovereignty. By using the current transfer pricing regime as a case study, this paper posits that it is not merely enough to have international agreement on allocation rules to be applied, but that the ultimate exercise of national sovereignty is political agreement with other states to ensure that it is governments which determine the allocational basis of worldwide profits to be taxed. In doing so, it is demonstrated that the arm’s length pricing requirement of the current transfer pricing regime, rather than providing governments with the ability to determine the location of profits, is providing multinational entities with the ultimate power to determine that location. If left unchecked, this will eventually erode a nation’s ability to capture the required tax revenue and, as a consequence, may be deemed a failure by nation states to exercise their fiscal sovereignty.

Developing nations need more than words from G20 tax reform

Tax reform is squarely on the agenda for the G20 Brisbane summit in November. The current international tax regime is broken and it’s going to take significant effort on a global scale to fix it. In a recently released CEDA Report on securing the G20’s future, I recommended the role Australia could play in ensuring real and substantive progress is made in international tax reform. There’s a very real need to ensure the Brisbane summit is not just a “talkfest”. One group that stands to significantly win or lose from reform, or lack of it, is developing nations.

G20 tax reform plan should prevent another Lux leaks

The G20 Communique is good news on the international tax reform front. As part of the G20 commitment to boost economic resilience the Communique commits G20 nations to taking action to ensure fairness in the international tax system. This means they are looking at ways to ensure profits are taxed where economic activities deriving the profits are performed and where value is created.

Tax transparency can work for companies if they do it right

The Tax Transparency Package released by the European Commission last week comes amid global moves by the G20 and others to make it more difficult for companies to avoid paying their fair share of tax. But as serious information sharing plans are hammered out between nations around the world, the Australian government is considering protecting the privacy of some of Australia’s richest people, diluting transparency measures aimed at private companies.