Frucor Suntory (FHNZ) had deducted purported interest expenses that had arisen in the context of a tax scheme involving, among other steps, its issue of a Convertible Note to Deutsche Bank, New Zealand Branch (DBNZ), and a forward purchase of the shares DBNZ could call for under the Note by FHNZ’s Singapore based parent Danone Asia Pte Ltd (DAP). The Convertible Note had a face value of $204,421,565 and carried interest at a rate of 6.5 per cent per annum. Over its five-year life, FHNZ paid DBNZ approximately $66 million which FHNZ characterised as interest and deducted for income tax purposes. The tax authorities issued an assessment where deductions of interest expenses in the amount of $10,827,606 and $11,665,323 were disallowed in FY 2006 and 2007 under New Zealand´s general anti-avoidance rule in s BG 1 of the Income Tax Act 2004. In addition, penalties of $1,786,555 and $1,924,779 for those years were imposed. The tax authorities found that, although such deductions complied with the “black letter” of the Act, $55 million of the $66 million paid was in fact a non- deductible repayment of principal. Hence only interest deduction of $11 million over the life of the Arrangement was allowed. These figures represent the deduction disallowed by the Commissioner, as compared to the deductions claimed by the taxpayer: $13,250,998 in 2006 and $13,323,806 in 2007. Based on an allegedly abusive tax position but mitigated by the taxpayer’s prior compliance history. In so doing, avoiding any exposure to shortfall penalties for the 2008 and 2009 years in the event it is unsuccessful in the present proceedings. The income years 2004 and 2005, in which interest deductions were also claimed under the relevant transaction are time barred. Which I will refer to hereafter as $204 million without derogating from the Commissioner’s argument that the precise amount of the Note is itself evidence of artifice in the transaction. As the parties did in both the evidence and the argument, I use the $55 million figure for illustrative purposes. In fact, as recorded in fn 3 above, the Commissioner is time barred from reassessing two of FHNZ’s relevant income tax returns. The issues The primary issue is whether s BG 1 of the Act applies to the Arrangement. Two further issues arise if s BG 1 is held to apply: (a) whether the Commissioner’s reconstruction of the Arrangement pursuant to s GB 1 of the Act is correct or whether it is, as FHNZ submits, “incorrect and excessive”; and (b) whether the shortfall penalties in ss 141B (unacceptable tax position) or 141D (abusive tax position) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 (TAA) have application. In 2018 the High Court decided in favor of Frucor Suntory This decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal, where in 2020 a decision was issued in favor of the tax authorities. The Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the High Court in regards of the tax adjustment, but dismissed the appeal in regards of shortfall penalties. “We have already concluded that the principal driver of the funding arrangement was the availability of tax relief to Frucor in New Zealand through deductions it would claim on the coupon payments. The benefit it obtained under the arrangement was the ability to claim payments totaling $66 million as a fully deductible expense when, as a matter of commercial and economic reality, only $11 million of this sum comprised interest and the balance of $55 million represented the repayment of principal. The tax advantage gained under the arrangement was therefore not the whole of the interest deductions, only those that were effectively principal repayments. We consider the Commissioner was entitled to reconstruct by allowing the base level deductions totaling $11 million but disallowing the balance. The tax benefit Frucor obtained “from or under” the arrangement comprised the deductions claimed for interest on the balance of $149 million which, as a matter of commercial reality, represented the repayment of principal of $55 million.” This decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Frucor and ruled in favor of the tax authorities both in regards of the tax adjustment and in regards of shortfall penalties. Excerpt “[80] The picture which emerges from the planning documents which we have reviewed is clear. The whole purpose of the arrangement was to secure tax benefits in New Zealand. References to tax efficiency in those planning documents are entirely focused on the advantage to DHNZ of being able to offset repayments of principal against its revenue. The anticipated financial benefits of this are calculated solely by reference to New Zealand tax rates. The only relevance of the absence of a capital gains liability in Singapore was that this tax efficiency would not be cancelled out by capital gains on the contrived “gain” of DAP under the forward purchase agreement. [81] There were many elements of artificiality about the funding arrangement. Of these, the most significant is in relation to the note itself. [82] Orthodox convertible notes offer the investor the opportunity to receive both interest and the benefit of any increases in the value of the shares over the term of the note. For this reason, the issuer of a convertible note can expect to receive finance at a rate lower than would be the case for an orthodox loan. [83] The purpose of the convertible note issued by DHNZ was not to enable it to receive finance from an outside investor willing to lend at a lower rate because of the opportunity to take advantage of an increase in the value of the shares. The shares were to wind up with DAP which already had complete ownership of DHNZ. As well, Deutsche Bank had no interest in acquiring shares in DHNZ. Instead, it had structured a transaction that generated tax benefits for DHNZ in return for a fee. Leaving aside the purpose of obtaining tax advantages in New Zealand, the convertible note ...

The tax authorities had disallowed deductions for purported administrative services paid for by Akzo Nobel India to a group company in Singapore. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessment in a Judgement issued in February 2022. An appeal was then filed by Akzo Nobel India with the High Court. Judgement of the High Court The High Court dismissed the Appeal of Akzo Nobel India and upheld the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Excerpt “…this Court finds that all the three authorities below have given concurrent findings of fact that the Appellant had failed to furnish evidence to demonstrate that administrative services were actually rendered by the AE and the assessee had received such services. In fact, the ITAT has noted in the impugned order “….On a specific query made by the Bench to demonstrate the receipt of services from AE through cogent evidence, including, any communication with the AE, learned counsel for the assessee expressed his inability to furnish any evidence and repeated his submission to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer for enabling the assessee to furnish evidence, if any.” (…) “Further , this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. Make My Trip India (P) Ltd., (2017) 87 taxmann.com 284 (Delhi) has held that difference of opinion between the parties, as to the appropriateness of one or the other methods to calculate arm’s length price, cannot per se be a ground for intereference and the appropriateness of the method unless shown to be contrary to the Rules specially 10B and 10C are hardly issues that ought to be gone into under Section 260A of the Act.” “Consequently, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.” India vs Akzonobel India Pvt Ltd PR ...

Uber files – confidential documents, leaked to The Guardian newspaper shows that Uber in 2015 sought to deflect attention from its Dutch conduits and Caribbean tax shelters by helping tax authorities collect taxes from its drivers. At that time, Uber’s Dutch subsidiary received payments from customers hiring cars in cities around the world (except US and China), and after paying the drivers, profits were routed on as royalty fees to Bermuda, thus avoiding corporate income tax. In 2019, Uber took the first steps to close its Caribbean tax shelters. To that end, a Dutch subsidiary purchased the IP that was previously held by the Bermudan subsidiary, using a $16 billion loan it had received from Uber’s Singapore holding company. The new setup was also tax driven. Tax depreciations on the IP acquired from Bermuda and interest on the loan from Singapore will significantly reduce Uber’s effective tax rate in years to come. Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research (CICTAR) has revealed that in 2019 Uber’s Dutch headquarter pulled in more than $US5.8 billion in operating revenue from countries around the world. “The direct transfer of revenue from around the world to the Netherlands leaves little, if any, taxable profits behind,“. “Uber created an $8 billion Dutch tax shelter that, if unchecked, may eliminate tax liability on profits shifted to the Netherlands for decades to come.” According to the groups 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, Uber it is currently facing numerous tax audits. “We may have exposure to materially greater than anticipated tax liabilities. The tax laws applicable to our global business activities are subject to uncertainty and can be interpreted differently by different companies. For example, we may become subject to sales tax rates in certain jurisdictions that are significantly greater than the rates we currently pay in those jurisdictions. Like many other multinational corporations, we are subject to tax in multiple U.S. and foreign jurisdictions and have structured our operations to reduce our effective tax rate. Currently, certain jurisdictions are investigating our compliance with tax rules. If it is determined that we are not compliant with such rules, we could owe additional taxes. Certain jurisdictions, including Australia, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UK and other countries, require that we pay any assessed taxes prior to being allowed to contest or litigate the applicability of tax assessments in those jurisdictions. These amounts could materially adversely impact our liquidity while those matters are being litigated. This prepayment of contested taxes is referred to as “pay-to-play.” Payment of these amounts is not an admission that we believe we are subject to such taxes; even when such payments are made, we continue to defend our positions vigorously. If we prevail in the proceedings for which a pay-to-play payment was made, the jurisdiction collecting the payment will be required to repay such amounts and also may be required to pay interest. Additionally, the taxing authorities of the jurisdictions in which we operate have in the past, and may in the future, examine or challenge our methodologies for valuing developed technology, which could increase our worldwide effective tax rate and harm our financial position and operating results. Furthermore, our future income taxes could be adversely affected by earnings being lower than anticipated in jurisdictions that have lower statutory tax rates and higher than anticipated in jurisdictions that have higher statutory tax rates, changes in the valuation allowance on our U.S. and Netherlands’ deferred tax assets, or changes in tax laws, regulations, or accounting principles. We are subject to regular review and audit by both U.S. federal and state tax authorities, as well as foreign tax authorities, and currently face numerous audits in the United States and abroad. Any adverse outcome of such reviews and audits could have an adverse effect on our financial position and operating results. In addition, the determination of our worldwide provision for income taxes and other tax liabilities requires significant judgment by our management, and we have engaged in many transactions for which the ultimate tax determination remains uncertain. The ultimate tax outcome may differ from the amounts recorded in our financial statements and may materially affect our financial results in the period or periods for which such determination is made. Our tax positions or tax returns are subject to change, and therefore we cannot accurately predict whether we may incur material additional tax liabilities in the future, which could impact our financial position. In addition, in connection with any planned or future acquisitions, we may acquire businesses that have differing licenses and other arrangements that may be challenged by tax authorities for not being at arm’s-length or that are otherwise potentially less tax efficient than our licenses and arrangements. Any subsequent integration or continued operation of such acquired businesses may result in an increased effective tax rate in certain jurisdictions or potential indirect tax costs, which could result in us incurring additional tax liabilities or having to establish a reserve in our consolidated financial statements, and could adversely affect our financial results. Changes in global and U.S. tax legislation may adversely affect our financial condition, operating results, and cash flows. We are a U.S.-based multinational company subject to tax in multiple U.S. and foreign tax jurisdictions. U.S. tax legislation enacted on December 22, 2017, and modified in 2020, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“the Act”), has significantly changed the U.S. federal income taxation of U.S. corporations. The legislation and regulations promulgated in connection therewith remain unclear in many respects and could be subject to potential amendments and technical corrections, as well as interpretations and incremental implementing regulations by the U.S. Treasury and U.S. Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”), any of which could lessen or increase certain adverse impacts of the legislation. In addition, it remains unclear in some instances how these U.S. federal income tax changes will affect state and local taxation, which often uses federal taxable income as a starting point for computing state and local tax liabilities. Furthermore, beginning on ...

UPS Asia is a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore and is engaged in the business of provision of supply chain management including the provision of freight forwarding and logistic services. In 2012 UPS Asia had entered into a Regional Transportation Services Agreement with UPS SCS (India) Pvt. Ltd. for the provisions of freight and logistics services. Under the Transportation Agreement, UPS Asia arranged to perform international freight transportation and provide overseas support services, while UPS India performed freight and logistics services in India to its India customers and to UPS Asia. Following an audit an assessment was issued according to which UPS Asia had a PE in India in the form of UPS India. Furthermore, profits of Rs.2,09,53,496 was considered attributable to operation in India. The tax authorities held that UPS India constitutes a PE of UPS Asia in India within the meaning of Article 5 of India–Singapore DTAA. Not satisfied with the assessment UPS Asia filed an appeal and submitted that UPS India was remunerated in accordance with the arm’s length principle (article 9) and, therefore, no further profit was required to be attributed (Article 7) to UPS India in the present case. Judgement of the Tax Appellate Tribunal The Tribunal allowed the appeal of UPS and set aside the assessment. Excerpt ” … 9. …. Thus, respectfully following the decision of the Co–ordinate Bench rendered in assessee’s own case cited supra, we hold that when the Indian A.E. is remunerated at arm’s length price no further profit attribution is required and the issue of existence of P.E. becomes wholly tax neutral. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is directed to be deleted. 10. In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings. .. Click here for html-version. India vs UPS-Asia-Group-Pte.-Ltd. March 2022-ITAT-Mumbai ...

Akzo Nobel India Pvt – a subsidiary of Akzo Nobel Coatings International BV – had paid for administrative services purportedly rendered form a group company in Singapore and had claimed a deduction of INR 19,465 250. The price paid for these services had been determined by the group on an aggregate basis using the transactional net margin method to establish that all controlled transactions in Akzo Nobel India had been at arm’s length. During the audit, the tax authority requested Akzo Nobel India to justify the arm’s length nature of the payment for these administrative services. To that end Akzo Nobel India submitted a copy of the agreement and the allocations keys used. Akzo Nobel India also submitted that the group company in Singapore had provided administrative support services like supply chain management support, marketing and commercial service support, commercial vehicle support, automotive after-market support, supporting R&D, human resource, finance management and general management support. However, according to the tax authorities, Akzo Nobel India failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate receipt of these services and therefore determined the arm’s length price to be nil. The Commissioner of Appeals upheld the adjustments made by the tax authority. Aggrieved with the decision of the Commissioner, Akzo Nobel India filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and noted that the tax authorities had given concurrent findings that Akzo Nobel India failed to furnish even an iota of evidence to demonstrate that administrative services were actually rendered. During the trial, the Tribunal had asked Akzo Nobel India to demonstrate the receipt of services from the associated enterprise through cogent evidence, including any communication with the associated enterprise in Singapore. In response Akzo Nobel India expressed inability to furnish such evidence and requested restoring the matter back to the assessing officer. To this, the tribunal stated that restoring the case back to the assessing officer would serve no useful purpose. Akzo Nobel India Feb 2022 ITAT Order ...

Kellogg India Private Limited is engaged in manufacturing and sales of breakfast cereals and convenience foods and it operates as a licensed manufacturer under the Kellogg brand. During the year under consideration, Kellogg India had commenced business of distributing Pringles products in the Indian markets. Kellogg India purchases the Pringles product from its AE Pringles International Operations SARL, based in Singapore. Singapore AE does not manufacture pringles, but in turn gets it manufactured from a third party contract manufacturer. Thereafter, the goods are supplied at a cost plus mark up of 5% on third party manufacturer’s cost. These Pringles are later imported by Kellogg India from its AE and distributed in the Indian market. Kellogg India characterised itself as a distributor of Pringles products and is responsible for the strategic and overall management of Pringles business in India. Singapore AE, being the least complex entity, was selected as the tested party for benchmarking the international transaction of import of finished goods. Kellogg India conducted a search in the Asia Pacific region to identify manufacturers and based on benchmarking analysis carried out, an arithmetic mean of 14 comparable companies with Gross Profit / Direct and Indirect Cost as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) was determined at 50.07%. The tax authorities disregarded the benchmarking approach adopted by Kellogg India and instead selected the Indian entity as the tested party. The Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) was chosen as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for the transaction and based on 8 comparable companies the arm’s length profit margin was determined at 4.33%. Singapore AE was rejected as tested party by the tax authorities on the ground that the financial details of the company and the foreign comparables were not available. Judgement of the Tax Appellate Tribunal The Tribunal decided in favor of Kellogg India and set aside the assessment. Excerpt “In view of the aforesaid observations, we hold that Singapore AE should be considered as the tested party, being the least complex entity, in the facts and circumstances of the case, which has been rightly done by the assessee. Hence no adjustment to ALP is required to be made. Even if the comparables chosen by the ld TPO are considered, undisputably since the assessee is only engaged in purchase and resale of goods without any substantial value addition thereon, RPM would be the MAM and in case of RPM only the gross margins are to be compared. We find that gross margins of assessee are much more than the gross margins of comparable companies chosen by the ld TPO. Hence no adjustment to ALP is to be made in respect of import of finished goods even if the comparable companies chosen by the ld TPO are upheld. Hence we hold that no adjustment to ALP is required to be made in the instant case in respect of import of finished goods in either case. Accordingly, the said adjustment of Rs 1,31,60,199/- is hereby directed to be deleted. Accordingly, the Additional Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.” 1645003721-ITA No.7342-2018 Kellogg India P. Ltd., ...

Singapore Telecom Australia Investments Pty Ltd entered into a loan note issuance agreement (the LNIA) with a company (the subscriber) that was resident in Singapore. Singapore Telecom Australia and the subscriber were ultimately 100% owned by the same company. The loan notes issued totalled approximately $5.2 billion to the subscriber. The terms of the LNIA was amendet on three occasions – the first amendment and the second amendment were expressed to have effect as from the date when the LNIA was originally entered into. The interest rate under the LNIA as amended by the third amendment was 13.2575% Following an audit the tax authorities issued an amended assessment under the transfer pricing provisions and denied interest deductions totalling approximately $894 million in respect of four years of income. According to the tax authorities the conditions agreed between the parties differed from the arm’s length principle. Singapore Telecom Australia appealed the assessment to the Federal Court. Judgement of the Federal Court The court upheld the the assessment issued by the tax authorities and dismissed the appeal of Singapore Telecom Australia. Click here for translation Singapore Telecom Australia Investments Pty Ltd FCA 1597 ...

ResMed – a world-leading digital health company – in an October 2021 publication of results for the first quarter of FY 2022, informs that a $381.7 million tax settlement agreement has been entered with the Australian Tax Office. The dispute concerns the years 2009 through 2018, in which the ATO alleged that ResMed should have paid additional Australian taxes on income derived from the company’s Singapore operations. Excerpts from the announcement “Operating cash flow for the quarter was negative $65.7 million and was impacted by a payment to the Australian Tax Office of $284.8 million, which was the settlement amount of $381.7 million net of prior remittances.” “During the quarter, concluded the settlement agreement with the Australian Taxation Office (“ATO”), which fully resolves the transfer pricing dispute for all prior years since 2009. ResMed previously recognized a tax reserve in êscal year 2021 in anticipation of the settlement. The net impact of the settlement was $238.7 million ($381.7 million gross less credits and deductions of $143.0 million). The settlement provides closure for historic Australian tax matters and greater clarity into the future. As a result of the ATO settlement and due to movements in foreign currencies, recognized a $4.1 million reduction in tax credits during the quarter, which was recorded as an increase in income tax expense.“ Back in 2015 ResMed rigorously defended its tax position in a submission to the Australien Senate Economics Reference Committee following an inquiry into Corporate Tax Avoidance practices. ResMed-Inc.-Announces-Results-for-the-First-Quarter-of-Fiscal-Year-2022-2021 ...

Levi Strauss South Africa (Pty) Ltd, has been in a dispute with the African Revenue Services, over import duties and value-added tax (VAT) payable by it in respect of clothing imports. The Levi’s Group uses procurement Hubs in Singapore and Hong Kong but channeled goods via Mauritius to South Africa, thus benefiting from a favorable duty protocol between Mauritius and South Africa. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment in which it determined that the place of origin certificates issued in respect of imports from countries in the South African Development Community (SADC) and used to clear imports emanating from such countries were invalid, and therefore disentitled Levi SA from entering these goods at the favorable rate of zero percent duty under the Protocol on Trade in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Region (the Protocol). The tax authorities also determined that the transaction value of the imported goods on which duty was payable should include certain commissions and royalties paid by Levi SA to other companies in the Levi Strauss group – Singapore and Hong Kong. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Court issued a decision predominantly in favour of the tax authorities. Click here for translation SA-vs-LEV-2021 ...

In March 2020 the Australian Taxation Office issued an tax assessment regarding transfer pricing to Rio Tinto’s aluminium division according to which additional taxes in an amount of $86.1 million must be paid for fiscal years 2010 – 2016. According to the assessment Rio’s Australian subsidiaries did not charge an arm’s length price for the aluminium they sold to Rio’s Singapore marketing hub. This new aluminum case is separate to Rio’s long-running $447 million dispute with the ATO over the transfer pricing of Australian iron ore. Rio intents to object to the ATO’s aluminium claim and states that the pricing of iron ore and aluminium has been determined in accordance with the OECD guidelines and Australian and Singapore domestic tax laws ...

BHP Group has agreed to pay the state of Western Australia A$250 million to end a dispute over royalties paid on iron ore shipments sold through its Singapore marketing hub. The State government found in January that the world’s biggest miner had underpaid royalties on iron ore shipments sold via Singapore stretching back over more than a decade. BHP reached a deal to pay A$529 million in additional taxes to the Australian government late last year to settle a long-running tax dispute over the miner’s Singapore hub on its income from 2003-2018 ...

ARPTe Ltd had paid a subsidiary for management services and use of intangibles. The benefit of those payments were challenged by the tax authorities and an assessment was issued where these deductions had been denied. An appeal was filed with the tax court Judgement of the Tax Court The Court set aside the assessment of the tax authorities and decided in favor of ARPTe Ltd. According to the Court ARPTe Ltd had been able to provide sufficient evidence that the management services and intangibles provided by the subsidiary had actually benefited the company. “ Click here for translation PUT-108755-15-2013 Jan 2019 ...

Analog Devices has been issued a $52m tax demand from the Revenue Commissioners in Ireland. The assessment is related to inter-company transfers back in 2013, where – according to the tax authorities – the Irish entity has failed to conform to OECD transfer pricing guidelines. Analog Devices specialises in data converters and chips that translate a button press or sound – into electronic signals. The company was established in Ireland in 1977, where today about 1,200 people is employed at its original and main hub in Limerick, in addition to its design facility in Cork. Analog Devises 10K filing “The Company has numerous audits ongoing at any time throughout the world, including an Internal Revenue Service income tax audit for Linear’s pre-acquisition fiscal 2015 and fiscal 2016, various U.S. state and local tax audits, and transfer pricing audits in Spain, the Philippines and Ireland. With the exception of the Linear pre-acquisition audit, the Company’s U.S. federal tax returns prior to fiscal year 2015 are no longer subject to examination. All of the Company’s Ireland tax returns prior to fiscal year 2013 are no longer subject to examination. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2018, the Company’s Irish tax resident subsidiary received an assessment for fiscal 2013 of approximately €43.0 million, or $52.0 million (as of November 3, 2018), from the Irish Revenue Commissioners. This assessment excludes any penalties and interest.  The assessment claims that the Company’s Irish entity failed to conform to 2010 OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines. The Company strongly disagrees with the assessment and maintains that its transfer pricing is appropriate. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any additional tax liability related to the 2013 tax year or any other periods.  The Company intends to vigorously defend its originally filed tax return position and has filed an appeal with the Irish Tax Appeals Commission, which is the normal process for the resolution of differences between Irish Revenue and taxpayers.  If Irish Revenue were ultimately to prevail with respect to its assessment for the tax year 2013, such assessment and any potential impact related to years subsequent to 2013 could have a material unfavorable impact on the Company’s income tax expense and net earnings in future periods. The tax returns for Linear Technology Pte. Ltd. (Singapore) prior to the fiscal 2018 are no longer subject to examination by the Economic Development Board pursuant to terms of the tax holiday re-negotiation.  Although the Company believes its estimates of income taxes payable are reasonable, no assurance can be given that the Company will prevail in the matters raised or that the outcome of one or all of these matters will not be different than that which is reflected in the historical income tax provisions and accruals. The Company believes such differences would not have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition.“ According to the 10K filing Analog Devises is present in numerous well known low-tax jurisdictions. “Non-U.S. jurisdictions accounted for approximately 75.9% of our total revenues for fiscal 2018, compared to approximately 77.3% of our total revenues fiscal 2017. This revenue generated outside of the U.S. results in a material portion of our pretax income being taxed outside the U.S., primarily in Bermuda, Ireland and Singapore, at tax rates ranging from 0% to 33.3%. We have a partial tax holiday in Malaysia through July 2025. A partial tax holiday in Singapore had been in place through August 2019, but was terminated effective September 2018 due to negotiations with the Economic Development Board. The aggregate dollar benefits derived from these tax holidays approximated $27.7 million and $27.4 million in fiscal 2018 and 2017, respectively. The impact of the tax holidays during fiscal 2018 increased the basic and diluted net income per common share by $0.07 each. The impact of the tax holidays during fiscal 2017 increased the basic and diluted net income per common share by $0.08 each. The impact on our provision for income taxes on income earned in foreign jurisdictions being taxed at rates different than the U.S. federal statutory rate was a benefit of approximately $434.8 million and a foreign effective tax rate of approximately 7.4% for fiscal 2018, compared to a benefit of approximately $385.1 million and a foreign effective tax rate of approximately 7.8% for fiscal 2017. A reduction in the ratio of domestic taxable income to worldwide taxable income effectively lowers our overall tax rate, due to the fact that the tax rates in the majority of foreign jurisdictions.“ ...

The Australian Taxation Office has agreed on a settlement with BHP Mining Group to resolve a transfer pricing dispute relating to transfer pricing treatment of commodities sold to a Singapore marketing hub. BHP had originally been assessed with over AUD 1 billion in additional taxes. According to the settlement BHP will pay additional tax of AUD 529 million to resolve the dispute, covering the years 2003–18. According to the settlement BHP Group will also increase its ownership of BHP Billiton Marketing AG, the company conducting BHP’s Singapore marketing business, from 58 percent to 100 percent. The change in ownership will result in all profits made in Singapore in relation to the Australian assets owned by BHP Group being fully subject to Australian tax. BHP’s Singapore marketing arrangements will continue to be located in Singapore and will also be within the ‘low risk’ segment for offshore marketing hubs ...

New Oxfam research shows that four pharmaceutical corporations — Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer — systematically allocate super profits in overseas tax havens. In eight advanced economies, pharmaceutical profits averaged 7 percent, while in seven developing countries they averaged 5 percent. In comparison, profits margins averaged 31 percent in countries with low or no corporate tax rates – Belgium, Ireland, Netherlands and Singapore. The report exposes how pharmaceutical corporations uses sophisticated tax planning to avoid taxes. cr-prescription-for-poverty-pharma-180918-en ...

In cases where a domestic corporation that operates a financial business (including a domestic place of business of a foreign corporation) borrowed money from a foreign controlling shareholder and such borrowed amount exceeds six times the amount invested in shares or equity interests by the foreign controlling shareholder, a certain amount of the interest paid in relation to the exceeding amount shall be excluded from deductible expenses of the domestic corporation and subsequently deemed to have been disposed of as a dividend of the domestic corporation pursuant to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act. In that sense, the interest paid in relation to the exceeding amount borrowed is regarded as a domestic source income of a foreign corporation, which is a foreign controlling shareholder. The Convention between the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Singapore for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, which allows dividend income and interest income to be taxed by both a residence country and a source country, defines the meaning of dividend income in Article 10(4) and the meaning of interest income in Article 11(5). Moreover, Article 28 of the former Adjustment of International Taxes Act stipulates that the relevant tax treaty preferentially applies to the classification of a domestic source income of a foreign corporation, notwithstanding Article 93 of the Corporate Tax Act. In view of the contents, structure, etc. of the pertinent statutory provisions, where a domestic corporation, including a domestic place of business of a foreign corporation, borrowed money from a foreign controlling shareholder, the interest paid in relation to the exceeding amount borrowed is regarded as a dividend and consequentially deemed a domestic source income of a foreign controlling shareholder, thereby falling under a dividend income in principle. However, the matter of whether to acknowledge a source country’s right to tax, as dividend income, the interest paid in relation to the exceeding amount borrowed under the applicable tax treaty ought to be determined depending on the tax treaty that the Republic of Korea concluded with the country where the relevant foreign corporation (foreign controlling shareholder) is a residence. In such a case where the interest paid constitutes another type of income (e.g., interest income), rather than dividend income, under the relevant tax treaty, then that classification should be the basis for either acknowledging the source country’s right to tax or setting the applicable limited tax rate. Click here for translation TP-cases-Korea-2015Du2710-1520228264005_143744 ...

A tax assessment based on Japanese CFC rules (anti-tax haven rules) had been applied to a Japanese Group’s (Denso), subsidiary in Singapore. According to Japanese CFC rules, income arising from a foreign subsidiary located in a state or territory with significantly lower tax rates is deemed to arise as the income of the parent company when the principal business of the subsidiary is holding shares or IP rights. However, the CFC rules do not apply when the subsidiary has substance and it makes economic sense to conduct business in the subsidiary in the low tax jurisdiction. According to the Supreme Court, total revenue, number of employees, and fixed facilities are relevant in this determination. The Singapore subsidiary managed it’s own subsidiaries or affiliates in other territories, and while the income from services to logistics in those territories represented 85% of its revenue, between 80% and 90% of it’s income came from dividends from its subsidiaries and affiliates. The Supreme Court held that the Singapore subsidiary had conducted a broad range of businesses – including finance and logistics – with the economically rational purpose of streamlining its ASEAN operations, and thus set aside the CFC taxation. Click here for English translation 087157_hanrei ...

Mutual-fund seller AGF Management Ltd. has settled a federal tax case over income shifted from Canada to an overseas subsidiary. The company has recently disclosed that the Canada Revenue Agency sought a total of $71.9-million in back taxes, interest and penalties related to the period spanning 2005-10. An agreement has since been reached, but the terms were not disclosed. In its latest quarterly report, AGF said the disagreement over taxes owed relates to transfer pricing with a foreign jurisdiction. The AGF disclosures do not mention whether the issues relate to operations in Ireland or Singapore. AGF is one of the largest independent investment managers in Canada with approximately $37-billion in total assets under management ...

In a public hearing held 22 August 2017 in Sydney Australia by the Economics References Committee, tech companies IBM, Microsoft, and Apple were called to the witnesses stand to explain about tax avoidance schemes – use of “regional headquarters” in low tax jurisdictions (Singapore, Ireland and the Netherlands) to avoid or reduce taxes. Follow the ongoing Australian hearings into corporate tax avoidance on this site: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Corporatetax45th Transcript from the hearing: Tax Avoidance, Australian Senate Hearing, 22 August 2017 ...

Singapore marketing hubs are being used by large multinational companies — and billions of dollars in related-party transactions that are being funnelled through the hubs each year. The Australian Tax Office has issued claims of substantial unpaid taxes to mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto have revealed through the Senate inquiry they have been issued amended assessments for tax, interest and penalties of $522 million and $107 million respectively. These claims will be challenged in court. The cases centres on the use of commodity trading/marketing hubs established in Singapore colloquially known as the Singapore Sling. The Australian taxation commissioner alleges Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton is using subsidiaries in Singapore to reduce the taxes in Australia. It has been revealed that from 2006 to 2014, BHP Billiton sold $US210 billion worth of resources to its Singapore subsidiary. That was then on-sold to customers for $US235 billion — a $US25 billion mark-up over eight years. After expenses, the Singapore marketing hub was left with a $US5.7 billion profit over those eight years. The key is to sell commodities to a related entity in Singapore at say $50 tonne. The company in Singapore can then sell the ore to clients at say the market price of $70 tonne. Profit gets registered in Singapore, not in Australia, and the company tax rate in Singapore is a lot lower, around 15 per cent. So companies can effectively transfer the profit to those lower taxing destinations. While the ATO accepts there are legitimate business activities being conducted in Singapore (shipping, insurance, and so-called marketing), the question is whether the profits attributable to the Singapore hubs are reasonable. BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto have revealed through the Senate inquiry they have been issued amended assessments for tax, interest and penalties of $522 million and $107 million respectively. In BHP’s case, its Singapore hub is owned 58 per cent by BHP Australia, and 42 per cent by BHP UK. Under Australian laws, profits on the 58 per cent are attributed back to Australia, and subject to company tax at 30 per cent. That has resulted in BHP paying $945 million of Australian tax on the Singapore profits from 2006 to 2014. But profits on the 42 per cent of the Singapore marketing hub that are owned by BHP UK escape the Australian tax net, so the more profits apportioned to Singapore, the less tax paid in Australia. The reason why BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto get an Australian tax advantage from the Singapore hubs is because of their dual listing on the London and Australian stock exchanges. That allows them to put ownership of the Singapore hub partly in the hands of their UK related companies ...

A tax assessment based on Japanese CFC rules (anti-tax haven rules) had been applied to a “TH Corp”‘s, subsidiary in Singapore. According to Japanese CFC rules, income arising from a foreign subsidiary located in a state or territory with significantly lower tax rates is deemed to arise as the income of the parent company when the principal business of the subsidiary is holding shares or IP rights. However, the CFC rules do not apply when the subsidiary has substance and it makes economic sense to conduct business in the subsidiary in the low tax jurisdiction. Judgement of the court. According to the court, total revenue, number of employees, and fixed facilities are relevant in this determination. The Court held that the Singapore subsidiary had conducted a broad range of businesses – including finance and logistics – with the economically rational purpose of streamlining its ASEAN operations, and thus set aside the CFC taxation. Excerpt “Satisfaction of the substance and control criteria (a) According to the above-mentioned findings, A1 rents an office in Singapore and uses it for the regional control business. Therefore, it can be said that A1 has fixed facilities in Singapore, the country where its head office is located, which are deemed to be necessary for the conduct of its main business, the regional control business. Therefore, it satisfies the substantive criteria (Article 6-6(4) and (3) of the Act). (b) According to the facts certified above, A1 holds general meetings of shareholders and meetings of the board of directors, executes the duties of officers, and prepares and keeps accounting books in Singapore. Therefore, it can be said that A1 manages, controls and operates its own business in the country where its head office is located, and therefore, the management control standard (Article 66-6 Article 66-6, paragraphs 4 and 3). Conclusion According to the above, A1 satisfies all of the requirements for exemption from application, namely, the business criterion, the country of domicile criterion, the substance criterion and the control criterion. Therefore, the plaintiff is exempted from the application of Article 66-6(1) of the Measures Act in each of the fiscal years in question.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation 088497_hanrei ...

Oxfam’s list of Tax Havens, in order of significance are: (1) Bermuda (2) the Cayman Islands (3) the Netherlands (4) Switzerland (5) Singapore (6) Ireland (7) Luxembourg (8) Curaçao (9) Hong Kong (10) Cyprus (11) Bahamas (12) Jersey (13) Barbados, (14) Mauritius and (15) the British Virgin Islands. Most notably is The Netherlands placement as no. 3 on the list. Oxfam researchers compiled the list by assessing the extent to which countries employ the most damaging tax policies, such as zero corporate tax rates, the provision of unfair and unproductive tax incentives, and a lack of cooperation with international processes against tax avoidance (including measures to increase financial transparency). Many of the countries on the list have been implicated in tax scandals. For example Ireland hit the headlines over a tax deal with Apple that enabled the global tech giant to pay a 0.005 percent corporate tax rate in the country. And the British Virgin Islands is home to more than half of the 200,000 offshore companies set up by Mossack Fonseca – the law firm at the heart of the Panama Papers scandal. The United Kingdom does not feature on the list, but four territories that the United Kingdom is ultimately responsible for do appear: the Cayman Islands, Jersey, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands ...

The Applicant is an Australian subsidiary of the Roche Group, the parent company of which is a resident of Switzerland. Roche is a major pharmaceutical corporation with integrated operations in many countries. It carries on research and development, manufacturing, marketing, selling and distribution of pharmaceuticals, vitamins, chemicals, diagnostic and other products. During the 1993 to 2003 income years (the relevant income years) the Applicant carried on business in Australia marketing, selling and distributing Roche products through three divisions: the Prescription Division (dealing in prescribed drugs), the Consumer Health Division (dealing in over the counter pharmaceuticals) and Diagnostic Products (dealing in diagnostic equipment and supplies). Australia-vs-ROCHE-PRODUCTS-PTY-LTD-July-2008-Administrative-Appeals-Tribunal ...

In the Seagate Tech case the US Tax Court was asked to decide on several distinct transfer pricing issues arising out of a transfer pricing adjustments issued by the IRS. Whether respondent’s reallocations of gross income under section 482 for the years in issue are arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; whether respondent should bear the burden of proof for any of the issues involved in the instant case; whether petitioner Seagate Technology, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Seagate Scotts Valley), paid Seagate Technology Singapore, Pte. Ltd. (Seagate Singapore), a wholly owned subsidiary of Seagate Scotts Valley, arm’s-length prices for component parts; whether Seagate Scotts Valley paid Seagate Singapore arm’s-length prices for completed disk drives; whether Seagate Singapore paid Seagate Scotts Valley arm’s-length royalties for the use of certain intangibles; whether the royalty fee Seagate Singapore paid Seagate Scotts Valley for disk drives covered under a section 367 private letter ruling applies to all such disk drives shipped to the United States, regardless of where title passed; whether the procurement services fees Seagate Singapore paid Seagate Scotts Valley were arm’s length; whether the consideration Seagate Singapore paid Seagate Scotts Valley pursuant to a cost-sharing agreement was arm’s length; and whether Seagate Scotts Valley is entitled to offsets for warranty payments Seagate Singapore paid to Seagate Scotts Valley. US-vs-SEAGATE-TECH-US-TC-149-1994 ...

Sunstrand licenced technology to its Singapore-based subsidiary, SunPac. The United States Tax Court ruled that the amounts paid by Sunstrand to SunPac did not constitute and arm’s-length consideration under Section 482, but also that the IRS overstepped its authority in calculating taxable net income. The Court also eliminated interest penalties imposed by the IRS. US-Sundstrand_decision_02191991 ...