Few might consider that the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) coping with the director, Christine Lagarde, could ever call for growing nations to boom taxation of firm agencies. She has completed precisely that during an op-ed inside the Financial Times (‘An overhaul of the international tax system can wait not,’ goo.Gl/XanF8z).

“The public notion that substantial multinational companies pay little tax has caused political needs for urgent motion… with desirable purpose. The ease with which multinationals appear able to avoid tax and the three-decade-lengthy decline in corporate tax prices compromise faith within the equity of the universal machine.

A New Paradigm
“The present-day situation is specifically harmful to low-profits countries, depriving them of an awful lot-needed sales that might help them attain better financial growth, reduce poverty and meet the UN’s 2030 sustainable improvement dreams…

“…developing nations which are mainly exposed to income moving and tax opposition with reasonable options for elevating revenue. IMF evaluation suggests that non-OECD countries together lose approximately $200 bn in sales a yr, or approximately 1.Three percent of the gross domestic product, due to corporations transferring income to low-tax places.” That is a devastating verdict. Lagarde provides, “An immediate impetus for an overhaul has been the rise of pretty worthwhile generation-pushed, digital-heavy business models. These rely to a great volume on intangible belongings which might be tough to feed, along with patents or software.

They also have much less want for a bodily presence to do commercial enterprise… those fashions spotlight previous assumptions about the global tax gadget. First, income and earnings are always linked to bodily presence. And 2d, that transactions inner a complex company organization may be valued primarily based on a goal marketplace benchmark.”

Three factors are at play. One is transfer pricing to shift maximum profits to low-earnings jurisdictions (Luxembourg, Cayman Islands, Ireland). Most countries, including India, have already got measures to check switch pricing.


A second, very new phenomenon, is extremely-low hobby rates created with the aid of massive quantitative easing by way of crucial western banks. This makes western capital artificially very cheap. That makes it financial for personal fairness to provide billions for ventures — basically virtual/digital ventures — that lose money for years at the same time as building marketplace share by way of reducing fees under cost. Indian agencies name this ‘capital dumping,’ using subsidized capital to gain market share on the rate of Indian rivals. Indian commercial enterprise requires safety are usually shamelessly self-serving, but here they have a point.

Third, multinationals that nominally lose money in India nonetheless extract huge sums through royalties and different costs. These payments are tax-deductible, growing nominal losses in India even as facilitating a net outgo of coins. Worse, the collected losses in India, used to kill competition, maybe a spark off against destiny earnings, with a view to being made when nearby competitors had been killed and overseas providers can increase charges after obtaining dominant marketplace proportion.

Lagarde says one answer is some shape of a minimal tax. India’s present minimum opportunity tax (MAT) will no longer work in these instances because it applies the simplest to income, which can be non-existent in cases of capital dumping and fee-extraction.

Change With the Times
The right opportunity is to tax revenues, now not earnings. This, indeed, turned into as soon as considered using the Donald Trump administration to test the diversion of profits to low-tax jurisdictions. A tax on sales will follow even to loss-making corporations, which in traditional economics could be unfair. But conventional economics has disappeared inside the technology of unicorns that are valued at billions of greenbacks even as dropping significant sums to build marketplace percentage.

What could be a truthful tax rate on sales? MNCs like Hindustan UnileverNSE -zero. Fifty-six %, Procter & Gamble, Gillette, and Colgate have profits earlier than a tax of 20-24% of income. At a corporate tax fee of 25%, this interprets into charges same to 5-6% of sales. A fair price might be half that — 2.5-3% of revenue — for the new breed of MNCs like Amazon, Netflix, and Walmart, which display extensive losses, and pay no tax.

Lagarde says, rightly, that countries should weigh the professionals of gathering tax revenue against the cons of using away foreign investment. India’s marketplace size is so extensive that only small or niche players might be discouraged, and the huge boys will invest although India levies a modest 2.5% tax on revenues at the least alternative tax.

Can this be levied handiest on overseas agencies and now not Indian-owned ones? No. That would violate World Trade Organisation (WTO) policies mandating national treatment for foreign buyers.

Such a tax might badly hit small and medium enterprises that face structural impediments, because of which the government is attempting to assist them. This difficulty can be overcome via placing an excessive threshold of, say, Rs a hundred crore of sales for the application of this tax.

Paying this type of tax might be illogical for big Indian companies with sales of over Rs 100 crore which can be bust and has defaulted on loans. Perhaps agencies noted the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for defaulting could be exempted from the tax on revenue. None of the ‘capital dumpers’ will default on loans. For them, losses are a method, now not a problem.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *