10 October 2016
Welcome to this UCT-IBFD Workshop on the New Global Tax Order:
“Does the South African Controlled Foreign Company regime overprotect the
tax base and cause harmful economic effects?”
Agenda08:00 – 10:00
International Perspective & Practical Challenges in South Africa
1. Welcome – Prof Roeleveld (Director of the UCT Tax Institute).
2. International Perspective – Dr Shee Boon Law (IBFD).
3. Key practical challenges – Prof Osman Mollagee (PwC).
10:00 – 10:30 Coffee break
10:30 – 12:00
Davis Tax Committee & Panel Discussion
4. Recommendations for the SA CFC regime – A/Prof Deborah Tickle (member Davis Tax Committee).
5. Panel Discussion moderated by A/Prof Johann Hattingh (UCT).
6. Summary & Closing – Prof Roeleveld (UCT).
CFC Rules in International Context
Shee Boon Law, IBFD, The NetherlandsCape Town, 10 October 2016
IBFD
Action 15: Multilateral instrument
• Action 5: Harmful tax practices • Action 6: Prevent treaty abuse• Action 13: Country by Country (CbC) reporting only• Action 14: Dispute resolution
Minimum standards
• Action 7: Permanent Establishment (PE)• Actions 8 - 10: Transfer Pricing• Action 13: Master file and local file
Strengthening existing international standards
• Action 1: Digital economy• Action 2: Hybrid mismatch arrangements • Action 4: Interest deductions
Common approach
• Action 3: Controlled foreign company (CFC) rules • Action 12: Aggressive tax planning arrangements Best practices
BEPS Final Reports – CFC Rules in the Hierarchy
4 © 2016 IBFD
BEPS and CFC Rules
© 2016 IBFD 5
Equity treatment = Control
Impact of CFC Rules in Home Countries
Rules that empower a State to tax its resident taxpayers on income derived by foreign entities controlled by them
B Co qualifies as a controlled foreign company of A Co
A Co taxable in Country S on 250, plus 150 under the CFC rules
Complex calculation rules and tracing rules to eliminate double taxation
A Co
B Co
Country P
Country SPayments
Profits = 150
Profits = 250
6
BEPS 3 – Overview of Recommended CFC Rules
OECD discusses seven CFC building blocks:
(1) CFC definitions.
(2) Threshold CFC requirements.
(3) Definition of CFC "control."
(4) Definition of CFC "income."
(5) Rules for computing CFC income.
(6) Rules for attributing CFC income.
(7) Rules to prevent or eliminate double taxation.
© 2016 IBFD 7
Objective and Scope of CFC Rules
Objective: Anti-deferral rules to discourage resident taxpayers from diverting their income to low-taxed CFCs thereby deferring their tax liability until the CFC profits are repatriated to them
Target CFCs in countries that do not have a comparable tax systems using comparably taxed criteria, effective tax rate, or listing approach (e.g. Tax havens); or
Target mobile income that can be easily moved (e.g. passive income such as interest, dividends, royalties and rent)
8
Active income exemption Finance company exception Active foreign holding company or sub-holding company
not in a black list country (e.g. Russian rules) Same country exception Comparable effective tax rate exemption Excluded territories (e.g. treaty countries, EEC, etc.) De minimis thresholds – e.g. tainted income exempt from
sub-part F if less than US $1 million, no CFC charge if CFC profits less than GBP50k
Low margin exception Temporary period exemption – e.g. CFCs created
temporarily during a restructuring
Common Exceptions Internationally
© 2016 IBFD 9
Capital import neutrality vs. Capital export neutrality Protection against profit diversion and round-tripping
structures Compliance costs are high when bona fide CFCs are caught
by the rules Active income exemption enhances competitiveness
But what to do with the interest costs of exempt foreign profits? Fat capitalization rules…
Spill over effects for investment countries???
Tax Policy Considerations
© 2016 IBFD 10
Application of CFC Rules to Holding Companies
Dividend/Capital Gains
CFC Rulesapplicable?
Affiliates
Tax FavoredHold Co
SA Parent
Equity
© 2016 IBFD 11
Application of CFC Rules to Low Tax Finance/IP/Service Companies
SA Parent
equity
Subsidiary Low tax Finance /IP/Service Company
© 2016 IBFD 12
CFC Rulesapplicable?
Loans, Licences and Service Agreements
Interest, Royalties or Service Fees
Application of CFC Rules to Principal Companies
SA Parent
Customers
Contracts with Customers $$$
Local Buy/SellContract Manufacturer
ServicesServices
© 2016 IBFD 13
Low Tax Subsidiary
CFC Rulesapplicable?
Thank You!!!
© 2016 IBFD 14
Key practical challenges – Prof Osman Mollagee (PwC).
SA’s CFC regime– Some practical difficulties
(Prof) Osman Mollagee7 October 2016
PwC
Applying section 9DSome practical difficulties faced by SA-based multinationals
• Foreign company
• Participation
• Foreign business establishment Exemption
• High tax Exemption
• “Roll-over” relief
Practical difficulties in applying SA's CFC regime17
PwC
Is the entity a “foreign company”?
Hybrid entitiesIf it’s not a “company”, it can’t be a CFC
• “foreign partnership” excluded from “company” definition
• Requires case-by-case analysis of foreign tax law and attributes of the entity
[S1(1) ITA: Definitions of “company” and “foreign partnership”]
POEM and DTT tie-breakIf it’s SA-resident, it’s not a CFC
• SA’s “resident” definition defers to DTT tie-break
• Uncertainty of POEM = Uncertainty of CFC status
• Even greater uncertainty when DTT tie-break is “mutual agreement”
[S1(1) ITA: Definitions of “resident” and “foreign company”]
Practical difficulties in applying SA's CFC regime18
PwC
Participation
Preference shares
CFC definition envisages SA holding in excess of “50 per cent of total participation rights” (or voting)
• No basis for excluding preference shares from “total” participation
• No guidance on relationship between ordinary and preference shareholding. Aggregation? Weighting?
CFC
SA-resident
Non-resident
Preference shares
Ordinary shares
[S9D(1): Definitions of “controlled foreign company” and “participation rights”]
Practical difficulties in applying SA's CFC regime19
PwC
Participation
Special and conditional rights
Participation rights may vary annually —e.g. subject to profitability
• Foreign company may become a CFC in some years, and cease to be a CFC in others?
CFC
SA-resident
Non-resident
• 60% of first $50M• 40% thereafter
• 40% of first $50M• 60% thereafter
50% 50%
[S9D(1): Definitions of “controlled foreign company” and “participation rights”]
Practical difficulties in applying SA's CFC regime20
PwC
FBE (“foreign business establishment”) Exemption
Substance: Outsourcing and sub-contracting
FBE definition requires CFC’s “fixed place of business” to be:• “suitably staffed” and “suitably equipped” (etc.)• to conduct the “primary operations”• of “that business”
Does SARS contemplate only business models where:• all/most functions are undertaken in house by the
CFC’s own in-country employees?• All/most assets are owned by the CFC?
Foreign OpCo(CFC)
SA Parent
SA OpCo
Service-providersand Sub-contractors
(Connected / unconnected)(SA / Foreign)
[S9D(1): Definition of “foreign business establishment”]
Practical difficulties in applying SA's CFC regime21
PwC
FBE (“foreign business establishment”) Exemption
Substance: Shared resources
FBE definition does contemplate situations where a CFC uses resources of a fellow (same-country) CFC
(1) Difference between “own” substance and “shared” substance?
(2) What if CFC-1 is not “subject to tax” in-country?
CFC-2(Country A)
SA Parent
“Suitable” substance
CFC-1 (Country A)
[S9D(1): Proviso to definition of “foreign business establishment”]
Practical difficulties in applying SA's CFC regime22
PwC
FBE (“foreign business establishment”) Exemption
Substance: Shared resources
FBE definition does contemplate situations where a CFC uses resources of a fellow (same-country) CFC
(3) Is the “same country” requirement reasonable? CFC-2(Country B)
SA Parent
“Suitable” substance
(Country A)
CFC-1 (Country A)
“Suitable” substance
(Country B)
[S9D(1): Proviso to definition of “foreign business establishment”]
Practical difficulties in applying SA's CFC regime23
PwC
FBE (“foreign business establishment”) Exemption
Intellectual property: Ownership, use and disposal
FBE exemption covers royalties and disposal-CGT only if the CFC:
• “regularly” and “directly”
• “creates, develops or substantially upgrades”
that IP
[S9D(9)(b) and s9D(9A)(a)(v)&(vi)]
Contract-R&D?
IP that does not require “regular” development or upgrading?
Practical difficulties in applying SA's CFC regime24
PwC
FBE (“foreign business establishment”) Exemption
Foreign dividends from CFCs that derive income from SA
Anti-round-tripping rule in s10B(4) attacks payments that are:
• Deductible by the SA payer
• but “not taken into account” in the recipient CFC’s “net income”
[S9D(9)(b) and s10B(4)]
CFC
SA ParentParticipation exemption
denied?
Income from foreign and SA
customers
Foreign dividend
Practical difficulties in applying SA's CFC regime25
PwC
High-tax Exemption
Group losses
HTE compares actual foreign tax paid against notional SA tax liability
• Reasonableness of ignoring group losses
• Mechanism (in CFC’s home country) for group relief
[Further proviso to s9D(2A)]
Practical difficulties in applying SA's CFC regime26
PwC
High-tax Exemption
Timing of foreign taxes
HTE compares actual foreign tax paid against notional SA tax liability
But recognises only foreign taxes that are:
• “payable”
• “in respect of the foreign tax year” (that foreign tax year?)
[Further proviso to s9D(2A)]
CFC
Foreign interest income
Year 2: PaymentForeign WHT
liability
Year 1: AccrualInclusion in notional SA
taxable income
Practical difficulties in applying SA's CFC regime27
PwC
Roll-over relief
• “conflict” between SA rules and foreign re-organisation mechanisms
• Gaps in disposal relief (e.g. inadequate protection from “degrouping” claw-backs)
[Ss 42- 47; s9H; Para 64B, 8th Sch. ITA]
Practical difficulties in applying SA's CFC regime28
PwC
Questions?
“The information contained in this publication by PwC is provided for discussion purposes only and is intended to provide the reader or his/her entity with general information of interest. The information is supplied on an “as is” basis and has not been compiled to meet the reader’s or his/her entity’s individual requirements. It is the reader’s responsibility to satisfy him or her that the content meets the individual or his/ her entity’s requirements. The information should not be regarded as professional or legal advice or the official opinion of PwC. No action should be taken on the strength of the information without obtaining professional advice. Although PwC take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality and accuracy of the information, accuracy is not guaranteed. PwC, shall not be liable for any damage, loss or liability of any nature incurred directly or indirectly by whomever and resulting from any cause in connection with the information contained herein.”
© PwC Inc. [Registration number 1998/012055/21](“PwC”). All rights reserved. PwC refers to the South African member firm, and may sometimes refer to the PwC network. Each member firm is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.co.za for further details.
Practical difficulties in applying SA's CFC regime29
Davis Tax Committee Presentation – A/Prof Deborah Tickle (KPMG).
DTC Report on BEPS - Controlled foreign companies
Deborah Tickle- DTC BEPS Sub-committee; Partner KPMG—
October 10, 2016
32© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Document Classification: KPMG Confidential
Agenda
• DTC’s mandate• Background to DTC BEPS Report• OECD Action 3• DTC Recommendations and Closing remarks.
DTC’s mandate and Background to DTC BEPS Report
34© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Document Classification: KPMG Confidential
DTC’s MandateDavis Tax Committee (DTC) formed on 17 July 2013, to inquire into the role of South Africa’s tax system in the promotion of inclusive economic growth, employment creation, development and fiscal sustainability.
The DTC is expected to take into account recent domestic and international developments and, in particular, the long term objectives of the National Development Plan.
On the international front, the DTC is required to address BEPS concerns as identified by the OECD.
However, acknowledgedTax no ‘silver bullet’- To induce to ‘Divert in’ needs other policy changes.
35© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Document Classification: KPMG Confidential
BackgroundThe conceptual framework of the DTC’s BEPS report is premised on:• cognizance of national sovereignty; • specific constitutional perspective; • the fiscal and economic policy in the National Development Plan;• principles of a good tax system. South Africa: part of G20 and OECD Associate Country participating in BEPS Action Plan. In responding to the OECD’s BEPS concerns, South Africa cannot take action without considering:• the global environment and other countries’ responses;• It ensures a balanced approach that preserves the competiveness of the
economy and does not stifle FDI;• the responses to BEPS by its trading partners as well as the country’s
place in the global economy as an emerging economy in Africa.
36© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Document Classification: KPMG Confidential
BackgroundOECD: Implementation Measures:
Minimum Standards
Common Approaches and Best Practices for Domestic Law (includes Action 3 on CFC’s):The DTC analysed all the legislation currently in place, compared it to the best practices recommended by the OECD, and then provided recommendations as to how this can be made more effective in curtailing BEPS without unduly hindering foreign investment or increasing compliance and administrative costs for taxpayers and revenue authorities.
Action Points to Reinforce international Standards.
OECD Action 3
38© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Document Classification: KPMG Confidential
OECD BEPS Action 3Shared policy considerations: • The role of the CFC rules as a
deterrent measure;• How the CFC rules complement
transfer pricing rules;• The need to balance effectiveness
with reducing administrative and compliance burdens; and
• The need to balance effectiveness with preventing or eliminating double taxation.
Jurisdictional policy considerations• Strike balance between tax and
competitiveness;• Preventing base stripping.
Six Building Blocks• Rules for defining a CFC
(including a definition of control);• CFC exemption and threshold
requirements;• Definition of CFC income;• Rules for computing income;• Rules for attributing income; and• Rules to prevent or eliminate
double taxation
39© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Document Classification: KPMG Confidential
OECD Action 3To Note:
• Recognised that success of Action 3 proposals depends on willingness of larger OECD member countries to adopt proposals;
• One particular structure of concern:• Companies indirectly ‘control’ further foreign ‘subsidiaries’ (IFRS 10)
via an offshore trust or foundation. • Exemptions and Threshold requirements:
• Tax rate exemption;• De minimus rule;• Anti-avoidance requirement (purpose based).
• Substance testing• Options
40© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Document Classification: KPMG Confidential
OECD Action 3To Note:
• Substance testing options:• Threshold test: facts and circumstances ie employees factually
contribute to CFC’s income earning activity;• Group’s significant functions to determine whether CFC is most likely
to own assets/risks if independent;• Sufficient business premises and nexus to country of residence and
skills to perform CFC’s core functions.• Nexus approach: IP regimes require substantial activity
DTC Recommendations
42© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Document Classification: KPMG Confidential
DTC Recommendations• South Africa should adopt the position of protecting its own interests. • Follow and not lead or set the trend. • South Africa’s CFC legislation is already sophisticated and comparable
to other G20 countries; there is thus no need to strengthen this legislation at this stage.
• In summary, since South Africa already has robust CFC legislation, the DTC recommends that it should not be significantly changed until it is clear what other countries intend to do.
• Recommendations thus address only other points.
43© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Document Classification: KPMG Confidential
DTC Recommendations:Defn of CFC (including control); and Rules for attributing incomeInclude Trusts
CFC exemptions and thresholds Retain De minimus Rule
• Consider imputing income of these companies to the ‘parent’ South African company, based on the IFRS methodology for consolidation (But refer first to the Final DTC Estate Duty report for its recommendations, for consistency).
• The current SA legislation includes a low tax threshold (75% rule) and a de minimis rule. The de minimus rule (financial instrument income not exceeding five per cent of a CFC’s total receipts and accruals excluding passive type income) covers this aspect satisfactorily and should be maintained. However:
44© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Document Classification: KPMG Confidential
DTC Recommendations:Reconsider low tax rule mechanics
Definition and computation of income + attributionReview substance
• Reconsider appropriateness of mechanics of the 75% rule, given the global trend of reducing tax rates: the UK: 15% by 2020, average rate of corporate tax in 2015 for Europe: 20.24% e.g. Ireland:12.5%, Hungary:19%; and Asia: 21.91% e.g. Singapore 17%,and Thailand 20%; unless the South African tax rate is likewise reduced (reducing likelihood of diversionary income anyway).
• Does SA regime require enough substance under FBE test? More aggressive taxpayers may satisfy the test with as little as one managerial employee, one operational employee, a small fixed office (which may even be shared), and a modest amount of office equipment. Thus, review substance-see Action 3.
45© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Document Classification: KPMG Confidential
DTC Recommendations:Consider legislation on outsourcing
Royalties versus services
• Review tax base risks associated with outsourcing and thereafter implement automatic tainting legislation to this practice.
• Investigate the artificial labelling of certain portions of IP income as ancillary services in order to avoid CFC imputation. This artificial labelling works best when the local countries involved treat services preferentially vis-à-vis royalties. Consider classifying ancillary services as royalties under the SA CFC rules (or at least if the amounts are characterised as royalties for local country tax purposes).
46© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Document Classification: KPMG Confidential
Closing Remarks/ Recommendations:
Relaxing of other regimes’ CFC Rules.
Consider compliance burden
Refine anti-diversionary rules
• SA CFC regime is largely in line with CFC systems used by many developed countries. But some European systems have softened their CFC systems since 2000 e.g. UK and Netherlands. SA cannot afford to be a leader in this field but must follow the practice set by others. Consider adopting a regime similar to UK or Netherlands to improve South Africa’s tax competitiveness in the long term, but beware this may open loopholes.
• SA’s CFC rules are complex. Ensure limited CFC compliance burden.
• Ensure legitimate business establishments not hindered e.g. re service income anti-diversionary rules for FBE. Consider refining the anti-diversionary rules as necessary.
47© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Document Classification: KPMG Confidential
Closing Remarks/ Recommendations
Simplify legislation
Monitor
• SA CFC rules are complex. Explaining inter alia them in Explanatory Memoranda that have no legal effect, when the law is not clear should be avoided. Legislation itself should be clear. Consider simplifying the legislation and reduce the cost of administration for business.
• Monitor OECD recommendations and refine CFC rules when necessary.
48© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Document Classification: KPMG Confidential
DTC RecommendationsSouth Africa should adopt the position of protecting its own interests. Follow and not lead or set the trend. South Africa’s CFC legislation is already sophisticated and comparable to other G20 countries; there is thus no need to strengthen this legislation at this stage. In summary, since South Africa already has robust CFC legislation, the DTC recommends that it should not be significantly changed until it is clear what other countries intend to do.
Thank you
Panel Discussion.
“Does the South African Controlled Foreign Company regime overprotect the tax base and
cause harmful economic effects?”
Thank you.
www.tax.uct.ac.za www.ibfd.org