News Alert 16 December, 2011
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
www.pwc.co m/in Sharing insights News Alert 16 December, 2011 AAR ruling on taxability of reimbursement of salary costs of seconded employees to group company not based on proper reasoning – Madras High Court In brief Facts In a recent direction on the writ petition by Verizon Data Services India Pvt. Ltd. • VDSL is engaged in providing services relating to development and (VDSL) 1, the Madras High Court has set aside the Ruling of the Authority for maintenance of telecom software solutions and information technology Advance Rulings (AAR) and remanded to AAR for re-examining the issue relating enabled services to Verizon Data Services LLC, US (Verizon US) . to the taxability of reimbursement of salary costs to group company pertaining to seconded employees as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between • In order to meet the business requirement of VDSL, three employees of GTE India and the USA (tax treaty). Overseas Corporation, USA (GTE US), an affiliate company of Verizon US, were seconded to VDSL. In relation to this, a secondment agreement was entered into between VDSL and GTE US. 1 Verizon Data Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. AAR [ TS-725-HC-2011(MAD)] 1 PwC News Alert December 2011 • As per the secondment agreement, each employee functioned and acted Issues exclusively under the direction, control and supervision of VDSL. GTE US was not responsible for the work of any employee and did not undertake any 1. Whether the Ruling could be subject to judicial review under the writ obligation or risk in relation to the quality of the results produced from the jurisdiction of the Court in light of its binding nature under section 245S of work performed by these employees. the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). • GTE US would remunerate the employees and in turn VDSL would reimburse 2. Whether the AAR erred in holding that the sums payable by VDSL under the GTE US for the same. secondment agreement constitute “income” accruing to GTE US and thus subject to withholding tax under section 195 of the Act. • In relation to the secondment agreement, VDSL sought a Ruling from the AAR to determine whether the reimbursement of the salary of seconded employees 3. Whether the AAR erred in holding that GTE US provided managerial services to GTE US would be income subject to withholding tax in India either as fees falling within the purview of Article 12(4)(b) of the tax treaty , and whether for technical services or as business profits attributable to a permanent the “make available” clause under the Memorandum of Understanding of the establishment in India under the tax treaty , and if so, to determine the tax treaty applies only to technical services. applicable rate of withholding tax. 4. Whether the AAR erred in not giving any finding regarding the • The AAR held the payments to be income for GTE US subject to withholding characterisation of payments as business profits attributable to the tax in India as fees for managerial services under Article 12(4)(b) of the tax permanent establishment of GTE US in India , if any, under the tax treaty. treaty at the rate of 20%. The AAR further held the payment to be covered by the definition of fees for technical services also, under section 9(1)(vii) of the 5. Whether the AAR erred in determining the rate of withholding @ 20%. Act. Issue 1 • The AAR overruled the contention of VDSL that the payments constitute ‘cost- VDSL contentions to-cost’ reimbursement of the salary paid to seconded employees , holding that the receipt by GTE US from VDSL and receipt of salary income by the • The High Court has the jurisdiction to interfere with the ruling and issue employees spring from independent sources and cannot be correlated. direction when it finds the ruling to be perverse and when the AAR failed to properly consider the questions raised in light of the secondment agreement. • Aggrieved by the ruling of the AAR, VDSL filed a writ petition under article The writ petition is maintainable due to flaws in the reasoning of the AAR 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Chennai, challenging which involves substantial question of law, and also since the findings the validity of the ruling on the grounds that it is perverse due to lack of ignore/overlook vital clauses in the secondment agreement. appreciation of the facts and issues , and hence should be quashed . 2 PwC News Alert December 2011 • Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in R.Shreeram Issue 2 Durga Prasad and Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (IT and WT) 2 and in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I.Tripathi &Ors 3. VDSL contentions Revenue’s contention • Payments are in the nature of reimbursement of salary and expenses incurred by GTE US in relation to the seconded employees constituting mere ‘cost-to- • Given the fact that the AAR had interpreted the various clauses in the cost’ reimbursement. secondment agreement between GTE US and VDSL, the question of the High Court drawing a different conclusion does not arise. • VDSL being the economic employer of the seconded employees has reimbursed their salary costs to the GTE US which is the principal employer. • VDSL no longer has the opportunity to challenge the Ruling since there is a This does not mean that the payment made would have the character of finality attached to it. income. High Court Decision • Reliance was placed on CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft4, CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd 5, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. • Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the Jyotendrasinhji case Ltd 6 to substantiate that reimbursement is not taxable as income. (above), relied on by VDSL, the High Court upheld the maintainability of the writ petition. In so doing, the High Court reiterated that it is “concerned with Revenue’s contentions the legality of the procedure followed and not with the validity of the order”. The constitutional right is always available to the party to challenge an • The payment is “income” in the hands of GTE US and liable to withholding tax apparent error in the ruling given the scope of the judicial review on the under section 195 of the Act. grounds of perversity , on the grounds of the ruling going against the provisions of law by not considering various clauses in the secondment High Court Decision agreement. • The question whether the receipt is really income or reimbursement is a pure question of fact which has to be determined based on various clauses in the secondment arrangement between VDSL and GTE US. Since the AAR had examined the relevant clauses in the agreement before holding that the receipts are income for GTE US, the High Court cannot substitute its own view for the reasoning of the AAR. 2 R.Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (IT and WT) 4 CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [2009] 310 ITR 320 (Bom-HC) [1989] 176 ITR 169 (SC) 5 CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd [1993] 202 ITR 1014 (Del-HC) 3 Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I.Tripathi &Ors [1993] 201 ITR 611 (SC) 6 Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd, In re [2009] 309 ITR 356 3 PwC News Alert December 2011 Issue 3 Issue 4 VDSL contentions VDSL contentions • Article 12(4)(b) of the tax treaty deals with technical and consultancy services • The ruling is not sustainable as it fails to answer the question on the that ‘make available’ technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how etc ., characterisation of the payments as business profits attributable to the and even though on an examination of the facts the AAR found that GTE US permanent establishment of GTE US in India, if any , under the tax treaty. rendered managerial services which are not technical in nature, the AAR held that Article 12(4)(b) is attracted, thereby committing a serious error. Revenue’s contentions • In view of the patent illegality, the ruling should be quashed. • In the light of answers given regarding the taxability and characterisation of payments, the question of the attribution of profits to a permanent Revenue’s contentions establishment is academic. • Even though the services of the seconded employees were not technical High Court Decision services, on the basis of the nature of their duties, the services fall under the description of consultancy services as per Article 12(4)(b) of the tax treaty. • In view of Issue 3 being remanded to the AAR, it is fitting that Issues 4 and 5 also merit fresh consideration by the AAR. • No exception could be made to hold that the nature of services provided by Issue 5 GTE US are in the nature of managerial services to fit in with the definition of “fees for technical services”, and thus be governed by Article 12(4)(b) of the tax VDSL contentions treaty • When the ruling is on the taxability of the reimbursement as income under the High Court Decision Act as well as under the tax treaty, the rate of tax has to be in accordance with section 90(2) of the Act. Thus GTE US is entitled to the more beneficial rate of • It is difficult to correlate the findings of the AAR with the conditions set out in 10%. Article 12(4)(b) of the tax treaty to characterise the payments as fees for technical services. In the circumstances, this portion of the ruling merits to be Revenue’s contentions set aside , and accordingly the matter is remanded to the AAR for reconsideration of this portion of the Ruling in light of provisions of tax treaty • Not available.