02 12 15 25 February 2013 Point of view we observe in the for responseWhat How PwC can helpAframework industry Financial Transaction Taxes: Developing a strategic response Point of view Financial transaction taxes February 2013 PwC 2 continued to consider the introduction of an EU significantly changed the tax landscape for financial “FTTs will fundamentally change the wide FTT. institutions. tax landscape for financial In September 2011, the EU released a draft institutions…The EU Commission has Is this an issue for non-EU institutions? Directive for an EU FTT, with a planned start date estimated that the EU FTT will raise of 1 January 2014. This represented the first In short, the answer is yes. FTTs may be charged by €31 billion” attempt to introduce a common FTT regime across reference to the location of the issuer of taxable all EU countries. securities, regardless of where the parties to the Financial Transaction Taxes (“FTTs”) will transaction are located (this is the model for the Since then, various countries have sought to ‘front French FTT, for example). fundamentally change the tax landscape for run’ the EU FTT developments by introducing their financial institutions. These taxes will have wide- own, domestic FTTs. An alternative model (which was incorporated in reaching implications for the business models of the September 2011 draft EU Directive) taxes a all financial institutions, regardless of where Why have FTTs come to favour? financial institution based on where it, or the institutions are located and where they transact. At a time of high fiscal deficits in most western counterparty to the transaction, is located. Under In the past 18 months a number of countries have countries (see figure 1), FTTs are highly attractive this model, an institution outside of the FTT either introduced or announced an intention to politically as a revenue raising tool. Indeed, the EU jurisdiction can be subject to the tax by trading introduce domestic FTTs at a local country level. In Commission has estimated that the EU FTT will with a counterparty resident in the FTT addition, a proposal to introduce a FTT in a subset raise €31 billion, which would be a considerable jurisdiction. of the European Union (“EU”) has been approved. cost to financial services institutions and their clients. So, what are FTTs and where did they come from? Figure 1: individual country deficits, as Moreover, the support for FTTs is representative of published on 9 February 2013 What are Financial Transaction Taxes? a number of trends in taxation, including: FTTs are a form of indirect tax levied on specific • the use of taxes to change the behaviour of financial transactions, such as purchases of financial institutions equity securities. Country Budget balance • increased use of indirect taxes rather than as % of GDP A number of countries have long had domestic direct taxes FTTs, including the UK, Hong Kong and United States -7.0 • increased taxes levied on the financial sector Switzerland. Japan -9.8 For all of these reasons, in our view, financial Why are new FTTs being introduced? transactions taxes will be a feature of the tax Britain -7.9 landscape for many years to come. The development of FTTs in recent years has its France -4.5 roots in a request by the G20 to the IMF to find Who is impacted by FTTs? ways of ensuring the financial services sector Germany +0.1 In summary, any financial institutions involved makes a ‘fair and substantial contribution’ towards Greece -7.0 the costs of the financial crisis. in securities business are likely to be directly impacted by new FTT regimes. In particular, banks, Italy -3.0 1 Although the IMF report ultimately concluded that brokers, asset managers, insurers, and custodians Netherlands -4.1 a FTT was not its favoured option, the EU all need to be developing a response to these developments. For these reasons, FTTs have Spain -7.4 Source: The Economist, February 9th 2013 1. See http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/other_taxes/financial_sector/com(2011)594_en.pdf Financial transaction taxes February 2013 PwC 3 Notwithstanding the attractiveness of FTTs to Figure 2: Impacts of UK stamp tax 1 “FTTs have a significant adverse governments, research and experience from the impact at an economic level. FTTs can introduction of FTTs has suggested that FTTs have result in increased costs to companies a significant impact at an economic level. issuing securities…and present a risk There have been a number of studies into the • Reduction in the share prices of of relocation of activities economic impact of introducing FTTs. UK companies In the context of the UK’s stamp tax regime, • Increased cost of equity for UK companies For a very broad-based EU FTT research has suggested this has had a number of ...implementation costs of $15 – 20 economic effects on the UK economy as well as UK • Reduced liquidity in UK shares in the million would seem likely for large companies (see Figure 2). secondary markets financial services organisations with When a financial transaction tax was introduced in • Reduced UK GDP and tax receipts a European footprint” Sweden in the 1980s on the purchase and sale of domestic equities and stock options, this had a 1. See Stamp Duty : its impact and the benefits of its abolition by significant effect on the Swedish markets Oxera, May 2007. (including the migration of an estimated 50% of trading activity from Sweden to the UK). The economic impact of any new FTT will depend Compliance and implementation costs on the precise nature of the regime. One key aspect is whether tax is levied by reference to the location Our experience with the French FTT, and to some of the issuer of the securities (as with UK Stamp extent the Italian FTT, gives us an indication of Duty Reserve Tax (“SDRT”) which broadly applies what the implementation costs are likely to be for to transfers of equities issued by UK companies) or financial institutions. by reference to the location of the parties to the For the individual country FTTs, the transaction. implementation costs for financial institutions were The first model could be expected to result in estimated to be $2-3 million per country. The increased costs to companies issuing securities, and implementation costs of an EU wide FTT are add cost to parties trading those instruments. therefore likely to be significant. The second model provides a greater risk of Although it would be hoped that some economies relocation of activities as institutions which are of scale could be achieved, for a very broad-based located outside of the FTT zone and who do not EU FTT (along the lines of the current EU trade with counterparties inside the zone will not Commission proposal) and based on recent be subject to the tax. experience of individual country FTT These points are not simply of academic interest. implementation, total implementation costs of $15 They can be used to inform institutions’ – 20 million would seem likely for large financial engagement with governments, specifically around services organisations with a European footprint. the practical issues and the shape any proposed regime should take. They will also be highly relevant to assessing the impact of a new regime at an institutional level. These points are discussed in further detail later in this document. Financial transaction taxes February 2013 PwC 4 The EU FTT is now coming into force across a The EU Commission released a new draft of the “The EU FTT is now coming into subset of EU countries. So, how did this come Directive on 14 February 2013. The details of the force” about, what happened to the planned EU wide revised proposal are set out in the Appendix. FTT, and where does this regime stand? The next steps in the process are as follows: From the outset, this topic has been highly political with a range of views expressed by different • The precise provisions of the Directive will be governments. France and Germany in particular debated. All EU Member States will be present have been very strongly in support of the proposal, at these debates. whilst the UK and certain other countries have • Once the technical debate has concluded, the been strongly against it. process will move to the political level. The original intention was for the FTT to apply to Only the (currently 11) Member States, which have all EU Member States. Once it became clear that formally requested to the Commission to join the this could not be achieved given the opposition of Enhanced Cooperation on FTT, have the right to certain countries, a number of countries moved for participate in the final vote on the FTT regime at the introduction of an EU FTT in those countries the Council political level. The vote requires Figure 3: Countries joining the EU FTT only through a process known as the Enhanced unanimity to pass. via the Enhanced Cooperation Procedure Cooperation Procedure (“ECP”). This procedure Throughout the ECP process, Member States can allows a subset of at least 9 Member States to send a formal request to the Commission to join the proceed with introducing progressive EU law core group of 11 Member States in favour of the EU within those supporting States only. FTT. Based on the current draft Directive, once an On 22 January 2013, a vote was passed (with four EU FTT is enacted those countries signed up to the countries abstaining) to allow the 11 countries in FTT will not be able to retain existing, domestic € favour of the EU FTT to proceed with the FTTs. introduction of the tax.