Post on 12-Jul-2016
description
Taxes and Rules for MultinationalTaxes and Rules for Multinational CorporationsCorporations
For Assignment or Dissertation Help, Please Contact:
Muhammad Sajid Saeed
+44 141 4045137
Email: todrsaeed@gmail.com
Skype ID: tosajidsaeed
Table of Contents
Multinational Corporations Tax Rules and Regulations.........................................................................3
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................3
Policies followed by MNCs for paying less tax...................................................................................3
Profit shifting.................................................................................................................................4
Hybrid entities...............................................................................................................................4
FDI Policies.....................................................................................................................................5
Difficulties for introducing Global Tax Regimes.................................................................................5
Conclusion.........................................................................................................................................6
References.........................................................................................................................................7
Multinational Corporations Tax Rules and Regulations
Introduction
The essential section of any business planning for MNCs includes the strategy and principles
for tax planning. It includes the concepts of business models, tax management, tax risks,
value chain layouts, company’s legal structure, responsibilities of tax functions, governances
in taxes and basic business concepts (Braunstein, 1999). During the past years policy makers
and developmental agencies are being pulled towards international taxation strategies.
International tax avoidance by MNCs, increased net worth of the individuals and the
function of tax havens for increasing the incentives are said to be interconnected for
avoidance strategies. These strategies are adopted by the MNCs to shift income from the
high tax to low tax countries. They include presence of informal sectors, high poverty level
and inconsistency of low class citizens for paying huge taxes. Furthermore they also include
misrepresentation of corporate debt equity structure and intra-firm transfer prices in
addition to operating costs for attracting Foreign Direct Investments (Dharmapala, 2008).
The report focuses upon the policies adopted by the MNCs to pay diminutive amount of
taxes and the hurdles that arise for introducing such global tax regimes.
Policies followed by MNCs for paying less tax
Major part of country’s GDP and intra-firm trade is due to the presence of MNCs. With
operations at central and regional levels MNCs have global operating bodies with combined
supply chain products (Luo, 2001). The procedures and products are inclusive of the digital
economy which differs with respect to the location of the customers. In order to accomplish
public spending countries charge taxes. These taxes are in the form of corporate income
taxes and are based on company’s profits (Detomasi, 2007). OECD or Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development is considered to be an international organisation
with 34 countries as members. They are responsible in dealing with tax information
exchange and tax planning through tax agreements. On the other hand these agreements
have permitted zero taxation or under taxation policies. MNCs have the capability for
separating their functions including sales, development and research. Digital economy lends
a hand to MNC for operating internet business procedures and intangible assets for gaining
profits. However the methods adapted by MNCs for tax avoidance in the developed
countries orbits the shifting income from higher-tax rate to either no or lower tax countries
(Dharmapala, 2008). Some of the strategies are as follows:
Profit shifting
MNCs limit the operational activities in the higher tax countries through progressing
towards subsidiary-located low-tax countries. The international funds by MNCs are not their
chief contributions but make up 25% of the total investment for the Least Developed
Countries (LDCs). Through the issuance of bonds from local banks of LDCs, MNCs are able to
make use of funds for saving adequately (Haufler, 2013).
In addition MNCs also transfer the pricing policies between the companies that are under
the same MNC. It mainly includes the physical goods as well as intangible products. More
than quarter of the international transactions is included in inter-company transactions and
are not purchased from a third party. Hence they are not seen as arms-length. Abusive
transfer pricing occurs when the price in increased. Hence this is a method to shift profits
where a subsidiary in a high tax authority purchases the products from the other company
that has low-tax jurisdiction. In case of the UK there are more than 60 experts for
determining the transfer pricing. Additionally the group company existing in lower tax
environment having IPR ownership rights accuses other group in a higher tax state for the
usage of technology, brands, licenses or patents. MNC have the company that owns the IPR
in the country where there are no taxes to be paid for licence fees and then charge its
associate that are around the globe (Braunstein, 1999).
Hybrid entities
Fusion of two entities encircles the deduction of the same cost including the loan interest
from two separate countries based upon the company’s associate structures. This also
occurs when cross-countries permits dual-resident companies (Luo, 2001). For instance, in
the UK Ireland have companies that are based only in Ireland or tax haven countries
including Bermuda. This gives rise to a tax reducing structure for wholly owned subsidiaries
that have transactions in Ireland, Bermuda and Holland. The Irish affiliates have twofold
residence and circulates profits through Dutch affiliates giving rise to no corporate income
tax (Dharmapala, 2008).
FDI Policies
Some countries have allowed MNCs monopolies for protecting domestic markets from the
imports via tariffs. They have established markets and factories on local basis and have
charged high prices leading to premium profits for monopolies from local citizens
(Blomström, 2003). Tax holidays are also observed by the MNCs for pulling foreign
investments as taxes that are paid to foreign entities are tax-deductible in an MNC home
country. As a result when a tax holiday is implemented MNC do not pay taxes to the LDC
host country. Hence the investment holds no more importance due to reverse foreign aid.
Difficulties for introducing Global Tax Regimes
Avoidance strategies and tax evasion by the MNCs are well understood that how MNC make
use of shifting their income from high tax countries to low tax countries (Payne, 1997). The
financial recession era made the fiscal policies related to tax evasion was a major issue for
the developed countries. The OECD countries have 35% of tax revenues of their GDP while
the developing countries only acquire 13%. The increment of tax by the developing
countries leads to a situation where the government agencies cannot obtain the required
financial resources for educational, healthcare and sanitation services. The low tax revenues
urge the governments to increase the levels of aid and debts and can distort the positive
attitude towards creditors (Sethi, 2003).
By determining the social and economic effect of tax evasion it is estimated that almost
£189 Bn can be lost by the developing countries which 5% of the total GDP. The OECD states
that developing countries can lose more than three times of the amount they obtain in aid
due to tax evasion and avoiding tax havens. It also suggests that the strategy for tax havens
however play an important role in: firstly offering low tax rates for producing
encouragement for corporations to shift from high tax jurisdictions and secondly it offers
secrecy provisions for enabling tax evasion. Both of the factors are a magnet for foreign
capital in globalisation. Studies by the Tax Justice Network suggest that £21.2Tn can be held
offshore and the developing countries can lose over £126bn in terms of tax revenues
(Blomström, 2003).
Studies also suggest the loss that arises due to profit shifting and price data strategies by
MNCs (Held, 1999). The aim for these studies is to observe the abnormal price transactions
of imports and exports by the help of price filter matrix. The result depicts tax loss for the
mispricing of European countries to be £230Bn. A research by Riedel and Fuest portrays that
MNCs associated to havens have less profit margins and MNCs that pay less tax to the
national companies also face loss. For FDI tax variables including market size, infrastructures
and labour force are significant but tax competition has lead to tax driven investments
which decreases the tax bill.
The inadequacy of methods for obtaining information related to taxpayers and tax evasions
also add-in to problems for MNCs. During the past years it has been observed that several
developing countries have adopted the strategies for preventing profit outflows including
thin-capitalisation, anti-avoidance rules and specific transfer pricing legislation. Nonetheless
they do not exist in several developing countries creating problems for MNCs. As of
February 2013, BEPS or Base Erosion and Profit Shifting reported that profit shifting is the
basic cause of base erosion (Haufler, 2013). It also described the MNCs mobile activities for
avoiding payment of taxes which can change the already existing policies that can be
harmful. Restricted to the cost management pressures the corporate tax department fails to
play their character as tax management. As a result the corporate tax professionals are
forced to administer the tax management with limited amount of resources, thus
deteriorating the overall image (McDaniel, 2003).
Conclusion
It can be concluded from the studies that MNCs that are strongly connected to the tax
havens show more profit shifting. The international tax rules should be revised. They should
focus upon the excessive distribution of global tax base and each country should be given
deserving amount of tax for the profits earned by MNCs. The treatment towards MNCs
should be fair and for what they really are, including the centralised management and
economic scales. They should be monitored for their tax payments and economic activities
instead of their jurisdictions for tax avoidance strategies.
References
Blomström, M., Kokko, A., & Mucchielli, J. L. (2003). The economics of foreign direct investment
incentives (pp. 37-60). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Braunstein, E., & Epstein, G. (1999). Creating international credit rules and the Multilateral
Agreement on Investment. Global Instability, 118.
Dharmapala, D. (2008). What problems and opportunities are created by tax havens?. Oxford Review
of Economic Policy, 24(4), 661-679.
Detomasi, D. A. (2007). The multinational corporation and global governance: Modelling global
public policy networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3), 321-334.
Haufler, V. (2013). A public role for the private sector: Industry self-regulation in a global economy.
Carnegie Endowment.
Held, D. (Ed.). (1999). Global transformations: Politics, economics and culture. Stanford University
Press.
Li, Q. (2006). Democracy, Autocracy, and Tax Incentives to Foreign Direct Investors: A Cross ‐National
Analysis. Journal of Politics, 68(1), pp 62-74.
Luo, Y. (2001). Toward a cooperative view of MNC-host government relations: Building blocks and
performance implications. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3), 401-419.
Manzon, G. B., Sharp, D. J., & Travlos, N. G. (1994). An empirical study of the consequences of US tax
rules for international acquisitions by US firms. The Journal of Finance, 49(5), 1893-1904.
McDaniel, P. R. (2003). US Tax Treatment of Foreign Source Income Earned in Developing Countries:
A Policy Analysis, The. Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev., 35, 265.
Payne, D., Raiborn, C., & Askvik, J. (1997). A global code of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics,
16(16), 1727-1735.
Sethi, S. P. (2003). Setting global standards: Guidelines for creating codes of conduct in multinational
corporations. John Wiley & Sons.