14 August 2020 India publishes detailed guidance on Mutual Agreement Procedure The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released, on 24 October 2019, the sixth batch of peer review report (the Report1) relating to the implementation of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) minimum standard under Action 14 (Making Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective). The Report, which included a peer review of India, concluded that India met half of the elements of the Action 14 minimum standard on an overall basis. Further, the Report recommended improvements in certain areas, including the requirement to publish comprehensive guidance on India's Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) with information on India's approach to key issues in MAP and the corresponding expectations of treaty partners. In this regard, as a first step, India's Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), on 6 May 2020, issued a notification amending the rules relating to MAP.2 Following this, on 7 August 2020, the CBDT published detailed guidance (the Guidance) which is intended to provide key information on several aspects relating to India's MAP program. The Guidance comprises of four sections, including: (A) introduction and basic information; (B) access and denial of access of MAP; (C) technical issues; and (D) implementation of the MAP process. In line with the amended MAP Rules, the Guidance also underscores India's commitment to resolve MAP cases within 24 months. In general, issuance of this Guidance will be useful and will benefit the taxpayers, tax authorities and competent authorities (CAs) of India and the respective foreign jurisdictions. The Guidance further reinforces India's commitment to make dispute resolution an effective and efficient process by reforming its MAP regime to comply with the key areas of the Report. As part of the OECD MAP peer review process, India underwent the Stage 1 peer review (based on the inputs from assessed jurisdiction, peers and taxpayers). Accordingly, on 24 October 2019, the OECD released the sixth batch (Stage 1) peer review reports which included India, relating to the outcome of the peer monitoring of the implementation of the BEPS minimum standard under Action 14 on improving tax dispute resolution mechanisms. The Report contained recommendations from OECD on the key areas of improvements in addition to the requirements under the Action 14 minimum standard in relation to an effective dispute resolution mechanism. Issuance of comprehensive MAP guidance was one of the recommendations of the OECD as part its peer review process. Accordingly, the CBDT, on 6 May 2020, issued a notification amending the MAP Rules. Further, in line with the recommendations of OECD peer review process, on 7 August 2020, the CBDT issued the Guidance containing detailed information regarding MAP processes for the benefit of taxpayers, tax practitioners, tax authorities, the CAs of India and the respective foreign jurisdictions. The MAP article contained in India's Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) is largely based on Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention. Through this, the CAs of the contracting states may resolve differences or difficulties regarding the interpretation or application of the respective DTAA on a mutually agreed basis. While the MAP is of fundamental importance to the proper application and interpretation of DTAAs, it has particularly emerged as a widely used mechanism for resolving transfer pricing (TP) disputes. The procedures for invoking MAP and giving effect to the MAP resolution for the granting of relief in respect of double taxation or for the avoidance of double taxation are contained in Rule 44G the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Key highlights with respect to filing of MAP application are as follows:
Access to MAP is granted simultaneously with domestic remedies. India provides access to MAP in the following types of cases and for the following issues, if they result in double taxation not in accordance with the DTAA: (i) TP adjustments; (ii) existence of a permanent establishment (PE); (iii) attribution of profits to a PE; and (iv) characterization or re-characterization of income or expense such as royalty/fees for technical services or interest. The Guidance specifically provides clarification on access to MAP in the following circumstances:
The Guidance provides that the CAs of India can deny access to MAP in certain situations as listed below:
Under the Indian TP regulations, if the application of the arm's-length principle has the effect of reducing the income chargeable to tax or increasing the loss, as the case may be (i.e., computed based on the books of accounts), the TP computational provisions would not apply. In line with this, the Guidance clarifies that the Indian CAs cannot go below the income already offered to tax by the taxpayer in its tax return filings, as the same is expressly prohibited under the Indian domestic law. However, for MAP cases involving adjustments made by tax authorities of a DTAA partner, the Indian CA may go below the income already offered to tax by the taxpayer, to implement the MAP in full measure in accordance with the DTAA obligations. The guidance clarifies that the consequential interest and penalties shall be administered under the Indian domestic tax law. Accordingly, the Indian CAs do not have the mandate to consider such consequential issues and negotiate disputes arising from such issues. While the amount of interest and penalties that are linked to the quantum of income, shall be varied in the same proportion as the variation in the quantum of income due to a MAP resolution, certain fixed penalties (which are not connected to the quantum of income), would not be affected by the resolution under MAP. The Guidance clarifies that in respect of issues for which a bilateral or multilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) application has already been filed and accepted, MAP applications on the same issues for the same years should not be made by the taxpayers. Upon consultation with DTAA partners, any such MAP applications would not be admitted. However, if a bilateral or multilateral APA application fails to result in resolution for any reason, then a MAP application on the same issue and for the same years can be made and the same may be accepted by the CAs of India if it satisfies all conditions of a MAP application. In order to avoid the unintended hardship to the taxpayers during the pendency of the MAP application, as well as for efficient management of collection of revenue, India has signed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding suspension of collection of taxes, with a few countries. These include the United States, the UK, Denmark, Sweden and South Korea. In this regard, the Guidance clarifies that the taxes whose collection can be suspended are those that have arisen from the dispute that is under discussion in MAP. In respect of MAP cases with other countries, the Indian domestic law provisions shall govern the procedures related to suspension of collection of taxes or stay of demand. This typically involves part or full payment of the tax demand as issued by the Indian tax authorities. The provisions relating to the "secondary adjustments" are applicable with effect from the Indian financial year starting from 1 April 2016. These provisions are primarily intended to ensure that profit allocation between the associated enterprises is consistent with the primary TP adjustment. The said provisions envisage MAP resolution as well in order to require actual cash repatriation for the differential profit amount. Accordingly, the Guidance clarifies that Indian CAs would be obligated to make such secondary adjustments part of the MAP resolution in respect of cases pertaining to the financial year 2016-17 or thereafter.
The Guidance clarifies that the MAP resolution shall be implemented in all cases except where an ITAT order (for a MAP covered year) is brought to the attention of the Indian CA or is passed (but not implemented) after resolution of the MAP. In such cases, the outcome of the ITAT order is applicable and thus will only seek correlative relief at the level of the treaty partner. Further, specified timelines as per amended MAP rules shall be strictly adhered to in order to ensure speedy implementation of the MAP resolution. Further, the Guidance reiterates that following post MAP resolution and subsequent acceptance by the taxpayer, the concerned Assessing Officer in India, should send the copy of such order giving effect to the MAP resolution to the Indian CA along with the details of amount/date of payment of taxes/date of issue of refund to the taxpayer, withdrawal of appeals filed by the tax authorities, and any other relevant details. The release of India's Stage 1 peer review report represented the continued recognition and importance of the need to achieve tax certainty for cross-border transactions for multi-national enterprises. The amended MAP rules along with the Guidance provide much-needed insights and clarity to taxpayers considering the use of MAP for resolving cross-border tax disputes. The Guidance further reinforces India's commitment to make dispute resolution an effective and efficient process by reforming the MAP regime to comply with the key areas of the Report. As noted in the Report, due to resource constraints, there have been some delays in the discussion and resolution of MAP/APA cases. Considering the recommendations of the OECD, the CBDT may also need to strengthen the teams overseeing MAP cases by providing additional resources for the efficacy of the MAP program. Nonetheless, given the challenges with the domestic tax law appeal process, MAP and APAs continue to be a preferred option for resolving/preventing cross-border tax disputes, particularly in the area of TP, to mitigate the double taxation risks. 1 See EY Global Tax Alert, OECD releases India Stage 1 peer review report on BEPS Action 14, dated 6 November 2019. 2 See EY Global Tax Alert, India amends Mutual Agreement Procedure rules, dated 20 May 2020.
Document ID: 2020-2070 |
