AN APPRAISAL OF THE PROPOSED DST. A study commissioned by CCIA 20 September 2018

Similar documents
FUTURE TAXATION OF COMPANY PROFITS

Delegations will find in the Annex a Presidency compromise on the abovementioned proposal.

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

Fair taxation of the digital European Commission DG TAXUD. economy

e-commerce and Transfer Pricing

London, 25 September Taxation of the Digital Economy

REQUEST FOR INPUT ON WORK REGARDING THE TAX CHALLENGES OF THE DIGITALISED ECONOMY

C 3 INNOVATION BEHAVIOUR IN THE GERMAN PRIVATE SECTOR

Internet Taxation. Francis Bloch. Toulouse, Postal Conference, April 16, Université Paris 1 and PSE

Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE. on the common system of a digital services tax on revenues resulting from the provision of certain digital services

Taxation & the Digital Economy

Fair Taxation of the Digital Economy: What is Fair? 2018 KPMG EMA Tax Summit Rome

European Commission releases package on taxation of the digital economy

Permanent Establishment through Digital Presence Will it work?

Global Tax Webcast. Taxation of the Digital Economy: an Asia Pacific perspective on the recent developments. KPMG Asia Pacific Tax Centre

Georgia Stamatelou Partner, Head of Tax 19 April 2018

International leased lines

TAX EFFICIENT GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS IN 2018

Shadow Banking and Financial Stability

in focus Statistics Trade in high-tech products Contents China on the rise The EU is the leading trader in high-tech products in 2005

Romania. Paving the way to EURO adoption. October 2018

Labour market policies and the crisis: What to do - and what not to do?

Questions and Answers. Fund Accounting and Support Services RFP

Digital Innovation and the Distribution of Income

Röller/ Friederiszick/ Verouden Chief Economist Team DG COMP, European Commission*

Global Forum Athens 21st October 2008 Interoperability and trust in the financial world

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION. of relating to the corporate taxation of a significant digital presence

Engaging title in Green Descriptive element in Blue 2 lines if needed

Digital Economy. Dr. Amar Mehta October Chambers Of Tax Consultant, Mumbai.

WORLD SERVICES GROUP

Alfons Weichenrieder. Digitalization and taxation: Beware ad hoc measures. SAFE Policy Letter No. 64

Her Majesty s Treasury Department Discusses the UK s Proposed Digital Services Tax

China passes the EU in High-tech exports

WORKING PAPER. Brussels, 15 February 2019 WK 2235/2019 INIT LIMITE ECOFIN FISC

EFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC SPENDING IN SUPPORT OF R&D ACTIVITIES

Tax & Legal Weekly Alert

Common (Consolidated) Corporate Tax Base A Personal View

Fair taxation of the digital economy

European Innovation Policy. an Economic perspective

EUROPE S SOURCES OF GROWTH

Corporate Socialism Around the World

Selling goods and services in the digital economy

Taxation of digital economy

Axioma Risk Monitor UK Edition 30 January 2019

Short Term Measures The EU Digital Services Tax (DST) Proposal v. The Indian Equalisation Levy

Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE. laying down rules relating to the corporate taxation of a significant digital presence

16 March :00 16:00 (CET)

The Effects of EU Formula Apportionment on Corporate Tax Revenues

Observations on OECD Interim Paper and EU Commission Digital Tax Proposals

CitiService News February 1, 2018 Edition No. 2

Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE. laying down rules relating to the corporate taxation of a significant digital presence

Italy s 2018 Finance Bill includes important provisions on the digital economy, cross-border taxation

THE IMPACT OF FISCAL POLICIES ON PASSENGER CAR TRANSPORT ENERGY DEMAND IN OECD COUNTRIES

1 Three major Problems for Software Product Companies. 2 Removing Confusion on Goods and Service tax for Software Products in Indirect tax regime

INNOVATION BEHAVIOUR IN THE GERMAN PRIVATE SECTOR

Proposed new guidelines:

ANNEX. to the Commission decision on the reimbursement of personnel costs of beneficiaries of the Connecting Europe Facility

Axioma Risk Monitor Developed Europe 2 May 2018

Axioma Risk Monitor Developed Europe 4 July 2018

The OECD s 3 Major Tax Initiatives

E-Commerce structures & tax issues

Future of tax in a digital economy: Are you prepared? The Dbriefs International Tax series

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

Challenges of the U.S. and Mexico tax systems with regards to the cross-border digital economy. Dra. Lillian Sumi Imaoka

Keeping Close to Investors Supported by Foreign Ministry Resources

The first one-stop international payment platform

BEPS MONITORING GROUP

Subject: ICC s perspectives on the taxation of technical services

Our position. AmCham EU s position on Digital Tax

Axioma Risk Monitor US4 Edition 26 April 2018

Axioma Risk Monitor US4 Edition 3 July 2018

The Mystery of Low Productivity Growth: Some Insights from Belgium

Stakeholder Consultation: Review of Double Taxation Treaties 2018

ASOS plc Group Tax Strategy

An implicit tax rate for non-financial corporations: Macro vs micro approach

Trends in IP Taxation in Thailand Roundtable discussion Tuesday 10 October 2017 IBA Annual Conference 2017 Sydney

GIES 2008: Measuring Innovation

Eurex Pricing Measures

Re: USCIB Comments on HM Treasury s position paper on Corporate Tax and the Digital Economy

RUSSIA S NEW VAT RULES ON CROSS-BORDER E-COMMERCE SERVICES KEY POINTS FOR B2B SERVICE PROVIDERS

Growth, competitiveness and jobs: priorities for the European Semester 2013 Presentation of J.M. Barroso,

3. Global market returns (6 months) 4. Global market returns (1 week) 5. Global Market Risk and Return AU HU ID TH ZA CA NL DK IE MY BE CO PH LU PE

The European Commission Is Attempting a Radical Change to How Digital Transactions Are Taxed Throughout the EU

Base erosion & profit shifting (BEPS) 25 May 2016

Tax Cuts & Jobs Act: The Road to Reform Reform Results of Reform

Taxation in the Digital Economy

Deloitte AML Study. Response from: LEASEUROPE

XBID Information Package Published February 2018 Updated December 2018

Sustainability of upper tier structures impact of BEPS

POLARIS PRIVATE EQUITY

(Conjectures on) macro implications of structural idiosyncrasy

Adverse scenario for the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority s EU-wide insurance stress test in 2018

Capital and Risk Management Report 2016

Financial Globalization, governance, and the home bias. Bong-Chan Kho, René M. Stulz and Frank Warnock

COUNTRY FACTSHEET: GERMANY

Annex I Data definitions and sources

13 TH MEETING 2 MAY 2016

BEPS, SPILLOVERS, ETC.: CURRENT ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE TAXATION

Pass or fail Are you ready to take the digital maturity exam?

Extracting tax value from the Internet-of- Things

Transcription:

AN APPRAISAL OF THE PROPOSED DST A study commissioned by CCIA 20 September 2018

DST: What, why and the two problems What A new 3% tax on certain digital activities: i) Online advertising revenues, ii) Fees on online intermediaries, iii) Revenues from sale of user data Only applying to firms above certain thresholds Why Digital companies are undertaxed Mitigating tax losses resulting from digitalisation Users key contributors to value creation The two problems with the DST Argumentation not backed by evidence or solid tax analysis DST creates a range of new distortions to the tax system 2

NO GROUNDED ARGUMENTS FOR A DST

IA calculations at odds with observed tax record IA states: Traditional companies pay 13 % point more in average tax rate than digital companies.. However, a real world sample of tax records suggests that they pay about the same 23% 28% 29% 10% Traditional companies Theoretical effective tax rates by the European Commission Digital companies Empirical effective tax rates What explains this massive difference between theoretical and actually recorded average rates of taxes across industries? Note: Empirical effective tax rate calculated as total tax payments divided by earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT). Source: ECIPE (2018) Digital Companies and Their Fair Share of Taxes: Myths and Misconceptions and Impact Assessment page 18 4

IA only partially accounts for differences between digital companies and traditional companies IA does factor in that digital companies are very R&D intensive and get larger benefits from R&D tax incentives But does not factor in that shares of equity finance and rates of return are also different 91% 71% 55% 14% 12% 9% Equity share ROE Note: Data from western Europe. ROE: Return on equity. Total market is without financials. Source: Damodaran Online Database Software (Internet) Total market Retail (grocery) 5

But why do differences in financing matter?... because equity is orders of magnitude more expensive globally as shown by marginal cost of capital rates in G20 countries (US CBO before tax reform!) 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% AR BR IN JP DE MX ID US CN FR GB AU SA ZA RU TR KR CA IT Equity-Financed Equipment Debt-Financed Equipment Thus the IA omits important factor Source: CBO (2017) International Comparisons of Corporate Income Tax Rates, page 24. 6

The real issue: Under-taxation in a welfare perspective R&D tax incentives have been put in place for a reason to align private and social objectives in a context of large perceived positive spill-overs from private R&D The German and French tax systems: the story in a nutshell! Four lessons: I: In the absence of specific incentives, debt bias punishes digital (and pharma) II: If EU is concerned about too aggressive R&D incentives, modify! III: OECD BEPS and US tax reform helping reduce real abuse IV: Illogical to use a DST to correct for patent box in some (EU) countries 7

What erosion of corporate tax base? Claim: Digitisation of the EU economy is eroding the corporate tax base No, tax on corporate profits stable over the past two decades Claim: Corporate tax revenue is lower where digitisation is most intense No, no negative correlation inside EU. On the contrary, mild positive link Tax on corporate profits % of GDP Corporate tax and digitisation 2016 % of GDP 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 1995, 2.6% 2016, 2.6% 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 IT FR PT AT ED DE IE BE UK NL SE FI DK 0.5 0.0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1.5 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Digitisation Index, DESI 2016 Source: European Commission and OECD 8

THE NEW DISTORTIONS

Under-taxation not really the issue So what about the idea of creating a new tax base namely the user contribution? IA Argument Users interacting with search algorithms, social media and ordering goods and service on online intermediaries are creating value for the platforms Value creation belongs also to the countries in which they reside This provides case for new tax base Conceptual problems How to measure value: A click, input time? How to ringfence digital activity: All actors increasingly using digital tools to interact in the value-chain Reverse causation: Customers make the choice because producers use time and resources to develop, produce and market them, nothing new Teasers User contribution: A football, a car, a book, a newspaper, playing cars, games only have economic value when customers, often jointly, make use of it IP: So should the US Treasury add a levy on BMWs produced in Germany or insulin produced in Denmark with value largely linked to IP? 10

Five distortions in the DST 1 Distortion to digital vs non-digital platforms and services In scope: Online intermediary platforms & digital advertisement Outside scope: Brick & mortar stores and non-digital consumption (e.g. CDs vs streaming) 2 Distortion to above vs below the thresholds In scope: Platform above thresholds: More than 750 million worldwide revenue More than 50 million EU digital service revenue Outside scope: Platform below thresholds e.g. large platform with limited EU presence 3 Distortion to third-party vs own sales In scope: Third-party sellers using online intermediary platforms to reach customers (often SMEs) Outside scope: Own sales by businesses with mixed business models (e.g. online intermediaries) 4 Distortion to EU exporters vs non-eu competitors for exports via online platform In scope: EU businesses exporting to non-eu buyers via online platforms Outside scope: Non-EU user selling similar goods and services to non-eu buyers via the same online platform 5 Distortion to compliant vs non-compliant businesses In scope: Compliant businesses, e.g. businesses with presence in the EU where enforcement is relatively more feasible Outside scope: Non-compliant businesses, e.g. businesses without EU presence and hence difficult to enforce against

EU tax revenue significantly lower than estimated DST revenue EUR billion -29% -44% -59% 3.4 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.0 1.9 1.8 33% cost passthrough 50% cost passthrough 100% cost passthrough EC (2018) 0% revenue leakage 20% revenue leakage 40% revenue leakage Source: Copenhagen Economics based on the Commission s IA and own calculations Link 12

In conclusion Under-taxation: Tax systems penalise R&D intensive in absence of R&D incentives EU/member states have powers reform and define balance BEPS/US tax reform address cross-border tax abuse, ensure minimum tax, let it work Corporate tax revenues stable, no case for panic! Digital tax: source of new distortions User contribution as a tax base: an unclear animal. What problem does it solve? Five clear distorstions from the DST. While some repair work may be possible, it may merely shift issues and not solve fundamental problems Going forward: what focus? Define the problem: transfer pricing (linked to IP) or invention of a new kind of tax base? For pure platform based internet serviced delivered from distance: transfer pricing is not really an issue! The nexus/pe discussion: does not really solve profit allocation issue User contribution principle: hard to believe in it from a practical or economics perspective 13