22 October 2013 2013mber 2012 EY Tax Alert Bangalore Tribunal rules on deductibility of employee share reward discount cross-charged by foreign parent company Executive summary Tax Alerts cover significant tax news, developments and changes in legislation that affect Indian businesses. They act as technical summaries to keep you on top of the latest tax issues. For more information, please contact your EY advisor. This Tax Alert summarizes a ruling of the Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) in the case of Novo Nordisk India Pvt. Ltd. [1] (Taxpayer) on the issue of deductibility of expenditure incurred on providing shares of the Taxpayer s parent company, being a foreign company (FCo), to the Taxpayer s employees under an Employee Share Purchase Scheme (ESPS). The Tribunal held that the ESPS discount cross-charged by FCo was an employee cost, wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the Taxpayer s business and hence, to be allowed as revenue expenditure, irrespective of the fact that FCo stood to benefit indirectly by such an expenditure. [1] [TS-524-ITAT-2013(Bang)]
Background and facts Under the Indian Tax Laws (ITL), a revenue expenditure which is expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of taxpayer s business, is allowed as a deduction in computing taxable income. The Taxpayer is an Indian company engaged in the business of marketing and distributing healthcare products. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of FCo (a Danish company) which was listed on the Copenhagen Stock Exchange. During tax year 2005-06, FCo floated a global share reward program which it extended to employees of its foreign affiliates (including the Taxpayer) by incorporating a condition that the benefit so granted shall be cross-charged to the respective affiliate if permitted by local rules. In terms of this program, shares were to be allotted to the employees at a discount on the market value and such shares were to be subject to a lock-in period of three years. Pursuant to FCo s global program, the Taxpayer framed its own ESPS for offering FCo s shares to its employees at a discount on the market value and furnished it to the Tax Authority as per the extant tax rules [2]. The Taxpayer paid the amount representing the difference between the market value and the ESPS price to FCo in respect of the shares allotted to the Taxpayer s employees pursuant to the ESPS and claimed deduction for the same as a revenue expenditure. Reliance, inter alia, was placed on the Mumbai Tribunal ruling in the case of Accenture Ltd. [3] (Accenture ruling) where the Mumbai Tribunal had allowed deduction for a similar cross-charge. [2] Upto tax year 2006-07, the employees were entitled to beneficial tax treatment of share reward if the share reward scheme complied with guidelines issued by the Central Government and a copy of such scheme was furnished to the Tax Authority [3] Refer EY Tax Alert Mumbai ITAT rules on deductibility of business expenditure dated 5 August 2010 The Tax Authority rejected the claim and disallowed the expenditure which was upheld by the First Appellate Authority. Being aggrieved, the Taxpayer appealed further to the Tribunal. Tax Authority s contentions Cross-charge of discount paid by the Taxpayer to FCo represents a capital expenditure since it results in enhancement of FCo s share capital. Since the ESPS involved issue of new shares by FCo with a lock-in period of three years, the entire arrangement was in capital field. Ideally, FCo ought to have itself borne the discount but it recovered the same from the Taxpayer merely to facilitate tax deduction for the Taxpayer. There was no business expediency for the Taxpayer to agree to bear such a cost. Since the cost was borne in favor of the parent company, without any business expediency, the payment was hit by a provision under the ITL in terms of which the Tax Authority is entitled to disallow excessive or unreasonable payments made to related parties. The Accenture ruling is distinguishable from the present facts since in Accenture s case, the shares of the parent company were issued to the taxpayer s employees at the taxpayer s behest whereas, in the present case, the shares were issued and the discount was recovered from the Taxpayer at FCo s behest. Taxpayer s contentions The ESPS was introduced with a view to motivate and encourage the employees. Hence it has to be treated as a form of employee compensation, incurred wholly and exclusively, for the purpose of the Taxpayer s business. Unlike a situation where a company issues its own shares to employees at a discount on the market value, which does not involve actual cash outflow, in the present case, there was an
actual cash outflow by way of a crosscharge paid to FCo. The Tax Authority s contention that the cross-charge was merely to facilitate tax deduction for the Taxpayer is without any basis, more so since the particulars of the ESPS were furnished beforehand to the Tax Authority, at which stage, no such objection was raised. Deductibility of expenditure was not diluted merely because, FCo also stood to benefit in addition to the Taxpayer. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court s decision in the case of Sasoon J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. [4] and a Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd [5], wherein it was held that if expenditure was incurred for promoting the business, it has to be allowed even if a third party stood to benefit from the expenditure. Tribunal s ruling The Tribunal ruled in the Taxpayer s favor and allowed deduction for cross-charge of the ESPS discount paid by the Taxpayer, for the following reasons: FCo had a policy of offering share rewards to its employees to attract the best talent. FCo allowed its subsidiaries/affiliates across the world (including the Taxpayer) to participate in this policy. Pursuant thereto, the Taxpayer contributed the discount pertaining to shares issued to its own employees. There was an actual cash outflow to the extent of the discount. Since these facts were undisputed, the Tax Authority s contention that the expenses belong to FCo and/or such expenditure is capital expenditure is without any basis. As far as the Taxpayer is concerned, the difference paid by the Taxpayer was an employee cost and a revenue expenditure incurred wholly for business purpose. It could not be suggested that the amount of discount borne by the Taxpayer was excessive or unreasonable. The discount was linked to the market price of FCo s shares on the Copenhagen Stock Exchange, which was beyond the control of FCo or the Taxpayer. Therefore, there was no basis to invoke the provisions in the ITL which enable the Tax Authority to disallow excessive or unreasonable payments to related parties. The shares were issued under the ESPS, at a discounted premium, to compensate the employees for the continuity of their services to the Taxpayer. Such a discount cannot be treated as short capital receipt or a capital expenditure. By virtue of the decision of the Special Bench of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Biocon Ltd. [6], it is now settled that an Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) discount is revenue expenditure. The Taxpayer s case is identical to the Accenture ruling. It cannot be said that the Taxpayer incurred the expenditure at the behest of FCo. The Taxpayer framed its own ESPS to reward its employees based on FCo s global share reward program. That, by itself, will not mean that the reward was at the behest of FCo. In any event, the immediate beneficiary is the Taxpayer itself, though FCo may also be an indirect beneficiary of the motivated work force of a subsidiary. [4] [118 ITR 261] [5] [166 ITR 836] [6] ITA No.248/Bang/2010. Refer EY Tax Alert dated 19 July 2013 Business expediency required that the Taxpayer incur such cost in respect of its employees. The fact that FCo may also be indirectly benefited by a motivated workforce of the Taxpayer would not be a ground to disallow expenditure that is otherwise allowable under the ITL.
Comments Deductibility of discount given to employees under a share reward program, where a company issues its own shares to its employees, has been a controversial issue. The decision of the Special Bench of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Biocon Ltd. [7] held that ESOP discount is an allowable revenue expenditure, in terms of which, the issue is presently decided in the taxpayer s favour. The issue involved in the present appeal is on a different facet viz., where a subsidiary bears crosscharge of the parent s share reward program to the extent that it pertains to the subsidiary s employees. As compared to a situation of issue of own shares where the company receives lesser share premium, there is actual cash outflow for the subsidiary in this situation. The present ruling reiterates the ratio of the earlier Accenture ruling while upholding that such crosscharge paid to a parent company is an allowable revenue expenditure, notwithstanding the fact that it is related to the issue of shares by the parent company and the parent company stands to benefit to the extent of cross- charge paid by subsidiary. [7] ITA No. 248/Bang/2010. Kindly refer EY Tax Alert dated 19 July 2013
Our offices Ahmedabad 2nd floor, Shivalik Ishaan Near. C.N Vidhyalaya Ambawadi, Ahmedabad 380 015 Tel: + 91 79 6608 3800 Fax: + 91 79 6608 3900 Bengaluru 12th & 13th floor U B City Canberra Block No.24, Vittal Mallya Road Bengaluru 560 001 Tel: + 91 80 4027 5000 + 91 80 6727 5000 Fax: + 91 80 2210 6000 + 91 80 2224 0695 Prestige Emerald, No. 4, 1st Floor, Madras Bank Road, Lavelle Road Junction, Bangalore - 560001 Chandigarh 1st Floor SCO: 166-167 Sectr 9-C, Madhya Marg Chandigarh 160 009 Tel: + 91 172 671 7800 Fax: + 91 172 671 7888 Chennai Tidel Park, 6th & 7th Floor A Block (Module 601,701-702) No.4, Rajiv Gandhi Salai Taramani Chennai 600 113 Tel: + 91 44 6654 8100 Fax: + 91 44 2254 0120 Hyderabad Oval Office 18, ilabs Centre, Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad 500 081 Tel: + 91 40 6736 2000 Fax: + 91 40 6736 2200 Kochi 9th Floor ABAD Nucleus NH-49, Maradu PO, Kochi 682 304 Tel: + 91 484 304 4000 Fax: + 91 484 270 5393 Mumbai 14th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Dadar (west) Mumbai 400 028 Tel + 91 22 6192 0000 Fax + 91 22 6192 1000 5th Floor Block B-2, Nirlon Knowledge Park Off. Western Express Highway Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400 063 Tel: + 91 22 6192 0000 Fax: + 91 22 6192 3000 NCR Golf View Corporate Tower B Near DLF Golf Course, Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002 Tel: + 91 124 464 4000 Fax: + 91 124 464 4050 6th floor, HT House 18-20 Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi 110 001 Tel: + 91 11 4363 3000 Fax: + 91 11 4363 3200 4th & 5th Floor, Plot No 2B, Tower 2, Sector 126, Noida 201 304 Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. India Tel: + 91 120 671 7000 Fax: + 91 120 671 7171 Pune C 401, 4th floor Panchshil Tech Park Yerwada (Near Don Bosco School) Pune 411 006 Tel: + 91 20 6603 6000 Fax: + 91 20 6601 5900 Ernst & Young LLP EY Assurance Tax Transactions Advisory About EY EY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a better working world for our people, for our clients and for our communities. EY refers to the global organization and may refer to one or more of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organization, Ernst & Young LLP is one of the Indian client serving member firms of EYGM Limited. For more information about our organization, please visit www.ey.com/india. Ernst & Young LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership, registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 in India, having its registered office at 22 Camac Street, 3rd Floor, Block C, Kolkata - 700016 2013 Ernst & Young LLP. Published in India. All Rights Reserved. ED None This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither EYGM Limited nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor. Kolkata 22, Camac Street 3rd Floor, Block C Kolkata 700 016 Tel: + 91 33 6615 3400 Fax: + 91 33 2281 7750