By Tarunkumar G. Singhal | Raman Jokhakar Chartered Accountants
fiogf49gjkf0d
It is absurd that foreign portfolio investors (FPIs) are facing fresh income-tax queries after the government granted them a retrospective exemption from the minimum alternate tax ( mat ), based on the recommendations of the justice A . P. Shah panel. however, FPIs will now reportedly have to convince tax authorities that they do not have a permanent establishment
(PE) here to escape the tax.
Foreign institutional investors, now FPIs, have been in relentless fear that tax authorities could construe their domestic custodian as a PE in India, making them liable to pay tax. The government must come out with a clear communiqué on what constitutes a P E , and not leave it to interpretation. Waffling on the promise to scrap MAT on FPIs could create mayhem on the markets, needlessly. do servers, for example, create a permanent presence?
In the OECD’s view, a server i fixed, automated equipment that can perform important and essential business functions – may be sufficient to create a PE at the equipment location without the presence of human beings. Conflicting rulings by the authority of advance rulings have only added to uncertainty in this area of taxation. t he government should clear the air to mitigate investor concerns.
In this case, FPIs have approached the Dispute r esolution m echanism ( DR. P). t he need is to ensure its robust functioning – the DR. P has a pool of dedicated tax officers. India has slipped in the World Bank’s latest ease of doing business index in terms of paying taxes, and mounting disputes could be a major reason. t he country’s tax regime must be reformed to minimise disputes. o ur tax officers should be better trained to deal with complex transactions as India globalises. Predictability of tax conduct is on par with simplicity of the law.
