- Home
- Moore Tax News
- ATO signals tough approach to highly-engineered cross-border structures
ATO signals tough approach to highly-engineered cross-border structures
- By Moore Stephens
- Published 21/12/2009
- Moore Tax News
- Unrated
Last month, the ATO signalled a low tolerance for highly engineered cross-border structures when it dramatically sought to impose tax on TPG’s $1.5 billion profit on the Myer float. In the course of the ATO’s frantic efforts to secure a slice of the Myer millions, it issued two draft determinations last Friday setting out the circumstances in which it will challenge similar private equity arrangements.
The determinations cover:
The strategy relied on Australia’s concessional capital gains tax rules for foreign companies. Capital gains derived by foreign companies on the sale of shares are not taxed unless those shares derive their value predominantly from Australian real property.
The ATO is arguing that TPG had it wrong – the proceeds were not exempt capital gains, but rather, ordinary income derived in the course of an isolated profit-making venture. Nine days after the Myer float on November 2, the ATO issued assessments to TPG’s cross-border structure for $452 million, with penalties of $228 million.
TPG had a contingency plan, but that contingency plan is now under close scrutiny because of its alleged contrived nature. TPG’s stake in Myer was headed by a series of companies in the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (in that order). The Dutch company was the eventual direct acquirer of the Myer Group. TPG’s contingency plan relied on the Australia-Netherlands DTA, which extinguishes Australia’s right to tax a Dutch company unless the Dutch company conducts a business through a PE in Australia. On this point, the ATO seems to have accepted TPG’s view that the Dutch company did not have a PE in Australia.
But the ATO has proceeded with its assessments on the basis that TPG’s Myer holding structure was contrived to access DTA benefits. The ATO believes that this alleged “treaty shopping” is a breach of the general anti-avoidance provisions of the tax act. Consequently, the ATO has treated the Luxembourg and Cayman Islands companies as the relevant taxpayers. These companies are not shielded by a DTA, thereby allowing Australia to tax the Myer profits using unmodified domestic tax law.
The ATO’s action on this matter has sounded alarm bells for cross-border structures both in and out of the private equity space. Stakeholders must now revisit their cross-border structures so that their views are properly represented in the consultation process that has been initiated by the ATO. Comments on the draft determinations are due by 29 January 2010.
Cross-border structures should also be reviewed to determine whether they can benefit from the proposed rules that will allow managed investment trusts to treat profits on the sale of assets as capital gains, regardless of their underlying nature.
Author: Nick Zanikos, Moore Stephens Melbourne
If you would like to discuss the impact of the TPG proceedings on your cross-border structure or would like to contribute to Moore Stephens’ response to the draft determinations, please contact Nick Zanikos on (03) 8635 1834 or your Moore Stephens relationship partner.
The determinations cover:
- Whether a private equity entity can make an income gain from the disposal of target assets it has acquired; and
- Whether the general anti-avoidance provisions in Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 can apply to arrangements designed to alter the intended effect of Australia's double tax agreement (DTA) network.
The strategy relied on Australia’s concessional capital gains tax rules for foreign companies. Capital gains derived by foreign companies on the sale of shares are not taxed unless those shares derive their value predominantly from Australian real property.
The ATO is arguing that TPG had it wrong – the proceeds were not exempt capital gains, but rather, ordinary income derived in the course of an isolated profit-making venture. Nine days after the Myer float on November 2, the ATO issued assessments to TPG’s cross-border structure for $452 million, with penalties of $228 million.
TPG had a contingency plan, but that contingency plan is now under close scrutiny because of its alleged contrived nature. TPG’s stake in Myer was headed by a series of companies in the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (in that order). The Dutch company was the eventual direct acquirer of the Myer Group. TPG’s contingency plan relied on the Australia-Netherlands DTA, which extinguishes Australia’s right to tax a Dutch company unless the Dutch company conducts a business through a PE in Australia. On this point, the ATO seems to have accepted TPG’s view that the Dutch company did not have a PE in Australia.
But the ATO has proceeded with its assessments on the basis that TPG’s Myer holding structure was contrived to access DTA benefits. The ATO believes that this alleged “treaty shopping” is a breach of the general anti-avoidance provisions of the tax act. Consequently, the ATO has treated the Luxembourg and Cayman Islands companies as the relevant taxpayers. These companies are not shielded by a DTA, thereby allowing Australia to tax the Myer profits using unmodified domestic tax law.
The ATO’s action on this matter has sounded alarm bells for cross-border structures both in and out of the private equity space. Stakeholders must now revisit their cross-border structures so that their views are properly represented in the consultation process that has been initiated by the ATO. Comments on the draft determinations are due by 29 January 2010.
Cross-border structures should also be reviewed to determine whether they can benefit from the proposed rules that will allow managed investment trusts to treat profits on the sale of assets as capital gains, regardless of their underlying nature.
Author: Nick Zanikos, Moore Stephens Melbourne
If you would like to discuss the impact of the TPG proceedings on your cross-border structure or would like to contribute to Moore Stephens’ response to the draft determinations, please contact Nick Zanikos on (03) 8635 1834 or your Moore Stephens relationship partner.