Tax Professional usually responds in minutes
Our tax advisers are all verified
Unlimited follow-up questions
The Indian government has issued a $1.4 billion tax evasion notice to Volkswagen’s India unit, accusing the automobile giant of exploiting customs loopholes to reduce import duties.
This case highlights the scrutiny multinational corporations face when operating in jurisdictions with complex tax systems and evolving regulations.
The Indian authorities allege that Volkswagen imported near-complete cars into the country, classifying them as parts to benefit from lower customs duties.
This practice, referred to as “misclassification,” allegedly allowed the company to evade substantial import taxes over several years.
Customs duties in India vary significantly between fully assembled vehicles and parts.
Fully assembled vehicles face a duty of up to 100%, while parts attract much lower rates, making accurate classification crucial for tax compliance.
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), India’s primary agency for investigating economic offenses, has claimed that Volkswagen evaded duties amounting to ₹12,000 crore (approximately $1.4 billion) since 2012.
The company has been asked to respond to the allegations and provide justifications for its classification practices.
Volkswagen has denied any wrongdoing, asserting that their imports complied with all applicable rules and regulations.
The company is expected to challenge the notice in court, a process that could take years to resolve.
This case serves as a reminder of the challenges multinational corporations face when navigating tax laws in multiple jurisdictions.
Governments around the world are increasingly vigilant about transfer pricing, customs classifications, and other cross-border tax issues to ensure fair revenue collection.
India, in particular, has been ramping up its enforcement efforts.
Recent years have seen a slew of high-profile tax disputes involving global companies like Nokia, Cairn Energy, and Vodafone.
Businesses operating in India must pay close attention to the classification of goods, transfer pricing policies, and tax treaties.
Errors or perceived misclassifications can lead to massive financial penalties, legal battles, and reputational damage.
Companies should consider:
Volkswagen’s case underscores the importance of stringent tax compliance, especially in countries like India, where tax laws are both intricate and rigorously enforced.
As global tax authorities collaborate more closely, the margin for error narrows for multinational corporations.
If you have any queries about this article on tax evasion notices or tax matters in India, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in India and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
The OECD has introduced a new Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF) designed to enhance transparency and combat tax evasion in the cryptocurrency market.
This framework represents a significant step forward in addressing the tax challenges posed by digital assets.
The Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework requires crypto exchanges, wallet providers, and other intermediaries to report transactions and account balances to tax authorities.
This information will then be shared among jurisdictions through the OECD’s Common Reporting Standard.
Crypto users in participating jurisdictions will face increased scrutiny of their transactions.
This may lead to higher compliance costs but is expected to reduce the misuse of cryptocurrencies for tax evasion and other illicit activities.
The CARF aims to standardise the treatment of crypto assets across jurisdictions, making it easier for governments to track and tax digital transactions.
However, countries with lax regulations may still pose challenges to enforcement.
The OECD’s Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework is a game-changer for the regulation of digital assets.
While it may create additional burdens for crypto users and businesses, its long-term benefits for transparency and tax compliance are undeniable.
If you have any queries about this article on OECD’s crypto reporting framework, or tax matters in crypto-friendly jurisdictions, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in crypto-friendly jurisdictions and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
In the context of a tax appeal, both the taxpayer and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) have the right to inspect documents in each other’s possession, control, or power, provided those documents are relevant to the appeal.
However, documents protected by solicitor-client privilege are exempt from disclosure.
This privilege does not generally extend to documents produced by accountants unless specific conditions are met.
Solicitor-client privilege is a fundamental legal principle in Canada that ensures open communication between lawyers and their clients for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice.
It shields privileged communications from being disclosed, even in litigation, unless the privilege is waived or an exception applies.
This privilege is unique to lawyers and does not automatically apply to other professionals, such as accountants.
However, there are circumstances where an accountant’s communications may be privileged, particularly when they act as an agent to facilitate legal advice.
The recent decision in Coopers Park Real Estate Development Corporation v. The King (2024 TCC 122) highlights the scope and limitations of solicitor-client privilege and offers important lessons on managing privileged documents in tax litigation.
In Coopers Park, the CRA reassessed the taxpayer, alleging that the general anti-avoidance rule applied to certain transactions undertaken in 2004 and 2005 to integrate the taxpayer into another group of companies, the Concord Group.
During discovery, the CRA requested additional information, but the taxpayer’s responses were unsatisfactory or refused.
Consequently, the CRA sought a court order for the production of 19 documents, which the taxpayer opposed, claiming privilege.
The Tax Court of Canada had to evaluate whether these documents were privileged based solely on their content, as the taxpayer did not provide affidavit evidence to substantiate their claims.
The court determined that only two of the 19 documents were protected by solicitor-client privilege:
The court found that portions of the engagement letter describing legal advice on tax matters for the Concord Group were privileged.
This letter outlined the roles of the group’s tax lawyers, accountants, and legal counsel, clarifying that the accountants acted as agents to assist in legal advice.
An email exchange between the Concord Group, accountants, and lawyers preparing a legal agreement was deemed privileged, as it reflected communications in the course of seeking or providing legal advice.
The remaining documents were not privileged. These included:
Engagement letters among lawyers, accountants, and clients must explicitly reference agency relationships to clarify when a non-lawyer is acting as an agent for legal advice.
Where both legal and accounting expertise is required, lawyers should draft key documents to maximize the benefit of solicitor-client privilege.
Documents subject to privilege should be clearly marked and stored separately. Claims of privilege should be substantiated with affidavit evidence to avoid reliance on the court’s interpretation of the document alone.
Even accounting records, if revealing legal strategy, could be privileged. Taxpayers and their advisers must be vigilant in identifying and defending such privilege claims.
The Coopers Park case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of properly identifying and protecting privileged communications in tax litigation.
Solicitor-client privilege is a powerful tool, but its application requires careful documentation, clear agency relationships, and robust supporting evidence.
Taxpayers and advisers should work closely with legal professionals to ensure compliance and mitigate risks during disputes.
If you have any queries about this article on Accountants and Legal Privilege, or tax matters in the Canada, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in Canada and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
In an era of increasing global tax transparency, businesses must navigate evolving disclosure standards to maintain compliance and uphold their reputations.
Recent developments highlight significant changes, including the European Union’s public Country-by-Country (CbC) reporting directive, Romania’s early adoption of this directive, and the United States’ new tax disclosure standards.
The EU’s public CbC reporting directive mandates that multinational enterprises (MNEs) with consolidated revenues exceeding €750 million disclose specific tax-related information on a country-by-country basis.
This initiative aims to enhance transparency and allow public scrutiny of MNEs’ tax practices.
The directive requires the disclosure of data such as revenue, profit before tax, income tax paid and accrued, number of employees, and the nature of activities in each EU member state and certain non-cooperative jurisdictions.
Romania has proactively implemented the EU’s public CbC reporting directive ahead of other member states.
This early adoption reflects Romania’s commitment to tax transparency and positions it as a leader in implementing EU tax directives.
Romanian entities meeting the revenue threshold must comply with these reporting requirements, necessitating adjustments to their financial reporting processes to ensure accurate and timely disclosures.
In the United States, new tax disclosure standards have emerged, influenced by the global shift towards public CbC reporting.
While the US has not adopted public CbC reporting, it has introduced regulations requiring certain tax disclosures to enhance transparency.
These standards focus on providing stakeholders with a clearer understanding of a company’s tax position and strategies, aligning with the global trend of increased tax transparency.
The global movement towards greater tax transparency is driven by efforts to combat tax avoidance and ensure that MNEs pay their fair share of taxes in the jurisdictions where they operate.
This shift is evident in various international initiatives, including the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, which aims to address tax avoidance strategies that exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules.
To navigate these evolving tax disclosure requirements, companies should develop cohesive global tax transparency strategies. Key steps include:
By proactively addressing these requirements, companies can mitigate risks and align with the global trend towards transparency in tax matters.
The landscape of tax disclosure is rapidly evolving, with significant implications for multinational enterprises.
Understanding and adapting to new standards, such as the EU’s public CbC reporting directive and the US’s enhanced disclosure requirements, is crucial.
By developing comprehensive compliance strategies, businesses can navigate these changes effectively, ensuring transparency and maintaining stakeholder trust.
If you have any queries about this article on this article, or tax matters more generally, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
France has taken a significant step in its battle against corporate tax evasion by introducing artificial intelligence (AI) tools to help uncover hidden assets and questionable tax practices.
These AI systems are designed to analyse financial data and detect complex tax avoidance strategies, particularly focusing on large multinational companies that shift profits across borders to evade taxes.
The French government has deployed cutting-edge AI technologies to analyse a wide range of financial data. These tools will:
The AI systems will work in tandem with France’s tax authority, which will use the insights generated to open investigations or issue penalties to companies that are found to be evading taxes.
Corporate tax evasion costs France billions of euros in lost revenue every year.
By using AI, the government hopes to speed up investigations, reduce the burden on human auditors, and make the tax system fairer for everyone.
The focus is primarily on sectors like technology and finance, where complex financial structures are often used to shift profits to tax havens or low-tax jurisdictions.
This initiative is part of France’s broader efforts to comply with the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, which aims to tackle profit shifting and tax avoidance on a global scale.
Large corporations operating in France will need to review their tax strategies carefully.
The introduction of AI tools means that the French government can more easily detect any attempts to avoid paying taxes.
Companies that engage in complex tax planning schemes may face higher scrutiny, fines, or legal action.
France’s use of AI to combat corporate tax evasion marks a significant step forward in the fight against tax avoidance.
These new tools are expected to increase tax compliance, generate additional revenue, and ensure that large corporations pay their fair share.
If you have any queries about this article on France’s corporate tax evasion tools, or tax matters in France, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in France and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then please get in touch.
There is more information on membership here.
On January 5, 2023, a new EU directive came into force that provides rules on corporate
sustainability reporting – the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).
This will significantly change the sustainability reporting requirements for companies. CRS reporting is therefore becoming increasingly important.
The aim of the new CSR Directive is to close previous gaps in the reporting regulations, expand the requirements overall and thus create binding standards for reporting at EU level for the first time.
The European Commission published the proposal for the new directive back in April 2021.
The Commission was then able to agree on a compromise with the Council and the European Parliament in June 2022, which was finally formally adopted by the EU Parliament and the Council.
The new directive was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on December 16, 2022.
The member states had to transpose the new directive into national law within 18 months of its
entry into force, i.e. by July 2024.
Previously, the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) applied to certain companies within the EU and had been in force since 2014.
It contained regulations for companies of public interest and aimed to enable stakeholders to better assess the contribution of the respective company to sustainability.
In contrast to the regulations in the new CSRD Directive, however, the scope of application was
rather limited.
The new CSR-Directive extends the reporting obligation to a large number of additional companies.
From around 11,600 companies previously affected, around 49,000 companies now fall within the
scope of the directive.
Specifically, the directive applies to corporations and commercial partnerships with exclusively
limited liability shareholders, provided that
Micro-enterprises are not included.
The scope of application will be gradually expanded; for financial years starting from January 1, 2024, the regulations will initially only apply to public interest entities with more than 500 employees, from 2025 they will apply to all other large companies as defined by accounting law and from 2026 they will generally apply to capital market-oriented small and medium-sized enterprises. However, the latter have the option of deferral until 2028.
The new directive contains the following important changes:
The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) marks a critical step in the EU’s pursuit of enhanced transparency in corporate sustainability practices. By expanding the reporting scope to cover a larger number of companies, the directive ensures that sustainability reporting is as important as financial reporting.
With double materiality, companies are now accountable for both their impact on the environment and the effect of sustainability issues on their business. Additionally, the introduction of a standardised electronic format underlines the EU’s commitment to digital transparency and the comparability of sustainability data across the region.
In essence, the CSRD paves the way for businesses to adopt sustainable practices, providing crucial data that will help drive the EU’s broader sustainability goals forward.
If you have any queries about the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), or other international tax matters, then please get in touch.
The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is a special tax system designed to ensure that high-income earners pay at least a minimum amount of tax, even if they qualify for a lot of tax breaks under the regular tax system.
The AMT was created to prevent people with very high incomes from using deductions and loopholes to avoid paying taxes altogether.
For 2024, the IRS has raised the AMT exemption, which is the amount of income that’s not subject to the AMT.
For 2024, the AMT exemption has been raised to £85,700 for single filers and £119,300 for married couples filing jointly.
This means that if your income is below these amounts, you won’t have to worry about paying the AMT.
The AMT exemption phases out for higher earners, starting at £578,150 for single filers and £1,156,300 for married couples.
If your income exceeds these thresholds, you may still have to pay the AMT.
The AMT typically affects high-income earners who claim a lot of deductions or have complex tax situations.
For example, if you claim a large number of deductions for state and local taxes, home mortgage interest, or investment losses, you might be subject to the AMT.
The AMT ensures that everyone pays at least a minimum level of tax, even if they qualify for a lot of deductions under the regular tax system.
The IRS adjusts the AMT exemption every year to account for inflation.
Without these adjustments, more and more people would be subject to the AMT over time, even if their real incomes haven’t increased.
By raising the exemption, the IRS ensures that the AMT continues to target only the highest-income taxpayers.
The increase in the AMT exemption for 2024 is good news for high-income taxpayers who might otherwise be subject to the AMT.
By raising the exemption, the IRS is helping to ensure that only those with very high incomes and large deductions will have to pay the AMT, while still ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of taxes.
If you have any queries about the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) 2024, or any other US tax matters, then please get in touch.
In a bid to enhance the UAE’s attractiveness as a business hub, the Federal Tax Authority (FTA) has introduced a new policy aimed at improving the nation’s competitive edge.
One of the key developments is the issuance of Resolution No. 5 of 2024, which establishes a refund policy for fees associated with private clarification requests on tax matters.
This new policy took effect on 1st August 2024.
Since 1st June 2023, the FTA has offered a private clarification service that allows businesses to request detailed information about specific tax regulations.
This service is provided for a fee, enabling companies to gain clarity on complex tax issues.
The newly introduced Resolution outlines the circumstances under which these fees can be refunded.
Under the new Resolution, several scenarios have been identified where the FTA will issue a refund for the fees paid:
If a request pertains to one specific tax and the FTA fails to provide a response, the full fee will be refunded.
For requests covering multiple taxes, if the FTA does not provide any clarification, a full refund will be issued. If the FTA only addresses one of the multiple taxes queried, the applicant will receive a refund for the difference between the fee for multiple taxes and the fee for a single tax.
Alongside these new refund guidelines, the FTA has reminded legal entities with licenses issued in any June to register for corporate tax by 31st August 2024.
Failure to comply with this deadline could result in administrative penalties.
Detailed information about these deadlines and other important decisions can be found on the FTA’s official website.
The introduction of this refund policy by the FTA underscores its commitment to transparency and business support.
By offering these refunds, the FTA aims to facilitate easier navigation of the tax landscape for businesses, thereby promoting a more business-friendly environment in the UAE.
This proactive approach reflects the FTA’s dedication to maintaining a competitive edge in the global market while ensuring that businesses operating in the UAE have the clarity they need to comply with tax regulations effectively.
If you have any queries about this article on UAE Refund Policy for Tax Service Fees, or UAE tax matters more generally, then please get in touch.
On 3 April 2023, the United States Tax Court ruled in Farhy v Commissioner, preventing the IRS from assessing and collecting penalties for failure to file Form 5471, the Information Return of US Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations.
This form is used to report an individual’s control over a foreign corporation.
Under US Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 6038(b), failing to provide this information incurs a penalty ranging from $10,000 to $50,000.
In June 2021, Alon Farhy challenged the penalties imposed on him for not filing Form 5471.
The Tax Court ruled in his favor, stating that the IRS did not have the authority to assess these penalties under section 6038(b).
However, it noted that the IRS could pursue civil action to collect the penalties.
The IRS appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit), which on 3 May 2024, reversed the Tax Court’s decision, affirming the IRS’s authority to assess and collect these penalties.
From 2003 to 2010, Farhy owned two corporations in Belize—Katumba Capital Inc. and Morningstar Ventures, Inc.
Despite knowing his obligation to file Form 5471, he willfully chose not to. After notifying Farhy of his failure, the IRS assessed penalties and issued a final notice of intent to levy when he did not respond.
Farhy requested a collection due process hearing, but the IRS upheld the penalties, leading him to petition the Tax Court, which initially ruled in his favor.
Both parties referenced IRC section 6201(a). The IRS argued that this section granted them broad authority to assess penalties as taxes.
Conversely, Farhy contended that penalties must be explicitly labeled as “tax” or “assessable” in the Code to fall under the IRS’s authority. Farhy outlined four classes of assessable penalties, arguing that section 6038(b) did not fit any of these categories.
The DC Circuit did not fully align with either party’s arguments but concluded that Congress intended section 6038(b) penalties to be assessable, citing:
Congress amended section 6038 to simplify the penalty collection process, countering Farhy’s argument that penalties should be nonassessable to limit IRS’s collection powers.
Sections 6038(b) and 6038(c) penalties work together, and making 6038(b) penalties nonassessable would complicate the process intended by Congress.
The reasonable cause exception for late filing, determined by the Secretary of Treasury, indicates that section 6038(b) penalties fall under the IRS’s assessment authority.
Farhy’s interpretation would necessitate separate proceedings for sections 6038(b) and 6038(c) penalties, potentially leading to conflicting judgments, which the DC Circuit found impractical.
The DC Circuit’s decision reversed the Tax Court’s ruling, affirming the IRS’s authority to assess penalties under section 6038(b).
Following this decision, Farhy petitioned for a rehearing, which was denied on 13 June 2024.
As of now, Farhy has not appealed to the United States Supreme Court, but given the ongoing litigation surrounding these penalties, further appeals are likely.
This case underscores the complexities of tax compliance and the importance of adhering to filing requirements for foreign assets. It also highlights the evolving legal interpretations of the IRS’s authority, which may have significant implications for taxpayers with international interests.
If you have any queries about this case Farhy v Commissioner Case, or US tax matters in general, then please get in touch.
A landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court has significantly curtailed the authority of federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to interpret the laws they enforce.
The decision in the case of Loper Bright v Raimondo overturns the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year-old principle that required courts to defer to federal agencies on the interpretation of ambiguous laws passed by Congress.
For decades, the IRS relied on the Chevron doctrine to defend its tax regulations in litigation.
This doctrine compelled federal courts to defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
This effectively limited the opportunities for taxpayers and tax practitioners to contest some of the muddier aspects of Internal Revenue Code.
The Supreme Court declared that Chevron is incompatible with the Administrative Procedure Act’s mandate for courts to resolve legal questions using their judgment.
Going forward, the Courts will rely on their discretion in cases involving ambiguous statutes rather than deferring to agency interpretations. That said, they may still consider an agency’s interpretation if it is long-standing or well-reasoned.
The implications of the Loper ruling are still unfolding, but experts anticipate an increase in litigation.
Additionally, the IRS will likely face constraints in issuing tax guidance and rules, as the process to establish these as settled law becomes more protracted.
The ruling may also invigorate pending legal challenges to potentially overreaching federal agency actions.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper does not retroactively invalidate cases decided under the Chevron deference doctrine over the past 40 years. Statutory precedent will still apply to those cases. “We do not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework,” the Court stated. “The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful remain subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology.”
This ruling marks a significant shift in the balance of power between federal agencies and the courts, with potentially far-reaching consequences for regulatory practices and the enforcement of federal laws.
If you have any queries about this article on Loper Bright v Raimondo, or any other US tax matters, then please get in touch.