Tax Professional usually responds in minutes

Our tax advisers are all verified

Unlimited follow-up questions

  • Sign in
  • Tag Archive: withholding tax

    1. French Tax Court Curtails Attempts to Broaden WHT

      Leave a Comment

      French Tax Court Curtails Attempts to Broaden WHT – Introduction

      In a landmark decision, the Conseil d’Etat, France’s highest tax court, has reined in attempts by the French tax administration to broaden the application of withholding tax on transactions involving French banks and foreign shareholders.

      The ruling came after the French Banking Association (Fédération Bancaire Française, FBF) successfully contested the tax administration’s position, which sought to expand the beneficial ownership requirements under certain conditions.

      Attempt to Broaden Withholding Tax Scope

      The controversy centered around the French tax administration’s interpretation of Article 119 bis-2 of the French General Tax Code.

      The administration issued guidance suggesting that withholding tax applies even if the recipient is based in France, as long as the income’s beneficial owner, or the entity with the right to freely dispose of the income, is domiciled or has a registered office outside France.

      This interpretation, targeting specific banking activities like temporary share acquisitions and certain derivatives transactions, was seen as an overreach by the banking sector.

      Banking Association’s Challenge and Court’s Ruling

      The FBF took legal action against this interpretation and two related rulings from 15 February 2023.

      The association argued that the tax administration’s comments and the rulings were ultra vires, meaning they went beyond the administration’s legal authority.

      On 8 December 2023, the Conseil d’Etat delivered its judgment, making two critical clarifications:

      Limitation on Withholding Tax Scope:

      The court specified that Article 119 bis-2 should not be construed to impose a withholding tax on distributions to a rights holder based in France, even if the funds are eventually remitted to someone considered the beneficial owner based outside France.

      Restrictions on Administrative Overreach:

      The court affirmed that unless the anti-abuse of rights procedure under Article L. 64 of the Tax Procedure Code is implemented, the tax administration cannot disregard the involvement of a French resident intermediary between the payer and a non-resident beneficial owner.

      Implications of the Ruling

      This decision is pivotal for the French banking industry and foreign investors involved in the French market.

      It clarifies the application of withholding tax and provides a more predictable framework for financial transactions involving foreign shareholders.

      The court’s ruling emphasizes the need for the tax administration to adhere strictly to the legislative framework without overstepping its bounds.

      It also underlines the importance of clearly defined rules in fostering a stable and transparent tax environment, crucial for international investment and financial operations.

      Conclusion

      The Conseil d’Etat’s ruling marks a significant turn in the ongoing discourse about the scope of withholding tax in France, particularly concerning transactions involving French banks and foreign entities.

      It underscores the judiciary’s role in maintaining the balance between tax collection efforts and the need for a clear, predictable legal environment for domestic and international economic activities.

      Final thoughts

      For further insights or queries on this development or broader French tax matters, feel free to reach out and engage in the discussion.

    2. Airbnb WHT case- CoJ decides online withholding tax is OK

      Leave a Comment

      Airbnb WHT – Introduction

      In a recent court case, the Court of Justice in the European Union (EU) has ruled that it is legally acceptable for Italy to impose a withholding tax (WHT) and data-gathering obligations on non-resident online platforms that facilitate short-term property rentals like holiday lets.

      However, the obligation to appoint an Italian tax representative liable to pay the WHT was prohibited by the EU law fundamental freedom to provide services.

      Wider implications?

      The ruling has implications for other EU member states with similar rental markets, as they might also be tempted to bring in their own WHT regimes that could impact non-resident platforms.

      The case began when Italy introduced three obligations on non-resident platforms in the short-term letting sector in 2017:

      (1) collecting income-related data on Italian rentals,

      (2) withholding tax on rental income, and

      (3) appointing a local tax representative with responsibility for withholding the tax.

      Airbnb WHT challenge

      Airbnb challenged these rules, arguing that they were incompatible with the freedom to provide services.

      The ruling is part of the EU’s ongoing attempts to regulate the economic models of online platforms in areas such as tax and data-protection.

      The judgment concerns tax and data-collection and sharing obligations imposed on online platforms and the extent to which tax authorities can use platforms as a de facto compliance arm for the ‘gig’ economy.

      The court held that the obligations to collect data and withhold tax at source did not constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services. However, the obligation to appoint a tax representative in Italy was deemed a breach of the freedom to provide services.

      The ruling confirms that direct taxation is not an EU-competence yet, and in principle, each member state could introduce its own WHT regime applicable to online platforms.

      DAC 7 implications?

      One key part of the case is DAC 7, a council directive that requires most online platforms to conduct due diligence on their service-providing users and report the information to one or more EU tax authorities.

      DAC 7 does not require platforms to act as tax collectors; only as information providers.

      Conclusion

      In the short-term, the case allows Italy to impose WHT obligations on non-resident platforms.

      The long-term implication is that other EU member states might be tempted to introduce their WHT regimes, which could impact non-resident platforms in the medium term.

      If you have any queries relating to the Airbnb WHT case or Italian tax matters more generally, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.

      The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.

    3. Kazakhstan’s recent tax amendments & double tax treaties

      Leave a Comment

      Introduction

      In December 2022, Kazakhstan amended its tax legislation.

      We set out some of the relevant amendments in this article.

      Additional restrictions on treaty benefits – dividends, royalties and interest

      New restrictions will be imposed in relation to Kazakhstani companies seeking to apply double tax treaty benefits.

      The changes relate to the following payments made to a foreign related party:  

      • dividends,
      • royalty; or
      • interest

      In particular, where a related party is in receipt of income, then the treaty rates may only be applied if the recipient is subject to an effective income tax rate of at least 15% on receipt in its home country.

      This change was effective from 1 January 2023.

      Definition of Withholding Agents in Share Deals

      Here, individuals that are not classed as independent contractors will now become withholding agents in relation to capital gains in respect of share deals.

      As such, they will need to deduct and withhold capital gains tax from the purchase price of shares. They will then need to pay this over to the authorities.

      This change will take effect from 21 February 2023.

      Next steps

      For those with, or clients with, subsidiaries in Kazakhstan, we would suggest reviewing these changes in line with any proposals to pay dividends, royalties or interest.

      Further, those dealing with individuals who will now be brought within the capital gains tax withholding requirements then they should ensure they consider their compliance with these obligations.

       If you have any queries relating to the Kazakhstan’s recent tax amendments or tax matters in Kazakhstan more generally, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.

      The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.