manageyourtax.com

Category: Tax Management

  • Tax Tips (15) – The Mysterious 183 Days

    The Amendments to the Individual Income Tax Law of the People’s Republic of China (“the Amendments”) discussed in the last issue of Tax Tips was promulgated by the National People’s Congress on 31 August. Included in the Amendment, as expected, is the adaptation of the tax resident person concept into Article 1 of the law.

    Around one week before the Amendments were passed, the topic of Hong Kong people who enters the Mainland for more than 183 days will be subject to Individual Income Tax (“IIT”) liabilities of up to 45% on income earned outside of the Mainland started to heat up in the Hong Kong media.

    On 31 August, according to Hong Kong media reports, Mr. Tam Yiu-Chung, member of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, claimed that Hong Kong and Macau residents would have a five-year grace period, such that they would only need to pay IIT on income earned outside of the Mainland after the year 2024.

    The introduction of tax residency concept would indeed have a huge impact on Hong Kong and Macau residents due to their close ties with Mainland China. It can be imagined that for residents from countries such as Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States who visit China for 183 days or more, as they would unlikely buy properties in China, they would likely maintain their home and economic ties in their home countries, and their home tax authorities would have much experience in tax residency determination, their tax residency status should be relatively clear-cut. If what Mr. Tam said is implemented, Hong Kong people can put the issue aside for the next five years.

    A potential big loser to the Amendments is Taiwanese individuals. The Mainland and Taiwan signed the Cross-Strait Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and Strengthening of Tax Cooperation in 2015 (contents are similar to a standard double taxation agreement) but the Agreement is not yet in effect. In 2019 when Taiwan individuals become Mainland tax residents by staying in the Mainland for 183 days, they may need to pay IIT on income derived from inside and outside of the Mainland. If the individuals are also subject to Taiwan income tax on the same income, a double taxation situation will arise which cannot be resolved through a double taxation agreement (the tie-breaker discussed in the last Tax Tips). Nevertheless, as tax policies are designed to serve the economic and political needs, it is possible that the five-year grace period may include Taiwan individuals. At this moment, the only thing that can be done is wait-and-see.

    Originally, this issue of Tax Tips would discuss how should Hong Kong companies manage the upcoming challenge in IIT. However, as the issue may be put to bed for 5 years, Hong Kong companies may not be interested in it anymore. Readers should watch the development closely in the coming months. This issue would instead discuss the so-called “183 Days Rule”, which has been given a new meaning by the Amendments: Is it true that there is no IIT liability if one stays in the Mainland for not more than 183 days?

    The 183 Days Rule

    Many Hong Kong people who frequently travel to the Mainland would have heard that IIT would be imposed if one stays in the Mainland for more than 183 days. Is it true? When one reads Article 1 of the IIT Law, whether the existing one or the amended version, it is clear that a non-domicile person who resides in China for less than 183 days are required to pay IIT on income derived from sources within China:

    Current version: “Individuals who are neither domiciled nor resident in China, or who are not domiciled and reside for less than one year in China, shall pay individual income tax in accordance with this Law on income derived from sources within China.”

    Amended version: “Individuals who are neither domiciled nor resident in China, or who are not domiciled and reside in China for less than 183 days in a tax year, are non-resident individuals. Non-resident individuals shall pay individual income tax in accordance with this Law on income derived from sources within China”.

    So, is one liable to IIT if one stays in China for not more than 183 days?

    The exemption from IIT for individuals who visit China for not more than 183 days is an effective extension of Article 7 of the Detailed Implementation Rules of the IIT Law (“DIR”, which is also subject to corresponding amendments to be announced). Under Article 7 of the DIR, “Individuals who are not domiciled in China, but stay in China continuously or in aggregate for not more than 90 days in a tax year, would be exemption from IIT on income derived from sources within China that is paid by the foreign employer and is not borne by a place or establishment of the foreign employer located in China”. In principle, when an employee enters China and performs services, the income would be regarded as derived from sources within China. Provided that the employee does not stay in China for more than 90 days in a tax year (continuously or in aggregate), and the income is paid by the foreign employer which is not borne by any place or establishment of the foreign employer, no IIT would be imposed. Under Article 14 <Income from Employment> of the Mainland-Hong Kong Double Taxation Arrangement (“CN-HK DTA”), the period of stay is extended from 90 days to 183 days; the relevant provisions in Para 1 and 2 are as follows:

    “1. Subject to the provisions of Articles 15 [Director’s Fees], 17 [Pensions], 18 [Government Service], 19 [Students] and 20 [Other Income], salaries, wages and other similar remuneration derived by a resident of One Side in respect of an employment shall be taxable only in that Side unless the employment is exercised in the Other Side. If the employment is exercised in the Other Side, such remuneration as is derived therefrom may be taxed in that Other Side.

    2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, remuneration derived by a resident of One Side in respect of an employment exercised in the Other Side shall be taxable only in that One Side if all the following 3 conditions are satisfied:
    (1) the recipient is present in the Other Side for a period or periods not exceeding in the aggregate 183 days in any 12-month period commencing or ending in the taxable period concerned;
    (2) the remuneration is paid by, or on behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the Other Side;
    (3) the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment which the employer has in the Other Side.”

    The most important point is that all 3 conditions in Para 2 shall be satisfied in order to enjoy the 183 days exemption, otherwise the individual may fall into Article 1 of the IIT Law and liable to IIT on income derived from sources in China. Although the rules have been in existence for a long time, many people are still unaware of Condition 2 and 3, and they believe that simply avoid staying in China for over 183 days would be good enough to get away from IIT (and they may not even know how the days are counted).

    How to Count 183 Days

    The first important point is how to calculate 183 days. “Any 12-month period commencing or ending in the taxable period concerned” denotes two concepts, namely, that the number of days of presence may straddle over 2 years, i.e. the days of presence can be calculated continuously or in the aggregate irrespective of the year; and that a floating calculation method may be adopted. The 12-month period can commence or end at any day within the taxable period concerned. In counting the actual number of days, one should include all days spent in the Mainland, including days that are not the full day such as the day of arrival and day of departure, as well as weekends, holidays, and vacation etc spent in the Mainland before, during and after the employment.

    [Update] The Public Notice 2019 No.34 issued on 14 March 2019 has an impact here.  Please refer to Tax Tips (21) – No Tax Even if Stay in China for Over 183 Days? for details.  

    Who is the Employer

    Some may think that Condition 2 “the remuneration is paid by, or on behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the Other Side” is easy to satisfy, by simply having the Hong Kong employer bears all the employment costs without charge-back to the Mainland entity that the employee works in. It is not that simple. The “employer” is the party who owns the work product of, is responsible for, bears the risk of, and assess the performance of the individual. If the Mainland entity owns the work product of the individual, is responsible for his well-being, bears the risk of his acts, and assess his performance, the tax authority would regard the Mainland entity to be the real employer, and the income of the individual would be subject to IIT on the part performed in the Mainland.

    The tax authority would consider the following factors in assessing the employer-in-substance:

    (1) Does the Mainland entity direct the work of the individual;
    (2) Does the Mainland entity determine and is it responsible for the working location of the individual;
    (3) Does the Mainland entity provide the tools and materials to the individual in performing his duties;
    (4) Does the Mainland entity determine the quantity and requirement of the position?

    The above are common factors considered in determining if the master-servant relationship exists. Hong Kong entities sending employees to the Mainland should pay attention to such details and ensure there is documentary evidence to support the master-servant relationship. Mainland tax authorities will take the substance-over-form approach in assessing the identity of the real employer.

    Permanent Establishment

    Condition 3 is related to Permanent Establishment (“PE”) which is a relatively complex area. Some basic understanding of what constitutes a PE is required.

    When an employee is sent to work in China at a place or establishment that is relatively fixed and lasting, that place or establishment could be regarded as a PE. Conceptually it is like an unregistered branch of a foreign entity. If the employer is a Hong Kong entity, the CN-HK DTA shall be referred to in determining whether a PE exists.

    According to Article 5 of the CN-HK DTA, the term “PE” means a fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried on, including a place of management, a branch, an office, a factory, a workshop, a mine, an oil or gas well, a quarry or any other place of extraction of natural resources, as well as:

    (1) a building site, a construction, assembly or installation project or supervisory activities in connection therewith, but only if such site, project or activities last more than 6 months;

    (2) the furnishing of services, including consultancy services, by an enterprise of One Side in the Other Side, directly or through employees or other personnel engaged by the enterprise, but only if such activities continue (for the same or a connected project) for a period or periods aggregating more than 183 days [NB] within any 12-month period.

    Many people can understand sub-paragraph (1) above but not sub-paragraph (2).

    When a Hong Kong entity sends employees to a fixed location in the Mainland to work in a project or connected project within any 12-month period, and from the first day of arrival to the project completion day the period of stay (continuously or in aggregate) exceeds 183 days, the fixed location is a PE of the Hong Kong entity unless exemption under CN-HK DTA applies. The number of days is counted based on all employees of the entity who work in the Mainland at different times for the same project, and each day is only counted once when more than one employee is present at the same time. For example, if a Hong Kong entity (Company A) sends 10 employees to work for the same project at the same time for 3 days, the aggregate days in China is 3 days and not 30 days. However, if another Hong Kong entity (Company B) sends 1 employee to work for a project in the Mainland for 100 consecutive days, and then sends another employee to the Mainland for the same project soon afterwards, PE would be created when the second employee stays more than 83 days, creating Corporate Income Tax liability for Company B.

    Condition 3 of Article 14 Para 2 requires that the employee remuneration is not borne by a PE or fixed place of the employer located in the Mainland. If a Hong Kong individual is sent to perform services at a PE of the employer in the Mainland, or the employees themselves have created a PE of the employer through the carrying out of a project or contracted work, their remuneration is deemed to be borne by the PE no matter the length of time of their services and where the remuneration is actually paid. This rule, however, does not apply to individuals who visit the PE for inspection, review or provide temporary assistance for the head office.

    In the above example, the two employees of Company B are both liable to IIT even though each of them stays in the Mainland for not more than 183 days.

    Lastly, if one of the employees of Company B stayed in the Mainland for more than 183 days, would he be considered a Mainland tax resident and subject to IIT on his worldwide income (assuming that there is no five-year grace period)? What information is needed to make the determination? The answer is for the Readers to work out.

    Tax Tips

    183 days can be the difference between paying or not paying IIT, or the triggering point from paying IIT on China sourced income to worldwide income, and each situation has to be studied on a case-by-case basis to determine how should the rules be applied. The different ways of counting 183 days (less than or not more than 183 days, and over which period) for different purposes can often create confusion. From experience, many Hong Kong enterprises are not aware of the issue, and some of them even print the Mainland address on the name cards of the Hong Kong employees, which becomes a useful clue to the tax authority and create tax risks. Enterprises facing such issues should review the operating structure and staff secondment arrangement to manage their tax exposure.

    NB: CN-HK DTA Second Protocol Article 3

     

    Contact Us

    (This is an English translation of the Chinese article published in the Hong Kong Economic Journal Forum on 10 September 2018: https://manageyourtax.com/HKEJ Forum 15)

    Ref:
    Final version of IIT Law amendments:
    http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/2018-08/31/content_2060151.htm

    HK news report on 5 year grace period:
    https://www.881903.com/Page/ZH-TW/newsdetail.aspx?ItemId=1027694&csid=261_341

    CN-TW DTA:
    http://www.chinatax.gov.cn/n810341/n810770/c1794734/part/3360344.pdf

    Current IIT Law Implementation Rules:
    http://www.chinatax.gov.cn/n810341/n810765/n812156/n812479/c1186518/content.html

  • Tax Tips (13) – What is the Tax Residency of Your BVI Company?

    Tax Tips (13) – What is the Tax Residency of Your BVI Company?

    The global crackdown on tax avoidance and money laundering at both individual and corporate levels have brought about a substantial increase in disclosure in the financial world.  Anyone who has the experience of trying to open a bank account for a company would know, as part of the bank’s Know Your Client (KYC) procedure thanks to FATCA and the Common Reporting Standard, that there will be questions on the beneficial owner and tax residency of the company.  If one is lucky enough to have to file the Country-by-Country Report (“CbCR”, see Tax Tips 3), tax residency of every Constituent Entity in the group shall be reported. There could be serious consequences of incorrectly reporting the tax residency.

    Tax residency of a company would be relatively straight-forward if it is incorporated and filed tax returns in a jurisdiction where there is income tax or profits tax.  What if the company is incorporated in a jurisdiction that does not impose income tax (commonly referred to as an “Offshore Company”), such as Tax Havens like the British Virgin Islands (BVI), Bermuda, Western Samoa?  Many people think that Offshore Companies are not subject to tax anywhere…is it really the case?

    Becoming Taxable in Another Jurisdiction

    Business profits of a company (say “Co A” located in Country A) could be subject to tax in another jurisdiction (say Country B) under two situations: (1) Co A has become a tax resident in Country B; or (2) Co A is a tax resident of Country A and has created a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in Country B.  The difference between the two is that as a tax resident of Country B, Co A may be subject to tax in Country B in full. On the other hand, if a PE is created, only the business profits attributable to the PE is subject to tax in Country B.

    A company can also be taxable in a foreign jurisdiction without tax residency or PE.  That would be the case on capital gains or passive income such as dividend, royalties and interests derived from that foreign jurisdiction.  

    This article focuses on business profits situation one: under what circumstances would a company become a tax resident in a foreign jurisdiction.

    Determination of Tax Residency

    For Hong Kong, the concept of tax residency does not attract too much attention because of the territorial concept of taxation. A foreign company would be taxed in Hong Kong just like a local Hong Kong company when it carries on a trade, profession or business in Hong Kong and derives Hong Kong sourced profits therefrom.

    However, in many residency-based tax jurisdictions, a foreign company would be subject to income tax in full if it is regarded as a tax resident and carries on business in the jurisdiction.  What determines tax residency? Using Australia as an example, a company is a resident of Australia under Subsection 6(1) of the Income tax Assessment Act 1936, if:

    • it is incorporated in Australia, or
    • if it is not incorporated in Australia, it carries on business in Australia and has either:
      • its voting power controlled by shareholders who are resident of Australia (the voting power test of residency), or;
      • its central management and control in Australia (the central management and control test of residency).

    For a company incorporated outside of Australia, the test, essentially, is to lift the corporate veil and see in substance whether the company is really managed and controlled in Australia, just like a company incorporated in Australia.

    Tax residency is also highly relevant in determining if a Double Taxation Agreement/Arrangement (“DTA”) is applicable to the company or not.  Using the DTA entered into between Hong Kong and Mainland China (“HK-CN DTA”) as example, a resident in Hong Kong, for a company, is defined under Article 4(1) of the HK-CN DTA as “a company incorporated in Hong Kong, or if incorporated outside Hong Kong, being normally managed or controlled in Hong Kong”.  Under Article 4(3), when “a person other than an individual is a resident of both Sides, then it shall be deemed to be a resident only of the Side in which its place of effective management is situated”. The place of effective management (“POEM”) is the tie-breaker in determining which Side should the company be regarded as a resident of.  Readers should note that in the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2017 (“the 2017 Model Tax Convention”), the tie-breaker clause has been revised such that the two sides shall agree on the matter with due consideration of the place of effective management, place of incorporation and any other relevant factors.  It is however up to the contracting sides to adopt the previous tie-breaker clause, which reads exactly like Article 4(3) of the HK-CN DTA mentioned above.

    Not only is tax residency relevant to Hong Kong under DTAs, the concept is also being introduced under the transfer pricing rules in the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No.6) Bill 2017 (“the Bill”) which was enacted on 4 July 2018.  “Hong Kong resident person” is defined to mean “a person who is resident for tax purposes in Hong Kong”, and “resident for tax purposes”, for a company, means “a company incorporated in Hong Kong or, if incorporated outside Hong Kong, normally managed or controlled in Hong Kong”.

    The Place of Management and Control

    Among the three terms came across above: the normal place of management and control, the central place of management and control, and the place of effective management (POEM), it appears that the “normal” place of management and control is a comparatively relaxed definition, and thus it may be easier for companies to be considered a tax resident in such case, which may or may not be a good thing.  Legal experts will be able to better differentiate the three terms.

    From a practical standpoint, what corporates would like to avoid, in most situations, is to be regarded as a tax resident unexpectedly.  There will not be a One-Size-Fits-All guidance on what characteristics of management and control would make a company a tax resident of a foreign jurisdiction.  For the purpose of this article, the search is, therefore, for general guidance on The Place of Management and Control (“TPMC”) that corporates can follow to help lower the chance of their Offshore Companies inadvertently become tax residents of residency-based tax jurisdictions.

    Guidance on TPMC

    OECD would be a handy resource to look for an answer.  With the change in the Article 4(3) of the 2017 Model Tax Convention, the Commentary (of the Condensed Version) no longer provides an explanation to POEM.  To understand OECD’s view on the matter, one may go back to the Commentary to the previous version of the Model Convention (Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital 2014 (Full Version)), which says: “The POEM is the place where key management and commercial decisions that are necessary for the conduct of the entity’s business as a whole are in substance made. All relevant facts and circumstances must be examined to determine the POEM.  An entity may have more than one place of management, but it can have only one POEM at any one time”. This definition is helpful but not in sufficient details for companies to follow and act on.

    A good reference to offshore companies would be the Tax Ruling TR 2018/5 Income Tax: Central Management and Control Test of Residency issued by the Australian Tax Office (ATO) on 21 June 2018 (with an effective date of 15 March 2017).  The three questions related to Central Management and Control are: What is it? Who exercises it? Where is it?

    (1) What does central management and control mean?

    Per TR 2018/5, the key element in the control and direction of a company’s operations is the making of high-level decisions that set the company’s general policies, and determine the direction of its operations and the type of transactions it will enter.  It is different from the day-to-day conduct and management of its activities and operations, which is not ordinarily regarded as an act of central management and control. However, for small companies, their day-to-day conduct and management of a company’s operations might also be an exercise of central management and control.

    What is “decision making”?

    A person, or group of people, make a decision if they actively consider and decide to do, or not do something based on it being in the best interests of the company.  It does not include the mere implementation, or rubber-stamping, of decisions made by others.

    Acts of central management and control

    Exercising central management and control of a company can involve setting investment and operational policy including buying and selling of stock or significant assets, appointing company officers, overseeing and controlling those appointed to carry out the day-to-day business of the company, and matters of finance, including determining how profits are used and the declaration of dividends.

    Matters of company administration such as keeping a company’s share register, accounts, payment of dividend, are not acts of central management and control.

    (2) Who exercises central management and control?

    Identifying who exercises central management and control is a question of fact. It cannot be determined solely by identifying who has the legal power or authority to control and direct a company.  The crucial question is who controls and directs a company’s operations in reality.

    Normally, where a company is run by its directors in accordance with its constitution and the company law rules applicable to that company, which give its directors the power to manage the company, the company’s directors will control and direct its operations.  It follows that ordinarily it is a company’s directors who exercise its central management and control.

    When determining who exercises a company’s central management and control, all the relevant facts and circumstances must be considered. Facts and circumstances to be considered include the role of anyone who assumes the directors’ role in managing and controlling the company’s affairs or has a role in the decision-making processes or governance of the company. Therefore, mere legal power or authority to manage a company is not sufficient to establish an exercise of central management and control. On the other hand, the ATO would also examine who tacitly control and regularly exercise oversight of the affairs of the company. As such, legal authority or power is not necessary for a person to exercise central management and control.  If an outsider actually dictates or controls the decisions made by the directors, the outsider will exercise central management and control of the company.

    The directors’ knowledge of the business is also relevant. A lack of knowledge of the business sufficient to enable them to make decisions, suggests they are not the real decision makers and are more likely rubber-stamping or implementing decisions already made by others.

    (3) Where is central management and control exercised?

    A company will be controlled and directed where those making its high-level decisions do so as a matter of fact and substance. It is not where they are merely recorded and formalised, or where the company’s constitution, bylaws or articles of association require it be controlled and directed if, in reality, it occurs elsewhere.  This will not necessarily be the place where those who control and direct a company live.

    Multiple places of central management and control

    Control and direction of a company may be undertaken by those controlling a company in multiple places. This means a company’s central management and control may be divided between more than one place.  However, a company’s central management and control will only be exercised in a place for the purpose of the central management and control test if it is exercised in that place to a substantial degree, sufficient to conclude the company is really carrying on business there.

    Residence of directors vs residence of a company

    Where a company’s central management and control is exercised is not determined by where the directors, or other persons, who control and manage it, are resident or live.  What matters is where they actually perform the activities to control and direct the company.

    Summary

    TR 2018/5 is a good reference because it is newly issued guidance which presumably has taken into account the latest court cases and BEPS.  According to the ruling, in summary, TPMC is the location where the making of high-level decisions that set the company’s general policies, determine the direction of its operations and the type of transactions it will enter into, are made in substance.   

    The Offshore Company

    Many individuals and corporate groups have set up companies in Offshore Tax Havens such as the BVI for various purposes. Many tax offices around the world see them, understandably, as tax avoidance vehicles because some of these companies book large amount business income from trade, services or intellectual properties.  These individuals or corporate groups are not based in the offshore paradises but in the onshore commercial centres of the world, and often the directors of these offshore companies are the individual themselves or the senior management of the corporate groups.  Even if local residents are appointed as directors, they would be acting as nominee only and tax offices will see-through them. Therefore, if not structured and maintained properly, TPMC of these Offshore Companies would be in the onshore commercial centres where the decisions are made, and the tax and penalties exposures could be significant.  In the past, they could be hidden from sight but in the new transparent world, they will be exposed.

    Offshore Companies are, on the other hand, the ideal type of vehicle for investment holding.  They are inexpensive to maintain, useful in organising the group structure, aligning the financial results with management responsibilities, ring-fence risks, and offer great flexibility when a particular arm of the business is to be disposed of: the transaction can be done quickly without burdensome governmental administrative process.  Although there may not be tax avoidance motive behind such a structure as the income of holding companies, namely dividend and capital gains, are often not taxed in many jurisdictions, corporates with such offshore holding companies should also be mindful of the issue of tax residency to avoid surprises, because these days tax offices are all trying to tax untaxed income.

    Tax Tips

    As the world is getting more transparent, corporates with Offshore Companies in the group structure should revisit the tax residency of such companies based on each company’s facts and circumstances and the applicable tax rules.  One should note that having established TPMC is not necessarily the end of the risk analysis: the requirement of carrying on business is also relevant in many jurisdictions in determining tax residency. With the information in hand, corporates can decide what to do: make the necessary changes, perform tax filings, or prepare documentation for future defence as appropriate.  No corporate can avoid exposures to tax but by knowing the risks and actively managing them would help win half of the battle. Corporates should review their organisational structures at once.

    (This is an English translation of the Chinese article published in the Hong Kong Economic Journal Forum on 12 July 2018: https://manageyourtax.com/HKEJ Forum 13)

    Ref:

    OECD Model Tax Convention: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/model-tax-convention-on-income-and-on-capital-condensed-version-2017_mtc_cond-2017-en#.WmNWKqiWYdU#page32

    OECD 2014 Model Tax Convention: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/model-tax-convention-on-income-and-on-capital-2015-full-version_9789264239081-en#page192

    ATO TR 2018/5: https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?DocID=TXR/TR20185/NAT/ATO/00001&PiT=99991231235958

  • Tax Tips (10) – Are you sleeping well at night?

    Tax Tips (10) – Are you sleeping well at night?

    Tax Management

    Rest assured, this article is not about tips on sleeping well…it is about something that could keep the CFO awake at night: is your company’s tax affairs being well-managed?  The problem with poor tax management is that you often realise it too late. It happens because the company has not been targeted by the tax office, management does not realise the danger ahead and does not want to dig up issues, and the Board of Directors has no idea about tax management.

    What leads to this hazardous situation? The common reasons include: people in the past took bad tax advice, did not implement structure and arrangement properly, no documentation exists to support the story, no one was aware of tax law changes so that tax returns were filed incorrectly etc. All these could lead to under accrual of tax liabilities and, more painfully, the heavy interest and penalties. Even worse is reputational damage, as tax offices around the world like the “name and shame” game.

    When you search on the Internet on “tax management”, what you often find are topics that are either basic focusing on tax compliance or about technology which is somewhat disconnected with the real situation in Asia. For example, collecting tax data would be relatively important in countries like the United States, where companies pay State Income Taxes, Sales Tax and various fees at different rates in different States. Country-by-Country Reporting is another area where technology can help, except that companies could run into difficulties when different accounting systems are used in the organisation.

    More and more people talk about “tax strategy” these days, especially when governments, such as the UK, requested large organisations to publish their tax strategies or face a penalty. In practice, tax strategy is really just the organisation’s risk appetite on tax matters. If management of an organisation realises tax is a risk that needs to be managed, the organisation will then need to actively manage its tax affairs. The key is “HOW”.

    This article discusses what is tax management, how to manage tax and who should be the tax manager, based on my own experience.

    What is tax management

    Tax management is to protect the company’s balance sheet and ensure that there are no surprises.

    How to manage tax

    There are five building blocks to successful tax management:

    1. Tax returns are filed correctly and on time
    2. Identify the right tax advisors
    3. Tax implications of new transactions are analysed
    4. Tax matters are discussed regularly with C-suites and internal functions
    5. No harmful documentations exist

    Sounds simple but it is almost an art, and certainly requires experience, deep thoughts and good communications, in making sure that these simple matters are executed right. For the ease of discussion, we call the person responsible the tax manager (who can be the finance manager or a dedicated tax manager).

    Filing tax returns correctly and on time

    There are three things the tax manager needs to do.

    First: Assign Responsibilities. Responsibilities for preparation and review of different kinds of tax filings shall be assigned. Hong Kong would be simple but when we are talking about other jurisdictions, the number of tax returns and documentations required would be of multiple folds. In some jurisdictions such as Indonesia, just for payment to overseas vendors, one would need to collect the applicable Tax Resident Certificates of the vendors, calculate and withhold the correct amount of tax, arrange the necessary treaty benefit claim forms (the infamous DGT-1 Form). Staying with Indonesia, certain payments to local vendors are subject to tax withholding, and on top of that, there is VAT…we have not even touched on the corporate income tax filing and transfer pricing documentation.

    Second: Staff Training. It is worth spending some training costs and time to ensure the staff responsible understand the importance of their job and where to find help. The staff need to be updated on tax law changes, tax audit trend, and maybe the outcome of recent tax cases by attending tax seminars. The tax manager himself has to be trained as well, on the latest tax rules in jurisdictions covered and keep himself up to date with tax development on a macro level.

    Third: Process Design. The tax manager needs to design and put in place a seamless process such that all the different elements of every tax filing: preparation of tax return, data collection, documentation of tax position taken, review, submission, payment and keeping files would work like clockwork.

    It is not necessary for the tax manager to review the actual tax returns, especially those related to jurisdictions outside of the home base) because he does not have the local tax knowledge or even the language skills. If the tax manager is responsible for signing-off the tax returns, it may cause a moral hazard, as the local team may take their job less seriously. The tax manager will also need to decide, by working with the local team, the involvement of external tax advisors in the process. Typically, they create most value in terms of tax training and perhaps review or even prepare the more important tax returns.

    Would technology help? From experience, full automation in tax return preparation is almost not possible except for VAT, when the local rules require that the company’s invoicing system is linked to the tax office’s system. For the other tax returns, there is often a high degree of judgement involved on what is taxable/non-taxable and deductible/non-deductible, and thus the establishment of a real-time dashboard on tax reporting status should not be on top of the priority list of a tax manager. The key to managing tax risk is to do the above three things right, and the tax manager monitors the situation from time to time. Once the basic compliance mechanism is in place, the tax manager may investigate investing in automatic VAT reconciliation.

    Identify the right tax advisors

    This can actually be the hardest part of the job. There are many tax advisors in the big and small firms, as well as sole-proprietor type consultants. How to identify the right ones to advise the company can be a challenge.

    One needs to cast a net to catch the big fish. The tax manager should network with different advisors by attending tax seminars and social events held by the firms and professional organisations such as the local accounting or taxation institute, and make use of the Q&A sessions to ask questions to test their response and reaction. To be able to do that, however, the tax manager has to be reasonably experienced and possess good technical skills.

    In some developing countries, the quality of tax advisors can be appalling. To properly manage the tax issues, the level of experience and technical skills required on the tax manager would actually be higher, so that the tax manager can lead the advisor into providing the advice needed.

    For companies that operate in Mainland China, they need to be aware of the State Administration of Taxation’s Public Notice on the Supervisory Rules on Tax-Related Professional Services (Public Notice 2017 No.13, “PN13”). Under PN13, which became effective on 1 September 2017, only professional service firms with the Mainland-recognised qualifications are allowed to provide professional tax advisory and planning services, and they shall inform the tax authorities on “the relevant information”. Tax advice, memos or reports issued may need to be submitted to the tax authorities.

    Tax implications of new transactions are analysed

    “New transactions” can be any transaction with related or unrelated parties involving new jurisdictions, new business, service, intellectual properties or even M&A transaction.

    To properly manage the tax implications, the first thing to do is to understand the business objective and rationale, timing, preliminary information on contract terms, cash flow, accounting implications, capital and financing structure and degree of confidentiality. With the information, the tax manager can consult external tax advisors for tax implications and possible tax planning ideas. The process could last from weeks to months before the tax advice is finalised, thus having a good idea on timing and deadline is crucial. The tax manager must keep close contact with the functional teams (finance/legal/IT/Business Development/Company Secretarial etc) involved to learn the latest on the transaction and respond accordingly to ensure the tax advice is correct and relevant.

    It is very important for the tax manager to possess the business acumen and project management skills to really manage the process, which includes:

    • Narrow down the options to arrive at an executable transaction structure that supports the business objective
    • The advice has to be technically strong
    • Understand the tax advice and work with other functional teams to ascertain feasibility and timing of execution
    • Ensure the documentation are properly worded, executed (including the location of execution) and maintained
    • If new companies are to be set up, ample time should be allowed and proper board meetings should be held; in some countries, investments in certain industries require government pre-approval (e.g. the Foreign Investment Review Board in Australia)
    • Know where to, and where not to, take short-cuts
    • Keep senior management informed on progress and hurdles, if any, and seek direction where appropriate

    Tax matters are discussed regularly with C-suites and internal functions

    Tax expense is often one of the largest expenditure after salaries/wages and rent. However, as the amount is so-called “below the line” (i.e. below EBIT, which is the common performance measurement metric), and it is considered a somewhat less-controllable expense, management tends to pay less attention to it. With the rapidly changing tax rules and the tax offices’ increasingly hostile attitude towards taxpayers, it is important for the tax manager to bring tax matters to the attention of the C-suites and internal functions, which indeed is part of the expectation management: ensure that there are no surprises.

    Such discussions should include uploads and downloads: the tax manager provides the appropriate tax update on issues, disputes, law changes, project status etc to the management (upload), and obtain information from the team about new business direction and projects (download) so that the manager can raise the tax concerns on-the-spot, where applicable, to the management, which is often the most valuable part of the job. Direct participation in such meetings would help raise awareness of tax, making the tax manager part of the team, which will be beneficial in carrying out future tax projects.

    No harmful documentations exist

    What is meant by “harmful” documentation?

    Anyone who has been involved in tax planning would likely have come across discussions on “how much is the tax saving?”, which, to many, is the most exciting part of the project. People involved, including the external tax advisors, easily get carried away and start to communicate in writing (typically by email, and sometimes by instant messaging nowadays) about the tax saving, which would then be spread across the organisation, and sometimes across countries, at the speed of light. They forgot that tax offices would love to see these as evidence of tax-avoidance and they indeed have the power to ask for all emails or even confiscate the computers of taxpayers in dawn raids. Email has become an important evidence for taxpayers to prove their intention. For example, under the Administrative Measures for General Anti-avoidance Rules issued by the State Administration of Taxation in Mainland China (Order No.32) in 2014, Article 11 stated that in an investigation related to General Anti-avoidance, the taxpayers who wish to defend themselves shall provide correspondences related to internal decision and management such as board minutes, memorandums and emails to the tax office. If taxpayers cannot provide such documents or the correspondences contain harmful wordings, the best thing that the taxpayer could hope for is a reasonable settlement with the tax office.

    Governments are also trying to hold external tax advisors responsible for providing aggressive tax advice. Under Article 14 and 15 of the Order No.32, for example, the Mainland tax office could issue information demand notices to parties involved in tax planning, which include the external tax advisors, and the tax office is empowered to reach out to overseas tax jurisdictions for help to collect the relevant information if the evidence is located offshore. Order No.32 and PN13 mentioned earlier would give the Mainland tax office all the powers to obtain documentations in investigation tax avoidance.

    Who should be the tax manager?

    Most people would answer: “it depends on the size and complexity of the organisation…for smaller organisations, the CFO or finance manager can take up such a role…for larger organisations, a full-time tax manager may be needed”.

    The answer is correct subject to two caveats: (1) the scale of operations of the “smaller organisation” would likely be organisations that have simple business and perhaps operate in not more than three jurisdictions; (2) the person taking up the tax manager role has the time, and the ability, to do all the things discussed above in order to properly manage the tax for the organisation, large or small.

    For the “smaller organisations” that are growing to become medium-sized and are beginning to realise the value of professional tax management, they should start considering hiring a full-time tax manager. As this is going to be a new headcount, the company may find budget constraints thus it may be harder to hire experienced tax managers. If the company hires someone directly from the accounting firms, that person needs to be properly trained, and be guided continuously, in order to perform the role of tax management. Who in the organisation is qualified, and has the time, to be the trainer-supervisor?

    These medium-sized organisations should instead consider hiring experienced tax professionals who have years of experience in commercial organisations on a part-time basis. There are multiple benefits of hiring experienced part-time tax managers: (1) they know how to manage your tax; (2) no training and supervision are needed – they hit-the-ground-running; (3) they know how to work with other functions within the organisation; (4) they know the tax advisors and can identify the right ones for different countries or projects.  Our company, Manage Your Tax Company Limited, provides such part-time tax management services in Hong Kong.  The services are provided under a service contract so that the client would not need to be bothered with issues and costs associated with hiring employees, and can dedicate more time to developing the business. If the organisation’s tax workload does not justify hiring a full-time tax manager, then employing a part-time tax manager would be a win-win for everyone.

    What about tax planning?

    The days that external tax advisors selling tax planning packages out of thin-air have long gone. That doesn’t mean that tax planning is dead. Nowadays, tax planning has to be driven from within the organisation, by the tax manager, and there are two situations where tax savings can be created.

    One is when tax implications of new transactions are analysed, as discussed above. Two is based on the tax manager’s sharp eyes and his/her thorough understanding of the organisational structure, business model and transaction flows, tax planning opportunities could be spotted. The key to successful tax planning is that there has to be a business driven transaction behind it. Experienced tax managers should know that well.

    Conclusion

    Tax management (or tax risk management) is not about talking fancy words such as “strategy”, “technology”, “vision”, “KPI for tax function”, “tax data” etc. What companies need are experienced tax professionals who understand business, can implement processes, technically strong, constantly looking for value-creation, know where are the risks area and deal with them, able to spot opportunities, and can make practical decisions. Knowing that tax is under good management, the CFO can sleep well every night.

    (This is an English translation of the Chinese article published in the Hong Kong Economic Journal Forum on 10 May 2018: https://manageyourtax.com/HKEJ Forum 10)

    Ref:

    Order No.32: http://hd.chinatax.gov.cn/guoshui/action/GetArticleView1.do?id=483630&flag=1

    PN13:

    http://hd.chinatax.gov.cn/guoshui/action/GetArticleView1.do?id=5745825&flag=1

    http://www.chinatax.gov.cn/n810341/n810755/c2608065/content.html