Taxation of Cross Borders Mergers & Acquisitions: Vodafone Hutch Deal

Associate Professor Faculty of Management Studies (FMS) University of Delhi Email: monica@fms.edu MBA Class of 2012 Faculty of Management Studies (FMS) University of Delhi

Dr. Monica Singhania

Venugopal Dastaru

Abstract Any mergers and acquisitions activity is intricate in its dimensions and would be affected by a plethora of laws and regulations depending on the stakeholders involved. Deal structuring from a tax perspective is one of the critical factors for any business restructuring proposition, such that the transaction is tax neutral or results in minimizing the tax implications. Such acquisitions may be routed through direct investments or through an International Holding Company (IHC). An IHC would be advantageous in case the promoter/company wishes to keep the cash flows generated from overseas operations outside India for future growth needs. In case of direct investments, the entire surplus amount would have to be repatriated to India and the same would be subject to tax in India, thereby reducing the disposable income in the hands of the promoter/company. Income generated overseas could be repatriated to the Indian Company in the form of interest, royalties, service or management fees, dividends, capital gains. Such income when repatriated to the Indian Company by the IHC or to the IHC by the target company would attract double taxation. Double taxation is a situation in which two or more taxes are paid for the same income/transaction which arises because of the overlap between different countries tax laws and jurisdictions. The liability is then mitigated or off settled by tax treaties between the two countries. An ideal location for an IHC would be one with low/nil withholding tax on receipts, on income streams and on subsequent re-distribution as passive income. Some of the jurisdictions preferred for repatriating back to India include Mauritius, Cyprus, Singapore and Netherlands, which have relatively better tax treaties with India. Essentially the Vodafone Hutch deal involved transfer of shares of a non-resident Cayman Islands based entity between two non-residents (Hutch and Vodafone). Apparently the

transaction had no link with India and therefore the related parties to the transaction indeed assumed and claimed that no tax on this deal is payable in India. But the Indian tax authorities thought otherwise. The Indian tax authorities issued notice to Vodafone under section 201 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1961 so as to show cause as to why it should not be treated as an assessee in default since it (Vodafone) had failed to discharge its withholding tax obligation with respect to tax on gains made by Hutch on the sale of shares to Vodafone. In addition, the Indian tax authorities decided to treat Vodafone as an agent of Hutch under section 163 of the Income Tax Act 1961 to recover the tax dues. On Vodafones challenge to the notice, the Bombay High Court on December 3, 2008, approved the Indian tax authorities jurisdiction to initiate investigation so as to determine whether the over $11 billion Hutchison-Vodafone transaction was liable for capital gains tax in India. Finally on January 20, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Vodafone. The Supreme Court disagreed with the conclusions arrived at by the Bombay High Court that the sale of CGP share by HTIL to Vodafone would amount to transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Indian Income Tax Act and the rights and entitlements flow from FWAs, SHAs, Term Sheet, loan assignments, brand license etc. form integral part of CGP share attracting capital gains tax. Consequently, the demand of nearly Rs.12,000 crores by way of capital gains tax, would amount to imposing capital punishment for capital investment since it lacks authority of law and, therefore, stands quashed. Keywords: Business restructuring, cross border transactions, tax haven, capital gains I. Introduction Mergers and acquisitions play a major role in the globalization process. Tax laws should better accommodate cross border merger and acquisitions. In an endeavour to geographically expand the utilization of their competitive advantages, merger and acquisitions allow the firms to do so in a fast, effective and perhaps in an inexpensive manner. Many countries have some tax rules that grant certain benefits to merger and acquisitions transactions, usually allowing some deferral of the tax otherwise imposed on the owners of some of the participating parties upon the transaction. On the other hand, once mergers and acquisitions transactions cross borders, countries are much less enthusiastic to provide tax benefits to the involved parties, understanding that, in some cases, relief of current taxation practically means exemption since such countries may completely lose jurisdiction to tax the transaction. Cross-border merger and acquisitions, although presenting many of the same issues as domestic deals, are usually more complex and rife with surprises and other pitfalls, more so when the number of geographies involved in the transaction increases. The sheer range of concerns has expanded as the speed and volume of international deals have increased. Domestic merger and
2

acquisitions are, generally and on average, socially desirable transactions. In many countries, they enjoy tax (deferral) preferences, but only to the extent to which they use stock to compensate target corporations or their shareholders. The legal framework for business consolidations in India consists of numerous statutory provisions for tax concessions and tax neutrality for certain kinds of reorganizations and consolidations. With India rapidly globalising, and the economy growing and showing positive results, a sound tax policy is essential in this regard. Tax is an important business cost to be considered while taking any business decision, particularly when competing with other global players. The new direct tax code that the Government is planning to introduce, to replace the current Income-tax Act, 1961, is expected to emphasise on transparency and taxpayerfriendliness. Any mergers and acquisitions activity is intricate in its dimensions and would be affected by a plethora of laws and regulations depending on the stakeholders involved. Progressive deregulation in sectors such as banking, insurance, power, aviation, housing and policy rationalization in others like broadcasting, telecommunications and media, coupled with the governments decision to exit non strategic areas through divestment/ disinvestment has further triggered M&A activities in India. Further considering competition in the world market and pressure on the top line and bottom line, Indian Companies are increasingly looking at mergers and acquisitions as instruments for momentous growth and a critical tool of business strategy. Deal structuring from a tax perspective is one of the critical factors for any business restructuring proposition, such that the transaction is tax neutral or minimizing tax implications. Such acquisitions may be routed through direct investments or through an International Holding Company (IHC). An IHC would be advantageous in case the promoter/company wishes to keep the cash flows generated from overseas operations outside India for future growth needs. In case of direct investments, the entire surplus amount would have to be repatriated to India and the same would be subject to tax in India, thereby reducing the disposable income in the hands of the promoter/company. Income generated overseas, could be repatriated to the Indian Company in the form of interest, royalties, service or management fees, dividends, capital gains. Such income when repatriated to the Indian Company by the IHC or to the IHC by the target company would attract double taxation. Double taxation is a situation in which two or more taxes are paid for the same
3

income/transaction which arises because of the overlap between different countries tax laws and jurisdictions. The liability is then mitigated or off settled by tax treaties between the two countries. An ideal location for an IHC would be one with low/nil withholding tax on receipts, on income streams and on subsequent re-distribution as passive income. Some of the jurisdictions preferred for repatriating back to India include Mauritius, Cyprus, Singapore and Netherlands, which have relatively better tax treaties with India. The paper discusses about the taxation issues in cross border mergers & acquisitions in India. It discusses about structuring the transactions. It also discusses about the taxation issues in sales of shares and sale of assets. It also studies about the various laws governing the cross border mergers & acquisitions. The paper takes VodafoneHutch deal as a special case to study the taxation issues in cross border mergers and acquisitions. The paper proposes to showcase what lies at the heart of this VodafoneHutch deal, the effect of taxation on such transactions, the way forward of the deal, options for the parties involved, impact on future cross border M&A, concept of tax haven, possible tax planning in such cases, tax treaty shopping how far legal and ethical and the present tax law in India is in this regard. II. Historical Background Given the role that mergers and acquisitions play in globalization process, the Indian business environment has indeed altered radically with the changes in the economic policy and with the introduction of new institutional mechanisms. The industrial policy changes in 1991 ushered in an era of liberal trade and transactions in industrial and financial sectors of the economy. In the last two decades, India witnessed substantial rise in mergers and acquisitions activity in almost all sectors of the economy. Indian industries underwent structural changes in the postliberalisation period wherein mergers and acquisitions were accepted as vital means of corporate restructuring and redirecting capital towards efficient management. In a way, restructuring of business became an integral part of the new economic paradigm. Restructuring and reorganization became important as the controls and restrictions gave way to competition and free trade. Restructuring usually involves major organisational changes such as shift in corporate strategies to meet increased competition and rapidly changing market conditions.

Regulatory Framework: The relevant laws that are to be implicated in a cross border mergers and acquisitions in India are as under: Companies Act, 1956: Cross border M&A, both the amalgamating company or companies and the amalgamated (i.e. survivor) company are required to comply with the requirements specified in Section 391-394 of the Companies Act, which, inter alia, require the approval of a High court and of the Central government. Section 394 and 394A of the Act set forth the powers of the High Court and provide for the court to give notice to the Central Government in connection with amalgamation of companies. Foreign Exchange Laws: The Foreign Direct Investment Policy of India needs to be followed when any foreign company acquires an Indian company. FDI is completely prohibited in certain sectors such as gambling and betting, lottery business, atomic energy, retail trading and agricultural or plantation activities. The Foreign Investment policy of Government of India along with the press notes and clarificatory circulars issued by the department of investment policy and promotion, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) and regulations made there under, including circulars and notifications issued by the RBI from time to time, the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and regulations made there under (SEBI laws). Income Tax Act, 1961: A number of important issues arise in structuring a cross-border merger and acquisitions deal to ensure that tax liabilities and cost will be minimized for the acquiring company. The first step is to explore leveraging local country operations for cash management and repatriation advantages. Moreover, the companies should be looking at the availability of asset-basis set up structures for tax purposes and keeping a keen eye on valuable tax attributes in merger and acquisitions targets, including net operating losses, foreign tax credits and tax holidays. As per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, capital gains tax would be levied on such transactions when capital assets are transferred. From the definition of transfer, it is clear that if merger, amalgamation, demerger or any sort of restructuring results in transfer of capital asset, it would lead to a taxable event. As far as merger and acquisitions are concerned, the provisions of Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to amalgamation (section 2(1B)), demerger (section 2(19AA)), securities transaction tax (STT), capital gains, slump sale, set off and carry forward of losses, etc. need to be examined intricately to establish legitimate safeguards.

Tax structure is important factor in mergers and acquisitions. Tax laws determine the desired tax treatment of the transaction whether it is taxable or tax free. An ideal tax structure should be such that it minimizes the tax leakage, such as tax withholding relating to cross border mergers and acquisitions. Proposed tax treatment under Direct Tax Code: It is to be noted that recently, the Finance Minister has released the new Direct Tax Code which seeks to bring about a structural change in the tax system currently governed by the Income- tax Act, 1961. Summarized below are the key proposed provisions that are likely to have an impact on the mergers and acquisitions in India: Currently, the definition of amalgamation covers only amalgamation between companies. It is now proposed to include, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions, even amalgamation amongst co-operative societies and amalgamation of sole proprietary concern and unincorporated bodies (firm, association of persons and body of individuals) into a company in this definition. For amalgamation of companies to be tax neutral, in addition to existing conditions the Code proposes that amalgamation should be in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. In case of demerger, resulting company can issue only equity shares (as against both equity and preference shares as per existing provisions) as consideration to the shareholders of demerged company, for the demerger to qualify as tax neutral demerger. Irrespective of sectors (for instance manufacturing or service), the benefit of carry forward and set off of losses of predecessor in the hands of successor Company is proposed to be available to all the companies. As per existing provisions in view of definition of industrial undertaking certain companies were not able to utilize the benefit of losses as a result of amalgamation. Further, the Code provides for indefinite carry forward of business losses as against restrictive limit of 8 years under existing provisions. Profit from the slump sale of any undertaking is proposed to be taxed as a business income as against capital gains income. Code seeks to eliminate the distinction between long term and short term capital asset.
6

Introduction of General Anti Avoidance Rule (GAAR) which empowers the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) to declare an arrangement as impermissible if the same has been entered into with the objective of obtaining tax benefit and which lacks commercial substance. Taxation of Mergers & Acquisitions: A Comparative Study There have been many recent developments in the competition and taxation laws of various countries. The tax is a deciding factor for any cross border reorganization and so all the countries should try to have a favourable tax environment. United States: The two primary relevant federal securities laws in US that has to be complied, are the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), including the rules and regulations promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC). Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Code), is provided by the federal government, this code provides for tax laws in US. Section 267 of their internal revenue code (IRC) exempt US corporate entity in some cases relating to taxation aspect as far as mergers and acquisitions are concerned. Singapore: Income is taxed in Singapore in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134) and the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86). Singapore has also signed a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) with India. United Kingdom: Finance Act 2009 and Corporation Tax Act 2009 which are likely to have a considerable impact on U.K. acquisition structuring. The existing Treasury consent regime (whereby certain transactions involving a foreign body corporate may be unlawful without prior consent) is replaced with a reporting requirement for large transactions from 1 July 2009. Minor changes have been made to the U.K. controlled foreign company (CFC) rules from 1 July 2009 over a two-year transitional period. European Union: European competition law is governed primarily by Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community. Article 85 is designed primarily to achieve the same goal as the Sherman Act in U.S. legislation insofar as it prohibits all agreements and
7

concerted practices that affect trade among E.U. members and which have as their main objective the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. Article 86 is designed to meet the policy objectives of the Clayton Act in that it prohibits the abuse of a dominant market position through unfair trading conditions, pricing, limiting production, tying and dumping. So, India has followed the footsteps of the developed economy by tax reforms and other regulatory developments. US, UK and Singapore seems to have a friendly environment for mergers and acquisitions by Indian companies. III. Literature Review As per the Cross-border Transactions - an India Tax and Regulatory Update, issued on January 1, 2009 by Deloitte, India has always been perceived as a difficult jurisdiction to do business with. In spite of India having substantially opened the doors for foreign investment and there being no lack of local entrepreneurial talent, the country still ranks low in terms of being a preferred business destination. The Taxation of Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions, issued by KPMG, discusses Limited Liability Partnership Act and tax attributes of various assets and share purchases. It highlights withholding taxes in various countries, deal structures and various tax liability structures under acquisition or merger by various modes. It compared tax liability under asset purchases, demerger, amalgamation, various corporate laws covering transfer taxes, IT laws and other accounting principles. In Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India [(2008) 175 Taxmann 399 (Bom. HC)], December 3, 2008, Hutchison Essar Ltd. (Hutch India), a company incorporated in India, was a joint venture of the Hong Kong-based Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd (Hutch Hong Kong) and the India-based Essar Group. Hutch India was in the business of providing telecommunication service in India. Hutch Hong Kong held 67% of the shares of Hutch India through CGP Investments Holdings Ltd (the Cayman Islands SPV), an SPV registered in Cayman Islands, and some other shareholders. As a result of this sale, capital gains, estimated at $ 2 billion, accrued to the Cayman Islands SPV. Considered from the point of view of jurisdictions, it is clear that the sale transaction took place between the Dutch SPV (owned by a UK group) and the Cayman Islands SPV (owned by a Hong Kong company). The ultimate effect however was the transfer of controlling shares of an Indian company.
8

FDI in Telecom Sector in India In Basic, Cellular Mobile, Paging and Value Added Service, and Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite, Composite FDI permitted is 74% (49% under automatic route) subject to grant of license from Department of Telecommunications subject to security and license conditions. FDI up to 74% (49% under automatic route) is also permitted for Radio Paging Service and Internet Service Providers (ISP's) FDI up to 100% permitted in respect Infrastructure Providers providing dark fibre (IP Category I); Electronic Mail; and Voice Mail This is subject to the conditions that such companies would divest 26% of their equity in favour of Indian public in 5 years, if these companies were listed in other parts of the world. In telecom manufacturing sector 100% FDI is permitted under automatic route. The Government has modified method of calculation of Direct and Indirect Foreign Investment in sector with caps and have also issued guidelines on downstream investment by Indian Companies. Inflow of FDI into Indias telecom sector during April 2000 to February 2010 was about Rs. 405,460 million. Also, more than 8 per cent of the approved FDI in the country is related to the telecom sector. 3G & Broadband Wireless Services (BWA): The government has in a pioneering decision, decided to auction 3G & BWA spectrum. The broad policy guidelines for 3G & BWA have already been issued on 1stAugust 2008 and allotment of spectrum has been planned through simultaneously ascending e-auction process by a specialized agency. New players would also be able to bid thus leading to technology innovation, more competition, faster roll out and ultimately greater choice for customers at competitive tariffs. The 3G will allow telecom companies to offer additional value added services such as high resolution video and multimedia services in addition to voice, fax and conventional data services with high data rate transmission capabilities. BWA will become a predominant platform for broadband roll out services. It is also an effective tool for undertaking social initiatives of the Government such as e-education, telemedicine, e-health and e-Governance. Providing affordable broadband, especially to the suburban and rural communities is the next focus area of the Department.

BSNL & MTNL have already been allotted 3G & BWA spectrum with a view to ensuring early roll out of 3G & WiMax services in the country. They will pay the same price for the spectrum as discovered through the auction. While, Honourable Prime Minister launched the MTNLs 3G mobile services on the inaugural function of India Telecom 2008 held on 11th December 2008, BSNL launched its countrywide 3G services from Chennai, in the southern Tamil Nadu state on 22nd February 2009. Mobile Number Portability (MNP): Mobile Number Portability (MNP) allows subscribers to retain their existing telephone number when they switch from one access service provider to another irrespective of mobile technology or from one technology to another of the same or any other access service provider. The Government has announced the guidelines for Mobile Number Portability (MNP) Service Licence in the country on 1st August 2008 and has issued a separate Licence for MNP. The Department of Telecommunication (DoT) has already issued licences to two global companies for implementing the service. IV. Vodafone Hutch case The acquisition of Hutchison Essar by Vodafone at an enterprise value of $19.3 billion which comes to around $794 per share was one of the biggest cross border deals in the booming Indian telecom market at that time. Vodafone won the 67% block on sale by Hutch-Essar leaving behind Reliance Communication and a consortium led by Hindujas as well. It paid around 10.9 billion dollars for the acquisition. Profile of Co-parties Owners: Vodafone: 67% Essar: 33%

10

Vodafone Profile: Vodafone Group plc is a global telecommunications company headquartered in Newbury, United Kingdom. It is the world's largest mobile telecommunications company measured by revenues and the world's second-largest measured by subscribers, with around 332 million proportionate subscribers as at 30 September 2010. It operates networks in over 30 countries and has partner networks in over 40 additional countries. It owns 45% of Verizon Wireless, the largest mobile telecommunications company in the United States measured by subscribers. Its primary listing is on the London Stock Exchange and it is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index. It had a market capitalisation of approximately 92 billion as of November 2010, making it the third largest company on the London Stock Exchange. It has a secondary listing on NASDAQ. Essar Profile: The Essar Group is a multinational conglomerate corporation in the sectors of Steel, Energy, Power, Communications, Shipping Ports & Logistics as well as Construction headquartered at Mumbai, India. The Group's annual revenues were over USD 15 billion in financial year 2008-2009. Essar began as a construction company in 1969 and diversified into manufacturing, services and retail. Essar is managed by Shashi Ruia, Chairman Essar Group and Ravi Ruia, Vice Chairman Essar Group. Hutch Profile: Hutchison Whampoa Limited of Hong Kong is a Fortune 500 company and one of the largest companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. HWL is an international corporation with a diverse array of holdings which includes the world's biggest port and telecommunication operations in 14 countries and run under the 3 brand. Its business also includes retail, property development and infrastructure. It belongs to the Cheung Kong Group Vodafone-Essar: The case - Hutchison International, a non-resident seller and parent company based in Hong Kong sold its stake in the foreign investment company CGP Investments Holdings Ltd., registered in the Cayman Islands (which, in turn, held shares of Hutchison-Essar - Indian operating company, through another Mauritius entity) to Vodafone, a Dutch nonresident buyer. Vodafone Essar is owned by Vodafone 52%, Essar Group 33%, and other Indian nationals, 15%. On February 11, 2007, Vodafone agreed to acquire the controlling interest of 67% held by Li Ka Shing Holdings in Hutch-Essar for US$11.1 billion, pipping Reliance
11

Communications, Hinduja Group, and Essar Group, which is the owner of the remaining 33%. The whole company was valued at USD 18.8 billion. The transaction closed on May 8, 2007. The total is Vodafone Essar subscription is 106,347,368 subscribers i.e., 23.94% of the total 444,295,711 subscribers. Individual Investors: Individual large stake holders Analjit Singh and Asim Ghosh sold their stakes to Vodafone in December 2009. Asim Ghosh, the former managing director of Vodafone Essar, had 4.68 per cent stake in the company held through investment firm AG Mercantile, and sold a part of it for about Rs 3.3 billion. Analjit Singh, who had a share of 7.58 per cent through three companies, sold a part of his stake for over Rs 5 billion. After the sale, the stakes held by Ghosh and Singh in Vodafone Essar will come down to 2.39 per cent and 3.87 per cent respectively. Vodafone Hutch deal Time Line The time line for the Vodafone and Hutch deal is as follow: 2007/05/29 - Court sends notice to Vodafone and Hutch 2007/05/05 - Vodafone-Hutch deal gets Finance Minister's nod 2007/04/04 - Vodafone-Hutch deal: Decision likely at next FIPB meeting 2007/03/19 - FIPB to take up Vodafone proposal on Tuesday 2007/03/16 - Hutchison offers $415 m to Essar as `sign-on bonus' 2007/03/16 - Vodafone's Hutch deal in order: Kamal Nath 2007/03/15 - Essar, Vodafone reach agreement on jointly managing Hutch 2007/02/18 - What Vodafone will collect from the Hutch call 2007/02/15 - `Roses for Essar, telephony for masses' 2007/02/15 - Vodafone pledges $2-b investments
12

2007/02/12 - Hutch: Vodafone top bidder with $19-b offer 2007/02/11 - Hindujas to partner Qatar Telecom, Altimo for Hutch 2007/02/10 - Hutch bidding goes to the wire 2007/01/11 - Vodafone offer in a few weeks 2007/01/09 - Vodafone starts due diligence of Hutch 2007/01/06 - Hutchison, Essar differ over right of refusal 2007/01/03 - Essar gets fund pledge worth $24 b for Hutch-Essar buy 2006/12/29 - Reliance Comm in race for Hutch-Essar 2006/12/23 - Vodafone joins race for Hutchison Essar stake 2006/12/21 - Vodafone may join race for Hutch Taxation issue in Vodafone Hutch deal: The Indian Revenue authorities issued show cause notice to Vodafone arguing that they had failed to discharge withholding tax obligation with respect to tax on gains made by Hutch on sale of shares to Vodafone. Vodafone filed a writ petition in the Mumbai High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Revenue department. The revenue department issued show-cause to Vodafone asking for an explanation as to why Vodafone Essar (which was formerly Hutchison Essar) should not be treated as an agent (representative assessee) of Hutchison International and asked Vodafone Essar to pay $ 1.7 billion as capital gains tax. Indian Income Tax department view: The whole controversy in the case of Vodafone is about the taxability of transfer of share capital of the Indian entity. Generally, the transfer of shares of a non-resident company to another non-resident is not subject to tax in India. But the revenue department is of the view that this transfer represents transfer of beneficial interest of the shares of the Indian company and, hence, it will be subject to tax.

13

The revenue authorities are of the view that as the valuation for the transfer includes the valuation of the Indian entity also and as Vodafone has also approached the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) for its approval for the deal, Vodafone has a business connection in India and, therefore, the transaction is subject to capital gains tax in India. Vodafone view: On the contrary, Vodafones argument is that there is no sale of shares of the Indian company and what it had acquired is a company incorporated in Cayman Islands which, in turn, holds the Indian entity. Hence, the transaction is not subject to tax in India. Vodafone argued that the deal was not taxable in India as the funds were paid outside India for the purchase of shares in an offshore company that the tax liability should be borne by Hutch; that Vodafone was not liable to withhold tax as the withholding rule in India applied only to Indian residence that the recent amendment to the IT act of imposing a retrospective interest penalty for withholding lapses was unconstitutional. Now the taxmans argument was focused on proving that even though the Vodafone-Hutch deal was offshore, it was taxable as the underlying asset was in India and so it pointed out that the capital asset; that is the Hutch-Essar or now Vodafone-Essar joint venture is situated here and was central to the valuation of the offshore shares; that through the sale of offshore shares, Hutch had sold Vodafone valuable rights - in that the Indian asset including tag along rights, management rights and the right to do business in India and that the offshore transaction had resulted in Vodafone having operational control over that Indian asset. The Department also argued that the withholding tax liability always existed and the amendment was just a clarification. Key questions before the High Court: Whether the show cause notice issued by the Revenue authorities was without Jurisdiction as Vodafone could not be said to be liable under section 201 of the Income tax Act 1961 for not withholding tax?

14

 Whether the provisions relating withholding tax obligation under section 195 of the Acts have extra territorial application and a non resident without presence in India has an obligation to comply with it? Whether the transaction per se resulted in income chargeable to tax in India? Vodafones Petition and Arguments: Vodafones argument is that there is no sale of shares of the Indian company and what it had acquired is a company incorporated in Cayman Islands which in turn holds the Indian entity. Hence, the transaction is not subject to tax in India. The petitions and arguments of Vodafone are as under: It was not in default (under section 201) for not withholding tax as the law applied to situations where tax had been withheld and not deposited. Hence, to impose an obligation where no withholding had been made was unconstitutional. Giving a contextual interpretation, person liable to withhold tax could not include a non resident having no presence (in India), since such an interpretation would amount to treating unequals as equal by imposing onerous compliance obligations as applicable to residents or nonresidents having a presence in India. The transfer was with respect to ownership of shares in a foreign company and no capital asset in India. Further, change in controlling interest in Indian companies was only incidental to change in foreign shareholding. Vodafone also challenged the constitutional validity of retrospective amendments to sections 191 and 201 of the Act, motivated to impose an obligation on payer to withhold tax. The transfer of the shares of CGP which was a capital asset situated outside India could not result in any income chargeable to tax in India. A share in a company represents a bundle of rights and its transfer results in a transfer of all the underlying rights. However, what were transferred were only a share and not the individual rights. When there is no look-through provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), such a provision cannot be read into the statute and the corporate veil cannot be lifted unless a tax fraud is perpetrated. The Supreme Court ("SC") in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 has held that there was no tax consequence in India when the shares of one of the
15

intermediate holding company in Mauritius were transferred. Similarly, there should not be a tax consequence, even when an upstream holding company transfers its shares. Analysis of the issue: HC ruling in Vodafone Case: The HC held that the series of transactions in question has a significant nexus' with India. Since the essence of it was change in controlling interest in HEL, it constituted a source of income in India. It held that the price paid by Vodafone factored in, as part of the consideration, diverse rights and entitlements being transferred as part of the composite transaction. Many of these entitlements were not relatable to the transfer of the CGP share. It held that intrinsic to the transaction were transfer of other rights and entitlements. Such rights and entitlements constitute capital assets' as per the provisions of the Act. The apportionment of consideration paid by Vodafone for a bundle of entitlements stated above lies within the jurisdiction of the Indian Revenue. The Indian Revenue Authorities sought to apportion income resulting to HTIL between what has accrued or arisen or what is deemed to have accrue or arise as a result of a nexus with India and that which lies outside. Subsequent to the HC ruling, the Revenue has raised a tax demand of Rs. 112,180 million on Vodafone for failure to withhold taxes. Meanwhile, the appeal filed by Vodafone before the Supreme Court was heard in November 2010. Analysis of decision: This is a landmark ruling which throws light on principles of taxation of cross-border transfers. The High Court's observation on the principle of proportionality' that a portion of the income would be chargeable to tax is a significant one. The Court has also observed that the other rights and entitlements, passed on as a part of the deal are separate assets and can be regarded as capital assets', within the meaning of the Act. These observations seem to indicate that transactions involving a simpler transfer of shares of a company outside India, which has companies in its fold in India, would not be chargeable to tax in India. However, if certain other rights and entitlements in India are transferred along with the transfer of shares, there would be an incidence of tax in India. This decision could certainly embolden the Revenue authorities to investigate offshore transactions, which have a connection with India or cases where limited interest exists in India and the demand raised by the Revenue authorities is a clear indication of things to come.
16

The Dutch government, on behalf of Vodafone, has approached the Indian government for settling a three-year-old dispute involving a tax claim of over Rs 11,000 crore. Netherlands has written to India asking it to consider an alternate dispute resolution that will run parallel to the ongoing court process through what is termed as a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP). India would examine the request and take a decision in accordance with the provisions of the India-Netherlands double tax avoidance agreement (DTAA). MAP is an alternate process of dispute resolution, and is an option available to a taxpayer in addition to and concurrent with the appellate process. However, under MAP, once the proceedings are initiated, it is possible to obtain a stay on the tax demand provided one gives a bank guarantee. This opens up the possibility of a settlement on the lines of what Vodafone clinched in the UK earlier this year, when it agreed to pay 1.25 billion in taxes to settle a decade-long dispute dating back to 2000 regarding its Luxembourg subsidiary. Supreme Court of India Decision The Supreme Court today ruled in favour of Vodafone in the $2 billion tax case saying capital gains tax is not applicable to the telecom major. The apex court also said the Rs 2,500 crore which Vodafone has already paid should be returned to Vodafone with interest. The decision will be a big boost for cross-border mergers and acquisitions here. The Income tax departments contention, if upheld, would have rendered standard transaction structures too risky forcing foreign companies to weigh potentially new litigation and insurance costs. Nearly five years after the Indian taxman issued the first notice to Vodafone international on September 2007 for failure to withhold tax on payments made to Hutchison Telecom, Chief Justice of India SH Kapadia and Justice KS Radhakrishnan pronounced their judgement. The SC has ruled that the transaction is not taxable in India, and it has made the following observations/ comments while pronouncing its ruling:

Presently, there are no look-through provisions in the Indian domestic tax law to tax the transaction.

There is no extinguishment of property rights in India through the transfer of shares between two foreign entities of shares in another foreign entity.
17

Similarly, provisions which treat a person as an agent/representative of a foreign entity for the purpose of levy and recovery of tax due from such a foreign entity is not applicable in the absence of a nexus.

There is no conflict between the earlier decisions of the SC in Azadi Bachao Andolan, and Mc Dowell. The SC in the case of Azadi (263 ITR 706), had held that an act which is otherwise valid in law cannot be held as sham, merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some tax advantage. The SC in the case of Mc Dowells (154 ITR 148), held that sanction cannot be accorded to a colourable device.

The duration of the holding structure, timing of exit and continuity of business, are important factors while evaluating as to whether the transaction as a whole is a sham. Considering the factual matrix in the present scenario, the SC held that the transaction is not a sham.

Withholding tax provisions in the Indian domestic tax law cannot apply to offshore transactions

The Tax Authority has also been directed to refund the entire amount (US$ 0.5 billion) deposited by Vodafone as part payment towards the demand in early 2011 along with interest

Tax policy certainty crucial for national economic interest.

The decision of the SC is expected to be a milestone development in the taxation of international transactions and on the judicial approach to tax avoidance. This case is, perhaps, the first in the world where the issue of taxation on indirect transfer of shares is being litigated before a countrys highest judicial forum. The principles emanating from this ruling could therefore, have ramifications beyond India. It could also be of relevance in shaping Indias tax policy on international taxation and tax avoidance in the future. V. Summary & Concluding remarks Indian tax laws are complex and possibly are in the process of getting more complicated by the day in terms of regular annual amendments and judicial decisions which continuously revise the judicial interpretations in the light of changing business environment. The growing importance
18

of the Indian economy and the increasing demands for resources has given the government the confidence to tax offshore deals wherever possible. In the case of transactions involving large capital sums, it would be advisable for the concerned parties to approach the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) which would freeze the tax treatment for a particular transaction in the case of a non resident. This would avoid the kind of pitfalls that Vodafone finds itself in. This would also have a major impact on deals with a country with which India does not have a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The major legal battles such as the Vodafone dispute which essentially determine the fate of a large chunk of Foreign Direct Investments into India and is in this context much awaited. The challenge lies in balancing the interest of the investors and the revenue authorities. The new direct tax code that the Government is planning to introduce so as to replace the current Income-tax Act, 1961 (the IT Act), is expected to emphasize on transparency and taxpayer-friendliness. At present, the dispute resolution mechanism in India moves slowly. Assessment proceedings continue for more than two years from the date of filing of the tax return. Thereafter, the two appellate levels take approximately two to seven years to dispose of an appeal. If the dispute still continues, on a question of law, the matter gets referred to the High Court and the Supreme Court which generally takes very long. This is worrying the Indian corporate sector as it takes a lot of management time and effort. There is a need to expedite the litigation procedure. There should be a limitation period on disposal of appeals as well. Amendments brought about by the Finance Act, 2008 would have a major impact on transfer of shares overseas, especially in a case where the seller of the shares is a resident (as per tax laws) of a country with which India does not have a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The amendment also brings the investors from countries like the US and UK within the tax net in India, since Indias DTAA with such countries provide for taxation of capital gains in accordance with the domestic tax laws of India. In this way, there is an urgent need to speed up the system and bring more clarity in rules and amendments. References

19

K.R. Girish and Himanshu Patel, KPMG, Deals: India wants more taxes from cross-border M&A, February 19, 2008, International Tax Review. Government widens scope of anti-abuse provisions in I-T Act by Abhineet Kumar & Sidhartha, March 4, 2010, Mumbai. India issues advance ruling on capital gains tax implications of an intra group share transfer by Ernst &Young. Taxation of Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions, 2010 Edition, KPMG United States available on http://kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/TaxMA-2010/MA_Cross-Border_2010_India.pdf Cross-border mergers and acquisitions - Addressing the taxation issues from an Indian perspective, Gaurav Goel. Economic Times, Times of India, Mint web pages for various news and updates Cross Border Business Reorganization: Indian Law Implications, Aniket Singhania & Vaibhav Shukla. Corporate Mergers & Acquisitions, Gurminder Kaur, 2005. Direct Taxes Law & Practice, 2011, Dr. Vinod K. Singhania and Dr. Kapil Singhania, Taxmann Publications, India. Vodafone Hutch Supreme Court ruling

20