Download Aurifer’s reply to the Public Consultation initiated by the UAE Ministry of Finance in regard to the implementation of Corporate Income Tax in the UAE as of June 2023.

International sports bodies typically insist on obtaining widespread tax exemptions as a precondition to awarding the hosting rights to a bidder. This also applies for events organized by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). FIFA’s biggest event, the Football World Cup, will kick off later this month in Qatar.

Obtaining tax exemptions is such a sensitive topic for sports organizations that there have even been instances where the events have entirely moved to another country because a country was unable to grant the exemption. For example, the T20 Cricket World Cup was moved from India to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman last year because the Indian Government did not offer the exemptions in time.

In Qatar, even though Qatar has Free Zones, only the Qatar Financial Centre (QFC) issues its own tax framework. It applies next to the general tax framework applicable in the rest of the State of Qatar. We will be looking at these frameworks in this article.

Claiming Tax Exemptions (Substantive Aspects)

For mainland Qatar, Ministerial Decision No. 9 of 2022 (Ministerial Decision) issued earlier this year on 25 August 2022 = provides details on the exemptions available to different parties, based on Government Guarantee No. (3) dated 22 February 2010 (Government Guarantee) issued by the State of Qatar to FIFA.

The most comprehensive exemption benefits are provided to FIFA itself and its affiliates (whether residents or non-residents). They are totally exempt from any taxes.

Contractors are granted a limited exemption to the extent of all taxes on import, export or transfer of goods, services and rights related to the activities of the World Cup, if the goods are imported for their use by:

• The Contractors themselves in Qatar,
• The Contractors, with the possibility of re-exporting the goods,
• The Contractors, with the possibility to donate to sports entities, charitable foundations etc.

Individuals employed or appointed by the following, are also exempt from individual taxes on payments, fringe benefits or amounts paid or received in relation to the World Cup, until 31 December 2023:

• FIFA,
• FIFA’s affiliates,
• Continental or National Football Associations,
• Event broadcasters,
• Suppliers of goods,
• Works contractors and
• Service providers.

This exemption also covers Personal Income Taxes for those individuals who enter and exit Qatar between 60 days before the first match (21 September 2022) until 60 days after the final match (16 February 2023), as long as they do not permanently reside in Qatar. This exemption may be void of much effect, given the absence of Personal Income Tax in Qatar.

An Exemption from Excise tax is to be obtained by way of refund, by providing documents like purchase invoices and bank details.

 Claiming The Exemptions - Logistical Aspects

For exemptions granted by the General Tax Authority (GTA), there is no requirement to register with the GTA. Instead, FIFA (through the Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy (Supreme Committee)) prepared a list of exempted entities and individual, containing data such as the nature of contracted works, term and value of the contract, and the residency of the contracting party.

The Supreme Committee then provides the GTA the relevant documentation (Articles of Associations of companies, addresses of individuals etc.) in regard to the organisation or individuals for whom the Tax Exemption is applied.

For claiming customs duty exemptions with the General Authority of Customs (GAC), (and unlike the procedure with the GTA), the claimants need to register with the GAC.

Here too, FIFA approves the list for the Supreme Committee to provide to the GAC to entitle those entities to exemptions from customs duties and fees.  Based on this list, the GAC provides the listed entities amongst others with facilities in regard to electronic customs clearance.

In this regard, the GAC also earlier this year launched a ‘Sports Events Management System’ to facilitate customs procedures during sporting events, including the World Cup. This system provides electronic services for the clearance of goods, including easy registrations, accelerated customs procedures, and the inclusion of a special unit to facilitate approvals for incoming shipments. 

There may be some interesting questions on the applicability of the Ministerial Decision, including:

• To what extent are the activities ‘directly or indirectly’ related to the activities of the World Cup? For example, does it include online betting platforms involved in placing bets on the matches? Would it include businesses that are involved in ancillary aspects to the World Cup such as general tourism consequent to the World Cup?
• Would match fee or advertisement / sponsorship / award income earned by the footballers in relation to the World Cup also be covered under the Ministerial Decision?
• Where an event broadcaster obtains substantial advertisement income from brand sponsors during the broadcast of the match or match related activities, is such income also exempt from taxes?

QFC - Tax Exemption Regime for the World Cup 

The QFC in its Concessionary Statement of Practice (Statement) explicitly provides that a QFC entity which is a:

• FIFA subsidiary – is exempt from Corporation tax and any other charge, levy, penalty or interest related thereto;
• FIFA Host Broadcaster or a Local Organizing Committee (LoC) Entity – is exempt from Tax ‘in relation to taxable profits that are derived from activities carried on for the purposes of the World Cup’.

The major conditions for such QFC entities to claim the exemption are as follows:

• Such QFC entities have genuine economic substance in Qatar,
• The QFC entity operates in terms of the license and upon authorization of the Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority (QFCRA),
• An Advanced Ruling has been applied for by the QFC entity and granted by the QFC, confirming the exempt status of such QFC entity,
• The QFC entity is included in the list provided by FIFA to the QFC Tax Department,
• The sole or main purpose of such QFC entity is not avoidance of tax,
• The QFC Tax Department is satisfied that granting the exemption is not in breach of international tax principles set out in the BEPS Project minimum standards.

The potential activities that can be developed in the QFC are limited, and therefore not all types of businesses can set up in the QFC.

No VAT – No VAT Exemption

Even though Qatar is a part of the GCC VAT Agreement and committed to implement VAT in the same vein as its neighboring countries of the UAE, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Bahrain and Oman have done, it has not yet enacted any legislation.

Therefore, there is currently no need for a VAT exemption for the World Cup. Who knows, VAT may be introduced shortly after the organization of the World Cup?

Exemptions Worth the Trouble?

Granting tax exemptions for international sporting events are sometimes controversial. The public in some hosting countries do not always believe they receive a return on investments from the event. While Qatar has spent substantial amounts of money on the construction of infrastructure, the effect of the tax exemptions is rather limited, and at least for Qatar, it seems to have been worth the investment. In any case, the exemptions are a precondition, without which a country cannot bid. After the UAE had hosted the FIFA Club World Cup a number of times, Saudi Arabia will now be looking at hosting the Asian Winter Games in 2029. Those countries have given similar tax concessions to the international organizations managing the events.

For future possible events in the UAE, it will also be interesting to see how the sporting organizations and the tax authorities will deal with the Corporate Income Tax (CIT) which is to be introduced in the UAE in June 2023. The relationship may be anything between an unbridled and full-fledged exemption (if the UAE is willing to do so), or it may lead to rather interesting tax claims (like the Formula 1 case on Permanent Establishment (PE) in India a few years ago, which was decided by the courts in the tax authority’s favor). Time alone can tell.

Almost 5 years down the line for VAT in the GCC  – what’s next?

As we approach 31 December 2022, the UAE and KSA will be celebrating 5 years of applying VAT. A rollercoaster ride for many in the region, authorities, advisers and in house tax managers.

We wrote in 2017 about the challenges of drafting VAT legislation in the GCC before its implementation (https://aurifer.tax/news/the-challenges-of-drafting-tax-legislation-and-implementing-a-vat-in-the-gcc/?lid=482&p=21).

We pondered whether the GCC was potentially going to be far ahead of other jurisdictions because of the Electronic Services System (“ESS”) the GCC VAT Agreement was going to implement, foreseen in article 71 of the Agreement (https://aurifer.tax/news/future-of-vat-in-the-eu/?lid=482&p=22). The GCC however never implemented the ESS. It is therefore missing an important instrument to integrate all GCC members under a single comprehensive regional VAT framework.

After almost 5 years, it’s worth taking a step back and looking at what occurred.

6 countries to implement, only 4 did

The GCC consists of six countries, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and Qatar. All countries were supposed to introduce VAT in a short span of time. The UAE and KSA did so on 1 January 2018, Bahrain on 1 January 2019, and Oman on 16 April 2021. For Qatar, rumours ebb and flow on an implementation of VAT after the World Cup, but officials are tight lipped. In terms of Kuwait, a new government is not likely to put this on the table – at least, in the near future.

The intention to implement almost simultaneously was taken with the idea of avoiding arbitrage – considering the geographical proximity between the states - and potential issues with fraud.

5% was supposed to be the rate

All 4 countries kicked off with 5% VAT, as it is foreseen in the GCC VAT Agreement as well (article 25). Saudi Arabia was the first one to hike the rate to 15% on 1 July 2020. Bahrain increased to 10% on 1 January 2022.

The increases were implemented for the same reason, as the tax was implemented for in the first place, i.e. fiscal stability. The implementation came off the back of a protracted period of running deficits for many Gulf countries. There is currently a bounce back, but how long it will take is unclear, and therefore hard to predict whether it will impact fiscal policy in the short run.

Saudi Arabia, by way of its Finance Minister, had already stated in 2021 that it would consider revising the VAT rate downwards after the pandemic. If it will happen, it will happen soon.

It’s safe to say the other GCC countries could still revise the rate upwards or downwards, depending on their specific fiscal situation.

Interestingly, the increase of the VAT rate to 15% also spawned a new tax in KSA, the Real Estate Transfer Tax (“RETT”). This new tax in KSA aimed to solve the issue of unregistered sellers, and reduce the taxes on real estate sales. Since its introduction, the RETT legislation has been amended multiple times.

The GCC countries were supposed to have numerical VAT numbers, Oman didn’t follow

In the framework of the GCC, the idea was floated to have numbers as VAT numbers. Hence, the UAE has a 1 before the number, Bahrain a 2 and Saudi a 3. Oman however choose letters and put “OM” before the number.

In the EU, VAT numbers are also composed of letters and numbers. Two letters make up the first two symbols of the VAT number and refer to a country, e.g. “LU” refers to Luxembourg (see https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/vat-identification-numbers_en).

Zero rates for services are perceived a complication

5 years in, the application to zero-rate VAT on exported services, i.e., services provided to recipients outside of the GCC, remains complicated for businesses to apply and inconsistent between the GCC member states.

Although the GCC VAT Agreement for place of supply purposes looks like the EU VAT directive, from the outset, each GCC member state chose different approaches towards the place of supply of services.

B2B services were not simply located in the country of the recipient, as they are in the EU since 2010, and as is recommended by the OECD in its VAT/GST Guidelines on B2B services.

Based on an interpretation of article 34(1)(c) of the GCC VAT Agreement as laying down the rule, and including a benefit test, GCC countries have embarked on a conservative and selective interpretation of the zero rate on supplies made from a GCC country to abroad.

That conservative interpretation is not necessarily mirrored when those services are received, as there is no benefit test required there.

The rule is therefore applied unequal, and as shown by both the UAE and KSA, they felt the rule required amendments to the provision itself (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uae-considerably-restricts-application-vat-zero-rate-services-vanhee/). Those amendments, and ensuing clarifications have not necessarily led to more clarity.

Unfortunately, Bahrain and Oman went down the same road. A too conservative view of zero rates, can put a strain on foreign investments, as it is not easy to obtain refunds for foreign businesses (as amongst others the Saudi example shows).

As a matter of fact, disputes are common among businesses in the GCC over the VAT treatment of cross-border services due to the difference in the domestic legislation between the GCC member states and in the absence of the ESS.

Divergent policy options

The GCC VAT Framework Agreement allowed for broad policy options in the education sector, health sector, real estate sector and local transport sector. In addition, for the oil & gas sector zero rates were allowed to be implemented as well, and the financial sector could benefit from a deviating regime as well. Depending on the individual requirements and policies, the GCC Member States have implemented substantially different regimes.

None of the GCC countries so far have amended those policies in the aforementioned sectors. The UAE did move from a system where the B2B sales of diamonds was taxed, to a system where it is subject to a reverse charge as from 1 June 2018.

Tax Authority approaches

So far, in the region ZATCA has shown the most grit in terms of audits, and has lengths ahead of the other countries in terms of tax audits and disputes. KSA also had the best equipped tax authority in 2018 when VAT was introduced, although it did have to go through an organizational revamp. The UAE comes second, which is remarkable for a tax authority which only kicked off in 2017. It has been very much a rules and process based organization, which has a lot of positive effects, such as tax payers feeling treated in the same way. UAE auditors now often also give the opportunity to tax payers to voluntarily disclose their liabilities before closing the audit, which is a novely approach in the region.

The Bahraini and Omani tax authority, have been taking a more relaxed approach towards audits and disputes.

Having said the above, it's all not all 'sticks' with the tax authorities. We have also observed in this 5 years, how the tax authorities, especially in KSA and the UAE, played a their role to alleviate tax from being a burden to businesses and encouraging tax compliance - a fairly new culture of this scale. The amnesty programmes, first introduced by the KSA in 2020 and again, recently paved the way on encouraging tax compliance for businesses. The UAE also introduced their amnesty programme this year with the same intention. Perhaps, this could be a temporary solution to gear the economy back on track post pandemic. On whether it will be the norm, is yet to be seen in the next coming years.

What the future will bring

An old-fashioned system was put in place, yet one that has proven its use in revenue collection. It also worked, given the substantial revenues gained from VAT.

The GCC did not opted to immediately adopt more modern, electronic systems as these exist elsewhere (e.g. since a long time in Brazil, but also China).  

However, it was identified that E-invoicing was the way to go in the medium run. This is again trodding down a proven path. As often in the GCC, the UAE and KSA show the way. KSA has made E-invoicing mandatory. The UAE and Bahrain have already suggested they will do the same very soon.

No GCC countries have yet announced they will adopt real-time reporting. KSA may be the closest to a potential adoption, given that once phase 2 enters into force in 2023, ZATCA, the KSA tax authority will have access to substantial transactional data. It will allow it to pre-fill the VAT return, and potentially even in real time calculate the VAT.

We'll see what the future will bring, and for sure in another five years matters will have evolved again drastically, given the pace of changes in the region.

Safe to say that the next 5 years will be equally exciting.

The Ministry of Finance (MoF) of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) recently announced that the draft Corporate Tax (CT) law is going to be released soon, and likely within the month of September. This is impactful news for businesses in the UAE. Many businesses are already in the process of taking steps to plan their affairs in such a way that their operations are tax compliant and tax optimized at the same time.

The UAE’s international position will change after the implementation of corporate tax. Some jurisdictions may no longer view the UAE as a tax haven (although the Free Zone businesses may still benefit from a 0% rate). Other tax authorities may therefore change their perspective on the UAE and be more inclined to grant the benefits under the double tax treaties.

Businesses on the other hand, will no longer view the UAE as a conduit jurisdiction with an extensive treaty network, through which they can avail tax treaty benefits. While the 9% headline rate is still comparatively low, the implementation of CT may also discourage taxpayers seeking out the UAE solely for tax purposes.

A recurring point of dispute between the tax authority and businesses in almost every country having a CT regime has been drawing the line between tax planning, tax avoidance and tax evasion. Once the UAE CT regime settles, the Federal Tax Authority (FTA) of the UAE may indeed pay more attention towards countering tax avoidance and tax evasion arrangements or transactions.

In this article, we will revisit the evergreen discussion of tax planning, tax avoidance and tax evasion, with an emphasis on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). To begin, let us examine the meaning of the terms tax avoidance and tax evasion and the differences between the two terms.

Tax avoidance has traditionally been considered as lawful. It can be described as planning for the purposes of minimizing the tax burden within the legal framework. Tax evasion on the other hand is considered unlawful, and often requires an intentional and a potential fraudulent element.

In the GCC, tax authorities resort rather quickly to suggesting a taxpayer has committed tax evasion, even when the situation concerns simple non-compliance.

While not considered unlawful, tax avoidance has been considered harmful. This is why countries around the world, including the GCC Member States, are implementing domestic rules to counter aggressive or harmful tax planning in line with international standards.

The OECD tried to address this point by way of the ‘Main Purpose Test’ (MPT). The MPT was included in the OECD’s Model Tax Convention in its 2003 version. We are paraphrasing, but the principle stated that benefits under a double tax treaty should not be granted where the main purpose of setting up a structure was for tax purposes as the tax benefits resulting from that structure would go counter the object and purpose of those treaties.

Another common mechanism proposed in tax treaties to avoid the improper use of tax treaties, is the ‘Beneficial Ownership’ (BO) requirement. It mainly applies to passive income (e.g., dividends, interests, and royalties). The BO concept provides that where an item of income is paid to a resident of a Contracting State acting in the capacity of an agent or a nominee, it would be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the source state to grant an exemption or relief, merely because the direct recipient is a resident of the other Contracting State. In such a case, the direct recipient, on account of being merely an agent, nominee, conduit, fiduciary, or administrator, would not be able to obtain the benefits of the treaty. This is especially evident if such recipient is legally or contractually bound to pass on the payment received to another person. BO disputes often end up before the courts, because the burden of proof for the taxpayer is not easily met. 

The 2008 Financial Crisis put the discussion on tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning firmly on governments’ agenda. Following the Financial Crisis, public opinion shifted towards ensuring that big corporations pay their fair share of taxes and pressured countries to implement rules to discourage such behaviors.

As a result, the OECD established what is known as the ‘Inclusive Framework’ (IF), which was open to both OECD and non-OECD members (currently at 141 members) to engage in discussions and create rules for countering Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). It is formally known as the OECD/G20 BEPS Project (BEPS Project 1.0) which identified 15 Action Points in 2015.

Out of the 15 Action Points, one of the most important action plans was BEPS Action 6 - Prevention of Tax Treaty Abuse, which also formed one of the four minimum standards. BEPS Action 6 addresses treaty shopping activities that would be viewed as avoidance.

BEPS Action 6 requires IF members, amongst others, to include an express statement in their treaties that their common intention is to eliminate double taxation without creating opportunities for non-taxation or reduced taxation through tax evasion or avoidance, including through treaty shopping arrangements.

Anti-avoidance rules aim amongst others to avoid conduit arrangements. For example, State A has a domestic withholding tax rate for dividends of 25%. State A and State B have negotiated a tax treaty where the source withholding tax rate for dividends is reduced to 5%. A resident in State B receives dividends from State A and claims the reduced treaty rate of 5% source withholding.

However, the resident in State B has an obligation to redistribute the dividend income to a resident in State C. State A and State C do not have a tax treaty in place. It can be observed that there is no BO in State B due to its obligation to pass the payment onto another party. Clearly, such payment is not made for the benefit of any resident in State B nor for enhancing economic cooperation between States A and B. Instead, the benefit would be received by the resident of a third State (i.e., State C). This clearly shows that the treaty has been misused or abused by the resident of State B, against the intention, object, and purpose of the treaty between States A and B.  

To combat misuse of the treaty like the case described above, BEPS Action 6 seeks IF members to implement a ‘minimum standard’ in all its treaties. The minimum standard can be either of the following:

1. The combined approach of a Limitation of Benefits (LOB) and a Principal Purpose Test (PPT) rule,
2. The PPT rule alone, or
3. The LOB rule supplemented by a mechanism that would deal with conduit financing arrangements not already dealt with in tax treaties.

As a consequence, many IF members’ tax treaties have been updated to include, at least, a PPT rule. This is done by way of signing and ratifying the Multilateral Instrument (MLI) as it allows IF members to update multiple bilateral tax treaties simultaneously. The PPT rule looks a lot like the MPT. True to its name, if one of the principal purposes of an arrangement is to obtain a benefit, the PPT rule may be triggered. This clear intention has also been expressed in the wordings of the preamble incorporated in the OECD Model Tax Convention 2017.

Due to the lack of case law, the impact of the PPT rule is rather uncertain for now and the interpretation of the PPT rule may vary across jurisdictions. It may be possible that the cases that were successfully tested before the courts of law earlier may not survive the PPT rule if they were to be presented before the courts today, provided that the PPT rule was applicable at the time of the transaction or arrangement.

What is certain is that taxpayers ought to be very careful in tax planning so that the structures do not fall foul of the PPT rule. When deciding on the country to make an investment in or the structure of a transaction or arrangement, taxpayers ought to clearly record the non-tax reasons (main/principal purposes) for selecting a certain jurisdiction over another. Evidence can be maintained through internal emails, memos, and minutes outlining the reasons for selecting a country. For example:

• A country is preferred due to a favourable corporate law regime.
• A country is preferred due to the presence of multilingual or highly qualified employees.
• A country is preferred as it is politically and socially stable.
• A country is preferred as it has a strong banking infrastructure where it is easy to obtain credit.

Despite the above safeguards, if the tax authority does reasonably conclude that one of the principal purposes of invoking the treaty was to obtain a tax benefit, the taxpayer ought to ensure that it can establish (i.e., prove) that the benefit obtained was indeed within the object and purpose of the tax treaty.

Finally, as mentioned before, public opinion against tax avoidance is stronger than ever. The relevance of the PPT to future transactions cannot be overstated. Arrangements that may have been successfully litigated before the courts of law until a few years ago, may not be as successful from now on. Therefore, taxpayers may find advance rulings to be attractive as it is important to avoid future issues.

It will be interesting to see how the UAE and the other GCC countries will approach such abusive arrangements and its possible disputes. In the meantime, it is apparent that either through the MLI or through bilateral double tax treaties, the PPT continues to be important. It is vital to consider such anti-avoidance provisions now in order to create future proof structures.

Download Aurifer’s reply to the Public Consultation initiated by the UAE Ministry of Finance in regard to the implementation of Corporate Income Tax in the UAE as of June 2023.

International sports bodies typically insist on obtaining widespread tax exemptions as a precondition to awarding the hosting rights to a bidder. This also applies for events organized by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). FIFA’s biggest event, the Football World Cup, will kick off later this month in Qatar.

Obtaining tax exemptions is such a sensitive topic for sports organizations that there have even been instances where the events have entirely moved to another country because a country was unable to grant the exemption. For example, the T20 Cricket World Cup was moved from India to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman last year because the Indian Government did not offer the exemptions in time.

In Qatar, even though Qatar has Free Zones, only the Qatar Financial Centre (QFC) issues its own tax framework. It applies next to the general tax framework applicable in the rest of the State of Qatar. We will be looking at these frameworks in this article.

Claiming Tax Exemptions (Substantive Aspects)

For mainland Qatar, Ministerial Decision No. 9 of 2022 (Ministerial Decision) issued earlier this year on 25 August 2022 = provides details on the exemptions available to different parties, based on Government Guarantee No. (3) dated 22 February 2010 (Government Guarantee) issued by the State of Qatar to FIFA.

The most comprehensive exemption benefits are provided to FIFA itself and its affiliates (whether residents or non-residents). They are totally exempt from any taxes.

Contractors are granted a limited exemption to the extent of all taxes on import, export or transfer of goods, services and rights related to the activities of the World Cup, if the goods are imported for their use by:

• The Contractors themselves in Qatar,
• The Contractors, with the possibility of re-exporting the goods,
• The Contractors, with the possibility to donate to sports entities, charitable foundations etc.

Individuals employed or appointed by the following, are also exempt from individual taxes on payments, fringe benefits or amounts paid or received in relation to the World Cup, until 31 December 2023:

• FIFA,
• FIFA’s affiliates,
• Continental or National Football Associations,
• Event broadcasters,
• Suppliers of goods,
• Works contractors and
• Service providers.

This exemption also covers Personal Income Taxes for those individuals who enter and exit Qatar between 60 days before the first match (21 September 2022) until 60 days after the final match (16 February 2023), as long as they do not permanently reside in Qatar. This exemption may be void of much effect, given the absence of Personal Income Tax in Qatar.

An Exemption from Excise tax is to be obtained by way of refund, by providing documents like purchase invoices and bank details.

 Claiming The Exemptions - Logistical Aspects

For exemptions granted by the General Tax Authority (GTA), there is no requirement to register with the GTA. Instead, FIFA (through the Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy (Supreme Committee)) prepared a list of exempted entities and individual, containing data such as the nature of contracted works, term and value of the contract, and the residency of the contracting party.

The Supreme Committee then provides the GTA the relevant documentation (Articles of Associations of companies, addresses of individuals etc.) in regard to the organisation or individuals for whom the Tax Exemption is applied.

For claiming customs duty exemptions with the General Authority of Customs (GAC), (and unlike the procedure with the GTA), the claimants need to register with the GAC.

Here too, FIFA approves the list for the Supreme Committee to provide to the GAC to entitle those entities to exemptions from customs duties and fees.  Based on this list, the GAC provides the listed entities amongst others with facilities in regard to electronic customs clearance.

In this regard, the GAC also earlier this year launched a ‘Sports Events Management System’ to facilitate customs procedures during sporting events, including the World Cup. This system provides electronic services for the clearance of goods, including easy registrations, accelerated customs procedures, and the inclusion of a special unit to facilitate approvals for incoming shipments. 

There may be some interesting questions on the applicability of the Ministerial Decision, including:

• To what extent are the activities ‘directly or indirectly’ related to the activities of the World Cup? For example, does it include online betting platforms involved in placing bets on the matches? Would it include businesses that are involved in ancillary aspects to the World Cup such as general tourism consequent to the World Cup?
• Would match fee or advertisement / sponsorship / award income earned by the footballers in relation to the World Cup also be covered under the Ministerial Decision?
• Where an event broadcaster obtains substantial advertisement income from brand sponsors during the broadcast of the match or match related activities, is such income also exempt from taxes?

QFC - Tax Exemption Regime for the World Cup 

The QFC in its Concessionary Statement of Practice (Statement) explicitly provides that a QFC entity which is a:

• FIFA subsidiary – is exempt from Corporation tax and any other charge, levy, penalty or interest related thereto;
• FIFA Host Broadcaster or a Local Organizing Committee (LoC) Entity – is exempt from Tax ‘in relation to taxable profits that are derived from activities carried on for the purposes of the World Cup’.

The major conditions for such QFC entities to claim the exemption are as follows:

• Such QFC entities have genuine economic substance in Qatar,
• The QFC entity operates in terms of the license and upon authorization of the Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority (QFCRA),
• An Advanced Ruling has been applied for by the QFC entity and granted by the QFC, confirming the exempt status of such QFC entity,
• The QFC entity is included in the list provided by FIFA to the QFC Tax Department,
• The sole or main purpose of such QFC entity is not avoidance of tax,
• The QFC Tax Department is satisfied that granting the exemption is not in breach of international tax principles set out in the BEPS Project minimum standards.

The potential activities that can be developed in the QFC are limited, and therefore not all types of businesses can set up in the QFC.

No VAT – No VAT Exemption

Even though Qatar is a part of the GCC VAT Agreement and committed to implement VAT in the same vein as its neighboring countries of the UAE, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Bahrain and Oman have done, it has not yet enacted any legislation.

Therefore, there is currently no need for a VAT exemption for the World Cup. Who knows, VAT may be introduced shortly after the organization of the World Cup?

Exemptions Worth the Trouble?

Granting tax exemptions for international sporting events are sometimes controversial. The public in some hosting countries do not always believe they receive a return on investments from the event. While Qatar has spent substantial amounts of money on the construction of infrastructure, the effect of the tax exemptions is rather limited, and at least for Qatar, it seems to have been worth the investment. In any case, the exemptions are a precondition, without which a country cannot bid. After the UAE had hosted the FIFA Club World Cup a number of times, Saudi Arabia will now be looking at hosting the Asian Winter Games in 2029. Those countries have given similar tax concessions to the international organizations managing the events.

For future possible events in the UAE, it will also be interesting to see how the sporting organizations and the tax authorities will deal with the Corporate Income Tax (CIT) which is to be introduced in the UAE in June 2023. The relationship may be anything between an unbridled and full-fledged exemption (if the UAE is willing to do so), or it may lead to rather interesting tax claims (like the Formula 1 case on Permanent Establishment (PE) in India a few years ago, which was decided by the courts in the tax authority’s favor). Time alone can tell.

Almost 5 years down the line for VAT in the GCC  – what’s next?

As we approach 31 December 2022, the UAE and KSA will be celebrating 5 years of applying VAT. A rollercoaster ride for many in the region, authorities, advisers and in house tax managers.

We wrote in 2017 about the challenges of drafting VAT legislation in the GCC before its implementation (https://aurifer.tax/news/the-challenges-of-drafting-tax-legislation-and-implementing-a-vat-in-the-gcc/?lid=482&p=21).

We pondered whether the GCC was potentially going to be far ahead of other jurisdictions because of the Electronic Services System (“ESS”) the GCC VAT Agreement was going to implement, foreseen in article 71 of the Agreement (https://aurifer.tax/news/future-of-vat-in-the-eu/?lid=482&p=22). The GCC however never implemented the ESS. It is therefore missing an important instrument to integrate all GCC members under a single comprehensive regional VAT framework.

After almost 5 years, it’s worth taking a step back and looking at what occurred.

6 countries to implement, only 4 did

The GCC consists of six countries, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and Qatar. All countries were supposed to introduce VAT in a short span of time. The UAE and KSA did so on 1 January 2018, Bahrain on 1 January 2019, and Oman on 16 April 2021. For Qatar, rumours ebb and flow on an implementation of VAT after the World Cup, but officials are tight lipped. In terms of Kuwait, a new government is not likely to put this on the table – at least, in the near future.

The intention to implement almost simultaneously was taken with the idea of avoiding arbitrage – considering the geographical proximity between the states - and potential issues with fraud.

5% was supposed to be the rate

All 4 countries kicked off with 5% VAT, as it is foreseen in the GCC VAT Agreement as well (article 25). Saudi Arabia was the first one to hike the rate to 15% on 1 July 2020. Bahrain increased to 10% on 1 January 2022.

The increases were implemented for the same reason, as the tax was implemented for in the first place, i.e. fiscal stability. The implementation came off the back of a protracted period of running deficits for many Gulf countries. There is currently a bounce back, but how long it will take is unclear, and therefore hard to predict whether it will impact fiscal policy in the short run.

Saudi Arabia, by way of its Finance Minister, had already stated in 2021 that it would consider revising the VAT rate downwards after the pandemic. If it will happen, it will happen soon.

It’s safe to say the other GCC countries could still revise the rate upwards or downwards, depending on their specific fiscal situation.

Interestingly, the increase of the VAT rate to 15% also spawned a new tax in KSA, the Real Estate Transfer Tax (“RETT”). This new tax in KSA aimed to solve the issue of unregistered sellers, and reduce the taxes on real estate sales. Since its introduction, the RETT legislation has been amended multiple times.

The GCC countries were supposed to have numerical VAT numbers, Oman didn’t follow

In the framework of the GCC, the idea was floated to have numbers as VAT numbers. Hence, the UAE has a 1 before the number, Bahrain a 2 and Saudi a 3. Oman however choose letters and put “OM” before the number.

In the EU, VAT numbers are also composed of letters and numbers. Two letters make up the first two symbols of the VAT number and refer to a country, e.g. “LU” refers to Luxembourg (see https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/vat-identification-numbers_en).

Zero rates for services are perceived a complication

5 years in, the application to zero-rate VAT on exported services, i.e., services provided to recipients outside of the GCC, remains complicated for businesses to apply and inconsistent between the GCC member states.

Although the GCC VAT Agreement for place of supply purposes looks like the EU VAT directive, from the outset, each GCC member state chose different approaches towards the place of supply of services.

B2B services were not simply located in the country of the recipient, as they are in the EU since 2010, and as is recommended by the OECD in its VAT/GST Guidelines on B2B services.

Based on an interpretation of article 34(1)(c) of the GCC VAT Agreement as laying down the rule, and including a benefit test, GCC countries have embarked on a conservative and selective interpretation of the zero rate on supplies made from a GCC country to abroad.

That conservative interpretation is not necessarily mirrored when those services are received, as there is no benefit test required there.

The rule is therefore applied unequal, and as shown by both the UAE and KSA, they felt the rule required amendments to the provision itself (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uae-considerably-restricts-application-vat-zero-rate-services-vanhee/). Those amendments, and ensuing clarifications have not necessarily led to more clarity.

Unfortunately, Bahrain and Oman went down the same road. A too conservative view of zero rates, can put a strain on foreign investments, as it is not easy to obtain refunds for foreign businesses (as amongst others the Saudi example shows).

As a matter of fact, disputes are common among businesses in the GCC over the VAT treatment of cross-border services due to the difference in the domestic legislation between the GCC member states and in the absence of the ESS.

Divergent policy options

The GCC VAT Framework Agreement allowed for broad policy options in the education sector, health sector, real estate sector and local transport sector. In addition, for the oil & gas sector zero rates were allowed to be implemented as well, and the financial sector could benefit from a deviating regime as well. Depending on the individual requirements and policies, the GCC Member States have implemented substantially different regimes.

None of the GCC countries so far have amended those policies in the aforementioned sectors. The UAE did move from a system where the B2B sales of diamonds was taxed, to a system where it is subject to a reverse charge as from 1 June 2018.

Tax Authority approaches

So far, in the region ZATCA has shown the most grit in terms of audits, and has lengths ahead of the other countries in terms of tax audits and disputes. KSA also had the best equipped tax authority in 2018 when VAT was introduced, although it did have to go through an organizational revamp. The UAE comes second, which is remarkable for a tax authority which only kicked off in 2017. It has been very much a rules and process based organization, which has a lot of positive effects, such as tax payers feeling treated in the same way. UAE auditors now often also give the opportunity to tax payers to voluntarily disclose their liabilities before closing the audit, which is a novely approach in the region.

The Bahraini and Omani tax authority, have been taking a more relaxed approach towards audits and disputes.

Having said the above, it's all not all 'sticks' with the tax authorities. We have also observed in this 5 years, how the tax authorities, especially in KSA and the UAE, played a their role to alleviate tax from being a burden to businesses and encouraging tax compliance - a fairly new culture of this scale. The amnesty programmes, first introduced by the KSA in 2020 and again, recently paved the way on encouraging tax compliance for businesses. The UAE also introduced their amnesty programme this year with the same intention. Perhaps, this could be a temporary solution to gear the economy back on track post pandemic. On whether it will be the norm, is yet to be seen in the next coming years.

What the future will bring

An old-fashioned system was put in place, yet one that has proven its use in revenue collection. It also worked, given the substantial revenues gained from VAT.

The GCC did not opted to immediately adopt more modern, electronic systems as these exist elsewhere (e.g. since a long time in Brazil, but also China).  

However, it was identified that E-invoicing was the way to go in the medium run. This is again trodding down a proven path. As often in the GCC, the UAE and KSA show the way. KSA has made E-invoicing mandatory. The UAE and Bahrain have already suggested they will do the same very soon.

No GCC countries have yet announced they will adopt real-time reporting. KSA may be the closest to a potential adoption, given that once phase 2 enters into force in 2023, ZATCA, the KSA tax authority will have access to substantial transactional data. It will allow it to pre-fill the VAT return, and potentially even in real time calculate the VAT.

We'll see what the future will bring, and for sure in another five years matters will have evolved again drastically, given the pace of changes in the region.

Safe to say that the next 5 years will be equally exciting.

The Ministry of Finance (MoF) of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) recently announced that the draft Corporate Tax (CT) law is going to be released soon, and likely within the month of September. This is impactful news for businesses in the UAE. Many businesses are already in the process of taking steps to plan their affairs in such a way that their operations are tax compliant and tax optimized at the same time.

The UAE’s international position will change after the implementation of corporate tax. Some jurisdictions may no longer view the UAE as a tax haven (although the Free Zone businesses may still benefit from a 0% rate). Other tax authorities may therefore change their perspective on the UAE and be more inclined to grant the benefits under the double tax treaties.

Businesses on the other hand, will no longer view the UAE as a conduit jurisdiction with an extensive treaty network, through which they can avail tax treaty benefits. While the 9% headline rate is still comparatively low, the implementation of CT may also discourage taxpayers seeking out the UAE solely for tax purposes.

A recurring point of dispute between the tax authority and businesses in almost every country having a CT regime has been drawing the line between tax planning, tax avoidance and tax evasion. Once the UAE CT regime settles, the Federal Tax Authority (FTA) of the UAE may indeed pay more attention towards countering tax avoidance and tax evasion arrangements or transactions.

In this article, we will revisit the evergreen discussion of tax planning, tax avoidance and tax evasion, with an emphasis on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). To begin, let us examine the meaning of the terms tax avoidance and tax evasion and the differences between the two terms.

Tax avoidance has traditionally been considered as lawful. It can be described as planning for the purposes of minimizing the tax burden within the legal framework. Tax evasion on the other hand is considered unlawful, and often requires an intentional and a potential fraudulent element.

In the GCC, tax authorities resort rather quickly to suggesting a taxpayer has committed tax evasion, even when the situation concerns simple non-compliance.

While not considered unlawful, tax avoidance has been considered harmful. This is why countries around the world, including the GCC Member States, are implementing domestic rules to counter aggressive or harmful tax planning in line with international standards.

The OECD tried to address this point by way of the ‘Main Purpose Test’ (MPT). The MPT was included in the OECD’s Model Tax Convention in its 2003 version. We are paraphrasing, but the principle stated that benefits under a double tax treaty should not be granted where the main purpose of setting up a structure was for tax purposes as the tax benefits resulting from that structure would go counter the object and purpose of those treaties.

Another common mechanism proposed in tax treaties to avoid the improper use of tax treaties, is the ‘Beneficial Ownership’ (BO) requirement. It mainly applies to passive income (e.g., dividends, interests, and royalties). The BO concept provides that where an item of income is paid to a resident of a Contracting State acting in the capacity of an agent or a nominee, it would be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the source state to grant an exemption or relief, merely because the direct recipient is a resident of the other Contracting State. In such a case, the direct recipient, on account of being merely an agent, nominee, conduit, fiduciary, or administrator, would not be able to obtain the benefits of the treaty. This is especially evident if such recipient is legally or contractually bound to pass on the payment received to another person. BO disputes often end up before the courts, because the burden of proof for the taxpayer is not easily met. 

The 2008 Financial Crisis put the discussion on tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning firmly on governments’ agenda. Following the Financial Crisis, public opinion shifted towards ensuring that big corporations pay their fair share of taxes and pressured countries to implement rules to discourage such behaviors.

As a result, the OECD established what is known as the ‘Inclusive Framework’ (IF), which was open to both OECD and non-OECD members (currently at 141 members) to engage in discussions and create rules for countering Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). It is formally known as the OECD/G20 BEPS Project (BEPS Project 1.0) which identified 15 Action Points in 2015.

Out of the 15 Action Points, one of the most important action plans was BEPS Action 6 - Prevention of Tax Treaty Abuse, which also formed one of the four minimum standards. BEPS Action 6 addresses treaty shopping activities that would be viewed as avoidance.

BEPS Action 6 requires IF members, amongst others, to include an express statement in their treaties that their common intention is to eliminate double taxation without creating opportunities for non-taxation or reduced taxation through tax evasion or avoidance, including through treaty shopping arrangements.

Anti-avoidance rules aim amongst others to avoid conduit arrangements. For example, State A has a domestic withholding tax rate for dividends of 25%. State A and State B have negotiated a tax treaty where the source withholding tax rate for dividends is reduced to 5%. A resident in State B receives dividends from State A and claims the reduced treaty rate of 5% source withholding.

However, the resident in State B has an obligation to redistribute the dividend income to a resident in State C. State A and State C do not have a tax treaty in place. It can be observed that there is no BO in State B due to its obligation to pass the payment onto another party. Clearly, such payment is not made for the benefit of any resident in State B nor for enhancing economic cooperation between States A and B. Instead, the benefit would be received by the resident of a third State (i.e., State C). This clearly shows that the treaty has been misused or abused by the resident of State B, against the intention, object, and purpose of the treaty between States A and B.  

To combat misuse of the treaty like the case described above, BEPS Action 6 seeks IF members to implement a ‘minimum standard’ in all its treaties. The minimum standard can be either of the following:

1. The combined approach of a Limitation of Benefits (LOB) and a Principal Purpose Test (PPT) rule,
2. The PPT rule alone, or
3. The LOB rule supplemented by a mechanism that would deal with conduit financing arrangements not already dealt with in tax treaties.

As a consequence, many IF members’ tax treaties have been updated to include, at least, a PPT rule. This is done by way of signing and ratifying the Multilateral Instrument (MLI) as it allows IF members to update multiple bilateral tax treaties simultaneously. The PPT rule looks a lot like the MPT. True to its name, if one of the principal purposes of an arrangement is to obtain a benefit, the PPT rule may be triggered. This clear intention has also been expressed in the wordings of the preamble incorporated in the OECD Model Tax Convention 2017.

Due to the lack of case law, the impact of the PPT rule is rather uncertain for now and the interpretation of the PPT rule may vary across jurisdictions. It may be possible that the cases that were successfully tested before the courts of law earlier may not survive the PPT rule if they were to be presented before the courts today, provided that the PPT rule was applicable at the time of the transaction or arrangement.

What is certain is that taxpayers ought to be very careful in tax planning so that the structures do not fall foul of the PPT rule. When deciding on the country to make an investment in or the structure of a transaction or arrangement, taxpayers ought to clearly record the non-tax reasons (main/principal purposes) for selecting a certain jurisdiction over another. Evidence can be maintained through internal emails, memos, and minutes outlining the reasons for selecting a country. For example:

• A country is preferred due to a favourable corporate law regime.
• A country is preferred due to the presence of multilingual or highly qualified employees.
• A country is preferred as it is politically and socially stable.
• A country is preferred as it has a strong banking infrastructure where it is easy to obtain credit.

Despite the above safeguards, if the tax authority does reasonably conclude that one of the principal purposes of invoking the treaty was to obtain a tax benefit, the taxpayer ought to ensure that it can establish (i.e., prove) that the benefit obtained was indeed within the object and purpose of the tax treaty.

Finally, as mentioned before, public opinion against tax avoidance is stronger than ever. The relevance of the PPT to future transactions cannot be overstated. Arrangements that may have been successfully litigated before the courts of law until a few years ago, may not be as successful from now on. Therefore, taxpayers may find advance rulings to be attractive as it is important to avoid future issues.

It will be interesting to see how the UAE and the other GCC countries will approach such abusive arrangements and its possible disputes. In the meantime, it is apparent that either through the MLI or through bilateral double tax treaties, the PPT continues to be important. It is vital to consider such anti-avoidance provisions now in order to create future proof structures.

Download Aurifer’s reply to the Public Consultation initiated by the UAE Ministry of Finance in regard to the implementation of Corporate Income Tax in the UAE as of June 2023.

International sports bodies typically insist on obtaining widespread tax exemptions as a precondition to awarding the hosting rights to a bidder. This also applies for events organized by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). FIFA’s biggest event, the Football World Cup, will kick off later this month in Qatar.

Obtaining tax exemptions is such a sensitive topic for sports organizations that there have even been instances where the events have entirely moved to another country because a country was unable to grant the exemption. For example, the T20 Cricket World Cup was moved from India to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman last year because the Indian Government did not offer the exemptions in time.

In Qatar, even though Qatar has Free Zones, only the Qatar Financial Centre (QFC) issues its own tax framework. It applies next to the general tax framework applicable in the rest of the State of Qatar. We will be looking at these frameworks in this article.

Claiming Tax Exemptions (Substantive Aspects)

For mainland Qatar, Ministerial Decision No. 9 of 2022 (Ministerial Decision) issued earlier this year on 25 August 2022 = provides details on the exemptions available to different parties, based on Government Guarantee No. (3) dated 22 February 2010 (Government Guarantee) issued by the State of Qatar to FIFA.

The most comprehensive exemption benefits are provided to FIFA itself and its affiliates (whether residents or non-residents). They are totally exempt from any taxes.

Contractors are granted a limited exemption to the extent of all taxes on import, export or transfer of goods, services and rights related to the activities of the World Cup, if the goods are imported for their use by:

• The Contractors themselves in Qatar,
• The Contractors, with the possibility of re-exporting the goods,
• The Contractors, with the possibility to donate to sports entities, charitable foundations etc.

Individuals employed or appointed by the following, are also exempt from individual taxes on payments, fringe benefits or amounts paid or received in relation to the World Cup, until 31 December 2023:

• FIFA,
• FIFA’s affiliates,
• Continental or National Football Associations,
• Event broadcasters,
• Suppliers of goods,
• Works contractors and
• Service providers.

This exemption also covers Personal Income Taxes for those individuals who enter and exit Qatar between 60 days before the first match (21 September 2022) until 60 days after the final match (16 February 2023), as long as they do not permanently reside in Qatar. This exemption may be void of much effect, given the absence of Personal Income Tax in Qatar.

An Exemption from Excise tax is to be obtained by way of refund, by providing documents like purchase invoices and bank details.

 Claiming The Exemptions - Logistical Aspects

For exemptions granted by the General Tax Authority (GTA), there is no requirement to register with the GTA. Instead, FIFA (through the Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy (Supreme Committee)) prepared a list of exempted entities and individual, containing data such as the nature of contracted works, term and value of the contract, and the residency of the contracting party.

The Supreme Committee then provides the GTA the relevant documentation (Articles of Associations of companies, addresses of individuals etc.) in regard to the organisation or individuals for whom the Tax Exemption is applied.

For claiming customs duty exemptions with the General Authority of Customs (GAC), (and unlike the procedure with the GTA), the claimants need to register with the GAC.

Here too, FIFA approves the list for the Supreme Committee to provide to the GAC to entitle those entities to exemptions from customs duties and fees.  Based on this list, the GAC provides the listed entities amongst others with facilities in regard to electronic customs clearance.

In this regard, the GAC also earlier this year launched a ‘Sports Events Management System’ to facilitate customs procedures during sporting events, including the World Cup. This system provides electronic services for the clearance of goods, including easy registrations, accelerated customs procedures, and the inclusion of a special unit to facilitate approvals for incoming shipments. 

There may be some interesting questions on the applicability of the Ministerial Decision, including:

• To what extent are the activities ‘directly or indirectly’ related to the activities of the World Cup? For example, does it include online betting platforms involved in placing bets on the matches? Would it include businesses that are involved in ancillary aspects to the World Cup such as general tourism consequent to the World Cup?
• Would match fee or advertisement / sponsorship / award income earned by the footballers in relation to the World Cup also be covered under the Ministerial Decision?
• Where an event broadcaster obtains substantial advertisement income from brand sponsors during the broadcast of the match or match related activities, is such income also exempt from taxes?

QFC - Tax Exemption Regime for the World Cup 

The QFC in its Concessionary Statement of Practice (Statement) explicitly provides that a QFC entity which is a:

• FIFA subsidiary – is exempt from Corporation tax and any other charge, levy, penalty or interest related thereto;
• FIFA Host Broadcaster or a Local Organizing Committee (LoC) Entity – is exempt from Tax ‘in relation to taxable profits that are derived from activities carried on for the purposes of the World Cup’.

The major conditions for such QFC entities to claim the exemption are as follows:

• Such QFC entities have genuine economic substance in Qatar,
• The QFC entity operates in terms of the license and upon authorization of the Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority (QFCRA),
• An Advanced Ruling has been applied for by the QFC entity and granted by the QFC, confirming the exempt status of such QFC entity,
• The QFC entity is included in the list provided by FIFA to the QFC Tax Department,
• The sole or main purpose of such QFC entity is not avoidance of tax,
• The QFC Tax Department is satisfied that granting the exemption is not in breach of international tax principles set out in the BEPS Project minimum standards.

The potential activities that can be developed in the QFC are limited, and therefore not all types of businesses can set up in the QFC.

No VAT – No VAT Exemption

Even though Qatar is a part of the GCC VAT Agreement and committed to implement VAT in the same vein as its neighboring countries of the UAE, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Bahrain and Oman have done, it has not yet enacted any legislation.

Therefore, there is currently no need for a VAT exemption for the World Cup. Who knows, VAT may be introduced shortly after the organization of the World Cup?

Exemptions Worth the Trouble?

Granting tax exemptions for international sporting events are sometimes controversial. The public in some hosting countries do not always believe they receive a return on investments from the event. While Qatar has spent substantial amounts of money on the construction of infrastructure, the effect of the tax exemptions is rather limited, and at least for Qatar, it seems to have been worth the investment. In any case, the exemptions are a precondition, without which a country cannot bid. After the UAE had hosted the FIFA Club World Cup a number of times, Saudi Arabia will now be looking at hosting the Asian Winter Games in 2029. Those countries have given similar tax concessions to the international organizations managing the events.

For future possible events in the UAE, it will also be interesting to see how the sporting organizations and the tax authorities will deal with the Corporate Income Tax (CIT) which is to be introduced in the UAE in June 2023. The relationship may be anything between an unbridled and full-fledged exemption (if the UAE is willing to do so), or it may lead to rather interesting tax claims (like the Formula 1 case on Permanent Establishment (PE) in India a few years ago, which was decided by the courts in the tax authority’s favor). Time alone can tell.

Almost 5 years down the line for VAT in the GCC  – what’s next?

As we approach 31 December 2022, the UAE and KSA will be celebrating 5 years of applying VAT. A rollercoaster ride for many in the region, authorities, advisers and in house tax managers.

We wrote in 2017 about the challenges of drafting VAT legislation in the GCC before its implementation (https://aurifer.tax/news/the-challenges-of-drafting-tax-legislation-and-implementing-a-vat-in-the-gcc/?lid=482&p=21).

We pondered whether the GCC was potentially going to be far ahead of other jurisdictions because of the Electronic Services System (“ESS”) the GCC VAT Agreement was going to implement, foreseen in article 71 of the Agreement (https://aurifer.tax/news/future-of-vat-in-the-eu/?lid=482&p=22). The GCC however never implemented the ESS. It is therefore missing an important instrument to integrate all GCC members under a single comprehensive regional VAT framework.

After almost 5 years, it’s worth taking a step back and looking at what occurred.

6 countries to implement, only 4 did

The GCC consists of six countries, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and Qatar. All countries were supposed to introduce VAT in a short span of time. The UAE and KSA did so on 1 January 2018, Bahrain on 1 January 2019, and Oman on 16 April 2021. For Qatar, rumours ebb and flow on an implementation of VAT after the World Cup, but officials are tight lipped. In terms of Kuwait, a new government is not likely to put this on the table – at least, in the near future.

The intention to implement almost simultaneously was taken with the idea of avoiding arbitrage – considering the geographical proximity between the states - and potential issues with fraud.

5% was supposed to be the rate

All 4 countries kicked off with 5% VAT, as it is foreseen in the GCC VAT Agreement as well (article 25). Saudi Arabia was the first one to hike the rate to 15% on 1 July 2020. Bahrain increased to 10% on 1 January 2022.

The increases were implemented for the same reason, as the tax was implemented for in the first place, i.e. fiscal stability. The implementation came off the back of a protracted period of running deficits for many Gulf countries. There is currently a bounce back, but how long it will take is unclear, and therefore hard to predict whether it will impact fiscal policy in the short run.

Saudi Arabia, by way of its Finance Minister, had already stated in 2021 that it would consider revising the VAT rate downwards after the pandemic. If it will happen, it will happen soon.

It’s safe to say the other GCC countries could still revise the rate upwards or downwards, depending on their specific fiscal situation.

Interestingly, the increase of the VAT rate to 15% also spawned a new tax in KSA, the Real Estate Transfer Tax (“RETT”). This new tax in KSA aimed to solve the issue of unregistered sellers, and reduce the taxes on real estate sales. Since its introduction, the RETT legislation has been amended multiple times.

The GCC countries were supposed to have numerical VAT numbers, Oman didn’t follow

In the framework of the GCC, the idea was floated to have numbers as VAT numbers. Hence, the UAE has a 1 before the number, Bahrain a 2 and Saudi a 3. Oman however choose letters and put “OM” before the number.

In the EU, VAT numbers are also composed of letters and numbers. Two letters make up the first two symbols of the VAT number and refer to a country, e.g. “LU” refers to Luxembourg (see https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/vat-identification-numbers_en).

Zero rates for services are perceived a complication

5 years in, the application to zero-rate VAT on exported services, i.e., services provided to recipients outside of the GCC, remains complicated for businesses to apply and inconsistent between the GCC member states.

Although the GCC VAT Agreement for place of supply purposes looks like the EU VAT directive, from the outset, each GCC member state chose different approaches towards the place of supply of services.

B2B services were not simply located in the country of the recipient, as they are in the EU since 2010, and as is recommended by the OECD in its VAT/GST Guidelines on B2B services.

Based on an interpretation of article 34(1)(c) of the GCC VAT Agreement as laying down the rule, and including a benefit test, GCC countries have embarked on a conservative and selective interpretation of the zero rate on supplies made from a GCC country to abroad.

That conservative interpretation is not necessarily mirrored when those services are received, as there is no benefit test required there.

The rule is therefore applied unequal, and as shown by both the UAE and KSA, they felt the rule required amendments to the provision itself (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uae-considerably-restricts-application-vat-zero-rate-services-vanhee/). Those amendments, and ensuing clarifications have not necessarily led to more clarity.

Unfortunately, Bahrain and Oman went down the same road. A too conservative view of zero rates, can put a strain on foreign investments, as it is not easy to obtain refunds for foreign businesses (as amongst others the Saudi example shows).

As a matter of fact, disputes are common among businesses in the GCC over the VAT treatment of cross-border services due to the difference in the domestic legislation between the GCC member states and in the absence of the ESS.

Divergent policy options

The GCC VAT Framework Agreement allowed for broad policy options in the education sector, health sector, real estate sector and local transport sector. In addition, for the oil & gas sector zero rates were allowed to be implemented as well, and the financial sector could benefit from a deviating regime as well. Depending on the individual requirements and policies, the GCC Member States have implemented substantially different regimes.

None of the GCC countries so far have amended those policies in the aforementioned sectors. The UAE did move from a system where the B2B sales of diamonds was taxed, to a system where it is subject to a reverse charge as from 1 June 2018.

Tax Authority approaches

So far, in the region ZATCA has shown the most grit in terms of audits, and has lengths ahead of the other countries in terms of tax audits and disputes. KSA also had the best equipped tax authority in 2018 when VAT was introduced, although it did have to go through an organizational revamp. The UAE comes second, which is remarkable for a tax authority which only kicked off in 2017. It has been very much a rules and process based organization, which has a lot of positive effects, such as tax payers feeling treated in the same way. UAE auditors now often also give the opportunity to tax payers to voluntarily disclose their liabilities before closing the audit, which is a novely approach in the region.

The Bahraini and Omani tax authority, have been taking a more relaxed approach towards audits and disputes.

Having said the above, it's all not all 'sticks' with the tax authorities. We have also observed in this 5 years, how the tax authorities, especially in KSA and the UAE, played a their role to alleviate tax from being a burden to businesses and encouraging tax compliance - a fairly new culture of this scale. The amnesty programmes, first introduced by the KSA in 2020 and again, recently paved the way on encouraging tax compliance for businesses. The UAE also introduced their amnesty programme this year with the same intention. Perhaps, this could be a temporary solution to gear the economy back on track post pandemic. On whether it will be the norm, is yet to be seen in the next coming years.

What the future will bring

An old-fashioned system was put in place, yet one that has proven its use in revenue collection. It also worked, given the substantial revenues gained from VAT.

The GCC did not opted to immediately adopt more modern, electronic systems as these exist elsewhere (e.g. since a long time in Brazil, but also China).  

However, it was identified that E-invoicing was the way to go in the medium run. This is again trodding down a proven path. As often in the GCC, the UAE and KSA show the way. KSA has made E-invoicing mandatory. The UAE and Bahrain have already suggested they will do the same very soon.

No GCC countries have yet announced they will adopt real-time reporting. KSA may be the closest to a potential adoption, given that once phase 2 enters into force in 2023, ZATCA, the KSA tax authority will have access to substantial transactional data. It will allow it to pre-fill the VAT return, and potentially even in real time calculate the VAT.

We'll see what the future will bring, and for sure in another five years matters will have evolved again drastically, given the pace of changes in the region.

Safe to say that the next 5 years will be equally exciting.

The Ministry of Finance (MoF) of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) recently announced that the draft Corporate Tax (CT) law is going to be released soon, and likely within the month of September. This is impactful news for businesses in the UAE. Many businesses are already in the process of taking steps to plan their affairs in such a way that their operations are tax compliant and tax optimized at the same time.

The UAE’s international position will change after the implementation of corporate tax. Some jurisdictions may no longer view the UAE as a tax haven (although the Free Zone businesses may still benefit from a 0% rate). Other tax authorities may therefore change their perspective on the UAE and be more inclined to grant the benefits under the double tax treaties.

Businesses on the other hand, will no longer view the UAE as a conduit jurisdiction with an extensive treaty network, through which they can avail tax treaty benefits. While the 9% headline rate is still comparatively low, the implementation of CT may also discourage taxpayers seeking out the UAE solely for tax purposes.

A recurring point of dispute between the tax authority and businesses in almost every country having a CT regime has been drawing the line between tax planning, tax avoidance and tax evasion. Once the UAE CT regime settles, the Federal Tax Authority (FTA) of the UAE may indeed pay more attention towards countering tax avoidance and tax evasion arrangements or transactions.

In this article, we will revisit the evergreen discussion of tax planning, tax avoidance and tax evasion, with an emphasis on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). To begin, let us examine the meaning of the terms tax avoidance and tax evasion and the differences between the two terms.

Tax avoidance has traditionally been considered as lawful. It can be described as planning for the purposes of minimizing the tax burden within the legal framework. Tax evasion on the other hand is considered unlawful, and often requires an intentional and a potential fraudulent element.

In the GCC, tax authorities resort rather quickly to suggesting a taxpayer has committed tax evasion, even when the situation concerns simple non-compliance.

While not considered unlawful, tax avoidance has been considered harmful. This is why countries around the world, including the GCC Member States, are implementing domestic rules to counter aggressive or harmful tax planning in line with international standards.

The OECD tried to address this point by way of the ‘Main Purpose Test’ (MPT). The MPT was included in the OECD’s Model Tax Convention in its 2003 version. We are paraphrasing, but the principle stated that benefits under a double tax treaty should not be granted where the main purpose of setting up a structure was for tax purposes as the tax benefits resulting from that structure would go counter the object and purpose of those treaties.

Another common mechanism proposed in tax treaties to avoid the improper use of tax treaties, is the ‘Beneficial Ownership’ (BO) requirement. It mainly applies to passive income (e.g., dividends, interests, and royalties). The BO concept provides that where an item of income is paid to a resident of a Contracting State acting in the capacity of an agent or a nominee, it would be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the source state to grant an exemption or relief, merely because the direct recipient is a resident of the other Contracting State. In such a case, the direct recipient, on account of being merely an agent, nominee, conduit, fiduciary, or administrator, would not be able to obtain the benefits of the treaty. This is especially evident if such recipient is legally or contractually bound to pass on the payment received to another person. BO disputes often end up before the courts, because the burden of proof for the taxpayer is not easily met. 

The 2008 Financial Crisis put the discussion on tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning firmly on governments’ agenda. Following the Financial Crisis, public opinion shifted towards ensuring that big corporations pay their fair share of taxes and pressured countries to implement rules to discourage such behaviors.

As a result, the OECD established what is known as the ‘Inclusive Framework’ (IF), which was open to both OECD and non-OECD members (currently at 141 members) to engage in discussions and create rules for countering Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). It is formally known as the OECD/G20 BEPS Project (BEPS Project 1.0) which identified 15 Action Points in 2015.

Out of the 15 Action Points, one of the most important action plans was BEPS Action 6 - Prevention of Tax Treaty Abuse, which also formed one of the four minimum standards. BEPS Action 6 addresses treaty shopping activities that would be viewed as avoidance.

BEPS Action 6 requires IF members, amongst others, to include an express statement in their treaties that their common intention is to eliminate double taxation without creating opportunities for non-taxation or reduced taxation through tax evasion or avoidance, including through treaty shopping arrangements.

Anti-avoidance rules aim amongst others to avoid conduit arrangements. For example, State A has a domestic withholding tax rate for dividends of 25%. State A and State B have negotiated a tax treaty where the source withholding tax rate for dividends is reduced to 5%. A resident in State B receives dividends from State A and claims the reduced treaty rate of 5% source withholding.

However, the resident in State B has an obligation to redistribute the dividend income to a resident in State C. State A and State C do not have a tax treaty in place. It can be observed that there is no BO in State B due to its obligation to pass the payment onto another party. Clearly, such payment is not made for the benefit of any resident in State B nor for enhancing economic cooperation between States A and B. Instead, the benefit would be received by the resident of a third State (i.e., State C). This clearly shows that the treaty has been misused or abused by the resident of State B, against the intention, object, and purpose of the treaty between States A and B.  

To combat misuse of the treaty like the case described above, BEPS Action 6 seeks IF members to implement a ‘minimum standard’ in all its treaties. The minimum standard can be either of the following:

1. The combined approach of a Limitation of Benefits (LOB) and a Principal Purpose Test (PPT) rule,
2. The PPT rule alone, or
3. The LOB rule supplemented by a mechanism that would deal with conduit financing arrangements not already dealt with in tax treaties.

As a consequence, many IF members’ tax treaties have been updated to include, at least, a PPT rule. This is done by way of signing and ratifying the Multilateral Instrument (MLI) as it allows IF members to update multiple bilateral tax treaties simultaneously. The PPT rule looks a lot like the MPT. True to its name, if one of the principal purposes of an arrangement is to obtain a benefit, the PPT rule may be triggered. This clear intention has also been expressed in the wordings of the preamble incorporated in the OECD Model Tax Convention 2017.

Due to the lack of case law, the impact of the PPT rule is rather uncertain for now and the interpretation of the PPT rule may vary across jurisdictions. It may be possible that the cases that were successfully tested before the courts of law earlier may not survive the PPT rule if they were to be presented before the courts today, provided that the PPT rule was applicable at the time of the transaction or arrangement.

What is certain is that taxpayers ought to be very careful in tax planning so that the structures do not fall foul of the PPT rule. When deciding on the country to make an investment in or the structure of a transaction or arrangement, taxpayers ought to clearly record the non-tax reasons (main/principal purposes) for selecting a certain jurisdiction over another. Evidence can be maintained through internal emails, memos, and minutes outlining the reasons for selecting a country. For example:

• A country is preferred due to a favourable corporate law regime.
• A country is preferred due to the presence of multilingual or highly qualified employees.
• A country is preferred as it is politically and socially stable.
• A country is preferred as it has a strong banking infrastructure where it is easy to obtain credit.

Despite the above safeguards, if the tax authority does reasonably conclude that one of the principal purposes of invoking the treaty was to obtain a tax benefit, the taxpayer ought to ensure that it can establish (i.e., prove) that the benefit obtained was indeed within the object and purpose of the tax treaty.

Finally, as mentioned before, public opinion against tax avoidance is stronger than ever. The relevance of the PPT to future transactions cannot be overstated. Arrangements that may have been successfully litigated before the courts of law until a few years ago, may not be as successful from now on. Therefore, taxpayers may find advance rulings to be attractive as it is important to avoid future issues.

It will be interesting to see how the UAE and the other GCC countries will approach such abusive arrangements and its possible disputes. In the meantime, it is apparent that either through the MLI or through bilateral double tax treaties, the PPT continues to be important. It is vital to consider such anti-avoidance provisions now in order to create future proof structures.

The UAE introduced VAT with effect from 1 January 2018. It based its legislation on the GCC VAT Treaty, which is based on the EU VAT directive, and loosely on a few other jurisdictions. The rules were established in 2017. These were untouched until recently. 

For the first time in 2.5 years after the introduction of VAT, the United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’) updated its legislation. The UAE’s Federal Tax Authority ('FTA') published an updated version of the VAT Executive Regulations ('ER') to the VAT Federal Decree-Law. 

The updated version incorporates the changes as per a new Cabinet Decision No. 46 of 2020 (Official Gazette issue 680 of 2020 published on 15 June 2020). The updated version amends one article (article 31 (2)) and improves the English translation in a number of places (e.g., article 51 (5) and article 70 (4). It has flagged only the amendment  and not the improvements to the translation. According to the UAE constitution, the amendments enter into effect one month after publication.

This article discusses the change, compares it with KSA and the EU, and analyses the practical complexities and formalities.

Restricting the scope of zero rated exported services 

The UAE Federal Cabinet decided to amend one single, but important word. It changed “or” into “and”. The amendment was made to the conditions for considering a recipient “outside of the State”. That condition is necessary in order to consider the services “exported” and therefore zero rated. The amendment highlighted by the FTA was made under Article 31 (2). 

For the purpose of paragraph (a) of Clause (1) of this Article, before the amendment the law said, a Person shall be considered as being “outside the State” if they only have a short-term presence in the State of less than a month, or the only presence they have in the State is not effectively connected with the supply. 

Now, after the change in law, for the purpose of paragraph (a) of Clause 1 of this Article, a Person shall be considered as being “outside the State” if they only have a short-term presence in the State of less than a month and the presence is not effectively connected with the supply.

Article 31 (2) and (3) of the UAE VAT ER were inspired by the New Zealand GST Act. This can be rather ascribed to a coincidence than a conscious policy choice. Conceptually the NZ GST Act is very different from the GCC VAT Treaty, which is based on the European Union VAT directive (in the UK sometimes informally referred to as the “Principal VAT Directive”). 

The NZ's GST Act also says for the same provision “or”, like in the original text of the UAE VAT ER (see Article 11 A 3 of the NZ GST Act). Note that the examples given by the NZ tax authority for the application of the condition under which the zero rate cannot be applied are very simple, showing that the intended reach is not wide (see https://www.ird.govt.nz/gst/charging-gst/zero-rated-supplies, consulted on 9 July 2020).

How are services ‘exported’?

To the experienced European VAT adviser the term “exported services” sounds like a badly tuned violin. Yet it is what is referred to as the situation where a service supplier has a customer who is not established in the same country. In that situation, the taxation rights are for the country of the customer, and not the supplier. 

In the UAE, this is translated into a long list of requirements. A supply is 'zero rated' when the service is supplied to a recipient who does not have a place of residence in an implementing state (GCC countries) and is outside the State at the time the service is performed. Additionally, the service must not be supplied directly in connection with real estate or moveable personal assets situated in the UAE. 

Furthermore, services are also subjected to the zero rate in the UAE if they are actually performed outside the implementing states or are the arranging of services that are actually performed outside the implementing states (note that these conflict with the place of supply rules and also overlap with article 54, 1, b of the UAE VAT law). If the supply consists of the facilitation of outbound tour packages, it can also be zero rated.

It is important to note that currently, the UAE does not recognize any of the other GCC countries as an 'implementing state’. Therefore, 'outside the State' also includes customers with a place of residence in other GCC countries.

Comparing zero rates for “exported services”

As a comparison, article 44 of the EU VAT directive simply locates any service rendered to a taxable person abroad in the other country. This place of supply rule is the equivalent of the so-called “export of services”. There is no further restriction to this rule, except to prevent double taxation (article 59a of the EU VAT directive). The “best in class” is therefore very liberal in awarding the ‘zero rate’ to services rendered to a recipient outside of the country of the supplier, when the customer is a taxable person.

Article 45 of the same EU VAT directive locates services which are not rendered to a taxable person in the country of the service supplier (unless amongst others article 59 applies).

The export of services in the UAE applies, irrespective of the status of the customer, whereas in the EU it only applies when dealing with a business customer. If the UAE wanted more revenue, then this was perhaps a place to look for it.

The GCC VAT Treaty prescribes almost the exact same thing as the EU VAT directive and is almost identical in its wording (see articles 15 and 16 of the GCC VAT Treaty, which bear very strong similarities with respectively articles 45 and 44). 

The GCC VAT Treaty may however have induced some people in error by using the word ‘taxable customer’ in article 16, which is not a defined term and which should be read equally broad as the term ‘taxable person’ in the Treaty. Note that the GCC VAT Treaty knows no so-called ‘export of services’ and therefore, the rules were likely to be intended to apply as in the EU.

The GCC VAT Treaty does have a cryptic article 34, d, which can actually be considered unnecessary as it solely confirms the rules as they are described above in the Treaty.

KSA has been struggling with the same provision from the GCC VAT Treaty, although it conveniently and surprisingly simply incorporated a Treaty into its domestic laws. 

It initially translated article 15 and 16 of the GCC VAT Treaty into article 33 of the Implementing Regulations differently. In July 2019, KSA amended amongst others article 33 to make it more liberal, and closer to the Treaty. KSA wanted to make it less strict to apply the zero rate. Unfortunately though, in practice many businesses in KSA are still very conservative in applying the zero rate, for fear of making a mistake. The VAT rate hike to 15% now puts additional pressure on this conservative position.

Impact of the change - ‘and’ and ‘or’ make a great difference

Since VAT entered into force in January 2018, Article 31 of the UAE VAT ER has been a recurring topic of discussion. 

Confusion still reigns in a number of situations to decide whether or not to apply the zero rate to a supply made to a client situated outside the UAE. One notable example is that the service provider may not always know the exact set-up of the client (e.g. does the client have a branch in the UAE?).

By replacing the word 'or' with 'and' in Article 31 of the UAE VAT ER, the UAE narrowed down the possibilities of considering a customer as being outside the UAE for VAT purposes. This move indicates that the legislator expects more situations where businesses restrict the application of the zero rate on their transactions.

For example, under the new rules, possibly a UAE established and VAT registered service provider will have to refrain from zero rating a supply of services to a foreign client who attends one single meeting in the country, which is connected to the services received. 

Vacationing in the UAE is allowed up to 30 days, but the slightest business air that the stay gets, or over staying one day, will make the service provider consider the client as established in the UAE.

The foreign client will then get caught in a situation where it might have to evaluate the extra 5% cost on top of the agreed price for the service.

Even though the UAE has implemented a business refund scheme for non-resident businesses similar to the business VAT refund scheme available in the European Union, the requests take a long time to process, and the approval is not guaranteed. 

Additionally, foreign businesses will only be entitled to claim a VAT refund in case they are from a country that has VAT and also provides refunds of VAT to UAE entities in similar circumstances (the so-called reciprocity condition). The refund request is available only for countries that are specified in a list published by the FTA. 

This one-word amendment might therefore have far reaching consequences. Service providers who are already cautious to apply the zero rate will stay on the side of caution even more. In a number of cases, i.e. cases where no refund is available to the foreign business, it will simply make doing business 5% more expensive. 

The UAE Ministry of Finance denied wanting to increase the VAT rate in the UAE, as KSA did recently when it hiked its standard rate up to 15%. One can imagine the additional cost if it did. The UAE therefore adds itself to a list of countries which favor tax revenue. Adding taxes to ‘exported services’ makes domestic service providers less attractive.

Furthermore, it is also not clear if this change to Article 31(2) intends to prevent the zero rate on supplies made to foreign customers who have a fixed establishment in the UAE (e.g., branch or representative office).

Formally prove your client is outside the State

Perhaps I draw too much from the legislation of the old continent, but it remains the system with the longest experience. In the EU, it suffices that your customer has a foreign VAT number to consider him outside of the state of the service supplier. If the customer is outside the EU, the supplier can use a certificate issued by the client’s tax authority, a VAT number or similar, or any other proof to determine the customer is taxable (Article 18 Council Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011).

The UAE’s legislation does not have such criteria, and the tax authority has not stated much in this respect. The supplier is left to his own discretion and will try to collect proof of the establishment of his client abroad. However, there’s only so much one can do. Rechecking the client’s status every time an invoice is issued, may increase the burden on a supplier considerably.

Proving that the conditions for exporting a service are met, is up to the supplier. If the FTA wants to audit these conditions, we may end up in a situation where a supplier needs to give an impossible negative proof, e.g. prove to me that the client did not come to the UAE. How does one do that, other than having the client declare that he did not come. Auditing this point will prove very tricky.

Are you inside the State for the export of services but inside the State for input tax recovery?

The change created ambiguity because the same expression is also defined under Article 52 (2) of the UAE VAT ER. However, this Article was not amended by Cabinet Decision No 46 of 2020.

Article 52 of the UAE VAT ER provides rules for the input VAT recovery in respect of exempt supplies and should be read in conjunction with article 54 (1) (c) of the UAE VAT law, which provides that input tax is recoverable if incurred in respect to supplies that are made outside the State which would have been treated as exempt had they been made within the UAE. 

According to Article 52 (2) of the UAE VAT ER, "a Person is outside the State even if they are present in the State, provided it is only a short-term presence in the State of less than a month, or that his presence is not effectively connected with the supply."

The interpretation of this stand-alone extract could lead one to think that the legislator intended to give businesses a stricter approach to zero-rate a supply while providing a broader understanding when granting input tax credit.

It is not likely that the legislator wanted this, but the truth is that once Cabinet Decision No 46 of 2020 enters into effect, the UAE VAT legislation will have two different understandings of the term "outside the state."

Small word big change

The small change made to the UAE VAT ER via Cabinet Decision No 46 of 2020, is expected to have a significant impact on resident and non-resident businesses operating in the country. 

It added an additional layer of administrative burden on UAE suppliers who now have to prove to the tax authority that their customers are outside the UAE as per the new definition of Article 31 (2) of the UAE VAT ER.

Service providers in the UAE, including consultancy firms and law firms who provide services to non-residents businesses must carefully review their transactions and put in place additional administrative mechanisms to ensure that the zero rate is applied only where the conditions of Article 31 are entirely fulfilled. 

Foreign businesses who source services in the UAE must also be aware of the new rules and the risk of incurring 5% extra costs on the services received in case they are not considered as being outside the State at the moment the service is provided.

These businesses need to assess the impact of these amendments on their operations and take the necessary actions to be fully compliant with the new VAT requirements.

’t is the season, but not the jolly one. In many European countries it is filing season. A new kid on the block causes additional headaches for European businesses, the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, or “ATAD”.

One of the provisions of this Directive, which was implemented with effect from 2019 and therefore impacts for the first time tax reporting in 2020 covers a now relatively familiar topic in some GCC countries: substance.

Businesses in scope of the Economic Substance Regulations (“ESR”) implemented in the UAE in 2019 were recently very occupied with their ESR notifications, and potentially filings. In Bahrain the filing of the ESR report was 30 June. The ATAD is another substance tale, but with far more direct consequences.

Why ATAD?

The ATAD protects the corporate tax base in the countries of the European Union (“EU”). There are currently 27 Member States of the European Union. The UK recently left the EU.

In the ongoing focus in the EU on fighting tax avoidance, the European Commission proposed a number of anti tax avoidance measures to the Member States to protect the corporate tax base.

One of the measures is one often referred to as “CFC-rules”, or Controlled Foreign Corporation rules. Other measures included provisions to avoid hybrid mismatches, an exit tax for assets moved out of the EU, interest limitations and a General Anti Abuse Rule (“GAAR”).

The ATAD directive had to be implemented in the Member States and have effect from 1 January 2019. This year is therefore the first filing seasons where its effects are reflected in corporate tax filings.

EU CFC rules explained

CFC have the effect of re-attributing the income of a low-taxed controlled subsidiary to its parent company. The parent company adds the revenue of its subsidiary to its own taxable income.

The EU CFC rules are now harmonized between the Member States. However, even prior to the entry into force of the ATAD directive, many Member States had comparable legislation, even going back 40 years (e.g. Germany implemented them in 1972). With the EU CFC rules though, there is now a level playing field.

Subsidiaries in which a parent has a 50% interest (50% of the capital or voting rights, directly or indirectly, or the right to receive 50% of the profits), and which are only subject to low taxation, are considered CFCs.

Low taxation is defined as the actual corporate tax paid by the entity or permanent establishment and is lower than the corporate tax it would have paid had it been established in the Member State of the parent. Member States have some freedom with this provision, e.g. France says it considers a country has low taxation if its CIT rate is lower than 50% of its own rate.

The same principles apply for head offices and branches.

When a business has a CFC, the Member State can either choose to automatically integrate certain types of income (e.g. royalties, dividends, …), or only integrate non distributed income arising from non-genuine arrangements put in place for the essential purpose of obtaining a tax advantage, unless … there is substance (a “substantive economic activity”). 

What is the relation with Economic Substance Requirements?

There is no direct relation with the ESR as they were recently introduced in the UAE and Bahrain for which there are notifications to be made and reports to be filed.

However, with the CFC rules ATAD focuses amongst others on the same matter, i.e. substance. Where the ESR requires some compliance and administrative work, the ATAD has a direct tax consequence.

In terms of not meeting the substance though, the consequences under the ESR are lighter. Businesses can incur a penalty. Worst case scenario, their license can be revoked. Worse actually is the notification to the tax authority of the parent, that there is no substance. When they handle Intellectual Property, there may be an automatic notification of the tax authority of the parent jurisdiction.

Insofar as the Regulatory Authorities in the UAE and Bahrain will enforce compliance with the ESR, and they will verify substance with their licensees, there may be some of these inconvenient notifications.

Notifications may trigger tax audits in the country of the parent, and may lead the tax authority to compare the input with the corporate income tax (CIT) return filed. If that Member State has implemented the CFC rules with the substance carve out, and the CIT return does not include the income of the entity, but the notification flagged it as having insufficient substance, there may be an important issue.

The current situation was reminiscent of the introduction of VAT on 1 January 2018. Everyone is an adviser, and there’s a lack of expertise. Likely around 350,000 businesses had to ask themselves the question whether they are in scope of the ESR and whether they need to file. It was a massive exercise, similar to the scale at which the Federal Tax Authority administered the registration for VAT purposes in 2017.

The ESR notification is simple, and therefore some providers offer it cheaply. However, without a proper assessment which thinks about the long term, its consequences can be grave. 

Out of complacency adopting a too broad interpretation of the Relevant Activities means that when the Licensee files a notification declaring he is in scope of the ESR in the UAE, he needs to file an ESR report by the end of 2020, related to 2019. 

Even though the ESR report may also not turn out to be very extensive in terms of the information to be filled out, it will be much more extensive than the notification. And even though there are penalties foreseen for not filling out the notification correctly, and for not meeting the substance requirements, this is not what businesses should worry about. It is rather the direct tax consequences in the jurisdiction of the parent.

Substance compared between CFC rules and ESR

Same cookie, different flavour. The preamble to the ATAD directive mentions a “substantive economic activity”. Member States can choose not to apply the substance rule for non EU countries and use their own rules.

The criterion is not defined in detail, but neither is it in the ESR applicable in Bahrain and the UAE. In those last two jurisdictions, when a business conducts a relevant activity, they are in scope and they need to meet a substance test. In order to pass the test, you must generally show that:

• core income generating activities are conducted
• The activities are directed and managed in the country
• There is an adequate level of FTE’s, Opex and physical assets

The entities regulating the ESR are in Bahrain and the UAE though, whereas for CFC purposes, the conversation is to be had with the tax jurisdiction of the parent.

Substance is not over 

The ESR Filing is done, remains the report. It does not stop there though. The tax policy changes signal an increased attention for substance. The sometimes complicated legal framework in the GCC may therefore also have to evolve. The increased attention in the EU for low tax jurisdictions means that this filing season, the CIT return in the EU has again become a bit more complicated.