Source: Australian Tax Forum Journal Article
Published Date: 1 Aug 2015
One of the most significant trends in the evolution of global tax systems has been the rise from relative obscurity of thin capitalisation rules, which are perceived as anti-avoidance rules which limit tax base erosion from cross-border interest deductions. However, over the same timeframe, innovations to financial instruments have challenged the traditional financial and legal distinctions between debt and equity, which in the cross-border setting has exposed the prevalence of economic inefficiencies in the design of the international tax system.
This article approaches the issue of thin capitalisation from a novel perspective by conceptualising the cross-border debt bias as the disease and thin capitalisation as merely the symptom. Despite their prevalence, it is unclear whether thin capitalisation rules: (1) attain tax neutrality (specifically, do these rules mitigate the debt bias); and (2) are effective in both theory and practice.
This provides the basis to examine whether a cross-border manifestation of a fundamental reform could eliminate the need for existing thin capitalisation rules, which are presently a second-best solution to the tax-induced cross-border debt bias. Accordingly, this article: (1) considers reforms traditionally designed to address the domestic debt bias; specifically, the allowance for corporate equity (ACE), comprehensive business income tax (CBIT), combined ACE-CBIT and allowance for corporate capital; (2) examines the literature and implementation experience of the ACE, the only one of these fundamental reforms which has been experimented with in practice, to consider whether it is effective in both theory and practice; and (3) presents the possibility of extending the combined ACE-CBIT to the cross-border context as an alternative to thin capitalisation rules.
The exploitation of tax professional expenses for tax minimisation: evidence from Australia - Journal 01 Jul 2022
To cap or not to cap? Policy options for dealing with the costs of managing tax affairs deduction in Australia - Journal 01 Jun 2020
International tax planning by multinationals: Simulating a tax-minimising intercompany response to the OECD's recommendation on BEPS Action 4 - Journal 01 Jul 2016
Taxing cross-border intercompany transactions: Are financing activities fungible? - Journal 01 Sep 2015
Sorry, this is subscriber only content.
To gain access to this material and much more - Subscribe Now.
(Note: Members can access Taxation in Australia journal articles without a Tax Knowledge Exchange subscription - please log in to access).
Already a Subscriber? Login now
The material is copyright. Apart any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research criticism or review, as permitted under the copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission from The Tax Institute.
Unless expressly stated, opinions are not that of The Tax Institute, which accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within it.
The Tax Institute
(ABN 45 008 392 372 (PRV14016))
The Tax Institute is a Recognised Tax Agent Association (RTAA) under the Tax Agent Services Regulations 2009.
All materials provided on this site are protected by copyright and are owned by or licensed to TTI.
Except as expressly permitted by TTI or the copyright owner, any person or company who uses this site must not use, reproduce, redistribute, retransmit, publish or otherwise transfer, or commercially exploit, the materials or any information, software or other content, in whole or in part, which is available through this site.