Type: op-ed snap

Context

Over the past four years, 137 countries have engaged intensively with the OECD to find a solution to the tax challenges arising from digitalisation. Like any international agreement, finding a middle ground has been difficult and a series of compromises have been made.

What makes it difficult to tax the digital economy?

• Operation across the border: The unique feature of the digital economy is that firms can operate seamlessly across borders and users and their data contribute to their profits.
• However, this made it harder to tax such an economy.
• It was not clear how profits were to be pinned down to any jurisdiction.
• Political issues: Taxing digital economy became a political issue because the largest technology firms are tax residents of developed countries and redefining digital presence as the basis of taxation would potentially allow large markets like India more right to tax.
• Developing vs. developed countries: Developing countries wanted that profits from digital operations should be fractionally apportioned to markets while developed countries believe that a fraction of residual profit, mainly arising from marketing functions, should be taxed in markets.

 Equalisation levy and DST issue

• The divergence in developed and developing countries as explained above compelled countries to implement unilateral measures.
• India was the first country to implement a gross equalisation levy on turnover.
• This is not covered by tax treaties.
• So, while the income tax act does not apply to the levy, credit is available for the tax paid by the company in its home country.
• Similarly, several other countries have announced or implemented a digital services tax (DST).
• In 2021, India expanded the scope of the equalisation levy.
• The US initiated the US Trade Representative investigations which found DST to be discriminatory, and then announced retaliatory tariffs.

Two-pillar approach and issues with its adoption

• The DSTs encouraged the US to actively participate in finding a consensus-based solution.
• As talks progressed, the OECD announced that the issue of allocation of taxing rights would be actively considered and adopted a two-pillar approach.
• Pillar One approach: The first pillar was to define the rules for taxing digital companies.
• Sovereignty issue: Pillar One was to go beyond digital companies and apply to large companies with annual revenue over € 20 billion. To ensure certainty to taxpayers, the solution will require excessive global coordination.
• Whether this will undermine sovereignty, remains to be seen.
• Therefore, it is important to consider if the consensus approach is worth pursuing.
• EL may still apply to companies not covered by OECD proposal: In fact, the EL may apply to companies that are not covered by the OECD proposal, leaving one to wonder whether it will truly address the tax challenges from digitalisation. 
• Complications: Corporations that argue in favour of simplicity must also consider the potential benefits from an EL like tax that sets aside the complications of attributing profits to complex functions.
• The OECD approach creates a fiction of reallocation, where the profits reallocated through Pillar One could in fact be compensated for by taxing back global profits taxed below 15 per cent.

Conclusion

As per Pillar One proposal, DSTs will be removed once the OECD approach is ratified in 2023. It is imperative therefore that countries assess the price of compromise.

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Context

Cryptocurrency will be discouraged via taxation and capital gains provisions. This was the message from the Finance Minister during the Budget discussion in Parliament.

Growing worry about the cryptocurrencies

• The Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, in February, highlighted two things.
• First, “private cryptocurrencies are a big threat to our financial and macroeconomic stability”.
• Second, “these cryptocurrencies have no underlying (asset).
• Clearly, statements from the RBI indicate a growing worry since the proliferation of cryptos threatens the RBI’s place in the economy’s financial system.
• This threat emerges from the decentralised character of cryptos based on blockchain technology which central banks cannot regulate and which enables enterprising private entities to float cryptos which can function as assets and money.
• The total valuation of cryptos recently was upward of $2 trillion — more than the value of gold held globally.
• Challenges in banning it: Cryptos which operate via the net can be banned only if all nations come together.
• Even then, tax havens may allow cryptos to function, defying the global agreement.

Crypto as currency

• A currency is a token used in market transactions. 
• Historically, commodities (such as copper coins) have been used as tokens since they themselves are valuable.
• But paper currency is useless till the government declares it to be a fiat currency.
• Paper currency derives its value from state backing.
• Cryptos are a string of numbers in a computer programme. And, there is no state backing. 
• Their acceptability to the well-off enables them to act as money.
• So, cryptos acquire value and can be transacted via the net.
• This enables them to function as money.
• Solving the problem of double spending:  Fiat currency has the property that once spent, it cannot be spent again except through forgery, because it is no more with the spender.
• But, software on a computer can be used repeatedly.
• Blockchain and encryption have solved the problem by devising protocols such as ‘proof of work’ and ‘proof of stake’. 

Why CBDC is not a solution

• A Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) will not solve the RBI’s problem since it can only be a fiat currency and not a crypto.
• Blockchain enables decentralisation.But, central banks would not want that.
• Further, central bank would want a fiat currency to be exclusively issued and controlled by them.
• But, theoretically everyone can ‘mine’ and create crypto.
• So, for the CBDC to be in central control, solving the ‘double spending’ problem and being a crypto (not just a digital version of currency) seems impossible.
• Validating transaction: A centralised CBDC will require the RBI to validate each transaction — something it does not do presently.
• Once a currency note is issued, the RBI does not keep track of its use in transactions.
• Keeping track will be horrendously complex which could make a crypto such as the CBDC unusable unless new secure protocols are designed.

Conclusion

CBDCs at present cannot be a substitute for cryptos that will soon begin to be used as money. This will impact the functioning of central banks and commercial banks.