Something not certain in life, the story about international tax avoidance

We may have heard that there are two things certain in our life, namely death and tax but what if I tell you tax is not always certain in some fortunate circumstances as it has been enjoyed by some multinational companies as well as some wealthy people. 

The story is how we may see on how international tax avoidance could be legally done and cause double non taxation. It may sounds too good to be true, but the story below is definitely not a story from utopia land.

Death and Taxes

What are certain things in life? Benjamin Franklin, a former US President said in his letter, that "The only things certain in life are death and taxes,” and “in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” His remarks are quite well known as it is used many times, for instance in this publication.

People still dream of a land or a country without tax, where people could live their joyful life and not paying tax or pay as low as they can be. The rich will become richer and could please themselves with the money they have. It may refer to the so-called tax haven or low tax jurisdiction where no tax or very low tax has to be paid. There are different definition for tax haven and it could be found in many countries which may also serve as financial offshore center.

OECD surveys shows that the happiest people on earth live in high tax country not in low tax country, it is supported by the fact that the tax money is used to support welfare system including healthcare, free education, infrastructures, public service etc.

But the question is, is it really true that tax is always certain in our life?

There is even a joke saying that death and taxes may be certain, but we don't have to die every year.

Tax Avoidance

Let me share a story about Starbucks, a well-known coffee brand famous worldwide.

Let us see what the famous companies, as multinational companies has done in the last decade.

Starbucks in the UK did not pay tax for many years, the reason is they suffer losses

Amazon sold lots of books in the UK as part of the company’s operation in Europe but the company could pay no tax in UK. Tax in here refers to both income tax and value added tax (VAT) or also known as GST.

Perhaps in lower level, Google has managed to pay much lower tax rate, with only

Because of public pressure in the UK, several companies decided to pay the tax to UK government

Story about Amazon and Starbucks

Based on investigation, it is found that Starbucks had made over £3bn in UK sales since 1998 but had paid less than 1% in corporation tax. For many years, Starbucks suffered losses, for 5 consecutive years until 2012 though the management claimed that the business is profitable

Starbucks, for example,had sales of £400m in the UK in 2012, but paid no corporation tax. It transferred some money to a Dutch sister company in royalty payments, bought coffee beans from Switzerland and paid high interest rates to borrow from other parts of the business.

Starbucks has said it isdown to where the company books its profits. Accounts filed for its British, German and French units, which make up 90 percent of European revenues, show a loss of $60 million in 2011, hence very little tax.

Amazon

The company was also underthe spotlight since 2012. Online retailer Amazon had generated sales of more than £7.6bn in the UK over the past three years until 2012 but had not paid any corporation tax on the profits from those sales.

Amazon employs hundreds of staff in the UK, at several large depots, selling tens of millions of items each year to millions of UK customers. (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-17625874 )

In 2012, also reportedthat Amazon.co.uk, Britain's biggest online retailer, generated salesof more than £3.3bn in the country last year but paid no corporationtax on any of the profits from that income and it is under investigation by the UK tax authorities despite the fact that It is reported that Amazon sells nearly one in four books sold in Britain

Amazon has a near monopoly of the UK digital book publishing market. According to reliable estimates, it sells nine out of 10 ebooks in the UK.

Amazon also pays no VAT,or also known as GST, in UK, but it does pay VAT in Luxembourg. The benefit is 3% VAT on sales of ebook and not 20% VAT which applies inUK.

Amazon in UK operation pays 3% VAT on the sales of eBook to Luxembourg but not to UK Taxauthorities which applies 20% VAT. The price of ebooks in Britain is expected to plummet following a vote in Brussels this week that could cut VAT on them from 20 per cent to zero.

In Britain, printed booksare free of VAT but ebooks attract 20 per cent.

Amazon’s EU base is inLuxembourg and its customers in Britain are treated as buying theirgoods from there, even if they are distributed from a warehouse in Britain. Profit on sales to British shoppers is accounted for as a profit in Luxembourg.

Google

In 2012, it is known that despite generating $18 billion of revenue in Britain from 2006 to 2011, the Internet search giant paid only $16 million in taxes to British authorities or around 0,0056 %.

Google says it does not have a sales presence in Britain and therefore cannot be considered resident for tax purposes, lowering its obligations.

An investigation byReuters has shown that some of the 1,300 people employed by Google UK Ltd are engaged in sales-type work or have titles that suggest involvement in sales and marketing activities, but Google says it hires people with a sales background even if they are not directly involved in selling.

Google has faced fiercecriticism for designating its UK office as primarily a marketingoperation, apparently supporting its European base in Ireland. But a Reuters investigation alleged that Google's employees in the UK were actually responsible for sales and not their colleagues in Ireland.

Google brazenly arguedbefore this committee that its tax arrangements in the UK aredefensible and lawful. It claimed that its advertising sales take place in Ireland, not in the UK.

To avoid UK corporation tax, Google relies on the deeply unconvincing argument that its sales to UK clients take place in Ireland, despite clear evidence that the vast majority of sales activity takes place in the UK.

Apple sells to non-US customers from a base in Ireland, while Google has an Irish business though which the search giant’s UK sales are funneled.

A Mail on Sunday analysisin 2012 found that Apple, Amazon and Google would have paid more than £600million in corporation tax in 2010 if their sales to British customers had gone through a UK company. They actually paid £15million.

Apple Inc.

An investigation by theU.S. Senate showed that the maker of iPads and iPhones had paid just 2 percent tax on income of $74 billion over the past three years, largely by exploiting an unusual loophole in Ireland's tax code.

Apple sells to non-UScustomers from a base in Ireland, while Google has an Irish business though which the search giant’s UK sales are funnelled.

What do the companies do to deal with those issues?

Those companies abovementioned has to face boycott from the customers, name and shaming for the multinationals. Some of them had to deal with the parliament in UK and some of the videos could be seen on how to answer the questions.

Income Tax

For Starbucks, what they plan is they volunteered to pay £20m “to head off a consumer boycott”.

Starbucks offered onWednesday to pay about £10 million ($16.05 million) a year incorporate taxes in Britain — or £10 million more than it paid last year. Starbucks said that in 2013 and 2014 it would refrain from claiming certain tax deductions that helped reduce its tax bill to zero in Britain over the last three years.

It seems unfair for domestic companies in the UK while multinational companies could escape income tax.

VAT

The European commission –which oversees European Union law as the EU's executive arm – onWednesday gave Luxembourg 30 days to increase its VAT rate on digitalservices from 3% to 15%. This will close a tax loophole that hasencouraged companies such as Amazon, Skype and Netflix to be based in Luxembourg to benefit from the 3% rate when selling throughout the EU.

Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion

The story is not always a rosy picture of how the companies or even a person could escape the certain thing in life, since Dolce and Gabbana from Italy was foundguilty of tax evasion and the duo has to go to prison for around 1 year 8 months after they transfer their famous brand to a subsidiary company in Luxembourg and accordingly accused for not declaring 1 billion euro of income.

The overall story serves as wake-up call to the government and the public about tax avoidance and its dangers.

People, the ones who tried to escape tax

What about a person? Could someone escape from tax?What about a criminal?

Let’s see the story of a notorious gangster from the US since even criminals have to pay tax

We may have heard the story of Al Capone. A story about a criminal arrested not by the police department or ordinary law enforcement but he was arrested by IRS, US Tax Authority after finding supporting documents and evidence that he did not pay tax on income he received from criminal activities.

Another story is from anyone receiving income from non legal activities or semi illegal activities also need to pay tax, including sex worker or drug dealer which lead to unique idea on how they should calculate their income by using deductible expenses:

a. A drug dealer was arrested in the Netherlands and tax authority alleged that he didnt pay for tax from his drug-dealing business. Because of it, the drug dealer claimed that he could use the purchased drugs as the cost of goods sold and he can use this as deductible expense. Due to this case, Dutch government changed the rule and stated that any expense related to crime could not be used as deductible expense.

b. Funny deductions for odd jobs which have to pay taxes as well

In the country where prostitution is legal, the woman working in that industry still have to pay income tax, and accordingly they claim that plastic surgeryt should be used as deductible expense for income tax calculation

It is the fact that criminal also have to pay the tax

Tax Evasion and US Tax Authority

In 2010, US Tax Authority or IRS has found that there were thousands of US taxpayer hiding their income or their money in Swiss banks and from that time the witchhunting began to find anyone committing tax evasion by the use of foreign offshore bank account.

As a result, like tax avoidance, tax evasion becomes more and more difficult. It is due to more complicated compliance program for the taxpayers.

Conclusion

At the end, could we say that tax is something certain? There are ways to escape or avoid taxes legally, as loopholes, but it is a fact that chances are we have to deal with it and we do have to pay tax.

In the last few years, when we have to prepare our tax returns, we could remember this that tax is certain not only for company but also for any person. At the end, I say that it is true, tax is as certain as death while it is also a fact that some loopholes could be found in any legal system in any country. 

 ============

Note :  

-The story above is taken from my speech project for Toastmaster Club 

-The previous article about Base Erosion and Profit Shifting dan pengaruhnya bagi Indonesia has been based on similar issues about tax avoidance and it explained that Indonesia also faces similar issues about BEPS.

Debt to Equity Ratio dan pembatasan hutang menurut pajak (English and Indonesian version)

Harian Kontan, Selasa, 9 Juni 2015

(Versi Indonesia) 
Debt to Equity Ratio dan pembatasan hutang menurut pajak  

Pemerintah akan menerbitkan aturan Debt to Equity Ratio (DER) dengan rasio 4:1 yang akan membatasi hutang luar negeri sehingga hutang dibatasi sebesar 4 kali modal dengan perkecualian sektor tertentu seperti perbankan serta pertambangan dan direncanakan berlaku mulai tahun 2016, dikatakan bahwa salah satu alasan terbitnya DER adalah karena kekuatiran atas pinjaman luar negeri yang terus meningkat (Kontan, 1 Juni 2015). Di tahun 1984, pemerintah sebenarnya telah menerbitkan aturan serupa dengan rasio sebesar 3:1 lewat KMK No. 1002/KMK.04/1984 untuk kepentingan pajak namun dicabut 5 bulan kemudian karena adanya berbagai penolakan dari pelaku usaha.  Apa sebenarnya permasalahan atas aturan DER ini di Indonesia ?   

Penghindaran pajak

Aturan DER dibuat di banyak negara karena otoritas pajak menemukan penghindaran pajak dengan  beban bunga yang berlebihan  atas hutang dari pihak  terafiliasi, khususnya yang berada di luar negeri dan bukan dibuat karena kekuatiran atas hutang luar negeri. 

Selain aturan DER, untuk mengatasi penghindaran pajak lewat beban bunga yang berlebihan, penerapan aturan transfer pricing dengan pendekatan prinsip kewajaran dan kelaziman usaha (arm’s length principle) atas kelayakan dari pemberian pinjaman juga dapat digunakan. 

Beban bunga atas pinjaman dari pihak terafiliasi yang melebihi rasio yang ditetapkan lewat aturan DER, atau sering disebut aturan thin capitalization,  tidak dapat menjadi beban pengurang pajak penghasilan (PPh) namun beban bunga tersebut dapat tetap sepenuhnya terutang withholding tax. 

Tiap negara dapat memiliki rasio berbeda untuk DER, contohnya rasio DER sebesar 1,5: 1 untuk perusahaan umum dan 15:1 untuk jasa keuangan di Australia hingga rasio 2:1 untuk perusahaan umum dan 5:1 untuk lembaga keuangan di Tiongkok.  Aturan DER di negara lain diterapkan atas pinjaman dari pihak terafiliasi, terutama pemegang saham,  serta berada  di luar negara yang bersangkutan.  Ada pertimbangan khusus jika satu perusahaan mempunyai jasa keuangan dan bukan kegiatan usaha non keuangan maka rasio DER atas atas usaha umum mungkin dapat digunakan. 

Aturan DER ini dapat berpengaruh, contohnya, pada struktur permodalan anak perusahaan dari perusahaan asing dalam investasi di satu negara., penilaian hutang hingga transaksi merger dan akuisisi.

Untuk memenuhi aturan DER, perusahaan dapat merubah hutang menjadi modal untuk memenuhi aturan tersebut dimana ada beberapa permasalahan yang harus dipertimbangkan, contohnya,  waktu dan bentuk rekapitalisasi atau perubahan modal, withholding tax, peraturan transfer pricing hingga perhitungan penghasilan atau rugi selisih kurs menurut PPh.

Peraturan transfer pricing

Cara lain untuk menguji kewajaran tingkat pinjaman dari pihak terafiliasi di luar negeri, khususnya pemegang saham, adalah dengan aturan transfer pricing yang akan menguji  penerapan prinsip kewajaran usaha  dari beban bunga atas pinjaman dari pemegang saham. 

Dalam praktek, Dirjen Pajak dapat mengujinya lewat pemeriksaan transfer pricing dengan tidak mengakui beban bunga atas pinjaman dari pemegang saham jika masih ada modal yang belum disetor dari pemegang saham  sesuai akta pendirian perusahaan berdasarkan UU Perseroan Terbatas karena pinjaman tersebut dianggap sebagai modal yang belum disetor.  Selain itu, dapat juga diuji kewajaran tingkat bunga dan kewajaran pemberian pinjaman dengan menggunakan rasio DER wajib pajak.

Intinya adalah perolehan  hutang dari pihak terafiliasi di luar negeri harus dilakukan dengan menerapkan prinsip kewajaran. Pertanyaannya adalah bagaimana jika prinsip kewajaran telah sepenuhnya diterapkan namun rasio perbandingan modal dan hutang lebih besar dari aturan  DER?

Permasalahan lain dapat terjadi jika perusahaan membayar guarantee fee  karena jaminan yang diberikan pemegang saham atas pinjaman yang diberikan kepada anak perusahaan. Ini menimbulkan pertanyaan,  dapatkah ini  juga  masuk dalam aturan DER atau cukup dengan aturan transfer pricing lewat prinsip kewajaran usaha. 

Peraturan di Indonesia

Peraturan DER didasarkan pada pasal 18(1) UU PPh yang menjelaskan bahwa Menteri Keuangan berwenang mengeluarkan keputusan mengenai besarnya perbandingan antara utang dan modal perusahaan untuk keperluan penghitungan PPh. Pasal tersebut, termasuk penjelasan pasal tersebut, tidak menerangkan bahwa rasio DER  diterapkan hanya atas pinjaman dari pihak yang memiliki hubungan istimewa, seperti dijelaskan pasal 18(4), di luar negeri sehingga  berbeda dengan aturan DER di negara lain yang hanya diterapkan untuk pembatasan bunga pinjaman dari pihak terafiliasi khususnya di luar negeri. Jika demikian, hal ini dapat menimbulkan interpretasi bahwa pasal 18(1) tersebut mengatur pembatasan pinjaman diantaranya karena alasan ekonomi.

KMK No. 1002/KMK.04/1984 yang telah dicabut menjelaskan definisi hutang untuk perhitungan DER sebagai saldo rata-rata pada tiap akhir bulan yang dihitung dari semua hutang baik hutang jangka panjang maupun hutang jangka pendek, selain hutang dagang. Definisi modal untuk perhitungan DER, berdasarkan KMK tersebut, dijelaskan sebagai jumlah modal yang disetor pada akhir tahun pajak termasuk laba yang tidak dan/atau belum dibagikan.

KMK tersebut, seperti pasal 18(1) UU PPh, juga tidak menjelaskan bahwa penerapan rasio DER diterapkan hanya untuk pinjaman dari pihak terafiliasi sehingga penerapan aturan DER dapat disalahartikan sebagai pembatasan pinjaman luar negeri.

Kesimpulan

Aturan DER diperlukan untuk mengatasi masalah penghindaran pajak melalui beban bunga yang berlebihan atas pinjaman dari pihak terafiliasi di luar negeri  sesuai UU PPh dan bukan untuk membatasi  pinjaman luar negeri yang dilakukan wajib pajak. Perbaikan pasal 18(1)di UU PPh dapat dilakukan demi kejelasan dan kepastian hukum serta mencegah kesalahpahaman atas aturan DER. 

(English Version) 

 The Government will issue a rule for Debt to Equity Ratio (DER) with a ratio of 4: 1 which would limit foreign debt so that the debt is capped at four times the capital with the exclusion of certain sectors such as banking and mining, and planned to take effect in 2016. It is said that one of the reasons for the issuance of DER is due to concerns over foreign debt which continues to increase (Kontan Daily Newspaper, June 1, 2015). In 1984, the government in fact has issued a similar rule with a ratio of 3: 1 through KMK No. 1002 / KMK.04 / 1984 for tax purposes but revoked 5 months later due to a variety of refusal of businesses. What exactly is the problem on this DER rule in Indonesia?

Tax avoidance 
DER rules are made in many countries since the tax authorities find tax avoidance with excessive interest charges on loans from affiliated parties, especially those residing abroad and not made because of concerns over foreign debt.

In addition to DER rules, to address tax avoidance through excessive interest charges, the application of transfer pricing rules with the approach of the principles of fairness and the predominance of business (arm's length principle) on the feasibility of granting loans can also be used.

Interest expenses on loans from affiliated parties that exceed specified ratios through DER rules, or often called thin capitalization rules, can not be the deductible expense for income tax purpose but the interest charges can remain fully payable for withholding tax.

Each country may have different ratios for DER, for example DER ratio of 1.5: 1 for  general companies and 15: 1 for financial services in Australia up to a ratio of 2: 1 for general companies and 5: 1 for financial institutions in China. DER rules in other countries are applied for loans from affiliated parties, especially shareholders, and are outside the country concerned. There are special considerations if a company has the financial and non-financial business activities, in this situation the ratio of DER for general companies may be used.

DER rules could affect, for example, the capital structure of the subsidiaries of foreign companies for investment  in particular country, valuation of debt until various issues for mergers and acquisitions transactions.To meet DER rules, the company can change the debt into capital to meet the rules where there are several issues that must be considered, for example, time and form of recapitalization or changes in capital, withholding tax, transfer pricing rules to the calculation of earnings or losses in income tax. 

Transfer pricing regulations
Another way to test the reasonableness of the level of loans from affiliated parties abroad, especially shareholders, is the transfer pricing rules that will test the application of arm's length principles on interest expenses on loans from shareholders.

In practice, the Director General of Taxation can test through transfer pricing audit by not recognizing interest expense on loans from shareholders if they have not paid-up capital from shareholders in accordance to incorporation documents, or corporate deed,  based  on Limited Liability Company Act because the loan is considered as capital which has not been paid. In addition, it can also be tested on arm's length principle on the interest rate and the reasonableness of  the lending by using the ratio of DER taxpayer.

The point is the acquisition of loans from affiliated parties abroad should be done by applying the arm's length principle. The question is what if the principle of fairness has been fully implemented yet and debt capital ratio greater than DER rules?

Another problem can occur if the company paying the guarantee fee for the guarantees given by shareholders for loans granted to subsidiaries. It raises the question, can we use the DER rules or simply use transfer pricing rules based on arm's length principle.

Regulations in Indonesia
DER regulation is based on Article 18 (1) Income Tax Law which explains that the Minister of Finance is authorized to issue a decision regarding the ratio between debt and capital companies for the purposes of income tax calculation. The article, including elucidation of the article, did not explain that the ratio of DER is  applied only on loan from a related party, as defined by Article 18 (4), from  overseas hence it is so different from DER rules in other countries which is only applied to the loan  lending from affiliated parties, especially overseas. If so, this could lead to the interpretation that Article 18 (1) has set restrictions on such loans for economic reasons.

KMK No. 1002 / KMK.04 / 1984 which has been repealed explained the definition of debt for the DER calculation as the average balance at the end of each month is calculated from all good debt long-term debt and short-term debt, other than trade payables. Definition of capital for DER calculation, based on the KMK, is described as the amount of paid-up capital at the end of the tax year including non-profit and / or have not been distributed.

KMK, such as Article 18 (1) of Income Tax Act, is also not clear that the application of DER ratio is applied only to loans from affiliated parties so that the application of the rules DER can be misconstrued as a restriction of foreign loans.

Conclusion
DER rules are needed to tackle the problem of tax avoidance through excessive interest expenses on loans from affiliated parties abroad according to the Income Tax Act and not to limit foreign borrowing undertaken taxpayer. Amendment of  Article 18 (1) in the Income Tax Act can be done for the sake of clarity and legal certainty and prevent misunderstandings on DER rules.

Catatan:
-Tulisan ini adalah tulisan asli sebelum (sedikit) diedit oleh redaksi Harian Kontan
-The English version is translated from the Indonesian version, I am really sorry that several terms may not be translated properly.  

Tax treaty yang merugikan

Indonesia tidak akan membuat perjanjian penghindaran pajak berganda (P3B) yang baru. Hal ini ditegaskan oleh pemerintah seperti diberitakan disini dan juga disini. Seperti dijelaskan oleh Menteri Keuangan:
 
"Menteri Keuangan Bambang Brodjonegoro menyatakan, selama ini tax treaty dengan negara lain secara bilateral justru merugikan Indonesia. "Makanya, saya sedang berpikir, apakah perlu moratorium atau me-review kembali tax treaty yang ada," ujar Bambang."

Permasalahan lain diungkapkan oleh Menkeu adalah adanya tax treaty yang merugikan Indonesia. Di tahun 2004, Indonesia pernah membatalkan P3B atau tax treaty dengan Mauritius.

NGO di luar negeri pernah menampilkan laporan tentang kerugian atas tax treaty atas negara-negara yang menandatangani tax treaty seperti dilaporkan oleh SOMO dalam laporannya yang menjelaskan kerugian, khususnya dalam withholding tax, dari berbagai negara yang mempunyai tax treaty dengan Belanda.

Apakah Indonesia akan membatalkan tax treaty dengan berbagai negara yang merugikan?

Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, apa pengaruhnya bagi Indonesia?

Tulisan ini didasarkan atas tulisan yang telah dimuat di ortax ,

Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, apa pengaruhnya bagi Indonesia? 

Oleh : Andreas Adoe[1]

Perusahaan multinasional seperti Google, Amazon, Starbucks, Microsoft dalam dua tahun terakhir  menjadi sorotan karena penghindaran pajak.[2] Sorotan terjadi karena masalah ketidakadilan dan etika karena mereka tidak melanggar hukum. Yang menjadi pertanyaaan, apakah hal yang turut dibahas para pemimpin negara-negara G20 menjadi relevan di Indonesia atau negara berkembang lainnya serta permasalahan apa yang harus dihadapi.

Google yang mendirikan anak perusahaan di Irlandia,[3] Amazon yang mendirikan perusahaan perantara di Luxembourg untuk pasar Eropa dan penjualan e-commerce hingga Starbucks yang menyalurkan bahan baku lewat perusahaan perantara di Swiss[4] adalah contoh salah satu contoh struktur yang banyak dibuat untuk menghindari pajak. Di Indonesia, banyak investasi dilakukan dengan mendirikan holding company di Belanda, Singapura hingga Mauritius.[5] Dalam beberapa contoh, perusahaan multinasional mampu meminimalkan atau bahkan menihilkan, atau double non taxation, dalam hal penghasilan seperti dividen, bunga, royalti, capital gain, jasa atau penghasilan lainnya. 

Laporan BEPS

Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), seperti contoh diatas, menjadi permasalahan karena  base erosion berarti berkurangnya pendapatan pajak  yang mengancam kewenangan perpajakan dan keadilan perpajakan di banyak negara dengan cara profit shifting.[6] Masalah BEPS menunjukkan adanya kekurangan dalam peraturan perpajakan antar negara yang banyak bersandar pada perjanjian penghindaran pajak berganda (P3B), atau juga dikenal sebagai tax treaty, yang mengatur hak pemajakan antar negara dan banyak mengacu pada model atas tax treaty yang dikeluarkan oleh OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).[7] BEPS juga menunjukkan kekurangan atas peraturan pajak dalam negeri yang mengatur tentang perpajakan internasional termasuk peraturan atas penghindaran pajak (anti-avoidance rule) dan peraturan transfer pricing. 

Laporan BEPS dari OECD menunjukkan adanya permasalahan kunci BEPS yakni:[8]

-          international mismatches dalam hal penentuan karakter entitas dan instrumen,

-          penerapan konsep tax treaty atas laba dari penyerahan barang dan jasa secara digital;

-          perlakuan pajak atas transaksi keuangan seperti pemberian hutang antar perusahaan;

-          transfer pricing terutama atas pemindahan resiko dan barang tak berwujud,  pemecahan secara artifisial dalam kepemilikan aset atau transaksi yang jarang terjadi atas perusahaan yang independen;

-          keefektifan atas aturan penghindaran pajak seperti anti avoidance rule, controlled foreign corporation, thin capitalisation untuk mencegah penyalahgunaan tax treaty (treaty abuse), dan

-          Tersedianya harmful preferential regimes,

Dengan melihat permasalah kunci diatas, OECD telah menerbitkan laporan lanjutan tentang rencana aksi atas BEPS,[9] yang berisi 15 aksi seperti, sebagai contoh,  aksi untuk mengatasi masalah ekonomi digital, permasalahan pajak atas aktiva tak berwujud (intangibles), metodologi untuk pengumpulan data serta analisa atas BEPS, pengungkapan perencanaan pajak yang agresif (aggressive tax planning) atau peraturan baru atas transfer pricing documentation,

  

Untuk negara berkembang, Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa (PBB) juga melalukan penelitian atas permasalahan BEPS khususnya untuk negara berkembang agar dapat mendukung negara berkembang atas permasalahan tersebut yang sejalan dengan pandangan PBB atas pajak internasional.[10] Permasalahan umum bagi negara berkembang dalam BEPS adalah karena sebagian besar negara berkembang lebih mengutamakan masalah sumber pajak dalam negeri dan bukan pengalihan penghasilan perusahaan dalam negeri ke yuridiksi dengan pajak rendah atau tanpa pajak, pajak perusahaan banyak berasal dari investasi asing yang masuk, juga karena keterbatasan kapasitas dari otoritas perpajakan di negara berkembang.[11]

Penggeseran laba

Penggeseran laba atau profit shifting tidak dapat dilepaskan dari offshore financial center atau negara-negara yang disebut tax haven yang tidak mengenakan pajak atau mengenakan pajak dengan rendah, tidak mempunyai transparansi atau pertukaran informasi perpajakan seperti dijelaskan dalam laporan OECD Harmful Tax Competition.[12] Undang- Undang Pajak Penghasilan (UU PPh) juga menjelaskan tentang tax haven di pasal 18(3c) tentang penjualan saham meski belum ada definisi jelas tentang tax haven.

Tax haven terkait dengan offshore financial center yang memberikan pelayanan bisnis bagi pihak-pihak yang berada di luar negeri dan bukan residen di negara tersebut,[13] meski tidak berarti satu negara akan selalu berada dua kategori tersebut namun ciri utamanya adalah hukum dan peraturan di negara tersebut dapat digunakan untuk melalukan penggelapan atau penghindaran pajak di negara lain.[14]

Karena penghindaran pajak dengan tax treaty, beberapa negara merubah atau membatalkan tax treaty seperti Inggris, Indonesia serta Jepang yang merubah tax treaty dengan Malaysia karena permasalahan Labuan dengan adanya Labuan Offshore Business Activity Tax Act,[15] Indonesia yang membatalkan tax treaty dengan Mauritius atau bahkan Mongolia yang membatalkan tax treaty dengan Belanda,[16] dimana semua ini disebabkan pendapat adanya penyalahgunaan tax treaty.

Permasalahan bagi Indonesia

Untuk mengatasi masalah penghindaran pajak diperlukan peraturan atas penghindaran pajak (anti avoidance rule) yang di Indonesia dapat ditemukan dalam pasal 18 UU PPh tentang transfer pricing, controlled foreign corporation atau special purpose vehicle yang dijelaskan lebih lanjut dalam Peraturan Dirjen Pajak No. PER-61/PJ/2009 tentang tata cara penerapan P3B, PER-62/PJ/2009 tentang pencegahan penyalahgunaan P3B dan PER- 43/PJ/2010 tentang transfer pricing.

PER-61 dan PER-62 tersebut merupakan satu kemajuan karena menolak pemberian keuntungan tax treaty seperti penurunan tarif pajak dan pembebasan pajak dalam hal penyalahgunaan tax treaty seperti adanya penggunaan struktur perusahaan yang tidak mempunyai substansi ekonomi dan penerima penghasilan bukan merupakan pemilik yang sebenarnya atas manfaat ekonomis dari penghasilan (beneficial owner).

Persyaratan tambahan untuk perusahaan luar negeri untuk mendapat keuntungan tax treaty, seperti tertera dalam Certificate of Domicile (COD), sebenarnya memiliki beberapa permasalahan yang perlu dijawab seperti:

-          memiliki manajemen tersendiri untuk menjalankan usaha

Bagi perusahaan multinasional, substansi usaha dapat dilakukan dengan membuat alihdaya (outsource) atas kegiatan manajemen seperti halnya trust office yang banyak terdapat di Belanda yang menyediakan jasa substansi usaha bagi perusahaan perantara.[17]

-          memiliki jumlah personel yang cukup dan berkualifikasi.

Tidak ada kejelasan tentang berapa jumlah yang harus dipenuhi

-          penghasilan yang diperoleh dikenakan pajak di negara tempat kedudukan perusahaan asing.

Perusahaan asing dapat berargumen bahwa penghasilan dikenakan pajak dengan tarif nol persen dan bukan dibebaskan pajak agar mendapatkan keuntungan tax treaty

-          tidak lebih dari 50% penghasilan yang diterima diberikan kepada pihak lain.

Dalam beberapa struktur perusahaan multinasional terdapat fiscal unity atau tax grouping  atas beberapa perusahaan yang dapat digunakan untuk memenuhi persyaratan ini karena penghasilan tidak diberikan kepada pihak lain. Demikian juga bentuk badan usaha di luar negeri tidak hanya berupa limited liability company tapi juga badan lain seperti partnership, yayasan hingga trust  yang dapat digunakan juga untuk penghindaran pajak.

Dalam laporan BEPS juga diberikan berbagai contoh struktur yang dapat digunakan perusahan multinasional untuk penghindaran pajak untuk e-commerce, kegiatan manufaktur atau penggunaan holding company,[18] dimana struktur perusahaan dapat dipakai untuk menguji apakah peraturan PER-61 dan PER-62 diatas dapat diterapkan untuk menghentikan penyalahgunaan P3B.

Untuk masalah transfer pricing, kemajuan terjadi setelah persyaratan untuk penerapan arm’s length principle dalam hubungan istimewa diterapkan sesuai PER-43 diatas. Peraturan transfer pricing yang lebih banyak mengacu pada OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines,[19] perlu juga untuk memperhatikan permasalahan yang diungkapkan United Nations Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries bahwa negara berkembang mempunyai permasalahan dan cara pandang yang berbeda dalam hal transfer pricing seperti dalam hal pembayaran royalti, jasa maklon hingga masalah intangibles.[20]

Pertukaran informasi dapat digunakan untuk mengatasi masalah penghindaran pajak, meski sepertinya lebih berkaitan erat dengan permasalahan penggelapan pajak dan Indonesia dapat menggunakannya untuk meningkatkan penerimaan pajak dengan pertukaran data perpajakan seperti data perbankan dan institusi keuangan serta data kepemilikan perusahaan, partnership, trust, yayasan hingga collective investment schemes.[21]

Kesimpulan

BEPS merupakan satu permasalahan yang juga dihadapi Indonesia dan merugikan Indonesia dalam hal perpajakan. Diperlukan peraturan yang lebih baik untuk mengatasi penghindaran pajak di Indonesia karena masih adanya kelemahan peraturan perpajakan yang perlu diperbaiki. Kelemahan peraturan peraturan dapat berarti berkurangnya atau menghilangnya pendapatan pajak terutama berkaitan dengan penghasilan perusahaan multinasional di Indonesia.

---

[1] Penulis adalah alumni Universitas Indonesia dan European Tax College, Tilburg University, Netherlands. Tulisan ini didasarkan atas seminar dengan topik sama di Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, Universitas Indonesia. 

[2] “Factbox: Apple, Amazon, Google and tax avoidance schemes”, Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/22/us-eu-tax-avoidance-idUSBRE94L0GW20130522  

[3] “Man Making Ireland Tax Avoidance Hub Proves Local Hero”, Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-28/man-making-ireland-tax-avoidance-hub-globally-proves-local-hero.html  

[4] Special Report: How Starbucks avoids UK taxes, Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-britain-starbucks-tax-idUSBRE89E0EX20121015

[5] Sebagai contoh dapat dilihat dari laporan BKPM tentang negara asal investor untuk investasi di Indonesia; http://www.bkpm.go.id/img/Press%20Release%20TW%20I%202014%20-%20ind%20-%2024%20April.pdf

[6] OECD Report, Addressing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, 2013.

[7] Istilah OECD (www.oecd.org) menunjuk pada organisasi ekonomi internasional beranggotakan 34 negara yang umumnya negara-negara maju yang memiliki misi untuk mendukung kebijakan yang akan meningkatkan ekonomi dan kehidupan sosial. Indonesia bersama-sama dengan Tiongkok, Brazil, India, Rusia,Afrika Selatan telah menjadi “key partner” bagi OECD (http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/#d.en.194378)

[8] Id, lihat Chapter 5, Addressing concerns related to base erosion and profit shifting, terutama atas key pressure areas.

[9] Lihat OECD Report, Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, 2013. Pada bagian ketiga dari laporan itu dijelaskan tentang Action Plan secara rinci.

[10]  Subcommittee on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Issues for Developing Countries, UN, http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/tax/BEPS_note.pdf.

[11] “Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries: An Overview”’ Hugh J. Ault, Brian J. Arnold;

Papers on Selected Topics in Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries, Mei 2013

[12] OECD Report, Harmful Tax Competition, An Emerging Global Issue, http://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/44430243.pdf; laporan ini sering digunakan untuk menjelaskan tentang tax haven.

[13] Concept of Offshore Financial Centers: In Search of an Operational Definition, IMF Working Paper, 2007

[14] Identifying Tax Haven and Financial Offshore Centers, Tax Justice Network. http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/Identifying_Tax_Havens_Jul_07.pdf 

[15] Ada sekitar 11 negara yang mengecualikan Labuan dalam tax treaty dengan Malaysia, http://www.lowtax.net/information/labuan/labuan-tax-treaty-introduction.html    

[16] Should the Netherlands sign tax treaties with developing countries?, SOMO, Netherlands (Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations), 2013.

[17] The Netherlands, A Tax Haven?, SOMO, 2006. Dalam laporan ini dijelaskan adanya trust office di Belanda yang memberi penjelasan tentang perusahaan Belanda yang diatur oleh trust office yang jumlahnya ribuan dan juga menyebut adanya perusahaan Indonesia yang mempunyai perusahaan perantara di Belanda

[18] Lihat Annex C : Examples of MNEs’ tax planning structures dari OECD Report, Addressing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. 

[19] OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations. banyak digunakan sebagai rujukan dalam sengketa transfer pricing di Indonesia. 

[20] http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/documents/UN_Manual_TransferPricing.pdf  

[21] Offshore Bank, Financial Center dan Penggelapan Pajak di Indonesia,  Andreas Adoe, Harian Kontan, 10 Maret 2014.