New world order for
international taxation
Multilateral Instrument
CA Monika Wadhani
16 August 2017
2
Multilateral Instrument -overview
3
MLI – certain basic concepts
Subsequent changes / modifications to MLI positions
possible – withdrawal from MLI also possible
Changes to MLI
positions
Will not replace the existing treaty, but operate alongside it
– supplement, compliment, modify its application
Impact on
existing treaty
Not automatically applicable – will apply only if both the
countries notify their treaty as a CTAApplicability
No – subsequent modification to the CTA possibleWill it freeze the
treaty?
To be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary principle
of treaty interpretation
Basic rule of
interpretation
4
Reservations Optional provisionsMinimum Standards
• Flexibility to opt out of a
provision if it is not a
minimum standard
• Option to choose among
alternative provisions
intended to address the
same issue
• Both the countries to
choose the same option in
order for it to apply
• All countries to meet
certain minimum
standards (Action 6 -
Treaty Abuse; Action 14
– Dispute Resolution)
• No leeway to opt out of
the minimum standards,
except in limited cases
MLI – Framework
Compatibility clauses
• Defines the relationship / addresses conflict between the
MLI and the provisions of a CTA
• MLI provision applies –
• ‘in place of’
• ‘applies to’ or ‘modifies’
• ‘in the absence of’
• ‘in place of or in the absence of’
Notification clauses
• Notify choice of optional
provision
• Also, notify the existing
provision of CTA to be
modified / replaced
5
MLI - SnapshotWhether the country
is a signatory to
MLI?No
Provisions of
existing treaty to
apply
Whether the treaty
with India is notified as
CTA
Provisions of MLI to
apply
Reservation made by
either of the countries
vis-à-vis the Article
Whether the Article
is a minimum
standard?
Yes
No Yes
Yes No
Optional provision opted
by both the countries
No Yes
Yes
No
6
Process timeline for entry in effect
7 June 2017
At least 5
countries to
submit
instruments
of
ratification
Signing
ceremony in
Paris
3 months
Entry in
force vis-à-
vis those
countries
Entry in force
on the first day
of the calendar
month after the
expiry of 3
months
Entry into
effect
from taxable year
beginning after six months
from the date of entry into
force in the later of the two
jurisdictions
For other taxes
For WHT taxes
from next calendar / taxable
year after entry into force in
later of the two jurisdictions
7
MLI - status
India has notified its Tax Treaties with 93 countries as CTAs under MLI
Out of 93 countries, 41 countries have not signed MLI as on date
Out of the balance 52 countries, 3 countries have not included India in their CTAs
49 countries have notified India in their CTAs
70 countries (including India) have signed the MLI till date
8
Status of other countriesCountries which have not included India in their list
of CTAs
Some countries which have not signed MLI
Some countries which have included India in
their list of CTAs
• Mauritius
• China
• Germany
• USA
• Qatar
• UAE
• Malaysia
• Philippines
• Saudi Arabia
• Brazil
• Thailand
• Kenya
• Singapore
• Netherlands
• Australia
• United Kingdom
• France
• Canada
• Japan
• Sweden
• Luxembourg
• Spain
• Korea
• Cyprus
India has also provided provisional list of reservations
9
Articles under MLIParts Articles Minimum std / optional and
India’s Position
Part I: Scope and Interpretation of
Terms
Article 1 and
2
-
Part II: Hybrid Mismatches:
• Transparent Entities
• Dual Resident Entities
• Methods for elimination of double
taxation
• Article 3
• Article 4
• Article 5
• Optional
• India has opted out of Article
3 and 5
• India has clarified that similar
provision is already existing
in all its 93 CTAs
Part III: Treaty Abuse
• Purpose of CTA (Preamble)
• Prevention of Treaty Abuse
• Dividend transfer transaction
• CG from alienation of
share/interest deriving value from
Immovable Property
• Anti-abuse rule for PE in third state
• Taxing rights for own residents
• Article 6
• Article 7
• Article 8
• Article 9
• Article 10
• Article 11
• Articles 6 & 7 – Minimum
standard. In addition to PPT,
India has opted for SLOB
• Articles 8 to 11 – Optional.
India has opted for Articles 8
and 9(4) & India’s position is
silent vis-à-vis Articles 10 &11
10
Articles under MLIParts Articles Minimum std / optional and
India’s Position
Part IV: Avoidance of Permanent
Establishment Status through:
• Commissionaire Arrangements
• Specific Activity Exemptions
• Splitting up of Contracts
Definition of closely related Person
• Article 12
• Article 13
• Article 14
• Article 15
• Optional
• No reservations made by
India
• W.r.t Article 13, India has
chosen Option A
Part V: Improving Dispute
Resolution
Article 16 & 17 • Minimum Standard – India
has expressed reservation on
MAP application in COS
Part VI: Arbitration Article 18 to 26 • Optional – India has opted out
of it
Part VII: Final Provisions Article 27 to 39 -
11
Part III of MLI and BEPS Action Plan 6 – Prevention of Treaty Abuse
12
Article 6 – Purpose of CTA [Preamble]“…to eliminate double taxation with respect to taxes covered by
this agreement without creating opportunities for non-taxation or
reduced taxation through tax evasion or avoidance (including
though treaty-shopping arrangements….)”
Minimum Standard
Compatibility clause – ‘in place of or in absence of’
India’s position – no CTA notified
13
Preamble – few examples
India-Mauritius
Tax Treaty
India-Singapore
Tax Treaty
The Government of ……….., desiring to conclude an Agreement
for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal
evasion with respect to taxes on income, have agreed as follows
The Government of ……., desiring to conclude a Convention for
the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal
evasion with respect to taxes on income and capital gains and for
the encouragement of mutual trade and investment, have agreed
as follows
India-
Luxembourg Tax
Treaty
The Government of …., desiring to conclude an Agreement for the
avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion
with respect to taxes on income and on capital and with a view to
promoting economic co-operation between the two countries,
have agreed as follows
14
Article 7: Prevention of Treaty Abuse
- PPT
- PPT along with Simplified or Detailed LOB
- Detailed LOB supplemented by anti-conduit mechanism
PPT as default option
Simplified LOB optional
Opted for PPT along with Simplified LOB
Action 6
MLI
India
15
• Para 1 – PPT is a mandatory minimum standard to be adopted
• Para 2 – Compatibility clause - Para 1 to apply in place of or in absence of existing
provisions of CTA
• Para 3, 4 & 5 – Option to make application to CA and Discretionary powers to CA to
grant treaty benefits
• Para 6, 7 and 16 – Applicability of SLOB
• Para 8 to 13 – Provisions of SLOB Clause
• Para 14 – SLOB clause to replace existing LOB clause if any in CTA, but shall not
reduce scope of application of other types of anti-abuse rules in CTA
• Para 15 – Right to reservations
• Para 17 – Notification to Depositary
Article 7: Prevention of Treaty Abuse
16
Principal Purpose Test• Notwithstanding any provisions of a CTA, a benefit under the CTA shall not be granted if
it is reasonable to conclude that one of the principal purposes of any transaction or
arrangement is to obtain benefit under the Tax Treaty
− Unless it is established that granting benefit would be in accordance with
the object and purpose of the Tax Treaty
• Supplements and does not restrict the scope or application of other provisions
• A benefit that is denied under other para cannot be claimed under this para
• Non-obstante clause – benefits available under other para can be denied under this para
• ‘Benefit’ includes all limitations on taxation imposed on the State of source (Eg: a tax
reduction, exemption, deferral or refund), relief from double taxation provided by Article
23, Protection afforded to residents and nationals under Article 24 or any other similar
limitations
• Obtaining the benefit under a tax convention need not be the sole or dominant purpose –
should be one of the principal purpose
17
• Provisions wider than GAAR
• ‘Arrangement or Transaction’ should be interpreted broadly and include any agreement,
understanding, scheme, transaction or series of transactions, whether or not they are
legally enforceable.
• Requires objective analysis and not conclusive proof of the aims and objects of all
persons involved in putting that arrangement or transaction in place
• ‘Subjectivity involved in demonstrating that ‘principal purpose’ is not to obtain a tax
benefit
• In cases where the PPT is not satisfied, it may result in denial of Tax Treaty benefits
such as - Lower rate of WHT, restricted definition of royalty / FTS, Non-applicability of
beneficial Permanent Establishment provisions, Capital gain tax exemption, etc.
Imperative to demonstrate substance and commercial rationale
Principal Purpose Test
18
Parent Co. holds entire share capital in
S Co and has granted loan to S Co.
T Co acquires all the shares and debt
of S Co. from Parent Co.
No Tax Treaty between Country T and
country S
Interest paid by S Co. to T Co. subject
to WHT @ 25%
No WHT on interest under S – R Tax
Treaty
Interest paid by R Co to T Co subject to
WHT @5%
T Co. transfers the loan to R Co. in
exchange of a promissory note
T Co.
Parent Co
Country T
Country S
1. Sale of shares
of S Co
2. Transfer of
loan
S Co.
R Co.
Country R
Loan
3. Transfer of loan
4. Promissory
note
6. Interest
5. Interest
PPT Rule: Example 1 – Interest deduction
BEPS Recommendation:
While the loan may have been granted to S
Co for a valid commercial reasons, if it is
shown that one of the principal purposes of T
CO in transferring the loan to R Co. was to
obtain the benefit of R–S Tax Treaty, then
the benefits could be denied under Para 7
19
PPT Rule: Example 2 RCo, a company resident of State R, is in the business of
producing electronic devices and its business is expanding
rapidly.
It is now considering establishing a manufacturing plant in a
developing country in order to benefit from lower manufacturing
costs.
After a preliminary review, possible locations in three different
countries are identified. All 3 countries provide similar
environments.
After considering the fact that State S is the only one of these
countries with which State R has a tax convention, the decision
is made to build the plant in that State.
Can treaty benefit be denied?
State A
R Co.
State B
State S
BEPS recommendations
• Whilst the decision to invest in State S is taken in the light of the benefits provided by the State
R-State S tax convention, it is clear that the principal purpose for making that investment and
building the plant are related to the expansion of R Co’s business and the lower manufacturing
costs of that country
• Given that a general objective of tax conventions is to encourage cross-border investment,
obtaining the benefits of the State R-State S convention for the investment in the plant built in
State S is in accordance with the object and purpose of the provisions of that convention
20
PPT rule not to apply if R Co undertakes significant FAR for providing services through its own
personnel
T Co
X Co Y Co Z Co Q Co
R Co • T Co owns number of operating
subsidiaries in different countries
• It sets up R Co, regional company, to
render accounting, legal, HR, financing
& treasury services, etc.
• This decision is mainly driven by
o Availability of skilled labour, reliable
legal system, business friendly
environment, political stability,
sophisticated banking industry,
etc.; and
o the comprehensive double taxation
Tax Treaty network of State R
PPT Rule: Example 3 – Management services
21
• India’s position
− Notified Articles in 36 Tax Treaties
− MLI provision will replace the existing
provision in these Treaties, subject to
similar notification by other countries –
e.g. UK, Luxembourg
− In other cases, PPT will supersede the
exiting provisions only to the extent of
incompatibility
• Impact on grandfathering under India-
Singapore Tax Treaty?
− Whether PPT to be satisfied in addition to
the existing PPT/LOB conditions?
− Whether granting benefit (subject to
satisfaction of the existing LOB
conditions) would be in accordance with
‘object and purpose’ of the Treaty?
Principal Purpose Test – India impact
A Singapore tax resident would not be
entitled to the capital gains tax benefit
arising on transfer of shares of an Indian
company, if
a) Its affairs were arranged with the
primary purpose to take the
advantage of that benefit; or
b) the company claiming the benefit is a
‘shell or a conduit company’
Singapore PPT
22
Simplified LOBArticle 7:
Para no
Particulars
8 Resident shall not be entitled to the benefits of treaty, unless it
constitutes a “qualified person” [‘QP’]
9 Who constitutes a QP
10 Alternative test – active conduct of business
11 Derivative benefits
12 Discretionary relief by the CA [‘CA’]
13 Definitions
23
• Tax Treaty benefits available only to ‘qualified person’, which covers:
− Individual
− Contracting jurisdiction / political subdivision/ local authority
− Listed entity
− NGO / regulated retirement benefit entity
− Entity in which atleast 50% shares held by above persons who are residents of the
State, on atleast half of the days in 12 month period
• Tax Treaty benefits to be available to non-qualified persons engaged in ‘active
conduct of business’ if income derived from other State ‘emanates from’ or ‘is
incidental to’ that business
• Active conduct of business - only if persons through whom the entity is acting, such as
officers or employees of a company, conduct substantial managerial and operational
activities
• Activities not falling under ‘active conduct of business’
− Operating as Holding Company
− Supervision / administration of group companies
− Group financing
− Making / managing investments (except banks / insurance cos / registered security
dealer)
Simplified LOB
24
Simplified LOB• Income ‘emanates from’ active conduct of business if
− There is factual connection between the actively connected business and item of
income
− Important to compare lines of business – upstream or downstream
• Complimentary business activity
− Part of same overall industry
− Need not relate to the same product or service
• Income is ‘incidental to’ the business if production of the item facilitates the conduct of
the business
− Income derived from the temporary investment of working capital
• Derivative Benefit:
− A resident who is not a QP shall also be entitled to tax treaty benefits if, on at least
half of the days of any twelve-month period that includes the time when the benefit
would otherwise be accorded, persons that are ‘Equivalent Beneficiaries’ own,
directly or indirectly, at least 75% of the beneficial interests of the resident
• Optional provision – applicable only if both the parties opt for it
• Possible to apply Simplified LOB symmetrically or asymmetrically
25
Example 1
A Co. is a company resident of State A
Engaged in manufacturing business in State A
Owns 100 per cent of the shares of BCO, a
company resident of State B
B Co. distributes A Co’s products in State B
Whether dividends paid by B Co to A Co entitled to
treaty benefits?
A Co.
Country A
Country B
B Co.
Manufacturing business
Distribution of
products of A Co. in
country B
100%
Distribution activity of B Co is “factually connected”
to A Co’s manufacturing activity
Dividends paid by B Co to be treated as “emanating
from” A Co’s business
26
A Co. is a company resident of State A
Operates a large R&D facility in State A
It licenses intellectual property to affiliates worldwide
Owns 100 per cent of the shares of BCO, a company
resident of State B
A Co. licenses intellectual property to B Co.
BCO then manufactures and markets the A Co designed
products in state B
Whether royalty paid by B Co to A Co entitled to treaty
benefits?
A Co.
Country A
Country B
B Co.
Operates R&D
facility
Manufacturing &
marketing
products of A Co
100%
Licensing
of IP
Example 2
Activities of B Co are “factually connected” to A Co’s
business
Royalty paid by B Co to be treated as “emanating
from” A Co’s business
27
Hold Co. is a parent company of Op Co 1 and Op Co 2
Op Co 1 and Op Co 2 are engaged in business of
manufacturing of same product in their respective
countries
Whether dividends paid by Op Co 2 to Hold Co eligible for
treaty benefits?
– Whether Hold Co engaged in active conduct of
business?
– If yes, whether dividends paid by Op Co 2 “emanates
from” Hold Co’s business?
Hold Co
Country A
Country B
Op Co 2
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
100%
Example 3
Hold Co is deemed to be engaged in active conduct
of business on account of activities carried out by
connected person, Op Co 1
However, dividends paid by Op Co 2 cannot be said
to be “factually connected” to Hold Co’s business –
treaty benefits not available
Op Co 1
100%
28
Hold Co. is a parent company of Op Co 1 and Op Co 2
Op Co 1 is engaged in business of manufacturing of
product in country A
Op Co 2 supplies input material to Op Co 2 for its
manufacturing
Whether dividends paid by Op Co 2 to Hold Co eligible for
treaty benefits?
– Whether Hold Co engaged in active conduct of
business?
– If yes, whether dividends paid by Op Co 2 “emanates
from” Hold Co’s business?
Hold Co
Country A
Country B
Op Co 2
Manufacturing
Supply of input
material
100%
Example 4
Hold Co is deemed to be engaged in active conduct
of business on account of activities carried out by
connected person, Op Co 1
Activities carried on by Op Co 2 provides upstream
inputs for use by Op Co 1 – “factually connected”–
treaty benefits available
Op Co 1
100%
29
Simplified LOBEntitlement to Treaty Benefits where SLOB is applicable:
Resident
Qualified Person
(Under Para a to
e)
Active Conduct
of Business TestOwnership Test
Discretionary
ReliefOR OR OR
Entitled to Treaty Benefits
AND
Treaty Benefits Denied
No
No
30
Simplified LOBInterplay between Paras 6, 7 and 16 on Applicability of SLOB
Whether both Contracting Jurisdiction (‘CJ’) have chosen to additionally adopt SLOB as per
Para 6?
PPT + SLOB
Whether CJ that doen’t want to apply SLOB,
enters into agreement with other CJ to apply
SLOB either symmetrically or asymmetrically
as per Para 7 (a)/(b) ?
PPT + SLOB (symmetrically/
asymmetrically, as the case may
be)
CJ that wants to apply SLOB, has
option to opt out of para 7 of MLI
completely and adopt minimum
standard as per bilateral
negotiations – Para 16
Yes No
Yes No
31
Simplified LOB – India impact
• Albania
• Armenia
• Iceland
• Mexico
• Sri Lanka
• Tajikistan
• Tanzania
• Uruguay
• USA
Countries that have chosen to apply Simplified LOB
• Argentina
• Armenia (India’s CTA)
• Bulgaria (India’s CTA)
• Chile
• Colombia (India’s CTA)
• Indonesia (India’s CTA)
• India
• Mexico (India’s CTA)
• Russia (India’s CTA)
• Senegal
• The Slovak Republic
(India’s CTA)
• Uruguay (India’s CTA)
Countries that already have Simplified LOB in
Tax Treaty with India
Countries where Simplified LOB to become applicable
• Bulgaria
• Colombia
• Indonesia
• Russia and
• The Slovak Republic
32
Action 6 – Treaty abuse – other Articles
Dividend Transfer
Transactions
ARTICLE 8 ARTICLE 9 ARTICLE 10
Gains from
alienation of
shares of entities
deriving value
principally from
immovable
property
Anti-abuse rule
for PE situated
in third State
ARTICLE 11
Application of
Tax Treaty to
restrict State’s
right to tax its
own residents
Not a minimum standard
No reservation made by India
33
Minimum shareholding to be met throughout 365 days for beneficial dividend tax rate
Article 8 - Dividend Transfer Transactions
Reservation made by India
Some of the Countries which have made
reservation on applicability
Treaties notified by India
• Portugal - higher
threshold of 2 years
mentioned in the Tax
Treaty
• Canada
• Denmark
• Singapore
In above cases, minimum
shareholding period will not
apply
21 Tax Treaties notified;
some of them being -
• Canada
• Denmark
• Qatar
• Italy
• Singapore
• USA, etc.
34
Gains to be taxable if value threshold met at any time during 365 days preceding
alienation (including alienation of interest in a trust / partnership)
Article 9 - Gains from alienation of shares of entities deriving value from immovable property
Some countries which have made reservation on
applicability
• Canada
• Singapore
• UK
In above cases, this
provision should not apply
Treaties notified by India
71 Tax Treaties notified,
including :
• Cyprus
• France
• Netherlands
• Australia
Provision gets replaced in the
above Tax Treaties
35
• Benefit of Tax Treaty shall not be available to the tax payer where income is derived
from the source State by the PE of such tax payer situated in third State, if
- Such income of the PE is not taxable in the resident State of the tax payer, and
- Tax in the third State on income of the PE is less than 60% of the tax in the resident
State
• No reservation / notification made by India
Article 10 - Anti-abuse rule for PE situated in third State
Some of the countries that have made reservation
• Singapore
• UK
• Canada
• France
In above cases, the
provision should not apply
Some of the countries that have not made any
reservation
• Netherlands
• Russia
Provisions would get added in
the Tax Treaty with India
36
Part IV: Article 12 to 15–Avoidance of Permanent Establishment Status
37
Artificial avoidance of PE
Text
ARTICLE 12(Agency PE)
ARTICLE 13(Preparatory/auxiliary activities)
ARTICLE 14(Installation PE /Service PE)
1 2 3
KEY IMPACT AREAS
Marketing support
arrangements by F Co. in
India
Agency arrangements in
India
Restricted exemptions for
preparatory and auxiliary
activities
Storage operations,
activities of liaison offices,
etc.
Artificial split-up of
contracts
Splitting-up of contracts
amongst multiple
entities
38
Article 12: Commissionaire / Market support arrangements
F Co.
Indian agent
Outside India
India
INDIAN CUSTOMERS
TYPICAL MARKET SUPPORT
ARRANGEMENT
Typical bouquet of market support
services rendered by Indian agents:
- Briefing customers
- Product demonstrations/ brochure
- Explaining product utility
- Communicating price/ price range
fixed by F Co.
- Resolving complaints
Scope of PE expanded to include agent playing principal role, leading to
routine conclusion of contracts, without material modification
Agent acting exclusively or almost exclusively on behalf of one or moreclosely related enterprises not to be considered independent
KEY CHANGES PROPOSED BY MLI
No reservations made by India
Likely rise in PE disputes – Imperative for corporates to mitigate risk through robust documentation
No agency PE, absent
authority to conclude
contracts
No PE if agent working for
multiple principles
CASE FOR ‘NO PE’ SO FAR CASE FOR ‘YES PE’ POST MLI
Substantive activities of agent leading
to contract conclusion, even if no
authority to conclude contracts
Multiplicity of closely related
principles to be viewed collectively for
ascertaining independence
Key treaties impacted Some countries that have made reservation
UK, Singapore, Cyprus, Canada,
Ireland, Australia, Luxembourg
Some countries that have not made reservation
Netherland, France, Japan,
Indonesia
39
Article 13: Restricted exemptions - Preparatory/auxiliary activities
TYPICAL EXEMPTIONS FOR PE UNDER VARIOUS
INDIAN TREATIES
No PE for F Co. in India if activities performed are
preparatory and auxiliary like:
a. Use of facilities for storage, display or
delivery of goods
b. Maintenance of stock of goods for the purpose
of storage, display and delivery
c. Maintenance of stock of goods for processing by
other enterprise
d. Maintenance of fixed place of business for
purchase of goods or collecting information
e. Maintenance of a fixed place of business for
other activities not listed above, if it is
preparatory or auxiliary
f. Maintenance of fixed place of business for any
combination of activities in (a) to (e) above, if
such overall activity is preparatory or auxiliary
Significant impact on ‘preparatory and auxiliary’ exemptions to F Co’s
Activities of F Co. need to be tested on individual, as well as
collective basis for meeting ‘Preparatory and auxiliary test’ [Option
A]
PE to be formed by disregarding fragmentation of cohesive business
operations whether :
- within entity; or
- within the group
KEY CHANGES PROPOSED BY MLISITUATION SO FAR
KEY IMPACT AREAS
Storage
operations
Liaison office
operations
Other non-core
business
operations
1 32
India adopts Option A
Key treaties impacted
JAPAN
INDONESIA
NETHERLANDS
RUSSIA
Key treaties not impacted
UK
CYPRUS
SINGAPORE
FRANCE
40
Article 14: Artificial splitting-up of contracts
Enhanced PE exposure for F Cos. undertaking long term construction/service contracts
F Co.TYPICAL
SPLITTING-UP
OF CONTRACT
• Turnkey contract given to F Co. by I Co.
• Contract split-up into several components
• Time spent on each contract less than
prescribed threshold
F Co. 2
PE to be formed by disregarding artificial splitting-up of
contracts between F Co. and its affiliates if:
- Installation activities performed by affiliates are connected to
F Co.’s activities; and
- Duration of each such activity (i.e. of F Co. as well as affiliates)
exceeds 30 days
KEY CHANGES PROPOSED BY MLI
Turnkey project
Outside India
India
22 months
Con
tra
ct-
I –
11
mo
nth
s
Con
tra
ct-
II –
11
mo
nth
s
F Co. 1
No reservations made by India
Some countries that have made reservation
UK, Singapore, Cyprus,
Canada, Japan, Luxembourg,
Sweden
Some countries that have not made reservation
Netherland, France, Australia,
Ireland, Indonesia, New Zealand
41
Part V: Article 16 & 17–Dispute Resolution
42
Article 16 and 17: Dispute Resolution
• Presentation of case to competent authority:
• Expresses reservation on presentation of case to either of the competent authorities – to
be presented by the taxpayer only in the country of its residence
• Time limit for presenting the case for MAP:
• Agrees with the model time limit of three years
• Extends time limit under Tax Treaties with shorter time limit e.g. Canada
• Adoption of Article 9(2) of OECD model convention:
• Agrees to adopt Article 9(2) through MLI
• Key countries aligned – France. Belgium, Swiss Confederation
• Key countries not aligned – Germany, China
KEY CHANGES PROPOSED BY MLI AND INDIA’S POSITION TO KEY CLAUSES
• Corresponding adjustments now possible with 27 countries subject to them including India
under Covered Tax Agreements and adopting article 9(2) through MLI
• Impetus in resolution of pending litigation especially with large trade partners
KEY IMPACT AREAS
43
Thank YouMonika Wadhani
Associate Director | International Tax and Regulatory
BSR & Associates LLP | 1st Floor | Lodha Excelus | Apollo Mills Compound | NM Joshi Marg | Mahalaxmi | Mumbai - 400011| India
Board +91 22 3989 6000Direct +91 22 3090 2830Fax +91 22 3983 2210Mobile +91 9920494385
The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. The views contained in this presentation are personal in nature and should not be relied upon to form any opinion.
Although there is an endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.
The views mentioned in this presentation are not binding on any authority or court, and so, no assurance is given that a position contrary to that expressed herein will not be asserted by any authority and ultimately sustained by an appellate authority or a court of law.