by Duane Newman | Feb 27, 2015 | News
One of the big announcements in Wednesday’s budget was the further delay in a new tax that could have harsh consequences for industry — the carbon tax.
Photo: Sasol
We heard in last year’s budget speech that the tax was being delayed by a year to allow time for more consultation and the alignment of the tax with work by the Department of Environmental Affairs.
It appears that not enough of this has taken place, forcing another delay, probably with final details being announced only in next year’s budget.
Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene is unlikely to upset many companies if he holds off a bit on this measure, which is highly unpopular, except among its devoted fan base in the green movement. However, the potential damage will be enormous if this tax descends on industry, which is already reeling under the effects of Eskom power cuts, a disturbing fall in confidence among investors and a volatile labour market.
The concept of a carbon tax may look quite simple, but a lot of detail sits behind it. We think the government initially underestimated how complicated it can be when you get into the detail, and the potential effects are enormous on large energy users and carbon emitters such as oil, steel and cement producers and Eskom itself. Officials seem to have not yet done all the required technical work, and the response from industry seems to have been far stronger than expected.
Our understanding is that the government still believes this tax is a last resort. While it may be imperative to reduce carbon emissions, and the National Treasury would relish the extra multibillion-rand income stream, the government would bring in a carbon tax if other ways could be found to bring down carbon emissions.
The timing of the planned carbon tax is not great, with load shedding already placing a huge burden on industry. The problem is that there are not a lot of viable alternatives to the carbon-intensive electricity grid.
Although we are seeing more moves towards renewable energy and alternative energy resources, and while industry understands we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are limited alternatives and not enough incentive to change. Some believe the carbon tax will create this incentive to change.
So industry is being dealt a double whammy — a looming carbon tax, and it is also being load shed, and this means growth is limited.
Since 2009 SA has wanted to take a leadership role in climate change, but there is some concern that we are a developing country and we have other challenges. Our industries rely on fossil fuels, and until we can incentivise them and offer alternatives, it is premature to push through a carbon tax. Even so, companies would be wise to prepare for the worst.
If they are not already doing so, companies must measure their carbon footprint. Using this footprint, companies can then quantify their carbon tax liability, which allows them to understand the effects of a carbon tax on their operations and to start to investigate their options.
Companies should also start to understand the potential to access higher tax-free thresholds or rebates and what this would cost, and to start understanding what other incentive and grant opportunities exist.
Even if the carbon tax never comes, all these measures are worthwhile at a time when there is more and more emphasis on energy security and cost.
We welcome the draft carbon tax bill that will be introduced later this year for a further round of public consultation, allowing more time for careful thought and consideration. We must preserve the planet, but not at the cost of a crippled industrial sector and a further brake on economic growth.
Co-authored by Duane Newman and Joslin Lydall, originally published in BusinessDay Live on the 26th February 2015 available here.
by Duane Newman | Oct 15, 2014 | Blog
What do the Toronto Film Festival, Burger King, the G20, Scotland, the United Nations, President Obama and the OECD have in common? In September, they all had something to say about tax. It seems that tax is rapidly moving up the agendas of all sorts of companies, countries and organisations. Case in point, at the recent Toronto Film Festival, where Harold Crooks “The Price We Pay” was premiered. Among the issues it aired was whether tax avoidance may be immoral, but not actually illegal. While this film will probably not make it into the mainstream movie theatres, it shows that tax is becoming an issue on which social commentators are making their mark.
US President Barack Obama has made some strong comments about what is known as tax inversion – where companies decide to move their tax headquarters away from a high tax jurisdiction, such as the US, to somewhere with a lower effective tax rate, such as Canada. Obama accused fast food chain Burger King of being “unpatriotic” and branded them “deserters”, after they announced a merger with Canadian coffee chain Tim Horton’s Inc. which will effectively reincorporate them to Canada. These strong words show how sentiment about global tax structuring has become almost as strong…as it is about climate change.
Or take the recent Scottish independence vote. The Scottish National Party (SNP) stated that an independent Scotland would use aggressive tax structures to attract new investment, and that the corporate tax rate would be lowered to 17{fdf3cafe0d26d25ff546352608293cec7d1360ce65c0adf923ba6cf47b1798e1}. While it is important to have a competitive corporate tax rate, particularly for smaller economies, 17{fdf3cafe0d26d25ff546352608293cec7d1360ce65c0adf923ba6cf47b1798e1} is rather low – and this strategy would be likely to lead to a race to the bottom.
Recently the tax systems of 34 OECD countries were reviewed on over 40 tax policy variables by the International Tax Competitiveness Index (ITCI). Estonia was ranked first, and France emerged as the worst performing country. Estonia’s tax policy, with a low corporate tax rate of 21{fdf3cafe0d26d25ff546352608293cec7d1360ce65c0adf923ba6cf47b1798e1}, a flat 21{fdf3cafe0d26d25ff546352608293cec7d1360ce65c0adf923ba6cf47b1798e1} rate on individual income, property tax that only applies to land (rather than to a property), and 100{fdf3cafe0d26d25ff546352608293cec7d1360ce65c0adf923ba6cf47b1798e1} of the foreign profit earned by domestic corporations exempt from the domestic tax system, outperformed it’s OECD counterparts. France did poorly because it has a high corporate tax rate of 34.4{fdf3cafe0d26d25ff546352608293cec7d1360ce65c0adf923ba6cf47b1798e1}, high property taxes (including an annual net wealth tax), a financial transaction tax, high individual income taxes on dividends and capital gains, and an estate tax.
While South Africa was not included in this study, tax incentives are something I follow closely. The ITCI rating system penalises a country if it has an unusual array of tax incentives. SA has just such an offering, with companies being able to claim, for example, a 150{fdf3cafe0d26d25ff546352608293cec7d1360ce65c0adf923ba6cf47b1798e1} tax allowance on R&D expenditure, compared to countries that did well in the ranking – namely Estonia, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and Chile – which had no R&D tax benefits. South Africa seems to be moving in the opposite direction to the global leaders, with many amendments to the recent Taxation Laws Amendment Bill affecting tax incentives.
September also saw an update by the OECD of its Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) work, which effectively promotes multi-national corporations (MNCs) paying their “fair” share of tax to the governments where they operate. Quite a few BEPS documents were released by the OECD in September, and may be adopted at the G20 Summit meeting in Brisbane, Australia, next month (November). While the OECD has put a positive spin on issues such as Country-By-Country Reporting (CBCR) there has been quite a lot of criticism by, inter alia, the Financial Transparency Coalition and the Tax Justice Network on whether this will actually be a major step forward in transparency. A big discussion centres on whether the reporting of tax matters should be between MNCs and governments, so the information does not enter the public domain, and there are many conditions surrounding secrecy and confidentiality included in the OECD text. This would effectively mean, if the OECD approach is adopted, that MNCs will not be forced to disclose their detailed tax information in their annual financial statements. Because of this, there is a view that the OECD is promoting transparency – behind closed doors! This approach also seems to be supported by South Africa.
The other big issue on the CBCR agenda is whether developing countries will be able to implement the new reporting system by the planned implementation deadline, 2018. While South Africa will most likely be ready, most other developing countries will not.
Another important issue which doesn’t seem to be moving very fast is the treatment of so-called harmful tax practices, which covers preferential tax regimes offered by specific countries. What is interesting to note is that tax incentives on assets are not seen as a harmful tax practice even though they are used to attract investment and can erode the tax base.
Many critics believe the OECD needs to be looking at more radical changes such as a unitary taxation model – where worldwide profits (and taxes) of an MNC are allocated to each country by sales, numbers of employees and assets, to ensure that taxes are allocated fairly. An interesting concept, but it needs considerably more thought. In the meantime, forward-thinking MNC executives should find it best not to disclose more information on taxes.
While global tax policy is being decided on by 44 large countries – including South Africa through our G20 membership – there is concern that many of the 100 developing countries are not invited. Even when the 44 countries take part, it does seem rather secretive. South Africa does need to consider how it provides leadership to ensure the process is more inclusive. The African Tax Administration Forum is expected to be a vehicle for this leadership.
Finally, the United Nations has concluded another climate change meeting, and it seems that tax is finding its way onto the UN agenda. While I can’t imagine another body being set up by the UN to deal with tax, there has been a proposal to specifically include tax in the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), which will replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) from the end of next year. It is feared that developing countries might have lost more than 2.5 trillion US dollars in tax revenues over the period of the MDGs, so it is vital that the UN keeps an eye on global tax developments to ensure developing countries’ interests are looked after.
Closer to home, it is clear to me that tax should be moving up the boardroom agenda. Are you aware how these global tax developments could impact your business? Remember many SA businesses are global and tax authorities are everywhere. Just ask Mark Shuttleworth, the latest man to do battle with the SA tax authorities.
This article was prepared for Business Report and is available here.
