Wednesday, May 13, 2015

What is MAT (Minimum Alternative Tax) and the current dispute between FIIs and Govt.

What is MAT?

MAT was first introduced in 1988-89 to ensure that all companies pay a fixed percentage of their book profits as tax. Book profits are the profits made but not realised through a transaction. For calculating MAT, they are computed through a specific process.

MAT was withdrawn by the Finance Act, 1990 and then reintroduced by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996, with effect from 1 April, 1997.

As per the provisions of section 115JB of the Income-Tax (I-T) Act, if the income tax payable by any company on its “taxable income” under the normal provisions of the act is less than 18.5% of its book profits, then the company needs to pay MAT at 18.5% (plus applicable surcharge and education cess).

This tax is to be paid even if the companies’ tax liability, as per income tax laws, is lower than the mandated tax rate of 18.5%, owing to tax incentives and deductions availed by the company. MAT provisions were intended to tax zero-tax companies and companies paying marginal tax.

What is the current dispute between the government and FPIs?

The I-T department issued notices to foreign investors for levy of MAT on capital gains accruing to them from sale of shares, citing an August 2012 order by the Authority for Advance Rulings in the case of Castleton Investment Ltd that MAT is applicable on both domestic and foreign companies. So far, the department has sent notices to 68 FPIs demanding a total Rs.608 crore as MAT.

The FPIs contend that MAT provisions should not apply to them since they do not have any place of business in India and so are not required to maintain account books in India.

It has also been indicated at the time of enactment of and amendments to the MAT provisions that MAT is a levy of tax on domestic companies to neutralise the effect of tax incentives. A foreign company, especially an FPI, is unlikely to claim any of the specified incentives under the domestic tax law.

What has the government proposed?

In his Budget speech, Jaitley had exempted capital gains accruing to FPIs from levy of MAT. But these provisions would only be applicable from 1 April, 2015. “Exclusion of capital gain introduced in the Finance Bill, 2015 for FPIs would not have retroactive application to years prior to 1 April 2015 and accordingly, MAT provisions shall apply to income and capital gains earned by FPIs for years prior to 1 April 2015,” says Rakesh Nangia, managing partner, Nangia and Co., a Delhi-based chartered accountant firm.

Earlier this month, Jaitley also moved amendments to the Finance Bill 2015 to exempt foreign investors’ capital gains from the sale of securities, interest income, royalty and fees for technical services from MAT, in cases where the tax rate was less than 18.5%, a move which is expected to benefit private equity, venture capital investors and debt funds. But the minister refrained from giving any blanket relief from liability arising in previous years. In other words, the dispute on retrospective levy of MAT remains, which is to be decided by the Supreme Court .

The challenge for FPIs

For foreign companies that do not have any permanent establishment in India, the effect of MAT can be high as these companies may not be able to claim credit of MAT in their home country.

“The tax authorities have asked FPIs to pay MAT retrospectively. Since most of the FPIs have already distributed the funds back to the investors, it will be practically impossible for them to recover the funds in order to discharge MAT liability,” said Manoj Purohit, partner, Walker Chandiok and Co. LLP, a professional services firm.


“Paying MAT would negatively impact FPIs as most of their income is either exempt from tax under the Act or tax treaty or taxed at concessional rates of 15% in case of short-term capital gains. Considering that their intention is only limited to investing in India and the Act already extends various beneficial tax treatments to FPIs, the backdoor taxation of such FPIs by way of MAT is unfair and unjust,” says Nangia.

No comments: