本篇重點是說德勤在毛里求斯的外國直接投資的重要性,我們列出了一個表格，標明了國家與毛里求斯德勤投資的細節,一年明細如下:

首先,許多的國家在毛里求斯與毛里求斯雙重課稅協議注入FDI指數，這點我們可以觀察到。考慮到雙重征稅協定的日期(德勤)，比較FDI指數在德勤前后的表現，從而再執行。這一分析之后,1990年之后國家簽署了被認為能夠分析會計狀況的德勤協議。

1993年,馬來西亞與毛里求斯簽署了德勤稅務協定,這個協議中我們可以看出,在1993年，來自馬來西亞的外國直接投資比1992年多兩倍。然而,1994年外國直接投資從馬來西亞跌了數百萬，外國直接投資指數下降了50%。因此,正如Eric Neumayer(2006)說,如果外國直接投資增長的預期是零,那么花在德勤協定中被浪費的利潤,因為成本影響將不會恢復。Tsilly達教授認為,這些條約為避免雙重征稅,但它有可能緩解手續繁瑣和協調各締約國之間的稅收條款。

To show the significance of DTT in contributing towards the FDI of Mauritius, we have conducted a table highlighting the countries having DTT with Mauritius and the year in which the DTT came in force, which is as follows:

First, the large number of countries having double taxation agreements with Mauritius injecting FDI in Mauritius can be observed. By taking into account the date in which the Double Taxation Treaty (DTT) was in force for the countries, a comparison of the volume of FDI inflows pre and post DTT will be carried out. For this analysis, countries which signed the DTT after 1990 will be considered to be able to make the analysis of the pre and post DTT agreement.

In 1993, Malaysia signed a DTT with Mauritius, it can be observed that in 1993 the FDI from Malaysia more than double compared to 1992. However, in 1994 the FDI from Malaysia fell to Rs60 millions representing a 50% decrease in FDI. From 1995 onwards, the FDI inflows from Malaysia followed a cyclical trend of ups and down. One can deduce that the DTT between Malaysia and Mauritius did not have a significant impact in attracting FDI in a consistent basis. Thus, as Eric Neumayer (2006) said, if the expectation of increase in FDI is nil, then the effort spent in concluding DTTs is being wasted since costs will not be recovered. And as Professor Tsilly Dagan argues, the treaties are not necessary for avoiding double taxation. But it may rather be for easing bureaucratic hassles and coordinating tax terms between contracting countries.

South Africa and Mauritius taxation agreement is a clear-cut example that the DTT played a major role in attracting FDI in Mauritius. The DTT between these two countries was in force in 1997. From 1990 to 1996, the average FDI from South Africa was Rs2 million annually. From 1997 to 2007, the average FDI between the two countries was Rs358 million annually. Dubai also increased their FDI in Mauritius following the DTT agreement, the average annual FDI from 1990 to 2005 was Rs18.56 million and after the DTT was signed in 2006, the average annual FDI jumped to Rs585.5 millions. There is a sharp contrast between the two time intervals before and after DTT was in force for each of the two countries, reflecting the importance of the DTT in attracting FDI in Mauritius.

When analysing the table of FDI inflows by countries in table 16, it is found that most of the FDI inflows comes from the countries having DTTs with Mauritius. Hence to some extent, one may say that the DTTs are certainly contributing to the FDI of the country. But as the Professor Rick Krever and Aristidis Bitzenis (2003) said, FDI is not affected by only DTTs (tax/fiscal incentives) but it also depends on certain other factors (non-fiscal incentives) like improvement of domestic infrastructure, promotion of local skills development to meet investor need and expectations, establishment of broad-reaching FDI promotion agencies, improvement of the regulatory environment and decreasing red tape (corruption) and engagement in international governing arrangements.

Mauritius and India first signed a Double Tax Agreement Treaty (DTAT) in 1983. The primary purpose of this provision was that the capital gains obtained by selling securities in India would not taxed for Mauritian residents in India.7 This agreement provides tax free benefits on capitals gains for investments if routed via Mauritius. The government of Mauritius put an end to the capital gains tax so that Mauritian-based foreign institutional investors (FIIs) would not be taxed when they invest in India.7 As such, Mauritius has made the most foreign direct investment in India, with 44% of the total FDI in India transacted through the island during the interval of 2000 and 2009.9 Investors are using the Mauritius route to invest in India to avoid taxation with allegations that overseas corporations are making use of ‘notional resident permit’ in Mauritius to evade taxes in India.7

Countries usually agree such treaties so that individuals and companies, with multi-national businesses, are not liable to double taxation on the same income in the country of origin and the operating one. However, problem comes up when such treaties are misinterpreted by tax authorities or such bilateral agreement are signed with offshore finance centres such as Mauritius, not charging significant income tax on domestic offshore firms which consequently provides a path for businesses to evade taxes or paying only nominal taxes.7

The root of this issue is that various so-called FIIs are, in fact, just Indian companies or individuals doing the process of ‘round-tripping’ through Mauritius so as to invest tax free back in India.7 Nevertheless, amending the treaty would simply move the funds to other jurisdictions such as Bahamas or Netherlands.

To be entitled to the benefits of India-Mauritius Treaty, one has met the criteria of being a resident of Mauritius. The government of Mauritius were able to more firmly enforce this core prerequisite under its domestic law for companies. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) recently announced that a Certificate of Residence issued by the authority of Mauritius will be enough to prove that a company is based in Mauritius.9

This announcement created political confusion but the Indian Finance Ministry reckoned that any step to tax the FIIs with Mauritius base would cause massive outflows, harm the stock markets and damage India’s glowing image. Thus the Indian Finance Ministry in collaboration with the CBDT advised tax officials to allow the domestic registration of Mauritius based firms, despite being controlled from third countries, including India.7

The response from the Finance Ministry caused public interest litigation (PIL) asserting that the authority may indeed be protecting tax evaders by acting in favour of investors who are routing through Mauritius principally to evade tax. The Supreme Court considered the circular as ‘bad in law’ and gave the green light to tax officials to examine the veracity of corporations in their attempt for being exempt from tax charges under the DTAT.7

The 1983 Indo-Mauritius treaty précised that any capital gains derived from the selling of securities of Indian Companies by Mauritius resident would only be taxable in Mauritius and not in India. For one decade the double tax agreement treaty only existed on paper as the Foreign Institution Investors (FIIs) were not permitted to trade in Indian Stock market. However when the regulation changed in 1992 allowing FIIs to invest in India, Mauritius in the same year passed the Offshore Business Activities Act which enabled registrar of overseas companies for investing abroad.

The advantages of registering a company in Mauritius are as follows:
- Complete capital gains tax exemption
- Rapid Incorporation
- Complete secrecy of Business
- Complete Currency Convertibility

An option for India would be to modify its current domestic law to unilaterally cancel out the effect of the DTAT. The Direct Taxes Codes (DTC) Bill passed in 2009 is an attempt to amend the tax system in India. The proposals below in the DTC may probably impact on the functioning of all the 75 tax treaties of India9:

When there is bilateral agreement between the government of India and the government of another country, the actual Indian tax law grants tax reliefs or if subject to double taxation, a taxpayer eligible to the benefits of the treaty, has the possibility to abide by the domestic tax law to the point to which it is advantageous for the taxpayer. Consequently, a non-resident taxpayer with income generated in India has the choice to be ruled by either the Indian domestic tax law or the relevant tax treaty, whichever is more advantageous to the taxpayer.

The DTC also enables the central government to come to an agreement with another government to avoid double taxation and for the motive of exchanging information to prevent income tax evasion or avoidance. The DTC, nevertheless, states that neither the treaty agreement nor the code will have favoured treatment based on its being a treaty or law and if there is a divergence between the provisions of a treaty and that of the code, the one later in time will be applicable9. This is indeed a major change from current regulations. India, having tax treaties with 75 countries, enacted the DTC in 2010 and will be in for on 1 April 2011, which would affect all its tax treaties including that with Mauritius. Implying that after the 1st April 2011, Mauritius-based Company transferring shares of an Indian company would be liable for taxation in India without any exemption from the treaty.

-The main purpose was to obtain tax benefits
-characterise misuse or abuse of the provisions of the DTC
-lacks commercial substance
-went through or conducted in a manner not normally employed for bona fide business purposes
-not created between person dealing at arm’s length

India’s Revenue Authority would assess and declare whether an arrangement is a permissible or impermissible avoidance arrangement. If declared impermissible, the tax official could disregard the tax treaty as well as the intermediary holding corporation and subsequently tax the income belonging to the parent company. For example, an arrangement would apparently have been gone through principally to be exempted of tax and the hurdle of the taxpayer is to prove that the use of the arrangement was not to obtain tax benefits. Notably, the GAAR provision would not be concerned with, and could overrule, the tax treaties provisions.

If the Direct Tax Code is enforced, investors using the Mauritius route to invest in India would find themselves in a complex situation as depending on the nature of their business, the new code may prevail over the Bilateral Tax Treaty. The ability to demonstrate to satisfactory level to the Indian Revenue Authority that the underlying arrangement is employed for bona fide business purposes and is a permissible avoidance arrangement would be a key factor to obtain tax relief.

(a) a business connection in India;
(b) a property in India;
(c) an asset or source of income in India; or
(d) the transfer, directly or indirectly, of a capital asset situated in India.

The insertion of the word “indirectly” in the current terms of the Income Tax Act 1961 is an effort from the authority to capture the “indirect transfer” of assets funds located in India. However, the following discussion will show that altering the current provisions of section 5(1)(d) of the tax Code to bridge the gap in the Act will not be the right way to proceed8.

(a) Company A, a French-based corporation, has the fully ownership of a subsidiary in Hong Kong, S1
(b) S1 has a full ownership of a subsidiary in Mauritius, S2
(c) S2 possesses 51% shares in an Indian Company X, with two Indian companies holding the rest of the shares
(d) Company X has full-ownership of a various subsidiaries in India.

Suppose that Company A sell some of his share in S1 at a gain to another French Company B. Tax-wise, there will be three concerns from this transaction, namely:

The first issue in this case is “identifying assets located in India”, that to determine whether we are transferring the assets of Company X or the shares of Company X or the assets of the Company X’s subsidiaries. Legally, a company’s shareholder has no control over the company’s assets and one good reason for this rule is that estimating the costs and profits of shares is not treated the same way for physical assets.

The second issue is to observe whether taxing Company A or even Company B would be “fair”, moreover, had S2 shifted its 51 percent of Company X, based on the Indo-Mauritius Treaty, capital gains tax would not be chargeable. To back this point, we can refer to the case of E-trade by stretching on the verdict of the Supreme Court in the Azadi Bachao Andolan Case where the Authority for Advance Rulings confirmed the Treaty position.

The third issue, Section 5 (1) (d) of the Code would require the corporate veil to be taken away at each stage starting from the subsidiaries of Company X to Company A, which to my mind is very unlikely as per existing law. The removal of the corporate veil is only allowed by the Case Law in limited circumstances.

The veil will be lifted if the structure is a “Fraudulent” but without evidence of the opposite, the company’s holding structure does not represent a “sham” (Upheld in case KSPG Netherlands Holding B.V.).

The fourth issue is that the Code does not come with a process mapping explaining how the gains on the “indirectly transferred funds” would be computed, especially when there is no method of figuring the “cost” of the “asset” and therefore creates the inability to figure the “taxable profit” (Decision upheld in CIT v. B.C.Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294). This issue would be more evident had S2 held more shares in corporation based in countries other than India and the buying price could not, as one would expect, assign a value to each entity.
Assuming that Company A’s capital gains are taxable in India, the problem that comes up for the Revenue Authority is how to get the receipts of the capital gains tax from Company A, which does not have any assets in India. Collection of the tax revenue from Company A would not be possible and nor is the tax collectable from Company X without any provisions of this matter in the Act. The only recourse left for the Revenue Authority is to pursue Company B B u/s 201 of the Act for failing to subtract tax when paying Company A and hold it to be an assessee deemed in default. Again, as Company B has its assets outside India, this would be difficult.

The above discussion shows that the provisions made on the Section (1) (d) of the Direct Tax Code are unclear and also worth mentioning is that the above arguments are only some of the delicate concerns involve in the proposed Code. It is very likely that these provisions will cause adverse consequence on the overseas investment flow in India.

The High Court of Mumbai’s verdict was that Vodafone International Holdings B.V, a Holland subsidiary of Vodafone Group PLC, was responsible to deduct Indian capital gains tax for the transaction involving the acquisition of 67 percent of Hutchison Essar, an Indian mobile phones operator, in 2007. Hutchison Essar was a subsidiary of a Cayman Islands company, Hutchison Telecommunication International Ltd. 11

Interestingly, the Indian Tax Authority stated that India had tax claims right over an acquisition completed fully outside of India between non-Indian companies. Following this statement, the Indian tax authority could have right on deals effected outside of India, but concerning indirect transfers of interests in Indian entities.11

Holland-based Vodafone International Holdings BV acquired Cayman Islands CGP investments from Hutchison Telecommunication International Ltd. CGP investments involve various Mauritian and BVI subsidiaries which altogether held 67 percent holdings in Hutchison Essar Limited6. The Tax Department of India claimed that the acquisition of CGP investments constituted the transfer of underlying Indian assets, Holland-based Vodafone subsidiary was liable to deduct the Indian capital gains tax of around $2.1 billion from the payment of $11 billion to Hutchison. 13

The argument of Vodafone was that if the stocks of the underlying Mauritius-based companies were sold in India, the bilateral treaty would have given capital gain tax relief.6 Even though, the High Court of Mumbai reckoned that the intermediate subsidiaries in conjunction with the Cayman target and Hutcheson Essar were incorporated in Mauritius, had a valid Certificate of Resident of Mauritius, the criteria to get Indian capital gain tax relief under the indo-Mauritius Tax Treaty, the High Court initiated proceeding against Vodafone.12

After the High Court analysed the facts of the case in deep, discussed due diligence document, interim and final annual report and regulatory disclosures, they observed that the operation comprised “the transfer of few rights and entitlements other than the shareholding in the Cayman entity alone.” These encompassed a premium for more control on the cellular sector, the Hutch brand’s right in India, a non-competition with the Hutch group accord, the handover of intra-group loan obligations and some option rights on specific Indian entities. These facts showed that Vodafone had “significant nexus” with India and enough for the High Court to take actions against Vodafone.

Indian Premier League (IPL) has built-up into a huge $4 billion big money package of sponsors, TV rights and other franchises, charges and other proceeds. Recently, many IPL activities have been suspected to be unscrupulous, illegitimate and even illegal. Politicians and others are alleged to be doing the practice, called round-tripping, of converting their black money into legal money via Mauritius and other jurisdictions, even though officially recognised, have secrecy of their identities through shell companies and “benami” (False) names. There have been claims about match fixing and fixing of bids for team franchises as well as bribes, tax evasion, illicit betting and violation of foreign investment rules.15

Tax officials ordered the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to release the IPL’s balance sheet, the ownership and holding structure of franchisees and their agreement with IPL. Failure to do so, the tax official would then have recourse to the lifting of the corporate veil and track down information from the registered companies’ country, which in many cases is found to be Mauritius. There is a problem when Indian investors route their investments through Mauritius for money laundering purposes. The Indo-Mauritius taxation treaty includes the provision on exchange of information which tax officials will use to obtain information on the Mauritius-based companies’ ownership. However, there will be a legal procedures taking place before the banking information is divulged to another country.

The transaction may not be as simple if taxpayers have been jumping jurisdictions to conceal their identity and sources of funds. For example, Tax officials may be forced to look not only in Mauritius to follow the source of fund if the Mauritius-based company borrowed fund from entity from another jurisdictions such as Cayman Islands or Bermuda, two countries where India does not have tax information exchange agreement. However, after the G20 summit, Tax havens have agreed to employ the exchange of information agreements in accordance to the standards set by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Bank secrecy will no longer prevail and refusal to disclose the details on the home-based companies can make the country black-listed for harmful tax practices.