Commonwealth of Australia Explanatory Memoranda Commonwealth of Australia Explanatory Memoranda[Index] [Search] [Download] [Bill] [Help]
2016-2017-2018
THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (MAKING SURE MULTINATIONALS PAY
THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAX IN AUSTRALIA AND OTHER MEASURES)
BILL 2018
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
(Circulated by authority of the
Treasurer, the Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP)
Table of contents
Glossary................................................................................................. 1
General outline and financial impact ...................................................... 3
Chapter 1 Better targeting the Research and Development
Tax Incentive ............................................................... 9
Chapter 2 Enhancing the integrity of the Research and
Development Tax Incentive ....................................... 21
Chapter 3 Improving the administration of the Research
and Development Tax Incentive ................................ 43
Chapter 4 Regulation impact statement - Better targeting
the Research and Development Tax Incentive .......... 53
Chapter 5 Thin capitalisation ...................................................... 73
Chapter 6 Online hotel bookings ................................................ 83
Chapter 7 Removing luxury car tax on re-imported cars
refurbished overseas ................................................. 87
Chapter 8 Significant global entity .............................................. 91
Chapter 9 Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights ........ 103
Glossary
The following abbreviations and acronyms are used throughout this
explanatory memorandum.
Abbreviation Definition
ADI authorised deposit-taking institution
BEPS Action Plan The G20 and Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development's Action Plan
on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting
Bill Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure
Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Commissioner Commissioner of Taxation
Decision-making Principles Industry Research and Development
Decision-making Principles 2011
GST goods and services tax
GST Act A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax)
Act 1999
Incentive the Research and Development Tax Incentive
IR&D Act Industry Research and Development
Act 1986
ITAA 1936 Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
ITAA 1997 Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
LCT Act A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Act
1999
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development
R&D Research and development
SES Senior Executive Service
TAA 1953 Taxation Administration Act 1953
Transitional Provisions Act Income Tax (Transitional Provisions)
Act 1997
1
General outline and financial impact
Better targeting the Research and Development Tax Incentive
Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure
Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other
Measures) Bill 2018 (the Bill) reforms the Research and
Development (R&D) Tax Incentive (the Incentive) to better target the
program, and improve its effectiveness, integrity and fiscal affordability.
Schedule 2 to the Bill enhances the integrity of the Incentive by ensuring
R&D entities cannot obtain inappropriate tax benefits and by clawing
back the benefit of the Incentive to the extent an entity has received
another benefit in connection with an R&D activity.
Schedule 3 to the Bill improves the administrative framework supporting
the Incentive by making information about R&D expenditure claims
transparent, enhancing the guidance framework to provide certainty to
applicants and streamlining administrative processes.
Date of effect: The amendments in Schedules 1 to 3 generally apply to
income years commencing on or after 1 July 2018. Some administrative
amendments in Schedule 3 apply from the day after Royal Assent.
Proposal announced: Schedules 1 to 3 fully implement the legislative
measure Better targeting the research and development tax incentive from
the 2018-19 Budget.
Financial impact: The 2018-19 Budget measure Better targeting the
research and development tax incentive is estimated to have a net gain to
the budget of $2.4 billion in fiscal balance terms over the forward
estimates period, comprising:
2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
$314.1m $641.4m $763.7m $719.0m
The schedules implement most of the components of the 2018-19 Budget
measure. Other components of the 2018-19 Budget measure that
complement these legislative changes include additional resourcing for
additional compliance and legal activity.
Human rights implications: Schedules 1 to 3 do not raise any human
rights issue. See Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights --
Chapter 9, paragraphs 9.1 to 9.6.
Compliance cost impact: The reforms are estimated to result in a total
average annual regulatory cost for businesses of $25.2 million.
3
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Summary of regulation impact statement
Regulation impact on business
Impact: The reforms are estimated to result in a total average annual
regulatory cost for businesses of $25.2 million.
Main points:
• The Government is implementing reforms to the Research
and Development Tax Incentive. The reforms will refocus
support towards supporting additional high intensity R&D
expenditure, while also ensuring the program's integrity and
fiscal affordability.
• The 2016 Review of the R&D Tax Incentive found that the
programme falls short of meeting its stated objectives of
additionality and spillovers. The Review made several
recommendations to address this.
• The reforms are expected to result in an overall compliance
cost, arising from minor changes to the registration and
claims processes, as well as the initial adjustment to the new
program.
Thin capitalisation
Schedule 4 to this Bill amends the ITAA 1997 to tighten Australia's thin
capitalisation rules by:
• requiring an entity to use the value of the assets, liabilities
(including debt capital) and equity capital that are used in its
financial statements;
• removing the ability for an entity to revalue its assets
specifically for thin capitalisation purposes; and
• ensuring that non-ADI foreign controlled Australian tax
consolidated groups and multiple entry consolidated groups
that have foreign investments or operations are treated as
both outward investing and inward investing entities.
Date of effect: The amendments relating to the valuation of assets,
liabilities (including debt capital) and equity capital generally apply from
7.30 pm by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory, on 8 May 2018.
The amendments relating to non-ADI foreign controlled Australian tax
consolidated groups and multiple entry consolidated groups apply to
income years beginning on or after 1 July 2019.
4
General outline and financial impact
Proposal announced: This Schedule fully implements the measure 'Tax
integrity -- thin capitalisation -- valuation of assets and treatment of
consolidated entities' from the 2018-19 Budget.
Financial impact: This 2018-19 Budget measure is estimated to have the
following gain to revenue over the forward estimates period:
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
-- -- -- $120.0m $120.0m
Human rights implications: This Schedule does not raise any human
rights issue. See Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights --
Chapter 9, paragraphs 9.7 to 9.10.
Compliance cost impact: Minimal.
Online hotel bookings
Schedule 5 to this Bill requires offshore suppliers of rights or options to
use commercial accommodation in Australia to include these supplies in
working out their GST turnover.
Date of effect: These amendments apply in relation to supplies where
consideration is first received, or before consideration is received an
invoice is issued, on or after 1 July 2019.
Proposal announced: This Schedule fully implements the measure
'levelling the playing field for online hotel bookings' from the
2018-19 Budget.
Financial impact: As at the 2018-19 Budget, the measure is estimated to
result in a gain to GST revenue of $15 million over the forward estimates
period comprising:
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
- - $5m $5m $5m
- Nil
Human rights implications: This Schedule does not raise any human
rights issue. See Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights --
Chapter 9, paragraphs 9.11 to 9.14.
Compliance cost impact: Low.
5
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Removing luxury car tax on re-imported cars refurbished
overseas
Schedule 6 to this Bill removes liability for luxury car tax from cars that
are re-imported following service, repair or refurbishment overseas.
Date of effect: The amendments apply to importations made on or after
1 January 2019.
Proposal announced: This Schedule fully implements the measure
'removing luxury car tax on re-imported cars following refurbishment
overseas' from the 2018-19 Budget.
Financial impact: As at the 2018-19 Budget, the measure is estimated to
have a negligible cost to revenue over the forward estimates period,
comprising:
2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
.. .. .. ..
.. not zero but rounded to zero
Human rights implications: This Schedule does not raise any human
rights issue. See Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights --
Chapter 9, paragraphs 9.15 to 9.18.
Compliance cost impact: Nil.
Significant global entity
Schedule 7 to this Bill amends the definition of significant global entity in
the ITAA 1997 so that it:
• applies to groups of entities headed by an entity other than a
listed company in the same way as it applies to groups
headed by a listed company; and
• is not affected by the exceptions to requirements applying to
consolidated or materiality rules in the applicable accounting
rules.
The amendments also modify the rules that identify which entities must
undertake country by country reporting under the tax law to ensure these
rules are aligned with Australia's international commitments.
Date of effect: The amendments made by Schedule 7 apply in relation to
income years or periods commencing on or after 1 July 2018.
6
General outline and financial impact
However, the amendments do not apply for the purposes of penalties in
relation to entities that would not have previously been significant global
entities in periods starting before 1 July 2019.
Proposal announced: This Schedule fully implements the measure
'Company Tax -- significant global entity definition amendment' from
the 2018-19 Budget.
Financial impact: This is a revenue protection measure -- the revenue
impact is estimated to be nil.
Human rights implications: This Schedule does not raise any human
rights issues. See Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights --
Chapter 9, paragraphs 9.19 to 9.23.
Compliance cost impact: Minimal. This measure ensures that the law
operates consistent with the OECD model for country by country
reporting. The entities to which the amendments apply may have initial
transitional compliance costs to determine if relevant integrity and penalty
provisions will apply to them. It is not expected that the amendments will
result in entities having significant ongoing additional reporting
requirements.
7
Chapter 1
Better targeting the Research and
Development Tax Incentive
Outline of chapter
1.1 Schedule 1 to the Bill reforms the Research and
Development (R&D) Tax Incentive (the Incentive) to better target the
program, and improve its effectiveness, integrity and fiscal affordability.
Context of amendments
The R&D Tax Incentive
1.2 The Incentive was introduced in its current form in 2011. The
Incentive encourages R&D activities that might not otherwise be
conducted in cases where the new knowledge gained is likely to have a
wider Australian economic benefit. That is, the Incentive is intended to
support additionality in R&D activities and spillover benefits to the
broader economy.
1.3 Division 355 of the Income Tax Assessment
Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) provides R&D tax offsets to R&D entities for a
range of expenses and depreciation costs incurred on R&D activities.
There are currently two R&D tax offsets available:
• a 43.5 per cent refundable tax offset available to most small
R&D entities - those with an aggregated turnover of less than
$20 million. The refundable offset can be refunded as a cash
payment to an R&D entity if it exceeds the entity's income
tax liability; and
• a 38.5 per cent non-refundable tax offset available to larger
R&D entities and R&D entities controlled by one or more
exempt entities. A non-refundable tax offset may be used to
reduce an R&D entity's income tax liability for an income
year but any remaining excess must be carried forward to be
applied in future income years.
9
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
1.4 The basis for calculating R&D tax offsets is the concept of a
notional deduction. A notional deduction is generally recognised for
expenditure (Subdivision 355-D) on R&D activities and depreciation on
assets held for R&D purposes (Subdivision 355-E) subject to conditions.
These deductions are referred to as notional because they are only used to
calculate an R&D entity's entitlement to the R&D tax offset and for some
other discrete purposes (section 355-105). That is, the entitlement to the
Incentive for a notional deduction replaces any entitlement to an
underlying tax deduction.
1.5 The value of the Incentive (the 'incentive component') is
generally the difference between the R&D entity's corporate tax rate and
the R&D tax offset rate (plus the benefit of refundability where it applies).
For example, the incentive component of a large R&D entity receiving the
38.5 per cent non-refundable offset and paying the 30 per cent corporate
tax rate is generally 8.5 per cent.
1.6 Under the Government's Enterprise Tax Plan, the corporate tax
rate for corporate tax entities with an aggregated turnover of less than
$50 million has been reduced to 27.5 per cent. As this lower corporate tax
rate has been extended to more corporate tax entities in recent years, the
value of the incentive component of the R&D tax offsets has increased.
The $100 million expenditure threshold
1.7 The Incentive is subject to a $100 million expenditure threshold,
sometimes referred to as an expenditure cap. Expenditure on R&D
activities (notional deductions) in excess of $100 million is not eligible for
the full rate of the relevant R&D tax offset. Rather, these notional
deductions give rise to an offset at the R&D entity's corporate tax rate.
That is, excess notional deductions give rise to the same benefit as if the
expenditure had instead been claimed as an ordinary tax deduction,
eliminating any incentive component.
1.8 The $100 million expenditure threshold and some associated
provisions are legislated to sunset on 1 July 2024 under Part 2 of
Schedule 1 to the Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development)
Act 2015.
Review of the R&D Tax Incentive
1.9 The Government's reforms are made in response to the
recommendations of the 2016 Review of the R&D Tax Incentive.
10
Better targeting the Research and Development Tax Incentive
1.10 The Review was commissioned as part of the Government's
National Innovation and Science Agenda. The Review Panel was chaired
by the Chair of Innovation and Science Australia (ISA), Mr Bill
Ferris AC, Australia's Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel AO, and the
Secretary to the Treasury, Mr John Fraser. The Review Panel was asked to
identify opportunities to improve the effectiveness and integrity of the
program, including how its focus could be sharpened to encourage
additional R&D activities in Australia.
1.11 The Review found the Incentive was failing to fully achieve its
objectives of generating additional R&D activities and was not well
targeted, providing benefits for R&D activities that would have been
undertaken without the Incentive.
1.12 The Review also found the cost of the Incentive had exceeded
initial estimates. The cost of the Incentive was expected to be $1.8 billion
per annum when it was introduced in 2011-12. In 2016-17, it cost around
$3 billion.
1.13 The Review made numerous recommendations to improve the
integrity and effectiveness of the program and to promote its objectives.
The Review also made recommendations to improve the administration of
the Incentive. The ISA 2030 Strategic Plan, published in January 2018,
made alternative recommendations, informed by feedback provided on the
Review report. A number of the Review's recommendations were adopted
by Government in the 2018-19 Budget.
Summary of new law
1.14 Schedule 1 to the Bill improves the targeting of the Incentive
through the following changes:
• increasing the R&D expenditure threshold from $100 million
to $150 million and making the threshold a permanent
feature of the law;
• linking the R&D tax offset for refundable R&D tax offset
claimants to claimants' corporate tax rates plus a
13.5 percentage point premium;
• capping the refundability of the R&D tax offset at $4 million
per annum (however, offset amounts that relate to
expenditure on clinical trials do not count towards the cap);
and
• increasing the targeting of the Incentive to larger R&D
entities with high levels of R&D intensity, reducing the
benefits provided to certain entities undertaking R&D
activities and increasing the benefit to others.
11
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
1.15 In particular, large R&D entities with aggregated turnover of
$20 million or more for an income year are entitled to an R&D tax offset
equal to their corporate tax rate plus one or more marginal intensity
premiums.
1.16 The intensity premiums apply to notional deductions within a
range of R&D intensity where the R&D entity's R&D expenditure
(notional deductions) are expressed as a proportion of the entity's total
expenses.
1.17 In addition, Schedule 2 to the Bill makes a number of
amendments to improve the integrity of the Incentive and Schedule 3 to
the Bill makes a number of amendments to improve the administration
and transparency of the Incentive. See Chapters 2 and 3 of this
Explanatory Memorandum for more information.
12
Better targeting the Research and Development Tax Incentive
Comparison of key features of new law and current law
New law Current law
The expenditure threshold
The R&D expenditure threshold is The R&D expenditure threshold
increased to $150 million. applies to eliminate the incentive
component of the R&D tax offset in
relation to notional deductions in
excess of $100 million.
The R&D expenditure threshold is a The R&D expenditure threshold is
permanent feature of the law. legislated to cease on 1 July 2024.
The R&D Tax Offset for small R&D entities
R&D entities with aggregated R&D entities with aggregated
turnover of less than $20 million are turnover of less than $20 million are
generally entitled to an R&D tax generally entitled to an R&D tax
offset rate equal to their corporate tax offset rate of 43.5 per cent.
rate plus a 13.5 per cent premium.
The amount of a refund that an R&D R&D entities with aggregated
entity can receive is capped at turnover of less than $20 million are
$4 million per annum. entitled to a tax refund for any R&D
Offset amounts that relate to tax offset they receive in excess of
expenditure on clinical trials do not their income tax liabilities.
count towards the cap and remain
refundable.
The R&D Tax Offset for large R&D entities
R&D entities with aggregated R&D entities with aggregated
turnover of $20 million or more are turnover of $20 million or more are
entitled to an R&D tax offset equal to entitled to a non-refundable R&D tax
their corporate tax rate plus a offset at a rate of 38.5 per cent.
premium based on the level of their
incremental R&D intensity for their
R&D expenditure.
Detailed explanation of new law
Increasing the expenditure threshold
1.18 The $100 million expenditure threshold is increased to
$150 million per annum. [Schedule 1, item 11, subsection 355-100(3) of the
ITAA 1997]
13
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
1.19 The increase allows R&D entities to claim additional amounts of
concessional R&D tax offset on R&D activities. The purpose of this
amendment is to increase the incentive for large R&D entities to continue
to engage in R&D activities as their R&D expenditure exceeds $100
million.
1.20 The current law provides that the expenditure threshold will
cease on 1 July 2024 and requires the Government to conduct a review of
the threshold after 5 March 2020. In light of the 2016 Review and the
changes to the threshold adopted by the Government, the requirement for
the review is repealed and the increased threshold is made a permanent
feature of the law. [Schedule 1, items 13, 15 and 16, section 355-750 of the
ITAA 1997, table item 3 in subsection 2(1) of the Tax Laws Amendment (Research and
Development) Act 2015 and Part 2 of Schedule 1 to that Act]
The refundable R&D tax offset for small R&D entities
1.21 An R&D entity with aggregated turnover of less than
$20 million for an income year is generally entitled to a refundable R&D
tax offset equal to their corporate tax rate plus 13.5 percentage points.
[Schedule 1, item 6, table item 1 in subsection 355-100(1) of the ITAA 1997]
1.22 This offset does not apply to an R&D entity controlled by one or
more exempt entities. These R&D entities are instead entitled to the
non-refundable R&D tax offset available to large R&D entities.
[Schedule 1, item 7, table item 2 in subsection 355-100(1) of the ITAA 1997]
The cap on refundable R&D tax offsets for small R&D entities
1.23 Only the first $4 million of any R&D tax offset is a refundable
tax offset. Any excess amount of R&D tax offset must be carried forward
as a non-refundable tax offset. [Schedule 1, item 4, subsection 67-30(1A) of the
ITAA 1997]
1.24 However, amounts of the R&D tax offset arising from R&D
activities that form part of a clinical trial do not count towards the
$4 million cap and may be included in a refundable tax offset. The
objective of this exemption is to incentivise clinical trials that have the
potential to demonstrate a net improvement in health outcomes.
[Schedule 1, item 4, subsections 67-30(1A) and (1B) of the ITAA 1997]
1.25 Non-refundable R&D tax offsets are applied in priority to
refundable R&D tax offsets (table items 35 and 40 in subsection 63-10(1)
of the ITAA 1997). This ensures an R&D entity's refund cap is not
affected by amounts of taxable income the entity would have but for the
application of the R&D tax offsets.
14
Better targeting the Research and Development Tax Incentive
Example 1.1 The refund cap and expenditure on clinical trials
In 2018-19, Aperture Research has aggregated turnover of $15 million.
Without taking into account its R&D activities, Aperture Research has
an income tax liability of $500,000.
Aperture Research has incurred $20 million on R&D activities. Of this
expenditure, $5 million is incurred conducting a clinical trial of a new
medical device.
Aperture Research is entitled to a combined R&D tax offset of
$8.2 million: $20 million multiplied by the entity's R&D tax offset rate
of 41 per cent (the entity's corporate tax rate of 27.5 per cent plus
13.5 percentage points).
$2.05 million of the tax offset (41 per cent of $5 million) is attributable
to the clinical trial.
$6.15 million of the tax offset (41 per cent of $15 million) is
attributable to other R&D activities.
Aperture Research is entitled to a refundable tax offset of
$6.05 million. Because the value of the offset not attributable to a
clinical trial exceeds $4 million, Aperture Research's refundable tax
offset is the offset attributable to its R&D activities forming part of the
clinical trial ($2.05 million) plus $4 million.
The remaining $2.15 million is a non-refundable tax offset.
The $2.15 million non-refundable tax offset is applied in priority to the
refundable tax offset.
$500,000 of the non-refundable tax offset can be applied to reduce
Aperture Research's income tax liability for the 2018-19 income year
to nil. The value of the remaining $1.65 million non-refundable tax
offset is not lost, as it can be carried forward and is available to be
applied against assessable income in future income years.
After applying the non-refundable tax offset against its income tax
liability for the 2018-19 income year, Aperture Research is able to
apply the refundable tax offset to obtain a cash refund of $6.05 million.
1.26 A clinical trial is a planned study of the safety or efficacy in
humans of an intervention (including a medicine, vaccine, treatment,
diagnostic procedure or medical device) with the aim of achieving at least
one of the following:
• the discovery, or verification, of clinical, pharmacological or
pharmacodynamic effects;
• the identification of adverse reactions or adverse effects;
• the study of absorption, distribution, metabolism or
excretion.
15
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
1.27 An intervention in humans in this context includes any
technique, treatment or diagnostic procedure for improving human health,
and includes any good that is a therapeutic good for the purposes of the
Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. For example, the definition includes:
• medicines (including vaccines);
• medical devices (including in-vitro diagnostics and
software);
• cells, tissues and other biological products;
• surgical procedures; and
• radiological procedures.
1.28 The discovery or verification of clinical effects is a broad
concept and includes, for example, the immunogenicity of vaccines i.e.
the ability of the vaccine to provoke an immune response in a human. It
also includes the performance of medical devices.
1.29 This definition only applies for the purposes of the Incentive and
does not affect the meaning of the term 'clinical trial' as used in other
legislation. [Schedule 1, items 4 and 14, subsections 67-30(1C) and 995-1(1)
(definition of 'clinical trial') of the ITAA 1997]
1.30 The clinical trial exemption only applies for the purposes of the
R&D tax offset if an R&D entity has registered an activity as both an
R&D activity and an activity that forms part of a clinical trial. Similarly,
the exemption only applies to expenditure on clinical trials if the
expenditure is on R&D activities registered with ISA.
1.31 Amendments are made to the Industry Research and
Development Act 1986 (IR&D Act) to provide the Board of ISA with the
power to register R&D activities forming part of a clinical trial. The
Board of ISA may also make findings binding on the Commissioner of
Taxation (the Commissioner) about whether an R&D entity's activities
satisfy the definition of clinical trials. The Board of ISA may make these
findings as part of the registration process for the R&D entity's R&D
activities more generally or as an advance finding on application by the
entity. [Schedule 3, items 4 and 6 to 15, subsection 4(1) (definition of 'clinical trial'),
subsection 27A(1), paragraphs 27B(1)(e) and (f), 27J(1)(e) and (f), and 28A(1)(ca)
and (cb), section 28, Note 2 to subsection 27B(1), Note 3 to subsection 27E(2), Note 3 to
subsection 277H(2), and Note 2 to subsection 27J(1) of the IR&D Act]
1.32 The Board of ISA may also make public determinations that are
not specific to a particular R&D entity but that provide general guidance,
including in relation to the activities it will consider form part of a clinical
trial (see paragraphs 3.24 to 3.38).
16
Better targeting the Research and Development Tax Incentive
Intensity-based R&D tax offset for large R&D entities
1.33 R&D entities with aggregated turnover of $20 million or more
for an income year are entitled to an R&D tax offset equal to their
corporate tax rate plus marginal intensity premiums determined with
reference to the R&D intensity of their R&D expenditure on an
incremental basis. [Schedule 1, items 7 and 9, table item 3 in subsection 355-100(1)
and subsection 355-100(1A) of the ITAA 1997]
1.34 The intensity premiums apply to notional deductions within a
range of R&D intensity for R&D expenditure where notional deductions
are expressed as a proportion of the R&D entity's total expenses:
Table 1.1 R&D tax offset intensity premiums
Tier R&D intensity range Intensity premium
1 Notional deductions representing up to and 4 percentage points
including 2 per cent of total expenses
2 Notional deductions representing greater than 6.5 percentage points
2 and up to and including 5 per cent of total
expenses
3 Notional deductions representing greater than 9 percentage points
5 and up to and including 10 per cent of total
expenses
4 Notional deductions representing greater than 12.5 percentage points
10 per cent of total expenses
Example 1.2 The R&D tax offset for large R&D entities
Contrast Industries has notional deductions of $160 million in the
2018-19 income year, exceeding the $150 million expenditure
threshold. In the same income year, Contrast Industries had
expenditure of $1 billion. Its aggregated turnover exceeds $50 million,
meaning it is subject to the 30 per cent corporate tax rate.
Contrast Industries has an R&D intensity of 15 per cent ($150 million
divided by $1 billion). The portion of the R&D tax offset calculated in
relation the excess $10 million is calculated separately (see
paragraph 1.37).
17
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Contrast Industries' R&D tax offset for the income year is calculated
as follows:
Tier Intensity R&D Notional Offset
range premium deductions applied amount
Tier 1 0-2% 4% $20m $6.8m
Tier 2 2-5% 6.5% $30m $10.95m
Tier 3 5-10% 9% $50m $19.5m
Tier 4 10+% 12.5% $50m $21.25m
Excess NA Nil $10m $3m
Totals: $160m $61.5m
R&D intensity
1.35 To calculate its R&D tax offset, a large R&D entity must
determine its R&D intensity. That is the proportion of its total expenses
spent on R&D expenditure for the income year:
𝑁𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑅&𝐷 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑡𝑦 =
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛 𝑒
1.36 This is intended to provide a higher rate of support for
incremental R&D expenditure to R&D entities that devote a significant
portion of their overall operations to R&D eligible for support under the
Incentive.
Notional deductions
1.37 Notional deductions in excess of the $150 million expenditure
threshold do not attract an intensity premium and are not counted for the
purposes of calculating an R&D entity's R&D intensity (see Example
1.2). [Schedule 1, item 11, paragraph 355-100(3)(a) of the ITAA 1997]
1.38 If an R&D entity's notional deductions for an income year are
less than $20,000, the entity's notional deductions for the purposes of
calculating the entity's R&D tax offset only includes the notional
deductions that satisfy the criteria in subsection 355-100(2): that the
expenditure was incurred to a research service provider registered under
Division 4 of Part III of the IR&D Act or was incurred under the
Cooperative Research Centre Program. [Schedule 1, item 10,
subsection 355-100(2) of the ITAA 1997]
Total expenses
1.39 An R&D entity's total expenses are reported in their Company
Income Tax Return. The expenses reported at item six of a Company
Income Tax Return are the expense amounts taken from the company's
financial statements. [Schedule 1, item 12, section 355-115 of the ITAA 1997]
18
Better targeting the Research and Development Tax Incentive
1.40 The Australian Accounting Standards Board's Framework for
the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements defines
'expenses' (at paragraph 70(b)) as:
decreases in economic benefits during the accounting period
in the form of outflows or depletions of assets or incurrences
of liabilities that result in decreases in equity, other than
those relating to distributions to equity participants.
1.41 For companies that prepare a financial report for the income
year in accordance with the accounting standards and other
pronouncements issued by the Australian Accounting Standards Board,
those standards and pronouncements apply. For other entities, total
expenses are worked out in accordance with other commercially accepted
principles relating to accounting. [Schedule 1, item 12, paragraph 355-115(2)(a)
of the ITAA 1997]
1.42 An R&D entity's notional deductions are always included in its
total expenses. If an amount of notional deductions is not otherwise
included in an entity's total expenses, an adjustment is made to
nevertheless include it. [Schedule 1, item 12, paragraph 355-115(2)(b) of the
ITAA 1997]
1.43 Rules apply to prevent any double counting of amounts
recognised at different times as notional deductions and total expenses.
[Schedule 1, item 12, subsection 355-115(3) of the ITAA 1997]
Example 1.3 Total expenses
On 1 July 2019, Ace Designs acquires an asset for $20,000 that it uses
exclusively in its R&D activities. The R&D entity claims an up-front
notional deduction of $20,000 in the 2019-20 income year
(section 355-205).
For its financial accounts, Ace Designs uses the straight line method to
work out the asset's depreciation records. The asset has a useful life of
four years. Ace Designs records an expense of $5,000 in each of the
2019-20 to 2022-23 financial years for the asset.
An adjustment is required when the entity's total expenses are
calculated for R&D purposes in the 2019-20 income year. $5,000 is
included as an accounting expense under paragraph 355-115(2)(a).
However, an adjustment is made to add a further $15,000 to the total
expenses, under paragraph 355-115(2)(b). This reflects the additional
amount of notional deductions that are claimed in the 2019-20 income
year.
No amount is included in Ace Designs' total expenses for R&D
purposes in the later income years in relation to the asset. In each of
these years, the $5,000 accounting expenses would initially satisfy
paragraph 355-115(2)(a). However, the amounts are disregarded
because a corresponding amount was included under paragraph (2)(b)
in the 2019-20 income year (applying paragraph (3)(a)).
19
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Consequential amendments
1.44 A cross-reference to the expenditure threshold is amended to
reflect the increase of the threshold from $100 million to $150 million.
[Schedule 1, item 5, the heading to subsection 355-100(1) of the ITAA 1997]
1.45 A number of amendments are made to section 355-100 of the
ITAA 1997 to accommodate and explain the introduction of R&D
intensity premiums to the calculation of the non-refundable R&D tax
offset. [Schedule 1, items 8 and 10, Note 2 to subsection 355-100(1) and
subsection 355-100(2) of the ITAA 1997]
1.46 Similarly, subsection 355-100(3) is amended to reflect both the
increased expenditure threshold and the changes to subsection 355-100(1).
In turn, a consequential amendment is made to subsection 67-30(1).
[Schedule 1, items 2 and 3, subsection 67-30(1) of the ITAA 1997]
1.47 Consequential amendments are made to explain that the amount
of an R&D tax offset in excess of the $4 million refund cap is a
non-refundable tax offset. [Schedule 1, items 1 and 8, table item 35 in
subsection 63-10(1) and Note 1 to subsection 355-100(1) of the ITAA 1997]
Application provisions
1.48 The amendments commence on the first day of the quarter
following Royal Assent. [Section 2 of the Bill]
1.49 The amendments in Schedule 1 apply to income years starting
on or after 1 July 2018. [Schedule 1, item 17]
20
Chapter 2
Enhancing the integrity of the Research
and Development Tax Incentive
Outline of chapter
2.1 Schedule 2 to the Bill enhances the integrity of the R&D Tax
Incentive by ensuring R&D entities cannot obtain inappropriate tax
benefits and by clawing back the benefit of the Incentive to the extent an
entity has received another benefit in connection with an R&D activity.
Context of amendments
Recoupments
2.2 Where an R&D entity benefits from a government recoupment
(such as a grant or reimbursement) in relation to expenditure that is also
eligible for the R&D tax offset, a clawback applies to reverse the double
benefit that arises (Subdivision 355-G). In this context, only the 'incentive
component' of an R&D tax offset is intended to be clawed back.
2.3 The clawback takes the form of an additional tax on the
recoupment (and any other expenditure required as a condition of the
recoupment) at a rate of 10 per cent (sections 12B and 31 of the Income
Tax Rates Act 1986). The 10 per cent rate was initially selected as a
simplicity measure by making the assumption that the R&D entity
obtained the initial lower offset rate of 40 per cent (now 38.5 per cent)
rather than the higher rate of 45 per cent (now 43.5 per cent). The 10 per
cent tax rate also assumes a fixed 30 per cent corporate tax rate for all
R&D entities.
Example 2.1 Recoupments
Cross Innovations receives a $1 million grant to undertake R&D
activities. In addition to the grant, Cross Innovations must spend an
additional $1 million of its own money as a condition of the grant.
Cross Innovations receives an offset of $870,000 (applying the
43.5 per cent offset rate). Cross Innovations would have otherwise
been entitled to a deduction worth $550,000 at the 27.5 per cent
corporate tax rate. The incentive component of the offset is the
difference: $320,000.
21
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
In the same income year, the recoupment rules clawback $200,000:
10 per cent of the total $2 million spent under the terms of the grant.
Cross Innovations keeps the remaining $120,000 of the offset
incentive. However, the grant alone is intended to constitute sufficient
incentive without the need for the R&D Tax Incentive to continue to
apply.
2.4 The recoupment rules also apply where an R&D entity receives
a recoupment for expenditure incurred by another entity to which it is
connected or affiliated (subsection 355-450(4)). In these situations, the
R&D entity receiving the recoupment is subject to the clawback tax even
though the other entity obtained the financial benefit of the R&D tax
offset.
Feedstock adjustments
2.5 Feedstock adjustments apply to recoup the benefit of the
Incentive to the extent it relates to goods, material or energy used to
produce marketable products sold or applied to the R&D entity's own use
(Subdivision 355-H).
2.6 The intended net outcome is that the Incentive is effectively
enjoyed on feedstock expenditure to the extent that it is not offset by
feedstock revenue. This is achieved by basing the adjustment on the lesser
of feedstock expenditure and feedstock revenue.
2.7 Where feedstock revenue exceeds the feedstock output's related
feedstock expenditure, the feedstock adjustment will be based on the
feedstock expenditure -- because the effective net cost of the feedstock
inputs and energy was nil.
2.8 Where feedstock revenue is less than the feedstock output's
related feedstock expenditure, the feedstock adjustment will be based on
the feedstock revenue -- because the effective net cost of the feedstock
inputs and energy was reduced by that amount.
2.9 The adjustment is implemented by including one third of the
lesser of feedstock expenditure or feedstock revenue in the R&D entity's
assessable income (subsection 355-465(2)). As with the recoupments in
Subdivision 355-G, the one third formula is intended to recoup 10
percentage points of the Incentive (based on a standard 30 per cent
corporate tax rate).
2.10 In contrast to the recoupment provisions, feedstock adjustments
are incorporated into the income tax equation in section 4-10 and do not
create a new tax.
22
Enhancing the integrity of the Research and Development Tax Incentive
Example 2.2 Feedstock adjustments
Wayland Enterprises, a large R&D entity, spends $100,000 on the
development of a new product, producing one tangible product, which
it then sells for $110,000. Wayland Enterprises is entitled to a $38,500
offset (with an in incentive component of $8,500).
$33,333 is included in Wayland Enterprises' assessable income (one
third of the feedstock expenditure). After applying the corporate tax
rate to the amount included in assessable income, the feedstock
adjustment would claw back 10 per cent of the offset: $10,000, which
is more than the incentive component.
However, if Wayland Enterprises was a small R&D entity in the same
position, it would claim an offset of $43,500 (with an incentive
component of $16,000).
The $33,333 would be included in assessable income and taxed at the
27.5 per cent corporate tax rate. The feedstock adjustment would claw
1
back just 9 per cent of the offset: $9,166.67.
6
2.11 The feedstock rules also apply where an R&D entity receives
feedstock revenue in relation to an R&D tax offset obtained by another
entity to which it is connected or affiliated (section 355-75). However, in
these situations, the R&D entity originally entitled to the R&D tax offset
is subject to the feedstock adjustment rather than the entity receiving the
feedstock revenue. This represents a further inconsistency between the tax
treatment of feedstock revenue and recoupments.
Balancing adjustments
2.12 Balancing adjustment events occur when an entity stops holding
a depreciating asset, for example when the entity sells the asset
(section 40-295). Balancing adjustment events require an entity to
compare the economic value of the asset (its termination value
(section 40-300)) with its written-down tax value (its adjusted value
(section 40-85)).
2.13 If an asset's termination value exceeds its adjusted value, the
difference (the balancing adjustment amount) is included in the entity's
assessable income in the income year in which the balancing adjustment
event occurs. If an asset's adjusted value exceeds its termination value,
the entity is allowed a deduction for the difference. As such, the balancing
adjustment ensures an entity's overall tax position reflects the true decline
in value of the asset (section 40-285).
23
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
2.14 R&D entities can obtain an R&D tax offset for the decline in
value of depreciating assets held for R&D purposes (an R&D asset)
(section 355-305). This necessitates additional consequences arising from
a balancing adjustment for the R&D asset:
• for an R&D asset held only for R&D purposes where the
balancing adjustment amount is included in the R&D entity's
assessable income - the amount is generally increased by one
third (subsection 355-315(3));
• for an R&D asset held only for R&D purposes where the
balancing adjustment amount is allowed as a deduction - the
deduction is included in the R&D entity's R&D tax offset
calculation (subsection 355-315(2));
• for an R&D asset held partially for R&D purposes where the
balancing adjustment amount is included in the R&D entity's
assessable income - the part of the amount attributable to the
asset's R&D use (the R&D component) is generally
increased by one third (subsection 40-292(4)); and
• for an R&D asset held partially for R&D purposes where the
balancing adjustment amount is allowed as a deduction - the
R&D component of the amount is generally increased by one
third or (for small R&D entities) or one half (subsection 40-
292(3)).
2.15 Similar rules apply to R&D assets held by R&D partnerships
(sections 40-293 and 355-525).
2.16 Transitional rules apply in a similar way to R&D assets acquired
prior to the introduction of the Incentive in 2011. These transitional rules
further increase certain balancing adjustment amounts to reflect old 1.25
rate deductions available for R&D assets under the pre-2011 law
(subsections 40-292(3), 40-293(3), 355-20(4) and 255-25(4) of the Income
Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 (the Transitional Provisions Act)).
These transitional rules do not apply to deductible balancing adjustment
amounts in respect of R&D assets used only for R&D purposes.
2.17 As with the feedstock and recoupment adjustment rules, these
R&D balancing adjustment rules rely on rough approximations of the
incentive component of an R&D entity's R&D tax offsets.
24
Enhancing the integrity of the Research and Development Tax Incentive
Summary of new law
2.18 Schedule 2 to the Bill improves the integrity of the Incentive by:
• extending the general anti-avoidance rules in the tax law to
R&D tax offsets directly;
• making the rate at which the offset is recouped more accurate
in situations where the offset would otherwise result in an
additional or double benefit; and
• making that rate at which deductible balancing adjustment
amounts incorporate the Incentive more accurate.
Comparison of key features of new law and current law
New law Current law
Schemes to obtain an R&D tax benefit
The Commissioner may also deny a The Commissioner may deny a tax
tax benefit in the form of an amount benefit in the form of a deduction or
of R&D tax offset that an R&D entity notional deduction that an R&D
seeks to obtain from a tax avoidance entity seeks to obtain from a tax
scheme. avoidance scheme.
The uniform clawback rule
Recoupment amounts and feedstock Recoupment amounts are subject to a
adjustments give rise to an amount of standalone tax of 10 per cent.
assessable income equal to the One third of feedstock adjustments
grossed-up value of the incentive are included in an R&D entity's
component of associated amounts of assessable income.
R&D tax offset.
An amount is included in the In cases involving related entities, the
assessable income of the R&D entity entity receiving a recoupment is
that received or is entitled to the subject to recoupment tax.
R&D tax offset in relation to a In cases involving related entities, the
recoupment amount or feedstock R&D entity entitled to the R&D tax
revenue received by a related entity. offset is subject to a feedstock
adjustment if the related entity
receives feedstock revenue.
25
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Balancing adjustments for R&D assets
The R&D entity's assessable income For an R&D asset held only for R&D
is increased by an amount equal to purposes where the balancing
the grossed-up value of the incentive adjustment amount is included in the
component of the associated amounts R&D entity's assessable income - the
of R&D tax offset. amount is generally increased by one
third.
For an R&D asset held partially for
R&D purposes where the balancing
adjustment amount is included in the
R&D entity's assessable income - the
R&D component of the amount is
generally increased by one third.
The R&D entity is entitled to a For an R&D asset held only for R&D
deduction equal to the grossed-up purposes where the balancing
value of the incentive component of adjustment amount is allowed as a
the associated amounts of R&D tax deduction - the deduction is included
offset that would have been obtained in the R&D entity's R&D tax offset
if the R&D component of the calculation.
balancing adjustment amount was For an R&D asset held partially for
included in the calculation of the R&D purposes where the balancing
offset. adjustment amount is allowed as a
deduction - the R&D component of
the amount is increased by one third
or (for small R&D entities) or one
half
Similar amended rules apply to Similar rules apply to balancing
balancing adjustments for R&D adjustments for R&D assets held by
assets held by R&D partnerships. R&D partnerships.
The transitional rules are amended in Transitional rules apply to R&D
line with the primary amendments but assets acquired before the
continue to apply to R&D assets introduction of the Incentive in 2011.
acquired before the introduction of
the Incentive in 2011.
26
Enhancing the integrity of the Research and Development Tax Incentive
Detailed explanation of new law
Schemes to obtain an R&D tax benefit
2.19 Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Bill explicitly extends the concept of
tax benefits in the general anti-avoidance rule in Part IVA of the Income
Tax Act 1936 (ITAA 1936) to include the R&D tax offset. These
amendments ensure the Commissioner can apply Part IVA to prevent
R&D entities from being able to obtain tax benefits by entering into
artificial or contrived arrangements to access the R&D tax offset.
[Schedule 2, items 2 to 10, paragraphs 177C(1)(bd) and (h), 177C(2)(f), 177C(3)(cc)
and (i), 177CB(1)(f), 177F(1)(f), 177F(3)(g) and subsection 177C(3) of the ITAA 1936]
2.20 Part IVA of the ITAA 1936 applies in situations where a scheme
or arrangement is entered into in order to obtain a tax benefit. These rules
allow the Commissioner to cancel the relevant tax benefit where the
conditions under Part IVA are satisfied. For example, this can include
situations where an R&D entity enters into an arrangement with a
dominant purpose of securing a tax benefit that is an R&D tax offset.
The uniform clawback rule
2.21 Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Bill remakes and consolidates
Subdivisions 355-G and 355-H of the ITAA 1997 (about the clawback of
R&D recoupments and feedstock adjustments respectively) into a new
Subdivision 355-G. This Subdivision also introduces a new uniform
clawback rule that applies for recoupments, feedstock adjustments and
balancing adjustment amounts that are included in an R&D entity's
assessable income. The amendments ensure that an R&D entity must
disgorge the entire benefit of an R&D tax offset to the extent it (or a
connected entity or an affiliate entity where appropriate) receives a
recoupment amount, feedstock adjustment or assessable balancing
adjustment because of the offset. [Schedule 2, item 29, section 355-430 of the
ITAA 1997]
2.22 Current Subdivisions 355-G and 355-H, and the various
balancing adjustment rules, only partially reverse the benefit of an R&D
tax offset in some circumstances. In light of the amendments discussed in
Chapter 1, the current clawback rules would produce more anomalous
outcomes if they are not amended. The amendments ensure the full benefit
of the R&D tax offset is reversed, to remove the unintended benefits that
arise in such situations.
27
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Clawback amounts
Recoupment amounts and feedstock adjustment clawback amounts
2.23 Current Subdivision 355-G is remade into a single section and
reference to the payment of extra income tax (a recoupment tax) is
removed. Instead, the remade provision identifies an amount (a clawback
amount) that represents the amount of notional deductions an R&D entity
received or is entitled to receive in relation to a recoupment. [Schedule 2,
item 29, section 355-440 of the ITAA 1997]
2.24 Current Subdivision 355-H is remade into a single section and
the reference to the inclusion of an amount in assessable income is
removed. Instead, the remade provision identifies an amount (a clawback
amount) that represents the amount of notional deductions an R&D entity
received or is entitled to receive in relation to a feedstock adjustment. The
clawback amount is the lesser of the feedstock revenue received or the
notional deductions attributable to the feedstock output. [Schedule 2, item 29,
section 355-445 of the ITAA 1997]
Example 2.3 Clawback amounts
In Example 1.2, Contrast Industries had the following amounts in the
2018-19 (the offset year):
• aggregated turnover in excess of $50 million;
• expenditure of $1 billion;
• notional deductions of $160 million; and
• a non-refundable R&D tax offset of $61.5 million.
Further to this example, in the 2020-21 income year (the present year),
Contrast Industries sells a tangible product developed during its
2018-19 R&D activities. The tangible product is sold for $20 million
but cost $25 million to develop. All of the costs were included in
Contrast Industries' notional deductions for the 2018-19 income year.
The clawback amount is the lesser of the market value of the tangible
product on sale (feedstock revenue) and the tangible product's cost.
Here, Contrast Industries has a clawback amount of $20 million.
Balancing adjustment clawback amounts
2.25 There are four clawback amounts that relate to assessable
balancing adjustments. The primary clawback amount applies for R&D
assets held only for R&D purposes. The clawback amount is the balancing
adjustment amount capped at the level of the asset's total decline in value
(its tax cost less its adjusted value). The cap ensures the clawback does
not apply to the extent an R&D asset's has appreciated in value while
held. [Schedule 2, item 29, section 355-446 of the ITAA 1997]
28
Enhancing the integrity of the Research and Development Tax Incentive
2.26 If the R&D asset was only held partially for R&D purposes, a
different clawback amount applies. This clawback amount is calculated in
a similar way to the primary clawback amount but it is reduced in
proportion to its non-R&D use. [Schedule 2, item 29, section 355-447 of the
ITAA 1997]
2.27 Different clawback amounts arise if the R&D asset is held by an
R&D partnership. These two clawback amounts reflect the first two
balancing adjustment clawback amounts: one for R&D assets used only
for R&D purposes and one for assets held only partially for R&D
purposes. These rules are necessary to ensure the clawback amount arises
for the individual R&D entities that are partners in the R&D partnership.
[Schedule 2, item 29, sections 355-448 and 355-449 of the ITAA 1997]
2.28 The four clawback rules outlined above apply in a modified way
where the R&D asset was acquired before the introduction of the
Incentive in 2011. [Schedule 2, items 41 to 45, 48 to 50, 53 and 54,
subsections 40-292(3) and (3A), 40-293(3) and (3A), 355-320(4) and (4A),
and 355-325(4) to (4D), and Note 1 to subsections 355-320(1) and 355-325(1) of the
Transitional Provisions Act]
2.29 The clawback amount rules replace existing rules that estimated
the incentive component of the R&D tax offset that need to be clawed
back. [Schedule 2, items 17, 20, 28 and 32, subsections 40-292 (3) to (5), 40-293(3),
355-315(3), and 355-525(3) to (7) of the ITAA 1997]
Changes from the current law
2.30 The clawback amount is relevant for working out the amount
that must be included in an R&D entity's assessable income to disgorge
the benefit of an R&D tax offset. The clawback amount reflects the
amount of R&D expenditure (notional deductions) tainted by the
operation of the recoupment, feedstock or R&D balancing adjustment
rules. The amendments calculate the amount of R&D tax offset tainted by
the tainted expenditure. The incentive component of the tainted R&D tax
offset, in turn, is the benefit to be clawed back.
2.31 The clawback amount picks up the amount worked out under
each of Subdivisions 355-G and 355-H, and the balancing adjustment
rules, in the current law immediately before adjustments are made to bring
it to account: applying tax to it in the case of recoupments and including a
third of the amount in assessable income in the case of feedstock and
balancing adjustments. It is primarily these adjustments in the current law
that are producing inappropriate outcomes and are subject to the
amendments.
29
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
2.32 Except as outlined in this Chapter, the remaking of
Subdivisions 355-G and 355-H, and the R&D balancing adjustment rules,
is not intended to alter the way recoupment amounts, feedstock
adjustments or assessable balancing adjustments (a clawback amount in
these amendments) are calculated. For further information on the
operation of these provisions, refer to the Explanatory Memorandum to
the Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2011, and
existing guidance materials and rulings issued by the Commissioner.
2.33 Table 2.1 outlines the provisions of the new law as amended that
correspond with provisions of the current law.
Table 2.1 Remaking the clawback rules
Clawback amount Current provisions New provisions
Recoupment amount Subdivision 355-G Section 355-440
Feedstock adjustments Subdivision 355-H Section 355-445
Balancing adjustment - asset used
Subsection 355-315(3) Section 355-446
only for R&D
Balancing adjustment - asset used
Subsection 40-292(4) Section 355-447
partially for R&D
Balancing adjustment - partnership
Subsection 355-525(3) Section 355-448
asset used only for R&D
Balancing adjustment - partnership
Paragraph 40-293(3)(b) Section 355-449
asset used partially for R&D
2.34 For balancing adjustments, sections 40-292, 40-293, 355-315
and 355-525 (and section 40-285) continue to operate where appropriate
to clawback the deduction component of the R&D tax offset (i.e. the
amount of the offset that reflects the R&D entity's corporate tax rate).
Similarly, feedstock revenue and government grants are generally
assessable as ordinary income (section 6-5). The new provisions clawback
the incentive component of the R&D tax offset.
The taxing point
2.35 Consistent with the existing law, the uniform clawback rule will
include an amount in assessable income in the year the clawback amount
arises (the present year). The underlying offset entitlement, whether in the
same year, one or more earlier years or one or more later years (each an
offset year) is unchanged. [Schedule 2, item 29, section 355-435 of the ITAA 1997]
2.36 The entity receiving a recoupment or feedstock revenue could be
the R&D entity entitled to the R&D tax offset or an entity affiliated with
or connected to the R&D entity. [Schedule 2, item 29, subsections 355-440(5)
and 355-445(5) of the ITAA 1997]
30
Enhancing the integrity of the Research and Development Tax Incentive
2.37 The amendments unify the taxing point in cases involving
related entities: where one entity has the R&D tax offset entitlement and
the other entity receives the recoupment or feedstock revenue. The R&D
entity that has received or is entitled to receive the R&D tax offset is the
entity with the clawback amount and must include an amount in its
assessable income. [Schedule 2, item 29, section 355-435 and
subsections 355-440(1), (2) and (5), and 355-445(5) of the ITAA 1997]
Example 2.4 Related entities and clawbacks
It would not change the outcome in Example 2.3 if, instead of Contrast
Industries selling the tangible product itself, the tangible product was
sold by a related entity.
2.38 For R&D assets of an R&D partnership that are partially used
for R&D purposes, the clawback rule now includes an amount in the
partner's assessable income rather than the partnership's assessable
income. This aligns the taxing point with the taxing point for R&D assets
held by an R&D partnership that are used wholly for R&D purposes.
[Schedule 2, item 29, section 355-449 of the ITAA 1997]
The amount included in assessable income
2.39 When the clawback applies, the R&D entity entitled to the R&D
tax offset includes an amount in assessable income in relation to each
offset year in which it claimed an offset related to the clawback amount.
[Schedule 2, item 29, section 355-450 of the ITAA 1997]
2.40 The amount included in assessable income is worked out as
follows:
𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑒𝑡 − 𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢 𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑒𝑡 − 𝐷𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡
𝑅&𝐷 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑦 ′ 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑥 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
2.41 Each of the components of this formula is explained below.
Calculating the offset portion subject to the clawback
2.42 The first step in applying the formula is to calculate the portion
of the R&D tax offset the R&D entity received that relates to the
clawback amount. If the R&D entity received the R&D tax offset in
multiple offset years in relation to the clawback amount that arises in the
present year, the formula must be applied in relation to each offset year.
2.43 The primary way of working out the portion of the offset to be
clawed back in an offset year is to compare the actual amount of the R&D
tax offset in that year (the starting offset) with the amount of the offset
(the adjusted offset) the R&D entity would have received if its notional
deductions were reduced by the portion of the clawback amount that
relates to the offset year. [Schedule 2, item 29, subsection 355-450(1) (definitions of
'adjusted offset' and 'starting offset') of the ITAA 1997]
31
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
2.44 This targets the clawback to the highest tiers of the R&D entity's
offset entitlement (i.e. those received for the highest intensity expenditure,
the last dollars the entity spent) for an offset year. If an R&D entity had
notional deductions in excess of the $150 million expenditure threshold,
the excess deductions would be reduced first, limiting the difference
between the starting and adjusted offset. This, when combined with the
operation of the deduction amount, is equivalent to the outcome achieved
under table items 2 and 3 in subsection 355-720(2) in the current law.
Example 2.5 The starting offset and the adjusted offset
Further to Example 2.3, the portion of Contrast Industries' 2018-19
R&D tax offset that is subject to the clawback is worked out by
subtracting the entity's adjusted offset from its starting offset.
Contrast Industries has a starting offset of $61.5 million, the amount of
the offset it received in 2018-19.
Contrast Industries has an adjusted offset calculated as if its notional
deductions for 2018-19 were reduced from $160 million to
$140 million by the value of the clawback amount. The entire
clawback amount is included in the reduction because the entire
amount relates to the 2018-19 income year.
The adjusted offset is calculated as follows:
Tier Intensity R&D Notional Offset
range premium deductions applied amount
Tier 1 0-2% 4% $20m $6.8m
Tier 2 2-5% 6.5% $30m $10.95m
Tier 3 5-10% 9% $50m $19.5m
Tier 4 10+% 12.5% $40m $17m
Excess NA Nil Nil Nil
Totals: $140m $54.25m
The adjusted offset amount reflects that $10 million has been removed
from the excess tier and $10 million has been removed from tier 4, the
highest tier Contrast Industries reached on its level of R&D intensity.
The difference between the two offset amounts is $7.25 million.
Recursive calculations for multiple clawback amounts
2.45 The situation is more complex where an R&D entity's offsets in
a particular offset year are clawed back multiple times because the entity
receives multiple clawback amounts in relation to it or also receives a
catch-up amount (see paragraph 2.59). In these circumstances, the
clawback rule works in a recursive manner.
32
Enhancing the integrity of the Research and Development Tax Incentive
2.46 In recursive applications of the rule, the R&D entity must
compare the offset amount that could have been claimed under the last
counterfactual calculated and the amount that could have been claimed
under a new counterfactual. In calculating the new counterfactual, the
R&D entity must incorporate all previous adjustments to the notional
deduction amount and make a further reduction for the new clawback
amount. [Schedule 2, item 29, subsection 355-450(2) of the ITAA 1997]
Example 2.6 Recursive clawback
Flying Fox Innovations has an R&D tax offset entitlement based on
$100 million of notional deductions. The entity receives two
recoupment amounts: one of $10 million and one of $20 million.
For the first recoupment, the clawback is calculated by reference to the
difference between the starting offset calculated on $100 million of
notional deductions and the adjusted offset calculated on $90 million.
For the second recoupment, the clawback is calculated by reference to
the difference between the starting offset calculated on $90 million and
the adjusted offset calculated on $70 million.
Allowing the benefit of the deduction
2.47 Regardless of whether the primary or recursive rule is applied in
calculating the difference, once the difference is identified, it is not
appropriate to bring the entire difference to account as tax. Only the
incentive component (or premium) is brought to account. Therefore, the
second step of the above formula requires that the difference between the
starting offset and the adjusted offset be reduced by the product of the
portion of the clawback amount that relates to the offset year and the
R&D entity's corporate tax rate in the offset year. This allows the R&D
entity to retain the benefit of the R&D tax offset for the clawback amount
to the extent it replaced the benefit of a deduction for the same
expenditure. [Schedule 2, item 29, subsection 355-450(1) (definition of 'deduction
amount') of the ITAA 1997]
Example 2.7 The deduction amount
Further to Example 2.5, Contrast Industries has a deduction amount
equal to its clawback amount ($20 million) multiplied by its corporate
tax rate in the offset year (30 per cent): $6 million.
The $7.25 million figure reached in Example 2.5 is reduced by the
$6 million deduction amount to complete the numerator of the above
formula. The resulting $1.25 million represents the additional amount
of tax Contrast Industries must pay to reverse the incentive component
of the R&D tax offset associated with the development of the tangible
product.
33
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Bringing the amount to account
2.48 The R&D entity must bring the amount to account as assessable
income in the year in which the entity received the clawback amount. The
amount calculated up to this point represents the full dollar-value of the
incentive component of the R&D tax offset the R&D entity obtained in
connection with the clawback amount. The amount of tax the R&D entity
is required to pay equals this amount. As such, this amount is grossed-up
by dividing it by the R&D entity's corporate tax rate for the present year
to ensure its value is maintained when taxed.
Example 2.8 The denominator
Further to Example 2.7, Contrast Industries must divide the
$1.25 million by its current corporate tax rate (30 per cent).
The resulting $4.167 million is included in the assessable income of
Contrast Industries in 2020-21. Disregarding other assessable income
and deductions, this will increase the income tax liability of Contrast
Industries by the appropriate $1.25 million once the corporate tax rate
applies to the entity's taxable income.
2.49 Bringing the amount to account as assessable income (rather
than through a standalone tax) allows R&D entities to apply deductions
from the current year and carried-forward losses against the clawback.
Loss-making R&D entities that only obtained a non-refundable R&D tax
offset in the offset year can apply the carried-forward offset against the
amount included in assessable income. This ensures the clawback rule
recovers the correct amount but does not have an unintended negative
cash flow impact on R&D entities.
Catch-up rule for R&D balancing adjustments
2.50 The amendments introduce a new catch-up rule for R&D assets.
This rule provides an additional deduction to R&D entities when a
deductible balancing adjustment amount arises for an R&D asset.
[Schedule 2, item 29, sections 355-455 and 355-460 of the ITAA 1997]
2.51 The catch-up rule mirrors the uniform clawback rule but
operates in reverse, providing a deduction in lieu of an amount of R&D
tax offset forgone rather than including an amount in assessable income.
[Schedule 2, item 29, section 355-475 of the ITAA 1997]
2.52 As with the clawback amounts for balancing adjustments (see
paragraphs 2.25 to 2.28), there are four different catch-up amounts to
cover R&D assets either wholly or partially used for R&D, assets held by
R&D entities and those held by R&D partnerships. The catch-up amounts
reflect the amount an R&D entity can ordinarily deduct for the balancing
adjustment event. [Schedule 2, item 29, sections 355-465, 355-466, 355-467
and 355-468 of the ITAA 1997]
34
Enhancing the integrity of the Research and Development Tax Incentive
2.53 These catch-up amounts are calculated in a modified way where
the R&D asset was acquired before the introduction of the Incentive in
2011. [Schedule 2, items 41 to 44, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52 and 54, subsections 40-292(3)
and (3A), 40-293(3) and (3A), 355-320(3) and (4A), and 355-325(3) and (4A) of the
Transitional Provisions Act]
2.54 The catch-up amount rules replace provisions of the current law
that either sought to estimate the value of the R&D tax offset forgone or
replace it with a new R&D tax offset entitlement, neither option giving
rise to an accurate catch-up. [Schedule 2, items 18, 20 to 26, 30 and 31,
sections 355-105 and 355-300, subsections 40-292(3) and (5), and 40-293(3),
paragraphs 355-100(1)(c) and (f), the heading to Subdivision 355-E, the headings to
subsections 355-315(2) and 355-525(2), the notes to subsections 355-315(2)
and 355-525(2) of the ITAA 1997]
2.55 It remains a condition for accessing the incentive component of
the balancing adjustment (now the deduction for a catch-up amount) that
the R&D entity be registered for R&D activities in the income year in
which the balancing adjustment event occurs. However, for simplicity it is
no longer a requirement that the R&D entity have $20,000 of notional
deductions in that income year.
2.56 For R&D assets of an R&D partnership that are partially used
for R&D purposes, the catch-up rule now makes each partner entitled to a
deduction rather than the partnership. This mirrors the amendment
outlined in paragraph 2.38. [Schedule 2, item 29, section 355-468 of the
ITAA 1997]
2.57 Table 2.2 outlines the provisions of the new law as amended that
correspond with provisions of the current law.
Table 2.2 Remaking of catch-up amount rules
Catch-up amount Current provisions New provisions
Balancing adjustment - asset used
Subsection 355-315(2) Section 355-465
only for R&D
Balancing adjustment - asset used
Subsection 40-292(3) Section 355-466
partially for R&D
Balancing adjustment - partnership
Subsection 355-525(2) Section 355-467
asset used only for R&D
Balancing adjustment - partnership
Paragraph 40-293(3)(a) Section 355-468
asset used partially for R&D
2.58 Sections 40-292, 40-293, 355-315 and 355-525 (and
section 40-285) continue to operate where appropriate to provide a
catch-up for the deduction component of the R&D tax offset (i.e. the
amount of the offset that reflects the R&D entity's corporate tax rate). The
new provisions provide an additional catch-up for the incentive
component of the R&D tax offset.
35
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
2.59 The amount allowed as a deduction for a catch-up amount for an
offset year is worked out as follows:
𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢 𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑒𝑡 − 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑒𝑡 − 𝐷𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡
𝑅&𝐷 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑦 ′ 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑥 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
2.60 This formula mirrors the formula discussed in paragraphs 2.40
to 2.48 with two important distinctions. Firstly, the initial operation
requires the starting offset to be subtracted from the adjusted offset (rather
than the reverse). Secondly, the adjusted offset is defined as the R&D tax
offset the R&D entity would have received if its notional deductions for
the offset year included the portion of the catch-up amount that is
attributable to the offset year. [Schedule 2, item 29, section 355-475 of the
ITAA 1997]
Example 2.9 Deductible balancing adjustment amounts
Spark Transformations is an R&D entity with an annual turnover of
between $20 and $25 million in the income years 2017-18 to 2020-21.
On 18 April 2018, Spark Transformations acquires a depreciating asset
for $80,000. It has an effective life of five years. Spark
Transformations used the asset entirely for R&D purposes.
Spark Transformations sells the asset on 1 July 2020 for $34,800.
Decline in value notional deductions
Spark Transformations uses the prime cost (straight line) method in
section 40-75 to work out the asset's decline in value as follows:
Decline in value
Days asset Decline in Adjusted
Income Year
used Value Value
2017-18 73 $3,200 $76,800
2018-19 365 $16,000 $60,800
2019-20 365 $16,000 $44,800
Spark Transformation is entitled to notional deductions for the asset's
decline in value in each income year.
The R&D tax offset
For the 2017-18 income year, Spark Transformations is entitled to an
R&D tax offset at the current 38.5 per cent rate. In relation to the
depreciating asset, Spark Transformations is entitled to an R&D tax
offset of $1,232. Spark Transformations has total notional deductions
in excess of $20,000 (so subsection 355-100(2) does not apply) but it is
not necessary to quantify them.
For 2018-19 and 2019-20, it is necessary to consider the total R&D tax
offset entitlement of Spark Transformations.
36
Enhancing the integrity of the Research and Development Tax Incentive
In 2018-19, Spark Transformations has notional deductions of
$300,000 (inclusive of the decline in value notional deductions) and
total expenses of $7.8 million. Spark Transformations has an R&D
intensity of 3.85 per cent. Its R&D tax offset entitlement is worked out
as follows:
2018-19 starting offset
Tier Intensity R&D Notional Offset
range premium deductions applied amount
Tier 1 0-2% 4% $156,000 $49,140
Tier 2 2-5% 6.5% $144,000 $48,960
Tier 3 5-10% 9% Nil Nil
Tier 4 10+% 12.5% Nil Nil
Excess NA Nil Nil Nil
Totals: $300,000 $98,100
In 2019-20, Spark Transformations has notional deductions of
$350,000 (inclusive of the decline in value notional deductions) and
total expenses of $7.35 million. Spark Transformations has an R&D
intensity of 4.76 per cent. Its R&D tax offset entitlement is worked out
as follows:
2019-20 starting offset
Tier Intensity R&D Notional Offset
range premium deductions applied amount
Tier 1 0-2% 4% $147,000 $46,305
Tier 2 2-5% 6.5% $203,000 $69,020
Tier 3 5-10% 9% Nil Nil
Tier 4 10+% 12.5% Nil Nil
Excess NA Nil Nil Nil
Totals: $350,000 $115,325
The catch-up amount portions
When the asset is sold, there is a balancing adjustment event. Because
the asset's adjusted value ($44,800) exceeds its termination value
($34,800), Spark Transformations is entitled to a deductible balancing
adjustment amount of $10,000. This amount is allowed as a deduction
but is not a notional deduction and does not contribute towards the
entity's R&D tax offset entitlement.
37
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
This gives rise to a catch-up amount of $10,000 that relates to the three
income years (each an offset year) in which Spark Transformations
claimed the R&D tax offset in relation to the asset's decline in value. It
is necessary to work out the portion of the $10,000 catch-up amount
that relates to each offset year. To do this, it is necessary to work out
the decline in value recorded in each offset year as a proportion of the
total decline in value of the asset ($35,200):
𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
𝐶𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑢𝑝 𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝐶𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑢𝑝 𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 ×
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
Spark Transformations has the following catch-up portions in 2020-21:
• $909.09 for 2017-18; and
• $4,545.45 for each of 2018-19 and 2019-20.
The adjusted offsets
The adjusted offset for each offset year is calculated by adding
the catch-up portion to the R&D entity's notional deductions.
It is not strictly necessary to calculate the adjusted offset for the
2017-18 income year because the flat 38.5 per cent R&D tax
offset rate applies.
The adjusted offset for the 2018-19 income year is calculated as
follows:
2018-19 adjusted offset
Tier Intensity R&D Notional Offset
range premium deductions applied amount
Tier 1 0-2% 4% $156,090.91 $49,168.64
Tier 2 2-5% 6.5% $148,545.55 $50,474.55
Tier 3 5-10% 9% Nil Nil
Tier 4 10+% 12.5% Nil Nil
Excess NA Nil Nil Nil
Totals: $304,545.45 $99,643.18
38
Enhancing the integrity of the Research and Development Tax Incentive
The adjusted offset for the 2019-20 income year is calculated as
follows:
2019-20 adjusted offset
Tier Intensity R&D Notional Offset
range premium deductions applied amount
Tier 1 0-2% 4% $147,090.91 $46,333.64
Tier 2 2-5% 6.5% $207,454.55 $70,534.55
Tier 3 5-10% 9% Nil Nil
Tier 4 10+% 12.5% Nil Nil
Excess NA Nil Nil Nil
Totals: $354,545.45 $116,868.18
Note that the R&D intensity for the adjusted offset calculation is
3.9 per cent in 2018-19 and 4.82 per cent in 2019-20. This
incorporates the increase in notional deductions being included
in total expenses.
The offset differential
The difference between the starting offset and the adjusted offset
for the 2017-18 income year can be simply calculated as the
catch-up portion multiplied by the flat R&D tax offset rate of
38.5 per cent. For the 2018-19 and 2019-20 income years, the
difference is derived by comparing the outcomes of the tables
above.
Spark Transformations has the following offset differentials:
• $350 ($909.09 multiplied by 38.5 per cent) in 2017-18;
• $1,543.18 ($99,643.18 less $98,100) in 2018-19; and
• $1,543.18 ($116,868.18 less $115,325) in 2019-20.
The deduction amount
The deduction amount is the catch-up portion for an offset year
multiplied by the corporate tax rate that applied in that year
(27.5 per cent). Spark Transformations has the following
deduction amounts totalling $2,750:
• $250 for 2017-18; and
• $1,250 for each of 2018-19 and 2019-20.
39
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
These amounts are not available as deductions but are included
in the 'deduction amount' in the catch-up rule formula (see
paragraph 2.59). This reduction reflects that Spark
Transformations is separately entitled to a $10,000 deduction for
the balancing adjustment event under subsection 355-315(2).
This balancing adjustment amount will result in Spark
Transformations reducing its income tax liability by $2,750 in
2020-21.
Gross-up
The total of the differences between the adjusted offsets and the
corresponding starting offsets is reduced by the deduction
amounts and then grossed-up by the entity's current corporate
tax rate (again 27.5 per cent). Spark Transformations is entitled
to a deduction for the result of the following equation:
$350 + 1,543.18 × 2 − $250 − $1,250 × 2
= $2,495.87
27.5%
The deduction will reduce the income tax liability of Spark
Transformations by $686.36 once the current corporate tax rate
is applied. This puts the entity in the position it would be in had
the decline in value of the asset for tax purposes kept pace with
the actual decline in value of the asset.
Consequential amendments
2.61 A definition of 'R&D tax offset' linked to Division 355 of the
ITAA 1997 is inserted into the dictionary of Part IVA of the ITAA 1936.
[Schedule 2, item 1, subsection 177A(1) (definition of 'R&D tax offset') of the
ITAA 1936]
2.62 Consequential amendments are made to the remaking of the
recoupment, feedstock and balancing adjustment provisions, and the
introduction of the uniform clawback rule. These includes removing
redundant provisions associated with the recoupment tax and repealing
section 355-720, which dealt with the interaction between the expenditure
threshold and the old recoupment, feedstock and R&D balancing
adjustment rules. These functions are now consolidated in the new
clawback rule. [Schedule 2, items 11 to 14, 33 to 36, 38 to 40, and 55, sections 4-25,
10-5, 355-530 and 355-720, table item 4A in subsection 9-5(1), table item 10 in
section 20-5, subsections 355-715(2) and 995-1(1) (definition of 'feedstock revenue'),
and Note 2 to subsection 355-715(2) of the ITAA 19997, and subsection 12(7), and
sections 12B and 31 of the Income Tax Rates Act 1986, and section 355-720 of the
Transitional Provisions Act]
40
Enhancing the integrity of the Research and Development Tax Incentive
2.63 Notes are added to explain the interaction between the R&D
balancing adjustment provisions and the clawback and catch-up rules.
[Schedule 2, items 15, 16, 18, 19, 27, 28, 31 and 32, notes to subsections 40-292(1),
40-293(1), 355-315(2), 355-315(3), 355-525(2) and 355-525(3) of the ITAA 1997]
2.64 As part of the remaking of Subdivision 355-G, the cap on
recoupment amounts is amended to clarify the meaning of the numerator
in the formula. [Schedule 2, item 29, subsection 355-440(4) (definition of 'R&D
expenditure') of the ITAA 1997]
2.65 An amendment is made to the tax incentive for early stage
investors to prevent the inclusion of clawback amounts in an R&D
entity's assessable income denying the status of an early stage innovation
company. [Schedule 2, item 37, subsection 360-40(2) of the ITAA 1997]
Application and transitional provisions
2.66 The amendments commence on the first day of the quarter
following Royal Assent. [Section 2 of the Bill]
2.67 The amendments to Part IVA of the ITAA 1936 apply in relation
to R&D tax benefits obtained on or after 1 July 2018, regardless of when
the relevant scheme was entered into or carried out. [Schedule 2,
subitems 56(1) and (2)]
2.68 The amendments to the recoupment, feedstock and R&D
balancing adjustment rules, and the new clawback and catch-up rules,
apply in relation to income years starting on or after 1 July 2018. The new
clawback and catch-up rules may apply in an income year starting on or
after 1 July 2018 in relation to an R&D tax offset received in an income
year starting before that date (see Example 2.9 as it applies in relation to
the 2017-18 income year). [Schedule 2, subitem 56(3)]
41
Chapter 3
Improving the administration of the
Research and Development Tax Incentive
Outline of chapter
3.1 Schedule 3 to the Bill improves the administrative framework
supporting the R&D Tax Incentive by making information about R&D
expenditure claims transparent, enhancing the guidance framework to
provide certainty to applicants and streamlining administrative processes.
Context of amendments
3.2 The Incentive is jointly administered by the Australian Taxation
Office (under the authority of the Commissioner) and the Board of ISA.
3.3 One of the conditions of an expense giving rise to a notional
deduction is that the R&D entity has registered an R&D activity under
section 27A of the IR&D Act (for example, subparagraph 355-205(1)(a)(i)
of the ITAA 1997).
3.4 Under Part III of the IR&D Act, the Board of ISA may make
findings about whether an R&D entity's activities are R&D activities. A
finding binds the Commissioner for the purpose of working out an R&D
entity's R&D tax offsets (section 355-705 of the ITAA 1997).
3.5 The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science and its staff
assist the Board of ISA to perform its functions. The Board and its
committees may delegate their functions to a Senior Executive
Service (SES) employee (subsections 21(1) and 22A(1) of the IR&D Act).
The Government has identified that this limit on the delegation power has
proved to be impractical and a significant barrier to the Board of ISA
carrying out its functions.
Extensions of time
3.6 Part 3 of the Industry Research and Development Decision-
making Principles 2011 (the Decision-making Principles) - made under
section 32A of the IR&D Act - regulates the ability of the Board of ISA
to grant extensions of time under the IR&D Act. This includes extensions
of time for registration applications, providing requested information and
applications for reviews (see subsection 3.1(1) of the Decision-making
Principles).
43
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
3.7 The Board of ISA must grant extensions of up to 14 days if it is
necessary and may grant a longer period if the applicant's ability to meet
the deadline is impaired by events outside the applicant's control
(section 3.2 of the Decision-making Principles). These extensions apply
on top of the time limits in the IR&D Act (for example, registration
applications under section 27D must be made within 10 months of the end
of the income year unless extended).
3.8 The Government has observed that very long extensions for
registration applications are granted, with applications often made and
accepted a number of years after the relevant R&D activities were
undertaken. This practice is inconsistent with the nature of the Incentive
as expenditure that occurs without a business being aware of the Incentive
would have occurred in the absence of the Incentive being available.
Summary of new law
3.9 Schedule 3 to the Bill makes a number of amendments to
improve the administration and transparency of the Incentive. These
include:
• publicising information about Incentive claimants and their
R&D expenditure;
• allowing the Board of ISA to make binding determinations;
• broadening the scope of the Board of ISA's delegation
powers; and
• imposing a three-month limit on extensions of time.
3.10 These legislative changes complement other aspects of the
Government's reforms to the administration of the Incentive, including
additional resourcing for additional compliance and legal activity, and the
creation of improved guidance products for claimants.
44
Improving the administration of the Research and Development Tax Incentive
Comparison of key features of new law and current law
New law Current law
Transparency of R&D claimants and activities
As soon as practicable after the No equivalent
period of two years following the end
of the financial year, the
Commissioner must publish
information about the R&D entities
that have claimed notional deductions
for R&D activities, including the
amount claimed.
ISA determinations
The Board of ISA may also make The Board of ISA may make findings
determinations about the specific to an R&D entity's
circumstances and ways in which it circumstances, including whether
will exercise its powers, or perform certain activities of the entity are
its functions or duties in relation to R&D activities.
the Incentive. These determinations Findings are binding on the
are binding on the Board of ISA. Commissioner.
ISA delegations
The Board of ISA and its committees The Board of ISA and its committees
may delegate their powers to any may delegate their powers to SES
member of Australian Public Service employees assisting them.
staff assisting them.
Extensions of time
The Board's ability to grant an The Board of ISA must grant
extension of time is subject to a cap extensions of time for registrations
of three months on the total extension and the provision of information of
available, unless the extension is up to 14 days if it is necessary and
granted to allow an applicant to wait may grant a longer period if an
for the outcome of a separate pending applicant's ability to meet the
decision. deadline is impaired by events
outside the applicant's control.
45
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Detailed explanation of new law
Transparency of R&D claimants and expenditure
3.11 The Commissioner is required to publish information about the
R&D activities of R&D entities claiming the R&D tax offset following a
two-year delay. This will improve public accountability for R&D
claimants and encourage voluntary compliance with the program while
balancing these objectives against the potentially commercially sensitive
nature of the information being published. [Schedule 3, item 1,
subsections 3G(1) and (2) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (TAA 1953)]
3.12 The Commissioner must publish the following information:
• the R&D entity's name;
• the R&D entity's Australian Business Number, or Australian
Company Number if that is the only number available; and
• an amount representing the R&D entity's notional deductions
claimed taking into account any feedstock adjustments for
the year.
3.13 As noted in paragraph 2.24, an R&D entity's feedstock
adjustment (if it has one) is the lesser of the entity's feedstock revenue or
associated feedstock expenditure and is deducted from the entity's
notional deductions. If the R&D entity's feedstock adjustment exceeds its
notional deductions for the income year, the Commissioner must not
publish a dollar figure for the entity but must still publish the entity's
name and ABN or ACN. [Schedule 3, item 1, subsections 3G(3) and (4) of the
TAA 1953]
3.14 The criteria for the publication and the information published are
based on concepts defined in the ITAA 1997. [Schedule 3, item 1,
subsection 3G(8) of the TAA 1953]
3.15 The Commissioner must publish the information as soon as
practicable after the end of the period of two years starting at the end of
the financial year that corresponds to the R&D entity's income year. It is
envisaged the Commissioner would publish the information of all R&D
entities at one time. [Schedule 3, item 1, subsection 3G(2) of the TAA 1953]
Source of information
3.16 The publication requirement will not apply in relation to R&D
entities that do not lodge income tax returns or otherwise claim an R&D
tax offset. In the case of consolidated groups and multiple entry
consolidated groups, the information published will be that reported by
the head company.
46
Improving the administration of the Research and Development Tax Incentive
3.17 In determining whether the Commissioner is required to publish
information about a specific R&D entity, the Commissioner can only have
regard to the information that the entity has reported to the Commissioner.
3.18 Similarly, the Commissioner may only publish amounts that the
R&D entity reports, subject only to simple calculations. The
Commissioner is not permitted to substitute his or her own assessment of
an R&D entity's information for the purposes of determining the figures
to be published. However, the Commissioner may verify an R&D entity's
identity before publication to ensure that the correct entity is identified.
Correction of errors
3.19 Provision for the correction of errors is an important safeguard.
3.20 The Commissioner may correct errors that are made in a
publication in two circumstances: where the Commissioner has made an
error and on the initiative of the relevant R&D entity.
3.21 Where the Commissioner has made an error, he or she has
power to publish a correction. The correction must be made from the
information the R&D entity has reported. [Schedule 3, item 1, subsection 3G(7)
of the TAA 1953]
3.22 The Commissioner may also make information publicly
available that corrects an error that the R&D entity has brought to the
Commissioner's attention. [Schedule 3, item 1, subsections 3G(5) and (6) of the
TAA 1953]
3.23 The Commissioner has discretion in deciding whether to publish
a correction, including discretion as to the time and form of the
publication.
ISA determinations
3.24 The Board of ISA may, by notifiable instrument, make a
determination about how it will exercise its powers, and perform its
functions and duties. However, a determination cannot relate to the
exercise of powers, or the performance of functions or duties, in a
particular case or in relation to a particular R&D entity. [Schedule 3, item 16,
section 31C and subsections 31D(1) and (2) of the IR&D Act]
3.25 Determinations seek to augment the existing program guidance
by allowing the Board of ISA to publicly state its position on the
application of its functions and its interpretation of the legislation,
including the definition of R&D activities, the definition of clinical trials
or any other administrative matters where specific guidance would reduce
the compliance burden for R&D entities.
47
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
3.26 This is intended to make compliance easier for R&D entities, as
they will be able to better understand what is required to demonstrate
eligibility for the Incentive. For example, the Board of ISA may make a
determination about the validity of particular forms of evidence for R&D
activities, thereby providing registrants with increased clarity on how to
best evidence their R&D activities in their registration applications. This
would improve compliance and reduce administrative workloads.
3.27 Determinations are generally binding on the Board of ISA. The
ability to make determinations binding on itself allows the Board of ISA
to provide certainty to R&D claimants and helps ensure R&D entities do
not unintentionally misinterpret the meaning of the law. [Schedule 3, item 16,
section 31D(3) and (4) of the IR&D Act]
3.28 However, determinations are not binding when an R&D entity
seeks a review of a decision. Determinations are intended to operate in a
similar manner to a taxation ruling issued by the Commissioner.
Determinations are not binding on R&D entities. R&D entities may
continue to self-assess their eligibility for the Incentive in a manner that is
inconsistent with a determination but risk ISA contesting their position. If
R&D entities believe a determination is incorrect, they may challenge it
by seeking a review of a decision made consistently with the
determination.
3.29 Determinations are notifiable instruments rather than legislative
instruments (see sections 8 and 11 of the Legislation Act 2003). This
reflects the fact they are not binding on R&D entities and the long-
standing recognition that taxation rulings are not legislative instruments
(section 7 of the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters)
Regulation 2015). [Schedule 3, item 16, subsection 31D(1) of the IR&D Act]
3.30 Making determinations notifiable instruments increases the
certainty they provide to registrants. The disallowable nature of legislative
instruments would undermine the Board's ability to produce
determinations that can be relied on by R&D entities. A disallowance
period would create uncertainty about the validity of a determination until
that period had ended.
3.31 Determinations are to be co-designed and developed in
consultation with relevant stakeholders, including administrators, subject
matter experts, tax advisers and peak bodies representing R&D entities by
size and sector. Merits review (under Division 5 of the IR&D Act) and
judicial review is available for R&D entities in the event of a dispute over
a determination. The development process is intended to ensure that
determinations are stable and reliable forms of guidance that can be relied
upon by R&D entities over long periods of time.
48
Improving the administration of the Research and Development Tax Incentive
Amending or revoking a determination
3.32 Subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provides
that a power to make an instrument includes the power to revoke or vary
the instrument.
3.33 These amendments provide specific circumstances when the
Board of ISA must amend or revoke a determination by notifiable
instrument. The amendments clarify that this does not limit the application
of subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 in relation to the
power to make a determination. That is, the Board of ISA may amend or
revoke a determination in a broader range of circumstances than those
specified in the legislation. [Schedule 3, item 16, subsection 31E(3) of the
IR&D Act]
3.34 A determination has no effect to the extent of any inconsistency
with the IR&D Act, the Industry Research and Development
Regulations 2011 or the Decision-making Principles. If such
inconsistency exists, the Board of ISA must revoke or amend the
determination to remove any inconsistency. [Schedule 3, item 16,
subparagraph 31E(1)(b)(iii) and subsections 31D(4) and 31E(2) of the IR&D Act]
3.35 If the Board of ISA makes a finding specific to an R&D entity, it
must be consistent with any relevant determinations. An R&D entity may
still challenge a specific finding under Division 5 of the IR&D Act on the
basis that the finding is incorrect and the underlying determination is
similarly incorrect. An R&D entity may also challenge a finding on the
basis that it is inconsistent with a determination.
3.36 In the event that a determination is found to be incorrect in a
review decision or must be regarded as incorrect following a review
decision, the Board of ISA must revoke or amend the determination so it
is no longer incorrect. [Schedule 3, item 16, paragraph 31E(1)(a) and
subsection 31E(2) of the IR&D Act]
3.37 The Administrative Appeals Tribunal may review an internal
review decision of the Board of ISA. If a determination is inconsistent
with a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Board of ISA
must revoke or amend the determination so it is no longer inconsistent.
[Schedule 3, item 16, subparagraph 31E(1)(b)(ii) and subsection 31E(2) of the
IR&D Act]
3.38 The Board of ISA must also revoke or amend a determination
that is inconsistent with a decision of a court. [Schedule 3, item 16,
subparagraph 31E(1)(b)(i) and subsection 31E(2) of the IR&D Act]
49
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
ISA delegations
3.39 The Board of ISA and its committees may delegate some or all
of their functions to members of the Australian Public Service staff
assisting the Board. This expands the existing delegation power that
authorised the Board to delegate to SES employees. [Schedule 3, items 18
and 19, subsection 22A(1) and paragraph 21(1)(e) of the IR&D Act]
3.40 The current limit on the delegation power has proved to be
impractical and a significant barrier to the Board of ISA carrying out its
functions necessary to the operation of the Incentive. These functions
include the annual processing of around 14,000 registration applications
as well as hundreds of compliance activities. It is unsustainable and
impractical for a small number of SES delegates to be responsible for this
volume of decision making.
3.41 The expansion of the delegations powers allows additional staff
to be delegated responsibility for a number of administrative program
tasks. This includes, but is not limited to, high-volume, low-risk functions
such as the approval to grant an extension of time to submit applications,
or the ability to request information on an application. Prior to the
introduction of the current SES limit, a broader delegation power was
used effectively and efficiently on a long-standing basis.
3.42 The expansion of the delegations powers also acknowledges the
continual growth in the size of the Incentive and the consequent growth in
resourcing needed to carry out the functions necessary for the Incentive's
effective administration.
Extensions of time
3.43 Extensions of time granted under the IR&D Act may relate to an
application to register R&D activities, provide further information
requested by the Board of ISA, a form to continue registration as a
research service provider or an application for review of a reviewable
decision. An extension will apply on top of the time limits in the
IR&D Act.
3.44 The Board of ISA must not grant extensions of time under the
IR&D Act in excess of three months. [Schedule 3, item 20, subsection 3.2(3) of
the Decision-making Principles]
3.45 Restricting extensions to three months mitigates the risk that
long extensions granted by the Board of ISA result in applications being
accepted a number of years after the relevant R&D activities are
undertaken. Such timeframes are inconsistent with the objectives of the
Incentive as expenditure that occurs without a business being aware of the
Incentive would have occurred in the absence of the Incentive being
available.
50
Improving the administration of the Research and Development Tax Incentive
Further extensions for pending decisions
3.46 This restriction does not apply if the subject matter of the
extension relates to a pending decision on another matter. That is, the
restriction does not apply if the extension relates to a matter
corresponding with the subject of a decision relating to the R&D entity
where that decision has not been finalised. [Schedule 3, item 20,
subsection 3.2(4) of the Decision-making Principles]
3.47 This allows the Board of ISA to grant an extension in excess of
three months where this is necessary to provide a deadline due after the
pending decision is made in relation to decisions of the Board of ISA
under Division 2, 3 or 5 of Part III of the IR&D Act. This facilitates more
administratively efficient outcomes.
Example 3.1
Doppler Dynamics seeks a review of an unfavourable registration
decision in relation to the 2018-19 income year. The review (including
appeals) is finalised in May 2021.
During the course of the review, Doppler Dynamics needs to consider
applying for registration in subsequent years for the same ongoing
activities subject to the review. It would not be efficient for it to lodge
applications that may need to be varied or that may lead to decisions
that need to be set aside following the outcome of the review.
In these circumstances, it is reasonable for the Board of ISA to exercise
its discretion to grant an extension of time until after the pending
decision is made.
Consequential amendments
3.48 A note is amended to explain that the publication of R&D
entities' R&D tax offset claims is not affected by the taxpayer secrecy
provisions. [Schedule 3, item 2, note to section 355-50 in Schedule 1 to the TAA 1953]
3.49 The simplified outline of Part III to the IR&D Act is amended to
reflect the Board of ISA's new power to make determination about how it
will exercise its powers, and perform its functions and duties. [Schedule 3,
items 5, section 26A of the IR&D Act]
3.50 Other amendments are made to the IR&D Act to reflect the
introduction of findings about clinical trials (see paragraph 1.31).
Application provisions
3.51 The amendments commence on the first day of the quarter
following Royal Assent. [Section 2 of the Bill]
51
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
3.52 The transparency amendments apply to income years starting on
or after 1 July 2018. [Schedule 3, item 3]
3.53 The Board of ISA's power to make determinations applies in
relation to the exercise of powers, and the performance of functions and
duties, by the Board of ISA on or after commencement. [Schedule 3, item 17]
3.54 The amendments to the Board of ISA's delegation and extension
of time powers apply to delegations and extension of time decisions made
on or after commencement. [Section 2 of the Bill]
52
Chapter 4
Regulation impact statement - Better
targeting the Research and Development
Tax Incentive
Background
4.1 Innovation is an important driver of productivity and economic
growth, and R&D is an important input to innovation. The economic
impact of business investment in R&D, however, goes beyond the benefits
accruing to the firm undertaking the R&D and spills over to other firms
and the economy as a whole. Businesses may also have difficulty
obtaining finance due to the uncertain returns from R&D activities. As a
result, international research (including by the OECD) has found that
firms typically underinvest in R&D relative to what is socially optimal.
4.2 The underinvestment by business in R&D represents a market
failure and has been recognised internationally as justification for
government intervention. In Australia, the Government primarily supports
increasing investment in business R&D through the R&D Tax Incentive
(R&DTI). While a socially optimal investment level is a theoretical
construct and therefore unable to be quantified, an increase in business
investment in R&D is likely to represent a positive movement towards the
optimal level.
4.3 The R&DTI program is the largest component of Australian
Government support for innovation. In the 2016-17 year, over 15,000
R&D-performing companies registered. According to the 2017-18
Science, Research and Innovation Budget tables, the estimated cost of the
R&DTI program is around $3 billion in 2016-17.
The problem
Current government support for R&D does not fully meet its objectives
4.4 The National Innovation and Science Agenda was launched on 7
December 2015. When launching the Agenda, the Government committed
to undertaking a review of the R&D Tax Incentive (the Review).
4.5 The Review was conducted by a Review Panel comprising Mr
Bill Ferris AC (Chair of Innovation Australia), Dr Alan Finkel AO (Chief
Scientist) and Mr John Fraser (then Secretary of the Department of the
53
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Treasury). The Review Panel was supported by an interdepartmental
taskforce comprising officers from the Department of Industry, Innovation
and Science (DIIS), the Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office
(ATO).
4.6 The Review Panel, drawing on work conducted by the Centre
for International Economics (CIE), found that the R&DTI falls short of
meeting its stated objectives of additionality - encouraging R&D
investment that would not occur in the absence of the program - and
spillovers. The panel identified a number of areas where improvements
could be made in order to improve the effectiveness and integrity of the
program and achieve a stronger focus on additionality.
4.7 On 30 January 2018 Innovation and Science Australia (ISA)
released its report to the Government, Australia 2030: Prosperity through
Innovation (the ISA 2030 Plan). The ISA 2030 Plan included alternative
recommendations to reform the R&DTI.
4.8 In the 2018-19 Budget, the Government announced reforms to
the R&DTI. The reforms respond to the Review of the R&DTI, and also
considered the recommendations for reform in the ISA 2030 Plan. It was
also informed by the considerable stakeholder feedback it had received
over a two year period since the Review report was first released.
Inherent difficulties in measuring program effectiveness
4.9 The intended outcomes of the R&DTI - additionality and
spillovers - are very difficult to quantify and necessitate costly analysis
that relies heavily on anecdotal and qualitative evidence.
4.10 In their program evaluation the CIE stated that:
The two most crucial elements of the R&D TI (additionality and
spillovers) turn out to be extremely difficult to empirically measure and
evaluate.
Additionality cannot be directly measured and must be inferred through
interviews, surveys, statistical analysis and modelling. Therefore,
estimates of additionality will always be imprecise and subject to
uncertainty.
Spillovers, while in principle evident from the techniques of growth
accounting, have also proved to be extremely difficult to measure
empirically.
4.11 Despite the difficulties noted above, the CIE attempted to
measure additionality levels in Australia using a mix of survey data and
statistical analysis. DIIS also commissioned the Centre for Transformative
Innovation at Swinburne University to undertake an econometric analysis
evaluating the level of program additionality.
54
Regulation impact statement - Better targeting the Research and Development Tax Incentive
4.12 The analyses found results broadly consistent with studies from
other countries (0.3 to 1.5 additional dollars of R&D per dollar of tax
forgone for CIE, and 0.8 to 1.9 for Swinburne). There is also common
agreement that additionality is greater for small companies than large
companies.
4.13 A key finding of the Review and the CIE is that, at a conceptual
level, the program's volume based design (i.e. all R&D attracts the same
benefit) is poorly targeted towards additional R&D.
4.14 The most recent estimate of spillovers in an Australian context
was presented by the Productivity Commission (the PC) in 2007. The PC
estimated that a 1 per cent increase in market R&D led to approximately
0.02 per cent increase in productivity or 65 cents of average spillover
benefit from each dollar of R&D conducted.
4.15 There is limited data in relation to spillover benefits and it is not
expected that the reformed program will assist in overcoming these
measurement issues.
Case for government action/objective of reform
4.16 Businesses generally invest less in R&D than is socially optimal
due to their inability to fully appropriate the returns; the inherently risky
nature of R&D activities; and the related uncertainty around their
outcomes. There is a widely agreed role for government intervention to
address this market failure and encourage additional R&D.
4.17 The Review found that the current R&DTI - the largest
component of government support for R&D in Australia - falls short of
meeting its objectives of encouraging additionality and spillovers. Reform
of the R&DTI is required to ensure the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of
the program. The OECD has found that 'basic research' (i.e. experimental
or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the
underlying foundation of phenomena and observable facts, without any
particular application or use in view) results in larger spillovers than
applied research (i.e. experimental or theoretical work directed primarily
towards a specific practical aim or objective).
4.18 There is, however, no evidence that specific industries or types
of R&D produce additionality and spillovers in greater amounts than other
industries or types of R&D. Therefore it is important that the R&DTI is
industry-neutral, aiming to incentivise novel R&D irrespective of the type
of R&D or the sector. This is catered for under the R&DTI through the
broad definition of what constitutes eligible R&D.
4.19 The Review found a relatively low level of additionality under
the current R&DTI, stating that "volume-based tax instruments such as
the Incentive not only subsidise this additional R&D but also support the
activities a company would have done anyway." That is, the program
55
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
provides the same level of support for all eligible R&D activities
undertaken by a claimant, with no requirement to demonstrate that it is
additional to 'business-as-usual' R&D that would have been progressed in
the absence of government support.
4.20 The Review found that the program design could be improved
by reducing support for business-as-usual activities and refocusing
support towards additional R&D, particularly in the non-refundable
portion of the program (available to larger businesses with $20 million or
more turnover per annum).
4.21 The Review recommended improving the R&DTI's
additionality for larger businesses by redirecting government support to
R&D intensive companies - R&D intensity was defined as R&D
expenditure as a proportion of total business expenditure. Compared to
companies with lower R&D intensity, these claimants make more efficient
use of scarce R&D resources such as skilled labour and specific capital
equipment and are more likely to be induced to increase their investment
in R&D
(i.e. generate increased additionality and thus produce greater spillover
benefits). It is also acknowledged that most companies will undertake
some R&D to keep up with competitive pressures and additional R&D
will necessarily fall into higher intensity bands.
4.22 The Review found that although the R&DTI provides effective
support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) via its refundable
component (available to companies with annual turnover below $20
million), the significant growth in the number of SMEs participating in the
program since its introduction is placing upward pressure on program
costs. The Review recommended keeping the rate of benefit unchanged,
but capping cash refunds for refundable R&D tax offset claimants as a
way of placing some restraint on the maximum level of payment that can
be made (SMEs can currently 'cash out' their entire R&D tax offset if
they are in a tax loss position).
4.23 In order to exceed a cap, companies would need to be spending
very large amounts on R&D. Companies spending large enough amounts
on R&D to be impacted by a cap are sophisticated businesses who are
likely to have access to other sources of finance in addition to the R&DTI
to support their R&D activities. As the Review put it, "Refundability is
likely to provide fewer tangible benefits for SMEs with larger R&D
expenditures, who will be able to find alternative sources of finance at
relatively lower costs in comparison with firms with lower R&D
expenditure."
4.24 The Review also noted that " ... as the tax offsets under the
program are at a fixed level, they are relatively more valuable when the
company tax rate is lowered (in comparison to the deduction received for
56
Regulation impact statement - Better targeting the Research and Development Tax Incentive
normally deductible expenses). Hence, the fixed level of the tax offset
should always be calibrated to the level of the company tax."
4.25 The CIE's, and other studies have shown that the most
responsive companies are often cash constrained R&D start-ups, SMEs,
and R&D-intensive companies (those companies whose core business is
R&D-centric). These companies generally devote a greater proportion of
their activities to R&D.
Policy options
4.26 This regulation impact statement compares the Government's
announced reforms to two other potential responses to the Review: 1) no
policy change; and 2) adopting the Review recommendations.
Option 1: No policy change
4.27 If the Government took no action the R&DTI would continue in
its current form. The program currently has two core components:
• a 43.5 per cent refundable tax offset for eligible entities with
a turnover of less than $20 million per annum; and
• a 38.5 per cent non-refundable tax offset for all other eligible
entities. Unused non-refundable offset amounts may be able
to be carried forward to future income years.
4.28 The $100 million expenditure threshold would be maintained.
4.29 In the absence of the R&DTI, companies would deduct their
expenses at the relevant standard company tax rate (from the 2018-19
income year onwards, 27.5 per cent for businesses with annual turnover
less than $50 million and 30 per cent for all other businesses). If a
company was in tax loss, however, they would not receive any immediate
benefit.
4.30 The net benefit provided by the R&DTI is the difference
between the R&D offset rate and what the company would otherwise
receive in the absence of the program (i.e. the value of the standard tax
deduction). These rates can be seen in Table 1 below.
Table 1: R&DTI Net Benefit Rates, 2018-19
Annual Turnover Company Tax Rate (%) R&DTI Offset Rate (%) Net Benefit
0 - $20m (Unprofitable) 0 43.5 43.5 cents
0 - $20m (Profitable) 27.5 43.5 16 cents
$20m - $50m 27.5 38.5 11 cents
$50m and above 30 38.5 8.5 cents
57
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
4.31 Under the refundable tax offset, where a company's tax liability
is smaller than the value of the R&D tax offset they may receive the full
offset as an immediate cash refund rather than carrying it forward to
future income years.
Option 2: R&DTI Review Recommendations
4.32 The Review Panel found that the program does not fully meet its
stated policy objectives and proposed a range of recommendations to
improve its effectiveness and integrity. The recommendations include
initiatives to encourage additional R&D. The Review's recommendations
are summarised in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Review recommendations
Rec Detail
1. Retain the current scope of eligible activities and improve guidance to registrants.
2. Introduce a collaborative premium of up to 20 per cent for the non-refundable tax
offset to provide additional support for the collaborative element of R&D
expenditures undertaken with publicly-funded research organisations.
- The premium would also apply to the cost of employing new STEM PhD or
equivalent graduates in their first three years of employment.
- Companies falling below the intensity threshold should still be able to access both
elements of the collaboration premium.
3. Introduce a cap on the annual cash refund (in the order of $2m) with remaining
offset treated as non-refundable offsets and carried forward.
4. Introduce a 1-2 per cent R&D intensity threshold for the non-refundable element,
such that only R&D expenditure over the threshold attracts a benefit. Intensity is
defined as the proportion of R&D expenditure over total expenditure.
5. If an R&D intensity threshold is introduced, increase the R&D expenditure
threshold from $100m p.a. to $200m p.a.
6. Investigate options for improving the administration of the R&DTI (e.g. adopting a
single application process; developing a single program database; reviewing the
two-agency delivery model; and streamlining compliance review and findings
processes, publishing annually the names of companies claiming the R&DTI and
the amounts of R&D expenditure claimed) and additional resourcing that may be
required to implement such enhancements. To improve transparency, the
Government should also publish the names of companies claiming the R&DTI and
the amounts of R&D expenditure claimed.
Option 3: Targeted reforms to the R&DTI (preferred option)
4.33 The Government's option, announced in the 2018-19 Budget,
comprises targeted reforms to the R&DTI including;
58
Regulation impact statement - Better targeting the Research and Development Tax Incentive
• a $4 million cap on cash refunds with an exemption for
clinical trials;
• an R&D Premium that rewards companies for conducting
high intensity R&D;
• an increase in the R&D expenditure threshold from
$100 million to $150 million;
• linking the R&D tax offset rate to the prevailing company tax
rate;
• introducing a new power for ISA to make 'general
determination'; and
• changes to integrity provisions in the tax legislation to cover
the R&D tax offsets.
4.34 The changes would apply for income years starting on or after 1
July 2018.
4.35 The reforms include a $4 million annual cap on cash refunds for
R&D claimants with aggregated annual turnover less than $20 million.
Amounts in excess of the cap would become a
non-refundable tax offset to be carried forward into future income years.
Expenditure on clinical trials would be excluded from the $4 million cap
on cash refunds, recognising the critical role of clinical trials in
developing life changing drugs and devices.
4.36 The reforms refocus support for larger companies (with annual
turnover of $20 million or more) to those with higher R&D intensity,
while continuing to provide a baseline level of support for companies with
lower R&D intensity through a new R&D Premium. The R&D Premium
provides multiple rates of non-refundable R&D tax offsets, increasing
with the intensity of companies' R&D expenditure.
4.37 The current $100 million expenditure threshold would be
increased to $150 million. The higher expenditure threshold encourages
large companies to spend more on R&D, as a greater proportion of their
R&D expenditure will be eligible for the R&DTI incentives.
4.38 See Table 3 for the rates of benefit provided by the R&D
Premium. Box 1 provides an example of how the R&D Premium would
operate in conjunction with the increased expenditure threshold.
4.39 The rates of the R&D tax offsets would be linked to each
claimant's company tax rate, removing the need for ongoing legislative
amendment of R&DTI tax offset rates as company tax rates change (see
Table 3). This ensures that companies receive a fixed premium (above the
value of a standard tax deduction) for R&D expenditure as the
Government's corporate tax cuts take effect.
59
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Table 3: The new R&DTI tax offsets
R&DTI Tax offset Rate of offset
Refundable R&D Tax The claimant's tax rate for the year plus 13.5 percentage
offset points
(companies with turnover
less than $20 million)
Non-refundable R&D Tax The claimant's tax rate for the year, plus:
offset • 4 percentage points for R&D expenditure between
(companies with turnover of 0 per cent and 2 per cent R&D intensity (inclusive);
$20 million or more)
• 6.5 percentage points for R&D expenditure above
2 per cent to 5 per cent intensity (i.e. not including R&D
expenditure falling within the first 2 per cent of the
claimant's total expenses for the year) ;
• 9 percentage points for R&D expenditure above 5 per cent
to 10 per cent intensity (i.e. not including R&D
expenditure falling within the first 5 per cent of the
claimant's total expenses for the year) ; and
• 12.5 percentage points for R&D expenditure above
10 per cent intensity (i.e. not including R&D expenditure
falling within the first 10 per cent of the claimant's total
expenses for the year).
How would the expenditure threshold work with an R&D Premium?
4.40 For a given income period, if Company A has a total business
expenses of $5 billion and eligible R&D expenditure of $350 million, the
company has a 7 per cent R&D intensity ($350 million / $5 billion).
Under existing policy settings, the company would receive the 38.5 per
cent non-refundable R&D tax offset on the first $100 million of R&D
expenditure and a 30 per cent offset for the remainder ($250 million),
resulting in a total non-refundable tax offset of $113.5 million.
4.41 Under the R&D Premium with an associated increase of the
expenditure threshold to $150 million, the first $100 million (2% of $5
billion) would attract an offset of $34 million (34 per cent x $100 million).
The next $50 million would be eligible for an offset of $18.25 million
(36.5 per cent x $50 million). The remaining amounts ($200 million) will
receive an offset at the prevailing company tax rate. The resulting tax
offset would be $112.25 million.
4.42 The ISA Board would have the power to publish 'general
determinations', which would be binding on the ISA Board. The general
determinations would provide guidance on the circumstances in which the
Board can exercise its powers or perform its functions or duties in relation
to the R&DTI.
60
Regulation impact statement - Better targeting the Research and Development Tax Incentive
4.43 The targeted reforms would also improve the integrity of the
R&DTI by strengthening anti-avoidance rules, publishing claimant details
and amounts of R&D expenditure claimed and improving guidance to
help ensure that taxpayers do not make incorrect claims.
Impact analysis of each option
4.44 In order to receive a benefit under the R&DTI, companies must
go through a two stage process: registering R&D activities with the
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS); and then claiming
related expenditure through their annual tax return by filling out an R&D
Tax Schedule with the Australian Taxation Office. The activities
associated with the registration and claiming processes comprise the
R&DTI's regulatory costs. As with the rest of the taxation system, over 80
per cent of companies that register for the R&DTI use consultants to assist
with their applications. The fees paid to these consultants impose a
regulatory burden on registrants, and are therefore considered when
determining the regulatory costs of the different options.
Option 1: No policy change
4.45 Under this option, no action would be taken by the Government
and the current R&DTI continues unchanged. There is therefore no
change to the regulatory cost of the program.
Benefits
4.46 The benefit of this option would be that there is no increase in
regulatory burden.
Costs
4.47 The cost of this option would be that the Government continues
to provide support to 'business-as-usual' R&D which would likely have
been conducted anyway (i.e. in absence of the program). The R&DTI
would continue to fail to fully meet the program objective of encouraging
greater additionality in R&D activities to the detriment of the economy.
4.48 There would also be a risk that growth in the number of
companies in the program could place upward pressure on program costs,
without an attendant increase in additionality.
4.49 Program costs will also continue to rise as the Government's
company tax cuts come into effect. Without changes to offset rates, the
lower company tax rates increase the effective benefit of the R&DTI and
the resulting cost to government.
61
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Option 1 - Net outcome
4.50 While there would be no change to the regulatory burden on
business, the identified deficiencies in the efficacy of the program would
continue, limiting the economic benefits and cost effectiveness of the
R&DTI.
Option 2: R&DTI Review Recommendations
4.51 This option would implement the recommendations of the
Review without any alterations.
Benefits
4.52 Introducing a minimum R&D intensity requirement would target
support towards companies that are the most significant participants in
Australia's R&D landscape. As the benefit would not be provided for
R&D expenditure under the threshold (the Review found that at least such
a level of expenditure would be expected as business as usual in a truly
innovative company), the intensity threshold is more likely to direct
support to companies investing in additional R&D.
4.53 Companies below the threshold would no longer be eligible to
receive a benefit under the program, which reduces the overall
administrative burden. This is due to fewer companies needing to
complete the registration process and separately account for related
expenses, therefore removing the need for associated record keeping and
compliance-ready measures.
4.54 The Review also recommended that the $100 million
expenditure threshold should be increased to $200 million. The higher
expenditure threshold, when combined with the intensity threshold, would
likely sharpen the additionality of larger companies. This is because the
select few companies in a position to benefit from the higher expenditure
threshold would be able to register more R&D activities in order to
receive the greater benefit. The increased expenditure threshold therefore
supports the program's purpose of driving additionality.
4.55 A $2 million cap on cash refunds would constrain the costs of
the refundable R&D offsets under the program by limiting the most costly
element of the program. These companies were found by the Review to be
the most responsive to the inducement on offer and the most likely to
reinvest the support provided into additional R&D.
4.56 The introduction of a collaboration premium would support
greater collaboration with publicly funded research organisations
(PFROs). This in turn, would increase the potential for significant
knowledge transfer and wider benefits to the economy. However, factors
62
Regulation impact statement - Better targeting the Research and Development Tax Incentive
such as cultural differences between industry and universities and
difficulties in navigating university processes over intellectual property
(IP) would remain significant inhibitors of collaboration. As with the
volume based nature of the R&DTI, additional support would be offered
for the significant amount of collaborative R&D activity already
underway at no additional benefit to the tax payer.
Costs
4.57 The introduction of an intensity threshold in isolation is
estimated to deny an R&DTI benefit to those claimants with intensities
less than 1 or 2 per cent. Conceptually the companies falling below the
threshold would be more likely to be undertaking business as usual R&D
than additional R&D. As this R&D is expected to continue without
Government support, R&D activity for these companies is expected to
remain relatively stable.
4.58 A $2 million refund cap may deter some start-ups from investing
in additional R&D and could significantly impact the development of new
innovative start-up companies in Australia. The biotech and medical
industries would be particularly affected. These industries are generally
very R&D intensive, with long term R&D projects that require large
amounts of persistent capital and financing. The industry frequently incurs
large expenses before any returns on investment are made. There is often
a long time between the initial R&D and commercialisation due to the
rigorous safety and efficacy testing requirements required for new
medications and medical devices. The $2 million cap could force clinical
trial activities offshore as the cash refund cap would limit cash flow.
4.59 The collaboration premium may be limited in its ability to
effectively increase the level of collaboration. While the collaboration
premium would reward companies for collaborating with publicly funded
research organisations, it would not address the significant cultural and
structural barriers to collaboration. A collaboration premium also creates
the potential for distortionary impacts and rorting. For example, a
company with the internal capability to undertake R&D may choose to
outsource the activity simply to receive a higher benefit rate. This would
not be an efficient allocation of resources.
Option 2 - Net benefit
4.60 The net result would be lower regulatory costs for the program,
largely driven by changes that effectively exclude companies from
accessing the program.
4.61 The intensity threshold precludes a significant number of non-
refundable claimants from accessing the R&DTI. As these companies
would no longer be required to register their R&D activities or complete
the R&D schedule to their tax return, their regulatory burden is reduced.
63
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
4.62 The $2 million refund cap proposed by the Review is
significantly more restrictive than the $4 million refund cap included in
the targeted reforms to the R&DTI (Option 3) and would be expected to
adversely impact smaller companies with significant, longer term
investments in R&D, including biotech, medtech and life science
companies.
4.63 The design elements of the collaboration premium - such as the
specific definition of 'collaboration', the eligibility criteria and the
claiming process - were never elaborated upon by the Review. While the
measure proposes a premium rate for collaborative R&D, those activities
are already eligible under the current program arrangements. The
regulatory impact would merely require separating out the related
expenses, however this is likely to occur already as through contract
agreements (it would be highly unusual not to given intellectual property
is being created). As a result, the regulatory impact from the measure is
believed to be negligible.
4.64 Regulatory costings for the Review recommendations are lower
than the Option 3 reforms as a result of companies being excluded from
the program, which reduces registration, record keeping and audit costs
for these companies.
4.65 This option would result in an estimated total average annual
regulatory saving for businesses of $16.1 million.
Table 4: Regulatory burden estimate (RBE) table (Option 2)
Average annual regulatory costs (from business-as-usual)
Change in costs Business Community Individuals Total change
($ million) organisations in cost
Total, by sector $16.1 save Nil Nil $16.1 save
*Average annual impact (calculated over 10 years).
Option 3: Targeted reforms to the R&DTI (preferred option)
4.66 Under this option, the government's targeted reforms to the
R&DTI would be implemented.
Benefits
4.67 Introducing an R&D Premium would target support towards
companies that are the most significant participants in Australia's R&D
landscape. R&D intensive companies are considered to be more
responsive to fiscal incentives intended to support R&D. Focussing on
64
Regulation impact statement - Better targeting the Research and Development Tax Incentive
these companies would better target the program's focus on additionality
and spillovers while also helping to constrain its cost.
4.68 Some large companies will have their R&D claim reduced,
resulting from the reduction in the level of support for R&D expenditure
that is more likely to be business as usual. The level of support will be
increased for R&D that is more likely to be additional. The reduced
support for business as usual R&D and increased support for additional
R&D expenditure is expected to improve the additionality of the program.
4.69 Although companies are expected to have some response to the
reduction in their overall support, their response may be quite small. This
is because the reduction in support is for R&D expenditure that is likely to
be business as usual - that is, likely to be conducted even in the absence
of the program.
4.70 There are a number of distinct benefits of targeting the program
towards R&D intensive companies. The Review found R&D intensive
companies are more likely to:
• use R&D inputs such as skilled labour and specialised
equipment efficiently;
• partner with other bodies, increasing prospects for spillover
benefits; and
• be undertaking basic research and novel R&D (found to
generate greater spillovers).
4.71 The current $100 million expenditure threshold would be
increased to $150 million. The higher expenditure threshold would
encourage large companies to spend more on their R&D in Australia.
4.72 The package of changes to the non-refundable R&DTI is
estimated to provide a higher benefit to approximately 180 companies
compared to the existing program. This modelling is based on tax
administration data reported for the 2014-15 income year.
4.73 A $4 million cap on cash refunds would sharpen the R&DTI's
focus on additional R&D activity by ensuring that government resources
are provided to those most in need. The $4 million cap would place a
reasonable constraint on the amount of refund provided to a company in a
given year. Companies would retain access to the full amount of their
R&D offset but, refundable amounts exceeding $4 million would be
carried forward to future years as a non-refundable tax offset for use in
future years.
4.74 To be impacted by the cash refund cap of $4 million, a company
needs to spend around $10 million on eligible R&D expenditure in an
income year. R&D spending of this size cannot be sustained by tax
refunds alone, resulting in the conclusion that these companies have
65
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
access to alternative sources of finance. As one of the key rationales of the
refundable component of the program is to support small, cash
constrained SMEs, there is little policy rationale in providing unlimited
Government funding to companies capable of obtaining finance through
private means. As is the case with most other international jurisdictions
offering cash refund for R&D activities (e.g. Denmark, Ireland and
Spain), it is reasonable for an upper limit to be placed on the amount of
cash benefit a company can receive in an income year.
4.75 The reforms to the refundable tax offset would also include a
carve-out for clinical trials. This carve out would mean that eligible
expenditure incurred on clinical trials would be exempt from the
$4 million cap. The carve-out would ensure that support is maintained for
critical drug and medical device development.
4.76 Linking R&D offset rates to the company tax rate would address
the expected program cost increases resulting from the proposed company
tax rate reductions in a manner which avoids the need to repeatedly amend
the tax law. In the absence of linking to company tax rates, in order to
maintain the level of benefit available under the R&DTI, the program
would need to be amended every time the company tax rate was changed.
Given the expected frequency of such changes, the linking is more
efficient and provides certainty for program participants going forward.
4.77 The ISA Board would have the ability to publish 'general
determinations', which would be binding on the ISA Board and pertain to
the circumstances in which the Board can exercise its powers or perform
its functions or duties in relation to the R&DTI. The broad scope of
general determinations would assist in improving the clarity of advice
provided to industry claimants, and would provide program participants
with clearer guidance about eligibility requirements. Practically, this is
expected to result in reduced time and money devoted to program
registration and dealing with compliance activities. Clearer guidance and
eligibility will also result in a reduced need for companies to engage
consultants and expert advice when engaging with the program.
4.78 Amending Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, to
include both the refundable and non-refundable R&D tax offsets in the
definition of a 'tax benefit' would provide the ATO with the ability to
challenge contrived tax arrangements that seek to utilise R&D tax offsets.
Costs
4.79 Around 875 (45 per cent) of companies claiming the non-
refundable R&D tax offset are expected to have intensities less than 2 per
cent, placing these firms into the lowest R&D Premium threshold. The
remaining non-refundable offset recipients (approximately 1,070) have
intensities greater than 2 per cent.
66
Regulation impact statement - Better targeting the Research and Development Tax Incentive
4.80 Companies receiving the refundable R&D offset would see a
reduction in their overall benefit amount as a result of linking to the
company's tax rate.
4.81 It is estimated that a $4 million cap would impact the cash
refund values of around 20 claimants receiving the refundable offset,
taking into account other elements of the package. These registrants
would no longer receive a cash refund for amounts in excess of the $4
million cap.
4.82 For companies that are impacted by the cap on cash refunds,
those conducting clinical trials would still be able to receive a cash refund
above $4 million.
4.83 The Linking measure will reduce the level of benefit available to
profitable SMEs from 16 per cent to 13.5 per cent. However, this measure
is required to reset the level of benefit to that which was available prior to
the small business company tax cuts. Profitable SMEs have in the
meantime been the beneficiaries of an unintended windfall arising from
this anomaly.
4.84 Unprofitable SMEs will see a reduction in their refundable
benefit of 2.5 per cent. This is an acknowledged policy consequence of the
Linking measure, and provides a consistent level of benefit for both
profitable and unprofitable SMEs.
4.85 There are difficulties measuring the elasticities (i.e.
responsiveness) of R&D expenditure incurred by smaller claimants that
would allow an assessment of the likely impact of the measure on the
aggregate level of R&D. While the level of benefit is being slightly
reduced, the equivalent reduction in company tax rates will have more
widespread positive cash flow consequences. Given the two policies will
be rolled out concurrently, future analysis is also unlikely to be able to
disaggregate the effects of these two policies.
4.86 Given the changes being made to the program, the feedstock,
clawback and balancing adjustment rules would need to be amended to
ensure they correctly reverse the tax benefit of claiming R&D in situations
such as where the R&D activities are funded by other forms of
government support or the results of R&D activities are sold. This may
result in some minor transitional costs for taxpayers already claiming
under the program.
4.87 It is expected that the regulatory impact of the changes would be
moderate. The intensity calculation for companies receiving the non-
refundable offset would use information from existing tax return labels.
As companies already collect the required information, making an
additional calculation would impose limited additional costs. The
introduction of the cap on cash refunds is not expected to change the way
67
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
that companies would register or claim their R&D expenditure, except for
those claiming a clinical trials exemption.
4.88 Increased regulatory burdens would largely lie with companies
who would benefit under changes in the program. For example, the
companies in a position to benefit from the higher expenditure threshold
may choose to register additional R&D activities in order to maximise
their benefits under the program.
Option 3 - Net benefit
4.89 The net result is that the R&DTI would be refocused towards
supporting additional high intensity R&D expenditure, reducing support
for business-as-usual activities and improving the returns to the economy
and to tax payers. The changes help reduce the cost of the program,
delivering a save to the Budget of $2.4 billion in fiscal terms over the
forward estimates.
4.90 Under the Option 3, the regulatory burden is higher than for
Option 2, however this is due to retained access for all non-refundable
claimants. These companies would still be able to access a baseline level
of support even if their R&D intensity is less than one or two per cent.
These lower intensity companies are excluded under Option 2, and so
reduce the associated regulatory costs.
4.91 The targeted reforms to the R&DTI would have minimal
regulatory impact on program participants and the reforms do not exclude
any companies from claiming under the R&DTI. Minor changes would be
required to the registration and claims processes as a result of the changes.
Record keeping requirements would remain largely unchanged, and
information required to calculate a company's intensity (e.g. total
expenses) is already available as part of the company tax return process.
Accordingly, only a minor increase in compliance costs is expected.
4.92 The potential for companies to establish specific R&D entities
for the purpose of accessing the higher R&D intensity benefits was
considered during the legislation consultation process. Following
stakeholder feedback, it was deemed that the risk of this occurring is low
and the ATO has advised that the anti-avoidance provisions in the tax law,
which are being strengthened as part of this legislative package, are
sufficient to ensure the integrity of the program.
4.93 This option would result in an estimated total average annual
regulatory cost for businesses of $25.2 million:
Table 5: Regulatory burden estimate (RBE) table (Option 3)
68
Regulation impact statement - Better targeting the Research and Development Tax Incentive
Average annual regulatory costs (from business-as-usual)
Change in costs Business Community Individuals Total change in
($ million) organisations cost
Total, by sector $25.2 Nil Nil $25.2
*Average annual impact (calculated over 10 years).
Consultation plan
4.94 There has been significant consultation on the reforms to the
R&DTI.
4.95 The first round of public consultation occurred during the
Review of the R&D Tax Incentive in early 2016. To inform their
deliberations, the Review Panel conducted a program of targeted
consultations with a variety of stakeholders including those from industry,
the research sector, and government and tax agents. The Review
consultation period began on 13 January 2016 and ended on 18 March
2016.
4.96 The Review was released publicly on 28 September 2016. To
inform its response to the Review Panel's proposed recommendations, the
Government announced a four week public consultation period, which
was undertaken following the public release of the Review report. In
addition to written submissions, the Minister for Industry, Innovation and
Science convened a number of roundtables with peak industry bodies, and
one-on-one meetings with targeted stakeholders and DIIS conducted
multiple stakeholder forums in all states and territories to receive
feedback. The written submissions are publicly available on the DIIS
website at industry.gov.au.
4.97 Following the Government's announcement of reforms in the
context of the 2018-19 Budget, draft legislation was released for public
consultation from 29 June to 26 July 2018. In addition to written
submissions, consultations included a series of face-to-face meetings with
key stakeholders conducted by DIIS in consultation with the Treasury and
ATO.
4.98 Consistent with the prior consultation processes, some
stakeholders objected to the potential reduction of benefits under the
proposed changes. However in general, feedback from this process has
helped refine the final legislation with the following stakeholder
suggestions being adopted:
• Amending the 'R&D premium' so that it is calculated as a
portion of 'total expenses' and not 'total expenditure'.
Stakeholders argued this would be easier to comply with as
69
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
the information is more readily available in their accounting
systems;
• Clarified the scope of the clinical trial exemption to remove
ambiguity;
• Expanded the new mechanism for working out clawback and
feedstock adjustments to include balancing adjustments for
R&D assets, meaning a single mechanism is used for
adjustments to the amounts of benefit received under the
Incentive;
• Excluded clawback amounts from the income tests that apply
to early stage investment companies (ESICs), to ensure the
Incentive does not inadvertently impact eligibility for other
Government programs; and
• Explicitly legislated a minimum 2 year delay for the ATO
publishing R&DTI claimant details to help alleviate
stakeholder concerns that data published soon after year end
could be commercially sensitive in nature.
4.99 In addition to the above formal consultations, DIIS will continue
to engage with stakeholders throughout implementation of the reforms.
Option selection/conclusion
4.100 The preferred policy option is to implement the targeted reforms
to the R&DTI (Option 3). Option 3 would better target the R&DTI by
inducing greater additionality and spillovers, while improving the
integrity and sustainability of the program. Option 3 addresses the issues
raised in the Review but maintains a base level of support for all R&D
performing companies, and provides a greater incentive to high R&D
intensity companies than that recommended by the Review (Option 2).
Option 3 implements a larger annual cap on cash refunds and provides a
minimum base rate of support for claimants with low R&D intensity.
4.101 Although Option 3 is expected to result in higher regulatory
costs, it continues to provide support to companies that would be
completely excluded from the program under Option 2. It also addresses
the policy concerns with the current program, which would have persisted
under Option 1. It is therefore the preferred approach to reform of the
R&DTI.
70
Regulation impact statement - Better targeting the Research and Development Tax Incentive
Implementation and evaluation/review
4.102 Legislation is required to implement this proposal. The reforms
to the R&DTI announced in the context of the 2018-19 Budget will apply
for income years on or after 1 July 2018. As such, legislation will need to
be passed by 30 June 2019 for the measures to apply to the 2018-19 year.
4.103 To support R&DTI claimants in understanding their obligations
under the reformed program, the ATO and AusIndustry will issue
improved guidance products for claimants. This will be augmented by the
proposed changes that permit ISA to issue binding public guidance,
increasing certainty for claimant's as to what is and is not eligible R&D
activity under the R&DTI. Additional resourcing for the regulators will
also be used to undertake greater enforcement activity, further improving
the integrity of the R&DTI.
4.104 Following the passage of the legislation, the ATO and ISA will
continue to undertake their client feedback processes, which assist in
identifying opportunities to improve the administration of the R&DTI.
Treasury and DIIS will also consider feedback from regulators and
stakeholders as to how the reformed R&DTI is operating in practice.
4.105 Following the end of a financial year, there is a 16 month delay
before complete registration and taxation data for that years' R&DTI
registrants becomes available. This time lag means that analysing
companies' behavioural responses to the proposed measures would not be
possible for some time (late 2020 at the earliest). This is because a number
of years of data from the reformed program would be necessary to
perform a useful evaluation of the effects of any changes. Accordingly,
any review performed before 2022/23 would be of limited value as the
dataset would not cover a sufficient period.
4.106 Evaluations for the R&DTI are performed in consultation with
DIIS's internal evaluation unit, and the results are made public at
Ministerial discretion.
4.107 As discussed earlier in this document, there are longstanding
challenges in evaluating program effectiveness against its objectives of
additionality and spillovers. To again quote the CIE:
... there are significant difficulties in measuring additionality and
spillovers arising from the R&D TI. This means that a sound quantitative
estimate of the overall benefits of the scheme to the economy (or an
estimate of the value that the taxpayer receives for their expenditure) will
always be subject to considerable uncertainty.
4.108 It is not expected that the reformed program will assist in
overcoming these data issues.
71
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
4.109 General summaries of Government support provided for
business R&D will continue to be published publicly in the annual
Science, Research and Innovation Budget Tables. In addition, the reforms
to the R&DTI will ensure transparency of the program by publishing the
names of companies, and their claim amounts, following a two year delay.
72
Chapter 5
Thin capitalisation
Outline of chapter
5.1 Schedule 4 to this Bill amends the ITAA 1997 to tighten
Australia's thin capitalisation rules by:
• requiring an entity to use the value of the assets, liabilities
(including debt capital) and equity capital that are used in its
financial statements;
• removing the ability for an entity to revalue its assets
specifically for thin capitalisation purposes; and
• ensuring that non-ADI foreign controlled Australian tax
consolidated groups and multiple entry consolidated groups
that have foreign investments or operations are treated as
both outward investing and inward investing entities.
5.2 All references in this Chapter are to provisions in the
ITAA 1997 unless otherwise stated.
Context of amendments
5.3 The thin capitalisation rules apply to foreign controlled
Australian entities, Australian entities that operate internationally and
foreign entities that operate in Australia. These entities are classified as:
• outward investing entities;
• inward investing entities; or
• both outward investing and inward investing entities.
5.4 In the case of an entity that is not an ADI, the thin capitalisation
rules operate to, broadly, deny a deduction for debt financing expenses to
the extent that the entity's debt exceeds a prescribed level (and the entity
is therefore thinly capitalised). A thin capitalisation exposure (where debt
deductions are disallowed) will arise where the level of adjusted average
debt exceeds the maximum allowable debt during an income year.
5.5 In the case of an entity that is an ADI, the rules operate to,
broadly, deny a deduction for debt financing expenses if the ADI's
minimum capital amount is not reached during an income year. A thin
capitalisation exposure will arise where an entity has a capital shortfall
73
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
between its adjusted average equity capital amount and its minimum
capital amount.
5.6 There are a number of tests available to determine whether the
entity has a thin capitalisation exposure. These rules vary depending on
the thin capitalisation classification of the entity.
Asset recognition and revaluations
5.7 An entity is generally required to comply with accounting
standards in:
• determining what are its assets and liabilities; and
• calculating the value of its assets, liabilities (including debt
capital) and equity capital.
5.8 However, the thin capitalisation rules allow an entity to
recognise certain assets and revalue its assets in a different way in certain
circumstances.
5.9 Recently, there has been a significant increase in the use of asset
revaluations by taxpayers in order to generate additional debt capacity
under the safe harbour debt amount. This enables these taxpayers to claim
greater debt deductions. Concerns have been raised about the rigour and
accuracy of some of these asset revaluations.
Classification of head companies of tax consolidated groups
5.10 Under the thin capitalisation provisions, a head company of an
Australian tax consolidated group or a multiple entry consolidated group
is classified as an outward investing entity if it:
• is a foreign controlled non-ADI; and
• controls foreign entities or has foreign permanent
establishments.
5.11 As a result, some head companies may have benefited from
certain thin capitalisation rules that are only intended for outward
investing entities that are not foreign controlled Australian entities.
Summary of new law
5.12 Schedule 4 to this Bill amends the ITAA 1997 to tighten
Australia's thin capitalisation rules by:
74
Thin capitalisation
• requiring an entity to use the value of the assets, liabilities
(including debt capital) and equity capital that are used in its
financial statements;
• removing the ability for an entity to revalue its assets
specifically for thin capitalisation purposes; and
• ensuring that non-ADI foreign controlled Australian tax
consolidated groups and multiple entry consolidated groups
that have foreign investments or operations are treated as
both outward investing and inward investing entities.
5.13 A transitional rule will allow an entity to rely on revaluations of
assets supported by the entity's most recent valuation made prior to the
time of announcement of the measure on 8 May 2018. These revaluations
can be used until the last day before the start of the income year
commencing on or after 1 July 2019.
Comparison of key features of new law and current law
New law Current law
For the purpose of the thin For the purpose of the thin
capitalisation rules, an entity must capitalisation rules, an entity must
comply with the accounting standards comply with the accounting standards
in determining and calculating the in determining and calculating the
value of its assets, liabilities value of its assets, liabilities
(including debt capital) and equity (including debt capital) and equity
capital. capital.
An entity: An entity can depart from this value
• must use the value of the assets, to:
liabilities (including debt capital) • value its assets at a value different
and equity capital that are used in to that used in the entity's
the entity's financial statements; financial statements;
and • recognise internally generated
• can no longer revalue its assets intangible assets that are not
specifically for thin capitalisation recognised under the accounting
purposes. standards; and
• revalue intangible assets that do
not have an active market.
Non-ADI foreign controlled Non-ADI foreign controlled
Australian tax consolidated groups Australian tax consolidated groups
and multiple entry consolidated and multiple entry consolidated
groups that have foreign investments groups that have foreign investments
or operations will be treated as both or operations are treated as outward
outward investing and inward investing entities.
investing entities.
75
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Detailed explanation of new law
5.14 Schedule 4 to this Bill amends the ITAA 1997 to tighten
Australia's thin capitalisation rules by:
• requiring an entity to use the value of the assets, liabilities
(including debt capital) and equity capital that are used in its
financial statements;
• removing the ability for an entity to revalue its assets
specifically for thin capitalisation purposes; and
• ensuring that non-ADI foreign controlled Australian tax
consolidated groups and multiple entry consolidated groups
that have foreign investments or operations are treated as
both outward investing and inward investing entities.
Alignment with financial statement values
5.15 Under subsection 820-680(1), for the purposes of the thin
capitalisation rules, an entity must comply with accounting standards in:
• determining what are its assets and liabilities; and
• calculating the value of its assets, liabilities (including debt
capital) and equity capital.
5.16 An entity must determine or calculate these matters (the relevant
matters), for the purposes of the thin capitalisation rules in the same way
as they are determined or calculated in the entity's financial statements if:
• the entity is required by an Australian law to prepare
financial statements for a period in accordance with the
accounting standards; and
• the relevant matters are determined or calculated in
accordance with the accounting standards for the purpose of
the entity's financial statements in relation to the period.
[Schedule 4, item 11, subsection 820-680(2)]
5.17 The entity's assets and liabilities for thin capitalisation purposes
are those recognised in its financial statements. The entity must calculate
the value of each of its assets, liabilities, debt capital and equity capital as
measured in its financial statements.
5.18 For these purposes, debt capital and equity capital are defined in
subsection 995-1(1) and are based on the concepts of debt interest and
equity interest as defined in the debt and equity rules in Division 974.
5.19 A modification applies if:
76
Thin capitalisation
• a period for which the entity must determine or calculate a
relevant matter (the current period) is not the same as the
period to which the requirements in
paragraphs 820-680(2)(a) and (b) are satisfied -- that is,
broadly, the period to which the relevant matters are
determined or calculated in accordance with the accounting
standards for the purpose of the entity's financial statements;
and
• the current period overlaps with one or more periods to
which those requirements are satisfied.
[Schedule 4, item 11, subsection 820-680(3)]
5.20 In these circumstances, the entity must determine or calculate
the relevant matters in relation to the current period in the same way as
they are determined or calculated in the financial statements for the most
recent of the overlapping periods. [Schedule 4, item 11, subsection 820-680(3)]
5.21 Under the thin capitalisation rules, an entity can choose to adopt
the opening and closing averaging method for its thin capitalisation
calculations. This method requires calculating the average value of the
following amounts:
• the opening value of the assets, liabilities (including debt
capital) and equity capital on the first day of the income year;
and
• the closing value of the assets, liabilities (including debt
capital) and equity capital on the last day of the income year.
5.22 In this situation, the entity would recognise the assets, liabilities
(including debt capital) and equity capital, and their respective opening
and closing values, contained in the entity's financial statements for those
periods. These periods would typically be the year end values of these
assets, liabilities (including debt capital) and equity capital reflected in the
prior income year financial statements (for the opening values) and the
current year financial statements (for the closing values).
Example 5.1: Part year periods
An entity acquires a foreign subsidiary three months into the
2021-22 income year. The acquisition changes the entity's
classification for thin capitalisation purposes from an inward
investment vehicle (general) to an outward investor (general). The
entity:
• only prepares financial statements at 30 June each year; and
• uses the opening and closing measurement day method for thin
capitalisation purposes.
77
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
The entity is an inward investing entity for the period from 1 July 2021
to 30 September 2021 -- that is, for the first part year period. During
this period, the entity:
• determines and calculates the value of its assets, liabilities
(including debt capital) and equity capital as at 1 July 2021 (the
opening measurement point) using the financial statements
prepared for 30 June 2021; and
• determines and calculates the value of its assets, liabilities
(including debt capital) and equity capital as at 30 September 2021
(the closing measurement point) in the same way as they are
measured in the financial statements prepared for 30 June 2022 (the
current income year) reflecting any changes in assets, liabilities
(including debt capital) and equity capital over that three month
period.
The entity is an outward investing entity for the period from
1 October 2021 to 30 June 2022 -- that is, for the second part year
period. During this period, the entity:
• determines and calculates the value of its assets, liabilities
(including debt capital) and equity capital as at 1 October 2021 (the
opening measurement point) in the same way as they are measured
in the financial statements prepared for 30 June 2022; and
• determines and calculates the value of its assets, liabilities
(including debt capital) and equity capital as at 30 June 2022 (the
closing measurement point) using the financial statements prepared
for 30 June 2022.
5.23 If an entity adopts another method for calculating average values
permitted by the thin capitalisation rules, then there may be points in time
throughout that income year period where the values would not be
reflected in the year end financial statements.
5.24 For example, if an entity adopts the quarterly period averaging
method, it may not prepare financial statements at each measurement
point.
5.25 In these circumstances, an entity must determine or calculate its
assets, liabilities (including debt capital) and equity capital for those
quarterly periods in the same way as they are determined or calculated in
the entity's financial statements.
5.26 For example, if an entity adopts a cost less depreciation
accounting methodology for its asset values in its financial statements, the
entity must also adopt that same accounting methodology for determining
and calculating the value of those assets for each of the intervening
quarterly end periods.
78
Thin capitalisation
Example 5.2: Half year and full year financial reports
A&P Co is a company that has a 30 June year end. A&P Co is required
to prepare half yearly financial statements (at 31 December) and full
year financial statements (at 30 June) in accordance with the
accounting standards under an Australian law.
A&P Co recognises certain land and building assets which are
reflected in its financial statements. It values these assets using a cost
less depreciation accounting methodology.
For thin capitalisation purposes, A&P Co adopts the quarterly period
averaging method.
For the first quarterly period of the 2019-20 income year (that is, for
the quarter ending 30 September 2019), A&P Co must determine and
calculate the value of the land and buildings.
The first quarterly period is not the same period as the period covered
by either the half yearly financial statements or the full year financial
statements. However, the first quarterly period overlaps with the
periods contained in the half yearly and full yearly financial
statements.
Therefore, A&P Co must determine or calculate the value of the land
and buildings in the same way as it is determined or calculated in the
full year financial statements (at 30 June 2020) -- that is, as for the
most recent of the overlapping periods.
Example 5.3: Change of measurement basis during a financial
reporting period
Continuing on from Example 1.2, assume that A&P Co decides to
revalue its land and building assets for accounting purposes on
1 January 2021.
In the financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2021, A&P Co
records the revalued amount of the asset less depreciation from
1 January 2021 to 30 June 2021.
Consistent with the objective of aligning thin capitalisation, accounting
standards and financial statements, A&P Co would use:
• amortised cost for the thin capitalisation measurement points of
1 July 2020, 30 September 2020 and 31 December 2020; and
• fair value minus depreciation for the thin capitalisation
measurement points of 31 March 2021 and 30 June 2021.
5.27 If an entity is not required to prepare financial statements in
accordance with accounting standards under an Australian law, the entity
must determine its assets, liabilities (including debt capital) and equity
capital, and calculate the value of those assets, liabilities (including debt
capital) and equity capital, in accordance with the Australian accounting
79
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
standards (subsection 820-680(1)). This applies even if the Australian
accounting standards do not apply to the entity (subsection 820-680(3)).
Removing the ability for an entity to revalue assets
5.28 As a result of these amendments, the ability for an entity to
revalue its assets and recognise certain intangible assets specifically for
thin capitalisation purposes is being removed. Therefore, the following
provisions are being repealed:
• subsections 820-680(2) to (2E); and
• sections 820-683, 820-684 and 820-985.
[Schedule 4, items 11, 13 and 16]
5.29 Consequently, any revaluation and recognition of assets by an
entity must comply with accounting standards
Thin capitalisation classification of the head companies of tax
consolidated groups
5.30 Schedule 4 to this Bill amends the thin capitalisation rules to
remove provisions which deem the head company of an Australian tax
consolidated group or multiple entry consolidated group to be an outward
investing entity only. [Schedule 4, items 5 and 7, subsections 820-583(5) and (6)]
5.31 Consequently, an entity that is the head company of an
Australian tax consolidated group or a multiple entry consolidated group
will be classified as both an outward investing and inward investing entity
if the following conditions apply:
• it is foreign controlled; and
• it holds investments in a foreign entity or has a foreign
permanent establishment.
5.32 Entities that are classified as both outward investing and inward
investing entities are disqualified from applying certain thin capitalisation
rules (such as, for example, sections 820-37, 820-110, 820-216 and
820-217 which are only available for outward investing entities).
Example 5.4: Head company that is both an outward investing and
inward investing entity
Kev Co is the head company of an Australian tax consolidated group.
Kev Co is wholly controlled by a foreign parent and also wholly
controls a foreign entity.
Kev Co is both an outward investing entity and an inward investing
entity.
80
Thin capitalisation
Consequential amendments
5.33 Schedule 4 to this Bill makes consequential amendments to the
ITAA 1997 and ITAA 1936 to:
• remove the record keeping requirements relating to the
revaluation of assets;
• remove references to the ability for an entity to revalue its
assets for the purpose of the thin capitalisation rules; and
• repeal headings and references to the repealed provisions
relating to the revaluation of assets.
[Schedule 4, items 1 to 4, 6, 8 to 10, 12, 14 and 15, section 262A of the ITAA 1936,
sections 820-583, 820-680, 820-682, 820-933 and 820-985]
Application and transitional provisions
Valuation of assets
5.34 The amendments relating to the requirement for an entity to
adopt the same methodology for determining its assets, liabilities
(including debt capital) and equity capital, and for calculating the value of
those assets, liabilities (including debt capital) and equity capital, as
reflected in the entity's financial statements apply after 7.30 pm (by legal
time in the Australian Capital Territory) on 8 May 2018 (the transition
time). [Schedule 4, subitem 17(1)]
5.35 The amendments relating to the repeal of the provisions which
enabled an entity to revalue its assets for thin capitalisation purposes for
the determination and calculation of an entity's assets, liabilities
(including debt capital) and equity capital apply also after the transition
time. [Schedule 4, subitem 17(1)]
5.36 These amendments apply from time of announcement to prevent
taxpayers from being able to obtain unintended benefits under the thin
capitalisation rules by undertaking opportunistic revaluations. In this
regard, the amendments are necessary to improve the integrity of the thin
capitalisation rules and will protect a significant amount of revenue that
would otherwise be at risk.
5.37 A transitional rule applies for an entity that has determined or
calculated its assets, liabilities (including debt capital) and equity capital
prior to the transition time. The transitional rule will apply if:
• the revaluation of assets is supported by the entity's most
recent valuation that complies with the thin capitalisation
rules made prior to the transition time; and
81
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
• those revaluations can only be relied upon by the entity for
income years beginning before 1 July 2019 (that is, until the
last day before the start of the income year commencing on
or after 1 July 2019).
[Schedule 4, subitem 17(2)]
5.38 The value of these revalued assets will effectively be frozen at
the value reflected in the entity's most recent valuation made before the
transition time that is compliant with the requirements of Division 820.
5.39 In order to be compliant with Division 820, the entity must
satisfy the revaluation and record-keeping requirements in
Subdivisions 820-G and 820-L.
5.40 Entities relying on the transitional rule will not be required to
undertake further valuations for thin capitalisation purposes.
5.41 An entity can choose to adopt the requirement to use the same
methodology as reflected in the entity's financial statements, rather than
rely upon the transitional rule if it wishes.
Example 5.5: Valuation of assets for transition
Tea Co prepares financial statements under an Australian law and has a
30 June year end. Tea Co accounts for its assets using a cost less
depreciation methodology in its financial statements.
Tea Co acquired an asset that cost $100 million in 2016. The asset was
revalued for thin capitalisation purposes to $110 million (being its
most recent valuation of the asset). This revaluation of the asset is
supported by a compliant valuation that satisfies the requirements
under Division 820. The valuation was completed prior to 8 May 2018.
Therefore, Tea Co can rely on the transitional rule in subitem 17(2).
Under the transitional rule, for the purposes of applying the thin
capitalisation rules in the 2017-18 and 2018-19 income years, Tea Co
may rely on the $110 million revaluation. That is, there is no need for
Tea Co to further update this valuation.
Thin capitalisation classification of the head companies of tax
consolidated groups
The amendments to remove the deeming of a head company of an Australian tax
consolidated group or multiple entry consolidated group to be an outward investing
entity applies in relation to income years beginning on or after 1 July 2019. [Schedule 4,
item 18]
82
Chapter 6
Online hotel bookings
Outline of chapter
6.1 Schedule 5 to this Bill amends the GST Act to require offshore
suppliers of rights or options to use commercial accommodation in
Australia to include these supplies in working out their GST turnover.
6.2 All legislative references in this Chapter are to the GST Act
unless otherwise stated.
Context of amendments
6.3 There are a number of requirements for a supply of commercial
accommodation to be a taxable supply. These include that the supply is
connected with the indirect tax zone, the supply is made by an entity that
is registered or required to be registered for GST and the supply is not
GST-free or input taxed (section 9-5).
6.4 An entity will be required to be registered for GST if it is
carrying on an enterprise and its GST turnover equals or exceeds the
registration turnover threshold (section 23-5).
6.5 In determining GST turnover, prior to the amendments, certain
supplies were disregarded and therefore not used in working out whether
an entity's GST turnover exceeded the registration turnover threshold
(sections 188-15 and 188-20). This included any supply that satisfied both
of the following conditions:
• the supply was of a right or option to use commercial
accommodation (broadly a right to occupy all or part of a
hotel or other commercial residential accommodation) in the
indirect tax zone;
• the supply was not made:
- in the indirect tax zone; or
- through an enterprise that the supplier carried on in the
indirect tax zone.
6.6 This exception was originally introduced when the GST Act was
amended in 2005 to clarify how it applied to supplies of rights and options
concerning intangible supplies.
83
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
6.7 Because the supplies mentioned in paragraph 6.5 are not
included in GST turnover, entities that make those supplies are not
required to register for GST if their GST turnover does not exceed the
relevant threshold. This also means that GST is not charged on these
bookings, which advantages these overseas operators.
Summary of new law
6.8 Schedule 5 to this Bill amends the GST Act to require offshore
suppliers of rights or options to use commercial accommodation in the
indirect tax zone (broadly Australia) to include these supplies in working
out their GST turnover. If the GST turnover of such offshore suppliers
equals or exceeds the registration turnover threshold then GST must be
remitted for their taxable supplies.
Comparison of key features of new law and current law
New law Current law
Offshore suppliers of rights to use Offshore suppliers of rights to use
commercial accommodation (eg commercial accommodation in the
hotels) in the indirect tax zone must indirect tax zone are not required to
include these supplies in working out include these supplies in working out
their GST turnover. If the supplier's their GST turnover.
GST turnover equals or exceeds the
registration turnover threshold then
GST must be remitted for supplies
that are taxable supplies.
Detailed explanation of new law
6.9 The amendments include in an entity's GST turnover supplies of
a right or option to use commercial accommodation in the indirect zone,
even where that supply is not made in the indirect tax zone and is made
through an enterprise that the supplier does not carry on in the indirect tax
zone. [Schedule 5, item 3, paragraphs 188-15(3)(c) and 188-20(3)(c) of the GST Act]
6.10 The term 'indirect tax zone' means Australia other than the
external territories and certain offshore areas. A reference to Australia in
this Chapter concerning GST supplies is to the indirect tax zone.
6.11 This ensures that entities that supply rights to use Australian
commercial accommodation, such as hotels, motels, hostels, student
accommodation, or caravan parks but carry on their business offshore are
84
Online hotel bookings
still required to register for GST if their GST turnover, including those
supplies, equals or exceeds the relevant GST turnover threshold.
6.12 Currently, the GST registration threshold is $75,000, or
$150,000 if the entity is a non-profit organisation.
6.13 The amendments recognise that both Australian and overseas
consumers now increasingly book Australian hotels and similar
accommodation using online service providers that are based overseas.
Accordingly, the amendments ensure that there is neutrality in the GST
treatment of Australian hotel and similar accommodation regardless of
whether the right to use the accommodation is purchased directly through
an Australian supplier or from an offshore supplier.
6.14 The amendments apply to supplies where the offshore entity
acquires rights or options to use commercial accommodation in the
indirect tax zone and on-sells those rights to a customer. In those
circumstances the offshore entity is contracting with the customer in its
own right.
Example 1.1: Offshore hotel supplier
Down-under Holidays is a United Kingdom based travel supplier that
acquires rights to stay in Australian Hotels and makes online sales of
this accommodation to customers in the UK and Australia. Down-
under Holidays operates its business exclusively in the United
Kingdom.
Down-under Holidays acquires a number of packages of hotel
accommodation in Sydney from a Sydney hotel in 2021. The supply by
the Sydney hotel to Down-under Holidays is a taxable supply of
commercial accommodation, and the Sydney hotel is required to remit
GST in relation to those supplies.
When Down-under Holidays on-sells the accommodation, it does so as
a principal. As its GST turnover is $1.5 million, it is required to
register for GST, and remit GST in relation to any taxable supplies it
makes. Down-under Holidays is entitled to claim an input tax credit for
its acquisition of taxable supplies of commercial accommodation from
the Sydney hotel.
6.15 The amendments do not apply to supplies of rights to hotel
accommodation that are merely facilitated by an offshore entity acting as
an agent on behalf of a hotel. Under an agency arrangement the hotel is
the supplier to the customer and, as such, has the obligation to account for
the GST on the total amount paid by the customer.
6.16 Whether the offshore supplier is the agent of the hotel or a
principal requires the consideration and balancing of various factors. A
critical indicator of an agency arrangement is the requirement that the
agent account to its principal for monies had and received on its behalf.
85
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Consequential amendments
6.17 Consequential amendments are made to remove references to
the repealed paragraphs from other provisions. [Schedule 5, items 1 and 2,
paragraph 83-5(2)(c) and subsection 151-5(2) of the GST Act]
Application and transitional provisions
6.18 The measure applies in relation to either:
• supplies for which any of the consideration is first provided
on or after 1 July 2019; or
• supplies where the invoice is issued on or after 1 July 2019.
[Schedule 5, item 4]
6.19 If an invoice is issued before 1 July 2019, then the measure does
not apply in relation to the supply even if consideration is first provided
after 1 July 2019, or vice versa.
6.20 This application generally aligns with the attribution rules for
GST.
86
Chapter 7
Removing luxury car tax on re-imported
cars refurbished overseas
Outline of chapter
7.1 Schedule 6 to this Bill removes liability for luxury car tax from
cars that are re-imported following service, repair or refurbishment
overseas.
Context of amendments
7.2 Under the LCT Act, a person who makes a taxable importation
of a luxury car is liable to pay luxury car tax. A luxury car is a car that has
a luxury car tax value that exceeds the relevant luxury car tax threshold.
7.3 A taxable importation is made where a luxury car is imported
and entered for home consumption.
7.4 The LCT Act does not generally distinguish between an
importation and a re-importation. Where re-importation occurs luxury car
tax is payable unless it is a non-taxable re-importation.
7.5 Generally, for cars that were manufactured, imported or
exported after 1 July 2000, a non-taxable re-importation occurs if:
• the car was exported from the indirect tax zone and is
returned without having been subject to any treatment,
industrial processing, repair, renovation, alteration or any
other process since its export; and
• the importer is the manufacturer of the car, has previously
acquired the luxury car by taxable supply, or has previously
made a taxable importation of the luxury car.
7.6 Because luxury car tax is payable in relation to a taxable supply
or a taxable importation of a luxury car, if a car is refurbished in Australia
without a change in ownership, luxury car tax is not payable. However,
cars exported from Australia to be refurbished overseas and then
re-imported are subject to the tax if the luxury car tax value of the car
exceeds the relevant luxury car tax threshold.
7.7 Removing luxury car tax in relation to cars that have been
refurbished overseas and are re-imported to the indirect tax zone ensures
the same tax treatment applies, regardless of where the car is refurbished.
87
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Summary of new law
7.8 Schedule 6 to this Bill removes liability for luxury car tax from
cars that are re-imported following service, repair or refurbishment
overseas.
Detailed explanation of new law
7.9 What constitutes a non-taxable re-importation is expanded to
include an importation of a car if:
• the car has been exported from the indirect tax zone (broadly
Australia) and is returned to the indirect tax zone;
• the car was subject to any treatment, industrial processing,
repair, renovation, alteration or any other process after its
export; and
• the ownership of the car has not changed in the period
beginning immediately before the car was exported and
ending at the time it is returned to the indirect tax zone.
[Schedule 6, item 1, subsection 7-20(1A) of the LCT Act]
7.10 References to 'the car' require each of the above conditions to
be satisfied in relation to 'the car' that is re-imported. Generally, even
where significant treatment or alterations are undertaken (for example,
stretching a sedan into a limousine) 'the car' will be considered the same
car that was exported. Similarly, once exported, if 'the car' is dismantled
into parts, and those parts are imported as part of another car, then the
conditions will not be satisfied in relation to the other car. [Schedule 6,
item 1, subsection 7-20(1A) of the LCT Act]
7.11 For the avoidance of doubt, this amendment does not affect the
rules in the LCT Act about including the price of supplies made in relation
to the car when determining the luxury car tax value on the taxable supply
of a luxury car. For example, if a taxable supply of a luxury car is made in
Australia, and under an arrangement with the supplier the vehicle will be
sent overseas for modifications, the luxury car tax value of the car for the
purposes of the taxable supply includes the value of the modifications
(subsection 5-20(3) of the LCT Act).
7.12 These amendments ensure that the application of luxury car tax
to cars subject to any treatment (or otherwise) outside of Australia is
consistent with how the luxury car tax applies to cars subject to any
treatment in Australia.
88
Removing luxury car tax on re-imported cars refurbished overseas
Application and transitional provisions
7.13 The amendments apply in relation to importations occurring on
or after 1 January 2019. This is regardless of whether the car is exported
from the indirect tax zone before, on or after 1 January 2019. [Schedule 6,
item 2]
89
Chapter 8
Significant global entity
Outline of chapter
8.1 Schedule 7 to this Bill amends the definition of significant
global entity in the ITAA 1997 so that it:
• applies to groups of entities headed by an entity other than a
listed company in the same way as it applies to groups
headed by a listed company; and
• is not affected by the exceptions to requirements applying to
consolidated or materiality rules in the applicable accounting
rules.
8.2 The amendments also modify the rules that identify which
entities must undertake country by country reporting under the tax law to
ensure these rules are aligned with Australia's international commitments.
8.3 All legislative references in this Chapter refer to the ITAA 1997
unless the contrary is indicated. All references to dollars are to Australian
dollars.
Context of amendments
Significant global entity
8.4 The concept of significant global entity was included in the
income tax law by the Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational
Tax Avoidance) Act 2015.
8.5 Broadly, under the definition in section 960-555, an entity is a
'significant global entity' if either:
• it is a global parent entity with annual global income of
$1 billion or more; or
• it is a member of a group of entities where;
- the group is consolidated for accounting purposes as a
single group; and
- the global parent entity of that group has annual global
income of $1 billion or more.
91
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
8.6 The Commissioner may also make a determination under
subsection 960-555(3) that results in an entity being a significant global
entity for a period if:
• the entity is a global parent entity that has not prepared
global financial statements for a period; and
• the Commissioner reasonably believes that, if global
financial statements had been prepared, the entity's annual
global income for the period would have been $1 billion or
more.
8.7 A 'global parent entity' is broadly an entity that is not controlled
by another entity according to accounting principles, or if these principles
do not apply, commercially accepted principles relating to accounting (see
section 960-560).
8.8 Section 960-565 provides that an entity's 'annual global income'
for a period is either:
• if it is a member of a group of entities consolidated for
accounting purposes--the total annual income of that global
parent entity of that group as shown in its latest global
financial statements for that period; or
• otherwise -- the total annual income of that entity shown in
its latest global financial statements for that period.
8.9 If an entity is a significant global entity, it is subject to
Australia's country by country reporting rules, the multinational
anti-avoidance law and the diverted profit tax. Significant global entities
also face increased administrative penalties under the taxation law and
may face additional reporting requirements.
Country by country reporting and significant global entities
8.10 Australia's country by country reporting rules implement in
domestic law the recommendations in Action 13 of the G20 and OECD's
Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting - the BEPS Action Plan.
Action 13 developed new standards for transfer pricing documentation
and country by country reporting.
8.11 Currently, Australia's definition of a significant global entity
means that the country by country reporting rules in Subdivision 815-E
may not give the same outcome as would arise under the model legislation
in Action 13 of the BEPS Action Plan.
8.12 Specifically, the Australian concept of significant global entity
only treats an entity as being part of a group of entities if the head entity
of the global group must prepare consolidated accounts covering that
92
Significant global entity
entity under the applicable accounting principles. In contrast, the OECD
model legislation also requires reporting by entities that would have had
to prepare consolidated accounts had one of the entities in the relevant
structure been a listed company.
8.13 The OECD model legislation also requires reporting to cover
entities that are not included in consolidated accounts due to materiality
rules. This OECD requirement is not reflected in the existing Australian
law.
Summary of new law
8.14 Schedule 7 to this Bill expands the scope of the concept of a
significant global entity in the ITAA 1997 so that it also applies to groups
of entities headed by an entity other than a listed company in the same
way as it applies to groups headed by a listed company. Under the
amendments the criteria for a significant global entity is not affected by
the exceptions to requirements applying to consolidated or materiality
rules in the applicable accounting rules.
8.15 The scope of significant global entity is expanded by introducing
the concept of a notional listed company group - a group of entities that:
• would be required to consolidate for accounting purposes as
a single group if a member of the group was a listed
company; and
• is not affected by the exceptions to requirements applying to
consolidated or materiality rules in the applicable accounting
rules.
8.1 The amendments also extend the definition of:
• significant global entity so that an entity will be a significant
global entity if it is part of a notional listed company group
that includes another entity that is a significant global entity;
and
• annual global income so that a global parent entity's annual
global income is the total annual income of all members of
any notional listed company group of which it is a member,
as shown in global financial statements prepared on a
consolidated basis for the group.
8.2 The amendments also provide that if an entity does not have
adequate global financial statements for a period, its annual global income
for that period is the amount that would have been its annual global
income if appropriate global financial statements had been prepared.
93
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
8.3 Finally, Schedule 7 also amends the reporting rules in
Subdivision 815-E so that these rules now apply to entities that are
country by country reporting entities rather than all significant global
entities to ensure these rules are aligned with Australia's international
commitments.
Comparison of key features of new law and current law
New law Current law
Significant global entities
An entity is a significant global entity An entity is a significant global entity
for a period if: for a period if:
• it is either a member of: • it is a member of a group of
- a group of entities that are entities that are consolidated for
consolidated as a single group accounting purposes; and
for accounting purposes; or • another member of the group is a
- a notional listed company global parent entity that is a
group; and significant global entity.
• another member of the group is a A global parent entity is also a
global parent entity that is a significant global entity if its annual
significant global entity. global income is $1 billion or more or
A global parent entity is also a if it is subject to a determination by
significant global entity if its annual the Commissioner under subsection
global income is $1 billion or more or 960-555(3).
if it is subject to a determination by
the Commissioner under subsection
960-555(3).
A notional listed company group is a
group of entities that would be
required to be consolidated as a single
group for accounting purposes if a
member of that group was a listed
company.
94
Significant global entity
New law Current law
Annual global income of global parent entities
If a global parent entity is a member If a global parent entity is a member
of: of a group of entities consolidated for
• a group of entities consolidated accounting purposes as a single
for accounting purposes as a group, the entity's annual global
single group; or income is the total annual income of
• a notional listed company group; all members of the group as reported
in their most recent global financial
then the entity's annual global
statements.
income is the total annual income of
all members of the group as reported
in the most recent global financial
statements.
If an entity does not have appropriate
global financial statements, their
annual global income is the amount
that would be their annual global
income had appropriate global
financial statements been prepared.
Country by country reporting
An entity must undertake country by An entity must undertake country by
country reporting under Subdivision country reporting under Subdivision
815-E if, among other things, it is a 815-E if, among other things, it is a
country by country reporting entity. significant global entity.
Detailed explanation of new law
8.4 Schedule 7:
• extends the circumstances in which an entity is a significant
global entity; and
• amends the country by country reporting requirements in
Subdivision 815-E to apply to a subset of significant global
entities referred to as country by country reporting entities.
8.5 The amendments to the definition of significant global entity
ensure that the definition applies consistently to all types of entities, rather
than potentially excluding members of large multinational groups headed
by private companies, trusts or investment entities.
8.6 In addition, the amendments to the country by country reporting
rules in Subdivision 815-E ensure these rules are aligned with
international practice and the OECD model legislation.
95
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Extending the definition of significant global entity
Significant global entities and annual global income
8.7 The amendments to the definition of significant global entity
extend the circumstances in which an entity is a significant global entity to
include where an entity is a member of a notional listed company group
that includes a global parent entity that either:
• has annual global income equal to or in excess of $1 billion;
or
• is the subject of a determination by the Commissioner under
subsection 960-555(3).
[Schedule 7, item 6, paragraph 960-555(2)(a)]
8.8 If a global parent entity is a member of a notional listed
company group its annual global income is the total annual income of all
of the members of the group, determined on a consolidated basis, as
shown in the latest global financial statements of the entity for the relevant
period that show the total annual income of all of the members of the
group on a consolidated basis. [Schedule 7, item 9, subsections 960-565(2) and (3)]
8.9 When working out annual global income for this purpose, the
annual global income of an entity is only based on the total annual income
reported in its global financial statements if those statements had set out
the total annual income of the members of the group on the basis that all
members of the group were consolidated for accounting purposes as a
single group. [Schedule 7, item 9, subsections 960-565(2) and (3)]
8.10 Effectively these entities are treated in the same way as entities
that are members of a group of entities that are required to be consolidated
for accounting purposes as one entity.
Global financial statements and annual global income
8.11 Schedule 7 also makes amendments to the interaction between
global financial statements and global annual income.
8.12 Prior the amendments, if an entity did not have global financial
statements, it could not have annual global income and would not have
been a significant global entity unless it was the subject of a determination
by the Commissioner under subsection 960-555(3).
8.13 As a result of the amendments made by Schedule 7, the annual
global income of an entity that:
• does not have global financial statements; or
• is a member of a notional listed company group or a group of
entities consolidated for accounting purposes as a single
96
Significant global entity
group and does not have global financial statements prepared
on the basis that the group was a group of entities
consolidated for accounting purposes as a single group;
is the amount that would be the annual global income were such global
financial statements prepared for the period. [Schedule 7, items 7 to 9,
subsection 960-565(1), paragraph 960-565(aa) and subsections 960-565(2) and (3)]
8.14 This is an objective test based on what would be expected to be
the amount of such income if adequate statements were prepared.
8.15 As consolidated accounts that meet the requirements to be global
financial statements are not required to be prepared for a notional listed
company group, this amendment ensures that it is clear that members of
such groups are significant global entities. It avoids any need for such an
entity to prepare such accounts or seek a determination by the
Commissioner to provide clarity about its status as a significant global
entity.
8.16 These amendments do not affect the power of the Commissioner
to make a determination under subsection 960-555(3) in relation to an
entity if appropriate global financial statements have not been prepared for
the entity for the period.
Notional listed company groups
8.17 A notional listed company group is a group of entities that
would be required to be consolidated as a single group for accounting
purposes under the applicable accounting principles or commercially
accepted principles relating to accounting, if an entity was a listed
company (broadly, had its shares been listed for quotation on any public
exchange - see section 26BC of the ITAA 1936). [Schedule 7, item 10,
subsection 960-575(1)]
8.18 Each entity in the notional listed company group is a member of
that notional listed company group. [Schedule 7, item 10, subsection 960-575(2)]
8.19 Whether entities would be required to be consolidated for
accounting purposes as a single group, is to be determined based on
relevant accounting principles or commercially accepted principles
relating to accounting (if accounting principles do not apply to those
entities). [Schedule 7, item 10, subsection 960-575(3)]
8.20 However, any exceptions in the relevant principles that may
permit an entity not to consolidate with other entities are disregarded. This
means, for example, that an investment entity that controls other entities
but is not able to consolidate with those entities would still be part of a
notional listed company group with those entities. [Schedule 7, item 10,
paragraph 960-575(4)(a)]
97
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
8.21 Similarly, any rules that permit an entity not to consolidate with
another entity or entities as the effect of consolidating would be
immaterial because of the size of the entities or for other reasons are also
disregarded. [Schedule 7, item 10, paragraph 960-575(4)(b)]
8.22 These rules ensure that the definition of significant global entity
applies consistently to all types of entities. It removes potential gaps in the
application of the rules for certain types of entities and the particular
requirements applying for accounting purposes.
Example 8.1: notional listed company group
Entity A, is an investment entity and global parent entity that controls
Entity B which in turn controls Entity C.
As Entity A is an investment entity, it is not required to consolidate
with Entities B and C as a single group for accounting purposes.
However, as under the relevant accounting standards Entity A would
be required to consolidate if not for the exception for investment
entities, Entities A, B and C are a notional listed company group.
Country by country reporting
Country by country reporting entities
8.23 Schedule 7 also amends the country by country reporting regime
in Subdivision 815-E. Prior to the amendments, one of the conditions for
an entity to need to report under that regime was that the entity was a
significant global entity.
8.24 As a result of the changes to the definition of significant global
entity, its scope differs from the scope of the entities required to undertake
country by country reporting under Action 13 of the BEPS Action Plan.
8.25 To better align with international standards, the amendments
change the scope of Subdivision 815-E so that it requires reporting by
country by country reporting entities rather than all significant global
entities. [Schedule 7, items 2 and 3, section 815-350, and paragraph 815-355(1)(a)]
8.26 An entity is a country by country reporting entity if it is not
an individual and any of the following apply:
• it is controlled by an entity that is a country by country
reporting entity because of another operation of this test; or
98
Significant global entity
• it is a country by country parent entity and would be a
significant global entity if the references in the definition of
significant global entity to 'notional listed company group'
were instead references to 'country by country reporting
group'.
[Schedule 7, item 5, subsection 815-370(1)]
A country by country reporting group is a group of entities that would
be a notional listed company group if the definition of notional listed
company group took into account exceptions to consolidation in the
relevant accounting principles or commercially accepted accounting
principles (if accounting principles do not apply to the entity). [Schedule 7,
item 5, subsection 815-370(2)]
8.27 Effectively, most significant global entity groups that include a
notional listed company group will also be country by country reporting
entities. However, some exceptions apply. Although an individual can be
a significant global entity, an individual cannot be a member of a country
by country reporting group. Similarly, investment entities, can form part
of a group of significant global entities but, subject to the relevant
accounting principles, may not be included in a country by country
reporting group. [Schedule 7, item 5, subsection 815-370(2)]
8.28 For example, an entity owned by an investment entity is a
significant global entity because it is a member of a notional listed
company group headed by the investment entity. It would not be part of a
country by country reporting group that included the investment entity as
an exception to consolidation applies. However, the entity that is owned
by the investment entity may form part of a country by country reporting
group with other entities with which it would be required to consolidate
for accounting purposes were the company a listed company. In these
circumstances the entity that is owned by the investment entity would be a
country by country parent entity (see paragraph 8.45 below).
8.29 Each entity in a country by country reporting group is a member
of that country by country reporting group. The term member clarifies the
status of entities within country by country reporting groups. [Schedule 7,
item 5, subsection 815-370(3)]
8.30 A country by country parent entity is an entity that is:
• not a member of a country by country reporting group; or
• if is a member of a country by country reporting group, is not
controlled by any other member of that group.
[Schedule 7, item 5, subsection 815-370(4)]
8.31 Effectively, a country by country parent entity is the entity
within a country by country reporting group that controls the group (or
any entity that is not part of such a group). It does not matter if that entity
99
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
is controlled by another entity outside the group. The country by country
parent entity concept allows an alternative controlling entity to be
identified in circumstances where an entity is controlled by another entity
that does not form part of the country by country reporting group with that
first entity. This is illustrated in example 8.2 below.
Example 8.2: identifying the country by country parent entity and
country by country reporting entity
Assuming the same facts as in example 7.1, Entity A does not form
part of a country by country reporting group with Entity B and Entity
C as the exception to the requirement to consolidate for investment
entities is taken into account when working out the entities that form
part of a country by country reporting group.
As Entity A is not a member of any country by country reporting
group, it is a country by country parent entity. It will be a country by
country reporting entity if it would be a significant global entity based
its own total annual income.
Entity B controls Entity C and, under applicable accounting standards
would be required to be consolidated for accounting purposes as a
single group were Entity B a listed company. As a result they are a
country by country reporting group.
Entity B is the country by country parent entity for the group as it is
not controlled by any other entity in the group. It will be a country by
country reporting entity if, broadly, the annual global income of the
group (the total annual income of Entities B and C worked out on a
consolidated basis) is $1 billion or more.
8.32 The country by country rules are consistent with international
practice and the OECD model legislation.
Country by country reporting obligations
8.33 The amendments also make changes to information that is
required in the statements that must be provided by country by country
reporting entities to be consistent with the changes to the scope of the
affected entities.
8.34 Specifically, the statements provided by country by country
reporting entities now need to include information on the other members
of any country by country reporting group of which the entity is a member
for the purposes of the country by country reporting provisions. [Schedule 7,
item 4, subparagraph 815-355(3)(a)(ii)]
8.35 As a result, consistent with the treatment of members of groups
of entities that are consolidated for accounting purposes, such entities
must provide statements dealing with the global operations and activities
and the allocation between countries of the tax paid by the group members
of any country by country reporting group of which they are a member.
100
Significant global entity
8.36 This ensures that the statements that must be provided are
consistent with international practice and the OECD model legislation.
General purpose financial statements
8.37 Schedule 7 also amends the requirement for certain corporate tax
entities to provide the Commissioner with a general purpose financial
statement for a financial year.
8.38 Previously, this obligation applied to entities that were, among
other things, significant global entities. Following the amendments, the
obligation instead applies to entities that are, among other things, country
by country reporting entities. [Schedule 7, items 15 and 16, the heading to section
3CA and paragraph 3CA(1)(a) of the TAA 1953]
8.39 This ensures that the obligation to provide general purpose
financial statements remains aligned with the relevant accounting
standards and avoids unnecessary compliance burdens for investment
entities.
Consequential amendments
8.40 Schedule 7 also makes consequential amendments to renumber
provisions, add headings and insert definitions in the dictionary in
subsection 995-1(1) as well as in subsection 2(1) of the TAA 1953.
[Schedule 7, items 1, 7 and 11 to 14, the heading to Subdivision 815-E, section 960-565
and the definitions of 'country by country reporting entity', 'country by country
reporting group', 'country by country parent entity', 'member' and 'notional listed
company group' in subsection 995-1(1); 'country by country reporting entity',
'significant global entity' in subsection 2(1) of the TAA 1953]
Application and transitional provisions
8.41 The amendments made by Schedule 7 to this Bill commence
from the first day of the first quarterly period that occurs after the day the
Bill receives Royal Assent. [Clause 2]
8.42 The amendments apply to income years or periods starting on or
after 1 July 2018. [Schedule 7, item 17]
8.43 The measure generally applies retrospectively from 1 July 2018
as announced in the Budget on 8 May 2018. The retrospective application
of the measure is consistent with the Government's intention to broaden
the scope of the significant global entity definition to ensure that
Australia's multinational tax integrity rules apply as intended.
Retrospectivity is necessary to ensure that a significant period does not
exist between the announcement of the measure and the application of the
improved integrity rules. [Schedule 7, subitems 17(2) and (3)]
101
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
8.44 However, to ensure that penalty obligations imposed under the
law do not apply retrospectively, the amendments include a transitional
provision to ensure the penalties that arise from the measure do not apply
until 1 July 2019 for entities that were not previously significant global
entities. [Schedule 7, subitems 17(2) and (3)]
8.45 If an entity is a significant global entity due to the amendments
made by this Schedule for the period on or after 1 July 2018 and before
1 July 2019 the entity is not treated as a significant global entity for the
transitional period for the purpose of penalty provisions under Divisions
284 and 286 in Schedule 1 to the TAA 1953.
102
Chapter 9
Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights
Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
Better targeting the Research and Development Tax Incentive
9.1 Schedules 1 to 3 are compatible with the human rights and
freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in
section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
Overview
9.2 Schedule 1 to the Bill reforms the R&D Tax Incentive to better
target the program, and improve its effectiveness, integrity and fiscal
affordability.
9.3 Schedule 2 to the Bill enhances the integrity of the Incentive by
ensuring R&D entities cannot obtain inappropriate tax benefits and by
clawing back the benefit of the Incentive to the extent an entity has
received another benefit in connection with an R&D activity.
9.4 Schedule 3 to the Bill improves the administrative framework
supporting the Incentive by making information about R&D expenditure
claims transparent, enhancing the guidance framework to provide
certainty to applicants and streamlining administrative processes.
Human rights implications
9.5 Schedules 1 to 3 do not engage any of the applicable rights or
freedoms. The amendments in these Schedules only apply to body
corporates.
Conclusion
9.6 Schedules 1 to 3 are compatible with human rights as they do
not raise any human rights issues.
103
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Improving the integrity of the thin capitalisation rules
9.7 Schedule 4 to this Bill is compatible with the human rights and
freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in
section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
Overview
9.8 Schedule 4 to this Bill amends the ITAA 1997 to tighten
Australia's thin capitalisation rules by:
• requiring an entity to use the value of the assets, liabilities
(including debt capital) and equity capital that are used in its
financial statements;
• removing the ability for an entity to revalue its assets
specifically for thin capitalisation purposes; and
• ensuring that non-ADI foreign controlled Australian tax
consolidated groups and multiple entry consolidated groups
that have foreign investments or operations are treated as
both outward investing and inward investing entities.
Human rights implications
9.9 This Schedule does not engage any of the applicable rights or
freedoms.
Conclusion
9.10 This Schedule is compatible with human rights as it does not
raise any human rights issues.
Online hotel bookings
9.11 Schedule 5 to this Bill is compatible with the human rights and
freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in
section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
Overview
9.12 Schedule 5 to this Bill provides that offshore suppliers of rights
to use commercial accommodation such as hotels or other accommodation
in the indirect tax zone must include these supplies in working out their
GST turnover. If the supplier's GST turnover equals or exceeds the
registration turnover threshold then GST must be remitted for supplies
that are taxable supplies.
104
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Human rights implications
9.13 Schedule 5 to this Bill does not engage any of the applicable
rights or freedoms.
Conclusion
9.14 Schedule 5 to this Bill is compatible with human rights as it does
not raise any human rights issues.
Removing luxury car tax on re-imported cars refurbished overseas
9.15 This Schedule is compatible with the human rights and freedoms
recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3
of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
Overview
9.16 This Schedule removes liability for luxury car tax from cars that
are re-imported following service, repair or refurbishment overseas.
Human rights implications
9.17 This Schedule does not engage any of the applicable rights or
freedoms.
Conclusion
9.18 This Schedule is compatible with human rights as it does not
raise any human rights issues.
Significant global entity
9.19 This Schedule is compatible with the human rights and freedoms
recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3
of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
Overview
9.20 This Schedule amends the definition of significant global entity
in the ITAA 1997 so that it:
• applies to groups of entities headed by an entity other than a
listed company in the same way as it applies to groups
headed by a listed company; and
• is not affected by the exceptions to requirements applying to
consolidated or materiality rules in the applicable accounting
rules.
105
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay their Fair Share of Tax in
Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018
9.21 The amendments also modify the rules for entities that must
undertake country by country reporting under Subdivision 815-E of the
ITAA 1997. Under the changes these rules now apply to country by
country reporting entities rather than significant global entities more
generally, to ensure these rules are aligned with Australia's international
commitments.
Human rights implications
9.22 This Schedule does not engage any of the applicable rights or
freedoms.
Conclusion
9.23 This Schedule is compatible with human rights as it does not
raise any human rights issues.
106