Find an Arbitrator

Vodafone v. India Award: Risky Business of Retroactive Taxation

by Nikos Lavranos

January 2021

Nikos Lavranos

This blog post was originally published on the Practical Law Arbitration Blog and is reproduced with the permission of Thomson Reuters.

In a recent, still unpublished award, India lost an arbitration dispute initiated by Vodafone because India had imposed a hefty tax bill of several billion dollars retroactively.

While it is generally accepted that taxation is an exclusive prerogative of every state, this case highlights that bilateral investment treaties (BITs) limit the manner in which states may impose taxes on foreign companies. Indeed, the Vodafone award is another example of an award, which confirms the general opinio juris that the retroactive imposition of taxes is a breach of the obligations generally contained in BITs.

The facts of the Vodafone case

The dispute arose in 2007 when Vodafone acquired Hong Kong-based mobile operator Hutchison Whampoa for $10.9 billion. Vodafone International Holdings BV (Dutch tax resident) acquired the entire share capital of CGP Investments (Holdings) Ltd (tax resident of Cayman Islands) (CGP), from Hutchison group, with headquarters in Hong Kong. CGP indirectly owned 67% of Hutchison Essar Limited (HEL), an Indian entity that carried out telecommunication business in India. The sale was made by another Cayman Islands entity of Hutchison group.

Soon after the transaction was completed, the Indian income tax authorities issued a notice demanding payment of $2.2 billion as capital gains tax. However, Vodafone contended it was not liable to pay as the transaction between Vodafone and Hutchison did not involve the transfer of any capital asset situated in India.

The Indian tax authorities sought to tax the capital gains arising from the sale of the share capital of CGP on the basis that CGP, whilst not a tax resident in India, held the underlying Indian assets.

The dispute went first through the domestic Indian court system. In 2012, the Indian Supreme Court as the highest Indian court finally resolved the issue by deciding in Vodafone’s favour, thus discharging the company of its tax liability. Essentially, the Supreme Court found that the Indian Income Tax Act 1961 did not provide a sufficient legal basis for taxing a transaction that took place outside India.

However, very soon afterward, the Finance Bill 2012 was adopted by parliament, which amended the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 in such a way that transactions such as the Vodafone one would retrospectively fall with the Tax Act. In other words, parliament effectively overruled the Supreme Court’s decision.

Following the amended Income Tax Act 1961, the Indian tax authorities renewed the tax demand on Vodafone, at which point Vodafone resorted to arbitration under the India-Netherlands BIT in 2012.

The total amount in dispute, including the principal sum, interest and penalties, was some  $5.6 billion at the time the award was issued.

The PCA tribunal dismissed India’s jurisdictional objections and held that the imposition of the tax demand was a violation of the fair and equitable treatment (FET) standard of the Netherlands-India BIT. In its award issued in late September 2020, the tribunal is understood to have found that India had violated the FET standard by imposing the tax liability on Vodafone, even though it had been Hutchinson who made the immediate financial gain.

The arbitral tribunal reportedly also cited the Supreme Court judgment in Vodafone’s favour. Vodafone had also alleged other breaches under the BIT, but the tribunal held that in light of its finding on the FET breach it was not necessary to come to a determination on these.

Finally, India was ordered to cease its conduct in question, that is the attempt to collect the unlawfully imposed taxes from Vodafone. Any failure by India to comply with this order will engage its international responsibility.

The arbitral tribunal ordered India to pay the majority of Vodafone’s costs and for the parties to evenly split the administrative fees of the arbitration.

The decision of the tribunal should not come as a surprise. In fact, retroactively imposing taxes, as Spain did with regard to renewable energy, has been found to violate the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) in multiple cases.

For example, in the RREEF case, the arbitral tribunal unambiguously concluded that there is, however, one aspect of the case, on which the arbitral tribunal has no hesitation to find that:

“[…] the respondent acted in breach of its obligation to respect the principle of stability which, as recalled above, is a required obligation under the ECT, in that the challenged measures are partly retroactive.”

Accordingly, states should realize by now that retroactive taxes are a no go, which almost inevitably will lead to breaches of their BITs obligations.

Taxation is a favourite tool of states

Taxing (foreign) companies are not only an easy way to generate money but it also answers to the increasing sentiment in the media and parts of the society that multinationals pay too little taxes compared to local companies or the teacher in the school around the corner.

It is therefore not surprising that France and the United Kingdom among others have adopted legislation for imposing digital services taxes, which would require big tech companies such as Google, Facebook, or Amazon to pay taxes over their revenue from digital services.

For example, starting this year, France imposes a 3% tax on revenue from digital services for all companies with global revenue of more than EUR750 million.

Similarly, the UK imposes a 2% digital service tax on businesses that provide a social media service, search engine, or an online marketplace to UK users. These businesses will be liable to pay this tax if the group’s worldwide revenues from these digital activities are more than £500 million and more than £25 million of these revenues are derived from UK users.

More recently and of a different nature, the Dutch left-wing Green Party introduced a proposal in parliament for a so-called exit tax, for companies that allegedly leave the Netherlands in order to avoid paying taxes on dividends. This exit tax would apply to all companies with a turnover of more than EUR 750 million. Indeed, the Green Party has clarified that it would be in fact the shareholders of such companies who would pay this exit tax.

Interestingly, this proposal is also intended to apply retroactively.

Although it is highly unlikely that this proposal will gather a majority in the Dutch Parliament, it is a telling example of how far politicians are willing to go, despite the fact that the Council of State, which reviews proposed legislation, unequivocally concluded that this proposal would violate not only EU law but also international obligations of the Netherlands.

Using BITs to challenge tax measures

The Vodafone case is an excellent example of how BITs can be successfully used by foreign investors to challenge unreasonable or unfair tax bills, especially if imposed retroactively.

Obviously, the ability to challenge tax measures very much depends on the specific language of the BIT in question. Indeed, new generation BITs often contain carve-out or limitations regarding the admissibility of claims against tax measures.

Despite such carve-outs, the Yukos arbitral tribunal pointedly stated in its award that taxes must be imposed in a bona fide manner:

“Secondly, the tribunal finds that, in any event, the [tax] carve-out of article 21(1) ECT can apply only to bona fide taxation actions, i.e., actions that are motivated by the purpose of raising general revenue for the state.

By contrast, actions that are taken only under the guise of taxation, but in reality aim to achieve an entirely unrelated purpose (such as the destruction of a company or the elimination of a political opponent) cannot qualify for exemption from the protection standards of the ECT under the taxation carve-out in article 21(1). As a consequence, the tribunal finds that it does indeed have “direct” jurisdiction over claims under article 13 (as well as article 10) in the extraordinary circumstances of this case.”

In any event, it goes without saying that it is preferable if states would avoid investment treaty claims from the very beginning by not imposing taxes retroactively or otherwise for manifestly bogus reasons.

Additional update

This is also confirmed by a most recent award which was handed down on 21 December 2020 by a tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which ordered India to pay US$1.2 billion plus interest to the UK’s Cairn Energy regarding India’s pursuit of a retroactive tax bill.

In a 577-page award, the tribunal found that the tax bill was a breach fair and equitable treatment (FET) standard under the UK-India BIT.

Indeed, the tribunal found that the retrospective tax assessment was “grossly unfair”.

The tribunal ordered India to extinguish the tax bill and compensate Cairn for the proceeds it would have earned on the planned sale of its local subsidiary.

The Indian tax authorities made the tax demand following the same 2012 amendment to the Indian Income Tax act, which led to the Vodafone dispute, and which allowed retrospective taxation of cross-border transactions. With interest and penalties, the tax demand grew to US$5 billion.

Instead, India is to pay USD 1.6 billion in total to Cairn Energy as compensation.

 

Nikos is an expert in investment law & arbitration who has expertise in advising, litigating, negotiating, drafting legislation and providing expert witness reports.

 

His clients are both investors and States.

 

He combines his experience as an arbitrator, mediator, legal consultant, academic and former policymaker, and chief negotiator for Bilateral Investment Treaties.

 

In addition to investment law & arbitration, Nikos also covers WTO law, EU law, and the interaction between public international law, European law, and national law.

 

Nikos also established a BREXIT ADVISORY CENTREto provide bespoke advice on the consequences of BREXIT.

 

He can provide his services in English, Dutch, and German. Moreover, he understands French, Greek, and Italian.

 

Nikos studied law at the J.W. Goethe University Frankfurt am Main. He obtained his LL.M. (cum laude) and Ph.D. degrees from Maastricht University. In 2008-2009 Nikos was Max Weber Fellow at the EUI in Florence.

 

He is a permanent contributor to the Kluwer Arbitration BlogBorderlex, theEFILA blog, and the Practical Law Arbitration blog.



Website: https://www.nl-investmentconsulting.com/about-nikos-lavranos/

Additional articles by Nikos Lavranos
The views expressed by authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Resourceful Internet Solutions, Inc., Arbitrate.com or of reviewing editors.
PREV     NEXT
 

Arbitration News

Bringing a Case to Arbitration Should be Easier Following Recent Ninth Circuit Decision Recently, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that a plaintiff may not avoid arbitration and manufacture appellate jurisdiction simply by vo ...more
Third Circuit Holds That an Arbitration Award Was a Judicial Record and Must Be Unsealed Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that an arbitration award filed with a petition to confirm the award was a ...more
Second Circuit Declines to Vacate Foreign Arbitral Award Under New York Convention Absent Valid Reason In Pagaduan v. Carnival Corp., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Eastern District of New York's order declining Pagaduan's motio ...more
New York City Set To End At-Will Employment For Fast Food Workers On December 17, the New York City Council passed two bills that prohibit fast food employers from terminating employees unless they have just cause or bona fide economic reasons for ...more
Arbitration Provision Survives Agent Termination Has the judicial preference for presuming the survivability of arbitration clauses governing workplace disputes reached canonical status? According to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Dis ...more
Judge McMahon Rules Outside Counsel’s Pre-Suit Download of Online Dating App Does Not Bind Party to Arbitration Agreement On December 15, 2020, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) denied plaintiff Perry Street Software, Inc.’s moti ...more
Ninth Circuit Hears Oral Arguments On Employment Arbitration Restrictions The legal battles over Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), which attempts to prohibit mandatory employment arbitration agreements, continue. The Ninth Circuit heard the much anti ...more