Country Note: Retroactive Taxation, Investor-State Dispute Settlement, and India: Life Comes a Full Circle

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW
Intertax Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.54648/taxi2022089
Prabhash Ranjan
{"title":"Country Note: Retroactive Taxation, Investor-State Dispute Settlement, and India: Life Comes a Full Circle","authors":"Prabhash Ranjan","doi":"10.54648/taxi2022089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After amending the Income Tax Act (IT Act) in 2012 to impose taxes retroactively on indirect transfers involving non-residents, India recently nullified this law. Towards the end of 2020, two investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals under the India-Netherlands and India- United Kingdom bilateral investment treaties (BITs) found India’s retroactive tax in breach of India’s BIT obligations. These arbitral defeats incited India to eliminate the infamous 2012 retroactive amendment to the tax laws. This article documents and analyses the sordid saga of nine long years by explaining the origin, evolution, and culmination of India’s retroactive tax misadventure. Considering the increasing number of instances for which foreign investors use the ISDS mechanism to challenge the host state’s sovereign taxation measures as BIT breaches, the ISDS rulings against India, especially by the tribunal in Cairn Energy v. India, assumes significance. A more comprehensive reading of the tribunal’s reasoning in Cairn Energy v. India elucidates that, while taxation measures are indeed an integral part of the state’s sovereign right to regulate, it has to be exercised reasonably and proportionately when furthering a public purpose. The exploitation of the power to tax disproportionately may prove to be detrimental to the state.\nIndia, retroactive tax, ISDS, BIT, Vodafone, Cairn","PeriodicalId":45365,"journal":{"name":"Intertax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intertax","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2022089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

After amending the Income Tax Act (IT Act) in 2012 to impose taxes retroactively on indirect transfers involving non-residents, India recently nullified this law. Towards the end of 2020, two investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals under the India-Netherlands and India- United Kingdom bilateral investment treaties (BITs) found India’s retroactive tax in breach of India’s BIT obligations. These arbitral defeats incited India to eliminate the infamous 2012 retroactive amendment to the tax laws. This article documents and analyses the sordid saga of nine long years by explaining the origin, evolution, and culmination of India’s retroactive tax misadventure. Considering the increasing number of instances for which foreign investors use the ISDS mechanism to challenge the host state’s sovereign taxation measures as BIT breaches, the ISDS rulings against India, especially by the tribunal in Cairn Energy v. India, assumes significance. A more comprehensive reading of the tribunal’s reasoning in Cairn Energy v. India elucidates that, while taxation measures are indeed an integral part of the state’s sovereign right to regulate, it has to be exercised reasonably and proportionately when furthering a public purpose. The exploitation of the power to tax disproportionately may prove to be detrimental to the state. India, retroactive tax, ISDS, BIT, Vodafone, Cairn
国家说明:追溯征税、投资者与国家争端解决和印度:生活回到了一个完整的循环
2012年,印度修订了《所得税法》,对涉及非居民的间接转移征收追溯税,之后,印度最近废除了这项法律。2020年底,印度-荷兰和印度-英国双边投资条约下的两个投资者-国家争端解决法庭认定印度的追溯税违反了印度的双边投资条约义务。这些仲裁失败促使印度取消了臭名昭著的2012年税法追溯修正案。本文通过解释印度追溯性税务事故的起源、演变和高潮,记录并分析了长达九年的肮脏传奇。考虑到外国投资者利用ISDS机制质疑东道国主权税收措施违反双边投资协定的情况越来越多,ISDS对印度的裁决,特别是凯恩能源诉印度案中法庭的裁决,具有重要意义。对法庭在凯恩能源诉印度案中的推理进行更全面的解读表明,虽然税收措施确实是国家主权监管权的一个组成部分,但在促进公共目的时,必须合理、按比例地行使。过度利用征税权可能会对国家不利。印度,追溯税,ISDS,BIT,沃达丰,凯恩
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Intertax
Intertax LAW-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
50.00%
发文量
45
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信