Holding out on holding companies self-defeating: Analysts

Mar 10 2014, 01:37 IST
Comments 0
The restrictive draft norms, experts say, limit investors’ options in the event of disputes. The restrictive draft norms, experts say, limit investors’ options in the event of disputes.
SummaryThey caution that not recognising the holdco route might create a perception that doing business in India is difficult.

The ongoing review of the bilateral investment promotion and protection agreements (BIPAs) and the comprehensive economic cooperation agreements to make the rules more stringent by disallowing investments through holding companies could put off foreign investors, say experts.

They caution that not recognising the holdco route might create a perception that doing business in India is difficult. Equally harmful, they feel, is the move to compel companies to exhaust local remedies before opting for international arbitration in the event of a dispute, which they say might not go down well with multinationals.

Said Punit Shah, co-head, tax, KPMG, “It could definitely discourage foreign investors because organisations have various reasons for using the holdco route which may not necessarily be tax-related. They may want the investment to be one level removed from the parent entity so that there is an element of protection against a liability. Moreover, a holdco brings a certain flexibility in operations allowing the company to invest in different jurisdictions.”

The restrictive draft norms, experts say, limit investors’ options in the event of disputes. Diljeet Titus of corporate law firm Titus & Co argued that such norms would definitely impact foreign investment into the country. “The remedies available to investors if their investments are jeopardised through a change in government policy, for instance, would be limited,” Titus observed.

He believed that the government is attempting to prevent the recurrence of a situation where a few foreign telecom players have wanted to take recourse to BIPA, some after the government cancelled their 2G licences and others like Vodafone that are embroiled in tax disputes.

In 2012, both Norway’s Telenor and Russia’s Sistema wanted to invoke various BIPAs when the Supreme Court cancelled their telecom licences, originally awarded in 2008, in the wake of the A Raja corruption case. In April 2012, Vodafone’s Dutch subsidiary, Vodafone International Holdings, served the Indian government a notice of dispute under the India-Netherlands BIPA over a tax demand of around R20,000 crore through retrospective amendments to the Income Tax Act. In January this year the British telecom major served the government a supplementary notice. The tax disputes relate to Vodafone’s 2007 acquisition of Hutchison’s 67% stake in the then Hutch Essar; conciliation talks have broken down after the government refused to include a transfer pricing case in the scope of the talks.

Vyapak Desai, partner, international litigation, Nishith Desai Associates, pointed out that thus far the definition of

Single Page Format
Ads by Google

More from Frontpage

Reader´s Comments
| Post a Comment
Please Wait while comments are loading...