Article Section | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ABOLITION OF DDT AND ITS IMPACT |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ABOLITION OF DDT AND ITS IMPACT |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ABOLITION OF DDT VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2020 AND ITS IMPACT INTRODUCTION In the year 1997, DDT was introduced by the government through section 115-O, which made the companies liable to pay tax on distribution of dividend. However, such dividend income was exempt in the hands of shareholders u/s 10(34). The DDT system was abolished in the year 2002 but such discontinuation did not sustain till long, as the DDT system, was in the very next year, brought back again vide Finance Act, 2003. This resulted in various representations being made to the government as the companies would have to bear additional tax on distribution of its profits after tax to its shareholders, which caused undue hardship to say the least. Even the Task Force constituted by the Government to draw new direct tax laws had recommended the removal of DDT. Vide the Finance Act, 2020 the government has finally heard the cries of these companies by re-introducing the conventional system of taxation of dividend. At the same time, we should not be forgetful of the reason behind introducing the DDT system. The administrative defunct and the long process against the simplistic procedure under the DDT definitely made things more smooth and transparent. It will be interesting to see whether DDT has become history or will the history repeat itself!? IMPACT OF REMOVING DDT:
The following sections have been amended vide the Finance Act, 2020 which will have a great impact. The same is discussed as under:
Subsequent to the changes in the taxation regime for dividend income, the dividend income shall be taxed only in the hands of the recipient as per the rate as follows: • In case of the resident individual shareholders: The dividend shall be taxed as per the applicable slab rates. This system of taxation is reflective of the progressive system of direct taxes. Therefore, from the perspective of an investor whose effective tax rate is below 20%, it would be beneficial; however, individuals who fall under highest bracket of 42.74% (30%+37%+4%) would be made to pay taxes on a significantly higher rate on the dividend income as compared to the DDT at 20.56%, under the current regime. Low income individual taxpayers, who earn up to INR 5 lakh per annum, also stand to gain since dividend shall be exempt in their hands as compared to tax cost of 20.56% borne by them indirectly through DDT. • In case of resident corporate shareholders: The dividend shall be taxed as per the applicable tax rates, which would range from 25.17% (22%+12%+4%) to 34.94% (30%+12%+4%). In certain circumstances, this could result in higher taxability than the current DDT mechanism. However, note that dividend received from a foreign company would continue to be taxed at applicable rates in the hands of a domestic company and only dividend received from domestic company is sought to be allowed as a deduction. • In case of non-resident corporate shareholders: The Indian company shall be liable to withhold taxes at 21.84% (20%+5%+4%) on payment of dividend to a non-resident corporate shareholder. This rate could be lower if the benefit under the tax treaty is available to such shareholder. Earlier, non-availability of credit of DDT to most of the foreign investors in their home country results in reduction of rate of return on equity capital for them. The foreign shareholder will now get the credit of such withholding tax against tax payable in their home country as per the taxation laws in their home country. The proposed amendment might boost the sentiment of foreign investors.
As discussed above, the above deliberation omits section 115-O, and consequently section 10(34) and 115BBDA have also been omitted. Apart from them, a lot of amendments and insertions have been made under the Act. However, there are certain provisions which have been impacted due to abolition of DDT. The same require the attention of legislature. Some of these provisions and the issues involved therein have been analyzed below:
However, there is no specific rate for resident shareholders, and so they will have to pay tax at slab rate basis as provided under the Act. This may create more burden of tax on resident shareholders now, as their effective tax rate on dividend income may go up to 42.74% (due to enhanced surcharge of 37%) while the shareholder had to pay additional tax at the rate of 10% (effectively 14.25%) under section 115BBDA which together would amount to much lower than 42.74%.
The Finance Act, 2020 has inserted a new section 80M to remove the cascading affect, as it existed before its removal by the Finance Act, 2003, with a change that set off will be allowed only for dividend distributed by the domestic company one month prior to the due date of filing of return, in place of due date of filing return earlier. For instance, if a domestic company 'A' receives dividend of ₹ 5 crore from another domestic company 'B' and company 'A' distributes dividend of ₹ 2 crore within one month prior to the due date of filing of return, then company 'A' will get the credit of ₹ 2 crore and have to pay tax on remaining 3 crore. However, if company 'A' distributes dividend of ₹ 8 crore then it will get the credit of entire ₹ 5 crore and will not have to pay any tax on the dividend. As mentioned above, the intent of this section was to remove the cascading effect. However, this section provides for deduction only in respect of dividend received from a domestic company. Therefore, a domestic company receiving dividend from a foreign company will not be eligible to get any credit u/s 80M but it would be eligible to claim relief under section 90/90A as per specific provision under the tax-treaty or under section 91 in case of no tax treaty. This will lead to extra compliance burden on such domestic company. Therefore, in order address such issue, the scope of section 80M may extended to dividend received from foreign company as well.
Now, a domestic company which has resident shareholders may be willing to buy back its shares instead to distributing dividend in order to reduce overall tax burden. This can be explained with the help of following illustration: (Figures in crore)
(Reference of this table has been taken from an article named Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) published on taxmann.) From above illustration, it can be seen that the least amount of total outflow of tax is when the Buy Back option is utilized. However, this outcome is based upon certain assumptions such as a) that the company has not opted for taxation under special regime under section 115BA, 115BAA, 115BAB; b) that the turnover of the company in PY 2017-18 is above 400 crores; and c) that the DDT has been grossed before surcharge and entire profit of the company has been distributed. Further, if a company goes for buy-back, it is sine qua non for it to comply with the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 which vide section 68, amongst others, provides that certain conditions such as the value of shares being bought back shall not exceed 25% of the aggregate of paid-up capital and free reserves of the company; only fully paid up shares can be bought back; and that the debt equity ratio post buy back shall not exceed 2:1 etc. Further also, such company will not be able to not make a further issue of the same kind of shares or other securities within a period of six months except by way of a bonus issue or in the discharge of subsisting obligations such as conversion of warrants, stock option schemes, sweat equity or conversion of preference shares or debentures into equity shares. Therefore, even when a company plans to go for buy back, it has to evaluate from another perspective as well.
The move of the Government to abolish DDT is in furtherance of attracting foreign investors, in order to support and strengthen the slowed-down economy. However, the Government should also protect and keep in mind the interest of the stakeholders. They should not be made to face a higher tax burden. Therefore, the Government should come up with a special rate of tax for taxability of dividend in the hands of resident shareholders also.
CONCLUSION:
SUGGESTIONS:
By: ARJUN JAIN - May 11, 2020
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||