Diverted Profits Tax

Diverted Profits Tax (DPT) is a tax measure designed to counteract aggressive tax avoidance by multinational enterprises (MNEs). It aims to address arrangements where profits are artificially shifted to jurisdictions with lower tax rates or where transactions lack genuine economic substance. Introduced initially by the United Kingdom in 2015, DPT is sometimes informally called the “Google Tax” due to its focus on large digital companies. However, its application extends beyond tech firms to any MNEs using sophisticated structures to minimise taxable profits.

DPT generally applies in two key scenarios:

  1. Artificial Avoidance of Permanent Establishment (PE): This occurs when an MNE avoids creating a taxable presence in a jurisdiction while maintaining substantial economic activity there.
  2. Profit Mismatch Arrangements: These involve transactions where the economic benefits do not align with the commercial substance, often exploiting differences in tax regimes.

Rates for DPT are typically higher than corporate tax rates, creating a financial disincentive for tax avoidance. In the UK, for instance, the DPT rate is 25%, compared to the corporate tax rate of 19% (as of 2024).

DPT has gained traction globally, with countries such as Australia and India implementing similar measures under different names.


Examples of Diverted Profits Tax in Practice

1. Google’s Operations in the UK

Google’s pre-2015 tax arrangements involved routing advertising revenue generated in the UK through Ireland, benefiting from its lower corporate tax rate. This arrangement leveraged the artificial avoidance of a PE in the UK. The UK government introduced DPT to counter such practices, ensuring that profits derived from UK activities were taxed domestically. Since DPT’s implementation, Google has agreed to pay hundreds of millions in back taxes and restructured its operations to avoid falling under DPT’s scope.


2. Australian Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law (MAAL)

Australia introduced its version of DPT in 2016 through the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law (MAAL). One notable case involved a multinational mining company shifting profits to its Singapore trading hub, exploiting Singapore’s favourable tax rates. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) used MAAL provisions to argue that the profits should be taxed in Australia, given the company’s substantial operational and decision-making presence there. The company was required to amend its tax filings, resulting in significant additional tax payments.


3. India’s Equalisation Levy

While not branded as DPT, India’s Equalisation Levy serves a similar purpose. Targeting digital businesses like Facebook and Amazon, it imposes a tax on revenues from online advertising and e-commerce services in India. In one case, an e-commerce giant claimed that its advertising revenue was not subject to Indian taxes as the operations were based offshore. The Indian tax authorities countered that the economic activity took place in India, invoking the Equalisation Levy to tax these revenues effectively.


Prominent Cases Involving Diverted Profits Tax

1. UK vs. Refinitiv and Others

The Refinitiv Ltd & Ors v HMRC case underscores the relationship between Diverted Profits Tax (DPT) and existing tax arrangements such as Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs). Refinitiv, a multinational financial analytics firm, faced DPT charges of over £167 million for 2018, despite having an APA with HMRC covering earlier periods. The APA had outlined transfer pricing methods up to 2014 but did not extend to later transactions.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE CASE SUMMARY


2. Chevron Australia Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation

This Australian case involved Chevron’s intra-group financing arrangements designed to shift profits to a lower-tax jurisdiction. While primarily focusing on transfer pricing, the case underpinned Australia’s efforts to tighten DPT rules, influencing how profit-shifting strategies are scrutinised.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE CASE SUMMARY