Tax Base Erosion

Tax Base Erosion refers to the process through which a country’s taxable income base is reduced due to the shifting or minimising of income, often by multinational entities (MNEs). This can occur via several mechanisms, such as transfer pricing, income shifting, and utilising tax incentives. Erosion of the tax base impacts national revenue, reducing the funds available for public spending and infrastructure and often shifting the tax burden onto other sectors of society.

Typically, tax base erosion exploits disparities between jurisdictions, leveraging loopholes and legal grey areas in international tax laws to allocate profits in low-tax regions. This activity has led to extensive regulatory efforts, notably by the OECD’s BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) initiative, which aims to create cohesive strategies for addressing and preventing profit shifting and tax base erosion.

Mechanisms of Tax Base Erosion

  1. Transfer Pricing Manipulation: By setting intra-group transaction prices that differ from arm’s length standards, companies can allocate income to low-tax jurisdictions, eroding the tax base in higher-tax countries.
  2. Interest Deduction Arrangements: MNEs may arrange significant intra-group loans from subsidiaries in low-tax jurisdictions to high-tax jurisdictions, deducting interest payments and thus reducing the taxable base.
  3. Digital and Intangible Assets: The difficulty in locating digital and intangible assets’ economic contributions allows companies to shift income to tax-favorable locations without a substantial physical presence.

Practical Examples of Tax Base Erosion

Example 1: Transfer Pricing in Digital Services

A global tech company may leverage a subsidiary in a low-tax jurisdiction to own the rights to software or intellectual property (IP). Other subsidiaries pay royalties or licensing fees to this entity, decreasing the taxable income in high-tax regions where they operate and effectively eroding the tax base in those countries. This method has been highly scrutinised and regulated, with recent global initiatives pushing for fairer taxation of digital revenues.

Example 2: Financing Structures in Pharmaceuticals

Pharmaceutical companies often arrange intercompany loans from subsidiaries in low-tax locations to those in high-tax locations. The receiving subsidiary deducts interest payments from its taxable income, reducing its local tax liability. Regulatory scrutiny has increased on these financing structures to ensure they reflect true economic substance and do not artificially erode the tax base.

Example 3: Using Intangible Assets in Retail

A large retail company could establish an offshore entity that owns trademarks, logos, or other intangible assets. The main operational subsidiaries pay royalties to the offshore entity, thus shifting profits away from high-tax jurisdictions to a low-tax entity with minimal operating costs. This method often exploits gaps in the valuation of intangibles, a complex area of transfer pricing enforcement.

Key Cases Highlighting Tax Base Erosion

Google Ireland Ltd v HMRC

This case highlighted the use of Ireland’s tax policies by Google to shift profits from higher-tax countries. Through licensing IP to its Irish subsidiary, Google minimised its tax burden in other European countries, prompting extensive regulatory scrutiny and policy adjustments in the UK and Ireland.

Apple Inc v European Commission

The landmark Apple case showed how selective tax advantages granted by Ireland allowed Apple to pay minimal taxes on its European profits, eroding the tax base in other EU countries. The European Commission ruled that Ireland’s tax arrangements constituted illegal state aid, sparking debate over fair taxation of multinational enterprises.

 Starbucks v Dutch Tax Authority

The Starbucks case involved a Dutch subsidiary benefiting from a tax ruling that reduced its taxable base in the Netherlands. This arrangement drew attention to how intercompany charges and royalty payments could shift profits out of high-tax regions, leading the EU to address selective tax advantages as anti-competitive.