International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

India rebuffs Cairn’s offer to settle tax dispute

Software trouble costs time and money

Cairn Energy has offered to reinvest the arbitration award it won in its transfer pricing battle with the Indian government. Yet India will not accept the proposal because of the precedent the case could set.

Cairn has offered to invest the entire financial award in India, providing that the government relents on the appeal it filed in March. This would include the principal amount of $1.2 billion, plus interest of $500 million.

Although this is a significant sum, Indian government officials have made it clear that the government will not accept this offer. But the government is open to a settlement on different terms.

“There is no way that the government is going to accept the proposal. We have filed an appeal. Any solution will be within the legal framework,” one government official told the press.

“We have asked [the company] to come under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and settle the dispute by paying 50% of the disputed principal tax amount and get a waiver of interest and penalty. That would have resulted in an immediate refund of $300 million,” said the official.

The Indian government has filed an appeal with the Dutch Courts of Appeal against the December 2020 decision. The Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled unanimously in favour of the taxpayer against the Income Tax Department.

The Indian government argues that the dispute is fundamentally about tax and not investment. This would mean that the case is a domestic matter and not within The Hague tribunal’s jurisdiction.

“There is either an investment dispute or a tax dispute, but there is no precedent for something called an investment-related tax dispute,” said another government official.

When the appeal was filed, Cairn Energy reiterated its “full confidence” in its position and stressed that it would “continue to take all steps necessary in order to protect the interests of its shareholders”.

One reason for India to reject the proposal is that the arbitration decision could set a precedent that could impact similar court cases. A key factor is that the company used the tribunal decision to raise the possibility of asset seizure.

If the government accepted the proposal, India would potentially be left vulnerable in future cases. The Cairn case is yet another reminder of why developing countries are sceptical of arbitration, while taxpayers view arbitration as a way of safeguarding their interests.

Cairn Energy declined to comment on the proposal.

Facts of the case

The Cairn case revolves around capital gains tax on a restructured company sold a decade ago. The Edinburgh-based company restructured its operations in India and transferred ownership of its Mangala oil field in Rajasthan to Cairn India in 2006.

As part of the plan, Cairn India acquired the entire share capital of Cairn India Holdings from Cairn UK Holdings in exchange for 69% of its shares. The company argued this was a business reorganisation with no tax motive driving it, but the Indian Tax Department saw it differently.

In 2011, Cairn Energy sold most of its holding in the Indian unit to billionaire Anil Agarwal’s Vedanta Resources for $8.7 billion. However, the tax authority barred the company from selling the residual stake of 9.8% and the government froze the dividend payments from Cairn India to Cairn Energy.

The Indian government retrospectively amended the tax rules in 2012 to grant itself the power to go after merger and acquisition (M&A) deals all the way back to 1962 if the underlying assets were in India.

In 2014, the tax department argued that the UK oil and gas company owed $1.4 billion in capital gains tax from the flotation of its Indian subsidiary on the Bombay Stock Exchange in 2007. The tax authority would later seize 10% of Cairn India’s shares, valued at around $1 billion, in pursuit of back taxes.

After failing to resolve the matter through the Indian judiciary, Cairn Energy filed a dispute under the UK-India investment treaty and sought international arbitration that started in 2015 for the losses over expropriation of its investments in India from the minority holding.

Despite attempts to reach a $600 million settlement, the case continued and the government tried to put pressureon the company to concede. It would be five years before Cairn got the ruling it wanted.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled in favour of Cairn over the Income Tax Department. However, the Indian government gave no indication it would comply with the decision. The government has since decided to fight the ruling in the Netherlands.

Either India will succeed in overturning the precedent set at The Hague, or the energy company will consolidate its victory.

The case continues.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Premier League football clubs are accused of avoiding paying up to £470 million in UK tax, while Malta is poised to overhaul its unique corporate tax system.
Bartosz Doroszuk of MDDP offers insights on Poland’s new tax legislation on shifted profits, as the implementation deadline looms nearer.
Four tax specialists preview the UK’s transfer pricing requirements, which come into effect on April 1.
The rise of the QDMTT will likely change how countries compete on tax and transfer pricing policy, but it may not reverse decades of falling corporate tax rates.
ITR’s latest quarterly PDF is going live today, leading on the EU’s BEFIT initiative and wider tax reforms in the bloc.
COVID-19 and an overworked HMRC may have created the ‘perfect storm’ for reduced prosecutions, according to tax professionals.
Participants in the consultation on the UN secretary-general’s report into international tax cooperation are divided – some believe UN-led structures are the way forward, while others want to improve existing ones. Ralph Cunningham reports.
The German government unveils plans to implement pillar two, while EY is reportedly still divided over ‘Project Everest’.
With the M&A market booming, ITR has partnered with correspondents from firms around the globe to provide a guide to the deal structures being employed and tax authorities' responses.
Xing Hu, partner at Hui Ye Law Firm in Shanghai, looks at the implications of the US Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act for TP comparability analysis of China.