COMMENT: Why Osborne should tread carefully about Indian tax

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

COMMENT: Why Osborne should tread carefully about Indian tax

osborne-india.jpg

UK finance minister George Osborne should not be using today’s visit to his Indian counterpart to complain about the Indian tax system, he should be patting him on the back and telling him to keep up the good work.

Since taking office in 2010, Osborne has been arguing that his fiscal reforms would aim to ensure that the UK “is open for business” and last month’s budget confirmed his intentions. So while the Chancellor is expected to use his meeting with Pranab Mukherjee to make his displeasure known about the way India has treated Vodafone and the country’s plans to retrospectively tax similar transactions going back 50 years, Osborne should be rubbing his hands with delight as India’s constant attack on taxpayers could encourage business to invest in the UK instead.

The different approach taken by both finance ministers was clear to see last month when both men delivered their 2012 budgets within days of each other.

Highlights of the UK budget included a further cut in the corporate tax rate (22% by 2014 and with a hint that it could eventually be 20%), new controlled foreign company rules and a patent box regime.

This contrasts greatly with Mukherjee’s budget from a few days earlier. Just over two months after the government lost its Supreme Court battle with Vodafone, the government decided to retrospectively amend the country’s tax law to target Vodafone and other multinationals. The move has done little to improve India’s image as a place for doing business. This amendment now brings transactions done by companies such as Kraft and SABMiller onto the radar of the Indian government.

The change to the law has also been criticised by seven trade bodies representing investors from North America, Europe and Asia who wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Mukherjee protesting against the budget’s proposed changes.

The letter, whose signatories included the Confederation of British Industry and Capital Markets Tax Committee of Asia, said the move showed “disregard for the judiciary”.

But Osborne would be wise not to bring this up in today’s meeting. In February 2010, the then UK prime minister, Gordon Brown, wrote to Singh to express his concern over the Vodafone case because of its potential to create uncertainty for foreign investors and affect the country's investment climate. Singh replied by stating briefly that the case was before the Indian legal system.

And now intergovernmental organisations are set to become embroiled in this matter. Press reports have suggested that Vodafone feels the government’s attack on them is “grossly unjust” and unfair on India’s largest inbound investor and are looking to involve the UN in the dispute. But should the UN get involved? No. This proposed change is not the only unfair tax law in the world. The UN has better things to be getting on with.

What taxpayers should realise is that they can moan endlessly and criticise the way the government is taxing companies, but the logical conclusion is to leave India. This happened in the UK over the last decade as companies left in protest against an uncompetitive tax system. But thanks to Osborne's tax reforms, companies are now relocating to the UK

But taxpayers won’t leave India. It is too big a market to exploit. Unfortunately for them, uncertainty and frustration is just part of doing business in India.

FURTHER READING

How two cases provide insight into taxation of indirect transfers in India

How you can avoid becoming the next Vodafone

UK budget brings indirect tax changes

Everything you need to know about the UK budget

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The Australian Taxation Office believes the Swedish furniture company has used TP to evade paying tax it owes
Supermarket chain Morrisons is facing a £17 million ($23 million) tax bill; in other news, Donald Trump has cut proposed tariffs
The controversial deal will allow US-parented groups to be carved out from key aspects of pillar two
Awards
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2027 World Tax rankings and the 2026 ITR Tax Awards globally
Pillar two was ‘weakened’ when it altered from a multinational convention agreement to simply national domestic law, Federico Bertocchi also argued
Imposing the tax on virtual assets is a measure that appears to have no legal, economic or statistical basis, one expert told ITR
The EU has seemingly capitulated to the US’s ‘side-by-side’ demands. This may be a win for the US, but the uncertainty has only just begun for pillar two
The £7.4m buyout marks MHA’s latest acquisition since listing on the London Stock Exchange earlier this year
ITR’s most prolific stories of the year charted public pillar two spats, the continued fallout from the PwC Australia tax leaks scandal, and a headline tax fraud trial
The climbdowns pave the way for a side-by-side deal to be concluded this week, as per the US Treasury secretary’s expectation; in other news, Taft added a 10-partner tax team
Gift this article