• The Frustrated State: How terrible tech policy is deterring digital Australia

    Written by Delimiter's Renai LeMay, The Frustrated State will be the first in-depth book examining of how Australia’s political sector is systematically mismanaging technological change. Click here to help fund it on Kickstarter.

  • No Brother: Science fiction, martial arts & Australia's darkest city

    Set in Australia's darkest city, No Brother is a vision of a future where martial arts discipline intersects with power, youth and radical technological change. It is the first novel by Delimiter's Renai LeMay. Click here to help fund it on Kickstarter.

  • Internet, News - Written by on Thursday, June 21, 2012 16:14 - 7 Comments

    Transfer pricing rules won’t affect Google tax

    news New legislation introduced by the Federal Government to stop multinationals such as Google from transferring profits out of Australia and evading local taxation won’t have much effect on the search giant and similar Internet firms, it appears, despite statements by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy that they would.

    In early May this year, Google revealed it expected to pay just $74,000 in corporate income tax for the 2011 calendar year in Australia, off claimed local revenues of $201 million, despite the fact that industry estimates have continually pegged the search giant’s Australian income at closer to $1 billion.

    The publication of the results immediately led to an outcry in the community, with politicians such as Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull expressing concern over the issue. At the time, in a major speech, his opposite, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, said new so-called ‘transfer pricing’ legislation would be introduced by the Federal Government shortly to deal with this kind of behaviour by multinationals operating in Australia.

    However, according to the text of the legislation introduced into parliament recently, and the Government’s own explanatory statements on the issue, it appears that Conroy may have been incorrect, with the new legislation not expected to substantially effect Google and similar Internet companies.

    The text of the Tax Laws Amendment (Cross-Border Transfer Pricing) Bill (No. 1) 2012 (PDF here) states that the object of the legislation is to ensure that profits would be brought within reach of the Australian taxation system which would have accrued to an Australian entity if it had not been dealing at proper arm’s length terms with its foreign associated entity.

    In addition, a statement by Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten in November last year stated: “Transfer pricing refers to the prices charged when one part of a multinational group buys or sells products or services from another part of the same group in a different country. The prices charged will impact their level of profits, and therefore the amount of tax they have to pay, in the respective countries. These rules require multinational firms to price intra-group goods and services to properly reflect the economic contribution of their Australian operations.”

    However, in Google’s financial results documents, it appears that the reason the company is able to report relatively smaller revenues locally than the revenues it is expected to earn is that it does not appear to deal in the way the new law covers with respect to its foreign parents. In short, it does not buy products from its overseas divisions, and the new transfer pricing laws do not apply.

    In its financial statements, Google Australia did not list its activities as being the provision of advertising and software services, both of which it charges Australian customers for. Instead, it noted that it has agreements with its US parent, Google Inc, and a company called Walkway Technologies for the provision of research and development services, and with Google Ireland and Google Asia-Pacific for the provision of sales and marketing services. Consequently, almost all of Google Australia’s revenues were listed as being for services thus rendered to those companies.

    In turn, it appears that Google’s customers in Australia bill the company’s Irish division directly for the advertising services the company performs on its global network; often dealing directly with that company in placing advertisement orders over the Internet.

    This approach differs markedly from the way which other technology companies such as Apple, HTC, Cisco Systems and so on deal with local companies. Those companies generally (on paper) buy goods and services directly from their international counterparts, and then resell those goods in Australia. It is believed that it is this kind of behaviour that the new transfer pricing laws are designed to target; forcing such companies to list commercial pricing for the purchase of such goods and services from their parents.

    In parliament this week during a debate on the transfer pricing legislation, Turnbull raised this point. “Regrettably, this bill, whatever its merits, even having regard to its prospective merits, really does nothing about the critical problems faced in Australia and in many other countries as a consequence of globalisation of commerce and the way in which so many transactions nowadays are occurring in the cloud, the internet,” said Turnbull.

    “The vice of transfer pricing that legislation has sought to address is the circumstance where the multinational, no doubt from a tax haven, is selling its products to its local subsidiary in Australia ata very high price so that there is very little profit made in Australia, perhaps just enough to pay the overheads here, and such profit is racked up in the tax haven.”

    “I am not suggesting that Google is breaking thelaw—far from it,” Turnbull added. “But the fact is that what Google is able to do, and this applies to many other companies in the digital realm, is to sell advertising to Australians online from an entity—until very recently it was an entity located in Ireland which, I might say, was generating well over €11 billion of revenue out of Ireland, just in that entity alone; obviously, that plainly was not coming out of the Irish market.”

    “And it can transact directly with customers in Australia, from Ireland, over the web. It arranges its affairs so that its business in Australia, its permanent establishment in Australia, has no effective connection with that transaction and, therefore, there is no basis for the transfer-pricing rules to apply. Of course the same thing can be said about Amazon. You go onto the web, you order some books or whatever you want from Amazon or another online vendor, and again there is no local connection.”

    Turnbull suggested that a goods and services tax could be levied on companies like Google to resolve the issue, stating that this would be within the Federal Government’s powers, as the search giant’s Internet ad sales were to Australian customers. “It is perfectly feasible for them to collect GST in Australia,” Turnbull said, pointing out that this issue had previously been raised by local retailers, who had to collect GST, while overseas Internet retailers did not.

    Labor MP Ed Husic, who has closely tracked the technology pricing issue in general, criticised Turnbull for highlighting the Google example, alleging that Turnbull had unfairly criticised Google on a number of occasions — with relation to the search giant’s support for the NBN, for example.

    However, in this case, it appears that Turnbull is correct, in that the Federal Government’s transfer pricing legislation would not affect companies such as Google. Google is currently the most high-profile example of an Internet company paying only a small amount of Australian tax, compared with its local revenues.

    After reading the legislation and the various comments on this issue from the various political parties, I have come to the conclusion that Turnbull is right on this one; Labor’s new transfer pricing legislation does not apply to Google and will likely not apply to other major Internet companies such as Amazon. Furthermore, Turnbull is correct in his comments that much of the revenue these companies used to make was made by Australian companies and taxed in Australia; not it is not.

    Based on his parliamentary comments, in which he skirted around this issue, I believe Husic understands this fact. I also believe Conroy may have had this fact rammed down his throat by the Treasurer’s office since he made his original comments about Google. At the time he made them, I don’t believe he understood the precise application of the laws to Google’s situation.

    You can hardly blame Conroy for this; to a layman, the legislation is almost unreadable. But if you read it and then read the explanatory statements, and read the various media releases and associated parliamentary debates, the meaning does become pretty clear. And the meaning is that Google isn’t going to be bothered much by these new laws.

    I would suggest the Government take another look at the situation, and that the Coalition continue agitating on the issue and push for further amendments to the legislation. This issue is not going away any time soon; in fact, it is increasing in importance as Australia’s Internet economy grows.

    Image credit: Robert Scoble, Creative Commons

    submit to reddit


    You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

    1. Haderak
      Posted 21/06/2012 at 4:24 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Looks to me like a case where the Opposition is making a genuine contribution to the debate on a current and significant issue, with the hopeful prospect of improved legislation as a result.

      Feels wierd. Good, but wierd.

    2. tax wonk
      Posted 22/06/2012 at 12:49 am | Permalink | Reply

      Turnbull’s right. These transfer pricing ‘reforms’ will not change google’s tax bill as they don’t apply to the way google has structured their business (i.e. their Australian subsidiary is not ‘purchasing’ goods or services from a foreign subsidiary to on-sell in Australia).

      It’s very strange how these transfer pricing amendments are being characterised in the media and by the government as ‘reforms’. Their main effect is to basically confirm how the ATO has been administering transfer pricing legislation for at least the past decade or so. This may be simplifying the issue a bit, but essentially this is how it works:

      – Australia’s double taxation agreements (DTAs) with other countries contain clauses on transfer pricing, and the OECD has ‘best practice’ guidelines on how transfer pricing should be dealt with
      – The ATO has administered transfer pricing legislation assuming that the legislation allows them to apply the transfer pricing rules contained in DTAs and the OECD guidelines
      – A federal court ruling last year (in the ‘SNF case’) cast some doubt on this interpretation, meaning the ATO would only be able to apply outdated/inadequate rules which are specifically set out in current tax legislation

      So now the government is passing amendments to the tax laws to make it clear that transfer pricing rules in DTAs and the OECD guidelines do apply, and these amendments are retrospective to 2004 to prevent companies from amending previous tax returns to take advantage of this hole.

      This kind of stuff happens all the time in tax law: the ATO interprets and applies the law a certain way, someone challenges the ATO’s interpretation in court, the courts disagree with the ATOs interpretation, and so the government steps in and patches the ‘hole’ by amending the tax laws to confirm the ATO’s view.

      So basically, these transfer pricing ‘reforms’ are just confirming previous ATO practice. No actual reforms to see here, move along.

      • MikiDora
        Posted 22/06/2012 at 9:14 am | Permalink | Reply

        Except that the Government doesn’t normally look to ‘patch the hole’ by amending the law with effect from 2004.

        • tax wonk
          Posted 22/06/2012 at 9:41 am | Permalink | Reply

          Uh, yes it does. A few times a year pretty much every year. The amendments just usually don’t make the news because they’re generally extremely technical.

        • SMEMatt
          Posted 22/06/2012 at 9:58 am | Permalink | Reply

          It does work both ways. There have been ATO ruling that have resulted in the less tax being payed by companies and individuals that have latter been found to be incorrect. This also results in fixed laws that are backed dated to apply our exemptions being made for the period where the incorrect ruling applied.

          -> Not a tax lawyer but a tax payer who has had one of these incorrect ATO tax rulings affect them in the past

    Leave a Comment


    Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:

  • Enterprise IT stories

    • Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp facepalm2

      If you have even a skin deep awareness of the structure of Australia’s superannuation industry, you’ll be aware that much of the underlying infrastructure used by many of the nation’s major funds is provided by a centralised group, Superpartners. One of the group’s main projects in recent years has been to dramatically update and modernise its IT platform — its version of a core banking platform overhaul. Unfortunately, the $250 million project has not precisely been going well.

    • Qld’s Grant joins analyst firm IBRS peter-grant

      This week it emerged that Peter Grant, the two-time former Queensland Whole of Government CIO (pictured), has joined well-regarded analyst firm Intelligent Business Research Services (IBRS). We’ve long had a high regard for IBRS, and so it’s fantastic to see such an experienced executive join its ranks.

    • Westpac dumps desk phones for Samsung Android mobiles samsung-galaxy-ace-3

      The era of troublesome desk phones tied to physical locations is gradually coming to an end in many workplaces, with mobile phones becoming increasingly popular as organisations’ main method of voice telecommunications. But some groups are more advanced than others when it comes to adoption of the trend. One of those is Westpac.

    • Ministers’ cloud approval lasted just a year reverse

      Remember how twelve months ago, the Federal Government released a new cloud computing security and privacy directive which required departments and agencies to explicitly acquire the approval of the Attorney-General and the relevant portfolio minister before government data containing private information could be stored in offshore facilities? Remember how the policy was strongly criticised by Microsoft, Government CIOs and Delimiter? Well, it looks like the policy is about to be reversed.

    • WA Govt can’t fund school IT upgrades oops key

      In news from The Department of Disturbing Facts, iTNews revealed late last week that Western Australia’s Department of Education has run out of money halfway through the deployment of new fundamental IT infrastructure to the state’s schools.

    • Turnbull outlines Govt ICT vision turnbull-5

      Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has published an extensive article arguing that the Federal Government needed to do a better job of connecting with Australians via digital channels and that public sector IT projects needn’t cost the huge amounts that some have in the past.

    • NZ Govt pushes hard into cloud zealand

      New Zealand’s national Government announced a whole of government contract this morning for what it terms ‘Office Productivity as a Service’ services. This includes email and calendaring services, as well as file-sharing, mobility, instant messaging and collaboration services. The contract complements two existing contracts — Desktop as a Service and Enterprise Content Management as a Service.

    • CommBank reveals Harte’s replacement whiteing

      The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has promoted an internal executive who joined the bank in September after a lengthy career at petroleum giant VP and IT services group Accenture to replace its outgoing chief information officer Michael Harte, who announced in early May that he would leave the bank.

    • Jeff Smith quits Suncorp for IBM jeffsmith4

      Second-tier Australian bank and financial services group Suncorp today announced that its long-serving top technology executive Jeff Smith would leave to take up a senior role with IBM in the United States, in an announcement which marks the end of an era for the nation’s banking IT sector.

    • Small business missing the mobile, social, cloud revolution iphone-stock

      Most companies that live and breathe the online revolution are not tech startups, but smart smaller firms that use online tools to run their core business better: to cut costs, reach customers and suppliers, innovate and get more control. Many others, however, are falling behind, according to a new Grattan Institute discussion paper.

  • Blog, Enterprise IT - Jul 5, 2014 13:53 - 0 Comments

    Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp

    More In Enterprise IT

    Blog, Telecommunications - Jul 5, 2014 12:12 - 0 Comments

    What should the ACCC’s role be in guiding infrastructure spending?

    More In Telecommunications

    Analysis, Industry, Internet - Jun 23, 2014 10:33 - 0 Comments

    ‘Google Schmoogle’ – how Yellow Pages got it so wrong

    More In Industry

    Blog, Digital Rights - Jun 30, 2014 22:24 - 0 Comments

    Will Netflix launch in Australia, or not?

    More In Digital Rights