BackOpinion | DDT abolition to hit Indian HNIs
The change brings in disparity between Indian and MNC promotersAnother unintentional fallout will be creation of significant tax arbitrage
PremiumOne of the most debated topics around Budget 2020 has been the abolition of the dividend distribution tax (DDT). The government has proposed to remove DDT and adopt the classical system wherein the dividend shall be taxed in the hands of the recipients at their applicable rate and companies will no longer be required to pay DDT. The maximum deduction of expenses (interest, commission and other incidental expense) incurred for earning such dividend income has been capped at 20% under the proposed Section 57 of the Income-tax Act.
Fundamentally, dividend is received by the shareholders after the company pays the full tax; this amounts to double taxation. Comparably, partnership firms do not pay the same tax when the money is distributed to their partners. In that sense, the companies have a major disadvantage. While minority retail investors will benefit from this change, it will also lead to several unintentional anomalies. Indian promoters and high net-worth individuals (HNIs) will face a significant increase in the overall tax incidence to 57% (versus 47% in FY20) on dividend income.
Total tax incidence on individuals for every â‚ą100 of corporate profit earned and distributed as dividend:
The change also brings in a disparity between Indian and MNC promoters with respect to the tax rates on dividend income. Indian promoters will be liable to pay tax at 43%, corporate foreign promoters will be charged 22%, or even lower (5% in some cases) if they are located in a country where the tax treaty provides beneficial rates.
Another unintentional fallout will be the creation of significant tax arbitrage (in the hands of the recipient) between the two popular ways in which a company returns money to its shareholders—dividend and share buyback. Like earlier, buybacks will be taxed at 23%, while dividend income will be taxed in the hands of promoters or HNIs at an effective rate of 43%. So many companies may prefer buybacks over dividends to distribute profits. Many companies may, in fact, curtail dividends.
Category III alternative investment funds (AIF) set up as a trust will be at a major disadvantage compared to Category I/II AIFs. This is because Category III AIFs do not have the pass-through status and will be taxed at a maximum marginal rate of 43%. Similarly, unit-linked insurance plans (Ulips) may lose attractiveness compared to mutual funds as insurance companies are liable to pay tax on dividend income at 12%, while mutual funds enjoy specific exemption (under Section 10 (23d)) on such income.
I request the FM to even out such disparities.
The author is managing director and CEO, Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd.
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!
