汇丰银行-全球-宏观策略-对数字贸易征税：现行规则是否适合未来？-2019.6.19-29页 (2).pdf

Disclosures&Disclaimer This report must be read with the disclosures and the analyst certifications in the Disclosure appendix,and with the Disclaimer,which forms part of it.Issuer of report:HSBC Bank plc View HSBC Global Research at:https:/ As cross-border e-commerce and trade in digitised products increases there are signs that global tax regimes arent keeping pace We believe global coordination is needed to simplify tax rules and to ensure taxes impacting digital trade arent discriminatory From physical to digital Advances in technology are facilitating the rise of digital trade in two broad ways.Firstly,electronic platforms like Amazon,Mercadolibre and Alibaba are enabling a greater volume of physical goods to be purchased from abroad online.According to AliResearch,cross-border B2C e-commerce sales are expected to reach USD1trn next year.Secondly,goods and services are increasingly being digitised and delivered electronically across borders(e.g.e-books,music streaming).But these trends pose challenges for global tax administration,which has traditionally targeted flows of tangible goods.Key taxation issues impacting digital trade In this report,we take a look at the four main taxes that may constrain digital trade:1.Customs duties on digital flows:World Trade Organization(WTO)members have benefitted from a temporary moratorium on customs duties on e-transmissions since 1998.But developing countries like India and South Africa are growing concerned about potential losses of tariff revenue from the moratorium and are considering introducing tariffs on digital products.2.Low de minimis thresholds:The rise in online shopping means that most countries thresholds exempting low-value imports from tariffs and/or consumption taxes arent high enough to facilitate trade and avoid customs clearance delays.3.Consumption taxes:Digitisation creates challenges around collecting consumption taxes on online purchases and digital flows,and could result in double taxation.4.Taxes on digital revenues:A growing number of economies may introduce digital turnover taxes,which could be discriminatory and incompatible with international trade rules.G20 finance ministers agreed to progress work to close tax loopholes for large global tech companies earlier this month,based on proposals from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD).Taxation needs to get tech ready There are signs that tax regimes arent keeping pace with the rise of the digital economy,which is set to be a key driver of future economic growth.International efforts to simplify tax rules will be critical to facilitating digital trade,in our view.For example,economies could agree to make the WTO moratorium permanent and to expand de minimis thresholds to enable faster customs processing of low-value shipments.We believe policymakers should strive to avoid imposing discriminatory taxes on digital trade particularly as technologies like 3D printing,artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things are set to transform how goods and services are traded in the future.19 June 2019 Shanella Rajanayagam Trade Economist HSBC Bank plc +44 20 3268 4118 Doug Lippoldt Chief Trade Economist HSBC Bank plc +44 20 7992 0375 Taxing digital trade Economics Global Are current rules fit for the future?Economics Global 19 June 2019 2 Tariffs,thresholds and taxes 3 The digitisation of trade 3 Customs duties on digital flows 4 Low de minimis thresholds 7 Consumption taxes 11 Taxes on digital revenues 14 Implications for digital trade 16 Annexes 18 Annex 1:WTO Work Programme on Electronic Commerce 18 Annex 2:WTO plurilateral on e-commerce negotiating proposals 18 Annex 3:Summary of consumption tax regimes 20 Annex 4:Examples of tax regimes that apply consumption taxes on digital services 21 Annex 5:Examples of economies that require foreign online sellers to collect consumption taxes 22 Annex 6:EU VAT regime and reforms 23 Annex 7:UK VAT post-Brexit 25 Disclosure appendix 26 Disclaimer 28 Contents 3 Economics Global 19 June 2019 The digitisation of trade Trade and taxes As we discussed in our reports HSBC:The disrupted economy,4 February 2019,and HSBC:Trade in the internet era,29 June 2017,technological advances such as 3D printing,blockchain,artificial intelligence(AI)and the Internet of Things(IoT)are transforming how goods and services are produced and traded.Today,digital technologies are not only helping to facilitate cross-border trade in physical goods via e-commerce platforms(e.g.Amazon,Alibaba,Mercadolibre,eBay and Etsy)but are also enabling products to be increasingly delivered electronically(e.g.movies via Netflix or music via Spotify).Advances in digital technologies are also spurring future trade trends,such as the rise of customisation and agri-food innovations(see HSBC:Custom-made,23 April 2019 and HSBC:Future of food trade,18 January 2019).Internationally traded goods have long been subject to various taxes,such as tariffs and consumption taxes.But as the distinction between what constitutes a good or service blurs,this creates challenges for cross-border taxation.For example,should tariffs or consumption taxes be paid on digitally delivered products?How should duties and taxes on online purchases be administered?And how much tax should digital companies pay?This note covers four key aspects related to taxing digital trade:1)customs duties on digital flows;2)low de minimis thresholds on tariffs and consumption taxes(i.e.thresholds below which products are exempt from taxation);3)consumption taxes;and 4)taxes on digital revenues.However,it is important to note that burdensome taxation regulations are just one barrier to cross-border digital trade.Undue data localisation,data privacy and local content requirements may also impact digital trade flows.1 Digital Trade Restrictiveness Index According to the European Centre for International Political Economy(ECIPE),cross-border taxation can be a particularly contentious and complex area of international trade because it involves dealing with different tax regimes across various economies.The fiscal restrictions pillar of ECIPEs Digital Trade Restrictiveness Index(DTRI)2 covers policy measures across the 1 See Statement by G20 Trade and Digital Economy Ministers on Trade and the Digital Economy,9 June 2019.2 The DTRI covers 65 economies,including the EU28,and assess barriers to digital trade across four clusters:1)fiscal restrictions and market access;2)establishment restrictions;3)restrictions on data;and 4)trading restrictions.Each cluster contains more-specific policy areas.See ECIPE,Digital Trade Restrictiveness Index,April 2018.Tariffs,thresholds and taxes Growth in online shopping and the digitisation of goods pose new challenges for global tax collection and administration EMs are concerned that digitisation could lead to a loss in potential tariff revenues although evidence suggests any loss is likely to be low Global efforts to coordinate tax rules could help to ready tax regimes for the digital age,but this likely needs to happen swiftly to keep pace EMs tend to employ more restrictive digital taxation policies than DMs Economics Global 19 June 2019 4 following three areas for 65 economies:1)tariffs and trade defence;2)taxation and subsidies;and 3)public procurement.In general,developing economies like Brazil,China and India are deemed most restrictive in terms of fiscal restrictions on digital trade than advanced economies(Map 1).Singapore,Hong Kong,Norway and New Zealand are considered the least restrictive by this measure.Brazil,for instance,applies a relatively high average tariff on digital goods from non-preferential trade partners of 12.7%with a peak of 30%on certain digital goods.It also has a rather complex consumption tax regime that favours local suppliers at the expense of foreign providers for certain products(like computers).3 Map 1:Fiscal restrictions,Digital Trade Restrictiveness Index,by country Notes:The Fiscal Restrictions sub-index covers policy measures in three main chapters:Tariffs and Trade Defence,Taxation and Subsidies,and Public Procurement.The Index ranges from 0(completely open)to 1(highly restricted).Data cover 65 economies,including the EU as a whole.Source:HSBC and ECIPE.Customs duties on digital flows WTO moratorium As we noted in HSBC:Trade in the internet era,29 June 2017,digital trade has benefitted from a World Trade Organization(WTO)moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions since 1998.4 While not formally defined,electronic transmissions,or e-transmissions,typically refer to digital trade content,such as music,e-books,films and software,that can be purchased and delivered online(e.g.films via Netflix or music via Spotify).E-transmissions differ from what is typically regarded as cross-border e-commerce with the latter referring to goods that are ordered online but delivered physically(e.g.hard-copy books purchased via Amazon).5 Unlike e-transmissions,tangible goods purchased online can attract tariffs as well as consumption taxes and other fees in the importing jurisdiction.3 For instance the WTO Appellate Body in December 2018 confirmed an initial ruling,in favour of the EU,that various Brazilian tax programmes favour domestic products.The tax programmes were found to disadvantage EU automotive and ICT products by offering tax advantages based on the amount of local content embedded in products.See European Commission press release.4 See 1998 WTO Declaration on Global Electronic Commerce.5 Banga,R.,“Growing Trade in Electronic Transmissions:Implications for the South”,UNCTAD Research Paper No.29,February 2019.Not coveredDigital Trade Restrictiveness Index:Fiscal restrictions0.50.3Key:Fiscal restrictions and market access0.20 5 Economics Global 19 June 2019 Foregone tariff revenue?The WTO moratorium on customs duties on e-transmissions has been renewed every two years since it first took effect with the exception of 2003 to 2005.Most recently,it was renewed at the WTOs 11th Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires in 2017.It will expire at the end of this year unless renewed.6 However,countries like South Africa and India have raised concerns about the fiscal implications of the moratorium.They are concerned that governments,mainly in developing countries,will lose out on future tariff revenue as goods become increasingly digitised and delivered electronically(e.g.via 3D printing or online platforms),rather than traded physically across borders.Developing economies are expected to be most impacted by any foregone loss in tariff revenue as these countries tend to impose much higher tariffs than advanced economies.India and South Africa are particularly concerned about the impact of 3D printing on future tariff revenue and have called for the scope of the WTO moratorium to be clarified in light of expanding digital trade flows and considerations related to economic development.7 For example,most WTO members believe the moratorium covers content transmitted electronically while Indonesias understanding is that the moratorium applies only to actual electronic transmissions,not to digitally delivered goods and services.8 As a result,Indonesia introduced a number of new tariff lines covering digital products like software in 2018.Although these tariffs have been set at zero,there is a risk that Indonesia could raise these duties.Some WTO members are concerned that the new tariff categories may contravene the WTO moratorium9 with the US noting that imposing“customs reporting requirements,even in the absence of a duty,would be highly disruptive of existing trade”.10 Empirical estimates However,empirical estimates suggest that the potential loss in global tariff revenue as a result of the moratorium is relatively small.An earlier study by the WTO Secretariat found that trade in physical goods that could be digitised(e.g.books or music)accounted for just 1%of total global goods trade and 0.25%(USD756m)of world customs revenue in 2014.11 While a more recent study by UNCTAD which considers the impact of tariffs on both imports of physical goods that could be digitised and online deliveries(i.e.e-transmissions)estimated a potential loss in annual tariff revenue of USD2.8bn for identified developing economies and USD124m for the identified advanced economies stemming from the WTO moratorium.12 India is expected to experience the greatest loss in terms of potential tariff revenue due to the moratorium(loss of USD467m),followed by China(USD453m)and Thailand(USD301m),although these numbers 6 The moratorium was renewed for two years at the last WTO Ministerial Conference in December 2017.However,the next WTO Ministerial Conference has been pushed back to June 2020,which means there could be a gap between the end of this year and the middle of next year during which the moratorium may not apply.7 See communications from India and South Africa to the WTO General Council on 3 June 2019,WT/GC/W/774,and 13 July 2018:WT/GC/W/747.8 See Inside US Trade,“India,South Africa:WTO e-commerce moratorium too costly for developing members”,6 June 2019;and Statement by Indonesia to WTO members,13 December 2017:WT/MIN(17)/68.9 See Minutes of the WTO Council for Trade in Goods,23 and 26 March 2018:G/C/M/131.10 See USTR factsheet on 2019 National Trade Estimate Report:Key Barriers to Digital Trade.11 See Minutes of the WTO General Council meeting,26 July 2018:WT/GC/M/173;and Banga,R.,“Growing Trade in Electronic Transmissions:Implications for the South”,UNCTAD Research Paper No.29,February 2019.12 These estimates are based on a sample of 91 countries:58 developing and 33 developed.The specific figures cited above are based on countries effectively applied tariff rates which takes into account any preferential tariffs that might be applied on relevant products under trade deals.If bound tariff rates(i.e.maximum chargeable rates)are used,the potential tariff loss from the moratorium is expected to be USD8 billion for developing countries and USD212 million for advanced economies.The country-level numbers also differ from aggregate estimates due to data availability.For some countries,2015/2016 tariff and trade data is used,while data for 2017 is used to obtain aggregate estimates.At the aggregate level and using bound tariffs,the loss in future tariff revenue is estimated at USD10bn for WTO developing members(excluding LDCs)and USD289m for WTO high-income members.See Banga,R.,“Growing Trade in Electronic Transmissions:Implications for the South”,UNCTAD Research Paper No.29,February 2019.EMs are estimated to forego about USD2.8bn in annual tariff revenue due to the WTO moratorium Economics Global 19 June 2019 6 remain marginal.Moreover,imposing tariffs on e-transmissions like 3D printing files would not only be challenging to administer in terms of identifying what files would be subject to duties but may also hurt local users of this technology via higher costs/prices if tariffs are imposed