Current and deferred tax with an uncertain related-party deduction
Larkin Ltd reports accounting profit before tax of CU 4,000,000 for the year ended 31 December 20X5. The profit includes: non-deductible fines CU 150,000; client entertainment CU 80,000, of which only CU 40,000 is tax deductible; exempt dividend income CU 100,000; depreciation CU 600,000; and an increase in warranty provision CU 120,000. Tax depreciation is CU 750,000. A tax loss of CU 200,000 was carried forward from 20X4 and is expected to be recoverable. The tax rate is 25%. The company also deducted CU 300,000 of consultancy fees paid to a related party in a low-tax jurisdiction. The local tax authority has opened an enquiry and, in the tax director's view, it is more likely than not that 60% of the deduction will be disallowed, with penalties of CU 45,000. No provision has been recorded. The tax director argues that no disclosure is needed because the enquiry is at an early stage.
1. Compute the current tax expense, the net deferred tax balance and total tax expense. Show your workings.
Read the worked answer
Current tax before uncertain tax: accounting profit CU 4,000,000. Add non-deductible fines CU 150,000; add non-deductible entertainment CU 40,000; deduct exempt dividend CU 100,000; add accounting depreciation CU 600,000; deduct tax depreciation CU 750,000; add warranty increase CU 120,000. Taxable profit before loss = CU 4,060,000. Deduct loss carried forward CU 200,000 = CU 3,860,000. Tax at 25% = CU 965,000. Uncertain tax: 60% × CU 300,000 = CU 180,000 disallowed; tax = CU 45,000; penalties CU 45,000. Current tax expense = CU 965,000 + CU 45,000 + CU 45,000 = CU 1,055,000. Deferred tax: tax depreciation exceeds accounting depreciation by CU 150,000, so the carrying amount of PPE exceeds its tax base by CU 150,000; taxable temporary difference × 25% = deferred tax liability CU 37,500. The warranty provision has a carrying amount of CU 120,000 and a tax base of nil; deductible temporary difference × 25% = deferred tax asset CU 30,000, if recovery is probable. Net deferred tax liability = CU 7,500. Total tax expense = CU 1,055,000 + CU 7,500 = CU 1,062,500.
2. How should the uncertain tax position and the tax director's disclosure argument be treated under IFRIC 23 and IAS 37?
Read the worked answer
IFRIC 23 requires Larkin to determine whether the uncertain tax treatment should be assessed individually and to use the most likely amount or expected value, depending on which better predicts the outcome. The tax director's own view is that it is more likely than not that 60% will be disallowed. That is sufficient to recognise a current tax liability for the disallowed deduction and the related penalty; the liability should not be left unrecognised because the enquiry is at an early stage. The penalty may be accounted for under IAS 37 as a provision if a present obligation exists and a reliable estimate can be made, and presented as part of tax expense if that is the entity's policy. The tax director's no-disclosure argument is wrong: IAS 1 requires disclosure of significant judgements and estimation uncertainty, and IFRIC 23 requires disclosure of the judgements made in determining uncertain tax treatments. Larkin should disclose the nature of the uncertainty, the possible range of outcomes, and the fact that the final tax outcome may differ from the amount recognised.
3. What transfer pricing and regulatory risks arise from the CU 300,000 related-party consultancy fee, and what documentation should Larkin prepare?
Read the worked answer
The fee is paid to a related party in a low-tax jurisdiction, so it is a transfer pricing and base-erosion risk. The fee must be arm's length: Larkin should be able to demonstrate that a third party would pay CU 300,000 for comparable services. It needs a master file and local file, functional analysis, benchmarking, contracts, evidence that the services were actually received and benefited Larkin, and support for the pricing method. It should also consider withholding tax on the payment, VAT treatment, and any local anti-hybrid or beneficial-ownership rules. If 60% is disallowed, Larkin may face tax, penalties and interest, and should consider whether double-tax relief or mutual agreement procedures are available. The documentation should be prepared contemporaneously, not after the enquiry. Paying a related-party fee without substance or benefit risks an adjustment and reputational damage, and the adviser should not assist in creating documentation that misrepresents the arrangement.