Private ruling: Sovereign immunity
Published: March 2014
Ruling period: 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2017
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 2012

Ruling: Q1: Will the ATO impose liability to income tax or withholding tax on a foreign government entity on income derived from its investment in the stapled units in managed investment trusts (MITs)? | A1: No

Relevant facts and circumstances: 1. The non-resident entity is a separate entity of a foreign state. 2. The non-resident entity has invested in Australian investments 3. The Australian investments comprise of investments in MITs. 4. The Australian investments may be held for a period of several years 5. The non-resident holds investments over 10% but under 12% 6. The non-resident entity does not have influence in operating the businesses in which it has invested. 7. The non-resident entity derives income from its Australian investments. 8. Income received by the non-resident entity from the Australian investments is distributed annually by the non-resident entity to its foreign government.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 subsection 128B(1) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 subsection 128B(2) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 4-1 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subdivision 840-M

Reasons for decision: Detailed Reasoning - Sovereign immunity background: The Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Immunities Act) is an Australian Commonwealth Act which reflects a more restrictive view of the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity. It has been long-standing practice for the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to follow the principles delineated in the Immunities Act to apply the more restrictive view of the doctrine of sovereign immunity when considering taxation matters. Pursuant to this approach, an entity claiming sovereign immunity must satisfy three conditions: 1. the entity must be a foreign state, or a separate entity of a foreign state 2. the scheme to which the claim applies must not be a commercial transaction, and 3. the monies being invested in the scheme are and will remain government monies. If these three conditions are satisfied, it has been the long-standing practice of the ATO to not impose the entity's liability to withholding tax in respect of dividend and interest income on the basis that the entity has satisfied the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity. | Detailed Reasoning - Condition 1: a 'foreign state' or 'separate entity' of a foreign state: A claim for sovereign immunity may only be made by a 'foreign state' (section 9 of the Immunities Act). A foreign state is defined in section 3 of the Immunities Act to be a country outside of Australia that is either: • an independent sovereign state, or • a separate territory (whether or not it is self-governing) that is not part of an independent sovereign state. Sovereign immunity also extends to a 'separate entity' of a foreign state pursuant to section 22 of the Immunities Act. A separate entity of a foreign state is defined in section 3 of the Immunities Act to be a natural person, body corporate or corporation sole that: • is an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state, and • is not a department or organ of the executive government of the foreign state. The Full Federal Court Decision in PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2011] FCAFC 52 considered when an entity may be an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state. The court decided (at paragraph 128), that the correct approach is to consider, on the whole of the evidence, whether the person is acting for, or being used by, the foreign state as its means to achieve some purpose or end of that state in the relevant circumstances. | Detailed Reasoning - Is the non-resident entity a 'foreign state' or 'separate entity' of a foreign state?: In carrying out its duties, the non-resident entity may be considered to be an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state and consequently a separate entity of a foreign state. | Detailed Reasoning - Condition 2: commercial transaction: Under section 11 of the Immunities Act, a foreign state does not enjoy sovereign immunity in so far as the proceeding concerns a commercial transaction. As suggested by the High Court in the PT Garuda Case at paragraph 5, the necessity for sovereign immunity to be excluded from commercial transactions came about as a result of governments increasingly becoming engaged in various commercial activities and that immunity of governments involved in commercial activities was inconsistent with international law and it was undesirable. As a result, Australia accepts that foreign states performing only governmental functions, rather than undertaking commercial transactions, may claim sovereign immunity. This approach is consistent with the decision of the British House of Lords in I Congreso del Partido [1981] 2 All ER 1064, where it was held that activities of a trading, commercial or other private law character were not governmental functions. Whether an operation or activity is a commercial transaction will depend on the facts of each particular case. As a guide, a commercial transaction is generally an activity concerned with the trading of goods and services, such as buying, selling, bartering and transportation, and includes the carrying on of a business. | Detailed Reasoning - Are the non-resident entity's investments commercial transactions?: The holding of currently in excess of 10% entitles the entity to veto matters which, as stated, require an over 89% majority. However, the ATO accepts these matters are more in line of administration rather than having a genuine strategic interest. Meeting minutes reflect the fact that the meetings are primarily held to update the members on the fund's activities and performance as well as approval of certain internal costs. The Commissioner accepts that, despite their representation on the large investors committee, the investments are considered passive in nature and therefore, for the purposes of a sovereign immunity application, not commercial transactions. | Detailed Reasoning - Condition 3: monies are and will remain government monies: In line with the principle that sovereign immunity applies to foreign states performing only governmental functions, an entity claiming sovereign immunity must establish that the monies being invested in the scheme are and will remain government monies. The monies that are invested by the non-resident entity are and will remain government monies. | Detailed Reasoning - Conclusion: Since the three conditions are satisfied, the non-resident entity's claim for sovereign immunity on its Australian investments has been established. In line with long-standing practice, the ATO will not impose liability to income tax including withholding taxes on its investments in Australian managed investment trusts.