Taxation is a thorny topic for aviation. Airlines, rightly, are happy to pay their due, but overlapping regimes, spurious taxes that are little more than cash grabs, and an onerous cost of compliance are regular challenges.
The latest concern is the United Nations Tax Committee’s proposal to change Article 8 of the UN Model Tax Convention. As it stands, airlines pay income tax on a “residence” basis, meaning an airline head office bears full responsibility for airline operations and pays income tax to the country in which that head office is located.
The proposed change to Article 8 would see aviation included in a source state approach. The justification is that a country that provides an opportunity for income should have the right to tax that income.
“The location of an airline’s headquarters is not a tax-driven decision but based on legal and regulatory requirements,” notes Willie Walsh, IATA’s Director General. “This approach does not provide a concessionary or preferential regime. In fact, it is the single most accurate means of achieving the basic goal of avoiding multiple taxation risks and unnecessary tax compliance burdens for airlines.”
Governments worldwide have agreed with this approach through ICAO, which calls on governments, “to the fullest possible extent, grant reciprocally exemption from taxation on the income of air transport enterprises of other contracting states derived in that contracting state from the operation of aircraft in international air transport.”
This is besides the already significant indirect taxes, such as fees paid for overflight rights, ticket taxes, and freight taxes, that airline companies pay in the countries where they operate, on top of landing/take-off fees and other airport charges for the use of infrastructure. The assumption that airline operations are inadequately taxed, under-taxed, or not taxed at all in source countries doesn’t hold water.
Moreover, aviation is subject to Pillar 2 of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) global tax policy, which ensures that companies with global revenues above €750 million pay a minimum effective tax rate on income .
Although this policy was created to avoid a so-called race to the bottom—where companies relocate to minimize tax payments—there is no practice of airlines relocating for tax purposes. In fact, most countries, including developing nations, are home to an airline that falls within their tax regime, and there is no concentration of airlines in specific countries due to favorable tax regimes.
Source state proposal
Walsh argues that, rather than provide countries with extra tax revenues, the source state proposal would “generate a mess of reporting complexity that would exhaust both airlines and tax authorities. And that would run completely counter to the approach of many governments to simplify regulatory regimes.”
Most airlines fly across borders with passenger numbers now in excess of four billion. Accurately understanding the tax implications at the individual country level would therefore be enormously complex. And this is without considering the multitude of aviation-specific nuances, such as joint ventures, codeshares, transfer and transit passengers, direct and indirect sales channels, and inflight sales in international airspace.
Moreover, there is the question of fixed costs, amortisation, leases, and maintenance costs across aircraft deployed on international routes.
“Any taxation based on a sourcing rule would generate double or multiple taxation,” says Walsh. “These complications would translate into massive increased compliance costs for airlines and for the tax authorities that would have to manage them.”
In other words, explains Walsh, airlines and tax authorities would need to recruit additional expertise, prices would go up, demand down, and air connectivity would begin to dwindle. It follows that trade, business, job creation and social links would all suffer. Governments would also collect less tax from related sectors, such as tourism.
Hurting Least Developed Countries
Walsh stresses that the Least Developed Countries (LDC) would suffer the most. National airlines would be subject to additional taxation arrangements and endure a significant additional financial burden.
“The proposal is very costly and inefficient both for airlines and particularly for LDC authorities,” he says. “It will almost certainly result in higher airfares for the citizens of the LDCs, with a reduction in international connectivity. It will needlessly introduce distortions and reduce LDC competitiveness, and adversely impact business, investment, and growth opportunities in LDCs.”
Studies have shown that a 1% increase in aviation frequency in African countries, particularly those with good international air connectivity, leads to about a 6% increase in trade volumes. Therefore, any taxation decision made without considering the impact of the aviation sector on a country's trade and business volume could result in irreparable damages.
IATA is calling on the UN Tax Committee to preserve the economic and social benefits delivered to countries by efficient global connectivity.
“Residence-based taxation is the most accurate and fair means of taxing airlines,” concludes Walsh. “That must not change. Quite simply, it makes sense that airlines are taxed on worldwide income under ordinary corporate income tax systems in their home jurisdictions.”
The black hole of green taxes
Another area of increasing concern is so-called green taxes.
In economic terms, these taxes internalize aviation externalities, so may or may not reduce CO2 emissions. The patchwork of taxes also gives rise to double counting, meaning airlines can pay multiple times for the carbon they emit. Many airlines are based in countries that are participating in the worldwide Carbon Offsetting Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), for example, and yet these same countries have regional, national, or local carbon tax schemes implemented or under consideration.
Furthermore, the money generated by green taxes often disappears into government coffers rather than being funnelled into sustainability initiatives.
Any tax should be able to demonstrate a credible, robust analysis to ensure a holistic approach that solves the perceived problem. How the tax funds will be used should also be explained.
