Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) during Covid-19

The novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) was declared as a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11th, 2020 and subsequently, the Government of India decided to treat it as a notified disaster.  Accordingly, the Government took various steps to curb the spread of the disease as well as minimize the impact on the economy. While businesses were grappling with the new reality of this global uncertainty, their support and participation was considered imperative to manage the current situation. To encourage entities and garner their cooperation, the Government decided to treat funds spent on activities relating to COVID-19 as part of CSR performance. Additionally, the Ministry of Home Affairs of India issued directions to lockdown all the states in India till 20.05.2020 (“Lockdown Period”) and has come up with various notifications with respect to payment of salaries/ wages to employees.

Under section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”), every company having a net worth of Rs. 500 Crores or more, or turnover of Rs. 1000 Crores or more or a net profit of Rs. 5 Crores or more during the preceding financial year shall constitute a CSR Committee. This CSR Committee shall formulate and recommend a CSR policy for the activities to be undertaken by the company, recommend the amount of expenditure to be incurred on the activities and monitor the CSR policy of the company from time to time. The company shall spend, in every financial year, at least 2% of its average net profits made during three immediately preceding financial years or since incorporation, whichever is applicable. Moreover, the CSR expenditure shall include projects and programs specified under Schedule VII of the Act.

Keeping in mind the requirement under the Act, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) issued a General Circular No. 10/2020 dated 23.03.2020 (“General Circular”) on the spending of CSR funds for COVID-19. The MCA has clarified that spending of CSR funds for COVID-19 is an eligible CSR activity. The MCA through the General Circular has included the promotion of health care including preventive health care and sanitation, and disaster management to the list of CSR activities under Schedule VII. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note here that as per General Circular No. 21/2014 dated 18.06.2014 issued by MCA, the entries in Schedule VII are broad-based and must be interpreted liberally so as to capture the essence of the subjects therein. With this change, Schedule VII now recognizes any contribution to incubators funded by Central or State Government or any Government agency engaged in conducting research in science, technology, engineering, and medicine as falling within the ambit of CSR. 

Moreover, the Government of India has set up a public charitable trust under the name of Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (“PM CARES Fund”) to deal with any kind of emergency or distress situation, like the one posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. In view of this, the MCA issued Office Memorandum F. No. CSR-05/1/2020-CSR-MCA dated 28.03.2020 which provides that any contribution made to the PM CARES Fund shall qualify as CSR expenditure under item No. (viii) of the Schedule VII of the Act, which reads as under:

“(viii) contribution to the prime minister’s national relief fund or any other fund set up by the central govt. for socio-economic development and relief and welfare of the schedule caste, tribes, other backward classes, minorities and women”

The MCA issued further clarifications vide General Circular No. 15/ 2020 dated 10.04.2020 (“New Circular”) due to several queries on the eligibility of CSR expenditure related to COVID-19 activities. The following are the clarifications issued in the New Circular:

  1. The contribution made to the PM CARES Fund shall qualify as CSR expenditure under item no. (viii) of Schedule VII of the Act as stated above.
  2. Any contribution to ‘Chief Minister’s Relief Fund’ or ‘State Relief Fund for COVID-19’ is not included in Schedule VII of the Act and therefore, it shall not qualify as CSR expenditure.
  3. As provided in the General Circular, contribution made to State Disaster Management Authority to combat COVID-19 shall qualify as CSR expenditure under item no. (xii) of Schedule VII of the Act which reads as under:

“(xii) disaster management, including relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction activities”

  1. Funds spent on various activities related to COVID-19 under the items of Schedule VII with respect to the promotion of health care including preventive health care, sanitation, and disaster management shall qualify as CSR expenditure.
  2. The payment of salary/wages to employees and workers during the lockdown period is a moral obligation of the employers, as they have no alternative source of employment or livelihood during this Lockdown Period. Therefore, payment of salary/wages to the employees and workers during the Lockdown Period shall not qualify as admissible CSR expenditure. Moreover, payment of wages to temporary or casual, or daily wage workers during the Lockdown Period shall also not count as CSR expenditure as this forms a part of the contractual or moral obligation of the company and is applicable to all companies irrespective of whether they have any legal obligation for CSR contribution under section 135 of the Act.
  3. In case of any ex-gratia payment made to temporary/ casual workers/ daily wage workers over and above the payment of wages, specifically for the purpose of fighting COVID-19, the same shall be considered CSR expenditure. It is pertinent to point out that this payment shall be admissible as a one-time exception provided there is an explicit declaration to that effect by the Board of the company, which is duly certified by the statutory auditors.

 

To sum it up, the MCA has clarified that the expenses made by the corporate entities with regard to COVID-19 shall be construed to be part of the CSR responsibilities under the Companies Act, 2013 if the activities and expenses include the following:

  1. Contribution to PM CARES Fund;
  2. The contribution made to State Disaster Management Authority; and
  3. Funds spent on activities relating to the promotion of health care including preventive health care, sanitation, and disaster management.

Further, to put rest to the discussions pertaining to payment of salaries and wages to the employees or contract workers, the MCA has also clarified that payment of salaries and wages are moral obligations of a company irrespective of the CSR contribution. Therefore, payment of salaries and wages do not form part of CSR expenditure. However, MCA has provided a one-time exception for ex-gratia payment to the temporary or casual workers for fighting COVID-19.      

Corporates are opting for a hybrid approach where they are partly contributing to the various funds and simultaneously directly getting involved in the process of fighting the disease by manufacturing equipment, making quarantine facilities, and distributing free rations. The key here is to fight the disease from all possible fronts with the help of all possible avenues. Corporates taking an active part reflects their values and shall positively impact their reputation management efforts. However, had the payment of wages been included in the CSR activity, employees who are losing their job could see some respite. That said, the one-time exception for temporary and casual workers is definitely a positive step that goes a long way in resolving the economic distress that is affecting individuals and businesses alike.

ACTIVITY

COUNTS AS CSR?

Contribution to PM CARES

Yes

Contribution to State Disaster Management Authority

Yes

Payment of Salaries/Wages

No

Ex-Gratia Payment Above Wages to Temporary/Casual Workers for Fighting COVID-19

Yes, One Time

COVID-19 Related Activities Under Schedule-VII

Yes

Contribution to Chief Minister Relief Fund

No

Contribution to State Relief Fund for COVID-19’

No

 

 

Image Credits:  Photo by cottonbro from Pexels

Such measures from the Government will certainly create a positive sentiment and a sense of tax certainty amongst the investors and hopefully, help in attracting incremental foreign investment into the country, that will play an important role in promoting faster economic growth and development.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT

Undue delay in passing Arbitral Award in violation of Public Policy?

A clause for Alternate dispute resolution (ADR) is incorporated in a contract to ensure avoidance of lengthy and costly legal procedures. Undue delay in arbitration procedure tends to vitiate this essential objective that ADR seeks to achieve.  Further, the ADR process is designed to minimize the interference of courts, however, it is more of fiction as parties unhappy with the outcome of the process take the legal recourse as a dilatory tactic. Therefore, it is essential that arbitral awards are set aside only when there is a grave injustice or is unreasonable on the face of it[I].

 

Some light was shed on the issue recently by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Mr. K. Dhanasekar v Union of India and Ors[ii]. The court set aside an arbitral award on an application made to it under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015 holding that undue and/or inordinate delays in passing an award are in fact violative of public policy.

 

Factual Matrix:

 

The Petitioner, an engineering contractor, entered into an agreement with the Respondent, Southern Railways, for the collection and supply of 50 mm size machine crushed hard granite ballast for railway track doubling purposes. Certain disputes arose between the parties, and in accordance with the provisions of the contract which provided for settlement of disputes by arbitration, an arbitral tribunal consisting of three arbitrators was constituted. The learned arbitral tribunal dismissed the claim of the claimant in its entirety and allowed the counterclaim of the respondent. Challenging the same, the Petitioner approached the Hon’ble Madras High Court.

The Petitioner, inter alia, contended that there was a severe delay in passing the award. The arbitral tribunal passed the impugned award after a period of 3 years and 7 months which was not a reasonable time period. The Respondent countered that the learned arbitral tribunal, upon hearing the parties at length and upon consideration of all facts and circumstances, had passed the impugned award. Further, the delay in passing the award had not caused any prejudice to anyone and therefore, the award must not be set aside.

 

Issue:

 

Whether inordinate delays in passing an arbitral award was sufficient cause to set aside the impugned award.

 

Judgment:

 

The Hon’ble Court observed that the fact that there were delays in passing the impugned award was not disputed. What was disputed was whether such delay warranted the interference of the Hon’ble Court in setting aside the award.

To answer the question, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited[iii], wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had held that an arbitrator was required to make and publish an award within a reasonable period of time, and in the event that there is a delay, the same had to be adequately explained. The lack of any satisfactory explanation to such delays would be prejudicial to the interests of the parties. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court also held that the parties to an arbitration agreement had the right to be satisfied that the arbitrator was conscious of and had taken into consideration all contentions and claims before adjudicating on the claim. An inordinate delay from the last date of hearing would not provide such satisfaction to the parties.

The Hon’ble Madras High Court, adopting the same rationale found that arbitrators are likely to forget the contentions and pleas raised by parties during the course of arguments. Further, unexplained delay in passing an arbitral award was violative of the public policy of India and therefore liable to be set aside.  

       

Conclusion:

 

The Hon’ble High Court has proceeded on the assumption that the arbitrators must have forgotten the arguments placed by the parties, despite the fact that written submissions were placed on record by each party. Additionally, Section 29A introduced by the Arbitration Amendment Act, 2015 (further amended in 2019) has prescribed a time limit of 12 months from the date of completion of pleadings, within which period, the Arbitrator must necessarily make the award.  Although the amendment is not applicable to the case at hand (Consequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and Ors[iv] on the retrospective application of the Arbitration Amendment Act, 2015), however, a similar case today would reach the same fate because of these set timelines. The said decision, as well as the amending provision, have the tendency of acting as a tool for the losing party to have the arbitral award set aside on procedural ground rather than on merits. These also increase the interference of the court which might result in unnecessary delays which the amending provision or the decision basically condemns. Further, with the 12 month or 18 months limit (if extended by the parties), the delay might not happen in ADR proceedings but may happen in the legal proceedings which the parties seek to avoid by opting for the ADR mechanism in the first place. In addition, court interference or dependence would hamper the confidentiality that parties seek to achieve through the ADR process. This is violative of the sanctity of arbitral awards and goes against the very fabric of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act itself.

Finally, the Arbitration Council being set up through the 2019 amendment, to undertake necessary measures to promote and encourage the ADR mechanism and to frame policy and guidelines for uniform professional standards, must take cognizance of this. Although provisions for penalizing arbitrators have not been provided in the amendment, the Arbitration Council should consider making regulations on the same to ensure compliance. This might provide an impetus to the overall arbitration process and ensure timely resolution in a fair and equitable manner while avoiding the interference of the court.

References:

 

[i] Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., v. Saw Pipes Ltd., [2003 (5) SCC 705]

[ii] O.P. No. 4 of 2015 and O.A. No. 31 of 2015 at http://164.100.79.153/judis/chennai/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/489701

[iii] [2009 (107) DRJ 213]

[iv] (SLP (C.) No. 19545-19546 of 2016)

 

 

Image Credits: Photo by Aron Visuals on Unsplash

The Hon’ble High Court has proceeded on the assumption that the arbitrators must have forgotten the arguments placed by the parties, despite the fact that written submissions were placed on record by each party. Additionally, Section 29A introduced by the Arbitration Amendment Act, 2015 (further amended in 2019) has prescribed a time limit of 12 months from the date of completion of pleadings, within which period, the Arbitrator must necessarily make the award.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT

Differential Voting Rights – A Boost to Listed Tech Start-ups

Finding a balance between infusion of capital and retaining control are two sides of a scale that every corporate intending to survive and thrive must strive for. Being cognizant of the stress induced by this balancing act, SEBI, the market regulator, decided to relieve the corporate sector by providing a framework[i] for Issuance of Differential Voting Rights (DVR) shares.

 

Finding a balance between infusion of capital and retaining control are two sides of a scale that every corporate intending to survive and thrive must strive for. Being cognizant of the stress induced by this balancing act, SEBI, the market regulator, decided to relieve the corporate sector by providing a framework[i] for Issuance of Differential Voting Rights (DVR) shares.

DVR is not a new concept in India. It can be traced back by two decades when the Companies Act, 1956 was amended by Companies (Amendment) Act, 2000 to substitute Section 86, which allowed Indian companies to issue DVR Shares.

Issue of DVR can be in two ways:

  1. a) Issue of shares with superior voting rights to founders and/or
  2. b) Issue of shares with lower or fractional or inferior voting rights to raise funds from private/ public investors.

Interestingly, in the year 2009, with the apprehension of possible misuse of the issue of shares with Superior Voting Rights by listed companies, SEBI disallowed and prohibited issue of such shares for listed companies[ii]. However, it permitted issue of shares with inferior voting rights.

Recently, in an apparent reversal of its policy position, SEBI has allowed the issuance of DVR with superior voting rights by listed companies and disallowed any further issuance of shares with inferior voting rights.

The change seems to be a result of the increasing debate on the need to enable promoters/founders of companies, especially technology-based start-ups, to retain decision-making powers and rights vis-à-vis other shareholders while also raising capital.

The framework along with amendments (dated July 29,2019) to the relevant SEBI Regulations[iii] has been notified after considering the recommendations of the Primary Market Advisory Committee (PMAC) and the public comments on the Consultation Paper.  

In this context, we analyse the key aspects introduced by SEBI on DVR for listed companies.

  1. SR shares for listed start up:

Under the new framework, SEBI permitted issue of Superior Voting Rights (“SR shares”) in the ratio of a minimum of 2:1 up to a maximum of 10:1 compared to ordinary shares to the listed companies. However, the market regulator restricted SR shares only to promoters/founders of tech related listed companies.

SEBI has also made it very clear that a company having superior voting rights shares (SR shares) would be permitted to do an initial public offering (IPO) of only ordinary shares to be listed on the Main Board, subject to fulfilment of eligibility requirements of the SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018 and the following conditions:

  1. The issuer company should be a technology-based company
  1. The SR shareholder should not be a part of the promoter group whose collective net worth exceed Rs 500 Crores. However, the investment of SR shareholders in the shares of the issuer company shall not be considered in the calculation of the collective net worth.
  1. The issue of these SR shares has been authorized by a special resolution passed at a general meeting with notice of specific matters including the size of issues, the ratio of voting rights, differential dividend, sunset clause, and coat tail provisions. Further, the issuer company should have only one class of SR equity shares.
  1. The SR shares should have the following traits:
  • Have been issued only to the promoters/ founders who hold an executive position in the company.
  • Have been held for a period of at least 6 months prior to the filing of Red Herring Prospectus (RHP)
  • Have voting rights in the ratio of a minimum of 2:1 up to a maximum of 10:1 compared to ordinary shares and such ratio shall be in whole numbers;
  • Have the same face value as ordinary shares
  • Should be equivalent to ordinary equity shares in all respects, except for having superior voting rights.
  1. Enabled Corporate Governance

Since there are increasing debates that introduction of DVRs would result in corporate governance issues such as abuse of minority shareholders, weakening of the checks and balances between shareholders and management, etc, the PMAC has recommended measures to mitigate the corporate governance issues that arise with existence of DVR structure.

As such, in view of disproportionate voting rights conferred to promoters vis-à-vis their economic holding, the new framework adopted following measures to make the companies having SR shareholders subject to enhanced corporate governance:

  1. All companies with SR Shares to have independent directors making up at least half of their total directors and two-thirds of their board committees (other than the audit committee). The audit committee is required to comprise only independent directors.
  2. The framework also provides for additional safeguards for ordinary shareholders by way of ‘Coat-tail provisions. The framework enlists the circumstances where SR shares are considered as ordinary shares. The list covers circumstances like winding up of the company, appointment/ removal of independent, related party transactions etc. In these circumstances, SR shareholders will vote on a ‘one share one vote’ basis.
  3. SR shareholder shall be entitled to SR shares in case of bonus, split or rights issues, however, rights cannot be renounced, and ratio shall remain the same as initially adopted by the company.
  4. The SR equity shares shall be treated at par with the ordinary equity shares in every respect, including dividends, except in the case of voting on resolutions.
  5. The total voting rights of SR shareholders (including ordinary shares) in the issuer upon listing, pursuant to an initial public offer, shall not at any point of time exceed 74%.
  6. The SR share shall be converted into ordinary voting rights after five years of listing or resignation, demise, merger or demerger where the control would be longer with him.

 

 

 

 

  1. No more inferior voting rights

 

Prior to the amendment and framework, inferior voting rights were allowed. Now with the new framework disallowing issuance of inferior voting rights, the watchdog has taken away the investors chance to get benefits like bonus, split etc. PMAC committee and SEBI Board is of opinion that such shares should not be encouraged as they attract less investor interest, trade at discount and therefore negatively impact retail shareholders attracted to such shares. Further, lower fractional rights would likely result in existing ordinary shares to trade at premium resulting in lower returns for institutional investors.

 

Amendment to the Companies Act, 2013

In line with amendments to the SEBI Regulations, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has amended the Companies (Share Capital & Debentures) Rules, 2014 relating to issue of DVRs vide notification dated August 16, 2019[iv]. Brief changes made are:

  • The requirement of distributable profit for three years as an eligibility to issue shares with DVR has been removed.
  • The existing cap of 26% of the total post issue paid up equity share capital has been revised to a cap of 74% of total voting power in respect of shares with Differential Voting Rights of a company.
  • The time period for issuance of Employee Stock Options (ESOPs) to promoters or Directors holding more than 10% has been enhanced from 5 years to 10 years from the date of their incorporation.

Section 43(a)(ii) of the Companies Act, 2013, provides that a company incorporated under the laws of India and limited by shares is permitted to have equity shares with differential voting rights as part of its share capital. 

 

DVRs in Other Jurisdictions

 

Internationally, the listing of shares with differential voting rights, i.e, DVRs is known as Dual Class Shares or DCS which is permitted in many countries. However, in countries like Australia, Spain, Germany and China, they do not permit Issuers with DCS structure for listing.

In US, issuers with pre-existing DCS structures are permitted to list on the NYSE and NASDAQ. Once listed, issuers with one share one vote structure are not permitted to implement a DCS structure that would reduce or restrict the interest of existing shareholders. Founders of companies like Google, Facebook, Alibaba have adopted this DCS structure in one form or another to retain control over their entity.  However, there are investor activists who are widely against such concentrated voting rights with few founders/ managements. Also, there is ongoing debate in the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) about the continuation of DCS.

When we analyse UK, we can see that DCS structures were used in the 1960s to protect corporations from hostile takeovers or for the Queen to have ‘golden share’. However, now with the emergence of institutional investors, who strongly support one share one vote, DCS shares have become unpopular. Supporting the same, the market regulator there has prohibited DCS for companies listing on the UK’s premium Listing.

On the other end of the spectrum, Singapore and Hong Kong have recently permitted DCS structures with the intent to encourage new technology firms. However, considering the cons of such shares, these countries have adopted detailed checks and balances.  

 

Conclusion

 

DVR is widely accepted as a defense mechanism for hostile takeover and dilution of interest in a company. Nevertheless, a highly evolving entrepreneurial community in India that is desperately starving for capital will welcome this initiative that could help pitch their companies on a higher scale. Further, it is in consonance with the government’s strategy for ease of doing business and propelling the start-up environment.

However, only time would tell how effective superior DVR shares would be in achieving the desired objective since fractional shares had been brought in place with similar intent but failed to deliver. Moreover, when the voting interest is separated from economic interests, there are always chances of misuse by promoters. It may also lead to other externalities such as misalignment of interests among shareholders, excessive compensation of management, reduced dividend pay-out, management entrenchment, and expropriation. Finally, it remains to be seen whether the checks and balances put in place to curb misuse are effective or need overhauling.

References:

[i] https://www.sebi.gov.in/sebi_data/meetingfiles/aug-2019/1565346231044_1.pdf

[ii] SEBI circular no. SEBI/CFD/DIL/LA/2/2009/21/7 dated July 21, 2009

[iii] SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018, SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011, SEBI (Buy-Back of Securities) Regulations, 2018, and SEBI (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2009.

[iv] https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=192676

 

 

 

Image Credits: Photo by Image by <a href=”https://pixabay.com/users /AbsolutVision-6158753/?utm_source=link- attribution&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=image&amp;utm_content=2656028″>Gino Crescoli</a> from <a href=”https://pixabay.com/?utm_source=link-attribution&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=image&amp;utm_content=2656028″>Pixabay</a>

DVR is widely accepted as a defence mechanism for hostile takeover and dilution of interest in a company. Nevertheless, a highly evolving entrepreneurial community in India that is desperately starving for capital will welcome this initiative that could help pitch their companies on a higher scale. Further, it is in consonance with the government’s strategy for ease of doing business and propelling the start-up environment.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT

Succession Planning: Private Family Trust

With around 65% of GDP in the organized sector coming from family businesses[1], their status as the ‘engines’ of India’s ever-growing economy cannot be underscored. Globally, 35% of Fortune 500 companies are family owned businesses[2]. However, it is startling to note that 70% of the family businesses globally are sold before the second generation gets a chance to take over while only 10% of family businesses are able to survive till the third generation.[3] Further, a study by BAF consultants reveals that 97% of family-run businesses in India don’t have succession plan documents.[4]

An effective family business succession planning not only establishes a smooth transition of leadership in the business between generations, but it also ensures that the control over the business is retained in the family. In addition, adequate wealth planning could also help prevent unwarranted long and expensive legal disputes between heirs in multiple jurisdictions.

Family business succession planning can be achieved through various structures depending upon parameters like the degree of control over the purpose for which the wealth can be used, the manner in which it may be used and the like. One of the most common structures to manage family wealth is “Private Family Trust”.

The fact that a private trust offers numerous advantages, (safeguarding against possible losses due to family-related liabilities which may arise from unforeseen events divorce, death, re-introduction of estate duty in India, etc. to mention a few ) and the ease and flexibility of formulating the mechanics to ensure that the needs, requirements and the objective of the entire family are met, makes it a popular arrangement while planning the transition of family business.

Structuring a Private Family Trust – Key Considerations

 

A trust may be created through a non-testamentary or by way of a testamentary document (like will)[5]. Pursuant to the Indian Trust Act, 1882, (“Trust Act”) there are four important components of a valid trust one should consider while structuring a family trust for business succession:

  1. The person who creates a trust (settlor/author) should make an unequivocal declaration of an intention on his part which must be manifested through an external expression of it (by written or spoken words or by conduct) as opposed to an undisclosed intention.
  1. The settlor must clearly define and specify the objects. Since the purpose has to be accomplished by a trustee (person/entity on whom trust is reposed), who may not always be the author/ settlor himself, it is necessary that the purpose is clearly declared so that the trustee can faithfully accomplish the author’s purpose, for which the author has reposed confidence in the trustee.
  1. The settlor must specify the beneficiaries. Where there is no transfer of ownership, there is no trust[6]. The settlor gives up the ownership of the property thus resulting in transfer of legal ownership of the property to the trustee and transfer of beneficial ownership to the beneficiaries of the trust.
  1. The settlor must transfer an identifiable property under an irrevocable arrangement and totally divest himself of the ownership and the beneficial enjoyment of the income from the property.

Once the nature and type of private family trust (i.e. discretionary/determinate, revocable/irrevocable) is finalized, amongst others, following key considerations with respect to the structuring of the trust should be kept in mind:

  • Registration and Stamp Duties

 

A trust deed may be created in a detailed manner, stating the above, preferably with the help of a legal practitioner. The deed should be registered if the transfer of immovable property is involved. However, no formal deed is necessary for recognition of trust created by a will.

Stamp duty would be levied on any such settlement of immovable property to a trust. Although in a few states the stamp duty on gifts to specified relatives is minimal, the same does not apply to trusts and for this reason, transfer through a will is preferred. To minimize the amount of stamp duty, properties are often held through entities, the ownership of which is then transferred to the trust.

 

  • Appointment of Trustee

 

A trustee has a fiduciary obligation under law to hold the trust property for the sake of the beneficiaries and is empowered to manage the affairs of the trust. Accordingly, it becomes important to choose the most suitable type of trustee (i.e. a trustee may be an individual, either a trusted family advisor or a member of the family itself). The Settlor or one of the beneficiaries may act as the trustee so long as they operate in that capacity.

Alternatively, the services of an institutional trustee may be employed, especially in instances where neutral decision-making is a primary concern. The family may also consider setting up a Private Trust Company (“PTC”) with family members appointed as directors of the PTC to make decisions with respect to the trust.

While the choice of trustee depends upon the commercial requirements of the family business, a few important parameters listed below need to be considered while making the decision: 

  1. the level of control the family would like to maintain in day to day operations;
  2. neutrality of the trustee;
  3. objective and term of trust;
  4. expertise with respect to the discharge of various fiduciary duties;
  5. annual costs.
  • Powers of a Trustee

 

The powers of the trustees are defined in the trust deed and the same vary depending upon the structure of the trust and the requirements of the family business. Generally, a trustee has wide-ranging powers that allow him to manage the daily operations of the trust and make distributions to beneficiaries. In order to balance the powers of the trustee, the trust deed may provide for the appointment of a Protector. The role of the Trust Protector is advisory in nature, however, making a provision in the Trust Deed that the trustee must consult the Protector before making key decisions would help to ensure that the decisions by the Trustee are made in the best interest of the family.  

  • Dispute Resolution

 

The Supreme Court (“SC”) of India in the case of Vimal Shah & Ors. vs Jayesh Shah & Ors.[7] has held that:

“…all disputes arising out of a trust deed and the Trusts Act are not arbitrable in India.”

This has put an end to arbitration as a form of dispute resolution for trusts. The SC analysed the scheme of the trust act finding that it comprehensively and adequately covers each subject pertaining to trust law, right from the creation of the trust and extending to the management of the trust as well as provisions relating to beneficiaries and trustees, including remedies available to get grievances settled. Specifically, on the point of legal remedies, the SC observed that the trust act provides specifically for the resolution of various disputes and confers jurisdiction for the same on Civil Courts. The SC referred to the principle of interpretation that where a specific remedy is prescribed by statute, the person facing such a grievance is denied of any other remedy. Therefore, the SC concluded that the presence of provisions in the trust act specifically dealing with the forum for dispute resolution reflects the intention of the legislature to impliedly bar arbitration of such disputes. That being said, provisions for alternative dispute resolutions mechanisms like conciliation as governed by the Arbitration Act or mediation may still be provided for under the trust deed subject to legal advice.

It was further held in the said case that:

“as beneficiaries are not signatories to a trust deed containing an arbitration clause, any disputes arising between beneficiaries or trustees of a trust cannot be referred to arbitration as such arbitration clause is not an “arbitration agreement” between the trustees inter se, between the beneficiaries inter se or between the trustees and the beneficiaries for the purposes of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”).”

Furthermore, the SC clarified that even if the beneficiaries are considered to have accepted the trust deed vis-à-vis the settlor by accepting the benefits thereunder, such acceptance does not imply that an arbitration agreement exists for the resolution of disputes among beneficiaries, among trustees, or among trustees and beneficiaries.

  • Cross border Trust structure

 

With the number of high net worth families having members residing in various countries, the probability that a trust structure will have cross-border elements is increasing. Given that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has strict rules with respect to foreign exchange and the cross-border transfer of funds / immovable property, it becomes pertinent to consider the residency status of the settlor, trustee and beneficiaries of a trust.

For example, an Indian resident settlor may set up a trust outside of India (“Offshore Trust”). In fact, the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (“FEMA”) of India has granted general permission to a person resident in India to hold, own, transfer or invest in foreign currency, foreign security or any immovable property situated outside India if such ‘Foreign Currency Assets’ have been acquired, held or owned by such person when he was resident outside India or inherited from a person who was resident outside India. Such a person may set up a trust in such jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction to which he could contribute the Foreign Currency Assets. Families generally prefer to have an offshore trust set up in a tax-haven or asset safe jurisdiction as apart from deriving the jurisdictional benefit, it ensures confidentiality and buffers assets from business uncertainties.

However, remitting Indian funds to such Offshore Trust should be subject to India’s Liberalised Remittance Scheme (“LRS”), under which resident individuals are allowed to transfer up to USD 250,000 per person per financial year for permitted current and capital account transactions without prior RBI approval. These transactions include the acquisition of immovable property shares or any other assets outside of India. Funds transferred through LRS may even be used to set up a foreign company[8].

Further, while the Trusts Act does not preclude a non-resident from acting as a trustee to an Indian Trust, it does require that where a trustee is absent from India for a continuous period of six months or leaves India with the intention of residing abroad, then a new trustee may be appointed in his place[9].

Considering that Indian foreign exchange laws do not permit non-residents to directly hold immovable property, the trustee of a trust having immovable property would not be legally capable of holding such property on behalf of the trust and would therefore not be competent to act as trustee. Moreover, in the event that a trustee is non-resident, the trust should not be engaged in activities prohibited for non-residents under India’s foreign exchange regulations.

Taxation of Private Trust

Taxation of private trust in India is governed by the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) which stipulates the provisions with respect to the determination of residence, chargeability to tax, computation of income, etc.

For the purposes of Indian Income Tax, a Private Trust is not treated as a separate taxable unit.  However, under the ITA, the trustee acquires the status of that of a beneficiary and is taxed as a representative of the beneficiaries (“Representative Assesee[10]”). The provisions dealing with the taxation of a Private Trust is stipulated under section 161 to 164 of the ITA and the same is discussed below:

  • Irrevocable Determinate Trust

Given that in such Trust, the beneficiaries are identifiable and the beneficial interest of such beneficiaries have already been determined, the income of the trust can be taxed at the hands of the trustees as  Representative Assesees or the beneficiaries depending on the extent of their interest in the trust, however, in no event there would be double taxation for the same income.

Further, under the provisions of ITA[11], any transfer of a capital asset under a gift or will or an irrevocable trust is exempt from any capital gains taxation as no gains are made by the author of the trust who transfers the property. Similarly, the property received by a trust created or established solely for the benefit of ‘relatives’ (as defined) of the individual is exempt from the purview of tax. Moreover, trusts receiving dividend income will be exempt from the additional 10% tax on dividend income exceeding Rs 10 lakh.

Another issue for consideration with regard to the taxation of a trust is the application of Section 56 of the ITA on a settlement. Section 56(2) of the ITA provides for the taxation of any sum of money and specified properties (value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees) received without consideration or for inadequate consideration as ‘income from other sources.’ However, the said section does not apply to any sum of money/property received, inter alia, from relatives as defined in the ITA.

Therefore, where money or any property is received without consideration or for inadequate consideration, other than being from a relative, the income would be taxable in the hands of the trustee/beneficiary at the progressive slab rates, the maximum rate being 30% plus applicable surcharge and education cess.

  • Irrevocable Discretionary Trust

As stated earlier, a Discretionary Trust is one which gives the Trustee, the powers to decide which beneficiary receives the fund and to what extent.

In case of a Discretionary Trust, the taxability of the trust in India would depend on whether the income of the trust is the income of the beneficiaries. No income would accrue or arise in the hands of its beneficiaries till such time that the trustee makes a decision regarding the allocation of the trust property or income to one or more of the beneficiaries and the beneficiaries become eligible to receive the property or income. In such a situation, one also needs to consider whether the trustee or the trust could be taxed under the residual category as ‘artificial juridical person’. An artificial juridical person would be subject to tax in India if it is resident in India or it receives income in India, or any income accrues or arises to it in India. Residential status of an artificial juridical person is determined on the basis of the situs of its control and management. If control and management is situated wholly outside India in the relevant year, the artificial juridical person would be treated as a non-resident for the purpose of Indian taxation.

Thus, as long as the trust’s administration and decision making are not exercised by anyone in India even for a part of the year, an offshore trust should not be regarded as resident in India and such a trust should not be taxed in India.

In case of an onshore (in India) discretionary trust having resident and non-resident beneficiaries, a trustee will be regarded as the representative assessee of the beneficiaries and shall subject to tax at the maximum marginal rate.

  • Revocable Trust

Under the ITA, a transfer shall be deemed to be revocable if it contains any provision for the re-transfer directly or indirectly of the whole or any part of the income or assets to the transferor or it in any way gives the transferor a right to re-assume power directly or indirectly over the whole or any part of the income or assets. Thus, where a settlement is made in a manner that a settlor is empowered to reassume possession over the assets of the trust or entitled to recover the contributions over a specified period, and is entitled to the income from the contributions, the trust is disregarded for the purposes of tax, and the income thereof is taxed as though it had directly arisen to the settlor. If there are joint settlors to a revocable trust, the income of the trust will be taxed in the hands of each settlor to the extent of assets settled by them in the trust.

 

Succession planning, although has been around for a long time, the changing legal and business environment has made it multifaceted and therefore complex. With rumors of a reintroduction of estate duty/ inheritance tax doing the rounds and the Bankruptcy Law being active since 2016, it is better succession planning is done well in advance to meet future ambiguities. High net-worth individuals and families need to adequately plan the future of their wealth to avoid family conflicts and weaklings being deprived of affluence they inherited.  Therefore, the creation of a private trust would provide desired flexibility and ensure ease of operation as well as the possibility of correction within the lifetime of the settlor.

References:

[1] Based on an article published by ValuEndow

[2] Study by Conway Center for family business

[3] Data as available on Familybusinesscentre.com

[4] The Economic Times, August 3, 2018

[5] A Trust intending to hold an immoveable property must be established by a duly registered trust deed.

[6] Refer Section 5 of the Trust Act

[7] Supreme Court of India – Vimal Kishor Shah & Ors vs Jayesh Dinesh Shah & Ors on 17 August, 2016, Bench: J. Chelameswar, Abhay Manohar Sapre

[8] Refer Master Direction – Liberalised Remittance Scheme (LRS) by RBI

[9] Refer section 73 of the Trust Act.

 

[10] For the purposes of Income Tax Act, the term Representative Assessee shall mean

  • respect of the income of a non-resident specified in sub-section (1) of section 9, the agent of the non-resident, including a person who is treated as an agent under section 163;
  • in respect of the income of a minor, lunatic or idiot, the guardian or manager who is entitled to receive or is in receipt of such income on behalf of such minor, lunatic or idiot;
  • in respect of income which the Court of Wards, the Administrator- General, the Official Trustee or any receiver or manager (including any person, whatever his designation, who in fact manages property on behalf of another) appointed by or under any order of a court, receives or is entitled to receive, on behalf or for the benefit of any person, such Court of Wards, Administrator-General, Official Trustee, receiver or manager;
  • in respect of income which a trustee appointed under a trust declared by a duly executed instrument in writing whether testamentary or otherwise [including any wakf50deed which is valid under the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913 (6 of 1913),] receives or is entitled to receive on behalf or for the benefit of any person, such trustee or trustees;

[11] Refer to section 47 of the ITA

 

 

Image Credits: Photo by John Schnobrich on Unsplash

Succession planning, although has been around for a long time, the changing legal and business environment has made it multifaceted and therefore complex. With rumors of a reintroduction of estate duty/ inheritance tax doing the rounds and the Bankruptcy Law being active since 2016, it is better succession planning is done well in advance to meet future ambiguities. High net-worth individuals and families need to adequately plan the future of their wealth to avoid family conflicts and weaklings being deprived of the affluence they inherited.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT

Rationalization of End-Use Provisions of ECB – RBI’s attempt to attract foreign inflow of funds

With a view to attract further foreign investments into India, especially considering the slow-down in the Indian economy, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) brought out certain relaxations on the end-use restrictions placed on External Commercial Borrowings[1] vide Circular RBI/2019-20/20 A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 04 dated 30th July, 2019[2] (hereinafter ‘the Circular’). Transactions on account of External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) and Trade Credit (TC) are governed by Section 6(3)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). In furtherance thereto, the RBI had brought out the ‘Master Direction – External Commercial Borrowings, Trade Credits and Structured Obligations’[3] which encapsulates the detailed provisions and stipulations in relation to ECB.

 

With a view to attract further foreign investments into India, especially considering the slow-down in the Indian economy, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) brought out certain relaxations on the end-use restrictions placed on External Commercial Borrowings[1] vide Circular RBI/2019-20/20 A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 04 dated 30th July, 2019[2] (hereinafter ‘the Circular’). Transactions on account of External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) and Trade Credit (TC) are governed by Section 6(3)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). In furtherance thereto, the RBI had brought out the ‘Master Direction – External Commercial Borrowings, Trade Credits and Structured Obligations’[3] which encapsulates the detailed provisions and stipulations in relation to ECB.

 

Prior to the Circular, the RBI had placed certain restrictions on the end-use of an ECB. It may be noted that, until the changes brought-out by the Circular, the ECB proceeds were not allowed to be utilized towards working capital purposes, general corporate purposes and repayment of rupee loans, except in the case where the ECB was obtained from the foreign equity holder with a minimum average maturity period of five years. Further, there was a prohibition on onward lending of these proceeds. With the said Circular, the RBI has relaxed these end-use restrictions. Accordingly, eligible borrowers would now be allowed to raise ECBs for the following purposes from recognised lenders, except foreign branches/ overseas subsidiaries of Indian banks:

 

Working Capital & General Corporate Purposes

  • Eligible borrowers are now permitted to raise ECBs with a minimum average maturity period of ten (10) years for working capital purposes and general corporate purposes, from recognised lenders.
  • NBFCs are permitted to obtain ECBs with the above-said maturity period for on-lending for working capital purposes and general corporate purposes.

Repayment of Rupee Loans

  • Eligible borrowers are permitted to raise ECBs with a minimum average maturity period of seven (7) years for repayment of Rupee loans availed domestically for capital expenditure. Similarly, NBFCs can also raise ECBs with the said maturity for on-lending for the same purpose.
  • For repayment of Rupee loans availed domestically for purposes other than capital expenditure and for on-lending by NBFCs for the same, the minimum average maturity period of the ECB is required to be ten (10) years.
  • For repayment of Rupee loans availed domestically for capital expenditure in the manufacturing and infrastructure sector if classified as SMA-2 or NPA[4], under any one-time settlement with lenders. Prior to the Circular, ECB proceeds could not be utilised for repayment of Rupee loans except from foreign equity holder.

Lender banks are also now permitted to sell, through assignment, such loans to eligible ECB lenders, except foreign branches/ overseas subsidiaries of Indian banks, provided, the resultant external commercial borrowing complies with all-in-cost, minimum average maturity period and other relevant norms of the ECB framework.

 

We note that, by giving greater flexibility to use the ECB for general corporate purposes and working capital requirement as well as repayment of rupee loan both by eligible borrowers including NBFCs, the RBI has taken a step to ease the process of in-flow of funds to Indian corporates. However, concerns that the spread of risk to offshore lenders might affect the exchange rate for future payments and the premium that borrowers might have to pay for long-term foreign currency funding due to the condition of having a weighted average tenure of 10 years continue to loom. The RBI has also allowed NBFCs to borrow from foreign sources and use it for its on-lending activities, which is a welcome step by the regulator to protect the financial institutions from the current crisis affecting the sector.

 

References

[1] Regulation 2(iv) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Borrowing and Lending) Regulations, 2018, defines ‘External Commercial Borrowings’ (hereafter “ECB”) as ‘borrowing by an eligible resident entity from outside India in accordance with framework decided by the Reserve Bank in consultation with the Government of India’

[2] https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/notification/PDFs/NT20F2121527F10B4CB7B93F63AE8B5C4760.PDF

[3] https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/notification/PDFs/5MD2603201979CA1390E9E546869B2A9A92614DEDBF.PDF

[4] It may be noted that, as per the RBI circular on ‘Framework for Revitalising Distressed Assets in the Economy – Guidelines on Joint Lenders’ Forum (JLF) and Corrective Action Plan (CAP)’ dated 26th February 2014, before a loan account turns into an NPA, banks are required to identify incipient stress in the account by creating three sub-categories under the Special Mention Account (SMA) category: SMA-0, SMA-1, and SMA-2; when principal or interest payment overdue between 61-90 days, the account shall be classified as SMA-2. If it remains overdue for a period of more than 90 (ninety) days, then the loan/advance shall be treated as a non-performing asset (NPA)

 

 

Image Credits: rupixen on Unsplash

The 45th GST Council meeting held in Lucknow on 17th September 2021 saw quite a few revisions in GST rates, clarifications, extensions of timelines for concessional rates as well as extension of exemption. Apart from that the agenda included other trade facilitation measures, pertinent discussion on anomalies in revenue stream arising out of earlier rounds of rate rationalisation and inclusion of petrol and diesels within the ambit of GST.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT