wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

US Trade Representative publishes report blasting India’s 2% Equalisation Levy

In a 41-page report released on January 6, the United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer criticised India’s decision to impose an Equalisation Levy of 2% on digital services. “India’s [Equalisation Levy] is discriminatory on its face. The law explicitly exempts Indian companies, while targeting non-Indian firms. The result is that U.S. “non-resident” providers of digital services are taxed, while Indian providers of the same digital services to the same customers are not. This is discrimination in its clearest form,” the USTR’s report said.

No enforcement action was announced, and the US Trade Representative’s office said that they would be evaluating all options.

The Indian government had introduced the Equalisation Levy in 2020. American companies have argued that the levy is overbroad in its scope; the OECD is negotiating a cross-border solution, but in the meantime warned that such unilateral levies can cause a global trade war that shaves off 1% of global GDP. The Indian government defended itself from the USTR’s investigation, arguing that the levy was not discriminatory.

Violation of “international tax principles”

The USTR said that the Equalisation Levy is a violation of international tax principles. First, the taxes are ambiguously defined without guidance to clarify applicability, and so the principle of certainty is violated. Second, the levy imposes a corporate tax on companies that don’t have a physical presence in India, which the report says is something tax principles recommend against. The third violation, USTR said, was taxing revenue. “This is inconsistent with the international tax principle that income—not revenue—is the appropriate basis for corporate taxation,” the report said.

  • Discriminates against US companies: The tax discriminates against US companies, USTR said, as it only targets non-Indian companies. Of 119 companies whom USTR identified as likely to be liable for the tax, 72% are American.

“Ringfencing” digital companies

When similar services are provided digitally and non-digitally, the USTR said, there should be no tax discrimination. The Equalisation Levy engages in that behaviour, the report says.

Under the DST, if a company were to sell a movie to an Indian consumer, and deliver that content digitally, the proceeds of the sale would be taxable. If a second company were to sell that very same movie to the very same Indian consumer, but do so in a store on a DVD, that sale would not be taxable under the DST. This differential treatment of like transactions is a textbook example of discrimination. — USTR Report

It should be business models, and not the digital economy, the USTR argued, that should be taxed.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Restricting US commerce

The USTR said that the levy unduly burdens US businesses due to the following reasons:

  • US businesses could, per USTR estimates, face an additional tax burden of up to US$30 million per year.
  • Many digital companies are low-margin businesses, so taxing revenue instead of income is burdensome.
  • The tax liability threshold is low, exposing many smaller companies and startups to liability.
  • As shown in the below diagram, the levy impacts a broader range of businesses than other countries’ taxation systems, increasing the number of companies likely liable.
  • Compliance costs could be in the millions of dollars, and sometimes getting a PAN in time for compliance may not be possible.
  • The levy leads to double taxation.

Source: US Trade Representative

Read the USTR report.

Also read

Written By

I cover the digital content ecosystem and telecom for MediaNama.

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.



While the market reality of popular crypto-assets like Bitcoin may undergo little change, the same can't be said for stablecoins.


Bringing transactions related to crypto-assets within the tax net could make matters less fuzzy.


Loopholes in FEMA and the decentralised nature of crypto-assets point to a need for effective regulations.


The need of the hour is for lawmakers to understand the systems that are amplifying harmful content.


For drone delivery to become a reality, a permissive regulatory regime is a prerequisite.

You May Also Like


Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...


135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...


Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...


By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ