Indian Government To Tax Angel Funding 157
kousik writes "The Indian Government proposes to tax Angel Investment as income and is asking start-ups to pay a 30% tax on the funding. From the article: 'Ravi Kiran, co-founder of middle-India advisory Friends of Ambition (FoA) and member of Indian Angel Network told Firstpost: “There seems to certainly have been an error in understanding on the part of the Budget makers. If this is pushed through, it will spell serious trouble for the angel investor and entrepreneurship space. I feel this is an error and should be corrected quickly before it leads to confusion.”'"
I'm sure the devil... (Score:2, Insightful)
... is in the details.
Re: (Score:3)
... is in the details.
Empirical data indicate he's still at the capital... every capital... like usual...
Selling shares is debt, not income (Score:5, Insightful)
It's clear the legislators have zero clue what investment means.
When a company receives startup funding, it is in exchange for ownership shares. That makes it borrowing, not income. Shareholder Equity offsets that funding on the balance sheet.
Equity (Score:3)
Selling shares is selling equity - which is kind of the opposite of debit. Well, assets are the opposite of debit, but I am sure that is were part of the cash will go..
Re: (Score:2)
Selling shares is selling equity - which is kind of the opposite of debit.
The point is that the corporation is receiving money in exchange for creating a substantial future obligation on the income of the business. (This incidentally means that selling equity is not an "opposite" of debt in any sense of the word. The debit is the shareholder equity as EmagGeek explained.) And it sure isn't income any more than debt is.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's a good argument for taxing the sale of new shares as capital gains. The company created the new shares at a cost of $0, and sold them for profit. It's no different than if an employee of the company created something for $0 (out of the goodness of their heart) and the company sold it for a profit.
Imagine applying the same thing to something like a painting. You buy a painting and it doubles in value. Instead of selling the painting, you sell a 100% share in the painting, and then claim that
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's a good argument for taxing the sale of new shares as capital gains.
No capital was gained. It was merely exchanged. And the only businesses where this is the means of profit, are fraudulent pyramid schemes.
It's no different than if an employee of the company created something for $0 (out of the goodness of their heart) and the company sold it for a profit.
Sure, it is. Value was created and profited from.
You buy a painting and it doubles in value. Instead of selling the painting, you sell a 100% share in the painting, and then claim that money is not income since you created a substantial future obligation on the future income of the painting (if it's really truly "sold" in the future you get nothing).
You own the cash after the transaction. In the case of selling shares, the company does. The money still needs to be either pulled out of the company or used by you for personal purposes in order for you to profit from that infusion of cash. Either is taxable in my part of the developed world (and I bet the same goes for In
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you are mixing up "debt" with "debit"
In any case, Equity isn't precisely the "opposite" of Debt (liability), they way you are taking it to mean "opposite" of Asset.
Cash is an asset. Equity and Debt are both, in a way, a liability for the business, that is, an obligation to repay. In simple terms, Equity simply clarifies, that this portion is owed by the business to the *Owners*, and not to outsiders like "Liabilities" are. Both want a return on this amount, but the return is different.
I believe th
Re:Equity (Score:5, Informative)
Equity = Assets - Liabilities
The investors trades cash for shares with the company - So your right there. On the other hand, for the company the new cash, an asset, is coming into the company, This will increase both the asset account and the equity account.
The accounting transactions would be
Credit the cash account in Assets
Debit the Paid In Capital account in Equity.
If the company was issuing new debt - and thus no new equity, the accounting transactions would be:
Credit the cash account in Assets
Debit the Long Term Debt Account in Liabilities.
Re: (Score:1)
"This will increase both the asset account and the equity account"
Right.. why would it be a credit on the cash account if we're increasing the asset? And why aren't we debiting if we're increasing the equity account?
Cr/DR mix up (Score:3)
Remember, Assets and Expenses are DEBITED when increased, and vice versa.
Similarly, Income, Equity and Liability are CREDITED, when increased, and vice versa.
The entry you were looking for was:
DEBIT the cash account in Assets
CREDIT the Paid In Capital account in Equity.
Also
DEBIT the cash account in Assets
CREDIT the Long Term Debt Account in Liabilities.
Minor error, but with major impact. Thought it ought to be rectified, to prevent confusion.
Re:Slashdot rewards STUPID moderators (Score:4, Insightful)
So your complaint is that he didn't hit +5 inside of the 11 minutes between when you posted and when he posted?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The truth of the matter is that he started writing 9 minutes after the post that he is complaining about, and had to wait 2 minutes submit.
In the moderators defense, I have often read through a thread, and got the posts ready for moderating, before clicking on submit. The idea is that I want to upmod a whole bunch at the same time, instead of clicking a whole bunch and waiting for Slashdot to load pages.
Although with the javascripty version of the site the moderations take affect right away with no need to click a submit button.
Re: (Score:1)
Finally someone posts a succinct and informative financially correct explanation assets, equity, liabilities and debt.
What does he get modded: 2.
Yes, the only problem is that he got debit and credit completely the wrong way around, so his explanation is actually not correct at all. Other than that, it's great.
Remember, cash coming into your bank account is recorded as a CR because from the bank's point of view the amount of money they owe you has gone up. If you keep your own books using double entry then you need to record it as a DR.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, it's almost as bad as the USA, except that most of the corruption in the US is at higher levels. Just don't get in trouble with the cops for some bogus charges trumped up by the DA, however, as you'll lose your life savings to attorney fees to fight the charges so that you can avoid being shipped off to a corporate-owned prison and used as slave labor.
Re:Selling shares is debt, not income (Score:4, Informative)
Bonds are debt, stock is ownership.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A company that issues a bond is obligated to pay interest on the bond and to return the principal when the bonds mature. A company that issues stock has no obligation to pay dividends or to buy back the shares. If a company goes bankrupt bondholders are at the front of the line to get repaid. Common stock holders are at the back of the line and only get what is left after everybody else has been repaid.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but those preference shareholders are still behind the creditors :P
The conga line, IIRC, goes something like this:
Liquidator's charge and commission (the grave digger takes his cut first :P) :P)
Fixed charge debt holders
Floating charge debt holders
No charge bond holders (idiots
Preference Shareholders
Common Shareholders
I believe I might have forgotten an item or two (employee unpaid holiday comes somewhere there too), but still, angel investing is a *very* risky business, and they typically demand *much*
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't work any more, at least for large companies. The government steps in, tells the bondholders to get lost, and gives the remaining assets of the business to the biggest campaign contributors. Ask GM bondholders about the new conga line.
Also, startups almost never have bonds. The chain there is typically just bank loans -> preferred -> common.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. well my knowledge was based on UK law, so the more you know. Btw, does anybody really know what *actually* happened with the GM bailout? Some concrete details? All I hear is, well, hearsay.
Also, true about the start up thing, should have realised that.
Re: (Score:2)
The bondholders "voluntarily" did not get the payout that law and tradition demanded. The pension fund got preference. The white house was aggressive in forcing bondholders to accept the deal - but just how aggressive is mostly rumors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Selling shares is debt, not income (Score:5, Interesting)
True enough.
Now you are showing your ignorance. It's not a loan. It's not borrowing.
But the summary doesn't tell the whole story (I know, what a shock!):
Most likely, this is aimed at money laundering. The uncertainty caused by this and the possible corruption amonst those who enforce this are likely to stifle angel investment.
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely, this is aimed at greedy and ignorant politicians wanting to tap an inflow of money and has nothing to do with targeting money laundering.
FTFY
It's no different from taxes on bankrupt loans (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's not actually true. Debt discharged in bankruptcy is not taxable.
Foreclosures are more complex, but if your home was your only significant asset, or you declared bankruptcy to discharge the residual debt, the cancelled debt likely isn't taxable.
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of people got gob-smacked with $50k - $100k tax bills after discharge, which is why a temporary law was put in place [about.com]
Re: (Score:3)
India's government is just as corrupt as most other governments in the world. They just don't give as much of a shit about hiding it.
Re: (Score:2)
The US government instead declares corruption legal.
Re: (Score:2)
The US government declaring corruption illegal would be like the mafia threatening anyone doing a contract killing with getting whacked.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, both the USA and India have extremely corrupt governments. It proves that large countries just can't have a successful democratically-elected government; it doesn't work. Either you need to switch to an authoritarian government like China, or you need to break the country up into smaller sovereign countries (no, not with a federal government tying them together) in order to have an effectively-run country. The only country with a population over 100M that doesn't seem horribly corrupt and/or ineffec
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with your statement: India is one of, if not the, most corrupt democracy in the world.
It wasn't always. Under British Rule Civil Servants were paid a good wage and enforced the law. When they gained independence their wages were cut severely and so they developed new sources of income to maintain their status and the result is endemic corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Not precisely. The Wages weren't cut, they just become worth less every year. My dad was in the civil service, and he tells me that when he started, even the top ranked non-officers at that time were like kings, enjoying cigars and living a lavish lifestyle, and the officer grades even more so. When my dad retired at the same rank, he barely made his expenses meet, even though, his pay was, amount wise, much more than his seniors ever dreamed off.
What happened? The currency become worth shit, that's what. H
Re: (Score:2)
well.. maybe someone in india started selling stock in his company rather than say, milk, and giving access to milk if you had company stock. thus dodging sales tax.
of course, what sucks about this for indians is that this is higher than usual expected roi for worthwhile investing.. "haha".
Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
And her I thought regulatory uncertainty and IP law we stifling innovation.
The Indians are taking innovation killing to a whole new level.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be live the summary. The Indians are worried about tax dodges exploiting a loophole by pretending it is investment when it is just hiding cash in a shell organization.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
Sure they are. That's not the point. Everyone knows india is corrupt top to bottom, and there are people using every means possible to dodge tax, legally or otherwise.
The issue is whether or not the law would, if applied, seriously stifle investment. Which, assuming the text is correct, it would. The intent of laws and there impact don't always align, this seems to be one of those cases, where either the people who wrote the law don't really grasp the spillover effects, or the people who are writing about it don't understand what the law says.
Now the thing is, lots of countries have 'double taxation' where the profits a corporation makes are taxes, *and* the dividends to shareholders are taxed. In this case they're saying investment in the company would be taxed as well, which could be triple taxation, or it could just be a stupid way of trying to collect existing owed taxes.
And yes, of course, if you set up your own business and invest in it you could be trying to dodge tax (Sri's game testing and cat sitting services, who's sole customer is Sri, who is, incidentally, the sole investor). I don't dispute the possibility of that being widespread and damaging to the economy and tax base.
Re: (Score:1)
lots of countries have 'double taxation' where the profits a corporation makes are taxes, *and* the dividends to shareholders are taxed.
That's not double taxation; the government is taxing the dividends of shareholders as capital-gains because dividends reduce the stockholders equity by the amount of the dividend. It would be no different if you sold your sock at x amount of dollars or x - dividends.
Right now dividends are being used as a tax dodge because the max tax rate on capital gains in the US is 15% and no FICA. If you work your ass off at a job you're going to being paying your tax bracket plus FICA. Why do you think some CEO's h
Re: (Score:2)
hence the quotes. Just because it isn't always real double tax doesn't mean that isn't the talking point or the way the public generally understands it.
I'm not in the US, so I'm not familiar with FICA particularly, nor was it in reference to US law. As I explicitly said "lots of countries".
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not double taxation
Sure it is.
Dividends are paid from corporate income which is already taxed. Capital gains usually are a result of reinvestment in the corporation which is not taxed as corporate income.
Right now dividends are being used as a tax dodge because the max tax rate on capital gains in the US is 15% and no FICA.
Dividends are considered income in the US not capital gains. And no FICA makes sense since the income is coming from an investment. If you're investing, then you're not the problem Social Security was meant for.
Re: (Score:2)
Dividends are considered income in the US not capital gains.
More precisely, since 2003 [heritage.org], non-qualified dividends (on stocks held under 60 days) are taxed at your normal income tax rate, but qualified dividends (on stocks held more than 60 days) are taxed at a 5% or 15% rate based on your income level.
The Obama Administration has recently suggested ending the tax benefit for qualified dividends [aei.org] for high income individuals and them pay ordinary income tax rates on all dividends.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Er... no. This is 'unintended consequences'. I don't want you to drive drunk, so what I'm going to do is ban cars from parking within 8Km of an establishment that serves alcohol would be an example of 'unintended consequences'.
I can't really judge the spillover effect in detail, not being an indian economist, but it seems unlikely to accomplish any of its goals, and is just bad law. This wouldn't be the first bad idea for a law ever proposed after all.
Re: (Score:2)
so they're thinking they'll just TAX when people are hiding cash when they shouldn't have in the first place? yeah that'll work fine!
Tax too high and it stops. (Score:4, Insightful)
If they charge 130 to get a 100 investment... the business must go up 30% in order for the investor to make a profit. Better off taking that money to another market where you can get 130 for your 130. This idea stinks.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This idea stinks.
Not if you're the incumbent the startup is about to compete against. Cui bono.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Tata was being used as an example of an incumbent this law might help (by stifling the competition) rather than an example of a startup that might try to compete with it and get hurt by this...
Re: (Score:2)
Coming to an anti-capitalist country near you (Score:4, Insightful)
Stock split taxation.... What, you owe stock, and, the number of shares you have is doubled? Now you will have to pay a 30% share price tax on your increase in shares.
Credit card taxation.... spend $$$ on a credit card, sounds like free money, you will have to pay 30% of your credit card spendings to the government.
Auto purchase taxation... what, free money from the bank? OK, but you will owe 30% of your auto purchase in taxes.
Mortgage taxation.... what, more free money? OK, but you will have to pay 30% of the money you get from your mortgage back to the government.
Sold your home for less than you bought it for? Oh, it still looks like you got lots of money from selling it. We will have to charge a 30% tax on this windfall income.
Re: (Score:1)
Stock split taxation.... What, you owe stock, and, the number of shares you have is doubled? Now you will have to pay a 30% share price tax on your increase in shares.
Capital gains tax is applicale to the selling of shares.
Credit card taxation.... spend $$$ on a credit card, sounds like free money, you will have to pay 30% of your credit card spendings to the government.
VAT.
Auto purchase taxation... what, free money from the bank? OK, but you will owe 30% of your auto purchase in taxes.
Also VAT, plus fuel duty and VED.
Mortgage taxation.... what, more free money? OK, but you will have to pay 30% of the money you get from your mortgage back to the government.
Stampy duty.
Sold your home for less than you bought it for? Oh, it still looks like you got lots of money from selling it. We will have to charge a 30% tax on this windfall income.
Also subject to capital gains tax if it's not your main home. Regardless of stamp duty.
Re:Coming to an anti-capitalist country near you (Score:5, Informative)
Capital gains tax is applicale to the selling of shares.
Let me explain how that's different: Capital gains tax is (PROCEEDS OF SALE) MINUS (COST BASIS)
Currently you don't pay any taxes on a stock split and don't necessarily pay taxes on capital distributions either (your cost basis is decreased). What happens with a stock split is the number of outstanding shares are doubled in a 2:1 split, so you wind up with twice as many shares, each worth half their original share price.
In a normal 2:1 stock split, you don't get any cash, only additional shares of stock that are distributed to you, but all shares (including the ones you already hold) are now only worth half as much a share in the company, so your total share in the company remains the same after the split.
VAT.
Let me explain how VAT is different. VAT is a tax you pay on the purchase. Currently you don't pay an additional tax on the actual you money you borrow on the credit card. Currently debt you take out is not treated as income.
Also subject to capital gains tax if it's not your main home. Regardless of stamp duty.
Currently you only pay capital gains tax if you sold the home for more than your Adjusted cost basis, (Purchase Price) Plus (Property Improvement Costs) Minus (Depreciation)
Re: (Score:2)
I notice that "adjusted cost basis" does not appear to account for inflation....
Re: (Score:3)
I notice that "adjusted cost basis" does not appear to account for inflation....
Indeed it does not. You also still pay taxes on interest earned in a savings account, even if inflation during the year was higher than the interest earned -- so that in fact, your purchasing power was eroded during the year by more real dollars than the actual increase.
It's a fundamental flaw and unfairness in the way that income taxes are devised -- they tax numerical change in number of dollars, instead of taxing nume
Re: (Score:3)
Fair and unfair compared to what? There is a fallacy there in thinking that taxes are supposed to be a percentage of your income simply because that's how we've always done it. The truth is that taxation is no more than a way for the government to have an income to run the government and have public project an a military or whatnot.
It's not unfair because they're not trying to penalize you for having additional purchasing power. And it's not unfair if they tax all income equally (they don't, but that's a se
Re: (Score:2)
Stock Split: No capital gains, you didn't sell/buy anything (value of a share was halved, quantity was doubled)
Credit card: No VAT, the VAT is on what you used the credit card to pay for (at least, in every country I've been in that had VAT).
Sold Home: No capital gains (capital loss, in fact) for the given example.
Re: (Score:3)
For the US, you forgot the one that takes the cake - AMT on imputed income. Namely, if you had stock options of $x, which you exercised when its price was $(x+y), you'd get taxed on the $y, even though you've not sold a single share and have actually made squat. Let's say you sold it during tax time to pay out that tax, and lets say you sold it when the price was back @ $x, then you essentially have to pay taxes on $y - money you never made, but only theoretically had.
Don't ask me for a car analogy to e
Re: (Score:2)
Bad for India... (Score:2)
good for everyone else.
Thank you, India. (Score:4, Insightful)
The rest of the business world thanks the Indian government for destroying India's competitive edge. Now it will be all the easier to compete against India. Rah-rah, India!
Why is it that government's just don't get it. They need business to provide jobs so they can have something to tax. Dummies.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm Canadian actually.
And no, this is not a rich/poor thing.
Most governments take from the poor and give to the well connected in government/businesses.
I don't see how you claim it is fiction. Just look at public sector unions who have pensions far greater than that of the average person... who then have to be taxed to pay for those pensions. Or the bank bail outs. Or big spending on the military...
Is it complex? Of course.
Is a certain level of common infrastructure and law needed? Of course.
But at the
Understanding may not be the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Major corporations would be FOR this sort of legislation. It prevents competitors from getting into your market.
Re: (Score:3)
Any established business, not just "Corporations".
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but small established businesses may need investor funding to expand their operations and compete on a larger scale. They're getting screwed. Only the big boys who don't need outside funding benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
"Major corporations" == "established business". You don't become a "major" corporation (as opposed to, say, a one-person "corporation") without becoming "established" first. Companies like Apple and Microsoft don't just spring up overnight with billions in revenue and start filing IP lawsuits against everyone.
What an angel investor is. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Guy Kawasaki on Angel Investors [inc.com]
Who exactly are angel investors, and how do I know if they are an appropriate funding source for my company?
Guy Kawasaki's response:
Broadly defined, angel investors are high net-worth individuals who invest in entrepreneurial companies, usually at an early stage. Like institutional venture capital firms, many angel investors provide cash to young companies and take equity in return. One difference is that angel investors typically invest smaller amounts of money in individual companies than venture capitalists do, making them a possible resource for companies that have exhausted their "friends and family" financing options but are not ready to approach VCs for capital
India's Recent History (Score:1, Interesting)
After achieving independence, India tried to be a socialist state with a planned economy. Lots of their leadership was not merely socialist but Marxist. The planned socialist economy failed to improve life for nearly everyone there, but there are still lots of people in power who disapprove of capitalism and especially entrepreneurship. I think you'll find many in government who very much want to believe that the Angel Investors are in that top of that top 1% that deserves to be separated from their mone
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So you'd prefer things be the way they were decades ago, with the entire population impoverished, rather than at least having a relatively small middle class that's doing well? No one said capitalism was perfect, but it seems like it's doing better than whatever India was doing previously.
Doomsday scenario or ..... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
For high risk, high return start ups, like tech, maybe not.
But it will dent the low risk, low return start ups. Got a nice little business that you want to start up, like a corner shop. Expecting 5 to 15% returns per year? All of a sudden you have pushed the break even point for the investor 5 years out into the future. piss poor returns here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it will dent the low risk, low return start ups.
Low-risk borrowers have lots of other options. Like banks, for example. High-risk, low-return operations, well, they're just not going to get funded regardless. Angel investment is all about high-risk, high-return.
Re: (Score:3)
I see you are posting under the handle "slowLearner". Why, yes, I'd say you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything interesting happens on the margin. India just moved the margin 30% further out. Angels can invest anywhere. Now India is going to be getting less of it. To argue otherwise is complete nonsense. I can not be as sanguine as you. Like it or not, there is global competition for investment. If this passes, India will have put up a "please invest elsewhere" sign in their front lawn.
I suggest you retake economics. Any economist, left-leaning or right-leaning, will tell you that is how the model
Re: (Score:2)
if it's just slapped on everyone, then it would affect farmers as well.
borrowing seeds would then have 30% added interest rate. fun?
Re: (Score:2)
It should be intuitively obvious....if you increase the cost of something, fewer people will be interested in it. Adding a tax onto something increases the cost. If you want to decrease activity, put a tax on it.
Increasing taxes on investing decreases investment. People are going to change their investment strategies.....instead of investing in cool
Inflationary economy (Score:2)
If you want a fast way to get money into an economy you give it to poor people who have a hundred different things that they HAVE to spend it on.
That works only if you have unused production capacity in that country. If the industry has the capacity to produce more than they can sell at any cost above production cost, then it makes sense to distribute income to the people. Otherwise, all you'll accomplish will be inflation.
When you do not have the capacity to produce everything the people demand, then it's better to let the rich have money to invest. And you shouldn't forget that the full production chain is needed, people want finished products, no
Re: (Score:2)
Then Zimbabwe is the richest country in the world, everyone there is a trillionaire. Money means nothing if you cannot buy things with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I don't know what Bush tax cuts have to do with this situation. I like them though because they gave money to me, and other non-rich people like me.
Re: (Score:2)
And that doesn't refute my argument one iota.
Your argument is that you can increase the cost of something without affecting the actions of people. That's retarded.
Furthermore, you are saying that if we give money to people who immediately spend it, then the economy will be improved. Empirically speaking, that seems to be a net drain on the economy (based on studies of the Obama tax cut, the Bush tax rebate, and the similar Carter payroll tax cut). Robert J Barro suggests that such spending as you suggest might be effective if unemployment is high (s
Re: (Score:2)
No my argument is that if even with the increase in tax on these investments that the returns that they are getting still make it worthwhile, therefore they will still invest. The point I also made, I think, was that the article was hyperbole, that it was purposefully alarmist to try to influence the Indian government to try to stop the change in law. I still don't see anything that you say that will dissuade me of that belief.
Sure, bring out some data to support your position, and my 'belief' will completely change. Instead you say things like......
What is wrong with a good bit of Keynesian economics
Nothing, except when it's not supported by data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares if it's borrowing or income... (Score:2)
What it really is is an investment killer. And here I was thinking Illinois has an awful business climate.
Re: (Score:2)
What it really is is an investment killer.
IF you ever write a sentence with 'is' twice in a row, please think twice about it, for the love of English!
Reading the article helps (Score:4, Informative)
The budget proposal is much more complex and interesting as it seems.
First it apparently it applies only on money invested by residents, so it would not slow down any foreign investments (although there might be other mecanism impacting this).
Second the 30% tax is not on the investment, but on any money paid for share over the fair market value.
So in short, if I create a company investing 10 K, make some business and show that realistically the company is worth 20 K, and then go to Mr MoneyBag and offers him to invest 20K for 50% of the share, I and hil pay nothing.
If I ask 15K and invest 10K in the capital keep 5K for me and give 50% of the company to Mr MoneyBag (effectivelly selling 5K of shares), I pay nothing.
Now If I ask 20K but make it prudently in two time, 15K "tax free" and then 5K tax "heavy" I would pay 1.5 K in taxes, to be compared to
using the 5K to pay me a salary that would be impacted by taxes and various social costs.
So the real issue will be on "how to evaluate the fair market share of a closely held company" and it's impact on "petty corruption", but the law is rather reasonable, and it encourage entrepreneurs to leave money in their company until it really "runs" rather than cash out at the earliest opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that angel investors are not investing based on the current fair market value of a company, but based on their belief in the projections of the future value of the company and it's hoped-for revenue. The very definition of an angel investor is someone who invests in a company before it has any significant market share, and sometimes even before it has any customers.
What's the fair mark
Re: (Score:2)
Again, check the article,
The tax happens only if the investor "pays" the "current owner".
So if I build my company with 1€, convince the investor that it now is worth 1 billion €, and that he should invest 1 other billion €, and I put this money in the companies account.
Then the investor and i both have 50% of the company.
And there is not tax to pay.
But if I tell him, It is now worth 1Billions, And I would like it all in cash so that I can take some holliday, but do not worry the other worker
Re: (Score:2)
But your ignoring the key point: Who determines the "fair value"?
My reading of the article is that either the government or the tax office would be determining "fair value." So what you convince the investor the company is worth is irrelevant -- it's the government that decides when the investment is "excessive."
Re: (Score:2)
The point is, that the fair value impacts only the payment that is done to the "shareholder" not to the company.
So even if the government is "unreasonable", wich is not demonstrated (not the the indian government has a very good track record), it does not matter at all as long as the investor really invest.
In practice in the vast majority of cases the angel investissor does not pay the owners anything, it INVEST in the company by creating new shares and putting the money there.
In this case there is not tax
Woo Hoo! (Score:2)
Awesome! Go India Go! That's the kind of thinking we (the U.S.A.) need to help us stay competitive in the global marketplace.
Re: (Score:2)
âoeThere seems to certainly have been an error in understanding on the part of the Budget makers"
I sincerely think that the Indian budget makers do understand what Angel Funding is
My guess is that the Indian budget makers want everything to be done "Indian Style", that is, they are trying to prevent foreigners from owning any Indian inventions
Re: (Score:2)
Yet "Please give us the codes" appears on how many pages for assistance?
Re: (Score:2)
In Budget lingo, this pertains to cases “where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares: Provided that this clause shall not apply where the consideration for issue of shares is received by a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company or a venture capital fund”.
It clearly says resident. How is it trying to prevent foreigners??