RBI temporarily relaxes the Guidelines on Securitisation for NBFCs

By Financial Services Division, finserv@vinodkothari.com

 

In the wake of the recent hues and cries of the entire country in anticipation of a liquidity crisis in the NBFC sector, the Reserve Bank of India, on 29th November, 2018, issued a notification[1] to modify the Securitisation Guidelines.The amendment aims to relax the minimum holding period requirements of the guidelines, subject to conditions, temporarily. Therefore, the changes vide this notification come with an expiry date. The key takeaways of the notification have been discussed below:

a. Relaxation in the MHP requirements: As per the notification, NBFCs will now be allowed to securitise/ assign loans originated by them, with original maturity of more than 5 years, after showing record of recovery of repayments of six monthly instalments or two quarterly instalments (as applicable). Currently, for loans with original maturity more than 5 years, the MHP requirements are repayment of at least twelve monthly instalments or four quarterly instalments (as applicable).

b. Change in MRR requirements for the loans securitised under this notification: The benefit mentioned above will be available only if the NBFC retains at least 20% of the assets securitised/ assigned. Currently, the MRR requirements ranges between 5%-10% depending on the tenure of the loans.

c. Timeline for availing this benefit: As already stated above, this is a temporary measure adopted by the RBI to ease out the tension relating to liquidity issues of the NBFCs; therefore, this comes with an expiry date, which in the present case is six months from the date of issuance of the notification. Therefore, this benefit will be available for only those loans which are securitised/ assigned during a period of six months from the date of issuance of this notification.

The requirements under the guidelines remains intact.

To summarise, the MHP requirements and the MRR requirements on securitisation/ assignment of loans looks as such –

Loans assigned between 29th November, 2018 – 28th May, 2019 Loans assigned after 29th May, 2019
MHP requirements for loans with original maturity less than 5 years Loans upto 2 years maturity – 3 months

 

Loans between 2 – 5 years – 6 months

Loans upto 2 years maturity – 3 months

 

Loans between 2 – 5 years – 6 months

MHP requirements for loans with original maturity less than 5 years If revised MRR requirements fulfilled – 6 months

 

If revised MRR requirements not fulfilled – 12 months

Loans upto 2 years maturity – 3 months

 

Loans between 2 – 5 years – 6 months

MRR requirements for loans with original maturity of less than 5 years Loans with original maturity upto 2 years – 5%

 

Loans with original maturity more than 2 years – 10%

Loans with original maturity upto 2 years – 5%

 

Loans with original maturity more than 2 years – 10%

MRR requirements for loans with original maturity of more than 5 years If benefit of MHP requirements availed – 20%

 

If benefit of MHP requirements not availed – 10%

Loans with original maturity upto 2 years – 5%

 

Loans with original maturity more than 2 years – 10%

 

Vinod Kothari comments: 

  •  Loans with original maturity of more than 5 years are essentially home loans and LAP loans. Home loans are housed mostly with HFCs. These guidelines ought to have come from NHB rather than RBI, but given the tradition that RBI guidelines are followed in case of HFCs as well, this “relaxation” will be more applicable to HFCs rather than NBFCs.
  • In case of LAP loans, given the current credit scenario prevailing in the country, taking exposure on LAP loans itself is subject to question. Issue is – will the relaxation prompt NBFCs to write LAP loans, or will it simply allow them to package and sell existing pools of lap loans sitting on their books waiting for the MHP of 12 months to get over? It is more likely to be latter than the former.
  • However, the so-called relaxation comes with a give-and-take – the MRR is 20%. The NBFC has, therefore, 2 options – wait for 12 months to be over and just do a transaction with 10% MRR, or avail the so-called relaxation and put in on-balance funding of 20%. Therefore, it is only for those who are desperate for refinancing that the so-called relaxation will seem appealing.
  • Our interaction with leading NBFCs reveals that there are immediate liquidity concerns . Banks are not willing to take on-balance sheet exposure on NBFCs; rather they are willing to take exposure on pools. Therefore, for more than 6 months and less than 12 months seasoned LAP pools, this might provide a temporary packaging opportunity.
  • This is indeed the best time to think of covered bonds. The proposition has been lying unresolved for last few years. If banks are willing to take exposure on pools, why not dual recourse by way of covered bonds? That indeed provides ideal solution, with ring fenced pools providing double layers of protection.

[1] https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=11422&Mode=0

For more articles on Securitisation and Covered Bonds, refer our page here.

Also refer our article: The name is Bond. Covered Bonds.

 

Investment by FPIs in securitised debt instruments

By Anita Baid,(anita@vinodkothari.com)(finserv@vinodkothari.com)

Investments by Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs) in unlisted debentures and securitised debt instruments (SDIs) issued by Indian companies was allowed pursuant to SEBI notification dated 27th February, 2017[1]. Earlier in November, 2016, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had also permitted investment by FPIs in unlisted non-convertible debentures and securitised debt instruments issued by Indian companies[2]. The said amendments by the securities market regulator and financial services regulator were the final push which was needed to encourage more FPI investments in India.

Previously, FPIs could invest only in debt securities of companies engaged in infrastructure sector. This was a clear indication that the government aimed to develop the infrastructure sector in India. But eventually, it seemed that the government did not want to restrict this to infrastructure only and wanted to reap all the benefits for developing a dynamic and facilitating bond market in the country.

Economic development and smooth flow of funds into the economy are the twin sides of the same coin and the government of India has very well taken this into account while amending the FPI regulation. Allowing FPI investments in unlisted debt instruments of Indian companies, was a step by the government to relax the burden which the companies had to bear, while raising funds in form of equity. The regulation  in turn blocked the companies from taping into fresh funds and listing of debt instruments, which called for additional burden of complying with a host of other regulations.

Read more

GST on assignment of receivables: Wrong path to the right destination

Team Vinod Kothari Consultants P. Ltd

 

There has been a lot of uncertainty on the issue of exigibility of direct assignments and securitisation transactions to goods and services tax (GST). While on one hand, there have been opinions that assignments of secured debts may be taxable being covered by the circuitous definition of “actionable claims”, there are other views holding such assignments of debts (secured or unsecured) to be non-taxable since an obligation to pay money is nothing but money, and hence, not  “goods” under the GST law[1]. The uncertainty was costing the market heavily[2].

In order to put diverging views to rest, the GST Council came out with a set of Frequently Asked Questions on Financial Services Sector[3], trying to clarify the position of some arguable issues pertaining to transactions undertaken in the financial sector. These FAQs include three separate (and interestingly, mutually unclear) questions on – (a) assignment or sale of secured or secured debts [Q.40], (b) whether assignment of secured debts constitutes a transaction in money [Q.41], and (c) securitisation transactions undertaken by banks [Q.65].

The end-result arising out of these questions is that there will be no GST on securitisation transactions. However, the GST Council has relied on some very intriguing arguments to come to this conclusion – seemingly lost between the meaning of “derivatives”, “securities”, and “actionable claims”. If one does not care about why we reached here, the conclusion is most welcome. However, the FAQs also reflect the serious lack of understanding of financial instruments with the Council, which may potentially create issues in the long run.

In this note[4] we intend to discuss the outcome of the FAQs, but before that let us first understand what the situation of the issue was before this clarification.

Situation before the clarification

  1. GST is chargeable on supply of goods or services or both. Goods have been defined in section 2(52) of the CGST Act in the following manner:

“(52) “goods” means every kind of movable property other than money and securities but includes actionable claim, growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before supply or under a contract of supply;”

Services have been defined in section 2(102) of the CGST Act oin in the following manner:

““services” means anything other than goods, money and securities but includes activities relating to the use of money or its conversion by cash or by any other mode, from one form, currency or denomination, to another form, currency or denomination for which a separate consideration is charged;”

Money, is therefore, excludible from the scope of “goods” as well as “services”.

Section 7 details the scope of the expression “supply”. According to the section, “supply” includes “all forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business.” However, activities as specified in Schedule III of the said Act shall not be considered as “supply”.

It may be noted here that “Actionable claims, other than lottery, betting and gambling” are enlisted in entry 6 of Schedule III of the said Act; therefore are not exigible to GST.

  1. There is no doubt that a “receivable” is a movable property. “Receivable” denotes something which one is entitled to receive. Receivable is therefore, a mirror image for “debt”. If a sum of money is receivable for A, the same sum of money must be a debt for B. A debt is an obligation to pay, a receivable is the corresponding right to receive.

Coming to the definition of “money”, it has been defined under section 2(75) as follows –

““money” means the Indian legal tender or any foreign currency, cheque, promissory note, bill of exchange, letter of credit, draft, pay order, traveller cheque, money order, postal or electronic remittance or any other instrument recognised by the Reserve Bank of India when used as a consideration to settle an obligation or exchange with Indian legal tender of another denomination but shall not include any currency that is held for its numismatic value.”

The definition above enlists all such instruments which have a “value-in-exchange”, so as to represent money. A debt also represents a sum of money and the form in which it can be paid can be any of these forms as enlisted above.

So, in effect, a receivable is also a sum of “money”. As such, receivables shall not be considered as “goods” or “services” for the purpose of GST law.

  1. As mentioned earlier, “actionable claims” have been included in the definition of “goods” under the CGST Act, however, any transfer (i.e. supply) of actionable claim is explicitly excluded from being treated as a supply of either goods or services for the purpose of levy of GST.

Section 2(1) of the CGST Act defines “actionable claim” so as to assign it the same meaning as in section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which in turn, defines “actionable claim” as –

“actionable claim” means a claim to any debt, other than a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property or by hypothecation or pledge of movable property, or to any beneficial interest in movable property not in the possession, either actual or constructive, of the claimant, which the civil courts recognise as affording grounds for relief, whether such debt or beneficial interest be existent, accruing, conditional or contingent;”

It may be noted that the inclusion of “actionable claim” is still subject to the exclusion of “money” from the definition of “goods”. The definition of actionable claim travels beyond “claim to a debt” and covers “claim to any beneficial interest in movable property”. Therefore, an actionable claim is definitely more than a “receivable”. Hence, if the actionable claim represents property that is money, it can be held that such form of the actionable claim shall be excluded from the ambit of “goods”.

There were views in the industry which, on the basis of the definition above, distinguish between — (a) a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property, and a debt secured by hypothecation/pledge of movable property on one hand (which are excluded from the definition of actionable claim); and (b) an unsecured debt on the other hand. However, others opined that a debt, whether secured or unsecured, is after all a “debt”, i.e. a property in money; and thus can never be classified as “goods”. Therefore, the entire exercise of making a distinction between secured and unsecured debt may not be relevant at all.

In case it is argued that a receivable which is secured (i.e. a secured debt) shall come within the definition of “goods”, it must be noted that a security granted against a debt is merely a back-up, a collateral against default in repayment of debt.

  1. In one of the background materials on GST published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India[5], it has been emphasised that a transaction where a person merely slips into the shoes of another person, the same cannot be termed as supply. As such, unrestricted expansion of the expression “supply” should not be encouraged:

“. . . supply is not a boundless word of uncertain meaning. The inclusive part of the opening words in this clause may be understood to include everything that supply is generally understood to be PLUS the ones that are enlisted. It must be admitted that the general understanding of the world supply is but an amalgam of these 8 forms of supply. Any attempt at expanding this list of 8 forms of supply must be attempted with great caution. Attempting to find other forms of supply has not yielded results however, transactions that do not want to supply have been discovered. Transactions of assignment where one person steps into the shoes of another appears to slip away from the scope of supply as well as transactions where goods are destroyed without a transfer of any kind taking place.”

Also, as already stated, where the object is neither goods nor services, there is no question of being a supply thereof.

  1. Therefore, there was one school of thought which treated as assignment of secured receivables as a supply under the GST regime and another school of thought promoted a view which was contrary to the other one. To clarify the position, representations were made by some of the leading bankers and the Indian Securitisation Foundation.

Situation after the clarification

  1. The GST Council has discussed the issue of assignment and securitisation of receivables through different question, extracts have been reproduced below:

 

  1. Whether assignment or sale of secured or unsecured debts is liable to GST?

Section 2(52) of the CGST Act, 2017 defines ‘goods’ to mean every kind of movable property other than money and securities but includes actionable claim. Schedule III of the CGST Act, 2017 lists activities or transactions which shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor a supply of services and actionable claims other than lottery, betting and gambling are included in the said Schedule. Thus, only actionable claims in respect of lottery, betting and gambling would be taxable under GST. Further, where sale, transfer or assignment of debts falls within the purview of actionable claims, the same would not be subject to GST.

Further, any charges collected in the course of transfer or assignment of a debt would be chargeable to GST, being in the nature of consideration for supply of services.

  1. Would sale, purchase, acquisition or assignment of a secured debt constitute a transaction in money?

Sale, purchase, acquisition or assignment of a secured debt does not constitute a transaction in money; it is in the nature of a derivative and hence a security.

  1. What is the leviability of GST on securitization transactions undertaken by banks?

Securitized assets are in the nature of securities and hence not liable to GST. However, if some service charges or service fees or documentation fees or broking charges or such like fees or charges are charged, the same would be a consideration for provision of services related to securitization and chargeable to GST.

 

  1. The fallacy starts with two sequential and separate questions: one dealing with securitisation and the other on assignment transactions. There was absolutely no need for incorporating separate questions for the two, since all securitisation transactions involve an assignment of debt.

 

  1. Next, the department in Question 40 has clarified that the assignment of actionable claims, other than lottery, betting and gambling forms a part of the list of exclusion under Schedule III of the CGST Act, therefore, are not subject to GST. This was apparent from the reading of law, therefore, there is nothing new in this.

 

However, the second part of the answer needs further discussion. The second part of the answer states that – any charges collected in the course of transfer or assignment of a debt would be chargeable to GST, being in the nature of consideration for supply of services.

There are multiple charges or fees associated in an assignment or securitisation transaction – such as  servicing fees or excess spread. While it is very clear that the GST will be chargeable on servicing fees charged by the servicer, there is still a confusion on whether GST will be charged on the excess spread or not. Typically, transactions are devised to give residuary sweep to the originator after servicing the PTCs. Therefore, there could be a challenge that sweep right is also a component of servicing fees or consideration for acting as a servicing agent. The meaning of consideration[6] under the CGST Act is consideration in any form and the nomenclature supports the intent of the transaction.

Since, the originator gets the excess spread, question may arise, if excess spread is in the nature of interest.  This indicates the need for proper structuring of transactions, to ensure that either the sweep right is structured as a security, or the same is structured as a right to interest. One commonly followed international structure is credit-enhancing IO strip. The IO strip has not been tried in Indian transactions, and recommendably this structure may alleviate concerns about GST being applied on the excess spread.

  1. Till now, whatever has been discussed was more or less settled before the clarification, question 41 settles the dispute on the contentious question of whether GST will be charged on assigned of secured debt. The answer to question 41 has compared sale, purchase, acquisition or assignment of secured debt with a derivative. The answer has rejected the view, held by the authors, that any right to a payment in money is money itself. The GST Council holds the view that the receivables are in the nature of derivatives, the transaction qualifies to be a security and therefore, exempt from the purview of supply of goods or supply of services.

While the intent of the GST Council is coming out very clear, but this view is lacking supporting logic. Neither the question discusses why assignments of secured receivables are not transactions in money, nor does it state why it is being treated as derivative.

Our humble submission in this regard is that assignment of secured receivables may not be treated as derivatives. The meaning of the term “derivatives” have been drawn from section 2(ac) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, which includes the following –

(A) a security derived from a debt instrument, share, loan, whether secured or unsecured, risk instrument or contract for differences or any other form of security;

(B) a contract which derives its value from the prices, or index of prices, of underlying securities.

In the present case, assignment of receivables do not represent any security nor does it derive its value from anything else. The receivables themselves have an inherent value, which get assigned, the fact that it is backed a collateral security does not make any difference as the value of the receivables also factor the value of the underlying.

Even though the logic is not coming out clear, the intent of the Council is coming out clearly and the efforts made by the Council to clear out the ambiguities is really commendable.

 


[1] Refer: GST on Securitisation Transactions, by Nidhi Bothra, and Sikha Bansal, at  http://vinodkothari.com/blog/gst-on-securitisation-transactions-2/; pg. last visited on 06.06.2018

[2] At the recently concluded Seventh Securitisation Summit on 25th May, 2018, one leading originator confirmed that his company had kept transactions on hold in view of the GST uncertainty. It was widely believed that the dip in volumes in FY 2017-18 was primarily due to GST uncertainty.

[3] http://www.cbic.gov.in/resources//htdocs-cbec/gst/FAQs_on_Financial_Services_Sector.pdf

[4] Portions of this note have been adopted from the article – GST on Securitisation Transactions, by Nidhi Bothra and Sikha Bansal.

[5] http://idtc-icai.s3.amazonaws.com/download/pdf18/Volume-I(BGM-idtc).pdf; pg. last visited on 19.05.2018

[6] (31) “consideration” in relation to the supply of goods or services or both includes––

(a) any payment made or to be made, whether in money or otherwise, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Government;

(b) the monetary value of any act or forbearance, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Government:

Provided that a deposit given in respect of the supply of goods or services or both shall not be considered as payment made for such supply unless the supplier applies such deposit as consideration for the said supply;

GST on Securitisation Transactions

Nidhi Bothra

Sikha Bansal

finserv@vinodkothari.com

Transitioning into GST, assessing its impact on business and taking appropriate measures to bring about tax neutrality/ efficiency are the prime concern for all and sundry. GST also has an impact on the securitisation transactions in India which now happens to be Rs. 84,000 crores odd industry. In this Chapter we are broadly trying to deal with GST impact on securitisation of standard as well as non-performing assets and its various facets.

In India, securitisation is undertaken through the PTC route (issuance of pass-through certificates or direct assignments. The distinction is not relevant when we talk about securitisation of non-performing assets through asset reconstruction companies.

A.  GST implications on PTC transactions

The implications of GST will have to be mulled over at each stage of the securitisation  transaction. A securitisation transaction will have the following facets:

  1. Assignment of receivables by the originator to an SPV
  2. SPV acquiring receivables on discount
  3. SPV issuing PTCs to investors and servicing PTCs over the term
  4. Originator receives servicing fees for collections/ recovery of receivables
  5. Originator receives excess interest spread (EIS) in the transaction after servicing of the investors with the receivables collected.

There is one more issue of whether the SPV will be considered as a related person as defined under the CGST Act.

Below is a detailed analysis.

i.          Requisites of Taxability under GST

Section 9 of the CGST Act provides for levy and collection of CGST on all intra-State supplies of goods or services or both.

Hence, there must be “goods” or “services” or “both”, and the same shall be supplied.

“Goods” are defined in section 2(52) as –

“(52) “goods” means every kind of movable property other than money and securities but includes actionable claim, growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before supply or under a contract of supply;”

“Services” are defined in section 2(102), as –

““services” means anything other than goods, money and securities but includes activities relating to the use of money or its conversion by cash or by any other mode, from one form, currency or denomination, to another form, currency or denomination for which a separate consideration is charged;”

Money, is therefore, excludible from the scope of “goods” as well as “services”.

Section 7 details the scope of the expression “supply”. According to the section, “supply” includes “all forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business.” However, activities as specified in Schedule III of the said Act shall not be considered as “supply”.

It may be noted here that “Actionable claims, other than lottery, betting and gambling” are enlisted in entry 6 of Schedule III of the said Act; therefore are not exigible to GST.

The discussion below studies the nature of “receivables” and seeks to determine whether assignment of receivables will be treated as a supply of goods or services within the purview of the GST law.

Nature of “Receivables”

There is no doubt that a “receivable” is a movable property. “Receivable” denotes something which one is entitled to receive. Receivable is therefore, a mirror image for “debt”. If a sum of money is receivable for A, the same sum of money must be a debt for B. A debt is an obligation to pay, a receivable is the corresponding right to receive.

A “debt” is a sum of money which is now payable or will become payable in the future by reason of a present obligation, depitum in praesenti, solvendum in future.  See, Web v. Stendon, (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 518, 572; Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT, 1966 AIR 1370 : 1966 SCR (2) 688.

Coming to the definition of “money”, it has been defined under section 2(75) as follows –

“money” means the Indian legal tender or any foreign currency, cheque, promissory note, bill of exchange, letter of credit, draft, pay order, traveller cheque, money order, postal or electronic remittance or any other instrument recognised by the Reserve Bank of India when used as a consideration to settle an obligation or exchange with Indian legal tender of another denomination but shall not include any currency that is held for its numismatic value.”

The definition above enlists all such instruments which have a “value-in-exchange”, so as to represent money. A debt also represents a sum of money and the form in which it can be paid can be any of these forms as enlisted above.

So, in effect, a receivable is also a sum of “money”. As such, receivables shall not be considered as “goods” or “services” for the purpose of GST law.

ii.  Receivables vis-à-vis Actionable Claims

As mentioned earlier, “actionable claims” have been included in the definition of “goods” under the CGST Act, however, any transfer (i.e. supply) of actionable claim is explicitly excluded from being treated as a supply of either goods or services for the purpose of levy of GST.

Section 2(1) of the CGST Act defines “actionable claim” so as to assign it the same meaning as in section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which in turn, defines “actionable claim” as –

“actionable claim” means a claim to any debt, other than a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property or by hypothecation or pledge of movable property, or to any beneficial interest in movable property not in the possession, either actual or constructive, of the claimant, which the civil courts recognise as affording grounds for relief, whether such debt or beneficial interest be existent, accruing, conditional or contingent;”

It may be noted that the inclusion of “actionable claim” is still subject to the exclusion of “money” from the definition of “goods”. The definition of actionable claim travels beyond “claim to a debt” and covers “claim to any beneficial interest in movable property”. Therefore, an actionable claim is definitely more than a “receivable”. Hence, if the actionable claim represents property that is money, it can be held that such form of the actionable claim shall be excluded from the ambit of “goods”.

There are views which, on the basis of the definition above, distinguish between — (a) a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property, and a debt secured by hypothecation/pledge of movable property on one hand (which are excluded from the definition of actionable claim); and (b) an unsecured debt on the other hand. However, the author opines that a debt, whether secured or unsecured, is after all a “debt”, i.e. a property in money; and thus can never be classified as “goods”. Therefore, the entire exercise of making a distinction between secured and unsecured debt may not be relevant at all.

In case it is argued that a receivable which is secured (i.e. a secured debt) shall come within the definition of “goods”, it must be noted that a security granted against a debt is merely a back-up, a collateral against default in repayment of debt.

iii.   Assignment of receivables as “Supply”

Though, the fact that a debt is merely a representation of “money” and therefore there is no question of any “supply” under the GST law, yet it is important to study the scope of the word “supply” in this context.

In one of the background materials on GST published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India[1], it has been emphasised that a transaction where a person merely slips into the shoes of another person, the same cannot be termed as supply. As such, unrestricted expansion of the expression “supply” should not be encouraged:

“. . . supply is not a boundless word of uncertain meaning. The inclusive part of the opening words in this clause may be understood to include everything that supply is generally understood to be PLUS the ones that are enlisted. It must be admitted that the general understanding of the world supply is but an amalgam of these 8 forms of supply. Any attempt at expanding this list of 8 forms of supply must be attempted with great caution. Attempting to find other forms of supply has not yielded results however, transactions that do not want to supply have been discovered. Transactions of assignment where one person steps into the shoes of another appears to slip away from the scope of supply as well as transactions where goods are destroyed without a transfer of any kind taking place.”

A simple example of assignment of receivable is – A sells goods to B. B owes a certain sum of money to A. This sum of money is “receivable” in the hands of A. A has the right to get that sum from B. A decides to pass that right to C. He therefore, assigns the receivable to C, for a certain consideration. Therefore, A is actually passing on the benefits under the contract with B, to C. C is merely stepping into the shoes of A. There is no separate supply as such.

Also, as already stated, where the object is neither goods nor services, there is no question of being a supply thereof.

iv.     Servicing Fees

Typical to a securitisation transaction is that the originator continues to do the collection of receivables from the obligors for and on behalf of the SPV. The originator, therefore acts as a servicing agent and charges a servicing fees.

Under the current tax regime, servicing fees was subject to 15% service tax, charged by the originator to the SPV. The SPV would typically not be able to claim set off and this would be a sunk cost.

This cost under the GST regime goes up to 18%. Therefore if the servicing fee is 50 basis points, the increase in cost is 9 basis points. Since SPV cannot claim the set off, the GST is a dead loss.

In India, the typical servicing fee charged is 25 basis points. Whether or not the consideration for taxable supply of service is reasonable would depend upon the type of a pool. For instance, if the pool is a microfinance pool or a granular pool, it may not seem reasonable to charge a servicing of 25 bps as against a car loan pool. Therefore, where the servicing fee does not seem at arm’s-length, it may be challenged that servicing fees is not adequate consideration or the only consideration for collection of receivables.

Further, if it was to be contested that the SPV is a related person to the originator as defined under the CGST Act, then the servicing fees charged could be subject to valuation rules which will subject the servicing fees to reasonable determination of value of such supply of service by the assessing officer.

v.   SPV a related person?

One of the issues during securitisation transaction structuring is to ensure that an SPV is a distinct entity from legal and accounting perspective. It would be relevant to have independence established of the SPV from tax perspective as well.

The definition of related persons under CGST is as follows:

For the purposes of this Act,––

(a) persons shall be deemed to be “related persons” if––

(i) such persons are officers or directors of one another’s businesses;

(ii) such persons are legally recognised partners in business;

(iii) such persons are employer and employee;

(iv) any person directly or indirectly owns, controls or holds twenty-five per cent. or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of both of them;

(v) one of them directly or indirectly controls the other;

(vi) both of them are directly or indirectly controlled by a third person;

(vii) together they directly or indirectly control a third person; or

(viii) they are members of the same family;

(b) the term “person” also includes legal persons;

(c) persons who are associated in the business of one another in that one is the sole agent or sole distributor or sole concessionaire, howsoever described, of the other, shall be deemed to be related

One of the ways of establishing that the SPV and the originator are related persons, is by establishing control by the originator. The term control has not been defined under CGST and therefore, one may have to rely on accounting tests for control.

As per the accounting standards, if the originator is controlling the SPV, it would lead to consolidation thereby frustrating the purpose of doing securitisation itself.

So, to avoid consolidation it is pertinent to avoid control by the originator over the SPV. If there is no control, the other parameters for falling into related person definition could be meandered.

However, if the transaction structure was such that control could be established then the transaction is subject to arm’s-length test and valuation rules.

vi. Treatment of EIS component

Another critical issue in structuring securitisation transactions is how the excess interest spread or EIS will be swept by the originator from the transaction. Typically, transactions are devised to give residuary sweep to the originator after servicing the PTCs. Therefore there could be a challenge that EIS is also a component of servicing fees or consideration for acting as a servicing agent. The meaning of consideration[2] under the CGST Act is consideration in any form and the nomenclature supports the intent of the transaction.

Since, the originator gets excess spread, question may arise, if excess spread is in the nature of interest. Therefore it is important to structure excess spread as IO strip.

Going forward it would be rather recommendable that the sweep of excess spread is structured as IO strip. Since it is interest only.

vii.  Servicing of PTCs

Another facet of securitisation transaction that needs attention from GST perspective, is taxability of servicing of coupon and repayment of PTCs. PTCs being securities, servicing of securities is exempt from applicability of GST.

viii.   GST on Securitisation – Global Overview

Since the Indian GST law is largely inspired by EU VAT laws, it would be quite relevant to go through UK and EU precedents pertaining to securitization and factoring transactions. It is important to understand that in every loan sale, securitization, factoring or assignment of receivables, the common thread is the assignment of receivables. Hence, if the assignment of receivables is taken as a “supply”, then, in each of these cases, there would be a question of applying VAT on the entire turnover, that is, the entire consideration involved in the supply of receivables.

In UK, a distinction is drawn between “sale of debt” and “assignment of debt”. The sale of a debt is a financial transaction, whereby the purchaser acquires ownership of debts from a creditor, at a nominal sum to the face value of the debts. The purchaser assumes all the rights and obligations of the original creditor and all legal and beneficial or equitable interest passes to the buyer to whom full title and risk is transferred. However, in an assignment only the equitable interest is passed to the assignee and the assignor retains the legal interest in the debt and any liability to obligations arising from the original contract. Often it will not be possible for the assignee to sell that which has been assigned.

The distinction is akin to the distinction between “assignment of a contract” and “assignment of benefits under contract” as pointed out in the article titled, “Law of Assignment of Receivables”, Vinod Kothari[3].

The sale of a debt is exempt from VAT under the VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, item 1. And, the assignment or re-assignment of a debt is not a supply for VAT purposes[4].

In Finanzamt Gross Gerau v. MKG Kraftfahrzeuge Factory GmbH[5], the European Court of Justice had to examine whether, in case of factoring transaction, VAT was applicable on the entire turnover of receivables, or was it applicable only on the commission charged by the factor for the assumption of the risk of default or other services of the factor. In this ruling, the ECJ held factoring to be an economic activity, by way of exploitation of the debts to earn an income by providing a service to the factor’s clients; however, it is not the debt itself which is a supply, but the commission charged by the factor.

In MBNA Europe Bank v. Revenue and Customs Commissioners[6], (2006) All ER (D) 104 (Sep); [2006] EWHC 2326 (Ch) , the Chancery Court discussed whether a credit card securitization amounts to a taxable supply for VAT purposes.  After elaborate discussion on the nature of securitization, and referring to findings of lower authorities that securitization is nothing but a sophisticated form of borrowing, the Chancery Court held that the assignment of receivables in a securitization was not a supply at all.

The position thus held by Courts is well accepted by the administration itself. UK HMRC’s Internal Manual clearly puts the tax position on securitization as follows:

The assignment of the assets by the originator

The assignment of the receivables by the originator to the SPV is not a supply for VAT purposes. It is simply the fulfilment of a pre- condition so that the SPV can provide its ‘securitisation’ service.

The issue of securities to fund the purchase of the assets

The issue of a security for the purposes of raising capital is not a supply for VAT purposes (see VATFIN4250).

The administration of the assets

The servicer is the entity that deals with the receivables on a day to day basis, administering and collecting them and transferring the funds to the SPV, normally whilst maintaining the original contract with the underlying debtors.  The servicer will receive a fee for this service from the SPV which is generally set at a percentage of the aggregate balance of the loans/receivables or the funds collected. The servicer services are supplies to the SPV in the course of an economic activity and the servicer fee is consideration for that supply.

B.  GST implications on Direct Assignment transactions

In case of direct assignment, as in case of PTCs transaction, the assignment of receivables will be tax exempt (going by the same rationale, as in case of securitisation transactions).

The servicing fees charged to the buyer, would be subject to GST. The only reprieve here being that the buyer would be a bank or an NBFC and would be able to claim set off on the GST levied.

C.  GST implications on sale of Non-Performing Loans (NPLs)

In case of sale of NPLs to an asset reconstruction company (ARC), the receivables are acquired by a trust floated by an ARC. The receivables usually are not on the books of the ARC directly.

In case of ARCs, it would be a very strong contention that the trust of the ARC is a related person to the ARC and therefore the management fees, the carry amount etc charged by the managers would be subject to valuation rules.

With regard to the security receipts (SRs) issued by the ARCs, the taxability of such SRs would be the same as in case of PTCs, as both are securities and therefore not falling under taxable supply.

D. Conclusion

It is established that the GST regime requires mollification in the existing transaction structures such that tax inefficiency in the change of regime can be avoided.

It is important that we understand these nuances to avoid tax litigations at a later stage.

The securitisation industry as gone through several rounds of regulatory changes – some favourable and some not. From change in the regulatory guidelines of RBI to distribution tax applicability and subsequent roll-over. There have been several seasons of changes to come to some momentum as on date.

Therefore it is important to take cognizance of the changes and make the appropriate stitch now to save the nine later!

 

[1] http://idtc-icai.s3.amazonaws.com/download/pdf18/Volume-I(BGM-idtc).pdf; pg. last visited on 19.05.2018

[2] (31) “consideration” in relation to the supply of goods or services or both includes––

(a) any payment made or to be made, whether in money or otherwise, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Government;

(b) the monetary value of any act or forbearance, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Government:

Provided that a deposit given in respect of the supply of goods or services or both shall not be considered as payment made for such supply unless the supplier applies such deposit as consideration for the said supply;

[3] http://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Law-of-Assignment-of-Receivables-Vinod-Kothari.pdf; pg. last visited on 19.05.2018

[4] https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-finance-manual/vatfin3215; pg. last visited on 19.05.2018

[5]http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2003/C30501.html; pg. last visited on 19.05.2018

[6] http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2006/2326.html; pg. last visited on 19.05.2018

Indian securitisation market remains stagnant as PSLCs rule the market

Despite the economic slowdown due to GST, the Indian securitization market has performed fairly well, though it has not been able to match the volume of last year. During FY 17-18, the overall volume of the market stood at Rs. 84,000 crores, which is Rs. 1000 crores less than what happened a year back. Of the total volume, there were direct assignments worth Rs. 49000 crores and the remaining were pass through certificates. After the introduction of the securitization distribution tax in 2012, the market shifted towards DAs and the same continued until 2016 when the same was removed. This also reduced the gap between DAs and PTCs, however, the gap has increased once again. The following two graphics show the trend of securitization and the market composition (DAs vs PTCs) during the last few years.

The market showed a 72% YoY growth on issuance of pass through certificates from Rs 25000 crores in FY16 to Rs 43000 crores in FY17 however, and a 24% decrease in FY18 to Rs 34800 crores. The slowdown in securitisation was mainly due to lack of clarity surrounding incidence of Goods & Services Tax on the ‘assignment’ of secured loan receivables as well as a sharp spike in PLCS lending volume.

The volume of PSLC market leapfrogged to around Rs 1.84 lakh crore in FY18 from mere Rs 50,000 crore in FY17. Trading of PSLC was introduced in 2016 and FY18 was the first full year of its use. Here, banks needed to meet priority sector loan targets buy the priority sector obligation certificate from the seller bank without the transfer of risks or loan assets. Seller banks earn a fee without reduction in the loan portfolio unlike in securitization or direct assignment deals. The PLCS are also easier to execute as happens without any real transfer of assets whereas PTCs require pooling of assets and selling it.

Despite a slowdown in the market, several new asset classes were tried during the year. For the first time, asset classes like educational loans, consumer durable loans were tried. The market also witnessed return of Collateralised Loan Obligations.

7th Securitisation Summit, 2018 & 2nd Indian Securitisation Awards

Vinod Kothari Consultants, along with the Indian Securitisation Foundation, has also announced the 7th Securitisation Summit, 2018 on 25th May, 2018 at World Trade Center, Mumbai. This is an industry forum where stakeholders from the entire industry gather to discuss various issues concerning the market and try to take up issues with the regulatory authorities so as to make the environment facilitating in India. The details of the event can be viewed at: www.vinodkothari.com/secsummit/

Also, during this years’ summit, Indian Securitisation Foundation will also announce the second edition of the Indian Securitisation Awards. There are five categories award – most innovative deal of the year, large and small arrangers of the year, trustee of the year and law firm of the year.  Details can be viewed at:

http://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/INDIAN-SECURITISATION-AWARDS-2018-BROCHURE.pdf

Despite economic slowdown due to GST, the Indian securitization market performed fairly well

Guidance Note to NBFCs for nomination of counsel in Delhi High Court

By Richa Saraf, (legal@vinodkothari.com)

BACKGROUND:

  1. In exercise of its powers under sub clause (iv) of clause (m) of sub section (1) of section 2 read with section 31A of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( “SARFAESI Act”), the Central Government issued a notification[1] dated August 5, 2016 notifying 196 Non- Banking Financial Companies (“Notified NBFCs”) as “Financial Institutions”, registered with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and having asset of Rs. 500 crore and above as per their last audited balance sheet, on which the SARFAESI Act is applicable. Read more