A win for Oracle, a lost opportunity for clarity

In a significant ruling for international tax law and treaty interpretation, the Full Federal Court of Australia has allowed Oracle Corporation Australia Pty Ltd’s (“Oracle Australia”) appeal against the Commissioner of Taxation. 

The result of this is that the Commissioner’s attempt to apply his own, controversial interpretation of the meaning of “royalty” under Australian domestic law has been “stayed” (i.e. suspended), allowing Oracle to pursue the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under the Australia-Ireland double taxation agreement (DTA). 

In light of the ATO’s attempts – over the past five years – to seek to expand the definition of “royalty”, this is a significant loss for the Commissioner which will vindicate the observations of numerous commentators, and also arguably the very strong representations made by other bodies such as the US Treasury.

That said, the outcome of the MAP process is of course yet to be determined.

Background to the Decision 

The underlying tax issue is whether amounts paid by Oracle Australia to Oracle CAPAC Services Unlimited Company (“Oracle Ireland”) under intra-group licensing arrangements are “royalties” as defined by section 6 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (1936 Act), as overlaid by Art 13 of the DTA which would make the payments subject to royalty withholding tax. 
In line with the ATO’s recent push to have the definition of a “royalty” be interpreted in a broader way than it has historically been (and certainly broader than is the current international norm), the ATO viewed the licence fees paid by Oracle Australia to Oracle Ireland to be “royalties” under both Australia's domestic tax law and the DTA.  

The relevant events in this particular case started in 2018 and continued until late 2023, when the ATO issued penalty notices in the order of $253 million for failing to withhold amounts for the 2013 – 2017 years. Oracle Australia objected to the penalties and Oracle Ireland initiated the MAP process. The ATO initially appeared to agree that the objection process, being the domestic proceedings, should be put on hold to allow the MAP proceedings to run its course, but then seemingly switched tack, suspended the MAP proceedings and issued decisions on the objections. This action by the Commissioner meant that Oracle Australia was forced to elect either to bring domestic proceedings in 60 days and risk suspending the MAP, or to forever forego domestic appeal rights and place all their eggs in the MAP basket.

To seek to deal with the above dilemma, Oracle Australia filed an application for a stay of the proceedings pending the conclusion of the MAP proceedings. At the Federal Court, Perram J, whilst acknowledging many factors that would support a stay, refused the stay. The deciding factor in his Honour’s decision was the public interest in having judicial determination on the definition of a royalty – an area which, as stated above, has been made key focus area of the ATO for a number of years now.    

Oracle Australia appealed the decision to Full Federal Court. 

Full Federal Court Decision

The Full Federal Court found that the primary judge (Perram J) erred in concluding that the Oracle case would provide definitive guidance to other taxpayers or resolve international disputes.

In doing so, their Honours noted of the centrality of the terms of the legal agreements entered into by the relevant parties in establishing whether a payment can be construed as a royalty. Emphasising this point, their Honours noted. 

“None of the material concerning the underlying tax dispute identified any question of construction about the meaning of “royalty” in the DTA that was capable of being answered at a level of generality, or in a manner divorced from the specific terms of the agreements between Oracle Australia and Oracle Ireland”.

This seems to be a nod to the majority decision in PepsiCo handed down by the High Court of Australia in August. 

Additionally, the Court emphasised that the MAP process is a legitimate and treaty-endorsed mechanism for resolving double taxation issues, and that taxpayers should not be forced to abandon it due to procedural constraints in domestic law.

The Court ordered that domestic proceedings be stayed until the conclusion of the MAP process, including any arbitration, reaffirming the taxpayer’s right to pursue treaty-based dispute resolution mechanisms.

Takeaways 

The decision reaffirms that royalty disputes under tax treaties are fact-intensive, and outcomes may not be broadly applicable without similar factual contexts. 
Taxpayers who are under audit or objection should be aware of their MAP rights and, if they choose to, initiate the MAP process at the earliest opportunity allowed by the relevant double taxation agreement.

Arguably, this decision poses further challenges for the ATO’s controversial attempt to expand Australia’s taxing rights in relation to royalties, in a manner which many commentators (and the US Treasury) regard as significantly out of line with international norms. It also reflects yet another loss for the Commissioner before the Courts – which has been a common theme in recent times.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

If you would like to learn more about the topics discussed in this article, please contact your local RSM office.