The beer market dynamics in Russia is approaching zero, yet major brewers are divided into those who developed considerably in 2017 and those who considerably reduced their volumes. For instance, company Efes has managed to substantially extend their sales due to restrained pricing policy and activity in the modern trade. Heineken has also demonstrated an excellent performance promoted by significant increase of advertisement budgets launching a non-alcohol sort of the title brand and unusual activity in the economy market segment. Carlsberg and AB InBev have been focusing on margins and lost a market share of their inexpensive brands. Serious dependence on PET package and mass enthusiasm about Zhigulevskoe have negatively impacted the most of big regional brewers, that have been for the first time pressed by the leaders in the key sales channels, especially in Volga and Central regions. In the small business there has been a noticeable slowdown in appearing of new restaurant breweries, yet the number of craft breweries has been growing rapidly. In 2018, the beer market is likely to grow a little, while the share of AB InBev Efes may decrease due to the integration. ...
“Catalogue of Russian Beer Producers 2018” includes 1070 businesses ranging from large subsidiaries of international companies to rather small restaurant and craft microbreweries.The catalogue includes 32 large breweries, 75 regional breweries, 693 industrial mini- and microbreweries as well as 270 restaurant breweries. ...
Global hop marketA local alternative to mass beer suggested by independent brewers has been successful and is now altering the global market. Beer is becoming more diversified, so transnational companies have to accept the new game rules and to switch focus to young and fast growing markets. All these processes increased the demand for aroma and bitter hop as well as their acreage expansion on two continents. However now there appeared a downward trend of alcohol consumption in the world, so even special sorts can soon turn to be sufficient. In this connection the dynamic American hop market is already facing some problems. EU hop producers have become more cautious, they are not racing to exceed the demand and look forward with more confidence, judging by the contract terms.
Hop Market in RussiaGermany still dominates the Russian market, yet over the recent two years one has been able observe a continuous success of Czech hop suppliers. Their expansion and growing popularity of hops from the United States became the drivers of supplies growth in 2016 despite the preceding modest harvest crop in the EU, as well as the factor of relative stability in 2017. In this connection, in 2017, the ratio of the varieties continued to shift towards the aroma ones, and the supplies of Magnum hop and other alpha varieties were reduced. However, the import of bitter hop pellets is partially replaced by extracts, especially from the major beer manufacturers. Total volumes of alpha acid supplies, according to our estimation, decreased by approximately 5% and returned to the level of 2015. Barth Haas Group continues dominating the hop products market; HVG also increased its weight. At the same time, Morris Hanbury significantly reduced the supplies in 2017.
India. Cross-border transfers of intangible assets by foreign entities not taxable: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court recently passed a long-awaited judgment against attempts by Indian revenue authorities to tax capital gains on cross-border transfers of intangible assets by foreign entities.
As a result of this latest clarification, only capital gains made by foreign entities on cross-border share transactions would henceforth be taxable by Indian authorities under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act.
The landmark verdict was delivered on a challenge made by Foster’s Australia to a May 2008 Authority of Advance Rulings (AAR) determination which deemed the transfer of intangible assets associated with British beer manufacturer SABMiller’s acquisition of Foster’s India over 10 years ago as taxable under Indian law.
The Indian tax authorities had supported the AAR decision on the ground that the transfer of the Foster’s brand name for use in India was taxable as it had acquired domestic licences and gained substantial value through business conducted in this country.
In contrast, Foster’s Australia relied on a strict interpretation of Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and contended that the income arising out of a transfer of a brand name could not be taxed in India if the intellectual property rights were held by a foreign entity.
The high court eventually agreed with the Foster’s Australia submissions and contended that the permission given to SABMiller to utilise the brand name was, in fact, a mere “user right” transferred by an overseas body and not amenable to taxation in India under Section 9.
While interpreting the relevant retrospective provision, the court held that the law had created a deeming provision for taxability of capital gains made on indirect transfers of capital assets alone and would not apply to intangible assets such as brand names or logos.
In the absence of a specific provision on the issue, the court concluded that international merger and acquisition norms permitting taxation only at the proprietary location of an asset were to be followed. As such, only the parent country of the transferor would have a right to such taxation, regardless of the usage of the asset in question.
According to Ketan Dalal, senior tax partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers, the judgment was a well-reasoned one. “The fact that a brand has generated goodwill in India or was nurtured here are irrelevant for the purposes of taxation,” said Dalal. “Given the increasing importance of intangible assets and transactions of such nature, international companies will certainly get comfort that one potential hurdle in relation to such transactions seems to have been addressed. Now one only hopes that the tax department will accept this judgment and not take the matter to the Supreme Court.”
- Capital gains made by foreign entities on cross-border share transactions would be taxable
- The landmark verdict was delivered on a challenge made by Foster’s Australia to a May 2008 Authority of Advance Rulings
- The court concluded the international merger and acquisition norms permitting taxation only at the proprietary location of an asset were to be followed
- Only the parent country of the transferor would have a right to such taxation, regardless of the usage of the asset in question
28 Jul. 2016