An Evaluation of the Taxation of the Digital Economy and Nigeria’s Finance Act 2019 – Digital Taxation -By Isah Aruwa & Ibrahim Muhammed

1   Introduction

There have been several literatures examining the increasing digitization of commercial activities, the taxation of such digital activities and its attendant effects on the economy of countries and the globe at large. Thus, there has been criticism, advice and a call for the reform of the international tax framework and governmental policies on the taxation of commercial activities in the digital economy. At the heart of the debate is the creation of a nexus between the jurisdiction where the value for the digital transactions is created and the jurisdiction where the profits are taxed. According to the World Bank in 2016, the global digital economy accounted for USD11.5 trillion in xxx which is the equivalent of 15.5% of the global GDP and this is expected to reach 25% in less than a decade, as its growth is projected to outpace that of the non-digital economy. Thus, revenue and political factors have called for the creation of a tax framework that will address this imbalance between the jurisdiction of value creation and the jurisdiction of taxation.

Nigeria, a developing economy, is not immune to the considerations and debates on the taxation of the digital economy. According to Trading Economics (a website that provides global macro and historical economics data covering over 190 countries), Nigeria is expected to have a GDP of USD420.00 Billion in year 2020 and USD480.00 Billion in 2022. Likewise, the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission in 2018 projected that the Nigerian digital economy is expected to generate USD88 billion and create three million new jobs by the end of 2021 whilst McKinsey & Company estimated that the e-commerce spending in Nigeria for the year 2018 was USD12.00 Billion and is projected to reach $75.00 Billion by 2025, (save the unplanned impact of Covid-19). Thus, it was unsurprising that the World Bank Country Director to Nigeria, Subham Chaudhuri, asserted that Nigeria remains uniquely positioned to reap immense benefits from the prospects and growth of the digital economy. However, due to an archaic tax code, much of these projections and promising statistics have not been captured within the Country’s tax net and transitioned into growth, as capital flight through the digital economy is rampant.

This article shall presents an overview of the international tax framework for the digital economy and discusses the challenges and possibilities under the existing tax framework in Nigeria, which includes the changes in the bases of taxation of foreign companies from residency and physical presence to significant economic presence following the passage of the Finance Act, 2019.

2   Review of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Framework on the Taxation of Digital Economy

A core point of discussion in the OECD Action 1 Report on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting in (BEPS) 2015 is centred on perceived inequitable tax planning by multinational companies that take advantage of loopholes in the tax systems of some countries to reduce taxable income. This is usually done by shifting most of the profits to low tax jurisdictions even though very little or no economic activities were performed in those jurisdictions.  Further, issues on taxation of the digital economy were said to raise broader tax challenges of “nexus, data and characterisation” which were BEPS as it relates to solving the Gordian knot of how taxing rights on income generated from cross-border transactions in the digital realm could be shared among member states.

Thus, countries agreed to renew the mandate of the Task Force on the Digital Economy (TFDE) to continue to monitor developments in respect of digitalisation in order to provide an inclusive framework for the taxation of the digital economy to establish a long-term solution by the year 2020. Thereafter, in March 2018 the TFDE published the “Tax Challenges Arising from Digitalisation” drawing on the work delivered in 2015 under Action 1 of the BEPS Project and in January 2019 issued a short Policy Note, which grouped the proposals under consideration into two pillars.

• OECD Pillar One

Pillar One: focuses on allocation of taxing right and a review of the nexus rules and proposes the following considerations for the achieving the stated aims:

1. The user participation proposal which was based on the rational that the active participation of user is critical to value creation of branding, data, and market power;

1. The marketing intangibles proposal which is similar to user participation proposal stipulates that when a business derives revenue from sales and marketing in a jurisdiction it does not have presence, there would be an allocation of “non-routine profit” attributable to the company’s use of marketing intangibles in the jurisdiction; and

• The significant economic presence proposal which utilises “purposeful and sustained interaction with the jurisdiction via digital technology” to establish nexus.

Although, the three proposals differ in objectives and scope, they do share the common similarity of enhancing the tax right of a market jurisdictions, propose new nexus rule that moves away from physical location and go beyond the specification of the arm length principle that is tied to the legal principle of separate corporate entity when dealing with multinationals.[1]

In a statement released on January 31, 2020 members of the Inclusive Framework agreed on the unified approach, the approach is a proposal that will focus on “consumer-facing businesses” which generate profit from supplying consumer products or providing digital services that have a consumer interaction element.[2]

The unified approach covers the similarities of the initial first three proposals and addresses issues on profit allocation, dispute resolution and the issue of nexus by providing yardsticks that are similar to the significant economic presence proposal. It is noted that this unified approach has the following characteristics:

1. The scope of the proposal is on businesses that cover highly digitalised business models and other highly profitable business models that interact with consumers. Such business range from traditional businesses that utilise the internet to make sales in foreign markets to online digital enterprises that do not have a fixed place of operation.

1. The nexus of businesses under the proposal is to be based on sales, with thresholds utilised to ensure that even small economies benefit. Thus, to determine that a business has sufficient nexus, a marked sales or revenue threshold within the market jurisdiction is to be attained.

Additionally, the sales threshold will take cognisance of activities such as online advertising services that are directed at non-paying users’, but which still create value in the market jurisdiction. This is to ensure that there will be application of the new nexus on business that trade through distributors and those that sell remotely from outside the jurisdiction.

1. Increased tax certainty for taxpayers and administrators through use of a three tier mechanism:

1. Allocation of residual profit to market jurisdiction
2. Fixed remuneration for marketing and distribution activities in market jurisdiction; and

• Binding and effective dispute resolution mechanisms to all element of the proposal.

• OECD Pillar Two

Whereas Pillar One addresses the allocation of taxing rights between jurisdictions, Pillar Two focuses on Global anti-Base Erosion proposal (the “GloBE” proposal) and calls for the development of rules that will address issues on profit shifting by multinational companies through the utility of minimum taxation. Therefore, the effective goal is to achieve a minimum tax for multinationals so as to balance out the global corporate tax mechanism. The GloBe proposal provides the following rules on taxation of income of multinationals:[3]

1. Income inclusion rule– this will tax the income of a foreign branch or a controlled foreign subsidiary if that income is taxed below a minimum rate in its country of residence.
2. Undertaxed payment rule– this will deny deduction or impose a source tax such as a withholding tax on payments of a related party if that payment is taxed below a minimum rate or was not subject to tax.
3. Switch-over rule– a proposition that will enable jurisdictions to literally switch from exemption to credit when profits attributable to a residence company or derived from immovable property in its locale is subject to a tax rate below the minimum rate.
4. Subject to tax rule– a compliment of the undertaxed payment rule that seeks to subject payments to withholding or other taxes at source. Also, seeks to adjust eligibility for treaty benefits on some items of income where the payment is not subject to tax at a minimum rate.

These rules are expected to be implemented through both amendments to domestic tax laws and international tax treaties. Additionally, in order to avoid a situation of double taxation where one or more jurisdictions apply the rules on the same corporate structure and income, there will need to be a co-ordination or ordering rule.[4]  The rate of minimum tax and other essential design details such as the mechanics of the undertaxed rule and the scope of the subject to tax rule and the determination of tax base of a company under the GloBE proposal is yet to be agreed upon. Also, it has not been agreed the extent to which a multinational will be allowed to “blend” its low and high taxable incomes from multiple jurisdictions in the application of the GloBE rules on minimum tax. Further, the flexibility to blend can potentially simplify the GloBE approach and weaken its impact.

The OECD under the GloBE proposals has not identified income types that will be exempted but has called for a debate/ discussion on this subject. It has suggested that the following serve business are exempted and carved out of the GloBE proposal:[5]

1. SMEs
2. Small number of related party transactions
3. Tax regimes compliant with the recommendations regarding harmful tax practices (BEPS Action 5)
4. Specific industries or sectors

In summary, Pillar two due to its wide reach and salient parameters for imposition of a global minimum tax on corporate profits, is estimated to raise significantly more tax revenue than Pillar 1 and shield developing countries from pressure to offer tax incentives in order to attract foreign direct investment that may be inefficient in the long term.

Functionality of Pillar 1 and 2

In its 2020 preliminary impact assessment, the OECD estimated the global corporate income will increase by approximately 4 percent, and if both pillars are effectively implemented, will increase annual global corporate taxes by about US$100 billion. However, it remains to be seen whether the two OECD frameworks will work together or separately. For it is presumed that companies will be accessed under pillar one prior to the application of pillar two and it should be expected that taxes paid under pillar one will be “blended” into the calculation of the minimum tax already paid under pillar two. Therefore, it is expected that these postulations will be clarified upon the creation of a full multinational agreement by the member states.[6]

The current status remains that the OECD is continuing to study the economic effects of its digital economy proposals, and intends to deliver a multilateral, consensus-based solution by the end of 2020, that it hopes and expects will be long term in application for the goal, which as stated by the OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría, is for:

“…countries address the tax challenges arising from digitalisation of the economy, and the only effective way to do that is to continue advancing toward a consensus-based multilateral solution to overhaul the international tax system…”

3. Evaluation of Unilateral Taxation of Digital Economy

The digital economy is the part of the economic output derived solely or primarily from digital technology with a business model that is based on the provision of digital goods and services. Tax policy implications of digitalisation has been at the centre of the global discourse with regards to whether or not the international tax rules should continue to be enforced or reformed. Political and economic considerations and the absence of a workable and established international framework for the taxation of the digital economy has resulted in some states establishing local and unilateral laws.

Austria announced a digital service tax for online advertisement and same was effective from January 1, 2020.[7] Under the Austrian law, a 5% digital service tax is imposed on the turnover of advertisement services in Austria by companies with a worldwide turnover of at least €750 million or a turnover in Austria of at least €25 million from the provision of online advertising services.[8]  A company that does not have a domicile, place of management or permanent office in the European Union (EU) or the European Economic Area (EEA) is to appoint a local fiscal representative for purposes of the payment of the digital services tax. Likewise, those operating already within the EU or EEA can either appoint a fiscal representative or utilise the “online digital tax service tool” provided by the tax authorities to file the appropriate tax returns. It appears that the above digital service tax would only affect foreign companies—that is, certain foreign companies would solely be subject to digital services tax in Austria.^[9]

The United Kingdom (UK) also recently commenced the digital service tax, with an effective date of 1 April 2020. The tax is levied at 2% on digital service revenue that are attributable to UK users. The tax is targeted at large companies with the following characteristics[10]:

1. more than £500 million in annual worldwide revenues from in-scope digital services activities; and
2. more than £25 million in annual revenues from in-scope digital services activities linked to UK users.

Thus, in-scope digital services business activities exceeding the above revenue thresholds are will be subject to the digital service tax. In-scope digital service activities were listed as including:

• Social medial services
• Internet search engines; or
• Online marketplaces.

With regards to the wider European continent, the European Commission (EC) proposed on March 21, 2018:

1. An interim 3% digital services tax (DST) on gross revenues (turnover) derived from activities in which users are deemed to play a major role in value creation.

1. A “significant digital presence” (SDP) concept for payment of corporate income tax would result in a new digital permanent establishment (PE) definition, intended to establish taxable nexus, along with revised profit allocation rules to determine how the taxes on digitally derived profits are distributed among countries. Therefore, there will be SDP when:[11]

1. There is income exceeding EUR 7,000,000;
2. Number of users exceeds 100,000

• Number of business contacts exceeds 3,000

Under the interim proposal, it is important to note that there are concerns that a taxation of revenue rather than the profits of companies may result in double taxation.  Further, the proposed EC’s SDP models and the ratio for the splitting will not apply to a company that operates from a non-EU country that has a double taxation treaty with the member state.

Aside the European Union, other countries have included various measures for taxation of the digital economy in their tax codes.  For instance:

7. Turkey’s digital service tax: Under this law, effective from March 2020, there will be imposed at a rate of 7.5% on Turkish revenues from digital advertisement, sales of multimedia content and services that provide platform for users’ interaction that ultimately relates in sale of goods or services.[12]

1. Malaysia’s Service Tax (Amendment) Act 2019 decrees that from January 1, 2020 foreign Service providers are required to impose a service tax of 6% on imported service provided to consumers in the country.[13] Interestingly, services that require human intervention will not be covered as by definition digital service is service over the internet and its delivery is automated.[14] The revenue threshold is 500,000 Malaysian Ringgit (approx. USD120,000) for a period of 12 months and to comply foreign service providers are to file the service tax return and remit the amount due to the Malaysian custom.

1. Costa Rica’s proposed charge of VAT for cross-border or intangible digital services credit issuers. Alternatively, the platforms may choose to register with the Costa Rican tax authorities to avoid the application of the VAT charge.

1. New Zealand, which increased the scope of its Goods and Service Tax laws to require foreign companies to pay 15% goods and service tax for services rendered to New Zealand based consumers.

1. Ecuador, which from January 2020, the Internal Revenue Service – Servicio de Rentas Internas (SRI) – commenced taxing non-resident companies 12% VAT for digital services rendered to consumers in the jurisdiction. The burden was placed by the SRI on financial institutions to be the withholding agents for the collection of the taxable sums.[15]

In Nigeria, the FIRS has been laying the groundwork for the adoption and implementation of technology driven tax administration system to ensure efficiency, ease of access for taxpayers and expanded tax net. With regards to taxation of the digital economy, there had been little innovation baring the statement by the erstwhile FIRS Chairman; Mr Babatunde Fowler, of the FIRS’ intention to commence collection of Value Added Tax (VAT) through commercial banks on online transactions.[16] Such a plan was intended at using the banks as collection agents on behalf of the FIRS. The statement, at the time, had raised more questions on the practicality of the option.  For instance, how will the system ensure that VAT is not imposed twice on the transaction, i.e. at the points of sale and payments respectively?  This is because most digital purchases already include VAT at the point of check-out by the customer, therefore, how will the system ensure that another layer of VAT is not charged on the total sum (inclusive of VAT) at the point of payment. For goods from foreign customers, if VAT is imposed by the banks, it is common knowledge that at the point of entry where relevant duties and assessment are raised, VAT is typically charged, will the customer be subjected to VAT twice on the same transaction? Does the VAT Act support any such actions, as described above? The jury is out on the answers to these questions.

The passage of the Finance Act 2019 and its assent by the President of Nigeria brought about a paradigm shift from the hitherto requirement of having a fixed base of operation before being subjected to Nigeria income tax; a position that was reinforced in by the Federal High Court decision in a dispute between JGC Corporation of Japan vs the FIRS, among other basis. Section 4 of the Finance Act 2019 amended the extant Section 13 of the Companies Income Tax Act of Nigeria, to provide for the taxation of companies with significant economic presence (SEP) in the Country.[17] The Finance Act 2019 provided that the Nigeria Minister of Finance (MoF) would provide clarifications on the term SEP by the instrument of an “Order” pursuant to the Act.

In furtherance of the above, the Honourable MoF issued the Order through the official gazette No. 21 Vol 107 of February 2020.  The Order put to rest the hitherto arguments on what would constitute a SEP and opened a new vista in Nigeria joining the league of nations exploring the possibility of taxation of digital economy.  This could not have come at a better time than now, a period when the world is challenged either as a results of the fluctuations in global oil prices; a major revenue/ foreign exchange earner for Nigeria or the challenges occasioned by the global pandemic; Covi-19.

The Order provides qualifying conditions for determining SEP for digital services by a foreign company in any accounting year, where it:

1. derives N25 million annual gross turnover or its equivalent in other currencies from any or combination of the following activities:
   1. streaming or downloading services of digital contents, including but not limited to movies, videos, music, applications, games and e-books to any person in Nigeria; or
   2. transmission of data collected about Nigerian users which has been generated from such users’ activities on a digital interface including website or mobile applications; or

• provision of goods or services other than those under sub-paragraph 5 of the Order, directly or indirectly through a digital platform to Nigeria; or

1. provision of intermediation services through a digital platform, website or other online applications that link suppliers and customers in Nigeria;

1. uses a Nigerian domain name (i.e., .ng) or registers a website address in Nigeria; or
2. has a purposeful and sustained interaction with persons in Nigeria by customizing its digital page or platform to target persons in Nigeria, including reflecting the prices of its products or services in Nigerian currency or providing options for billing or payment in Nigerian currency.

The Order in providing clarifications on activities between/ among connected persons, noted that transactions between connected persons would be aggregated in arriving at the threshold for determining SEP.

Beyond the digital services highlighted above, the Order further captures certain services provided by foreign companies to Nigeria recipients as creating an SEP where such services result in earning of income or receipt of payment from a Nigeria resident or a fixed base/ agent of a foreign company. These include companies providing technical, professional, management or consultancy services. Suffice it to mention that the Order did preclude certain activities from being considered as creating an SEP:

1. any foreign company under a multilateral agreement and consensus arrangement to address tax challenges arising from the digitalization of the economy who will be treated under such agreement or arrangement.

1. any foreign company making any payment, where the payment, is made:
2. to its employee under a contract of employment; or
3. for teaching in an educational institution or for teaching by an educational institution; or

• by a foreign fixed base of a Nigerian company.

4. Implication of Enforcement of Taxation of Digital Economy across jurisdictions

On December 3, 2019 the United State (US) Treasury Secretary, in a letter to the Secretary-General of the OECD, stated the US’ opposition to the application of digital service taxes (DST). Based on the letter, the US Treasury Secretary argued that the DST will indiscriminately apply to US businesses and are contrary to international principle of taxation on net income as opposed to gross income.  In response to some of the issues raised by the US and other countries, the Secretary-General to the OECD on December 4, 2019 noted that, “a global solution is needed to stop the proliferation of unilateral measures as the goal is for an international consensus that avoids double taxation and tax net income, and not gross income of companies”.

Despite the seeming benefits the OECD pillars could had resulted in, the US recently pulled out of the framework when it suspended talks with the European Countries championing the discussions on global tax framework[18]. It noted that pressing ahead with such DST would result in the US employing “retaliatory measures”

The current stance by the US who seeks to truncate the phased approach contemplated by the OECD framework, wherein the first phase would allow for tax on profits made in jurisdictions and progress into agreeing a global minimum corporate tax rate.  The US’ stance is predicated on the fact that most of the tech giants to be impacted by the DST are primarily US based companies.

The above creates a further division on the future of the DST across the world as the US is yet to throw out its “retaliatory measure”.  The jury is out on this and we will continue to watch the space.  However, countries who have introduced the DST, have not indicated any intention to stop its implementation so far.

5   Applicability of Double Taxation Treaty on Digital Economy for Multinational Companies

There is no doubt that unless the digital service tax is unanimously thought through and a global decision taken on the basis of its application, while allowing various countries to determine its application in the various blocks, the current seemingly uncoordinated imposition by countries as it suit their whims and caprices, is a sure recipe for double (if not multiple) taxation on the same stream of income. This is more so, even on transactions between countries with existing double taxation treaties, unless such laws consider the implication and adjusts for them, just like the Nigeria Order contemplates.

For illustration purposes, a digital sales platform tax resident in Country A, with significant sales in Country B; where digital service is operational, could have its profit from digital related activities taxed in Country B, and subsequently taxed in its tax resident Country unless an adjustment is made to cater to its peculiarity.  This is further expanded where its operation cuts across multiple jurisdiction.

Thus, it is imperative that the digital service tax considered the implication of the possibility of double taxation and its implications on business sustainability and allow for a wholistic consideration and harmonisation of interest to allow for economy on the part of businesses. A further consideration could be to begin discussions around bilateral/ multilateral agreements with a view to addressing any such possible double/ multiple taxation that could result from the introduction of digital service tax.

6. Benefits to the Nigeria Economy/ Recommendation

The Order issued in February, has placed Nigeria among comity of nations taking advantage of the digital service tax and has also opened a window of opportunity capable to increasing collections from taxes on foreign companies.  This position contracts with the hitherto provisions which imposes corporates tax only under the conditions contemplated under the provisions of section 13 (2) as was further stressed in the federal high court decision in the dispute between JGC Corporation vs the FIRS.

Nigeria is positioned to experience increase in tax revenue from qualifying transactions which hitherto were not captured under the provisions of the tax laws/ codes/ regulations. This position is further strengthened by the comments by Isabel Neto (a World Bank Senior Digital Development Specialist) that[19]:

“…As the biggest economy in Africa with one of the largest populations of young people in the world, Nigeria is well-positioned to develop a strong digital economy, which would have a transformational impact on the country…”

Thus, the interactions with foreign companies in this space would ultimately create an increased tax revenue for the government

The ease of compliance created by the Finance Act 2019 in respect of the digital service tax is quite commendable and creates room for better compliance. The Act provides that businesses not falling within those categorised under Section (12) 2 a-e of the CITA, withholding tax would be the final tax obligation expected of them. Thus, once withholding tax is deducted on payments to these businesses/ companies they have met their corporate tax obligations in the jurisdiction This approach minimises the compliance obligations imposed on companies by virtue of the provisions of section 55 of the CITA; requiring companies to prepare and submit income tax returns along with their computations of taxes and capital allowances annually.

It is also commendable that the Order clearly provides for reference to provisions of any agreements in place in respect to challenges that could result the application of the provisions of the order in resolving them. Thus, the risk of double taxation could be addressed under any such agreements.

7. Conclusion

Speed to action gives the first move advantage! Nigeria has demonstrated that it cannot be left in the doldrums in today’s world where other countries are making moves to cover taxation of digital economy, not even at a time where tax revenue has been dwindling and the need for diversification of sources of government revenue. What better way of boosting tax collection in a challenging time as this than ensuring coverage of the ever-growing digital economy?

Citation:

1. Isah Yusuf Aruwa is an experienced tax practitioner in Nigeria and can be reached on iaruwa@outlook.com

2. Ibrahim Muhammed is an associate in a Legal Practice; Kenna Partners, in Nigeria and has taxation as amongst his areas of interest. He can be reached on moismailibm@gmail.com

[1] OECD, Public consultation document Secretariat Proposal for a “Unified Approach” under Pillar One at <https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/public-consultation-document-secretariat-proposal-unified-approach-pillar-one.pdf> accessed on April 14, 2020

[2] OECD, Statement by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS on the Two-Pillar Approach to Address the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy at <https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/statement-by-the-oecd-g20-inclusive-framework-on-beps-january-2020.pdf> accessed on April 14, 2020

[3] OECD, Public consultation document Global Anti-Base Erosion Proposal (“GloBE”) – Pillar Two at <https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/public-consultation-document-global-anti-base-erosion-proposal-pillar-two.pdf.pdf> accessed on April 14, 2020

[4] Ibid

[5] Grant Thornton, Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Is a global minimum tax to be introduced? At https://www.grantthornton.global/en/insights/articles/beps—pillar-2/ accessed on April 14, 2020

[6] Ibdi

[7] Austrian Digital Tax Act 2020, Federal Law Gazette I № 91/2019 (DiStG 2020) at <https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/bgbl/I/2019/91/20191022?ResultFunctionToken=d97c5459-51c9-492e-b7aa-ccd2036c2c8a&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=True&Abfrage=BgblAuth&Titel=&Bgblnummer=91/2019&SucheNachGesetzen=False&SucheNachKundmachungen=False&SucheNachVerordnungen=False&SucheNachSonstiges=False&SucheNachTeil1=False&SucheNachTeil2=False&SucheNachTeil3=False&VonDatum=01.01.2004&BisDatum=06.12.2019&ImRisSeitVonDatum=01.01.2004&ImRisSeitBisDatum=06.12.2019&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=>

[8] Article 1, ibid

[9] KPMG, Austria: Legislation introducing digital services tax https://home.kpmg/us/en/home/insights/2019/10/tnf-austria-legislation-introducing-digital-services-tax.html

[10] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/uk-digital-services-tax-effective-from-43649/

[11] Article 4, Proposal for a Council Directive On The Common System Of A Digital Services Tax On Revenues Resulting From The Provision Of Certain Digital Services at <https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/proposal_common_system_digital_services_tax_21032018_en.pdf >

[12] Turkey: Digital services tax enacted, effective date of March 2020 at <https://home.kpmg/us/en/home/insights/2019/12/tnf-digital-services-tax-enacted-effective-march-2020.html>, Turkey: Legislative proposal for digital services tax at <https://home.kpmg/us/en/home/insights/2019/11/tnf-turkey-legislative-proposal-for-digital-services-tax.html> accessed on April 4, 2020

[13]  Yvonne Beh and Sarah Sheah, INSIGHT: Malaysia’s Service Tax on Imported Digital Services from 2020—Be Prepared at <https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-international/insight-malaysias-service-tax-on-imported-digital-services-from-2020-be-prepared>

[14] Malaysia digital service tax set for January 2020 introduction at <https://blog.taxamo.com/insights/malaysia-digital-tax-annoucement> accessed on April 04, 2020

[15] Andrea Moya, Ecuador: Draft Law For Fiscal Transparency athttps://www.mondaq.com/Tax/871414/Draft-Law-For-Fiscal-Transparency accessed on April 04, 2020

[16] Ogochukwu Isiadinso and Emmanuel Omoju, Nigeria: Taxation Of Nigeria’s Digital Economy: Challenges And Prospects available at <https://www.mondaq.com/Nigeria/Tax/810276/Taxation-Of-Nigeria39s-Digital-Economy-Challenges-And-Prospects> accessed on March 29, 2020

[17] CAP. C21 L.F.N. 2004.

[18] https://www.ft.com/content/1ac26225-c5dc-48fa-84bd-b61e1f4a3d94

[19] https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/nigeria/publication/nigeria-digital-economy-diagnostic-a-plan-for-building-nigerias-inclusive-digital-future