Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

The EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum has published a valuable update highlighting local country perspectives on a common criteria.  The link is attached for reference:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/company_tax/transfer_pricing/forum/index_en.htm#tpprofiles

The common criteria provided by each country is as follows:

  1. Reference to the Arm’s-Length Principle
  2. Reference to the OECD TP Guidelines
  3. Definition of related parties
  4. Transfer pricing methods
  5. Transfer pricing documentation requirements
  6. Specific audit procedures and/or specific transfer pricing penalties
  7. Information for small and medium enterprises on transfer pricing
  8. Information on dispute resolution
  9. Relevant regulations on Advanced Pricing Arrangements
  10. Links to relevant government websites
  11. Other relevant information

Countries included in the update consist of:

  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Bulgaria
  • Croatia
  • Cyprus
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Estonia
  • Finland
  • France (coming soon)
  • Germany (coming soon)
  • Greece
  • Hungary
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Latvia
  • Lithuania
  • Luxembourg
  • Malta
  • Netherlands
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Romania
  • Slovakia
  • Slovenia
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • UK

The information is highly relevant and should be used as a primary resource re: the respective country’s views on transfer pricing, OECD alignment and dispute resolution methodologies.

For Best Practices, the information should be compared with the transfer pricing documentation prepared re: the arm’s-length principle and consistency of audit principles by tax authorities.

Tax Executives Institute, Inc. (TEI) has submitted comments in response to OECD’s discussion draft on BEPS Action 1: Address the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy.  The link for the submission is provided for reference:

http://www.tei.org/Documents/TEI%20Comments%20-%20OECD%20Action%20Item%201%20-%20Digital%20Economy%20-%20FINAL%20to%20OECD%2013%20April%202014.pdf

Some of the key comments include:

  • TEI agrees that ring-fencing the digital economy as a separate sector with unique tax rules would be neither appropriate nor feasible.
  • Technology companies face similar challenges as other businesses in moving assets and people, a view not assumed in the Discussion Draft.
  • TEI opposes options set forth in Section VII, including modifications to the PE exemptions, a new nexus standard based on significant digital presence, a virtual PE, and creation of a withholding tax regime on digital transactions.  These options are all generally unworkable.
  • The options set forth above are not aligned with G20′s statement that profits should be taxed where they are located.
  • Other measures noted in the Discussion Draft would aim to restore taxation in both the market country and the country of the ultimate multinational parent.  TEI notes that many of the issues that  these measures are designed to address are the result of deliberate tax policy of the OECD’s Member States.  It is these policies that create the low effective tax rates.

The comments provide thoughtful and practical business considerations that should be considered when formulating principles for international tax policy.  The digital economy issue is very complex, challenging and should be monitored to address proposals by the OECD, Member States and other countries for transformation.

 

 

The PwC News Alert, issued today, highlights statements of India’s High Court re: treaty override situations in a recent decision of Vodafone South Ltd.  These statements are significant in determining whether retrospective amendments can override treaty benefits.  The link to the Alert is attached for reference:

http://www.pwc.in/assets/pdfs/news-alert-tax/2014/pwc_news_alert_14_april_2014__vodafone_south_ltd.pdf

Important observations noted in the Alert:

  • Sovereign power extends to “breaking” a tax treaty.
  • Unilateral cancellation of a tax treaty through an amendment to domestic law, subsequent to conclusion of a tax treaty, is a recognized sovereign power.
  • If , after the tax treaty came into force, an Act of Parliament was passed which contained a provision contrary to the tax treaty, the scope and effect of the legislation could not be curtailed by the tax treaty.
  • India is not a signatory to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna Convention), although such principles have previously been relied on by several Indian courts as such concepts have been accepted as a source of international law.

The concept of treaty override is becoming a very significant issue, evidenced by various GAAR provisions that have been enacted in domestic law that override general tax treaty provisions.  Additionally, recently released OECD draft on BEPS Action Plan 2 (22 March 2014 post) highlights the complex interplay of GAAR provisions with primary and linking mechanism proposals set forth to ensure consistency and uniformity.

In summary, the concepts of the Vienna Convention, combined with current events and complexities re: tax treaty override, merit special attention as tax audits become more complex leading to costly and lengthy appeals, while legislated issues become more subjective all leading to additional cases of double taxation and controversies based on uncertainties of international tax law.

 

The OECD has provided further observations on its country-by-country information template, based on the premise such information is a useful guide in the risk assessment of transfer pricing for relevant jurisdictions.  KPMG has provided a summary of the latest notes by OECD on this topic:

http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/taxnewsflash/Pages/2014-1/oecd-update-on-transfer-pricing-documentation-country-by-country-reporting.aspx

As this important initiative develops into final form, additional questions that may be asked include:

  • Will this information only be provided to tax authorities both currently and in the future, versus subject to public disclosure?  Will the OECD and/or separate countries’ provide for such legal assurance?
  • Should tax authorities be requested to share results of a risk assessment, based on this data, with the taxpayer prior to any assessments to ensure facts are aligned  to promote efficiencies upon assessment, and potentially in domestic or treaty based appeals?  A possible Best Practice for adoption?
  • How will relevance of the global information impact discussions and determinations in the relevant jurisdiction upon audit?
  • Is a post-adoption survey planned to compare expectations with actual results, providing flexibility for ongoing changes as a risk assessment tool?
  • To the extent that a country has adopted, or will adopt, different rules for global reporting, will the rules prescribed by OECD override, or supplement, domestic law?  What (legal) mechanisms will be put in place to align expectations for domestic and international rules?
  • What alignment is planned for countries utilizing the UN Model Convention?
  • Will this tool be used differently for co-operative compliance engagements and/or joint audits?

Many other questions should be carefully considered, looking at both immediate issues for implementation and long-term effects for taxpayers and tax administrations.

 

 

International Tax Review has published, in association with KPMG, an informative summary of transfer pricing (TP) landscapes in the following countries:

Australia, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam.  I will summarize key highlights from each country, with the following link provided for a complete reference:

http://www.kpmg.com/VN/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/2014/Asia%20Transfer%20Pricing%202014.pdf

  • Australia: New TP legislation is aligned with a policy intent of self-assessment; market support strategies classified as a capital or revenue nature
  • China: Location savings; Focus on domestic contributions as a part of the global value chain; value-add analysis of intra-group services; domestic GAAR; expert panel at the SAT level providing TP opinions
  • Hong Kong: Bilateral/multilateral APA focus; TP documentation to mitigate risk
  • India: Valuation of share investments; advertising expenditures resulting in marketing intangibles; intra-group services; “significant people function” approach to intangibles
  • Indonesia: Automatic tax audits; ITO tax revenue focus; MAP/APA trend; unpredictability
  • Japan: Combined TP and income tax audits; bilateral APA’s; documentation of related party profits in intercompany transactions
  • Korea: Intercompany royalties; intra-group service fees; local benchmarking focus; TP audit process diagram; TP Review Committee
  • Malaysia: Local company comparable supplement to TP documentation; Intercompany transaction disclosure to assess TP risk; proof that intercompany services have been rendered and are not duplicative
  • New Zealand: Inter-group financing / credit assessment tools; OECD alignment; TP questionnaires to taxpayers re: risk assessment; collaboration
  • Philippines: Internal database for risk assessment; year-end adjustments; withholding taxes
  • Singapore: Intra-group service fees; APA / MAP procedures
  • Taiwan: Specialized TP teams; inspection forms to re-complete economic analysis on a transaction-by-transaction basis; intra-group funding; cross-border licensing; China-Taiwan OECD model based cross-strait taxation agreement
  • Thailand: Forthcoming reforms in TP, thin capitalization, CFC rules and GAAR; inter-company services re: benefits received; FX documentation; local comparables; APA and MAP process
  • Vietnam: MAP and APA regulations; annual disclosure of related party transactions effective 1/1/2014; targeted sectors for TP audits

 

There are many common themes highlighted in this region, and it is evident that transfer pricing processes and reporting obligations have increased significantly.  Accordingly, this region may merit a special TP review re: contemporaneous documentation and the particular risk areas for each country.

 

 

Portugal has introduced new transfer pricing rules, including the ability to request a unilateral APA, absent a tax treaty between Portugal and the other jurisdiction.  KPMG has provided a concise summary for these changes:

http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/taxnewsflash/Pages/2014-1/portugal-transfer-pricing-law-changes-allow-more-unilateral-apa.aspx

Multinationals should consider this new provision to obtain additional certainty re: Portugal’s application of transfer pricing rules.  Recognizing that a unilateral APA does not eliminate the risk of double taxation, this opportunity should be reviewed within the context of the global tax risk framework.

 

TEI has published comments addressing the UN Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries, in addition to US IRS Notices for revisions to Revenue Procedures setting forth new policies to implement the Competent Authority (CA) and Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) procedures.  References to TEI’s submissions are included for reference:

UN TP Manual key comments:

http://www.tei.org/Documents/TEI%20Comments%20on%20UN%20Transfer%20Pricing%20Manual%20March%202014.pdf

  • Harmonize UN and OECD Transfer Pricing (TP) guidelines to reduce cross-border disputes
  • Risk assessment should be the primary focus, with most multinationals (MNE’s) “low-risk” status due to global and consistent TP policies and documentation
  • First step of tax authorities should be to address overall business, group TP policy and risk control framework
  • Domestic legislation defeats the purpose of a standard international TP guideline
  • Recharacterization by tax authorities should only be permitted in clear cases of abuse
  • TP documentation flexibility must be preserved
  • Burden of proof should reside with tax authorities, with penalty protection granted to taxpayer upon providing sufficient TP documentation
  • Intangible discussion precedes work of the OECD on revision of its Chapter VI Guidelines, reducing likelihood of harmonization
  • Intra-group services and management fees: Consistency of UN and OECD approaches for clarity, in addition to uniform safe harbors
  • TP documentation: “Less is more” approach to assess risk, materiality consideration on a group and country level, global and regional comparables, English language
  • Chapter 10 policy objectives are not aligned with the UN TP Manual and the arm’s-length principle

US Competent Authority key comments to Notice 2013-78 re: revisions to Revenue Procedure:

http://www.tei.org/Documents/TEI%20Comments%20on%20Notice%202013-78%20Revised%20CA%20Revenue%20Procedure%20-%20FINAL%20to%20IRS%20Mar%2010%202014.pdf

  • Opening the CA process to taxpayer initiated adjustments is welcome
  • A new procedure whereby an informal consultation is arranged with taxpayers to discuss its exhaustion of remedies to reduce its foreign tax before claiming a US Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) should not be compulsory.  The timeliness of such advice is also of concern.
  • CA initiated MAP cases and required inclusion of MAP issues that are not a part of the taxpayer’s request for assistance raises many questions.
  • Provision of all information to both CA’s is over broad and may not be mutually relevant.
  • US CA assistance may be denied if a foreign initiated adjustment is agreed to without consulting the US CA: this raises resource and timeliness issues and should also have no impact upon  the merits for claiming a US FTC.

US APA key comments to Notice 2013-79 re: revisions to Revenue Procedure

http://www.tei.org/Documents/TEI%20Comments%20on%20Notice%202013-79%20Revised%20APA%20Revenue%20Procedure%20-%20FINAL%20to%20IRS%20Mar%2010%202014.pdf

  • The Notice reflects prior creation of the Advance Pricing and Mutual Agreement (APMA) program
  • Details are set forth regarding the “pre-filing” process
  • Appendix is included stating the required materials to be submitted for inclusion
  • Rules are provided for when the IRS may cancel or revoke a completed APA
  • Inapplicable information should not be submitted, but a “suitable explanation” why the information is not relevant must be provided
  • The suggested changes will increase information required for application, and time required for APA completion, thereby reducing the likelihood that taxpayers will proceed with an APA request

 

In alignment with the OECD’s BEPS proposals, unilateral country legislation including General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR), and the UN TP Manual principles for developing countries, tax controversies are expected to increase significantly.  Tremendous pressure will be placed on CA assistance around the world, and possibilities for new APA ‘s will be reviewed to reduce inherent uncertainty.

Accordingly, all multinationals and interested parties should read TEI’s excellent comments to better understand the issues to be confronted, with suggestions for thoughtful and practical ideas to achieve mutual objectives for taxpayers and tax authorities around the world.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 121 other followers

%d bloggers like this: