As the subject of permanent establishment (PE) becomes more controversial amid the ever-changing rules, multinationals (MNEs) should have a proactive partnership relationship with their global mobility service provider, whether in-sourced or outsourced.
Global mobility generally reports through the HR function, thus a silo approach may result without the proactive ability of the tax function to create a cohesive team. The concepts of legal employer, economic employer, intercompany allocations, foreign reporting relationships, contractual arrangements, intercompany agreements, etc. all need to be vetted and challenged for every assignment that may have adverse consequences for the employee and/or the company.
Countries are taking a more aggressive PE approach, thus a standard assignment template and / or agreement may not work in today’s post-BEPS world. India, for example, has very specific rules that dictate a PE without special attention to the control and payment arrangements of the assignment. Assessments may take years to resolve requiring additional cost and time, including the necessity of external advisors.
The organizational structure of significant functions that may cause consequences for a MNE’s tax organization should be reviewed, possibly adding dotted line relationships for global mobility, customs, external communications, etc. At the very least, these related functions should be discussing these potential issues on a regular basis, while forming a mini-university for learning.
As the subject suggests, the organizational structure and reporting relationships should not follow the same-as-last-year approach due to the BEPS evolution around the world.
The long -awaited VAT has become a reality in the GCC, effective 1/1/2018.
This provision will require advance (systems) implementation and training, especially for companies in the region not familiar with VAT reporting. Note the UAE and other GCC countries have nil, or minimal rates of corporate tax and this indirect tax will provide a local economic stimulus without creating additional complexities of corporate tax reforms.
This reform is not unexpected, although now the execution phase is very important to provide a seamless transition for reporting and collection.
EY’s Global Tax Alert provides additional details of this development.
Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have put forth additional recommended disclosures and requirements for the Accounting Directive of public Country-by-Country (CbC) reporting, prior to enactment of the original proposal.
The Accounting Directive allows a simple majority for passage, and involves additional complexities and cost as the OECD model is now just a starting point for new information.
The Parliament would also like to extend the proposal to include the following information in company reports:
- The geographical location of the activities
- The number of employees employed on a full-time equivalent basis
- The value of assets and annual cost of maintaining those assets
- Sales and purchases
- The value of investments broken down by tax jurisdiction
- The amount of the net turnover, including a distinction between the turnover made with related parties and the turnover made with unrelated parties
- Stated capital
- Tangible assets other than cash or cash equivalents
- Public subsidies received
- The list of subsidiaries operating in each tax jurisdiction both inside and outside the EU and data for those subsidiaries corresponding to the data requirements on the parent undertaking
- All payments made to governments on an annual basis as defined in the Directive, including production entitlements, income taxes, royalties and dividends
- The report shall not only be published on the website of the company in at least one of the official languages of the EU, but the undertaking shall also file the report in a public registry managed by the Commission
EY’s Global Tax Alert, referenced herein, provides the relevant details, although it appears the CbC report is not being construed as one tool for total transfer pricing assessment, but a public tool to determine one’s fair share of tax irrespective of the legal laws and limitations in each country.
An alternative approach would be to design a standard (transfer pricing) audit template for the tax authorities that would include some, or all, of the above factors to the extent deemed important to assess a company’s tax liability in that relevant jurisdiction. However, this non-public and Best Practice audit tool is not the focus in this post-BEPS world, to date.
For purposes of the French-Italian double tax treaty, Italy’s Supreme Court has rendered an important decision re: holding companies and the level of substance required to determine beneficial ownership. This decision is fact specific, although is significant as it applies to pure holding companies and the subjective interpretations of beneficial ownership that are being applied globally.
The Supreme Court held that the status of beneficial owner is ultimately to be determined, as a matter of fact, based on the particular nature of the recipient holding company and the functions typically performed in its operations.
For a pure holding company, a level of organizational structure able to carry out an activity of mere coordination and control over the subsidiary, attend the shareholders’ meetings and collect dividends, should be deemed as adequate. The analysis should instead be based on the actual capability of retaining the dividends received as opposed to having the obligation to repay them to another entity.
In particular, the Supreme Court did not find any merit to the proposition that the French company should be regarded as a conduit, concluding that a holding company that does not have the same organizational structure (premises, personnel, etc.) as an operating company does not necessarily mean that it would be regarded as not being the beneficial owner of dividends.
This case is very interesting as it does not rely on the regular substance of a regular operating company, and thoughtfully distinguishes the legal rights of a holding company to receive and hold dividends without an intertwined obligation to distribute such monies as one may find in a tax-driven conduit structure.
EY’s Global Tax Alert, provided for reference, is an interesting and refreshing insight into this subjective issue that merits no consistency on a global basis.
The Tax Executives Institute (TEI) has provided comments to the FASB’s proposed changes to disclosure requirements for the reporting of income taxes. As the increased transparency demands continue, the attached views exemplify the theoretical and practical considerations for new standards re: added benefits for the readers of financial statements.
As the world of tax increases in complexity, public disclosures should avoid subjective and forward looking projections, as well as avoiding any potential conflicts with strategic forecasts and confidential information.
TEI’s comments are well written and should be welcomed by the tax and financial community looking to increase the transparency and practicality of financial statement times without duplication or non value-added actions.
I want to wish all my readers / followers a happy, healthy and exciting New Year, as it will certainly be a challenging one in many ways!
Personally, I have moved from the UK to the US this year and find it interesting to compare and contrast the international tax views and press coverage in different jurisdictions.
Thank you for your comments and insights, enjoy the New Year!
With kind regards,