Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Archive for October, 2013

Withholding taxes: Cash efficiencies

Withholding tax rates are increasing in many developing countries, creating additional timing and/or permanent cash inefficiencies.  To the extent withholding tax payments, receipts and documentation are viewed from a Best Practice process perspective, immediate cash savings may be realized.  The following points may be considered in this process:

  • How are payments attracting withholding taxes identified?
  • Identify internal/external responsibility for tracking changes in withholding tax rates and communication to the business payor.
  • Are higher payments being made due to contemporaneous documentation (i.e., certificates of residence) not received timely?
  • What integration is in place for Tax and/or Treasury to manage the withholding tax process?
  • For shared service centers, how are changes in withholding rates communicated for timely implementation?
  • Has an internal and/or external review of withholding taxes been performed in the last year?
  • How are withholding taxes considered for new intercompany loans?
  • Who reviews withholding tax considerations for legal entities in new jurisdictions?
  • For taxes that are not ultimately creditable, is there a process to identify and quantify such payments?
  • Is there a review process for proper characterization of “withholding” taxes that may or may not be creditable?
  • Is there specific responsibility within the business to ensure withholding taxes are properly characterized and paid timely?
  • Should a withholding tax flow chart be used for internal governance and global consistency in methodology?
  • Is there a governance process for collection of receipts when withholding taxes are paid?
  • Identify a process for physical/electronic receipt retention to ensure timely and accurate documentation is maintained for audits.
  • Are different payment flows in place for similar services where withholding taxes apply?
  • Is there a variance analysis performed on a recurring basis to identify significant changes?
  • Are internal governance principles established for withholding taxes?
  • Is the business aware of the importance for efficient mechanisms re: withholding taxes?

Withholding, and similar, taxes are being legislated by many countries, especially in developing markets.  Accordingly, Best Practice processes should be in place to maximize cash efficiencies.




Indian GAAR: 10 important features to watch out for

This excellent article was contributed by Ajay Kumar and Richa Sawhney.

The article elaborates on the following observations, which should be considered for General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) worldwide:

  • Broad subjectivity of provisions
  • GAAR applies in addition to prior Specific Anti-Abuse Rules (SAAR)
  • GAAR provisions override the respective tax treaties
  • A binding ruling is issued by a GAAR panel
  • GAAR may apply, notwithstanding meeting the respective Limitation of Benefits (LOB) clause in the treaty
  • There are no provisions addressing compensating transfer pricing adjustments

From a Best Practices perspective, the observations and prior postings should be reviewed to develop Best Practices for future challenges.

Structuring Transactions – Watch out for 10 important features of Indian GAAR
Ajay Kumar and Richa Sawhney
Danta Transaction Services
October 2013

With the release of GAAR Rules (Rules) in September 2013 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), India looks set to implement its statutory General Anti Avoidance Rule (GAAR). GAAR provisions were inserted in the Income-tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) by Finance Act, 2012 and would be effective in relation to incomes arising on or after April 1, 2015. Earlier this year, several changes were made in the GAAR provisions by Finance Act 2013. These changes were made based on the recommendations of the Committee set up under the chairmanship of Dr. Parthasarthi Shome (Shome Committee). While it looks as if GAAR implementation is some time away, MNCs in particular need to consider the impact, as the GAAR Rules provide for limited grandfathering.

This Article covers 10 major features of how the Indian GAAR is expected to work and the areas foreign investors need to focus on.

1.    Main Purpose

GAAR would be invoked in case of “impermissible avoidance arrangements”. An impermissible avoidance arrangement refers to an arrangement whose main purpose is to obtain a tax benefit. Further in addition to the main purpose one of the four supplementary tests[i] is also required to be met.However where the main purpose is established to be non tax then one is not required to prove that none of four supplementary tests are met.

The term “main purpose”, the touchstone of GAAR, is not defined. So how does one compare “non tax purpose” with “tax benefit purpose”. There could be several purposes/objectives in an arrangement some may be amenable to quantification and it may not be possible to do so in case of others.

Given that GAAR by definition cannot be completely objective, it is extremely important for the taxpayer to document all the factors that were considered to conclude the main purpose. In our view one should document the all objectives behind any arrangement, options evaluated and the basis of selection or rejection of the options considered. The minutes of Board or Committee meetings, profitability projections and feasibility studies could help substantiate the taxpayers claim. Given that guidance will evolve overtime, one should start documenting business advantages alongside the tax advantage of the options considered, particularly in those situations where the tax benefit will accrue over several years.

In our view unless it is a case of pure sham transaction, in most of the cases, it should be possible for the tax-payer to establish that business and commercial reasons outweigh the tax reasons. This could in effect be the potent weapon to counter GAAR.

2.    Tainted Elements

The secondary or the supplementary tests, often called the tainted elements are the next important aspect one must be familiar with. Once the main purpose is found to be tax benefit, GAAR provisions will apply only and only if any one of the following tests are met:

(a)  The dealings between parties is not at arm’s length,

(b)  There is lack of bonafide purpose,

(c)  There is misuse or abuse of the provisions of the IT Act,

(d)  There is lack of commercial substance.

Except in case of commercial substance where some sort of guidance is provided under the law, there is no guidance available on the parameters for fulfilment/non fulfilment of these tests. The matter is entirely left to the discretion of the tax authorities. To make matters a bit simpler Shome Committee had recommended that at least arm’s length test should be examined only in cases not covered by Transfer Pricing. However it has not been included in the Rules so far.

A plain reading of the GAAR provisions suggests that lack of bonafide purpose test is considered met if an arrangement is entered into, or carried out, by means or in a manner, which are not ordinarily employed for bona fide purposesAs the language suggests, it is more of a manner test rather than a purpose test. So one can only anticipate trouble if the tax officer feels that the arrangement appears to be too complicated and what is sought to be achieved could have been accomplished in a simpler manner. The taxpayer may also have to explain if there is any reason apart from tax reason to justify what might appear to the tax officer as superfluous steps.

As far as the misuse and abuse test is concerned, the question is does it mean the contextual or purposive interpretation of provisions of the IT Act i.e. what was the backdrop in which a particular provision was introduced, what mischief it wanted to remedy, what loophole in law was intended to be covered or the purpose and spirit behind the enactment. In some cases the government does come up with clarificatory Circulars and Memorandum explaining provisions inserted in the law from which this intent can be gathered, but they are not exhaustive. In light of the above, it can be very difficult to analyse and apply misuse/abuse test where the rationale of provisions are not outlined by the government.

3.    SAAR v. GAAR – Simultaneous applicability

The IT Act contains several Specific Anti Avoidance Rules (SAARs)[ii]. They target specific areas of tax avoidance. In case of conflict between general provisions and specific provisions courts in India have laid down than specific provisions overrule general provisions. Departing from this maxim the GAAR provisions state that GAAR would to apply” in addition to, or in lieu of, any other basis of determination of tax liability”.

The Shome Committee had recommended that for the sake of clarity and certainty, in case SAAR is applicable in any particular situation then GAAR should not be invoked in that case. The government had a different view. It was indicated that if in situation both GAAR and SAAR are applicable, guidelines would be made to clarify that only one of them will apply. The existing Rules do not deal with this issue.

4.    GAAR override on Treaty

The provisions lay down that in situations where GAAR is invoked any Tax treaty benefits claimed by the taxpayer would be denied.

Consider a case where in GAAR is invoked and the undesirable tax advantage being claimed by the taxpayer is denied.  Now post this treatment by the tax authorities, the impermissible avoidance agreement can no longer be considered impermissible. One would want to know if Tax treaty benefit is still not available for this “treated” arrangement. Say in case GAAR is invoked and part of the equipment price paid to the foreign parent gets re-characterised as Royalty. Now in such situations after the tax consequences have  been determined under GAAR, would the beneficial withholding tax of 10% provided in the Tax treaty apply to such Royalty or withholding @ 25% specified under the IT Act would have to be carried out.

Another related issue arises in case of Tax treaties which have anti- avoidance provisions in form of Limitation of Benefits (LoB) clause, say the India- Singapore Tax treaty. The Shome Committee was of the view that GAAR should not be invoked to deny Tax treaty benefit in case the Tax treaty itself has a LoB clause. Cases of avoidance in such cases, should be left to be dealt by the LoB clause. If need be, i.e. the LoB clause fails to deliver, the Government should look at re-negotiating the Tax treaty.  However the GAAR Rules and law are silent on this point. Hence MNCs should be ready to subject themselves to additional GAAR tests even though they may otherwise fulfil LoB tests given under the relevant Tax treaty.

5.    Applicability to existing investments/structures

Immunity has been provided only to income from transfer of investments made before August 30, 2010, i.e. date of introduction of Direct Taxes Code Bill 2010. Hence even if the same structure or arrangement is used by the taxpayer to route further investments post August 31, 2010 that would be subject to GAAR tests.

All the other existing and proposed arrangements will be subject to GAAR tests. In the context of investments from Mauritius, Singapore, Cyprus etc. made before August, 30 2010, income from transfer of such investments will continue to enjoy Tax treaty benefits without having to go through the rigours of GAAR.  But where there is other income accruing on such investments e.g. interest income earned on Compulsory Convertible Debentures it will be subject to GAAR test even though such investments were made before August 30, 2010.

6.    When can one apply for Advance Rulings

Under the GAAR regime, the taxpayer can obtain Rulings in advance, as regards applicability of GAAR on the specifics of their case. The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) could be approached for such Rulings. Further,though the GAAR provisions do not provide any immunity to arrangements proposed to entered into before April 1, 2015, one can approach the AAR for a Ruling only after March 31, 2014. Given the current backlog of applications pending at AAR, one can only expect to see such Rulings coming out around December 2014. In essence, the point is that the MNCs will have limited time to make their arrangements GAAR compliant, before GAAR provisions kick off in April 2015.

7.    Safe harbors

The current provisions do not contain any other safe harbors except the monetary threshold.

The Rules stipulate that GAAR will apply if the tax benefit is more than INR 3 crore (equivalent of US$ 500000) in a financial year after taking into account all parties to an arrangement. The other way to look at it is that given the corporate tax rate is 30% and capital gains rate is 10%, or 0% in case of listed securities, it is only small value transactions which will be out of the purview of GAAR. In case of tax deferral ShomeCommittee had suggested that the tax benefit amount should be worked out on the basis of present value of money, taking the interest rate as that applicable for shortfall of taxes. The Rules are silent on this aspect.

Though from the legislative intent of GAAR provisions[iii] it appears that GAAR would target only aggressive tax planning through use of sophisticated structures, clarity on use of fiscal incentives provided under the IT Act would have been really appreciated. In fact the Shome Committee, taking into account the concerns of stakeholders had recommended that cases of selection of one of the options provided under law such as purchase v. lease, dividend v buyback, funding through debt or equity, timing of a transaction in case of capital gains, mergers and amalgamation approved by Court should be clearly out of the purview of GAAR. It was felt that considering India does not have Thin Cap Rules yet, choice of funding either through debt or equity should be left to the taxpayer and tax officer should not question it. However the Rules are silent on this aspect.

8.    Wide powers conferred on Tax Authorities

Wide powers have been conferred on the tax authorities to nullify the tax benefit being sought by the taxpayer. This includes lifting of corporate veil, clubbing or disregarding entities, treating capital receipts as revenue, debt as equity etc. Here again it can be seen that the power of re-characterization of debt into equity has been given, despite the absence of any formal Thin Cap Rules in India. However, the tax officer who issues a notice alleging that GAAR should apply to an arrangement has to provide detailed reasoning behind his belief.

The other major safeguard is that a GAAR Panel which would comprise a High Court Judge, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and a Scholar of repute would review the cases. The directions issued by this Panel would be binding on taxpayer and tax authorities. Time lines have also been laid down for each step in this process.

9.     Compensatory Adjustment

If GAAR gets invoked in case of one party to an arrangement; there is no provision to effectuate any compensatory adjustment in respect of other parties to the arrangement.

Let us consider a situation where Company A makes interest payment to Company B. Let us now assume that GAAR gets invoked in this case and the payment gets re-characterised as dividend. Company A would now be required to pay dividend distribution tax (DDT) on the same. Now the question is, should this be treated as dividend in the hands of Company B and be taken to be tax exempt or should it be continued to be taxed as interest. Under the current GAAR provisions it would continue to be taxed as interest. The intent is to ensure that GAAR does not lose its deterrent value. The government has however indicated that the same income would not be taxed twice in the hands of one taxpayer because of GAAR adjustments.

10.   GAAR on FIIs

As per the Rules, GAAR provisions would not be applicable in case of FIIs registered with Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) which are not availing any Tax treaty benefit. Further, investment made by non-resident investors in FIIs, whether by way of offshore derivate instruments or otherwise, either directly or indirectly also do not get covered under the provisions of the GAAR.

Coming to the point

Coming to the point, changes made by Budget 2013 and the recently released GAAR Rules have ironed out a number of issues that stakeholders were really concerned about, but clarity is still required on several key aspects. It s not clear as to whether the open issues will be addressed anytime before GAAR provisions become effective which is April 1, 2015. MNCs would be well advised to have a GAAR test applied to current structures. They should clearly analyse and assess whether their arrangements fulfil the main purpose test being tax benefit or are the other business purposes predominant. Though the Rules do not provide guidance and are unlikely to provide any guidance before these provisions become effective, one should apply a common business sense test to analyse non-tax advantages of the current arrangements. Documentation of all facts and other business purposes will help MNCs defend any GAAR related enquiry. In case the assessments reveal that arrangements fail on account of main purpose test and one of the supplementary tests, MNCs should plan to restructure entities or restructure business dealing to ensure that the structures are GAAR compliant.  As MNCs will be able to apply for Advance Rulings after March 31, 2014, one can expect to get some guidance on how the judiciary interprets these new not so legal but economic concepts.

As per section 96 of the IT Act – An impermissible avoidance arrangement means an arrangement, the main purpose of which is to obtain a tax benefit, and it:

(a)   creates rights, or obligations, which are not ordinarily created between persons dealing at arm’s length;

(b)   results, directly or indirectly, in the misuse, or abuse, of the provisions of this Act;

(c)   lacks commercial substance or is deemed to lack commercial substance in whole or in part; or

(d)  is entered into, or carried out, by means, or in a manner, which are not ordinarily employed for bona fide purposes.

[ii]E.g. the transfer pricing provisions which ensure that international transactions between related parties or certain specified domestic transactions are at arm’s length, Income clubbing provisions in case of certain transfers, deemed dividend provisions etc

[iii]Memorandum explaining provisions of Finance Bill, 2012

EU JTPF: Transfer Pricing – Secondary adjustments review

The EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum (JTPF) report on secondary adjustments was agreed in October 2012.  With the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan currently under discussion, it is worthy to review the process of secondary adjustments and their various implications and complexities.  The report discusses the adjustments under the EU Parent Subsidiary Directive, EU Arbitration Convention, and Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP).  For non-EU countries, it is imperative to review consequences of a secondary adjustment due to additional costs, complication and double taxation risks.

Click to access final_report_secondary_adjustments_en.pdf

It is possible that a transfer pricing adjustment is accompanied by a so-called “secondary adjustment”.

Transfer pricing legislation in some States allows or requires “secondary transactions” in order to make the actual allocation of profits consistent with the primary adjustment. Double taxation may arise due to the fact that the secondary transaction itself may have tax consequences and results in an adjustment.

The OECD MTC does not prevent secondary adjustments from being made where they are permitted under domestic law.

Secondary adjustments may in some Member States be subject to specific penalties or result in penalties under the general penalty regime.

Procedure for removing double taxation: In their responses to the questionnaire on secondary adjustments most Member States which apply secondary adjustments stated that they do not consider double taxation issues resulting from secondary adjustments as being covered by the Arbitration Convention (AC), only a few consider them covered by the AC Convention, and some other MS indicated that the applicability of the AC to secondary adjustments remains an open question for them.  However, most Member States applying secondary adjustments would be willing to address them in the course of a MAP. Therefore, in cases where it is not possible to avoid double taxation at the outset, e.g. by way of applying the Parent Subsidiary Directive (PSD), a taxpayer would – in a case of (potential) double taxation resulting from a secondary adjustment – have to file two requests, i.e. a request under the Arbitration Convention and a request for a MAP. The latter would require in each case a treaty being concluded between Member States that includes a MAP provision comparable to Article 25 of the OECD MTC (preferably including an arbitration clause as per Article 25 (5) OECD MTC).

A review of secondary adjustments, and their application for transfer pricing adjustments, should be reviewed in advance of final audit settlements to ensure additional complexities do not arise.

Tax avoidance strategies: Int’l human rights law violations? – IBA report

The facilitation of tax avoidance strategies could constitute a violation of international human rights law, according to a new report by the International Bar Association.

The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) Task Force on Illicit Financial Flows, Poverty and Human Rights was convened to reflect upon these pressing questions from the perspective of international human rights law and policy. This innovative report:
  • provides a detailed overview of tax abuses and secrecy jurisdictions
  • investigates the links between tax abuses, poverty and human rights
  • draws on case studies from Brazil, Jersey and the SADC region
  • evaluates responsibilities and remedies to counter tax abuses affecting human rights
  • delivers unique recommendations for states, business enterprises and the legal profession

For the purposes of this report, tax abuses include the tax practices that are contrary to the letter or spirit of domestic and international tax laws and policies. They include tax evasion, tax fraud and other illegal practices − including the tax losses resulting from other illicit financial flows such as bribery, corruption and money laundering. The term ‘tax abuse’ also includes tax practices that may be legal, strictly speaking, but are currently under scrutiny because they avoid a ‘fair share’ of the tax burden and have negative impacts on the tax revenues and economies of developing countries.

This report covers developments in international tax cooperation on issues such as automatic exchange of information, and base erosion and profit-shifting. It also assesses trends in international development policy which are increasingly focused on strengthening good tax governance in developing countries – thereby reducing dependency on foreign aid and improving development outcomes. It demonstrates the evolution of international human rights law and policy, whilst highlighting tax abuses as a pressing human rights concern.

The Task Force’s goals and objectives are:

1. To publish an innovative report containing findings and a set of recommendations on the interaction between illicit financial flows, poverty and human rights.

2. To widely disseminate the report with the view of pushing the issue of tax evasion and human rights onto global policy agendas, and sustaining discussion thereafter.

3. To incite multi-level policy changes in the area of tax evasion and economic, social and cultural rights adjudication to help end global poverty.

The report cites the following topics for relevance in its comprehensive discussion:

  • OECD BEPS Action Plan
  • OECD Anti-Bribery Convention
  • OECD “Tax Inspectors Without Borders” initiative (refer to 9 June posting)
  • G8 and G20 countries
  • US FATCA rules
  • US Dodd Frank legislation
  • UK House of Commons
  • UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
  • EU Accounting and Transparency Directives
  • Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) (39 countries have signed up)

This report provides interesting insights into the complex relationship of international taxes and non-tax principles and objectives, for which all international tax executives should be aware.  Appendices of the report provide suggested recommendations for States, international business  and the legal profession to help combat today’s conflicts.


European Commission releases 2012 APA & MAP statistics

The EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum has released statistics for pending Mutual Agreement Procedures (MAPs) and APAs under the Arbitration Convention.

The MAP comparables provide interesting observations for countries in which there is no activity in contrast to active case developments in France, Germany, and the UK.  The average cycle time noted in several countries ranges from 9 to 47 months, which presents additional challenges in timely case resolution.  Reasons provided for cycle time variations included 24% being waived for the time limit with taxpayer’s agreement, 16% pending before court and 15% settled in principle, waiting exchange of closing letters for MAP.

The APA statistics reflect 222 EU and 168 Non-EU APAs in force at the end of 2012, 561 EU and 119 Non-EU APA requests in 2012, while 353 EU and 85 Non-EU APAs were granted in 2012.

Click to access jtpf_012_2013_en.pdf

Click to access jtpf_013_2013_en.pdf

The statistics for seeking resolution via the EU Arbitration Convention provide additional insight for evaluation of issues that are not being settled effectively at the local country level.


Global Transfer Pricing Requirements: PwC insightful resource

An informative and valuable reference is provided by PwC that offers country specific recent transfer pricing legislation, in addition to a link for a tax summary of that country.  A separate link is also provided to sign up for transfer pricing e-bulletins.  A transfer pricing article from the perspective of Ghana and Africa is also provided for reference.

Recent transfer pricing news, available by a selection of the relevant country, is always helpful in this ever-changing and challenging world.

Corruption assessment: a component of Global (Tax) Risk Framework

The Eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) ...

The Eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of UN. Target date: 2015 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Today’s tax environment of increased transparency highlights the need to integrate an assessment of corruption into the Global Risk Assessment, including the Tax Risk Framework.  Proper governance includes monitoring perceptions, and actual cases, of corruption globally.  Brief summaries, with links, have been provided for Transparency International and the Global Portal on Anti-Corruption for Development, with additional references and recent articles, for reference.  The Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International is included in the first link.

Today the Transparency International movement includes more than 100 independent national chapters and partners around the world, which take action in support of our mission “to stop corruption and promote transparency, accountability and integrity at all levels and across all sectors of society”.

Transparency International calls on the United Nations to adopt a governance goal and governance targets for its post 2015 development priorities

The Global Portal on Anti-Corruption for Development is a one-stop-shop for information and knowledge specialized on anti-corruption for sustainable development. It aims to support the work of development/governance practitioners, anti-corruption bodies, researchers, civil society organizations and the donor community by facilitating easy access to information, cutting-edge knowledge and practical tools on anti-corruption at the global, regional and country level.

The Anti-Corruption for Development web portal is a unique and pioneering UN web platform that provides open access to information and knowledge related to the latest efforts to address corruption prevention against today’s development challenges: human rights, gender equality and empowerment, climate change and natural resource management, achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Post-2015 Development Agenda, illicit financial flows and transitional contexts, among others.

The Conference of Nigerian Political Parties (CNPP) has asked the Coordinating Minister for the Economy and Minister of Finance, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, to resign forthwith for misleading President Goodluck Jonathan on the damaging level of corruption in the country.

CNPP’s demand came as an aftermath of President Jonathan’s remarks in which he referred to a World Bank report from the minister placing corruption as third in the ranking of problems confronting the country.

Industry’s leading third party management software provider advises oil and gas companies to fundamentally re-think supply chain compliance.

With the realization that corruption is undermining development and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), experts are lobbying the UN to adopt goals and targets on good governance and transparency in the post-2015 development agenda.

A high-level anti-corruption panel, co-chaired by UNDP, Transparency International and UNODC, gathered at the UN in New York in late September to highlight the impact of corruption on development and find ways to ensure that anti-corruption is part of the new global development agenda.

Is internal corruption slowing progress in developing countries?

OECD Memorandum on TP Documentation & Country-by-Country Reporting

The OECD has provided a discussion memorandum in advance of its 12-13 November public consultation on the Revised Discussion Draft on Transfer Pricing Aspects of Intangibles and the White Paper on Transfer Pricing Documentation.  The memorandum presents questions for discussion in addressing implementation issues of a country-by-country reporting template.  A summary of the memorandum is provided, with a link for reference:

Click to access memorandum-transfer-pricing-documentation-and-country-by-country-reporting.pdf

The memorandum outlines two questions, with alternatives provided for each:

What information should be required?

A. The most critical item will be a report of income earned in a country, with the following approaches outlined.

  • Net income before tax for each legal entity
  • Taxable income per tax returns
  • Accounting segment reporting rules
  • Internal consolidating income statements
  • Other

B. Taxes paid by country

  • Cash or accrual basis
  • National vs. local income taxes
  • Non-income taxes

C. Measures of economic activity

  • Revenues by customer location
  • Tangible assets by location
  • Employees / payroll
  • Research expenditures by company/country
  • Marketing expenditures by company /country
  • Location of intangibles by country
  • Location of senior management (e.g. 25-50 most highly compensated employees of group)
  • Other

An interesting comment is also provided for insight: “A key question is whether such reporting will provide any meaningful guidance for risk assessment purposes about the location of real economic activity.”  It is noted that the emphasis seems to focus on economic activity, with little mention of transfer pricing functions, assets, or risks.

What mechanisms should be developed for reporting or sharing country-by-country data?

  • Template completed by parent company and shared  via treaty exchange of information mechanisms
  • Exclusion of information to countries where adequate provisions do not exist to protect confidentiality
  • Template inclusion in global master file to every country in which there is an affiliate subject to tax
  • Other

These developments provide valuable insight into the future trend of transfer pricing documentation that will provide numerous challenges for every multinational.





BIAC Tax Principles/Best Practices/comments re: OECD TP risk assessment

Three new publications have been issued by the Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) to the OECD.  The publications encompass Best Practices and Tax Principles for Multinational Enterprises (MNEs), as well as comments on the OECD Draft Handbook on Transfer Pricing Risk Assessment.  These reports are worthy to note in an effort to better understand the continuing trend of transfer pricing scrutiny.

BIAC Statement of Tax Best Practices for Engaging with Tax Authorities in Developing Countries.  This statement is designed to enhance cooperation, trust and confidence between tax authorities and international business.  Key observations include:

  • Each of the 10 Best Practices directs that “Business should” or “Business may.”  Accordingly, it is written from the perspective of business directives.  There are no views or statements addressing Best Practice methodologies to be conducted by tax administrations.
  • The last Best Practice states: “Business should consider how best to explain more fully to the public their economic contribution and taxes paid in the jurisdictions in which they operate, where they determine that such explanation would be helpful in building trust in the tax system.”  This statement integrates the concepts of economic contribution and taxes paid with public trust.  Additionally, there are no references to arms-length principles or analysis of functions, assets, or risks.  It is important to note that taxes paid in different jurisdictions arise from very complex laws and regulations that are different in every jurisdiction, thus making it difficult for the public to draw insightful and relevant conclusions.

BIAC Statement of Tax Principles for International Business.  Noted statements include:

  • As a tax training principle, international business should only engage in tax planning that is aligned with commercial and economic activity and does not lead to an abusive result.  There is an explicit reference to economic activity, but a lack of terminology referencing arms-length principle or transfer pricing functions, assets or risks.
  • A Transparency and reporting principle states: “Where they determine such explanations would be helpful in building public trust in the tax system, they should consider how best to explain to the public their economic contribution and taxes paid in the jurisdictions in which they operate.”  This statement mirrors that from the Statement of Tax Best Practices noted above.

BIAC Comments on the OECD Draft Handbook on Transfer Pricing Risk Assessment, published on 30 April 2013.  This is a very informative document that outlines many of the issues being considered by the OECD, and provides a thoughtful reference for discussions going forward.  Some key  statements include:

  • The risk assessment should not exceed 6 months.
  • A “low risk” status can bring tangible benefits in terms of a reduced documentation requirement as well as efficiencies in the overall audit process.
  • A “deep dive” audit is not always required.
  • The first step in transfer pricing risk assessment should consider how the business generates profit, its approach to tax planning, its supply chain and the legal environment in which it operates.
  • “From a Transfer Pricing Risk Assessment perspective, we are very keen to see the cooperative compliance approach endorsed early in the Handbook, as a precursor to narrower assessment of transfer pricing risk.”
  • “We are concerned that the overall tone and focus of the Handbook could result in a negative and sceptical view of taxpayers.”
  • We would be particularly concerned if the use of such subjective language (i.e. large, small and material payments, high-tax and low-tax jurisdictions) led to tax administrations ignoring the arm’s-length principle.
  • “Indications of profitability, effective tax rate and comparative profits of related parties are concerning as the implication may be that the transactions are inappropriate.”
  • Any risk assessment report should be shared with the taxpayer.

The Appendix provides specific comments to the related paragraphs within the Handbook.  Two examples from Chapter 1, par. 9 are cited for reference:

  • Shifting income into jurisdictions where it will be lightly taxed or engaging in related party transactions designed to erode the local country tax base-shifting income is an unhelpful phrase.
  • We would welcome clarification that income should be taxed where the functions/assets/risks are performed.

The BIAC comments should be read to better understand the context of the current transfer pricing environment, and how proposals will affect MNEs and tax administrations in the future.

%d bloggers like this: