Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Archive for April, 2014

Meeting of G5 Ministers: Tools to fight tax fraud & evasion

The Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK (G5) held a meeting on 28 April, 2014 to discuss progress on their mutual objectives to promote tax transparency and cooperation, fight tax fraud and evasion, counter harmful tax practices and respond to aggressive tax planning practices.  The following link provides detailed actions that were discussed:

http://www.minhap.gob.es/Documentacion/Publico/GabineteMinistro/Varios/Comunicado%20del%20G-5%20sobre%20reunión%20en%20Par%C3%ADs%2028%20abril%202014%20en%20inglés.pdf

Summary of discussions:

  • Agreement to sign the Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) agreements in alignment with the new, single, global OECD standard, joining 39 other jurisdictions that will effect exchange of information in 2017 with respect to 2015 data.
  • Reiteration of support to the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project.
  • Re: taxation of digital economies, the countries where companies conduct economic activities must be able to receive their “fair share” of tax.  To align this initiative, the G5 Ministers agreed on the interest of a flexible interpretation of the territoriality rules, including a Digital Tax Presence concept.
  • Transfer pricing rules must be adapted to ensure that profit and value creation are aligned, citing economic justification.
  • Tax avoidance re: hybrid mismatch arrangements should be addressed.
  • Country-by-Country (CbC) reporting is important, as it should provide all relevant tax administrations with the information necessary to complete a high level risk assessment.
  • OECD BEPS developments must be reflected at the EU level, encouraging review of the EU law and its impact on aggressive tax planning practices.

The conclusions set forth are significant for the following reasons:  Proposal by the G5, EU focused, collaborative discussions and agreement re: “fair share” of tax alignment, economic justification profit / value drivers, and a presumption that CbC reporting will provide information to complete a relevant risk assessment.

These initiatives should be monitored in alignment with the OECD BEPS proposals set forth for 2014 and 2015.

 

 

Australia draft TP ruling: need for comment

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has issued a draft transfer pricing law introducing subjective provisions that would be enforced via self-assessment.  PwC has provided relevant details in the following link:

http://image.edistribution.pwc.com/lib/fe9813707560007f73/m/1/Australia-ATO+draft+ruling+-reconstruction+of+transactions+04252014.pdf

Key Aspects of Ruling:

  • Transactions would be reconstructed, with various exceptions
  • Self-assessment mechanisms are required, based on consistency with 2010 OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, for three exceptions:
  1. Form is inconsistent with substance
  2. Independent entities would have instead entered into other transactions that differ in substance from the actual transactions
  3. Independent entities would not have entered into commercial or financial relations at all
  • The taxpayer needs to hypothesize what independent entities behaving in a commercially rational manner would have done.  If different from the actual transactions, identification of the arm’s length conditions must be based on what the independent entities would have done
  • Thin capitalization reconstruction provisions are included in the self-assessment analysis
  • Comments are due by 30 May 2014

All interested parties should review this ruling, including the Appendix that does not form part of the binding ruling.  There are many reasons why the draft ruling will be difficult to implement by multinationals and the ATO, primarily due to the subjective content and process of hypothesizing.  Additionally, double taxation issues should be addressed re: reconstructed transactions and corresponding adjustments, as well as alignment and intent of the OECD provisions cited.

 

 

 

TP profiles: EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum update

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.

OECD BEPS Action Plan 1: Digital Economy – TEI’s comments

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.

 

 

Treaty overrides: India’s High Court comments

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.

 

OECD: Cbc reporting update

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.

 

 

Asia TP: International Tax Review

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.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: