The Dutch government has provided comments to the BEPS Guidelines, as they have generally been patient re: unilateral legislation that would represent non-conformity with the recently announced actions. However, they would be ready to adopt tax incentives for Dutch taxpayers if there are unintended BEPS consequences that would weaken its attractive tax environment.
PwC’ Tax Insights article provides details for this update:
The article is refreshing re: BEPS conformity, including transparency, by the Dutch government. The adoption of its innovation box regime as of 1/1/2017 will reflect the modified nexus approach of the BEPS Actions.
However, it is also interesting to note the measures it may take to retain its attractiveness for multinationals if there are adverse BEPS consequences. This viewpoint is significant to watch, as other countries may adopt similar measures that will represent additional complexity and nonconformity around the world. Additionally, each country will have its own view, in addition to unique incentives to protect its local tax base.
EY’s Global Alert highlights several OECD / unilateral actions resulting from the BEPS Action Items announced earlier this month.
- Czech Republic’s 2016’s income tax proposal, including the EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive change limiting exemption of tax deductible distributions, although retaining its own general anti-abuse rule (vs. that in the Directive).
- EU’s State Aid decisions re: Luxembourg and Netherlands, for which legal appeals are expected.
- Honduras transfer pricing information return requirement.
- Indonesian thin capitalization limit of 4:1, remainder of interest non-deductible (thereby incurring one-sided taxation re: interest income of recipient).
- Ireland’s Knowledge Development Box, following the OECD’s recommendations, and country-by-country (CbC) reporting by Irish headquartered groups with a secondary filing mechanism.
- Norway’s 2016 budget proposal, with an interest limitation of 25% of taxable EBITDA.
- Slovakia’s 2016 income tax changes, including implementation of the EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive.
This new post-BEPS period is starting off with a multitude of activities by countries and the EU that is not expected to slow down in the near future. These developments will shape the transfer pricing regime, and resulting complexity and disparity, around the world. Accordingly, these trends should be monitored and addressed in a corporation’s tax risk framework accordingly.
The European Parliament’s Policy Dept. A has provided a tax policy paper upon the request of the TAXE Special Committee of European Parliament. An EY summary, and detailed report, are provided for reference:
- Developing country tax governance issues
- Tax system trends and challenges
- Impact of tax havens on EU countries
- Challenges faced by tax policy makers
- Exchange of information
- Tax transparency
- Illicit activities
- Harmful tax competition
As the EU has stepped in to take the lead on various post-BEPS initiatives, this policy paper is recommended reading to gauge the trend in these topics that will also take place worldwide.
Tax Executives Institute (TEI) has provided practical and insightful comments in response to UK’s Large Business Compliance Consultation by HMRC, which is far-reaching. A link to TEI’s comments is provided for reference:
- The Consultation is focused on UK HQ companies, although the proposals also apply to non-UK based multinationals (MNE’s).
- The underlying principle is unclear, especially for non-UK based MNE’s, and should be amended accordingly.
- A separate UK tax strategy is an unrealistic expectation for most MNE’s, and will provide little relevance if enacted.
- A UK Code of Practice is also unrealistic for MNE’s.
- UK taxes, paid or accrued, generally bears little relevance to the global effective tax rate and is not relevant.
- UK’s current tools of general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR), Senior Accounting Officer (SAO) tax framework, newly enacted Diverted Profits Tax, a Customer Relationship Manager (CRM) and other anti-abuse rules are already in place and would seem to remedy HMRC’s concerns.
- Special measures are subjective and not subject to a formal independent panel for review prior to execution.
- Board-level accountability may not be practical, while the SAO framework may accommodate this proposal.
- Signing, or not signing, the Code of Practice should not be a trigger for public disclosure or risk assessment.
- The Code of Practice includes determinations that transactions meet the intent of Parliament, an inherently subjective test that may be applied at will regardless of the law.
The tax transparency see-saw has now tilted to a dangerous level, in that transparency objectives no longer seem to meet the needs of tax authorities.
Information is being requested to satisfy presumed needs of the public and tax administrations, although similar efforts are not being made to have discussions with taxpayers to better understand tax risk and the relevant functions, assets and risks for which transfer pricing should be based in the relevant jurisdiction.
The UK proposal, and similar initiatives, may indeed erode the trust for which the tax authorities are seeking. It would be a novel concept to include the business community in discussions around these proposals prior to drafting, a welcome initiative that would better represent a win-win opportunity. Additionally, all audits should begin with a formal understanding of the transfer pricing practices of the MNE in that jurisdiction to focus tax queries accordingly and efficiently.
As the UK Diverted Profits Tax model has strayed from the OECD’s intent re: the BEPS Action Items, it has nonetheless been followed by other countries. This proposal may have a similar result, magnifying the concern of MNE’s and merits a detailed review by all MNE’s irrespective of UK business presence.
KPMG’s Chief Tax Officer (CTO) Insights provides Best Practices for improving relations with key stakeholders, including sample metrics that are a valuable working tool.
- Regularly scheduled meetings should be scheduled.
- Individualized dashboards should be presented for different stakeholders.
- A Tax Value Report should be presented once or twice a year, including important metrics as cash tax savings, cash flow processes and people initiatives.
- An on-boarding program for new stakeholders should be developed.
- Sample metrics may include
Similar to a tax risk framework that is shared with the larger business and finance leaders, a CTO’s Best Practice tools provide win-win opportunities to interact with key stakeholders and provide assurance for the importance, and recognition, of the tax function in a multinational organizaiton.
EY’s Global Tax Alert highlights the indirect tax consequences resulting from final guidance of the BEPS Action Items:
- Interaction of Article 1 (Digital Economy) and Article 7 (PE) may create a wider gap for findings of a indirect tax “fixed establishment” and a direct tax “permanent establishment” (PE), although some countries do not respect such distinction. Thus , business models merit a review for such changes.
- Article 8 (Intangibles) set forth changes in allocation and valuation that may affect customs valuations.
- Actons 8-10 (transfer pricing) may invite additional focus by tax authorities on VAT/GST and customs.
- Action 13 (country-by-country reporting) may invite scrutiny of indirect taxes.
The focus of BEPS has been on direct taxes, while its impact will now be measured for purposes of indirect taxes. Thus, a BEPS review should encompass direct and indirect tax effects, including VAT/GST and customs.