Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Archive for June, 2016

UK: Be careful what you wish for

As everyone knows, there is alot of uncertainty and doubt about what lies ahead for the UK as they will be leaving the EU, final timeline yet to be determined.

From a tax perspective, the linked EY Global Tax Alert summarily describes foreign exchange issues, alignment with EU court cases and Directives (including country-by-country reporting), ongoing BEPS alignment and conformity, treaty / immigration issues, EU State Aid, VAT and the need for transitional review.

Apart from BEPS, this change will compound the tax (un)certainty of the UK for the near future.

This is an excellent time for legal and operational review of UK operations, ensuring old structures and loans are dissolved, if possible, to mitigate future risks.  All multinationals should align with all stakeholders to face this radical change.$FILE/2016G_01773-161Gbl_UK%20United%20Kingdom%20votes%20to%20leave%20the%20EU.pdfUK

US update: 385 rules still in play

The controversial final Section 385 regulations are still being debated, with Treasury focusing on earnings stripping issues, although seemingly has heard valuable comments as to its detrimental effect on physical or notional cash pooling.  Every MNE should have read the proposed Reg’s and educated their treasury and finance functions accordingly, which should be an immediate priority due to its expansive potential effect on treasury, legal and tax structures going forward.  

The US House is set to release its tax blueprint next week, which may become more important if a Republican president is elected with potential reforms again in play.

EY’s Global Tax Alert discusses these topics and some BEPS updates.$FILE/2016G_01618-161Gbl_Report%20on%20recent%20US%20international%20tax%20developments%20-%2017%20June%202016.pdf

BEPS update

EY’s Global Tax Alert provides recent developments for BEPS by Australia, Austria, Belgium, EU, Germany, Iceland, India, Niger, and Romania.$FILE/2016G_01449-161Gbl_The%20Latest%20on%20BEPS%20-%206%20June%202016.pdf


  • Australia: Local File is OECD +, going beyond OECD’s recommendations, including transactional detail.  This development is proving that global consistency is a rapidly fading ideal, as countries legislate what they think benefits them the most.  Unfortunately, this adds to the cost, time and complexity of preparing global reports.
  • Austria: Transfer pricing documentation draft regulations follows the OECD.
  • Economic and Financial Affairs Council of the European Union (ECOFIN): EU Member States Finance Ministers, envision adopting the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive on 17 June 2016, subject to amendments.  Legal agreement was also reached on adoption of the Directive on the exchange of non-public country-by-country tax information.  Conclusions were also adopted on the European Commission communication on an external tax strategy and tax treaty abuse measures.
  • Germany: Transfer pricing technical draft introducing transfer pricing documentation standards as recommended by the OECD.  Master File and Local File documentation requirements introduced.
  • India: A 6% Equalization Levy (EL) to apply on gross payments for certain digital services received by a nonresident.
  • Niger: Thin capitalisation rules introduced.
  • Romania: To become a BEPS Associate and participate in the OECD’s framework.

As the above developments note, BEPS guidelines and intent remains very strong in the global community, with many changes already made and many more to come.


US: International update

EY’s Global Tax Alert highlights some significant areas of proposed reform:

  • Section 385 debt/equity regulations proposed for Labor Day issuance, noting there is alot of uncertainty until then based on the Proposed Regulations, including the impact on physical and/or notional cash pools.
  • US House tax reform blueprint to be released this month.
  • Country-by-country (CbC) voluntary reporting is being acknowledged as a gap and problematic for US based MNE’s, thus one US CbC global report is not anticipated to be the result, requiring multiple CbC reporting required by relevant countries.  For countries that have agreed to accept voluntary filing, it would be beneficial to provide a simple public chart by the administration for taxpayer access.$FILE/2016G_01361-161Gbl_Report%20on%20recent%20US%20international%20tax%20developments%20-%203%20June%202016.pdf

OECD Multilateral Instrument: comments due

The OECD has released its draft of details for the impending Multilateral Instrument in alignment with BEPS Action 15, copied herein, with my bold accents highlighted for reference.  Comments are due 30 June 2016, thereby necessitating quick actions to review and respond.

This instrument will be a pivotal tool for many years to come, transforming the interpretation of tax treaties and further developing the intent of the BEPS Actions.  Thus, it will be important to understand such trends for future compliance and planning complexities.  

Development of a Multilateral Instrument to Implement
the Tax Treaty related BEPS Measures

31 May – 30 June 2016


1. Background
1. The OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project produced a number of recommendations that would be implemented through amendments to bilateral tax treaties. If undertaken on a treaty-by-treaty basis, the sheer number of treaties in effect would make such a process very lengthy. Recognising the need for an efficient and effective mechanism to implement the tax-treaty related measures resulting from the BEPS Project, Action 15 of the BEPS Action Plan called for the development of a multilateral instrument.
2. Drawing on the expertise of public international law and tax experts, the report “Developing a Multilateral Instrument to Modify Bilateral Tax Treaties” analysed the possibility of developing a multilateral instrument in order to allow countries to swiftly amend their tax treaties to implement the tax treaty-related BEPS recommendations. It concludes that such a multilateral instrument is not only feasible but also desirable, and that negotiations for the instrument should be convened quickly.
3. Based on this report, an Ad Hoc Group was established on 27 May 2015 with the objective of developing a multilateral instrument to modify existing bilateral tax treaties in order to swiftly implement the tax treaty measures developed in the course of the OECD-G20 BEPS Project. The Ad Hoc Group now includes 96 countries all participating on an equal footing, as well as a number of non-State jurisdictions and international organisations participating as Observers. The purpose of the multilateral instrument is to modify existing tax treaties to implement the tax treaty measures developed through the BEPS Project. As a result, with the exception of the development of a MAP arbitration provision (as discussed in section 2 below), the mandate of the Ad Hoc Group does not include changing the substance of the BEPS outputs or creating new measures that were not developed during the BEPS Project.
4. The Group began its work on 27 May 2015, and aims to conclude its work and open the multilateral instrument for signature by 31 December 2016. Development of the multilateral instrument is currently in progress. As with other bilateral and multilateral treaty negotiations, the draft text of the multilateral instrument is the subject of intergovernmental discussions in a confidential setting. Accordingly, the consultation has been organised around certain key technical issues and questions relating to the development of the instrument on which public input would be useful. Examples of the technical issues and questions on which input would be useful are outlined in sections 3 and 4 of this document. Comments should be focused solely on technical issues of implementation and on issues related to the development of a MAP arbitration provision, rather than on the scope of the provisions to be covered in the multilateral instrument or on the substance of the underlying BEPS outputs.
5. Comments and input should be submitted by 30 June 2016 at the latest, and should be sent by email to in Word format (in order to facilitate their distribution to government officials). Please note that all comments received will be made publicly available. Comments submitted in the name of a collective grouping or coalition, or by any person submitting comments on behalf of another person or group of persons, should identify all enterprises or individuals who are members of that collective group, or the person(s) on whose behalf the commentator(s) are acting. Persons and organisations who submit comments on this document are invited to indicate whether they wish to speak in support of their comments at a public consultation meeting that is scheduled to be held in Paris at the OECD Conference Centre on 7 July 2016 beginning at 10.00 am.
6. This consultation meeting will be open to the public and the press. To request to attend the public consultation, please click here [LINK] and follow the instructions. Due to space limitations, priority will be given to persons and organisations who register first and we reserve the right to limit the number of participants from the same organisations. This consultation meeting will also be broadcast live on the internet and can be accessed on line. No advance registration will be required to access the live broadcast.
2. The multilateral instrument
7. The multilateral instrument will modify existing bilateral tax treaties in order to swiftly implement the tax treaty measures developed in the course of the OECD-G20 BEPS Project. The provisions to be implemented include in particular:
The treaty provisions developed under Action 2 of the BEPS Project (Neutralising the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements), including (1) the revision of Article 1 (Persons Covered) of the OECD Model Tax Convention to address fiscally transparent entities, and (2) the measures to address issues with the application of the exemption method to relieve double taxation.
The provisions developed under Action 6 (Preventing the granting of treaty benefits in inappropriate circumstances), including the minimum standard on treaty abuse, the introduction of a “saving clause” to make explicit that treaties do not restrict a State’s right to tax its own residents, and the specific anti-abuse rules related to (1) certain dividend transfer transactions; (2) transactions involving immovable property holding companies; (3) situations of dual-resident entities; and (4) treaty shopping using third-country PEs.
Provisions developed under Action 7 (Preventing the Artificial Avoidance of PE Status), including (1) measures to address commissionnaire arrangements and similar strategies; (2) modifications the specific activity exemptions under Article 5(4) of the OECD Model and the addition of an anti-fragmentation rule; and (3) measures to address the splitting-up of contracts to abuse the exception in Article 5(3) of the OECD Model.
Measures included in the minimum standards and best practices produced under Action 14 (Making Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective), including the changes to paragraphs 1 through 3 of Article 25 of the OECD Model, as well as the inclusion of paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the OECD Model.

8. In addition to the implementation of the measures described above, a number of countries declared their commitment to provide for mandatory binding MAP arbitration as a mechanism to guarantee that treaty-related disputes will be resolved within a specified time frame. An optional provision on mandatory binding MAP arbitration is being developed as part of the negotiation of the multilateral instrument. The
3. Technical Issues Arising from Development of the Multilateral Instrument
9. A number of technical issues arise from developing a multilateral instrument to modify bilateral tax treaties. These include, for example, issues related to:
The relationship between the provisions of the multilateral instrument and the existing tax treaty network. Existing tax treaties vary widely from both model tax treaties and from each other. As a result, the multilateral instrument must be able to modify existing tax treaties effectively, either by adding a new provision where no provision exists or by modifying or superseding existing provisions. This can be done by including “compatibility clauses” that describe in detail under what circumstances the new provision is intended to be added to or replace the provisions of an existing tax treaty.
Ensuring consistent application and interpretation. The tax treaty-related BEPS outputs include agreed Commentary to facilitate their interpretation. Ensuring that this Commentary will be used to interpret the provision of the multilateral instrument will be important. In addition, because the multilateral instrument must modify a large network of existing treaties, it cannot provide the level of detail that a bilateral protocol can. The multilateral instrument may therefore need to be accompanied by tools, such as an explanatory statement or commentary, to ensure consistent application of its provisions to diverse bilateral tax treaties. The production of consolidated versions of the underlying bilateral tax treaties is also being considered.
Modifying bilateral treaties in multiple authentic languages. The multilateral instrument is being negotiated in English and French, and is expected to be concluded in only those two authentic languages, but will modify bilateral tax treaties concluded in many authentic languages. It will be important to ensure consistent application to those bilateral treaties despite differences of language.

4. Request for input
10. Comments are requested on the technical issues that may arise from implementing the treaty-related BEPS measures in the context of the network of existing bilateral tax treaties. In particular, comments are requested with respect to:
Technical issues that should be taken into account in adapting the BEPS measures to modify or supersede existing provisions of bilateral tax treaties that may vary from the OECD model, including:
Existing provision or types of provisions that serve the same purpose as the BEPS measures and that would need to be replaced
Existing provisions or types of provisions that are similar to BEPS measures but that would need to be retained
The approach to be taken in developing the optional provision on mandatory binding MAP arbitration, taking into account that it would need to serve the needs of the countries that have already committed to implement mandatory binding arbitration, as well as countries that are considering committing in the future.
The types of guidance and practical tools that would be most useful to taxpayers in understanding the application of the multilateral instrument to existing tax treaties.
Mechanisms that could be used to ensure consistent application and interpretation of the provisions of the multilateral instrument.

%d bloggers like this: