EY’s Global Tax Alert highlights the heightened uncertainty around the proposed Business Activity Tax (BAT) by the House and interested parties.
The BAT is a revenue raising proposal, thus the revenues from this plan would help to move a bill towards passage via the political complexities and processes required. It is very important to monitor, as the death of this proposal would mean deriving that lost revenue from another initiative (i.e. raising the tax rate, etc.).
OECD has issued its latest discussion draft on hard-to-value intangibles; comments are due by June 30, 2017.
OECD’s press release states: The Final Report on Actions 8-10 of the BEPS Action Plan (“Aligning Transfer Pricing Outcomes with Value Creation”) mandated the development of guidance on the implementation of the approach to pricing hard-to-value intangibles (“HTVI”) contained in Section D.4 of Chapter VI of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines.
This discussion draft, which does not yet represent a consensus position of the Committee on Fiscal Affairs or its subsidiary bodies, presents the principles that should underline the implementation of the approach to HTVI, provides examples illustrating the application of this approach, and addresses the interaction between the approach to HTVI and the mutual agreement procedure under an applicable treaty.
As intangibles are one of the most contested issues in transfer pricing, also fact specific with subjectivity, this discussion draft merits a review by all international tax practitioners to view the current thinking by the OECD, as well as a chance to provide comments in reaction.
EY’s Global Tax Alert and the Discussion Draft references are provided:
The Council of the European Union has proposed a draft EU Directive, to be in effect by June 30 2019, that would resolve double taxation disputes between Member States. A summary of the Draft Directive is provided, as well as referenced herein.
This proposal is based upon the foundation of the Union Arbitration Convention (90/436/EEC) re: cross-border tax disputes.
3 years, from first notification, to file a complaint by the taxpayer
Each competent authority (CA) acknowledges receipt within 2 months
Additional 3 months by CA’s to request additional information, by which the taxpayer has 3 months to provide
Approx. 6 months later, CA’s decide to accept or reject the complaint; or a CA can decide to resolve unilaterally by which the Directive is terminated
Taxpayer may appeal per national rules a rejection of the complaint
CA’s try to resolve issue within 2 years, which may be extended by 1 year
Upon taxpayer’s request, an Advisory Commission shall be established where the complaint is rejected by not all of the relevant CA’s, or a failure by CA’s to reach agreement. This request can be denied by a Member State on a case by case basis where a question of dispute does not involve double taxation.
Advisory Commission = Chair, 1-2 representatives of each CA, and 1-2 independent persons by each CA
Advisory Commission to adopt a decisions within 6 months
CA’s may, alternatively, set up an Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission instead of the Advisory Commission; this commission has freedom of techniques to settle
Professional secrecy standards are prescribed
Advisory or Alternative Commission opines in 3-6 months
CA’s shall agree within 6 months of the opinion on how to resolve the complaint; they can decide on a decision that deviates from the opinion or be bound by the opinion
Final decision does not constitute a precedent
(Redacted) decision is published and maintained in an online central repository
Evaluation of process by June 30, 2024 and issue a report
As the key point summary infers, there are many provisions in the Draft Directive, requiring a proactive effort by the taxpayer and relevant CA’s. The Directive can be reviewed via the attached link:
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has struck down the controversial “fairness tax” of Belgium, based upon violations of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive and the freedom of establishment.
Taxpayers who have paid this tax should file a claim for refund, and all taxpayers should be aware of any similar “fairness” provision that unfairly discriminates taxpayers based on enacted EU legislation.
EY’s Global Tax Alert provides additional details.
The Australian Tax Office (ATO) has issued a roadmap and risk guidelines re: intercompany financing parameters. Taxpayers have an 18-month amnesty period to move their related party financing arrangements to a “green” low-risk zone. EY’s Global Tax Alert provides further details.
Rest of World: All countries watch what other tax administrations are legislating, thus this roadmap/risk rating process may be arising in many other countries. This should be an additional warning signal to multinationals to review such arrangements, as what one considers “arm’s-length” may not be completely nil risk dependent on the legislation of particular countries. Unfortunately, this will lead to additional complexity and probably double taxation consequences.
India has released its APA annual report, providing valuable insight into recently filed APAs and the process.
Intragroup services by the Indian applicants have been the most covered international transactions in the bilateral APAs.
The transaction net margin method has been used in 70% of the unilateral cases and 90% of the bilateral cases.
India has concluded unilateral APAs in 29 months and bilateral APAs in 39 months.
As India is recognized as very creative and aggressive in its transfer pricing practices, this report should be reviewed to test whether an APA should be filed, as well as in other countries for additional certainty.
EY’s Global Tax Alert provides additional details, included for reference.