Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Archive for February, 2018

EU: CCTB / CCCTB (It’s back!)

The concepts of Common Corporate Tax Base (CCTB) and Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) once again emerge as a perceived solution to tax the Member States via a “digital presence” and commonality in computing tax liabilities of the EU Member States.

These proposals have emerged in prior years, now with a digital presence emphasis, although such measures have required a unanimous vote which is difficult to achieve.  However, this trend is always worth watching as the public perception may help to sway those countries that strive to protect their sovereignty over taxation.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20180219IPR98113/new-eu-corporate-tax-plan-embracing-digital-presence-approved-in-committee

EU Taxe 3 probe: Paradise Lost

The EU Parliament will open an inquiry, Taxe 3, into financial crime, tax evasion and tax avoidance as a follow-up to the unfinished work released from the Paradise Papers.  A special committee of 45 MEPs will spend a year on this project, with a primary focus on VAT fraud via offshore tax havens.

This development continues the trend to identify potential abuses, albeit via legal sovereign laws and/or intentional illegal tax evasion.

Thus, the reputational risk of all multinationals is still at the forefront of today’s news.  This development should be monitored for transparency and spill-over effects.  

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/08/paradise-papers-eu-parliament-votes-launch-tax-inquiry

US developments: US Tax Act

EY’s referenced Global Tax Alert shares Treasury’s position on pending updates, as well as the European Commission (EC) questionnaire being developed for the FDII incentive of the US Tax Act.

The GILTI provision of the Tax Act is admittedly very complex, even more so by the legislation that it is to be computed on a shareholder legal ownership chain basis, vs. consolidated group basis as the transition tax.  This may produce non-intuitive results, and Treasury should provide an update in 4-6 weeks on this point.  However, for purposes of calculating the annual effective tax rate for the first quarter, a taxpayer may need to be ready for calculation on a shareholder and group basis for timely preparation and reporting.

As expected, the European Commission is preparing questionnaires to multinationals to gauge the impact of the FDII.  This particular provision was envisioned as being a driver of opposing international views and analyses.  This provision is important to monitor going forward, as well as not putting reorganization structures in place that cannot be reversed if this provision would be repealed.

Finally, the deemed repatriation transition tax is not expected to change significantly.  However, there is not universal certainty about the ability to deduct pro-rata foreign taxes on a November 2 calculation, vs. Dec. 31, for a foreign corporation.

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Report_on_recent_US_international_tax_developments_-_23_February_2018/$FILE/2018G_01028-181Gbl_Report%20on%20recent%20US%20international%20tax%20developments%20-%2023%20Feb%202018.pdf

UK DPT: Round 2 review

HMRC is now reviewing diverted profit tax cases in round 2: citing the following EY’s link referenced herein:

There are already 100+ DPT cases ongoing and hundreds more “Large” and “Mid-Sized” cases will now be reviewed and enquiries launched in the next 12 to 18 months. Market intelligence suggests a particular focus on Mid-Sized cases, and on sectors including life sciences, oil and gas, and mining and metals. HMRC is also investigating a number of captive insurance arrangements within large groups.

As a reminder, DPT is aimed at groups that use what HMRC sees as contrived arrangements to circumvent rules on permanent establishment (PE) and transfer pricing. DPT is intended to address two broad situations:

  • A UK company (or UK PE of a foreign company) uses entities or transactions that lack economic substance to exploit tax mismatches to reduce effective taxation to below 80% of rate otherwise payable in the UK.
  • A person carries on activity in the UK in connection with the supply of goods, services or other property by a foreign company and that activity is designed to ensure that the foreign company does not create a PE in the UK.

 

Note, the UK DPT is not arguable on a tax treaty basis, and it is based on the concept of pay now, to be resolved later.  It was also enacted as a deterrent for taxpayers to start paying regular tax, vs. no tax, as a DPT was seen as an avenue to avoid the additional tax and controversy.  Thus, it is prudent to review any potential instances of DPT.  

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/UK_Tax_Authority_begins_second_round_of_enquiries_on_Diverted_Profits_Tax/$FILE/2018G_00778-181Gbl_UK%20TA%20begins%20second%20round%20of%20enquiries%20on%20Diverted%20Profits%20Tax.pdf

GILTI: Shareholder test

The global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) provision in the US Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Tax Act) was legislated based on the principal of each relevant US, or relevant, shareholder.  This contrasts with the US consolidated group approach for the Sec. 965 repatriation tax, thus will/should both be consistent?

Currently, a planning review of the US/relevant shareholders may be dictated based on the types of controlled foreign corporation (CFCs) in that particular shareholder chain.  However, there has been acknowledgment of this mismatch for ownership tests, and a possibility that the GILTI provisions may also conform to a US consolidated group approach.

Pending further guidance, it may be prudent to calculate the GILTI effect on both approaches and take advantage of the 1-year SEC measurement period for public companies for more definitive rules.  However, US public MNE’s should review the potential guidance to be issued for Q1, with clarity as to whether a reasonable amount will be calculated as part of the Annual ETR process, or omitted therefrom.

Based on the complexity of this provision, additional challenges are present if the current shareholder chain approach is not changed.  Notwithstanding this aspect, there are many complexities involved with this calculation to derive a reasonable amount or a number which is ultimately final and certain.

Debt/cap review: Finland/US/…

Finland is expanding its rules on interest deductibility, including additional breadth over the OECD/BEPS Actions.  Finland is following many other countries, in disallowing such deductions while not providing a deferral/exemption of interest income in the related jurisdiction for interest income.

Additionally, US tax reform has also introduced new interest limitation rules, based upon a 30% tax adjusted EBITDA concept.

This is the ideal time to review one’s capital structure worldwide; is it achieving the economic interests that were in place?  Most MNE’s will be affected in one or more countries from the BEPS, and expanded BEPS, actions by many countries.  The expanded legislative framework dictates a new review of global capital structures.

https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/insights/2018/01/tnf-finland-proposed-changes-to-interest-deduction-limitation-rules.html

%d bloggers like this: