Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Archive for the ‘OECD / UN’ Category

OECD BEPS Action Plan 11: Comments re: BEPS data

The OECD has published comments in response to its Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan 11, methodologies for collecting and analyzing BEPS data. A link to the comments is attached for reference:

Click to access comments-action-11-establishing-methodologies.pdf

The comments are valuable in assessing current perceptions and trends by interested parties, none of which are multinationals. It is interesting to read comments re: public disclosure of country by country reporting information, etc. and the transparency which today’s environment is demanding. The rapid change and volatility of international tax rules, especially transfer pricing, are leading to a tsunami effect, with the roar of its crashing waves extending far out into the foreseeable future.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

The Latest on BEPS: Australia, Canada, Chile, NL, Switzerland and UK

EY’s Global Tax Alert of 29 Sept. 2014 outlines the latest developments of the OECD BEPS initiatives, including BEPS summaries for Australia, Canada, Chile, Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK.  A copy of the Alert is provided herein for reference.

Key developments:

  • Chile has introduced general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR) and CFC legislation, new audit powers and transfer pricing amendments re: business restructurings and thin capitalization.
  • Canada released for consultation several legislative proposals, including thin capitalization and interest withholding tax rules for certain back-to-back lending arrangements.
  • Netherlands will await further BEPS developments prior to taking any unilateral actions.
  • Switzerland has adopted a more restrictive approach when reviewing international structures from a treaty shopping perspective.
  • The UK HMRC formally committed to implementing the country-by-country template, although the timing has not been decided.

As the OECD BEPS developments continue in 2015, it is especially important to view the actions by countries re: unilateral actions prior to final OECD guidance.  Additionally, country guidance may be more restrictive than the OECD recommendations, as well as deciding to impose additional disclosure requirements in their legislation.  The effective dates of such OECD guidance will also not be uniform, via execution of a multilateral instrument and/or domestic legislation.

 

On 16 September 2014, the OECD issued reports and recommendations with respect to the following focus areas set forth in the July 2013 BEPS Action Plan:

Action 1 – Tax challenges of the digital economy (see EY Global Tax Alert on Action 1)
Action 2 – Hybrid mismatch arrangements (see EY Global Tax Alert on Action 2)
Action 5 – Harmful tax practices of countries (see EY Global Tax Alert on Action 5)
Action 6 – Addressing treaty abuse (see EY Global Tax Alert on Action 6)
Action 8 – Transfer pricing for intangibles (see EY Global Tax Alert on Action 8)
Action 13 – Transfer pricing documentation and country-by-country reporting (see EY Global Tax Alert on Action 13)
Action 15 – Multilateral instrument (see EY Global Tax Alert on Action 15)
The OECD also issued an Explanatory Statement providing an overview of developments in the BEPS project.

See EY Global Tax Alert, OECD releases highly anticipated 2014 output of BEPS Action Plan, dated 18 September 2014, for an overview of the overall package of September 2014 OECD BEPS releases.

On 20-21 September 2014, the G20 commitment to the OECD BEPS project was reiterated at the G20 Finance Ministers’ meeting in Cairns, Australia. The meeting communique focused on the documents released by the OECD in the lead up to the meeting, stating “[t]oday, we welcome the significant progress achieved towards the completion of our two-year G20/OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan and commit to finalizing all action items in 2015.” The communique also addressed with approval the continuing developments with respect to the new standard for automatic exchange of information on financial accounts and noted the increasing engagement with developing countries on BEPS matters.

On 22 September 2014, following the G20 Finance Ministers’ meeting, the OECD provided an update regarding its ongoing work on the particular BEPS considerations for developing countries and on the participation of developing countries in the new standard for automatic exchange of information. The OECD released two reports on these topics: “A Report to G20 Development Working Group on the Impact of BEPS in Low Income Countries (Part 2)” and “Automatic Exchange of Information: A Roadmap for Developing Country Participation.”

On 25-26 September 2014, representatives of more than 100 countries met at the OECD for the 19th Annual Global Forum on Tax Treaties. BEPS developments in general, and the tax treaty related issues with respect to BEPS in particular, were a focus of the meeting discussions.

Australia
On 25 September 2014, the Australian Parliament passed previously announced legislation which includes changes to the thin capitalization rules, a rewrite of the exemption for foreign non-portfolio dividends received by Australian companies, and amendment of the foreign resident capital gains tax concession rules. The thin capitalization changes are effective for years starting on or after 1 July 2014. The existing exemption for Australian companies receiving non-portfolio dividends from foreign companies will no longer apply for distributions made after the date of Royal Assent of the Act, and the replacement by the new rules will commence for distributions made after the date of Royal Assent of the Act. The Royal Assent may occur as soon as within days to a week.

See EY Global Tax Alert, Australian Bills affecting financing and structuring become law, dated 25 September 2014 and EY Global Tax Alert, Australian Tax Bills affect international financing and structuring, dated 18 July 2014, which summarized the proposals in the Bill.

Canada
On 29 August 2014, Canada’s Department of Finance released for consultation revised legislative proposals to implement measures announced in Economic Action Plan 2014, including revisions to previously released legislation under which: (i) Canadian financial institutions would be subject to tax in respect of certain offshore derivative “insurance swaps,” (ii) the regulated foreign financial institution exception to the foreign accrual property income rules would no longer apply to non-financial institutions, and (iii) certain back-to-back lending arrangements would be subject to thin capitalization and interest withholding tax rules.

However, although Economic Action Plan 2014 contained a high-level description of measures under consideration to counteract treaty shopping, none of these were included in the revised legislative proposals. The implementation of these measures is being deferred at this time, as the Government will instead await further work by the OECD in relation to the BEPS project.

See EY Global Tax Alert, Canada’s Department of Finance releases draft international tax measures, dated 3 September 2014.

Chile
On 10 September 2014, the Chilean Chamber of Representatives approved the Bill of Law amending tax regulations, based on the latest draft proposed by the Chilean Ministry of Finance on 9 August 2014. The Bill now must be published by the Chilean Government. The provisions of the Bill include, among other significant changes, the introduction of general anti avoidance rules and CFC legislation, new audit powers for the Chilean Internal Revenue Service, and amendments to the transfer pricing rules related to business restructurings and to the thin capitalization rules. Each provision has a specified entry into force date, which varies from 2014 to 2017.

See EY Global Tax Alert, Chilean Congress approves tax reform, dated 15 September 2014.

Netherlands
On 16 September 2014, in a letter to the Dutch Parliament, the Dutch State Secretary of Finance provided the Dutch Government’s response to the reports in the OECD BEPS project that had been published earlier that day. In line with earlier official statements, the State Secretary indicated that the Dutch Government has actively participated in the BEPS project and will continue to do so as part of a broader effort to develop a durable solution that does not harm the Dutch fiscal investment climate. These efforts have, for instance, led to the extension of the application of the safe harbor rules on substance to group financing/licensing companies that do not request an Advance Pricing Agreement and to holding companies that wish to conclude an Advance Tax Ruling. Importantly, and also in line with earlier official statements, the State Secretary reiterated that at this stage it would be premature to take any unilateral actions based on the 2014 BEPS recommendations and that the Dutch Government will await further developments, as the BEPS project is an holistic one and the OECD is expected to provide further recommendations next year.

Switzerland
On 22 September 2014, the Swiss Federal Council presented the draft legislation for the third Swiss Corporate Tax Reform and initiated the consultation phase. The proposed tax reform aims to strengthen the attractiveness of Switzerland as a business location and is Switzerland’s response to the international tax policy developments and the review of preferential tax practices by the OECD in the BEPS project and by the EU. The Swiss Federal Council proposes to replace the tax regimes that have come under increased international pressure by new measures that are fully in line with international standards, such as a Swiss patent box and notional interest deduction on equity. Other key elements of the reform are cantonal tax rate reductions, a step-up upon migration and change of tax status, abolition of the one-time capital duty, unrestricted use of tax losses, and change to a direct participation exemption. During the next four months, political parties, cantons, and interested associations are invited to share their views on the proposed tax reform. Given the magnitude of the reforms under consideration and the legislative procedure in Switzerland, it is expected that the new law would not enter into force until 2018-2020.

See EY Global Tax Alert, Swiss Federal Council initiates the consultation phase for Corporate Tax Reform III, dated 23 September 2014.

On a separate note, as a result of the international developments with respect to the BEPS project, the Swiss Federal Tax Administration has adopted a more restrictive approach when reviewing international structures from a treaty shopping perspective. In particular, the substance (physical and functional) at the level of the foreign parent company of a Swiss subsidiary is now under increased scrutiny through application of the beneficial ownership concept when treaty relief is applied for in Switzerland with respect to outbound dividends paid by the Swiss subsidiary.

United Kingdom
On 20 September 2014, HM Treasury issued a press release “formally committing” to implement the country-by-country reporting template as released by the OECD on 16 September 2014. The United Kingdom thus is the first of the OECD and G20 countries involved in the BEPS project formally to commit to the template, although the announcement did not include any comment in relation to the proposed timing for implementation.

EYG no. CM4759

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

UN Tax Workshop, including BEPS Subcommittee

The UN organized its second workshop on “Tax Base Protection for Developing Countries” on 23 Sept. 2014.  The background materials for the workshop provide valuable insights into the roles that developing countries will continue to play, directly or indirectly, as a part of the OECD BEPS Action Plan.  The final outcome of the project will be a UN handbook.  The topics for the workshop were in parallel with the background materials, focusing on the following topics: (1) Preventing the artificial avoidance of PE status; (2) Neutralizing effects of hybrid mismatch arrangements; (3) Limiting interest deductions; (4) Taxation of capital gains; (5) Preventing tax treaty abuse; and (6) Transparency and disclosure.  Additional information, including the background materials, are referenced at the following link:

http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/tax/2014TBP2

This workshop, and its continuing developments, are significant in assessing whether the OECD Actions will be followed by developing and non-OECD countries in their recommended form and/or if a simpler, more direct application of international tax rules will be pursued.  All interested parties should be aware of these materials and the forthcoming UN handbook.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

OECD BEPS 2014 Deliverables

The OECD has published its 2014 deliverables, referenced at the following link:

http://www.oecd.org/ctp/beps-2014-deliverables.htm

I would encourage all interested parties to thoroughly review the provisions, as well as listen to others as they comment on these significant proposals.

Note that the proposals are not yet enacted into law, which is a focus of the action to provide a multilateral instrument to help facilitate that objective.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

OECD report to G20: Issues re: Developing countries

The OECD has published a report (Part 1) addressing base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) in developing countries and how these relate to the OECD/G20 BEPS Action Plan. A ranking of low, medium or high is assigned to each of the 15 Actions in Annex A re: the impact on developing countries.  Section 5 of the report highlights the primary issues to be addressed, including base-eroding payments, treaty issues, new business models and transfer pricing documentation.

Part 2 of the report, to be presented in September 2014, will (1) confirm which of the Actions are of most relevance to developing countries, (2) discuss other BEPS-related issues not in the Action Plan, and (3) address actions needed to ensure that developing countries can fully benefit from the Action Plan items and how specific BEPS actions may need to be adapted/simplified or supplemented to ensure they are effective for developing countries.

An interesting comment in the Executive Summary states: “The international nature of tax planning means that unilateral and uncoordinated actions by countries will not suffice and may actually make things worse.”  Note that recent unilateral actions by developed countries to advance BEPS initiatives would further corroborate this statement.

Additionally, it is stated that approx. 3,000 bilateral tax treaties operate worldwide, with about 1,000 of these involving developing countries.  This is a significant fact, as the OECD seeks to ultimately develop tools for countries to enact such legislation, notwithstanding the fact that it may take years to achieve global implementation.

A link to the report is provided for reference:

http://www.oecd.org/tax/part-1-of-report-to-g20-dwg-on-the-impact-of-beps-in-low-income-countries.pdf

The report is invaluable as it provides significant trends and challenges faced by developing countries, coupled with potential solutions under consideration to address such challenges.

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

2014 Update to the OECD Model Tax Convention

The 2014 Update, as adopted by the OECD Council on 15 July 2014, includes changes that were previously released for comments, including the meaning of “beneficial owner.”  Numerous additions and deletions to Commentaries on various Articles, including positions of non-member countries, are also included.  A link to the Update is provided for reference:

http://www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/2014-update-model-tax-concention.pdf

Interesting changes:

  • Article 5 Commentary: new views by Germany, Estonia, and Israel.
  • Article 9 Commentary: Hungary (newly added) and Slovenia reserve the right to specify that a correlative (i.e., offsetting) adjustment will be made only if they consider that the primary adjustment is satisfied.
  • The term “beneficial owner” does not have reference to any technical meaning under domestic law, thus it should not be used in a narrow technical sense, rather, it should be understood in its context and in light of the object and purposes of the Convention including avoiding double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion and avoidance.
  • The term “beneficial owner” does not deal with other cases of treaty shopping, which can be addressed in specific anti-abuse treaty provisions, general anti-abuse rules (GAAR), substance-over-form or economic substance approaches.
  • Article 13 Commentary: With respect to paragraph 3.1, Austria and Germany hold the view that when a new tax treaty enters into force, these countries cannot be deprived of the right to tax the capital appreciation which was generated in these countries before the date when the new treaty became applicable.
  • Article 26 Commentary: The Commentary was expanded to develop the interpretation of the standard of “foreseeable relevance” and the term “fishing expeditions,” i.e. speculative requests that have no apparent nexus to an open inquiry or investigation.  The Commentary further provides for an optional default standard of time limits within which the information is required to be provided unless a different agreement has been made by the competent authorities.  The examples provided are to demonstrate the overarching purpose of Article 26 not to restrict the scope of exchange of information but to allow information exchange “to the widest possible extent.”

The Update requires a comprehensive review to determine potential implications, including beneficial ownership restrictions and ways of working by competent authorities.  Such review should distinguish changes to the Articles versus additions or deletions to the Commentary interpreting such Articles.  Note that the OECD BEPS changes will be an addition to this Update.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

UN BEPS Questionnaire: Contrasting comments re: Arm’s length principle

The UN Subcommittee on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Issues for Developing Countries has reiterated its request for comments to its BEPS Questionnaire, copied herein for reference.   Additional time is available for comments submitted by 8 August 2014.

The Subcommittee is mandated to draw upon its own experience and engage with other relevant bodies, particularly the OECD, with a view to monitoring developments on base erosion and profit shifting issues and communicating on such issues with officials in developing countries directly and through regional and inter-regional organizations.

Links to the Questionnaire and responses are provided.  Comments from Brazil, Mexico, Singapore, Christian Aid & Action Aid, and the Economic Justice Network and Oxfam South Africa are posted for review.

http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/tax/Beps/index.htm

Click to access BepsIssues.pdf

The wide divide in the role (and perception) of the arm’s length principle for transfer pricing is very apparent in the responses from Singapore and Christian Aid & Action Aid.

Actions 6 &  7: Singapore’s comments: 
“The continued correct application of the arm’s length principle to allocate profits based on function, assets and risks will help to ensure that profits are allocated based on where value is created.”  

“We would like to highlight that the focus on countering BEPS should be to grow the economic pie for every country, and not let the work be sidetracked by protectionism and development of rules for political expedience.”

Actions 8-10: Christian Aid & Action Aid’s comments:
“Transfer (mis-)pricing is a significant challenge to developing countries, and improvements to current rules need to take place to ensure developing countries can seek appropriate tax contributions from Transnational Corporations (TNCs).  The best solution may be outside of the arm’s length principle however, something that the OECD appears to not want to consider.  We believe that there should be more comprehensive research done into alternatives to the arm’s length principle and how effective they may be for developing countries.”

Questionnaire:

Countries’ experiences regarding base erosion and profit shifting issues.

Developing countries are invited to provide feedback by answering the following questions. Feedback (and any questions about the feedback requested) should be sent to taxffdoffice@un.org. The deadline for responses is 8 August 2014.

1. How does base erosion and profit shifting affect your country?

2. If you are affected by base erosion and profit shifting, what are the most common practices or structures used in your country or region, and the responses to them?

3. When you consider an MNE’s activity in your country, how do you judge whether the MNE has reported an appropriate amount of profit in your jurisdiction?

4. What main obstacles have you encountered in assessing whether the appropriate amount of profit is reported in your jurisdiction and in ensuring that tax is paid on such profit?

The Subcommittee have identified a number of actions in the Action Plan that impact on taxation in the country where the income is earned (the source country), as opposed to taxation in the country in which the MNE is headquartered (the residence country), or seek to improve transparency between MNEs and revenue authorities as being particularly important to many developing countries (while recognising that there will be particular differences between such countries). These are:  Action 4 – Limit base erosion via interest deductions and other financial payments  Action 6 – Prevent Treaty Abuse  Action 8 – Assure that transfer pricing outcomes are in line with value creation: intangibles  Action 9 – Assure that transfer pricing outcomes are in line with value creation: risks and capital  Action 10 – Assure that transfer pricing outcomes are in line with value creation with reference to other high risk transactions (in particular management fees)  Action 11 – Establish methodologies to collect and analyse data on BEPS and the actions to address it  Action 12 – Require taxpayers to disclose their aggressive tax planning arrangements  Action 13 – Re-examine transfer pricing documentation

5. Do you agree that these are particularly important priorities for developing countries?

6. Which of these OECD’s Action Points do you see as being most important for your country, and do you see that priority changing over time?

7. Are there other Action Points currently in the Action Plan but not listed above that you would include as being most important for developing countries?

8. Having considered the issues outlined in the Action Plan and the proposed approaches to addressing them (including domestic legislation, bilateral treaties and a possible multilateral treaty) do you believe there are other approaches to addressing that practices that might be more effective at the policy or practical levels instead of, or alongside such actions, for your country?

9. Having considered the issues outlined in the Action Plan, are there are other base erosion and profit shifting issues in the broad sense that you consider may deserve consideration by international organisations such as the UN and OECD?

10.Do you want to be kept informed by email on the Subcommittee’s work on base erosion and profit shifting issues for developing countries and related work of the UN Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters?

Do you have any other comments you wish to share with the Subcommittee about base erosion and profit shifting, including your experience of obstacles to assessing and then addressing the issues, as well as lessons learned that may be of wider benefit?

 

The insightful Questionnaire, as well as commentaries received, reflect the continuing conflict re: transfer pricing principles to be applied by developed and developing countries.  Additionally, unilateral requests for BEPS comments by countries also reflect the tendency to adopt OECD principles as adapted to local needs.

As a result, transfer pricing documentation will be inherently more complex and non-standardized, while controversies between tax authorities and multinational corporations will multiply significantly in magnitude and scope.

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

OECD BEPS & EU Case Law: Uncertainty ahead

PwC has published a very informative article addressing the impact of EU case law, exemplified by cases from the Court of Justice of the European Union, on the OECD BEPS international tax proposals.  There may be additional uncertainty by EU Member States after the OECD BEPS measures are announced due to the “fundamental freedoms” in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (CJEU), State Aid principles and the EU direct tax initiatives, including the Parent-Subsidiary Directive.  The link to the article is included for reference:

Click to access pwc-eu-beps-july-2014.pdf

The article provides excellent references to current EU Law concepts, including the basic premise that domestic legislation must be compliant with EU law.  Additionally, the OECD proposals for hybrid mismatch transactions, tax treaty abuse and harmful tax practices are discussed against the backdrop of EU legislation.

The article concludes with the takeaway: “The implementation of OECD BEPS proposals within the EU/EEA Member States will only be possible to the extent that those proposals are also compliant with EU Law.  So far, however, little attention seems to have been paid to potential EU Law issues in the OECD’s draft discussion papers, so that EU/EEA Member States might actually risk breaching EU Law.  As a result, companies doing business in the EU/EEA will be faced with legal uncertainty about the lawfulness of implemented OECD BEPS proposals in domestic law or tax treaties.”

As an additional observation, there is a likelihood that the domestic legislation enacting OECD BEPS proposals will not be consistent for each Member State, thereby the legal uncertainty should be reviewed for each Member State as domestic legislation and OECD proposals are implemented.

 

 

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive: One step forward

On 20 June 2014, the EU Economic and Financial Affairs Council reached agreement on modifying the EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive.  The agreement proceeds with the prevention of double non-taxation via the use of hybrid financing arrangements, while agreeing to work separately on an amended General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR).  Links to the current EU Parent Subsidiary Directive (2011/96/EU), a PwC Tax Alert summarizing the proposal and the EU proposals are included for reference:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:345:0008:0016:EN:PDF

Click to access pwc-newsalert-20-june-2014-amendment-parent-subsidiary-directive.pdf

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2010419%202014%20INIT

The amendment is limited to the 28 Member States of the EU, with a similar proposal envisioned in the OECD BEPS initiative.  It is interesting to note the OECD BEPS provisions are being focused within the EU Community, in addition to the international OECD Guidelines.  Timing for this EU proposal is for domestic legislative action by December 2015.

Re: Best Practices, it is prudent to review the EU legal structure for such hybrid arrangements to quantify the effect of this proposal, possibly requiring modification of hybrid debt and/or legal entities.  Additionally, such hybrid instruments in non-EU countries should be noted for the forthcoming OECD BEPS corollary provision.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

OECD Guidelines for MNE’s: A valuable tool in the Tax Risk Framework

The OECD published the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (Guidelines) in 2011, this being the latest version of the Guidelines.

A unique feature of the Guidelines is the implementation of National Contact Points (NCPs), agencies established by adhering governments to promote and implement the Guidelines.  They also provide a mediation and conciliation platform for resolving practical issues that may arise. Chapter XI of the Guidelines, Taxation, that begins on page 60 outlines important concepts including timely tax compliance, cooperation with tax authorities, compliance with the letter and spirit of the tax laws and regulations of the relevant countries, and conforming transfer pricing principles to the arm’s length principle.

These principles should form an important foundation for a company’s Tax Policy and/or Tax Risk Framework, providing transparent objectives in the global tax risk profile.  The link to the Guidelines are provided for reference.

There is also a link to  the Annual Report on the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises 2013, which describes the activities undertaken to promote the observance of the Guidelines during the period June 2012 – June 2013.  The Annual Report outlines the role of the NCPs, and content of proposed violations (inclusive of Taxation), that have been submitted for review.  All OECD countries, and 11 non-OECD countries (Argentina, Brazil, Columbia, Costa Rica, Egypt, Latvia, Lithuania, Morocco, Peru, Romania and Tunisia) adhere to the Guidelines.

Click to access 48004323.pdf

http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/governance/annual-report-on-the-oecd-guidelines-for-multinational-enterprises-2013_mne-2013-en#page175

The Guidelines should be a valuable Best Practice tool in a Tax Risk Framework, as well as the total risk framework of a multinational enterprise.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

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:

Click to access 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.

 

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

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:

Click to access 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.

 

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

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.

 

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

OECD BEPS Action 2 Drafts / Vienna Convention

 

The OECD released discussion drafts on Action 2, re: hybrid mismatch arrangements, of its BEPS Action Plan.  A copy of the press release, therein referencing the documents, is attached for reference:
Numerous comments should  be received in response to the discussion proposals, however I do want to also draw attention to the statements and purpose of the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties, also referenced herein:
OECD Press release excerpt:

19/03/2014 – Public comments are invited on two discussion drafts on Action Item 2 of the BEPS Action Plan.

In July 2013, the OECD published its Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. The Action Plan identifies 15 actions to address BEPS in a comprehensive manner and sets deadlines to implement these actions.

Action 2 of the BEPS Action Plan calls for the development of model treaty provisions and recommendations for the design of domestic rules to neutralise the effect of hybrid mismatch arrangements:

ACTION 2

Neutralise the effects of hybrid mismatch arrangements

Develop model treaty provisions and recommendations regarding the design of domestic rules to neutralise the effect (e.g. double non-taxation, double deduction, long-term deferral) of hybrid instruments and entities. This may include: (i) changes to the OECD Model Tax Convention to ensure that hybrid instruments and entities (as well as dual resident entities) are not used to obtain the benefits of treaties unduly; (ii) domestic law provisions that prevent exemption or non-recognition for payments that are deductible by the payor; (iii) domestic law provisions that deny a deduction for a payment that is not includible in income by the recipient (and is not subject to taxation under controlled foreign company (CFC) or similar rules); (iv) domestic law provisions that deny a deduction for a payment that is also deductible in another jurisdiction; and (v) where necessary, guidance on co-ordination or tie-breaker rules if more than one country seeks to apply such rules to a transaction or structure. Special attention should be given to the interaction between possible changes to domestic law and the provisions of the OECD Model Tax Convention. This work will be co-ordinated with the work on interest expense deduction limitations, the work on CFC rules, and the work on treaty shopping.

The Action Plan calls for this work to be concluded by September 2014. In connection with this work the Committee on Fiscal Affairs (CFA) has now released two consultation documents on Action Item 2 as a single proposal for public consultation.

The first discussion draft (Neutralise the effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements – Recommendations for Domestic Laws) sets out recommendations for domestic rules to neutralise the effect of hybrid mismatch arrangements and the second discussion draft (Neutralise the effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements – Treaty Aspects of the Work on Action 2 of the BEPS Action Plan) discusses the impact of the OECD Model Convention on those rules and sets out recommendations for further changes to the Convention to clarify the treatment of hybrid entities. The recommendations set out in these discussion drafts do not represent the consensus views of the CFA or its subsidiary bodies but rather are intended to provide stakeholders with substantive proposals for analysis and comment.

Comments on these documents should be submitted electronically (in word format) before 5.00 pm on 2 May 2014 (no extension will be granted).  It is the policy of the OECD to publish all responses (including the names of responders) on the OECD website.

Observations:

The Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties has been attached as a timely reference to the role of treaties and the interplay of domestic law and treaty provisions.  It is worthy to readdress these historic provisions as contrasted to the OECD’s BEPS proposals, especially with respect to domestic law override provisions of tax treaties.

The subject of General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) are also of paramount significance, due to the layers of anti-avoidance and anti-abuse rules proposed from a domestic law and / or a tax treaty perspective.  The GAAR provisions are in addition to specific anti-avoidance rules (SAAR) and targeted anti-avoidance rules (TAAR) rules that are already effected into local legislation.  The OECD documents prescribe primary and linking mechanisms between domestic GAAR and Treaty GAAR provisions to ensure consistency and uniformity.  However, such rules should consider the additional uncertainty that the “automatic” rules may generate.

The interplay, and priority, of domestic law and treaty provisions are converging quickly.  As a result, there will be additional controversies as to whether a taxpayer can utilize a treaty to avoid double taxation, and the different interpretations that tax authorities may have interpreting the complex rules.

The OECD proposals are significant in international tax policy and the application of tax treaties vs. domestic law, thereby all interested parties should submit thoughtful and practical comments to the OECD within the prescribed timeline for comment.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

OECD: BEPS Treaty Abuse proposal released for comment

The OECD invites public comments with respect to Action 6 (Prevent Treaty Abuse) of the BEPS Action Plan.

A summary of the OECD press release, the OECD proposal and Best Practice comments are included herein for reference:

Click to access treaty-abuse-discussion-draft-march-2014.pdf

The Action Plan identifies treaty abuse, and in particular treaty shopping, as one of the most important sources of BEPS concerns. Action 6 (Prevent Treaty Abuse) reads as follows:

Action 6 

Prevent treaty abuse

Develop model treaty provisions and recommendations regarding the design of domestic rules to prevent the granting of treaty benefits in inappropriate circumstances. Work will also be done to clarify that tax treaties are not intended to be used to generate double non-taxation and to identify the tax policy considerations that, in general, countries should consider before deciding to enter into a tax treaty with another country. The work will be co-ordinated with the work on hybrids.

The Action Plan also provided that “[t]he OECD’s work on the different items of the Action Plan will continue to include a transparent and inclusive consultation process” and that all stakeholders such as business (in particular BIAC), non-governmental organisations, think tanks, and academia would be consulted.

As part of that consultation process, interested parties are invited to send comments on this discussion draft, which includes the preliminary results of the work carried out in the three different areas identified in Action 6:

A. Develop model treaty provisions and recommendations regarding the design of domestic rules to prevent the granting of treaty benefits in inappropriate circumstances.

B. Clarify that tax treaties are not intended to be used to generate double non-taxation.

C. Identify the tax policy considerations that, in general, countries should consider before deciding to enter into a tax treaty with another country.

These comments should be sent on 9 April 2014 at the latest (no extension will be granted). The comments received by that date will be examined by the Focus Group at a meeting that will be held on the following week.

Public Consultation:

Persons and organisations who intend to send comments on this discussion draft are invited to indicate as soon as possible, and  by 3 April at the latest, whether they wish to speak in support of their comments at a public consultation meeting on Action 6 (Prevent Treaty Abuse), which is scheduled to be held in Paris at the OECD Conference Centre on 14-15 April 2014. Persons selected as speakers will be informed by email by 4 April at the latest.

This meeting will also be broadcast live on the internet and can be accessed on line. No advance registration is required for this internet access.

General observations of proposal:

The OECD proposal provides a three-pronged approach:

  • Treaty statement re: anti-avoidance rule and treaty shopping opportunities
  • Specific anti-abuse rule based on Limitation of Benefit (LOB) provisions
  • General anti-abuse rule

Other OECD recommendations include comments re: Permanent Establishment (PE), tax policy, and broad General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) interpretation (including allowance of domestic GAAR provisions notwithstanding the relevant double tax treaty).  The GAAR proposal provides that obtaining a treaty benefit was one of the main purposes of any arrangement or transaction that resulted directly or indirectly in that benefit.  Note this GAAR proposal supplements the LOB provisions.

Proposals are also introduced to address tax avoidance risks via changes to domestic laws.  Such risks include thin capitalization, dual residence, arbitrage transactions (including timing differences), and transfer mispricing.  Intentions of the UN Model Convention are also introduced for analogous interpretation.  

The proposal notes that treaties should not prevent application of domestic law provisions that would prevent transactions re: CFC rules and thin capitalization.

Finally, the OECD proposal indicates that the treaty should clearly state that prevention of tax evasion and tax avoidance is a purpose of the tax treaties.

The proposal, in alignment with the overall OECD BEPS proposals, is targeted at avoidance of double non-taxation, without a balanced commentary and measures addressing the risk of double taxation.  Additionally, the terms “tax evasion” and “tax avoidance” are used in tandem within the proposal, although such terms are literally construed as having significantly two separate meanings and relative intent.  Finally, the allowance of domestic GAAR provisions in addition to, or in lieu of, treaty provisions and EU Parent-Subsidiary guidelines will promote additional uncertainty re: subjective interpretations of broad proposals that will ultimately lead to increased tax disputes, double taxation and the loss of multilateral symmetry.

This proposal has tremendous significance in the transfer pricing arena that must be seriously considered and reviewed in its entirety, including the possibility for early comment to ensure OECD consideration.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with: