The OECD report cited above illustrates Africa’s progress re: fighting tax evasion/illicit financial flows via transparency and exchange of information.
The report includes 38 African countries, co-produced by the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, African Union Commission, and African Tax Administration Forum, covers the activities in 2021.
If you are doing business in Africa, this report is a very worthwhile read.
The OECD provided this guidance in April, 2020, although the PE issue remains in many countries due to the COVID-19 crisis. The guidance revisits OECD PE guidelines and commentary, and also represents opportunities to revisit potential PE issues for employees working from home as companies adopt regional and global work from home policies.
The document highlights the fact that temporary COVID-19 interruptions should not change a permanent establishment (PE) determination, although tax administrations should publish more guidance on their domestic PE laws and determinations.
Home offices, agency PE and construction site PE situations are addressed. Summaries are also provided for place of effective management (POEM)/dual residence, income tax considerations for cross-border workers, and treaty residence issues.
The guidance is a valuable read, especially as countries are now starting to address these issues with more focus. The diminished fiscal growth may also change the direction of penalty abatement, especially in areas that may subject to interpretation.
Finland has interpreted the “new” guidance for Financial Transactions as merely a clarification of prior law.
This interpretation is not novel, and is a position sometimes taken in an audit, rightly or wrongly, for which taxpayers should be aware.
In tax administration statement No. VH/3605/00.01.00/2020, published July 1, Finland’s tax agency explained the relevance of the newly added chapter 10 of the OECD transfer pricing guidelines on financial transactions. With the sole exception of the new guidance on the relevance of a parent company’s credit rating in determining the credit rating of another group member for purposes of pricing intercompany debt, chapter 10 will be applied both prospectively and retrospectively, according to the statement. This includes the guidance on cash pooling, guarantees, captive insurance, and determination of risk-free and risk-adjusted returns.
“The new chapter 10 of the OECD transfer pricing guidelines on transfer pricing for financial transactions does not, in the opinion of the tax administration, contain fundamental new interpretative guidance, except for [determining] the creditworthiness of a separate company. Therefore, the guidelines can otherwise be used as a source of interpretation for tax years ended before the guidelines were published,” the statement says.
The UK House of Commons Notice of Amendments, as of 29 June 2020, includes an interesting proposed amendment re: Country-by-Country (CbC) reporting. A CbC report would be submitted as part of the UK group’s tax strategy for taxpayers subject to the DST.
The CbC public transparency initiative was included in proposed legislation in other countries, including France and the U.S. These proposals were never finalized, and the UK proposal, for certain groups, may be nearing certainty.
McDermott Will & Emery’s (MWE) informative article presents basic reporting attributes for DAC6 reporting that may be a good reference tool in understanding this reporting quagmire, which seems to get deeper as more countries publish their rules and ordinary transactions are surfaced for inclusion to avoid penalties.
https://www.mwe.com/insights/top-10-things-you-need-to-know-about-dac6/
The Swedish Government issued, on 4 February 2020, a final bill to Parliament implementing the European Union (EU) Directive on the mandatory disclosure and exchange of cross-border tax arrangements (referred to as DAC6 or the Directive).
An earlier draft was issued in December 2019, the final legislation is expected to be enacted in March 2020, and penalties apply after it goes into force July 1, 2020.
EU Member States were to adopt and publish national laws required to comply with the Directive by 31 December 2019. Sweden did not meet this deadline. This major miss of the OECD deadlines for a complex, subjective and arguably far-reaching disclosure legislation brings forth the question: Why is there not a similar delay for implementation by taxpayers and reporting parties? Unfortunately, the OECD has not provided any comments on this mismatch of Member State responsibilities and taxpayer obligations.
The scope of the taxes covered under the Swedish new draft legislation is fully aligned with the Directive and applies to all taxes except VAT, customs duties, excise duties and compulsory social security contributions.
In accordance with DAC6, the main benefit test (MBT) will be satisfied if it can be established that the main benefit or one of the main benefits which, having regard to all relevant facts and circumstances, a person may reasonably expect to derive from an arrangement, is the obtaining of a tax advantage.
The Government’s explanatory notes indicate that a “tax advantage” includes a tax advantage outside of Sweden (and there is no suggestion that such tax advantage must arise in respect of EU taxes).
The Government further concludes that there is no requirement that the tax advantage occurs during the current fiscal year, it can occur also in the future, for example, in the form of deferred taxation. It states, however, that it must be a tax advantage based on current rules.
DAC6 is complex, subjective and frustrating as each Member State applies their own interpretation of the final rules, as well as reporting formats.
Taxpayers with operations or transactions affecting Sweden, or other Member States, will likely over-report transactions for the initial period, and hope for further clarifications in the near future. However, penalty consequences are so significant with respect to each (subjective) reportable arrangement that some companies may find it difficult to prove the negative – that each arrangement was reported timely.
Click to access 2020G_000817-20Gbl_Sweden%20issues%20final%20MDR%20proposal%20to%20Parliament.pdf
The OECD report to G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, resulting from the recent meeting in Riyadh this month, is attached for reference.
The report highlights that BEPS will continue to be a focus through 2025, indicating the increased transparency and reporting that is envisioned.
The recent issues of Pillar One and Two reflecting digital and global minimum taxation are addressed, based on the perception that these methodologies are a “must have” and not a “nice to have,” in the face of unilateral taxation efforts already underway.
OECD has published the December 20109 update for implementation of country-by-country reporting (CbCR).
The table of contents conveniently provides the date for the updating of the relevant sections. The local filing section indicates a December 2019 update.
The guidance link is referenced for review.
Click to access guidance-on-the-implementation-of-country-by-country-reporting-beps-action-13.pdf
The OECD/G20d BEPS Project has published: Harmful Tax Practices – 2018 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings, referenced herein. This is the third annual peer review of the transparency framework. It covers individual reports for 112 jurisdictions, including 20 jurisdictions reviewed for the first time.
The transparency framework requires spontaneous exchange of information on five categories of taxpayer-specific rulings: (i) rulings related to certain preferential regimes, (ii) unilateral advance pricing arrangements (APAs) or other cross-border unilateral rulings in respect of transfer pricing, (iii) rulings providing for a downward adjustment of taxable adjustment of taxable profits (iv) PE rulings and (v) related party conduit rulings.
The requirement to exchange information on the rulings in the above categories includes certain past rulings as well as future rulings, pursuant to pre-defined periods which are outlined in each jurisdiction’s report and that varies according to the time when a certain jurisdiction has joined the Inclusive Framework or has been identified as a Jurisdiction of Relevance. The exchanges occur pursuant to international exchange of information agreements, which provide the legal conditions under which exchanges take place, including the need to ensure taxpayer confidentiality.
The OECD has now two proposals in process: Pillar One addresses the digital economy and Pillar Two sets forth a global minimum tax system; global anti-base erosion (GloBE) proposal. The proposals are linked herein for reference.
Both proposals may have one or more legal entities of a multinational taxed on more than one approach, whether they have a digital business segment, and also dependent on the countries where it is taxed notwithstanding the type of business it operates.
This represents a new era of BEPS, and one that demands attention to as the proposals move forward.
Pillar One summary
Pillar Two Summary
Under Pillar Two, the Members of the Inclusive Framework have agreed to explore an approach that leaves jurisdictions free to determine their own tax system, including whether they have a corporate income tax and where they set their tax rates, but considers the right of other jurisdictions to apply the rules explored further below where income is taxed at an effective rate below a minimum rate. Within this context, and on a without prejudice basis, the members of the Inclusive Framework have agreed a programme of work that contains exploration of an inclusion rule, a switch over rule, an undertaxed payment rule, and a subject to tax rule. They have further agreed to explore, as part of this programme of work, issues related to rule co-ordination, simplification, thresholds, compatibility with international obligations and any other issues that may emerge in the course of the work.
Members of the Inclusive Framework agree that any rules developed under this Pillar should not result in taxation where there is no economic profit nor should they result in double taxation.
This part sets out the global anti-base erosion (GloBE) proposal which seeks to address remaining BEPS risk of profit shifting to entities subject to no or very low taxation It first provides background including the proposed rationale for the proposal and then summarises the mechanics of the proposed rules together with a summary of the issues that will be explored as part of the programme of work.
While the measures set out in the BEPS package have further aligned taxation with value creation and closed gaps in the international tax architecture that allowed for double non-taxation, certain members of the Inclusive Framework consider that these measures do not yet provide a comprehensive solution to the risk that continues to arise from structures that shift profit to entities subject to no or very low taxation. These members are of the view that profit shifting is particularly acute in connection with profits relating to intangibles, prevalent in the digital economy, but also in a broader context; for instance group entities that are financed with equity capital and generate profits, from intra-group financing or similar activities, that are subject to no or low taxes in the jurisdictions where those entities are established.
Click to access public-consultation-document-secretariat-proposal-unified-approach-pillar-one.pdf
Proposed Regulations were issued for cloud computing and digital transactions; this is an especially important area re: sourcing of income, definitions, etc. especially in light of France and others looking to implement a digital services tax.
Publication 5188 was revised re: FATCA data reporting.
OECD released Peer 2 review reports re: re: BEPS Action 14 (dispute resolution). Interestingly, some US treaties include a MAP provision, although not all are consistent with the minimum standard.
The recently concluded G20 Leaders’ Summit continues to endorse the OECD’s digital project, which includes future debates on nexus allocations, profit allocations and minimum tax.
EY’s Global Tax Alert highlights these developments, as well as remind international tax colleagues to continually monitor these important developments.
EY’s Global Tax Alert highlights the recent BEPS developments, including the country-specific Multilateral Instruments (MLIs) with varying changes to its covered treaties and other treaty provisions.
It is noteworthy, at these MLIs approach legislation targets, that it is no longer intuitive as to how a country’s treaty provisions interact with other treaty partners, apart from general guiding principles that will vary as to the relevant details therein.
UN developments; In June 2019, the Report on the Eighteenth Session of the Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters (Committee), which was held by the United Nations (UN) on 23-26 April 2019 in New York, was released. The report describes a number of substantive issues related to tax cooperation in tax matters that were discussed during the session. Among others, the session addressed: (i) the next update of the UN Model Double Taxation Convention between developed and developing countries; (ii) the update of the UN Transfer Pricing (TP) Manual; (iii) dispute avoidance and resolution; and (iv) tax consequences of the digitalized economy.
African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF): In June 2019, the African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF) issued a paper on “The Place Of Africa In The Shift Towards Global Tax Governance: Can the taxation of the digitalised economy be an opportunity for more inclusiveness?” (the paper). The paper provides an overview of the current international tax governance landscape and inroads towards inclusiveness.
Country updates: Austria, Russia, Bulgaria, Canada, Finland, Guernsey, India, Ireland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Israel, China, Italy, Myanmar, New Zealand, Panama, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, and Zimbabwe.
Click to access 2019G_003051-19Gbl_The%20Latest%20on%20BEPS%20-%2028%20June%202019.pdf
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) have enacted new economic substance requirements that entered into force at the end of April 2019.
In response to EU Code of Conduct Group (COCG) initiatives, the governments of Bahamas, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands (BVI), Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey, Mauritius and Seychelles introduced economic substance rules with effect from 1 January 2019. The rules are based on the guidance and requirements issued by the EU and the OECD, and are designed to ensure that companies operating in a low or no corporate tax jurisdiction have a substantial purpose other than tax reduction and an economic outcome that is aligned with value creation. To align with the international standards, the UAE has now enacted substance rules.
To meet the economic substance requirement, companies will generally need to satisfy the following three tests:
Companies with UAE operations, especially without adequate substance, should review the new rules or administrative penalties or reregistration.
EY’s Global Tax Alert provides additional details for reference.
Click to access 2019G_003050-19Gbl_UAE%20enacts%20economic%20substance%20rules.pdf
Not awaiting the OECD’s proposals for which a Workplace will be delivered in 2020, implementation following that several years later, New Zealand seeks to propose a 2-3% Digital Services Tax (DST) in the interim. Public comments will be accepted by July 18th. The Government discussion document and EY’s Global Tax Alert provide details, as referenced herein.
Discussion document highlights:
The Government is committed to ensuring everyone pays their fair share of tax, including digital multinationals. Achieving this will require changes to the current tax rules. There are two options for this:
In summary, New Zealand is not patient to wait for OECD rules, wishes to implement a transition tax in the interim and plans to repeal this tax with the OECD solution when it becomes effective.
Click to access 2019G_002780-19Gbl_Indirect_New%20Zealand%20considers%20Digital%20Services%20Tax.pdf
Click to access 2019-dd-digital-economy.pdf
Strategizing Multinational Tax Risks 
You must be logged in to post a comment.