Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps.htm

Click to access OECD.pdf

The BEPS report, previously released, and the new Action Plan are available for public review, with many commentators already providing insight on the Action Plan.

The 24 month Action Plan is comprehensive and aggressive, with tax transparency and disclosure rules likely to be implemented early in that timeline.  The report also discusses an improvement of global rules in developing countries, further referenced by work of the Tax Inspectors without Borders study, as discussed in my 9 June 2013 post.

One very interesting proposal in the report is the development of a multilateral convention to address BEPS issues.  This will allow countries to rapidly implement some actions without formally renegotiating bilateral treaties.  Additionally, Appendix C provides examples of tax planning structures by multinational organizations.

The OECD BEPS report and Action Plan will provide additional momentum and debate for the proposed actions, for which multinationals should prepare an internal action plan to address such initiatives.

Click to access EY_Tax_Transparency.pdf

I highly recommend reviewing this comprehensive publication by Ernst & Young, focusing on strategies and questions Boards should ask to prepare for tax transparency reporting.  One insightful section describes key stakeholders for tax transparency reporting, including consumers, NGOs, Parliamentarians, OECD, and the media.

The publication encompasses the following concepts:

  • Current context for transparency
  • Current tax transparency reporting requirements
  • What others are reporting
  • Information that could be disclosed
  • Challenges to be faced
  • Deriving value from tax transparency
  • Next steps

There is an excellent summary, at the end of the publication, depicting a structured approach for managing your tax profile, outlining ideas leading to a Best Practices strategy.

A Best Practices initiative for tax transparency reporting should be initiated, forming a framework to address challenges and identify opportunities.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013A00124

Australia has enacted tax return disclosures into law via amendments referenced in Schedule 5, Tax secrecy and transparency.  The Commissioner must, as soon as practicable after the end of the income year, make publicly available the following information for corporate tax entities with reported total income of $100 million or more, according to information reported in the entity’s tax return:

  • ABN
  • Total income for the income year
  • Taxable income or net income (if any) for the income year
  • Income tax payable (if any)

All multinationals should develop an action plan, if not already in place, outlining the method by which tax return disclosures are to be reported in Australia and other countries around the world.  The methodology should be aligned with the CFO, Board of Directors and senior leaders of the business.

The tax return information chosen for disclosure will not provide reasons why there may be significant differences between total income, taxable income and the resulting income tax payable (if any), and will likely provide a forum for public scrutiny and questions surrounding noted variances.

Accordingly, critical decisions re: additional voluntary disclosures, responses to questions generated by the disclosures, and other relevant factors should be considered within the context of the global Tax Risk Framework.  Valuable information can be obtained from tax disclosures of the extractive industries, including the impact of indirect taxes and non-tax contributions.

Tax transparency is a rapidly growing trend for which global strategies and Best Practices should be adopted to timely address current and future developments.

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/tax/publications/permanent-establishments.jhtml

PwC has published results from a survey of more than 200 multinationals in Europe and the U.S., focused on Permanent Establishment (PE) challenges and trends.

Survey results include the following:

  • 86% cite increased mobility as a significant trend in triggering PE risk.
  • Difficulty in monitoring business activities, after PE guidance is provided.
  • Do’s and Don’ts provisions are hard to manage.
  • Audit readiness checks should be conducted to reduce PE risk.
  • Tax authorities are exhibiting more aggressiveness in assertions of PE, primarily focused in Europe.
  • Site visits and employee interviews are techniques used more often by tax authorities to identify risks.

My prior posts encompassing PE trends and Best Practices should be reviewed, including 14 April PE Risks and Best Practices, 24 April Global Mobility Alignment, 11 May and 20 May Branch activity risks.

Examples of Best Practices:

  • Confirmation of PE awareness and controls annually by CFO’s / Business Leaders, including Branches and emerging markets
  • PE template to facilitate audit readiness checks
  • PE internal reference guide
  • PE workshops with Internal Audit, Global Mobility and Business Leaders discussing examples of PE and addressing adequacy of controls
  • Discussion of PE cases in the media with regional and global tax teams to accurately and timely inform business leaders

PE risk is still increasing, thus additional focus should be directed to minimize this risk and integrate controls into the Tax Risk Framework.

http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/taxnewsflash/pages/peru-changes-to-transfer-pricing-obligations.aspx

The Peruvian tax authority (SUNAT) has implemented new rules for submission of a transfer pricing study annually by corporate taxpayers with transactions or revenue exceeding prescribed amounts.  This change will be effective for the 2012 year, to be submitted in October 2013.  Previously, as in many other countries, this report was required to be available upon request.

The transfer pricing report is in addition to an information return disclosing intercompany transactions.

This new rule highlights several important governance questions for new guidance on transfer pricing documentation, including the following:

  • How are members of the transfer pricing team (local/regional/global) informed of new disclosures timely for planning and process changes?
  • Are there gaps that could occur, resulting in last minute actions or untimely disclosures?  If so, controls are necessary to mitigate such gaps.
  • Is there an internal or external process documented, and used, to review new transfer pricing disclosure rules on a regular basis?
  • Is there timely engagement with the relevant Business Units to ensure alignment and execution?
  • What procedures are in place to implement new transfer pricing disclosures into the transfer pricing documentation and review process?
  • Is the information readily available, or are system changes required?
  • Have the new disclosures been discussed with the local auditors to ensure alignment?

This topic is increasing in importance, as countries initiate or expand contemporaneous information and transfer pricing documentation requirements.  Such disclosures include identification of transfer pricing methods used for intercompany transactions, assertion that relevant documentation exists and is readily available, amounts of intercompany transactions for goods and services, etc.

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/tax/indirect-taxes/shifting-balance.jhtml

PwC has recently published this report highlighting new challenges and forward looking insights for indirect taxes.  Detailed country summaries are presented for Brazil, Canada, China, China, Germany, India, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, United Kingdom, and the United States.  The article referenced at the end of the post highlights India’s intentions to introduce a GST.

VAT systems are present in more than 150 countries, with VAT receipts representing approx. 20% of total tax revenue in the OECD countries.  As VAT rates are increasing, tax bases are broadening, and EU joint audits with VAT are commencing, indirect taxes are requiring added focus for effective tax risk management.

The OECD’s Global Forum on VAT held its first meeting in November 2012, striving to increase collaboration and establish Best Practices in VAT administration and compliance.  The OECD International VAT/GST Guidelines will be finalized by year-end 2013, studying VAT neutrality, the destination principle for supply of services and intangibles, anti-abuse provisions, as well as enhancing mutual cooperation and dispute resolution mechanisms.

The report highlights Best Practice ideas, including the following:

  • Identifying responsibility and awareness for indirect taxes, including environmental taxes
  • Drafting contracts with provisions for new VAT/GST consequences in different jurisdictions
  • Import and export risks and opportunities for logistic planning
  • Risk awareness for indirect tax consequences
  • Reviewing refund opportunities based on case law precedents
  • Developing a methodology for reviewing and testing VAT characterizations and rate changes
  • Inclusion of indirect taxes as an integral component of the global tax strategy and Tax Risk Framework

http://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/wps/content/nsilib/nsi/documentazione/regime+di+adempimento+collaborativo+-+grandi+contribuenti/pilot+project+-+english+version

The Italian tax administration will be accepting applications until 31 July 2013 for their new Co-operative Compliance program.  The OECD Framework for Co-operative Compliance, as summarized in my posting of 13 June 2013, is intended to bring certainty into the tax filing and controversy process while  developing a win-win relationship.

Mutual cooperation and transparency are the keys to success for this new initiative.

Mandatory requirements

  • being qualified as a “Large Taxpayer” (under the section 27, paragraph 10, of decree-law no. 185/2008, as converted by section 1 of law no. 2/2009), i.e. taxpayers with total turnover or operating revenues not less than 100 million/€, with reference to the tax year 2011;
  • having implemented an organizational model pursuant to section 6 of legislative Decree no. 231/2001 or having adopted a “Tax Control Framework” to manage tax risks

Optional requirements

  • belonging to a multinational group of companies, or to carry out its business activity in Italy or abroad through permanent establishments;
  • having adopted similar cooperative compliance programmes in foreign jurisdictions or having subscribed a code of conduct with other tax administrations;
  • having already entered into initiatives falling within the concept of cooperative compliance in Italy, such as the International Tax Ruling (provided for by section 8 of decree-law no. 269 of 30 September 2003, converted with amendments into law no. 326 of 24 November 2003 and implemented with Regulation of the Director of the Revenue Agency of 23 July 2004) or having adopted the transfer pricing documentation requirements regime.

Note the importance of having established a Tax Control Framework to manage tax risks, a mandatory requirement for this program.

Click to access 2012-13-Canadian-tax-governance-survey.pdf

This insightful survey, published by Ernst & Young, polled Canadian executives from 120 companies to review the tax level awareness in organizations.  The findings include the following observations:

  • 56% of non-tax business unit leaders are unfamiliar with risk management policies.
  • 7% of time spent by the tax function is devoted to tax risk management reporting.
  • 15% of tax risks and opportunities are identified timely.
  • Over 50% of the respondents are planning to improve existing tax risk policies and procedures.
  • Significant areas of tax risk requiring improvement include transfer pricing processes and controversy, foreign tax planning, and legal entity accounting.

The findings should be compared to current Best Practices within every organization.  Some ideas for consideration include:

  1. Develop / review the Tax Risk Management Policy.
  2. Communicate all significant tax risks, and corresponding Tax Risk Management Policy, to business leaders globally.
  3. Prioritize tax risk awareness, including reputation risk, in business reviews and training.
  4. Measure the time spent by the tax function on tax risk awareness and internal controls.  (Refer to 23 June blog posting)
  5. Develop a system to measure tax risks on a quarterly basis to address potential issues timely.
  6. Conduct tax risk workshops with the business leaders.
  7. Review significant risks, noting areas for improvement, and establish a timeline to address such risks.
  8. Address tax risk management as a priority agenda item for the global tax function.
  9. Develop an efficient process to address tax controversies around the world.

Tax risk awareness is a critical issue that should be prioritized within an organization, ensuring alignment with the CFO and Board of Directors.

Click to access item74308.pdf

Click to access Erle.pdf

Two excellent articles are linked to review Best Practices for tax risk management from a Board perspective.  The first article is by the Canadian Chartered Professional Accountants and poses various questions and concepts for Directors to ask.  The second article, approached from a practitioners point of view, was written by a KPMG partner.  A related article is also attached as reference at the end of this posting.

The first article reviews various tax risks, including risks of tax planning and subsequent implementation, financial disclosures, tax compliance and audits.  Examples of interesting insights and questions include the following:

  • Are outside consultants an integral part of tax planning?
  • Are direct, and indirect, tax risks addressed?
  • What are the capabilities of internal resources?
  • Are post implementation monitoring processes in place?
  • What are the trends of tax authorities in major jurisdictions?
  • How does the company keep up with change?
  • Is reputational risk considered in tax appeals or court filings?
  • What is the mindset of internal management in foreign jurisdictions re: alignment of overall strategies?
  • What are the source of tax planning ideas?
  • Have tax saving opportunities been missed?

The second article entitled “Tax Risk Management and Board Responsibility” defines a  tax philosophy and establishment of a Tax Risk Framework.  A tax philosophy pyramid is presented that correlates to tax risk.  In addition, the following components of a Tax Risk Management Strategy are discussed:

  • Strategy
  • Risk management
  • Tax profile, relationships and communication
  • Processes and technology
  • Internal qualifications of tax staff

Both articles are excellent reading, and should form a basis for Best Practices to ensure alignment with Board responsibilities and expectations.

A new forum, open to all members of the Forum on Tax Administration (FTA), will convene later this year to discuss Best Practices for improving MAP.  Topics that may be discussed include:

  • Development of a strategic plan
  • Resource limitations
  • Relationship building
  • Identifying trends in disputes
  • Increasing APA’s and accelerated CA procedures
  • Roll-over adjustments
  • Multilateral case procedures
  • Taxpayer’s involvement in MAP resolution
  • Achieving certainty sooner for a win-win result

This new forum will be an interesting development for all.

http://www.oecd.org/tax/2013-OECD-SG-Report-to-G20-Heads-of-Government.pdf

The OECD report provides relevant information worthy of review, including the following items:

  • 119 member jurisdictions have committed to the Transparency & Exchange of Information initiative (except for Lebanon),
  • Status of ongoing technical assistance and training objectives,
  • Competent Authority database is in place, containing information for over 70 jurisdictions,
  • Measurement techniques to determine effectiveness, and
  • Appendices listing various factors in providing exchange of information, including confidentiality provisions, rights and safeguards.

These notable efforts are ongoing, providing timely and informative information that should be shared.

Tax jurisdictions and authorities are increasing their global focus in all aspects of tax risk, most recently promoting Beneficial Ownership transparency rules and other initiatives at the G8 Conference.  Conversely, multinational tax teams should also be increasing their resources, and time spent, on addressing global tax risks, enhancing internal governance including a Tax Risk Framework / Policy, scenario planning, and informing the business.

We can view this correlation as the increased significance of tax risks, including reputational risk, compared to tax resource allocation for risk governance.  It may also be beneficial to distinguish internal and external tax resources used in the risk methodology.  The comparison may provide interesting results, from which the proper emphasis could be used to form additional Best Practices.  This comparison could also be viewed in contrast to tax compliance and other tax projects for additional perspective.

I invite your comments on this thought, and Best Practices that you can share.

http://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency

The Global Forum has 120 members and is the premier international body re: implementation of internationally agreed transparency standards and exchange of information.  This Forum is very active in today’s tax environment, as demonstrated by its recent activities including:

  • 2nd meeting of the Competent Authorities on 30-31 May 2013, attended by 174 delegates from 77 jurisdictions.  Delegates shared procedures for Exchange of Information networks to tackle tax evasion, tools to enhance effective communication between Competent Authorities, as well as providing opportunities to  share experiences and practices.
  • Regional Training Seminar in Brazil 7-10 May 2013, attended by 70 tax administrators from Argentina, Brazil, Columbia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Paraguay and Uruguay.  Panama and the United Kingdom provided expert trainers, focusing on an OECD overview of Exchange of Information, the 2012 update to Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and its Commentary, and the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance.
  •   Regional Training Seminar in Dakar, Senegal 24-26 April 2013, attended by 20 tax authorities in 8 francophone African countries (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Morocco, Niger, Senegal and Tunisia).  The African countries are recent members of the Global Forum and will have Phase 1 peer reviews in 2014.  Belgium and Qatar provided expert trainers, focusing on the peer review process and preparation for evaluation of legal and regulatory frameworks for the exchange of information.

The activities of this Forum are visibly expanding transparency initiatives and the exchange of information around the world.  The recent G8 conference encouraged all countries to join in order to share mutual benefits.

Regional and global tax teams should review internal processes to ensure global consistency and adherence with internal governance protocols.  Additionally, a dialogue should be established between tax and the business leaders to heighten global awareness and ensure strategic alignment.

Click to access taxtransparency_G8report.pdf

This OECD report entitled “A Step Change in Tax Transparency” was prepared for the G8 meeting and summarizes recent developments, action plans for global automatic exchange of information and a feasibility assessment.

In today’s tax environment the exchange of tax information is quickly evolving and gaining momentum.  This report provides valuable context for discussion.

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/key_documents/eu_vat_forum/index_en.htm

Click to access vat-forum-note-information_en.pdf

The EU VAT forum is a collaboration between tax authorities and business representatives to work on common interests.  The first link provides additional information, including a list of the member organizations that were appointed for a three year mandate starting on 1 October 2012.

Thirteen EU Member States have also agreed to participate in a test case for cross-border VAT rulings.  This program commenced on 1 June 2013 and is scheduled to last until 31 December 2013.  The link provides procedural rules for submission of a private ruling request.  The following Member States participate in this project:

  • Belgium
  • Estonia
  • Spain
  • France
  • Cyprus
  • Lithuania
  • Latvia
  • Hungary
  • Malta
  • Netherlands
  • Portugal
  • Slovenia
  • United Kingdom

It would be beneficial to follow developments of the EU VAT forum, including the test case for cross-border rulings, to build upon Best Practices developed globally and integrated into the tax risk framework.  Additionally, it would be an ideal time to form peer relationships, if not already developed, with business members of the EU VAT forum.