Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Posts tagged ‘Arm’s length principle’

OECD Pillar I: Transform ALP

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) held a public consultation on the Secretariat Proposal for a “Unified Approach” under Pillar 1 of the BEPS 2.0 project on 21-22 November 2019 in Paris at the OECD Conference Centre.

The OECD Secretariat laid out the timeline for meetings of the Inclusive Framework for the end of January 2020 and in June/July 2020, and suggested that, at a minimum, a high-level political agreement on the Pillar One framework must be achieved by the January meeting.

One commonality voiced at the meeting was that the existing global transfer pricing system, based on the arm’s-length principle, needs to be changed and should at least be augmented by some more formulaic rules.

This common voice is expressed in terms of Pillar One re: digital tax, although this concept has also been trending for international tax in general.  It will be interesting to watch this development as the meetings address Pillar Two and a global minimum tax.

Videos of the meeting and other details can be referenced in the EY Global Tax Alert.

Click to access 2019G_005349-19Gbl_Report%20on%20recent%20US%20intl%20tax%20developments%20-%2027%20Nov%202019.pdf

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

TP & Developing Economies: World-Bank Handbook

The attached link provides access to an invaluable transfer pricing (TP) handbook which is an excellent resource for all international tax practitioners/advisors.

With the advent of the BEPS era and new/novel approaches to arms’s-length pricing are voiced, this resource is a great desktop reference with experience gained by the authors in both applying TP principles as well as teaching those principles to tax administrations in developing economies.    

Examples and “boxes” of summary content are provided in the handbook, in addition to a discussion on TP disputes that is inevitable with BEPS Actions and unilateral actions (both legislative and “soft law”) being applied across the world.

A summary of the chapter titles provides a summary of the details therein:

  • TP, Corporate strategy, and the Investment Climate
  • The International Legal Framework
  • Drafting a TP Legislation
  • Applying the Arm’s-Length Principle
  • Selected Issues in TP
  • Promoting Taxpayer Compliance through Communication, Disclosure Requirements, TP Documentation, and Penalties
  • Avoiding and Resolving TP Disputes
  • Developing a TP Audit Program

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/25095

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

European Commission’s new Action Plan

My prior post of 30 May 2015 revealed that the European Commission would be developing a new Action Plan, the contents of which are hereby revealed.

The objectives of the new Action Plan are:

  1. Re-establish the link between taxation and where economic activity takes place
  2. Ensuring that Member States can correctly value corporate activity in their jurisdiction
  3. Creating a competitive and growth-friendly EU tax environment
  4. Protecting the Single Market and securing a strong EU approach to external corporate tax issues, including BEPS measures, to deal with non-cooperative tax jurisdictions and to increase tax transparency

The new Action Plan is provided for reference:

Click to access com_2015_302_en.pdf

5 Key Action Areas:

  1. Mandatory Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB), with the consolidation component included as a second step.
  2. Taxation of profits where they are generated (“However, it is clear that the current transfer pricing system no longer works effectively in the modern economy.”)
  3. Enhance the EU’s tax environment via cross-border loss offset and improving double taxation dispute resolution mechanisms.
  4. Increased tax transparency via an EU-wide list of third country non-cooperative tax jurisdictions and assessing whether additional disclosure obligations of certain tax information should be introduced.
  5. Providing EU Coordination Tools to improve Member States’ tax audit coordination and reforming the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation and the Platform on Tax Good Governance.

The European Commission’s Action Plan clearly reveals a large step away from the traditional arm’s-length transfer pricing principle and toward an economic activity based source of taxation.  This clear divergence, with the OECD and established legislation in most countries, sets the stage for a new evolution in transfer pricing and a hybrid of different approaches by various jurisdictions in the next several years.

Accordingly, the Action Plan is required reading to appreciate short and long-term objectives of the European Commission to unify the Member States.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

US & BEPS conformity: (Un)certainty

The attached letter from the Congressional tax-writing Committees to US Treasury sets the stage for future US BEPS conformity and policy approach.  This letter is especially revealing after the US has declined an invitation to be a member of the ad-hoc group for creating a BEPS Multilateral Instrument, of which over 80 countries have signaled their positive intent.

The letter also questions the positive verbal nods from the US that it has relevant legislative authority to collect the Country-by-Country report, and disseminate it, in accordance with OECD’s intent.

Additionally, the letter confirms that the US strongly adheres to the arm’s length transfer pricing principle, which was in clear evidence during the BEPS proceedings.

Only time will reveal the final answers, however the inward US focus is clearly evident as has been the case for other countries that have already adopted BEPS incentivized legislation that may not conform with OECD’s final guidelines.
The letter is attached for reference, with my highlights for emphasis.

Hatch, Ryan Call on Treasury to Engage Congress on OECD International Tax Project
Lawmakers Push to Ensure Global Tax Law Recommendations Benefit U.S. Interests
June 9, 2015 – PRESS RELEASE
Ryan: BRENDAN BUCK (202) 226-4774
Hatch: JULIA LAWLESS (202) 224-4515

WASHINGTON — In advance of the 2015 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) conference on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) taking place this week in the nation’s capital, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) called on Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to work with Congress to ensure the international tax proposals being considered under the BEPS project are beneficial to American workers and job creators.
“As your BEPS discussions continue and proposals are considered, we strongly encourage you to continue engagement with us and to solicit input from the tax-writing committees,” wrote Hatch and Ryan in a letter today. “We have been monitoring, and continue to monitor, the BEPS project, and we understand the significance it carries in the global community and its potential impact on U.S. workers and their multinational employers. We stand ready to work with you as the BEPS discussions conclude and final reports are issued this year so that we reach good outcomes for the United States and U.S. companies and provide an atmosphere within which we can continue to work towards U.S. tax reform.”

The text of the letter is a below and a signed copy can be found here.

—

June 9, 2015

The Honorable Jacob Lew

Secretary of the Treasury

U.S. Department of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20220

Dear Secretary Lew:

As the leaders of the Congressional tax-writing committees, we are writing to you about the need for the Treasury Department to remain engaged with Congress as you and your colleagues negotiate and develop proposals with member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and others on fundamental changes in international tax rules under the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project.

Congress is tasked with writing the tax laws of the United States, including those associated with cross-border activities of U.S. companies. Regardless of what the Treasury Department agrees to as part of the BEPS project, Congress will craft the tax rules that it believes work best for U.S. companies and the U.S. economy. Close consultation between Congress and the Treasury Department should inform the BEPS discussions. We expect that as we move forward on U.S. tax reform, U.S. tax policy will not be constrained by any concessions to other nations in the BEPS project to which Congress has not agreed.

As your BEPS discussions continue and proposals are considered, we strongly encourage you to continue engagement with us and to solicit input from the tax-writing committees. We have been monitoring, and continue to monitor, the BEPS project, and we understand the significance it carries in the global community and its potential impact on U.S. workers and their multinational employers. We stand ready to work with you as the BEPS discussions conclude and final reports are issued this year so that we reach good outcomes for the United States and U.S. companies and provide an atmosphere within which we can continue to work towards U.S. tax reform.

We appreciate some of the work that your team has done as part of the OECDs BEPS project, especially efforts to defend and advocate certain long-standing tax principles, such as the arms-length transfer-pricing standard. However, we are troubled by some positions the Treasury Department appears to be agreeing to as part of this project. For example, we are concerned about the country-by-country (CbC) reporting standards that will contain sensitive information related to a U.S. multinational’s group operations. We are also concerned that Treasury has appeared to agree that foreign governments will be able to collect the so-called “master file” information directly from U.S. multinationals without any assurances of confidentiality or that the information collection is needed. The master file contains information well beyond what could be obtained in public filings and that is even more sensitive for privately-held multinational companies. We are also concerned about interest-deductibility limitation proposals on the basis of questionable empirics and metrics.

Some recent press reports have indicated that the Treasury Department believes it currently has the authority under the Internal Revenue Code to require CbC reporting by certain U.S. companies and that Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance on this reporting will be released later this year. We believe the authority to request, collect, and share this information with foreign governments is questionable. In addition, the benefits to the U.S. government from agreeing to these new reporting requirements are unclear, particularly since the IRS already has access to much of this information to administer U.S. tax laws. Therefore, we request that, before finalizing any decisions, the Treasury Department and IRS provide the tax-writing committees with a legal memorandum detailing its authority for requesting and collecting this CbC information from certain U.S. multinationals and master file information from U.S. subsidiaries of foreign multinationals. We also request that you provide a document: (i) identifying how the CbC reporting and other transfer pricing documentation obtained by the IRS on foreign multinationals operating in the United States will be utilized, and; (ii) providing the justification for agreeing that sensitive master file information on U.S. multinationals can be collected directly by foreign governments. In the event we do not receive such information, Congress will consider whether to take action to prevent the collection of the CbC and master file information.

We also have significant concerns about many of the provisions included in several other proposals of the BEPS project, including, among others, modifying the permanent establishment (PE) rules, using subjective general anti-abuse rules (GAAR) in tax treaties, and collecting even more sensitive data from U.S. companies to analyze and measure base erosion and profit shifting. These are but a few of the areas where we recommend that we work together to find consensus and identify a path forward for consideration as part of the BEPS negotiations and, if necessary, Congressional actions.

In the coming months, we look forward to working with you with respect to the BEPS project. In the interim, we want to remind the Treasury Department that it has the ability to refrain from signing on to the BEPS final reports, and we expect you to do just that if doing so protects the interests of the United States and of U.S. persons. Many of the OECD’s BEPS project objectives are sound, and international cooperation – as well as competition – in tax policies is desirable. We trust that you agree, however, that precipitous decisions to impose constraints on U.S. tax policy and added burdens on U.S. companies, especially on the basis of weak empirics and metrics, are not desirable.

Thank you for your attention to these important matters.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

European Parliament 24-0 vote for public disclosure: CbC & Beneficial Ownership

The European Parliament recently voted unanimously for public disclosure rules to fight tax evasion, tax avoidance and establishing fair, well-balanced, efficient and transparent tax systems.  A copy of the press release is provided for reference:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20150601IPR61336/html/Development-MEPs-call-for-action-to-target-tax-evasion-in-developing-countries

Summary:

  • All countries to adopt country-by-country (CbC) reporting, with all information available to the public
  • Beneficial ownership information to be made publicly available
  • Call for coordination to combat tax evasion and avoidance by the European Investment Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and EU financial institutions.
  • Request to the Commission for an ambitious action plan, without delay

The outcry for public reporting, currently underway by the OECD, European Parliament and European Commission is increasing exponentially within Europe.  Other countries will obviously follow the EU approach, with perceptions of complicated international tax rules increasing disparity between application of the transfer pricing arm’s length principle.

The CbC reporting, and beneficial ownership detail, should be expected to be in the public domain if this trend continues.  Currently, it is a sign of an incoming tsunami that cannot be completely avoided.

 

Category:

OECD / UN, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

BEPS Action 3-CFC Rules: TEI comments

TEI has provided recent comments addressing OECD’s Discussion Draft for BEPS Action 3: CFC rules.  A link to their comments are provided for reference:

Click to access TEI%20Comments%20BEPS%20Action%203%20-%20CFC%20Rules%20FINAL%20to%20OECD%2030%20April%202015.pdf

Key comments:

  • Lack of definitive guidance will introduce additional complexity, double taxation and inconsistency of treaty applications.
  • Overlap with other BEPS Actions and the role of CFC rules questions new complex rules at this time.
  • Confusion re: transfer pricing rules and excess profits approach with arm’s length principle.

The well drafted comments provide clarity surrounding the complexity and uncertainty for new rules addressing BEPS concerns by interested parties.  The first question therefore should always be: Do we need these rules at this time?

Notwithstanding the Discussion Draft’s proposals and comments by TEI, among others, MNE’s should plan for increased efficiencies to coordinate and report information, while ensuring global consistency for application of transfer pricing methodologies.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

Singapore’s (expanded) TP Guidelines

The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) has published an expanded Transfer Pricing (TP) e-Tax Guide (linked herein for reference) that consolidates the four previous TP guides.  The Guidance adheres to the TP arm’s length principle, while expanding required disclosures in alignment with the OECD BEPS objectives.

Click to access etaxguide_Transfer_Pricing_Guidelines_(Second_Edition)_2015_01_06.pdf

Key observations:

  • IRAS will adjust profits upwards for understated profits, although no mention is made of downward adjustments.
  • IRAS welcomes discussions to discuss difficulties in applying the arm’s length principle.
  • Contemporaneous TP documentation = on or before the tax return due date.
  • Group level TP documentation includes an organization chart of all related parties transacting with the Singapore taxpayer, the group’s business models and strategies, profit drivers including a list of intangibles and legal owners, business activities and functions of each group member with relevant supply chains, business relationships among related parties and group financial statements for the lines of business involving the Singapore taxpayer.
  • Entity level documentation includes a list of related parties to whom the local management reports for its operations, number of employees in each department, business models and strategies, contracts/agreements apart from detailed functional and benchmark analyses.
  • TP documentation exceptions include in-country related party transactions, routine services charged at cost + 5%, APA agreements or de-minimis stated thresholds for transactions and services between related parties.
  • Collaborative engagement methodologies are outlined for the Transfer Pricing Consultation program, by which TP methods and documentation of selected taxpayers will be reviewed.  Examples of high risk transactions are included in Section 7.5
  • Unilateral APAs are not accepted.
  • APA rollback years are acceptable, generally limited to 2 years.
  • MAP and APA methodologies are stated, including factors when IRAS will discontinue the MAP or APA process.
  • Section 16 summarizes updates and amendments of the TP Guidelines.

These guidelines should be reviewed, especially the new TP documentation guidelines as other countries in the APAC region and elsewhere will monitor and possibly adopt similar guidelines.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

EU Commission: State aid investigations

KPMG’s Euro Tax Flash provides a summary of the European Commission’s formal state aid investigations into tax rulings granted by Ireland (Apple) and Luxembourg (Fiat).  This round of investigations follows three investigations, announced 11 June 2014, into alleged state aid granted by Ireland (Apple), Luxembourg (Fiat) and the Netherlands (Starbucks) via transfer pricing rulings.

The procedure is now open for interested parties, including Member States to provide comments to the Commission.

The KPMG Euro Tax Flash and preliminary decisions (English version for Ireland, French version for Luxembourg) are attached for reference:

Click to access tp-eu-sept30-2014.pdf

Click to access 253200_1582634_87_2.pdf

Click to access 253203_1582635_49_2.pdf

Key observations:

  • State Aid – Apple; Section 3.1, par. 46: Any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favoring certain undertakings or the provision of certain goods shall be incompatible with the common market, insofar as it affects trade between Member States.
  • Qualification as state aid – Apple; Section 3.1, par. 47:  The following cumulative conditions must be met: (i) the measure must be imputable to the State and financed through State resources; (ii) it must confer an advantage on its recipient; (iii) that advantage must be selective; and (iv) the measure must distort or threaten to distort competition and have the potential to affect trade between Member States.
  • Arm’s length pricing – Apple; Section 3.1, par. 55: The Court of Justice has confirmed that if the method of taxation for intra-group transfers does not comply with the arm’s length principle, and leads to a taxable base inferior to the one which would result from a correct implementation of that principle, it provides a selective advantage to the company concerned.
  • OECD Guidelines – Apple; Section 3.1, par. 56: The OECD Guidelines are a reference document recommending methods for approximating an arm’s length pricing outcome and have been retained as appropriate guidance for this purpose in previous Commission decisions.

These formal rulings and comments by interested parties should be followed closely, especially in today’s challenging international tax environment.

EU case law and European Commission reviews have a significant impact upon the new international tax principles being established by the OECD and EU.  For example, the general anti-abuse rule (GAAR) provision in the Proposal for the 2014 EU Parent-Subsidiary was ultimately not included in the final version of the 2014 Directive, one reason being that the requirements exceeded the precedents of EU case law and would not be ultimately sustained.

To the extent that new OECD guidelines provide an alternative, or exceptions, to the arm’s length principle, it should have a direct impact upon the precedence for reliance by the European Commission re: transfer pricing issues.

 

 

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

IMF Policy Paper: Int’l Tax Spillover Effect

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has published an interesting paper addressing the impacts that current, and proposed, international tax legislation has on others.  Selected key issues include tax treaties, indirect transfers of interests, interest deductibility, arm’s length pricing, formulary apportionment, treaty shopping, and appendices of tables and statistics.  The paper also highlights guiding principles for international tax design, timely concepts as the OECD is preparing to publish responses to several of its BEPS Action Plan items this coming week.

The paper can be referenced at:

Click to access 050914.pdf

The paper is valuable in addressing tax policy topics and issues, thereby setting the stage for future international tax debates.

 

 

Category:

Transfer Pricing

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:

TP profiles: EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum update

The EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum has published a valuable update highlighting local country perspectives on a common criteria.  The link is attached for reference:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/company_tax/transfer_pricing/forum/index_en.htm#tpprofiles

The common criteria provided by each country is as follows:

  1. Reference to the Arm’s-Length Principle
  2. Reference to the OECD TP Guidelines
  3. Definition of related parties
  4. Transfer pricing methods
  5. Transfer pricing documentation requirements
  6. Specific audit procedures and/or specific transfer pricing penalties
  7. Information for small and medium enterprises on transfer pricing
  8. Information on dispute resolution
  9. Relevant regulations on Advanced Pricing Arrangements
  10. Links to relevant government websites
  11. Other relevant information

Countries included in the update consist of:

  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Bulgaria
  • Croatia
  • Cyprus
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Estonia
  • Finland
  • France (coming soon)
  • Germany (coming soon)
  • Greece
  • Hungary
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Latvia
  • Lithuania
  • Luxembourg
  • Malta
  • Netherlands
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Romania
  • Slovakia
  • Slovenia
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • UK

The information is highly relevant and should be used as a primary resource re: the respective country’s views on transfer pricing, OECD alignment and dispute resolution methodologies.

For Best Practices, the information should be compared with the transfer pricing documentation prepared re: the arm’s-length principle and consistency of audit principles by tax authorities.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

Nigeria: TP documentation to be filed with 2014 tax return

The Nigerian Transfer Pricing (TP) Division of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) has requested companies to submit copies of their Group’s Transfer Pricing Policy.  Additional details of this request are included in the KPMG link for reference:

Click to access tp-nigeria-march11-2014v2.pdf

Although this request is directed towards a “Transfer Pricing Policy” the initiative is an indication of the focused transfer pricing objectives of developing countries, and heightened awareness for application of the “arm’s-length” principle.  The initiative is interesting due to the fact that the request is for a macro basis policy re: arm’s-length transactions between related entities, vs. a detailed template of information that may not have direct relevance on assessing risk from a transfer pricing perspective.

For Best Practices, this request invites multinationals to develop a general transfer pricing policy as an integral part of the Tax Risk Framework documentation, with potential application of a useful documentation tool to provide publicly as applicable.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

OECD: Comparable Data draft released for comment

The OECD has released a paper for comment discussing four possible approaches to addressing concerns on utilization of comparable transactions for transfer pricing analysis.  Written comments should be provided by 11 April 2014.  The following link is provided for reference:  

Click to access transfer-pricing-comparability-data-developing-countries.pdf

The paper will be discussed in two parallel sessions on the last day of the Global Forum on Transfer Pricing meeting of 26–28 March 2014. 

This paper sets out and briefly discusses four possible approaches to addressing the concerns over the lack of data on comparables expressed by developing countries.

• Expanding access to data sources for comparables, including steps to improve the range of data contained in commercial databases, expand developing country access to such databases, and improve access to comparables data in developing countries with a significant number of sizeable independent companies.

• More effective use of data sources for comparables, including guidance or assistance in the effective use of commercial databases, the selection of foreign comparables, whether and how to make adjustments to foreign comparables to enhance their reliability, and alternative approaches to finding comparables.

• Approaches to identifying arm’s length prices or results without reliance on direct comparables, including guidance or assistance in making use of proxies for arm’s length outcomes, the profit split method, value chain analysis, and safe harbours, an evaluation of the impact, effectiveness and compatibility with the arm’s length principle of approaches such as the so called “sixth method”, which is increasingly prevalent particularly in developing countries in Latin America and Africa, and a review of possible anti-avoidance approaches.

• Advance pricing agreements and mutual agreement proceedings, including a review of developing country experiences with the pros and cons of advance pricing agreements and negotiations to resolve transfer pricing disputes, as well as guidance or assistance with respect to mutual agreement proceedings.

The paper is timely, relevant and addresses practical and administrative concerns addressed by developing countries, as well as discussion of the arm’s-length principle.  The items addressed should be considered in addressing Best Practices for transfer pricing documentation methodologies by taxpayers and tax authorities.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

TEI’s response to OECD’s Discussion Draft on TP Documentation & Country by Country reporting

The Tax Executives Institute (TEI) has commented on the OECD Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country by Country Reporting (CbC) discussion draft.

Click to access OECD%20Transfer%20Pricing%20Documentation%20and%20CbC%20Reporting.pdf

TEI has provided strategic and logical arguments in response to requested comments by the OECD for transfer pricing documentation and CbC reporting.  One of the exemplary comments put forth is that the CbC reporting template should be the last item for completion, based upon actions of the other items, to achieve maximum efficiency, relevance and avoidance of duplication in work efforts.

The TEI comments should be read by all multinationals and interested parties to further understand the business rationale and inherent complexity of the OECD proposal that may lead tax authorities to deviate from the arm’s length principle based solely on the CbC information provided.

 

 

 

 

Category:

OECD / UN, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

UN requests input: Practical Manual on TP for Developing Countries

The UN Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters published the UN Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries in 2012.  A new Subcommittee was formed on Article 9, Associated Enterprises, which will draft additional chapters on intra-group services, management fees and intangibles.  The letter for assistance is referenced herein:

Click to access InputUNTPmanual.pdf

The Subcommittee invites input into the Manual for this drafting exercise, and aims to consider such comments in the update of the Manual.  Input from developing countries in particular is requested, and non-governmental organizations and academics in the policy and administration of transfer pricing, to provide clear and workable guidance.

The letter reiterates the operation of Article 9 of the UN Model Convention and the arms-length principle embodied therein.

As stated at the conclusion of the letter, “As agreed during the 2013 Annual Session of the UN Committee, wide input is sought into the next update of the Manual to ensure its effectiveness for developing countries seeking to address transfer pricing issues in accordance with Article 9.”

Written input is requested no later than 28 February 2014, with any questions addressed to Michael Lennard, Secretary of the UN Tax Committee.  

This request aids transparency, and comprehensive understanding, into the evolving issues of intra-group services, management fees and intangibles.

All multinationals should consider this important request, and follow developments of the UN Committee as it receives comments and drafts additional guidance.  It is noted that the letter sought to emphasize the arms-length principle of transfer pricing.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with: