Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Posts tagged ‘BEPS’

BEPS Country Scorecards

Attached is a valuable reference by Deloitte for BEPS initiatives on a jurisdictional basis for the Americas, Europe, APAC and S. Africa.

http://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/tax/articles/beps-country-scorecards.html

The following information is provided for each included jurisdiction:

  • Current Legislative position
  • Perspective of government
  • Current Tax Authority Assessing Practices
  • Perspective of the Public
  • Unilateral BEPS Actions

As BEPS consultation papers and guidelines are being finalized into final guidance this year, this type of reference is valuable for a comprehensive oversight and awareness.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

UK Diverted Profits Tax (DPT): Start your engines

Clifford Chance has provided an excellent primer discerning the objectives, framework and challenges of the UK DPT that await MNE’s with a commencement date of 1 April, 2015.  The most recent guidelines were set forth in the latest UK Finance Bill, including a narrowing of the notification requirement while expanding the permanent establishment (PE) threshold.  A link to the summary and related PDF detail, as well as recently issued guidance from HMRC, are included for reference:

http://www.cliffordchance.com/briefings/2015/03/the_uk_diverted_profitstaxfinallegislatio.html

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/diverted-profits-tax-guidance/summary-of-amendments-following-the-technical-consultation

This new “tax” is controversial, although its tentacles have already spread to Australia and other countries for similar consideration and implementation.  Additionally, it is worth noting that the OECD is closely watching these actions, remembering the viral discussions that ensued after UK and Germany jointly endorsed the “substantial nexus” approach for intangibles.

MNE’s will need to understand this new initiative and design a course of action, starting with documentation of its actions directly / indirectly in the UK and deciding if it is beneficial, and how, to discuss such conclusions with HMRC.  Apart from potential double taxation, there are many uncertainties introduced by this legislation.

Only time will tell how aggressively HMRC will pursue this “tax,” especially with its commencement on the heels of an upcoming election for which politics and taxes are always intertwined.

Category:

OECD / UN, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

S. Africa’s “reportable arrangements”- BEPS incentivized contemporaneous reporting

KPMG’s summary provides details for contemporaneous reporting (i.e. within 45 business days) of “reportable arrangements” that include acquiring a controlling interest in a company with loss attributes, hybrid debt/equity instruments, contributions to/beneficial interests in foreign trusts, and certain arrangements with foreign insurers.

The hybrid debt/equity arrangements are aimed at tackling BEPS substance vs. form transactions, although this unilateral guidance precedes final OECD guidelines and thereby represents an additional reporting requirement for such instruments, notwithstanding potential taxation of  related dividends or denial of deductions for related interest.

The public notice also provides for “excluded arrangements” where the aggregate tax benefit does not exceed R5M, although the exclusion for transactions where a tax benefit was not the main, or one of the main, purposes of the arrangement appears to have been removed from this new legislation.

http://www.kpmg.com/ZA/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Tax-and-Legal-Publications/Pages/Reportable-Arrangements-Amended.aspx

This new “contemporaneous” guidance provides a very small window for reporting “reportable arrangements” to the South African Revenue Service (SARS).  Accordingly, a review of current and prospective arrangements in S. Africa should provide for timely reporting governance guidelines.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

ICC Policy Statement TP/Customs (2015)

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has released the 2015 update of its policy statement on “Transfer Pricing and Customs Valuation” first issued in 2012 jointly prepared by the ICC Commission on Taxation and the Commission on Customs and Trade Facilitation. The statement supports companies that face the challenge of determining the appropriate related party valuation of goods in the context of disparity between governments’ customs and fiscal policies.

 
The proposals put forward in the statement are designed to help simplify regulations for companies and administrations and also to clarify rules for both parties so as to reduce the negative financial impact linked to divergent valuation. The compliance costs of companies would be significantly reduced if tax and customs administrations were to accept and implement ICC’s proposals that would contribute to a more coherent approach to cross-border trade. These policies would also minimise the risk of penalties that result from opposing views between customs and tax authorities.

 
In February 2015 the policy statement has been offered to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Within the context of the G20 mandated OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) taxation project. The OECD is working on a revision of its transfer pricing guidelines and the ICC Statement will be helpful in this regard.
Furthermore, the policy statement will be included by the World Customs Organization (WCO) in the WCO’s Revenue Package, which provides guidance (tools and guidelines) to customs administrations around the world on their revenue collection. The WCO Revenue Package will be released in spring 2015.

http://www.iccwbo.org/Advocacy-Codes-and-Rules/Document-centre/2015/ICC-Policy-Statement-Transfer-Pricing-and-Customs-Valuation-(2015)/

Best Practice observations: Customs is playing a larger role in today’s environment of tax transparency, although there continues to be a disparity between customs adjustments and transfer pricing determination.  It is hopeful this welcome update will introduce simplicity and transparency while avoiding the “one-sided” effect of adjusting customs or transfer pricing going forward.

Additionally, timing is also critical to review the MNE functional oversight of customs and transfer pricing, ensuring they operate seamlessly and in tandem as the international tax arena becomes more complex.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

European Commission’s Tax Transparency Package: new era

The European Commission published a package of tax transparency measures on 18 March 2015.  The press release and other documents, linked herein for reference, include a tax transparency communication, Council Directive re: automatic exchange of information and Q and A’s of the comprehensive package. Significant initiatives are included in this package addressing corporate tax avoidance and harmful tax competition in the EU, key components of which are highlighted. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4610_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/company_tax/transparency/com_2015_136_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/company_tax/transparency/com_2015_135_en.pdf http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4609_en.htm Press release:

  • The concepts of tax evasion, corporate tax avoidance, “pay their fair share,” aggressive tax planning and abusive tax practices are summarily stated, although corollary concepts for avoidance of double taxation and effective dispute resolution are noticeably absent.
  • Tax rulings will be automatically exchanged every 3 months.
  • Feasibility of public disclosure of certain tax information of MNE’s will be examined.
  • The EU Code of Conduct on Business Taxation will be reviewed to ensure fair and transparent tax competition within the EU.
  • The Savings Tax Directive is proposed to be repealed to provide efficiencies and eliminate redundant legislation in the Administration Cooperation Directive.
  • Next steps: The tax rulings proposal  will be submitted to the European Parliament for consultation and to the Council for adoption, noting that Member States should agree on this proposal by the end of 2015, to enter into force 1/1/2016.
  • Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) proposal will be re-launched later this year.

Tax Transparency proposal:

  • Existing legislative framework for information exchange will be used to exchange cross-border tax rulings between EU tax authorities.
  • The Commission will develop a cost/benefit analysis for additional public disclosure of certain tax information.
  • The tax gap quantification will be explored to derive more accuracy.
  • The global automatic exchange of information for tax rulings will be promoted by the EU.

Council Directive (amending Directive 2011/16/EU) re: automatic exchange of information:

  • Mandatory automatic exchange of basic information about advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing agreements (APAs).
  • Article I definition of “advance cross-border ruling:
    • any agreement, communication, or any other instrument or action with similar effects, including one issued in the context of a tax audit, which:
      • is given by, or on behalf of, the government or the tax authority of a Member State, or any territorial or administrative subdivisions thereof, to any person;
      • concerns the interpretation or application of a legal or administrative provision concerning the administration or enforcement of national laws relating to taxes of the Member State, or its territorial or administrative subdivisions;
      • relates to a cross-border transaction or to the question of whether or not activities carried on by a legal person int he other Member Sate create a permanent establishment, and;
      • is made in advance of the transactions or of the activities in the other Member State potentially creating a permanent establishment or of the filing of a tax return covering the period in which the transaction or series of transactions or activities took place.
  • Automatic exchange proposal is extended to valid rulings issued in the 10 years prior to the effective date of the proposed Directive (Article 8a(2)).
  • In addition to basic information exchanged, Article 5 of the Directive should provide relevant authority for the full text of rulings, upon request.
  • EU central repository to be established for submission of information by Member States.
  • Confidentiality provisions should be amended to reflect the exchange of advance cross-border rulings and APAs.

Q and A’s:

  • Corporate tax avoidance, as explained, undermines the principle that taxation should reflect where the economic activity occurs.
  • Standard/template information for the quarterly exchange of information includes:
    • Name of taxpayer and group
    • Issues addressed 
    • Criteria used to determine an APA
    • Identification of Member States most likely to be affected
    • Identification of any other taxpayer likely to be affected
  • Commission could open an infringement procedure for Member States not following the disclosure obligations.
  • Domestic tax rulings are exempt.
  • The EU could be a global standard setter of tax transparency.
  • The EU Code of Conduct criteria are no longer adequate, and it lacks a strong enough mandate to act against harmful tax regimes.

The EU Tax Transparency Package is required reading for all MNE’s and other interested parties, as it is an ambitious effort to provide globally consistent procedures for the exchange of tax rulings/APAs. Additionally, it is interesting to note the EU’s aggressive actions and timing in its efforts to align, as well as expand, the OECD’s efforts to address BEPS Action Items.  These actions are also intended to be a standard for global setting in the new era of international tax transparency.     As a Best Practice, the 10-year look-back provision for rulings implies that MNE’s should have a similar central database for prior, and future, cross-border rulings.  Additionally, this automatic exchange is another element of consideration prior to formally requesting a tax ruling.    

Category:

OECD / UN, PE, Tax Risk Management, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

BEPS Timing: Mismatch

The Dec. 2016 completion date for BEPS Action 15, Multilateral Instrument (refer to 11 Feb. post) and the completion of the remaining 15 Actions by the end of 2015 is a clear mismatch between issuance of guidelines and an efficient process for implementation.

The multilateral instrument is not projected to be available until the end of 2016, with subsequent enactment by countries in 2017, 2018 or later years.  As a result, countries will need infinite patience to wait for final guidelines, and the corresponding multilateral instrument, without enacting unilateral legislation that may be non-conforming and subject to different interpretations.  Therefore, the result will be increased complexity with more diversity in transfer pricing practices, different interpretations of the arm’s length principle and additional risks of double taxation.

As the pace of BEPS enactment and increased interest by all parties accelerates, it is hopeful that countries will be coordinated in this game of patience to address a new era of transfer pricing interpretation and documentation.  MNE’s should therefore prepare for maximum flexibility to anticipate this divergence.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

OECD’s BEPS progress with developing countries

The OECD has participated in recent regional meetings in Eurasia and Latin America, among others, following through on its plan to assist developing countries with the BEPS initiative.  The OECD publication entitled “The BEPS Project and Developing Countries: From Consultation to Participation” and a summary of the Latin America meeting are provided for reference.

Click to access strategy-deepening-developing-country-engagement.pdf

Click to access beps-regional-network-lac-co-chairs-summary-of-discussions.pdf

Observations:

The summary of the regional meetings highlights important trends, indicating alignment and future deviations from the new OECD guidelines.

The Latin America summary observes the region does not approve of unilateral legislation for the interest initiative, noting individual countries should wait for final guidelines to ensure alignment.

In contrast, the region expressed concerns of their administrative capacity to implement the automatic exchange of information procedures.  However, the countries also expressed a desire to access country-by-country reports, assess whether such information is satisfactory, and evaluate the proposed filing threshold for regional MNE groups.  These statements indicate a potential shift from the new guidelines to possibly implement standards that are region specific, and thereby non-conforming with the BEPS guidelines.  

Accordingly, MNE’s should follow these meetings closely to provide flexibility for future BEPS compliance that will be more complex than it now appears.  

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

TEI comments: BEPS IP & VAT Guidelines

TEI submitted comments on the Modified Nexus Approach for IP (BEPS Action 5) and International VAT/GST Guidelines.  Links to the submissions are provided for reference:

Click to access TEI%20Comments%20-%20BEPS%20Action%205%20Harmful%20Tax%20Practices%20-%20FINAL%20to%20OECD%2019%20February%202015.pdf

Click to access OECD%20VAT%20Guidelines%20-%20B2C%20Practical%20Application%20-%20TEI%20Comments%20-%20FINAL.pdf

Summary: IP, BEPS Action 5:

  • Accelerated  comment process will likely lead to suboptimal results.
  • The singular entity approach to benefit from the IP regime is problematic from a potential restructuring necessity and poses deviations from the arm’s length principle.
  • R&D and patents have been expressly stated as benefitting from the IP regime, whereas other activities are not yet mentioned.
  • Limiting the preferential regime to strictly patents, vs. innovative software, etc., represents a myopic approach.
  • The 2021 expiration date for existing regimes seems too short-sighted for patents that may last 20 years.

Summary: International VAT/GST Guidelines

  • Unilateral implementation of such guidelines erodes the neutrality principle, leading to double taxation or double non-taxation.
  • Recommendations should align with the OECD discussions for a reverse charge mechanism in B2B scenarios.
  • Supplier based documentation requirements should be practical and simple.
  • The statement that a VAT/GST registration does not create PE should be moved from a footnote to the body of the document for clarity.
  • The lack of consistency in application of transfer pricing adjustments for VAT/GST will provide increased risk of double taxation.
  • Final rules that are clear and uniformly interpreted should be implemented via simple, consistent, flexible and proportional guidelines.

TEI’s comments for these two critical topics convey practical and thoughtful considerations for change prior to final implementation.  They should thereby be reviewed to better understand the global context and potential consequences for these actions.

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

BEPS: Asset manager focus

EY’s Global Tax Alert focuses on BEPS considerations for asset managers,  This is a very timely and informative aspect of BEPS, as it will certainly have an impact on asset managers worldwide.  Early review and consideration of three significant proposals is recommended to ensure timely planning and relevant documentation.  The proposals include county-by-country reporting (Action 13), treaty abuse (Action 6), and hybrid mismatch arrangements (Action 2).

Click to access 2015G_CM5228_BEPS%20considerations%20for%20asset%20managers.pdf

The Alert is informative for all MNE’s and fund managers, ensuring the BEPS review umbrella appropriately encompasses direct and indirect aspects of operations, including the investment fund industry.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

BEPS: APAC Network update

The Asia-Pacific Regional Network on BEPS discussed the impact of BEPS on their region in its meeting on 12-13 February 2015, with over 50 senior tax officials from 21 jurisdictions and international organisations attending.  Attendees included the Asian Development Bank, IMF, US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Study Group on Asian Tax Administration and Research (SGATAR).

Twelve direct participants in the BEPS project consist of Australia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Bangladesh, Philippines and Vietnam.  The discussion summary is included for reference:

Click to access beps-regional-network-asia-co-chairs-summary-of-discussions.pdf

Discussion Summary:

  • Participants supported the cooperative and inclusive process for developing countries to support the OECD/G20 strategy.
  • All stakeholders, including MNE’s, should be engaged to address BEPS solutions.
  • Recognition of uncoordinated regional efforts addressing interest deductibility (Action 4), PE (Action 7), transfer pricing issues (Actions 8-10), and transfer pricing documentation (Action 13).
  • The introduction of toolkits, further support, and assistance is welcomed, including their participation in the OECD dialogue process.
  • Further guidelines on dispute resolution were requested by business and NGO representatives.
  • Future involvement will focus on additional engagement, participation and collaboration with various partners.
  • Next meeting is scheduled for 16-18 March 2015.

As the BEPS project proceeds to finalize its deliverables this year, the input of this organization and other interested parties will provide a limited window of opportunity to share views and practical suggestions to ensure consistency for taxpayers and tax administrations regionally and globally.  Accordingly, monitoring (including active participation in) future developments will be critical to form Best Practices for taxpayers and tax administrations.

Most importantly, it will be critical to ensure regional participants do not execute unitary legislation prior to release of the final OECD guidelines to ensure the BEPS process is successful.  The timing of such initiatives should also be a priority for the Asia-Pacific Network, its participants and other countries around the world. 

Related posts:

  1. OECD Tax Inspectors Without Borders (TIWB) and Toolkit: 30 January 2015
  2. Creation of task force and prior meeting of SGATAR: 1 December 2014
  3. OECD BEPS Strategy for Developing Countries: 13 November 2014

 

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

Tax risk roadmap

EY’s extract highlights operational tax risks, Best Practices and a roadmap to implement opportunistic changes.

http://www.ey.com/CA/en/Services/Tax/TaxMatters-February2015-Eight-steps-to-handle-tax-risks

Highlights:

1. Establish and sustain effective tax policies

2. Enhance performance management

3. Organize globally

4. Recruit and retain the best people

5. Implement, monitor and constantly upgrade tax processes and controls

6. Improve data quality

7. Implement the right technology

8. Consider whether existing compliance and reporting capabilities meet today’s needs

Commencing with a global tax policy encompassing a comprehensive tax risk framework, BEPS induced changes are accelerating transparency initiatives and a risk-based focus.

Tax administrations are looking beyond details of data for a country-by-country reporting template for an overall risk assessment of all taxes and relevant processes.  A comprehensive risk framework and system of mitigation controls will also present win-win opportunities for co-operative compliance relationships and discussions of tax risk controls between the taxpayer and tax administration.

 

Category:

Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

BEPS update: Actions 5 & 15

The OECD has updates available with respect to Action 5 (Intangibles), Action 15 (Multilateral instrument) and Action 13 (Country-by-Country reporting – refer to prior post of 6 Feb. 2015).  Links are provided for the OECD’s statement of intent addressing these three actions in particular.

http://www.oecd.org/tax/first-steps-towards-implementation-of-oecd-g20-efforts-against-tax-avoidance-by-multinationals.htm

Click to access beps-action-5-agreement-on-modified-nexus-approach-for-ip-regimes.pdf

Click to access beps-action-15-mandate-for-development-of-multilateral-instrument.pdf

Summary – Action 5 (Intangibles):

  • The Modified Nexus Approach is generally accepted.
  • 30% uplift of qualifying expenses re: outsourcing and acquisition costs in addition to significant R&D activities of taxpayer.
  • Existing regimes will be closed by 30 June 2016 to new entrants; legislation to be effected in 2015.
  • Grandfather rules for existing regimes may extend 5 years (i.e. 30 June 2021).
  • Methodology of tracking / tracing R&D expenditures will be developed.
  • Guidance to be issued re: definitions; patents qualify, whereas trademarks do not qualify.

Summary – Action 15 (Multilateral Instrument):

  • The intent to develop a multilateral instrument to implement specific BEPS Actions is still desirable and feasible.
  • The instrument will be designed to implement treaty-related measures of the BEPS Project.
  • Several BEPS Action items that are known to be inclusive are Action 2 (Hybrid entities), Action 6 (Treaty abuse), Action 7 (PE) and Action 14 (Dispute resolution).  Other Action items may be included after final guidance is developed, including a mechanism to exchange information for country-by-country reporting.
  • Each Action item may be optional, or there may be a minimum number of Actions that a country will have to execute.
  • The instrument is not compulsory and is open to all jurisdictions.
  • Development of the instrument will be accomplished by an ad-hoc group that is under the aegis of the OECD and G20.
  • Outputs are expected Sept. 2015, with final development of the instrument concluded by 31 Dec. 2016.

The timing of 31 Dec. 2016 will be critical to monitor, as many countries may decide to develop unilateral legislation prior to this date.  It is hopeful that tax administrations will not try to (informally) implement BEPS guidelines prior to the time that effective legislation is executed.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

Danish GAAR moves forward

Following up on its intent to introduce a “Super GAAR” (refer to 03 Jan 2015 post), a draft bill has been issued by the Danish tax authorities to achieve this objective.  The new anti abuse provisions would take effect 01 May 2015 with no grandfathering exception.

The draft bill would contain two GAAR provisions:

  • EU tax directive following the EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive (PSD) adopted by the European Council on 27 January.
  • Domestic provision, mirroring language in the PSD, that would apply to all EU Directives, including the Interest and Royalty Directive.

The provisions would apply to existing and new Danish tax treaties based on the premise that treaty benefits are not available in arrangements that include abuse of treaty provisons.

The inherently subjective nature of the GAAR proposals, including the override of EU Directives, will likely be challenged by taxpayers and possibly the courts.  In the interim, Danish transactions should be exercised with an element of care re: the potential application of GAAR that would reverse the tax advantage obtained.

The final OECD BEPS guidelines are yet to be issued, thus inconsistencies may arise between the unilateral legislation speeding into Danish tax law and OECD’s final guidance that aims at worldwide consistency.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

UK Consultation document: Tax Avoidance sanctions

HMRC has released a Consultation document entitled: Strengthening Sanctions for Tax Avoidance.  The document was provided on 30 January 2015, with comments due by 12 March 2015.  The document targets repeat offenders of tax avoidance schemes, and also proposes GAAR penalties and processes.

A link is included for reference:

Click to access Strengthening_sanctions_for_tax_avoidance_-_consultation_document.pdf

Key provisions:

  • It is focused on “tax avoidance” arrangements, specifically targeting “serial avoiders.”
  • A tax surcharge and special measures are suggested for repeated use of tax avoidance schemes.
  • A “name and shame” approach is also suggested, although being wary of reputational damage.
  • GAAR: It is now the right time to reconsider imposition of a GAAR-specific penalty and surcharge.  The document addresses maintenance of the current GAAR Independent Advisory Panel and related guidance, for which a flowchart is provided in Annex B for reference.
  • A series of questions re: Serial Avoiders and GAAR Penalties are provided for comment.

It is interesting to note the surcharge and accelerated payment concepts, also introduced in the controversial Diverted Profits Tax proposal.  Additionally, retaining the GAAR independent panel is a welcome statement that is not proposed for comment.

The inherent subjectivity of “tax avoidance” proposals potentially subject taxpayers and tax administrations to further complexity, additional costs and potential double taxation.  Therefore, all interested individuals and organisations should review this document and prepare comments to address this initiative, as other countries will be following these developments for possible application in their respective jurisdictions.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

OECD Tax Inspectors Without Borders (TIWB): Update

The OECD’s TIWB program’s trial phase ended in December, 2014, with a launch scheduled in 2015, subsequent to a review process.  (Refer to the 9 June, 2013 post).

The TIWB’s objective is to enable sharing of tax audit knowledge and skills with tax administrators in developing countries through a targeted, real-time “learning by doing” approach.  The program encompasses transfer pricing, thin capitalization, APA’s, anti-avoidance rules, pre-audit risk / case selection, and VAT, although customs is excluded. Links to the program summary and the Toolkit (published in Nov. 2014) are included for reference:

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

Click to access tax-inspectors-without-borders-toolkit.pdf

The Toolkit details the role of a TIWB Secretariat as a Facilitator, and roles and responsibilities of the parties to this shared arrangement.  Eligible individuals must meet a 5-year minimum audit experience requirement, and they can be currently working or recently retired.  Most importantly, the Toolkit addresses legal liability considerations and confidentiality restrictions during, and after, their assistance. T

his initiative should be monitored closely, as there do not seem to be prescribed transparency rules for the company under audit.  Therefore, a question for the opening audit could be an inquiry as to the tax administration’s expectations for outside expert assistance from TIWB.  Additionally, an expert with limited experience, coupled with the lack of familiarity with subjective jurisdictional rules for GAAR assessments, for example, may place additional burdens on an expert and the host country in assessing inherently complex rules.

This initiative has a strong likelihood for implementation that further reinforces the OECD’s intent to provide additional guidance for developing countries as complex BEPS Actions are implemented on a domestic level.  Accordingly, it is imperative to review the Toolkit for current familiarity with this program and follow its developments in the near future.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with: