Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Posts tagged ‘best practices’

APAs, MAP, Self-Assessment: Vietnam update & Best Practice ideas

Vietnam has recently adopted regulations on Mutual Agreement Procedures (MAP) and Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs), with additional transfer pricing measures.    A link to the informative summary prepared by KPMG is provided as reference:

http://www.internationaltaxreview.com/Article/3319685/Vietnam-Getting-up-to-speed-in-Vietnam.html

Key Highlights:

  • The APA negotiation and conclusion procedures, consisting of five steps, is expected to take nine months from submission to a concluded APA.
  • Formal guidance has been issued for MAP implementation.
  • Related party transaction disclosure is to be submitted with 2014 tax returns, based on a self-assessment process with contemporaneous documentation to effectively shift the burden of proof to the tax authorities.

Re: Best Practices, transfer pricing opportunities and documentation requirements, by Vietnam as well as all other countries, should be mapped to formulate new audit defense strategies, cooperative compliance ideas and transfer pricing governance guidelines.

In today’s volitive transfer pricing environment, a member of every multinational company’s global tax department should have responsibility for a real-time assessment of all new developments, thereby providing a significant value-add for legal structuring, debt financing, transfer pricing documentation, and audit defense strategies to avoid double taxation.  To the extent such resources are not being focused, a cost/benefit analysis of missed opportunities may be helpful to achieve additional Best Practice methodologies.

 

 

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive: One step forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

Transfer pricing documentation & BEPS: Refresh strategy

As time is of the essence for various OECD BEPS proposals to be made public, the interim time gap may be an excellent time to refresh global transfer pricing documentation strategies.  Several questions that may be addressed in a transparent and critique perspective include the following:

  • Have each of the BEPS proposals been matched to current TP methodology, questioning the future state of global TP documentation?
  • For current cooperative compliance relationships, is a discussion contemplated / scheduled to discuss the potential impacts of BEPS on the ongoing ways of working, including TP documentation?
  • Are future cooperative compliance relationships in focus, aligned with BEPS initiatives, especially among countries seeking unilateral legislative actions re: General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) implementation, etc.?
  • Are the attributes of a GAAR, including a taxpayer’s responsibility for GAAR compliance, being considered globally and /or in local country files?
  • Should compliance roles and responsibilities of TP compliance change re: internal / external resources due to BEPS with additional complexities envisioned?
  • If a Master File and Local Country file methodology is not currently in place, will there be a global and/or regional shift to such methodology?  What is the proposed timing for change?
  • Are the local tax return disclosures re: TP aligned with that country’s TP documentation?
  • What tax team / TP resources are being aligned to address the BEPS initiatives and proposed documentation?
  • Are tax policy statements of the Tax Risk Framework being reviewed for desired TP transparency?
  • Have there been “idea” meetings to discuss next steps in a creative atmosphere?

A BEPS / TP review will be valuable in aligning future vision, flexibility and transparency in today’s volatile atmosphere of TP assumptions and perceptions.

 

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

European Commission report: TP adjustments/audit plan

The European Commission published a report 4 June 2014 on the work of the EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum in the period July 2012 to January 2014.  The report highlights the effect, including double taxation, of secondary and compensating adjustments, in addition to a flowchart for a recommended transfer pricing audit plan.  The link to this report is included for reference, with key excerpts from the report:

Click to access com(2014)315_en.pdf

Secondary adjustments

The report presents the general aspects of secondary adjustments and gives recommendations on how to deal with possible double taxation in this context. Member States in which secondary adjustments are not compulsory are advised to refrain from making them in order to avoid double taxation. Member States in which secondary adjustments are compulsory are advised to provide ways and means to avoid double taxation.

Drawing on the EU Parent Subsidiary Directive (PSD) the report recommends characterising secondary adjustments within the EU as constructive dividends or constructive capital contributions. Accordingly, the PSD ensures that no withholding tax is imposed on the distribution from a subsidiary to its parent within the EU. For cases not covered by the PSD, the report describes and recommends the procedure of repatriation in the context of a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) available under the respective applicable Double Taxation Agreement (DTA) or even at an earlier stage. Further it is recommended that Member States should refrain from imposing a penalty with respect to the secondary adjustment.

Compensating adjustments

The report recommends that Member States should accept a compensating adjustment initiated by the taxpayer (upward as well as downward adjustment), if the taxpayer has fulfilled certain conditions: the profits of the concerned related enterprises are calculated symmetrically, i.e. enterprises participating in a transaction report the same price for the respective transaction in each of the Member States involved; the taxpayer has made reasonable efforts to achieve an arm’s length outcome; the approach applied by the taxpayer is consistent over time; the adjustment has been made before the tax return is filed; in case a taxpayer’s forecast differs from the result achieved, the taxpayer is able to explain why this occurred, should it be required by at least one of the Member States involved.

The application of secondary adjustments may lead to double taxation. Therefore, if secondary adjustments are not compulsory, it is recommended that MS refrain from making secondary adjustments when they lead to double taxation. Where secondary adjustments are compulsory under the legislation of a Member State, it is recommended that Member States provide for ways and means to avoid double taxation (e.g. by endeavouring to solve it through a MAP, or by allowing the repatriation of funds at an early stage, where possible). These recommendations assume that the taxpayer’s behavior does not suggest an intent to disguise a dividend for the purpose of avoiding withholding tax.

When repatriation is agreed in a MAP settlement, it is recommended that the MAP agreement states that no withholding tax will be applied by the Member State out of which the repatriation is made and no additional taxable burden will be imposed in the Member State to which the repatriation is made.

As taxpayers may not be aware of the fact that in certain situations a separate request needs to be made for avoiding double taxation resulting from secondary adjustments, Member States which do not consider that secondary adjustments can be treated under the AC are encouraged to highlight in their public guidance the fact that a separate request under Art 25 OECD MTC may be needed to remove double taxation. For reasons of efficiency, it is recommended that taxpayers submit both requests in the same letter.

TP Audit Work Plan

This TP audit work plan is an example of the various steps that are typically performed during a TP audit (not a comprehensive audit) on the side of the taxpayer and on the side of the tax administration, respectively. It should be understood as an informative guide rather than as prescriptive rules. It is recognised that the structure suggested may not fit into all MSs’ and taxpayers’ legal framework and administrative practice. An underlying assumption of the work plan is that properly prepared documentation – as requested by local tax authorities – is available and well-trained staff act on both sides.

 

Re: Best Practices, this is an excellent document to review.  It explains secondary and corresponding adjustments, which are often areas overlooked in audits until the final assessment is issued and the audit has been settled in the primary jurisdiction.  Additionally, the TP audit work plan is a valuable document to develop Best Practices with the tax authorities in planning an audit, developing mutual trust and cooperation.  These principles should also be applied globally, not only within the EU.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

Tax Policy: Interaction of the Main Players & MNE’s

The executive summary of a paper entitled “The Structures and Mandates of Eight International and Regional Organizations That Work on Tax” was published earlier this year by the International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC) with the Vienna University of Economics and Business.  The link to the article is referenced herein:

http://www.iticnet.org/file/document/watch/4008

The executive summary provides valuable insights into tax structures and mandates of various organizations, including the IMF, World Bank and the UN.  The two primary sections are entitled “Who are the Main Players in the International Tax Arena” and “How can Business Interact with Different Groupings?”

The first section includes a description of the breadth of activities for the organizations, including  those of the UN that include transfer pricing, exchange of information, cross border VAT issues, taxes in climate change, financial transaction taxes, tax on foreign direct investment, and natural resource taxation.  The second section is very interesting reading, providing insights into how Multinationals (MNE’s) can proactively interact with the various tax policy making bodies.

The topics of tax policy, and interaction between the MNE’s and the relevant organizations, have evolved into very significant issues in today’s changing tax environment.  Roles in a MNE, and the necessity to proactively interact with such organizations has now become a necessity that will derive mutual benefits and win-win relationships.

 

Category:

Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

Tax Policy statement: A foundation of the Tax Risk Framework

EY has put forth a compelling article addressing the necessity of a company tax policy, stating it is not an option to delay action and hope the debate over transparency and what represents a fair share of tax will stop.  The article is referenced by the following link:

http://taxinsights.ey.com/archive/archive-articles/the-future-of-tax.aspx

Key excerpts:

So how can companies adapt to this new landscape and best address the different concerns of these very engaged stakeholders? It starts with formally and carefully defining a company’s tax policy, which gives effective guidance from the board to the group tax function on what the company’s responsibilities and required behaviors are worldwide.

This policy needs to take account of the often conflicting interests of various constituencies, such as tax authorities, investors, employees, the media and the general public. In the future, a business model must adjust to recognize that, while commercial decisions must continue to take account of tax analysis, such analysis itself needs to include wider business risks.

A company’s tax policy will also help in determining how transparent a company wishes to be with stakeholders about its tax affairs. Companies are concerned that stakeholders could misinterpret the complex nature of their tax affairs.

Any effective tax policy needs to strike a balance between clearly communicating the risk appetite and approach of the company, while also managing all costs, including opportunity costs caused by its tax approach and its consequences regarding reputation and the risk of controversy.

 

Best Practice: One of the foundations, and a good starting point for the Tax Risk Framework, is a tax policy.  The policy should be drafted with the knowledge that it is a valuable tool which the tax authorities may request to better understand, and assess, the company’s global tax risk.

 

Category:

Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

Tax risk & controversy: EY highlights

Ernst & Young (EY) have published their 10th issue of T Magazine, highlighting the topics of tax risk and controversy.  The link is attached for reference:

Click to access tmagazine10-2012-low.pdf

Key Highlights:

  • GAAR, Burden of proof: Taxpayer, Tax authority or Shared; summary of 24 countries.
  • Sustained government pressure on tax compliance means tax risk is now an issue for corporate boards, not just tax directors.
  • Clarity is now the key attribute in any message about tax that companies convey to the outside world.
  • As emerging markets become more confident and sophisticated, they are challenging commonly applied international tax standards.
  • The OECD’s “Tax Inspectors Without Borders” program (details in a prior post of 9 June 2013) seeks to match demand from countries wanting assistance with complex international tax audits with the supply of international tax experts.
  • Companies need to improve local knowledge of risk rating processes in each Asian country, including key focus areas and potential audit triggers.
  • Organizations need to show a willingness to engage with policymakers and administrators to improve policy proactively.
  • Tax authorities are increasingly adopting the OECD’s concept of the  “economic employer” to determine tax liabilities, rather than a treaty residence rule.
  • Creating a PE is the biggest tax risk companies face from sending employees on business or assignments overseas.
  • An increasing number of companies have appointed a head of tax controversy to manage tax risk and its implications.
  • Companies must be prepared to become more transparent.

Tax risk and transparency are the new challenges to be met by multinationals.  The T Magazine is a valuable resource in understanding today’s risks, and the manner in which these issues will transform current standards into leading Best Practices, tax risk policies and processes.

 

Category:

Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

TP disclosure on tax returns: Malaysia

The Malaysian Inland Revenue Board (MIRB) has added a new check box on the 2014 tax return form for corporate taxpayers to declare whether transfer pricing documentation has been prepared.  Contemporaneous documentation should be prepared accordingly (i.e. 7 months from the close of the financial year).  The KPMG Newsletter describing this new initiative is referenced at the following link:

Click to access tp-malaysia-may6-2014.pdf

Re: Best Practices, new transfer pricing boxes / questions on tax returns are becoming a common practice.  Some questions by a multinational to ensure proper governance for tax return transfer pricing disclosures include:

  • What internal governance mechanism is in place to alert the tax dept. timely of new disclosures for proper planning of contemporaneous documentation, etc.?
  • Is the tax return preparer / reviewer knowledgeable about the transfer pricing documentation processes in place to answer the questions accurately?
  • If a transfer pricing question is to be answered negatively (i.e., no documentation exists), is there adequate time to proactively address, as applicable?  Is there any correlative impact for a financial statement tax reserve?
  • For transfer pricing methodology questions, who ensures the proper methods are accurately disclosed?
  • Is there a pre-audit strategy, upon notification, to review tax return disclosures?
  • Is there a documented process in the global tax risk framework that alerts the tax dept. of new disclosures?

These questions, among others, should be discussed to ensure internal and external alignment in a corporation’s tax risk policy.

 

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

Introverts / Extroverts: Leadership Planning

Suzanne Bates publishes a highly recommended blog including leadership ideas and books to share; a reference to her Blog is accessed by the following link:

Power Speaker Blog by Suzanne Bates: Thoughts on Leadership and the Power of Communication:
http://www.bates-communications.com/powerspeakerblog/

A book recently recommended by Suzanne is entitled: Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, by Susan Cain.  It highlights the importance of introverts, including differences in how they work with extroverts.  This book is also included in my Leadership Page: Books to Share.

Several ideas quickly materialize when talking about this subject:

  • Do you present ideas at a meeting necessitating immediate action for introverts and extroverts?  Do introverts have time to reflect and consider such actions prior to solution steps being introduced by extroverts?
  • An analogy for introverts vs. extroverts should also be considered for different cultures and how they work; some being more collaborative while others are more direct.  In a world of increasing diversity, this leadership trait should be practiced, and understood.
  • Are different personality characteristics of the team members understood by the team leader to ensure effective alignment?
  • Is this topic discussed among the team, allowing each member to understand different approaches by different individuals?
  • Are different responses by an introvert and extrovert embraced, including the phrases “I need a little time to think about this idea” and “Great, here is what I think we should do, when can we start?”
  • How do you effectively plan additional time for introverts to think about leading a meeting, or making a presentation?
  • How can introverts be extroverts in certain circumstances?
  • Are different people leading meetings?

Leaders need to understand the power of effectively communicating with different cultures and personalities, including introverts and extroverts.  This skill is often assumed and / or overlooked in career development.  It may be a good time for self-reflection to understand Best Practices, thereby becoming a more effective leader.

 

 

Category:

Leadership

Tagged with:

Meeting of G5 Ministers: Tools to fight tax fraud & evasion

The Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK (G5) held a meeting on 28 April, 2014 to discuss progress on their mutual objectives to promote tax transparency and cooperation, fight tax fraud and evasion, counter harmful tax practices and respond to aggressive tax planning practices.  The following link provides detailed actions that were discussed:

Click to access Comunicado%20del%20G-5%20sobre%20reunión%20en%20Par%C3%ADs%2028%20abril%202014%20en%20inglés.pdf

Summary of discussions:

  • Agreement to sign the Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) agreements in alignment with the new, single, global OECD standard, joining 39 other jurisdictions that will effect exchange of information in 2017 with respect to 2015 data.
  • Reiteration of support to the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project.
  • Re: taxation of digital economies, the countries where companies conduct economic activities must be able to receive their “fair share” of tax.  To align this initiative, the G5 Ministers agreed on the interest of a flexible interpretation of the territoriality rules, including a Digital Tax Presence concept.
  • Transfer pricing rules must be adapted to ensure that profit and value creation are aligned, citing economic justification.
  • Tax avoidance re: hybrid mismatch arrangements should be addressed.
  • Country-by-Country (CbC) reporting is important, as it should provide all relevant tax administrations with the information necessary to complete a high level risk assessment.
  • OECD BEPS developments must be reflected at the EU level, encouraging review of the EU law and its impact on aggressive tax planning practices.

The conclusions set forth are significant for the following reasons:  Proposal by the G5, EU focused, collaborative discussions and agreement re: “fair share” of tax alignment, economic justification profit / value drivers, and a presumption that CbC reporting will provide information to complete a relevant risk assessment.

These initiatives should be monitored in alignment with the OECD BEPS proposals set forth for 2014 and 2015.

 

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

OECD: Cbc reporting update

The OECD has provided further observations on its country-by-country information template, based on the premise such information is a useful guide in the risk assessment of transfer pricing for relevant jurisdictions.  KPMG has provided a summary of the latest notes by OECD on this topic:

http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/taxnewsflash/Pages/2014-1/oecd-update-on-transfer-pricing-documentation-country-by-country-reporting.aspx

As this important initiative develops into final form, additional questions that may be asked include:

  • Will this information only be provided to tax authorities both currently and in the future, versus subject to public disclosure?  Will the OECD and/or separate countries’ provide for such legal assurance?
  • Should tax authorities be requested to share results of a risk assessment, based on this data, with the taxpayer prior to any assessments to ensure facts are aligned  to promote efficiencies upon assessment, and potentially in domestic or treaty based appeals?  A possible Best Practice for adoption?
  • How will relevance of the global information impact discussions and determinations in the relevant jurisdiction upon audit?
  • Is a post-adoption survey planned to compare expectations with actual results, providing flexibility for ongoing changes as a risk assessment tool?
  • To the extent that a country has adopted, or will adopt, different rules for global reporting, will the rules prescribed by OECD override, or supplement, domestic law?  What (legal) mechanisms will be put in place to align expectations for domestic and international rules?
  • What alignment is planned for countries utilizing the UN Model Convention?
  • Will this tool be used differently for co-operative compliance engagements and/or joint audits?

Many other questions should be carefully considered, looking at both immediate issues for implementation and long-term effects for taxpayers and tax administrations.

 

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

Asia TP: International Tax Review

International Tax Review has published, in association with KPMG, an informative summary of transfer pricing (TP) landscapes in the following countries:

Australia, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam.  I will summarize key highlights from each country, with the following link provided for a complete reference:

Click to access Asia%20Transfer%20Pricing%202014.pdf

  • Australia: New TP legislation is aligned with a policy intent of self-assessment; market support strategies classified as a capital or revenue nature
  • China: Location savings; Focus on domestic contributions as a part of the global value chain; value-add analysis of intra-group services; domestic GAAR; expert panel at the SAT level providing TP opinions
  • Hong Kong: Bilateral/multilateral APA focus; TP documentation to mitigate risk
  • India: Valuation of share investments; advertising expenditures resulting in marketing intangibles; intra-group services; “significant people function” approach to intangibles
  • Indonesia: Automatic tax audits; ITO tax revenue focus; MAP/APA trend; unpredictability
  • Japan: Combined TP and income tax audits; bilateral APA’s; documentation of related party profits in intercompany transactions
  • Korea: Intercompany royalties; intra-group service fees; local benchmarking focus; TP audit process diagram; TP Review Committee
  • Malaysia: Local company comparable supplement to TP documentation; Intercompany transaction disclosure to assess TP risk; proof that intercompany services have been rendered and are not duplicative
  • New Zealand: Inter-group financing / credit assessment tools; OECD alignment; TP questionnaires to taxpayers re: risk assessment; collaboration
  • Philippines: Internal database for risk assessment; year-end adjustments; withholding taxes
  • Singapore: Intra-group service fees; APA / MAP procedures
  • Taiwan: Specialized TP teams; inspection forms to re-complete economic analysis on a transaction-by-transaction basis; intra-group funding; cross-border licensing; China-Taiwan OECD model based cross-strait taxation agreement
  • Thailand: Forthcoming reforms in TP, thin capitalization, CFC rules and GAAR; inter-company services re: benefits received; FX documentation; local comparables; APA and MAP process
  • Vietnam: MAP and APA regulations; annual disclosure of related party transactions effective 1/1/2014; targeted sectors for TP audits

 

There are many common themes highlighted in this region, and it is evident that transfer pricing processes and reporting obligations have increased significantly.  Accordingly, this region may merit a special TP review re: contemporaneous documentation and the particular risk areas for each country.

 

 

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

Portugal: Unilateral APA opportunities

Portugal has introduced new transfer pricing rules, including the ability to request a unilateral APA, absent a tax treaty between Portugal and the other jurisdiction.  KPMG has provided a concise summary for these changes:

http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/taxnewsflash/Pages/2014-1/portugal-transfer-pricing-law-changes-allow-more-unilateral-apa.aspx

Multinationals should consider this new provision to obtain additional certainty re: Portugal’s application of transfer pricing rules.  Recognizing that a unilateral APA does not eliminate the risk of double taxation, this opportunity should be reviewed within the context of the global tax risk framework.

 

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

TEI’s comments: UN TP Manual, Competent Authority & APA’s

TEI has published comments addressing the UN Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries, in addition to US IRS Notices for revisions to Revenue Procedures setting forth new policies to implement the Competent Authority (CA) and Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) procedures.  References to TEI’s submissions are included for reference:

UN TP Manual key comments:

Click to access TEI%20Comments%20on%20UN%20Transfer%20Pricing%20Manual%20March%202014.pdf

  • Harmonize UN and OECD Transfer Pricing (TP) guidelines to reduce cross-border disputes
  • Risk assessment should be the primary focus, with most multinationals (MNE’s) “low-risk” status due to global and consistent TP policies and documentation
  • First step of tax authorities should be to address overall business, group TP policy and risk control framework
  • Domestic legislation defeats the purpose of a standard international TP guideline
  • Recharacterization by tax authorities should only be permitted in clear cases of abuse
  • TP documentation flexibility must be preserved
  • Burden of proof should reside with tax authorities, with penalty protection granted to taxpayer upon providing sufficient TP documentation
  • Intangible discussion precedes work of the OECD on revision of its Chapter VI Guidelines, reducing likelihood of harmonization
  • Intra-group services and management fees: Consistency of UN and OECD approaches for clarity, in addition to uniform safe harbors
  • TP documentation: “Less is more” approach to assess risk, materiality consideration on a group and country level, global and regional comparables, English language
  • Chapter 10 policy objectives are not aligned with the UN TP Manual and the arm’s-length principle

US Competent Authority key comments to Notice 2013-78 re: revisions to Revenue Procedure:

Click to access TEI%20Comments%20on%20Notice%202013-78%20Revised%20CA%20Revenue%20Procedure%20-%20FINAL%20to%20IRS%20Mar%2010%202014.pdf

  • Opening the CA process to taxpayer initiated adjustments is welcome
  • A new procedure whereby an informal consultation is arranged with taxpayers to discuss its exhaustion of remedies to reduce its foreign tax before claiming a US Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) should not be compulsory.  The timeliness of such advice is also of concern.
  • CA initiated MAP cases and required inclusion of MAP issues that are not a part of the taxpayer’s request for assistance raises many questions.
  • Provision of all information to both CA’s is over broad and may not be mutually relevant.
  • US CA assistance may be denied if a foreign initiated adjustment is agreed to without consulting the US CA: this raises resource and timeliness issues and should also have no impact upon  the merits for claiming a US FTC.

US APA key comments to Notice 2013-79 re: revisions to Revenue Procedure

Click to access TEI%20Comments%20on%20Notice%202013-79%20Revised%20APA%20Revenue%20Procedure%20-%20FINAL%20to%20IRS%20Mar%2010%202014.pdf

  • The Notice reflects prior creation of the Advance Pricing and Mutual Agreement (APMA) program
  • Details are set forth regarding the “pre-filing” process
  • Appendix is included stating the required materials to be submitted for inclusion
  • Rules are provided for when the IRS may cancel or revoke a completed APA
  • Inapplicable information should not be submitted, but a “suitable explanation” why the information is not relevant must be provided
  • The suggested changes will increase information required for application, and time required for APA completion, thereby reducing the likelihood that taxpayers will proceed with an APA request

 

In alignment with the OECD’s BEPS proposals, unilateral country legislation including General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR), and the UN TP Manual principles for developing countries, tax controversies are expected to increase significantly.  Tremendous pressure will be placed on CA assistance around the world, and possibilities for new APA ‘s will be reviewed to reduce inherent uncertainty.

Accordingly, all multinationals and interested parties should read TEI’s excellent comments to better understand the issues to be confronted, with suggestions for thoughtful and practical ideas to achieve mutual objectives for taxpayers and tax authorities around the world.

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: