Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Posts tagged ‘best practices’

EY 2013 Global Transfer Pricing survey: A sea of change

Click to access EY-2013-GTP-Survey.pdf

This very insightful, and timely, survey of senior tax professionals in 26 countries clearly portrays a significant increase in transfer pricing controversies and resulting double taxation.  The survey indicates that 66% of the respondents identified “risk management” as the highest transfer pricing priority.

Some challenges cited in the report include:

  • Governmental authorities expanding definitions of “aggressive tax planning”
  • Permanent Establishment (PE) assertions, including reliance on proposed changes to the commentary to Article 5 of the OECD Model Treaty
  • Reputational risks
  • Public perception
  • Increased transfer pricing complexity

Other findings include:

  1. 55% increase in Competent Authority cases from 2010
  2. 28% of the companies utilized Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP)
  3. 26% of the companies entered into Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs)
  4. Master file documentation methodology may not be compliant in Africa, Asia and Latin America
  5. 41% expect intangibles to be the most important area in the next 2 years
  6. Intangible issues included assertion of uncompensated marketing intangibles and dispute over legal vs. beneficial ownership
  7. Over 75% of PE issues arose from frequent business travelers, seconded employees and providing services through employees or other personnel abroad (PE statistics on page 23)
  8. BRICs and Africa are #1 or #2 ranking in transfer pricing priority for 30% of such companies, although 75% of those companies have no full-time transfer pricing personnel located in those jurisdictions

The report concludes with detailed survey responses for each of the 26 countries, addressing the following topics:

  1. Importance of transfer pricing
  2. Audit and controversy experience
  3. Trends in transfer pricing approaches, topics and enforcement
  4. Operationalizing transfer pricing

Best Practice considerations presented for insight include:

  • Indirect taxes, including customs and VAT, should be an integral part of the transfer pricing process, notwithstanding different functional reporting
  • Attention to detail, via frequent reviews, for intercompany transactions should be  a recurring process to ensure substance matches the form cited in transfer pricing documentation
  • Review of current transfer pricing methodologies
  • Renewed focus on controversy and dispute resolution techniques, including MAP, APAs and arbitration
  • Reputational risk consideration

The survey provides a thoughtful perspective in addition to recently issued consultation documents by the OECD re: transfer pricing documentation and intangibles, as well as recent general anti-abuse rules (GAAR) drafted and/or legislated into law.

This survey is especially insightful when compared to prior posts re: OECD Revised Draft on Transfer Pricing Aspects of Intangibles (3 August), OECD White Paper on Transfer Pricing Documentation suggesting a Masterfile and Local file approach (31 July), UK Finance Act 2013: GAAR has arrived (21 July), OECD BEPS report and Action Plan (19 July), PwC PE survey: Trends & Challenges (14 July), OECD: A Framework for Co-operative Compliance (13 June), UN: Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing & Tax Training Initiatives (2 June), A new role: Head of tax controversy (3 May), Global Mobility & International Tax: Alignment for Best Practices (24 April), and  PE Risks & Best Practices for Awareness & Planning (14 April).

Category:

Tax Risk Management, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

PwC transfer pricing survey: Intercompany loans, pooling, guarantees

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/tax/transfer-pricing/navigating-the-complexity/download.jhtml

PwC has conducted a survey, as referenced in the attached link, of transfer pricing aspects for financial transactions in over 40 countries in the Americas, Asia Pacific and Europe.  The insightful information, current as of 1/1/2013, initially provides a comprehensive overview of intercompany loans, cash pooling and guarantees followed by transfer pricing details for each country.

Each country included in the survey provided responses to the following topics:

  • Transfer pricing rules and regulations, domestic / OECD guidelines
  • Thin capitalisation
  • Intercompany loans (arms-length nature, transfer pricing methodologies, etc.)
  • Cash pooling; transfer pricing methodologies
  • Intercompany guarantees
  • Documentation requirements
  • Advance certainty via APA, etc.

Transfer pricing questions and issues re: intercompany loans and various aspects of financial transactions are becoming more common and complex as businesses are continuing global expansion.  Accordingly, multinational tax and treasury departments need to be mutually aware of transfer pricing rules for arms-length principles, contemporaneous documentation requirements, and inherent risks / opportunities for intercompany financial transactions.

Evolving rules in this area dictate continual training, awareness and strategizing risks from a global tax and treasury perspective.  Transfer pricing training should be provided at regional / global treasury conferences;  conversely treasury should ensure tax is aware of new financing tools that arise in different markets to ensure alignment.

Category:

Tax Risk Management, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

OECD Country MAP Profiles & Statistics – Valuable tools

http://www.oecd.org/ctp/dispute/countrymapprofiles.htm

http://www.oecd.org/ctp/dispute/mapstatistics20062011.htm

The links provide reference to the OECD Country MAP Profiles and MAP Statistics 2006-2011.  The OECD MAP content provides valuable information that should be included as an integral component of audit risk strategies.

The Country MAP Profiles provide the following content for OECD member countries, in addition to Argentina, People’s Republic of China, Russia, and South Africa:

  • Competent Authority contact information
  • Organisation of the Competent Authority
  • Scope of MAP & MAP Advance Pricing Arrangements (APAs)
  • References to domestic guidelines and administrative arrangements
  • MAP request content, timelines, fees and documentation requirements
  • Provisions on tax collection, penalties and interest pending outcome of the MAP process
  • Other dispute resolution mechanisms, and
  • Links to websites for the relevant jurisdiction.

The MAP Statistics include information on MAP inventories, cases initiated, completed, withdrawn, and average cycle time.  These statistics are provided for the OECD member countries and some non-OECD economies.  This information is very helpful in reviewing the trend of MAP filings in relevant jurisdictions.  There were 3,838 open MAP cases by OECD member countries at the end of 2011, with an average completion time of 25 months.

The OECD Forum on Tax Administration (FTA) convenes later this year to discuss Best Practices for improving MAP: refer to prior post 27 June 2013.

With the increase of transfer pricing controversies that are inherently complex and subjective in nature, MAP is a tool that is being used more frequently worldwide.  Examples of Best Practices to strategize MAP are provided for insight:

  • Document domestic and bilateral/multilateral avenues of appeal upon commencement of an audit to facilitate advance planning.
  • Review Double Tax Treaties for relevant Arbitration provisions that are providing an impetus for some jurisdictions to finalize negotiations.
  • Determine the interplay of domestic appeals (informal settlement, formal Appeals, Court filings, etc.) with MAP early in the audit process.
  • Outline deadlines for domestic appeals, MAP and other bilateral/multilateral tools (i.e. EU Arbitration Convention)
  • Develop a pro-forma multilateral calculation to strategize solutions minimizing double taxation.
  • Ensure MAP and other appeal strategies are integrated in the Tax Risk Framework.

    OECD Map with accession (green) and discussion...

    OECD Map with accession (green) and discussion (pink) countries added (Photo credit: Wikipedia the relevant jurisdictions)

Category:

Audits, OECD / UN, Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

Australia: Tax return disclosures enacted into law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:

Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

PwC PE survey: Trends & Challenges

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

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

Survey results include the following:

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

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

Examples of Best Practices:

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

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

Category:

PE, Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

Best Practices for new Transfer Pricing disclosures & Peru’s new rules

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:

Tax Risk Management, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

Best Practice Correlation: Risk Governance & Tax Resources

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

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

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

Category:

Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

Tax Counsel: Proactive Risk Management

As governments and tax authorities are increasing their focus on transfer pricing issues, aggressive audit approaches and appeal techniques, multinationals should also ensure their integration with internal and external counsel is aligned.  This alignment should be in place prior to having to submit a reactionary response that is time constrained, complex and material in amount.  The following considerations are provided to promote discussion of this important topic among your teams and senior management.

  • What is the reporting structure for tax and legal?
  • Are dedicated tax counsel on the tax and/or legal team?
  • Does tax meet quarterly with internal/external counsel for status updates?
  • Have you quantified the benefit for justification of full-time internal tax counsel?
  • Where should internal tax counsel be located, contrasted with the tax team structure?
  • Should tax counsel have a full-time presence in aggressive jurisdictions for which appeals and trials are significant?
  • Who interviews tax counsel candidates?
  • Do you have a documented audit defense process that outlines when tax counsel are engaged?
  • How does tax counsel interact with the relevant advisors in appeal proceedings?
  • Who monitors the interaction of tax counsel, internal tax, business personnel and external advisors?
  • Does tax counsel review draft audit responses for transfer pricing issues and/or significant local taxes?
  • Who chooses local tax counsel for worldwide audits and tax proceedings?
  • Do you meet with local internal/external counsel when you visit the Business Units?
  • Should tax counsel be included in some, or all, meetings with tax authorities?  If so, should this start from the first meeting or when it becomes evident that tax counsel is required for current and future negotiations?
  • Who should negotiate issues and outline alternative options on an ongoing basis?
  • Does tax have a 360 feedback mechanism with internal and external counsel that is openly shared?
  • Does tax counsel participate in regular tax team meetings?

The above points highlight some ideas for consideration and discussions with senior management.  I look forward to your ideas and Best Practices for tax and legal collaboration.

Category:

Tax Risk Management

Tagged with: