Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Posts tagged ‘Cbc’

EU & BEPS: Next steps

The EU, now recognized as the accelerator of BEPS for its Member States, have issued a roadmap of priorities and objectives for the near future.  A link to Deloitte’s World Tax Advisor is provided, and the attached article therein.

I have highlighted certain parts of the roadmap worth watching:

  • Country-by-Country reporting (will there be a consistent EU standard?)
  • Hybrid mismatch arrangements
  • Code of Conduct activities, including alignment of transfer pricing outcomes with value creation, an extension of BEPS Actions 8-10.  (Note Sweden and UK are already using such Actions re: clarification of existing transfer pricing policy)
  • Payments from an EU to non-EU country
  • The EU Arbitration Convention is mentioned, although it’s practical effect on mitigating dispute resolution is limited

Click to access dtt-tax-worldtaxadvisor-160226.pdf

European Union:
Dutch presidency issues EU-BEPS roadmap

The Netherlands, which currently holds the presidency of the council of the EU, issued an ambitious EU-BEPS “roadmap” on 19 February 2016 that sets out plans to move forward with previous EU proposals, as well as future efforts on areas relating to the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project. The roadmap includes the following:

  • Possibly including a minimum effective taxation clause in the EU interest and royalties directive, and also possibly including or referring to the OECD “modified nexus approach” (however, no mention is made of the previous proposals to reduce the shareholding requirement in the directive from 25% to 10%, add legal entities to the annex or remove the “direct” holding requirement);
  • Reaching consensus on the anti-avoidance directive proposed by the European Commission on 28 January 2016 (for prior coverage, see World Tax Advisor, 12February 2016);URL: http://newsletters.usdbriefs.com/2016/Tax/WTA/160212_1.html
  • Reaching agreement on the European Commission’s proposal to introduce the OECD BEPS minimum standard for country-by-country reporting in the EU;
  • Initiating discussions for reforming the EU Code of Conduct group (specifically, the group’s governance, transparency and working methods), followed by discussions on a revision to the mandate in relation to the concept that profits are subject, as appropriate, to an effective level of tax within the EU;
  • Reaching agreement on guidance and explanatory notes on hybrid permanent establishment mismatches in situations involving third countries;
  • Continuing to monitor the legislative process necessary to revise existing patent box regimes; and
  • Monitoring and exchanging views on the BEPS developments relating to tax treaties concluded by EU member states, the OECD multilateral instrument to modify tax treaties and the European Commission’s recent recommendations on the implementation of measures to combat tax treaty abuse. 

     

     

    The Code of Conduct group will start work on the following:

  • Preparing EU guidance on aligning transfer pricing outcomes with value creation, in accordance with BEPS actions 8-10;
  • Identifying potential issues that arise when payments are made from the EU to a non- EU country;
  • Assessing the opportunity for developing EU guidance for implementing the conclusions on BEPS action 12 (the disclosure of aggressive tax planning), notably, with a view to facilitating the exchange of information between tax authorities; and
  • Developing guidelines on the conditions and rules for the issuance of tax rulings by EU member states.Additionally, the High Level Working Party on Taxation may discuss the current situation regarding the EU arbitration convention that allows the settlement of transfer pricing disputes.

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

EU Tax Avoidance Package: Automatic exchange of CbC reports

The EU Tax Avoidance Package contains a proposed amended EU Directive that would include CbC reporting as an automatic element of exchange of information between Member States.

Highlights:

  • The proposal expands the current Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) requirements in the EU.
  • The country-by-country (CbC) reporting would be encased in a legal instrument that would ensure certainty for companies within the EU.
  • “There is an urgent current demand for coordinated action in the EU on this matter of international political priority.”
  • On the basis of information in the CbC report, the mandatory CbC exchange would be accessible to those Member States in which “one or more entities of the MNE Group are either resident for tax purposes, or are subject to tax with respect to the business carried out through a permanent establishment of an MNE Group.”
  • Member States shall prescribe penalties in line with this proposal.
  • Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31 Dec. 2016, legislative provisions to comply with this Directive , and shall apply those provisions from 1/1/2017.

The proposal also addresses reporting by Surrogate Entities, although restricted to EU Member States.

This proposal pushes the EU initiative of being the global leader in post-BEPS implementation and providing direction for the rest of the world.  Accordingly, the proposal may be precedent setting for other jurisdictions and mandatory reading to understand CbC expectations and perceptions.

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

CbC Surrogate: A reporting trap!

OECD’s BEPS Action 13 provides for a Surrogate Entity substitution concept if the headquarter jurisdiction of a multinational does not provide for country-by-country (CbC) reporting for the 2016 tax year.  The concept is ideal, if a CbC reporting country considers this Surrogate Entity concept in its legislation.

A review of CbC legislative actions by different countries reveals that such legislation will be inconsistent and will require the multinational to file separate CbC reports in various countries, irrespective of its choice of appointing a surrogate country that has an extensive tax treaty network with exchange of information provisions.  

For example, the legislative language of Spain does not provide for the Surrogate Entity concept, thereby requiring a Finnish (and possibly U.S., dependent on Final Regulations) based multinational to file the 2016 Spanish CbC report in Euros.  One of the Spanish tax authority representatives recently expressed an opinion that no advance rulings/arrangements will be acceptable for CbC Surrogate Entity filing: The law is the law.

Several issues for consideration by a multinational thinking of a Surrogate include:

  • Every country’s CbC adopted legislation will require review to determine if a Surrogate filing is acceptable.
  • For countries that will require a local filing, adoption of such country’s CbC rules will be required re: content, timing, reporting currency, etc.
  • Upon conclusion of the dynamic review, the CbC template may require adaptation for  local filings of countries that have OECD + CbC legislation, adding details beyond those prescribed in BEPS Action 13.   
  • Most countries have penalties (fines/civil/criminal) applicable for failure to file a CbC report.

The definition of a Surrogate Entity, in addition to BEPS Action 13, are included for reference.

Click to access beps-action-13-country-by-country-reporting-implementation-package.pdf

The term “Surrogate Parent Entity” means one Constituent Entity of the MNE Group that has been appointed by such MNE Group, as a sole substitute for the Ultimate Parent Entity, to file the country-by-country report in that Constituent Entity’s jurisdiction of tax residence, on behalf of such MNE Group, when one or more of the conditions set out in subsection (ii) of paragraph 2 of Article 2 applies.

Category:

OECD / UN, Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

OECD Multilateral pact is signed

Thirty-one countries have signed the OECD’s multilateral competent authority agreement (MCAA) for the automatic exchange of country-by-country (CbC) reports, excluding the U.S.

The signatory countries are:

  1. Australia
  2. Austria
  3. Belgium
  4. Chile
  5. Costa Rica
  6. Czech Republic
  7. Denmark
  8. Estonia
  9. Finland
  10. France
  11. Germany
  12. Greece
  13. Ireland
  14. Italy
  15. Japan
  16. Liechtenstein
  17. Luxembourg
  18. Malaysia
  19. Mexico
  20. Netherlands
  21. Nigeria
  22. Norway
  23. Poland
  24. Portugal
  25. Slovak Republic
  26. Slovenia
  27. South Africa
  28. Spain
  29. Sweden
  30. Switzerland
  31. UK

The position of the US, noticeably absent from the list,  is to enter into bilateral agreements with appropriate countries that have safeguards and governance in place, as well as countries that have an income tax treaty or tax information exchange agreement in effect.

OECD BEPS Action 13 provided models for the recommended CbC reporting options; a multilateral agreement, a double tax convention model and a model based on a tax information exchange agreement.

It will be critical to monitor the development of the CbC exchange process, in addition to timing mismatches and the necessity to identify a surrogate country, with additional complexities to consider.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

Finland: CbC Surrogate search

Finland has proposed its new country-by-country (CbC) reporting requirements, having an effective date of 1/1/2017, as further summarized in EY’s Global Tax Alert provided for reference.  Other countries have legislated CbC 2016 effective dates, thus a Finland multinational that does business in other countries requiring a 2016 effective date CbC report will be looking to adopt a surrogate country for its 2016 tax year.

This delay in effective date, while the intention may have been to help Finnish headquartered multinationals, presents significant complexities for their 2016 CbC reporting requirements.  However it does the provide the Finnish / US tax authorities another year to ensure reporting processes are in place to review, and exchange, CbC information.

This legislation mirrors the US proposed regulations (i.e. Final Regulations yet to be issued), which delays the effective date past 2016.

This complexity, although anticipated by the OECD’s BEPS Actions in identifying a surrogate mechanism, understates the practical uncertainties that loom ahead.  For example, some issues are called into question:

  • Will the choice of a surrogate country lock in their CbC requirements, as would be the case if its present headquarter jurisdiction adopted CbC for 2016?  Or could other countries that have add-on CbC requirements, such as Mexico’s intercompany transactional detail, claim/assert that their local requirements could apply in a surrogate situation since the headquarter jurisdiction is not subject to the CbC automatic exchange of information?
  •  The search for a surrogate country will entail the review of treaty exchange mechanisms to reduce additional CbC filings, and complexities, in other countries.
  • The identification of a surrogate will require review of CbC legislation by every country to ensure that a surrogate’s reporting / information exchange satisfies the literal reading of statutory requirements.  This comprehensive review, that may not have been required by a US or Finnish multinational due to extensive exchange of information legislation, will need to be read in the broadest sense to avoid penalties.
  • The identification of a surrogate has not been expressly anticipated by other countries that have proposed CbC legislation, apart from addressing the non-applicability of automatic exchange of information requirements for CbC reporting.

Post BEPS complexity increases with delayed reporting years for CbC reporting.  It may take some time to fully understand all the nuances and complexities of surrogate reporting to ensure potential CbC disclosures are timely met and penalties avoided.

With these complexities becoming reality, countries should clarify CbC reporting in their respective jurisdiction by CbC surrogates.  

 

Click to access 2016G_CM6162_TP_Finnish%20Government%20submits%20CbC%20reporting%20proposal.pdf

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

Global BEPS update

EY’s Global Tax Alert summarizes recent BEPS developments around the world:

Click to access 2016G_CM6166_The%20Latest%20on%20BEPS%20-%2018%20January%202016.pdf

Highlights:

  • Australia’s client experience roadmap re: its multinational anti-avoidance law (MAAL)
  • Belgium’s adverse State Aid ruling by the European Commission re: its excess profit tax rulings, which is expected to be appealed
  • Chile’s new sworn statement / tax disclosures (highlighted in a recent post)
  • Finland’s draft proposal for country-by-country (CbC) reporting and transfer pricing documentation in a Master / Local file context
  • Greece’s circular identifying preferential tax regimes
  • Korea’s draft decree for transfer pricing documentation
  • Luxembourg’s IP amendments and adoption of the EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive’s proposals
  • Netherland’s CbC and transfer pricing documentation requirements
  • Norway’s new rules for interest limitations, participation exemption regime inapplicable for hybrid instruments, and CbC reporting requirements
  • Panama to announce its decision, in March, for adoption of the OECD BEPS recommendations

The trend for recent BEPS updates reflects an expansion of definitive actions into unilateral measures, decisions whether / when to adopt OECD’s BEPS recommendations, new disclosures, subjective anti-avoidance rules with inherent complexity, and each country’s expression of intent re: BEPS Actions coupled with local add-on documentation requirements.

Monitoring of the global developments in the post-BEPS era has introduced new challenges, requiring additional resources and thought processes for documenting transfer pricing methodologies and the business aspect of significant transactions.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

CbC: US timing issues

The timing for implementation of country-by-country (CbC) reporting for non-US jurisdictions is of significant importance to US multinationals, due to the wording of the Proposed Regulations (23 Dec 2015 post).

The Proposed Regulations would require CbC reporting by US MNE’s starting in 2017, thereby not having such requirement in 2016.  If there are no changes in the Final Regulations, US MNE’s will be required to submit CBC reports in many jurisdictions around the world.  Some countries, such as Mexico, that aim to provide additional reporting items beyond the OECD model would present additional complications for a US MNE.  Contemporaneous deadlines will also have to be met, that are prior to the US deadline.

Additionally, if an election provision is adopted in the Final Regulations, this may not solve the dilemma, as many countries are drafting legislation providing that if the parent jurisdiction does not require CbC reporting, then a separate CbC report has to be filed in their local jurisdiction.  A literal reading of such language would result in a required domestic filing, as an election is not a “per se” requirement.

Similar complications will arise in countries that do not adopt CbC reporting for the tax year 2016.

Monitoring of the timing implications for CbC reporting should be a high priority to be addressed currently, with timelines established for the preparation of back-up reporting plans around the world.

 

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

CbC: US proposed Reg’s – a question of timing

The US Treasury has released proposed Regulations setting forth details for country-by-country (CbC) reporting by US-based multinationals.  A link to the proposed Reg’s is provided:

Click to access 2015-32145.pdf

The proposed Reg’s have been issued for comment, and two significant timing issues arise in the current version:

  1. Final Regulations would not take effect until tax years beginning after publication in the Federal Register, which would be 2017 for calendar-year taxpayers.
  2. The CbC report would be submitted to IRS with the US corporate income tax return, due Sept. 15.

Although the proposed Reg’s are conformed to the OECD model and have been purposeful in its comments on confidentiality and the exchange of information provisions for CbC reporting, the timing mismatch for the 2016 tax year presents a complexity that hopefully will be overcome in the Final Regulations.  If no changes are made to the effective date, the 2016 tax year would be a dysfunctional method of reporting around the world, based on whom are considered surrogate entities or determining which countries have rules that provide for direct submission to their tax authorities absent a US requirement.  

Additionally, the submission of the CbC report by Sept. 15 accelerates the year-end timing envisioned by the OECD.  This acceleration should be expected by multinationals, thereby leaving less time to coordinate and review the information via developing an efficient and sustainable CbC reporting process.

 

 

Category:

OECD, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

US int’l update

The US House and Senate have paved the way for the President’s signature on a bill that extends important international tax topics:

  • Subpart F active financing exception – permanent extension
  • 5-year extension of the CFC look-through rule (through 2019)

A summary of the bill is provided in EY’s Global Tax Alert:

Click to access 2015G_CM6082_Report%20on%20recent%20US%20international%20tax%20developments%20-%2018%20December%202015.pdf

Separately, the US has also indicated that regulations should be forthcoming before year-end for the country-by-country (CbC) reporting rules, which is good news for many.

These rules should provide some international tax certainty for US-based companies, notwithstanding the absence of significant reform for the worldwide tax system.

Category:

Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

France: CbC public reporting receives a last-minute “no” vote

Following up the post of 8 December, France’s National Assembly provided a last-minute “no” vote with respect to providing country-by-country (CbC) reports for the public domain.

This has incited an outcry by the enthusiasts behind the transparency measure for additional insight into a multinational’s global tax posture.

Notwithstanding the “no” vote in France, this scenario is expected to emerge in other countries as the OECD BEPS implementation of CbC reporting is established in the local legislative frameworks.

In summary, the premise of multinational organizations for public CbC reports should still be the framework behind the date gathering process that is commencing.

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

EU Council: New Directive

The EU Council has provided a Directive that would introduce legislation ensuring the EU maintains its leadership role in anti-BEPS recommendations, as well as providing good tax governance for the rest of the world.  EY’s summary of the Directive is provided for reference:

Click to access 2015G_CM6047_EU%20Council%20adopts%20directive%20on%20exchange%20of%20info%20on%20tax%20rulings,%20agrees%20on%20other%20corporate%20tax%20issues.pdf

Key points:

  • Automatic exchange of tax rulings would be effective 1/1/2017.
  • Changes would be introduced for the EU Code of Conduct.
  • EU anti-BEPS proposal to include the following BEPS Actions:
    • 2: Hybrid mismatches
    • 3: CFC rules
    • 4: Interest limitations
    • 6: General anti-abuse rule (noting its inclusion for the Royalty & Interest Directive, similar to the Parent-Subsidiary Directive)
    • 7: PE status
    • 13: Country-by-Country (CbC) reporting
  • Common Corp. Tax Base (absent later consolidation phase) proposal to be introduced in 2016

The EU continues its pace to maintain its global lead in addressing anti-BEPS concerns, which will impact non-EU countries around the world.  Thereby, it provides another set of rules that would be mandated to achieve EU conformity.

 

 

 

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

Public CbC reporting: France moves forward

France’s lower house of Parliament has approved an amendment that would require public reporting of country-by-country (CbC) information.  The amendment will need approval by the Senate, with final confirmation by the French National Assembly before being enacted.

This step represents another move forward, along with the EU proposals, to provide CbC information to the public domain.

Multinational companies should prepare today for public CbC reporting in the near future, as the cannon shots have been fired and they will soon land, resulting in a multitude of inquiries and perceptive conclusions.  Additionally, organisations should have a seamless process to receive, review and decide on communicative courses of action in response.

Category:

OECD, Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

Transparency & Disclosure: zooming in

EY’s recent publication takes a close-up view of transparency and disclosure trends, including a detailed analysis of several countries’ latest trends.  A link to the report is provided for reference:

Click to access EY-are-you-ready-for-your-close-up.pdf

Key Points:

  • Transparency issues of the future:
    • Country-by-Country (CbC) implementation and inconsistency of approaches
    • New transfer pricing documentation requirements
    • Public access for CbC reports and tax rulings
    • Growing trend to disclose a company’s planning, strategy, risk appetites and effective tax rates
    • Tax codes of conduct, formal and informal
    • Increased disclosure of aggressive tax positions
    • Electronic data gathering
    • Use of third-party data
    • Direct ERP access
    • Matching of data and watching for transactional trends
  • EU transparency update, including proposed Directives
  • Country transparency updates: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Germany, Greece, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, UK, US

The level of future transparency will continue to increase, with new and dissimilar demands by countries around the world.  This report unveils the global trends and issues, with comprehensive analyses of various transparency trends of major countries.  Accordingly, it is a publication that should be reviewed to better understand where the current trends are requiring future demands for transparency in a new world of international taxation.

Category:

Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

Public disclosures: Get ready!

As tax disclosures, more specifically the country-by-country (CbC) report, approach probable reality, what is your company doing to prepare for such transformation?

  1. Is the CbC report being prepared with perceptive gap Q & A’s addressed?
  2. Who is the first / primary point of contact for a public query – How are contact details communicated for global awareness?
  3. Is tax aligned with corporate communications re: who is responsible for preparing, delivering, answering queries?
  4. Are shareholders aligned in the process, to disclose or not disclose?
  5. Will tax posture change, via public disclosures, as public disclosures become more common?
  6. What is the impact of your peer companies providing proactive disclosures?
  7. Is there a process to monitor tax disclosures of peer companies for review, not to be surprised.
  8. Is there a similar process for internal queries as a response to ever-growing tax investigations / allegations in the public?

These questions highlight the priority needed to focus upon this new trend and proactively address this new world!  Tax authorities will be reviewing such disclosures, so multinational organisations should be also aware.

Category:

Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

China’s proposed TP documentation; Non-transparent

China’s State Administration of Taxation (SAT) has issued a consultation draft encompassing transfer pricing documentation; comments are due by 16 October 2015.  The draft includes OECD BEPS Action concepts, such as the form of transfer pricing documentation, although retaining arguable local concepts and introducing intangible definitions prior to the final OECD Guidelines.

Click to access 2015G_CM5783_TP_Chinas%20TAs%20issue%20groundbreaking%20consultation%20draft%20to%20update%20TP%20rules%20in%20a%20Post-BEPS%20environment.pdf

Key observations:

  • The three tier TP documentation concept of Master File, Local File and Country-by-Country report (for Chinese based multinationals) is introduced.
  • A “Special File” is also required for intercompany services, providing copies of agreements, allocation keys and evidence supporting the “benefit test.”
  • “Intangibles” is broader than the OECD proposals, including marketing channels and customer lists.
  • Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) procedures are clarified.
  • The use of transfer pricing comparables is broad and runs counter to the transparency or consistency test.  The use of secret comparables, one comparable, one or multiple year results are allowed.
  • Anti-shifting provisions are to be used for transactions with entities of little substance, thereby increasing Chinese profits.
  • Profitability monitoring will be used to establish a tax risk hierarchy system.

Although the Consultation report includes consistent BEPS measures, there are also concepts included that do not provide consistency with other countries, increasing the risks of double taxation.  Thereby, China is inwardly focusing on its fisc while representing a “rogue” player on the OECD playing field.

All multinationals with operations in China should determine their course of action for these proposals, including a review of holding companies for intercompany transactions with Chinese entities.  

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with: