Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Posts tagged ‘China’

Tariffs: China exclusions & Best Practices

The United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) announced it was granting an exclusion to an additional 21 Chinese-origin products meeting specific listed descriptions, as described in EY’s Global Tax Alert included for reference.

Best Practices include:

  • Mapping the complete, end-to-end supply chain to fully understand the extent of products impacted, potential costs, alternative sourcing options, and to assess any opportunities to mitigate impact such as tariff engineering.
  • Identifying strategies to defer, eliminate, or recover the excess duties such as bonded warehouses, Free Trade Zones, substitution drawback, Chapter 98 and equivalent programs under China customs regulations.
  • Exploring strategies to minimize the customs value of imported products subject to the additional duties, re-evaluating current transfer pricing approaches, and for US imports, considering US customs strategies, such as First Sale for Export.

Duties/tariffs are a significant component of product costs, supply chain management and controlling costs.  This function should have a global oversight / value-add function which requires talented personnel with the technical acumen to drive this initiative.  

https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/USTR_publishes_new_exclusions_for_Chinese-origin_products/$FILE/2019G_001932-19Gbl_Indirect_USTR%20publishes%20new%20exclusions%20for%20Chinese-origin%20products.pdf

MLI Language primer / China’s intent

EY’s Global Tax Alert outlines an excellent presentation of the verbiage contained in the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent BEPS (MLI), in addition to specificity re: China’s intent of each of the BEPS Action Items.

The MLI contains four types of provisions. Depending on the type of provision, the interaction with CTAs varies. A provision can have one of the following formulations: (i)”in place of”; (ii)”applies to”; (iii)”in the absence of”; and (iv)”in place of or in the absence of.”

A provision that applies ”in place of” an existing provision is intended ”to replace an existing provision” if one exists, and is not intended to apply if no existing provision exists. Parties shall include in their MLI positions a section on notifications wherein they will list all CTAs that contain a provision within the scope of the relevant MLI provision, indicating the article and paragraph number of each of such provision.

 

A provision that ”applies to” provisions of a CTA is intended ”to change the application of an existing provision without replacing it,” and therefore may only apply if there is an existing provision. Parties shall include in their MLI positions a section on notifications wherein they will list all CTAs that contain a provision within the scope of the relevant MLI provision, indicating the article and paragraph number of each of such provision.

A provision that applies ”in the absence of” provisions of a CTA is intended ”to add a provision” if one does not already exist. Parties shall include in their MLI positions a section on notifications wherein they will list all CTAs that does not contain a provision within the scope of the relevant MLI provision.

A provision that applies ”in place of or in the absence of” provisions of a CTA is intended ”to replace an existing provision or to add a provision.” This type of provision will apply in all cases in which all the parties to a CTA have not reserved their right for the entirety of an article to apply to its CTAs. If all Contracting Jurisdictions notify the existence of an existing provision, that provision will be replaced by the provision of the MLI to the extent described in the relevant compatibility clause. Where the Contracting Jurisdictions do not notify the existence of a provision, the provision of the MLI will still apply. If there is a relevant existing provision which has not been notified by all Contracting Jurisdictions, the provision of the MLI will prevail over that existing provision, superseding it to the extent that it is incompatible with the relevant provision of the MLI (according to the explanatory statement of the MLI, an existing provision of a CTA is considered “incompatible” with a provision of the MLI if there is a conflict between the two provisions). Lastly, if there is no existing provision, the provision of the MLI will, in effect, be added to the CTA.

China’s intent with respect to its positions for each of the BEPS Actions are also outlined in the EY Global Tax Alert, as such intent would affect over 100 double tax treaties.  

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Mainland_China_signs_Multilateral_Convention_to_Implement_Tax_Treaty_Related_Measures_to_Prevent_BEPS/$FILE/2017G_04865-171Gbl_Mainland%20CN%20signs%20MC%20to%20Implement%20Tax%20Treaty%20Related%20Measures%20to%20Prevent%20BEPS.pdf

%d bloggers like this: