HMRC is now reviewing diverted profit tax cases in round 2: citing the following EY’s link referenced herein:
There are already 100+ DPT cases ongoing and hundreds more “Large” and “Mid-Sized” cases will now be reviewed and enquiries launched in the next 12 to 18 months. Market intelligence suggests a particular focus on Mid-Sized cases, and on sectors including life sciences, oil and gas, and mining and metals. HMRC is also investigating a number of captive insurance arrangements within large groups.
As a reminder, DPT is aimed at groups that use what HMRC sees as contrived arrangements to circumvent rules on permanent establishment (PE) and transfer pricing. DPT is intended to address two broad situations:
A UK company (or UK PE of a foreign company) uses entities or transactions that lack economic substance to exploit tax mismatches to reduce effective taxation to below 80% of rate otherwise payable in the UK.
A person carries on activity in the UK in connection with the supply of goods, services or other property by a foreign company and that activity is designed to ensure that the foreign company does not create a PE in the UK.
Note, the UK DPT is not arguable on a tax treaty basis, and it is based on the concept of pay now, to be resolved later. It was also enacted as a deterrent for taxpayers to start paying regular tax, vs. no tax, as a DPT was seen as an avenue to avoid the additional tax and controversy. Thus, it is prudent to review any potential instances of DPT.
The drive for additional transparency, among efforts by countries to implement anti-avoidance rules that trump tax treaties, continues with the latest round of BEPS updates, as EY’s Global Tax Alert provides added insight:
Australian Tax Office (ATO) release of 4 tax alerts for issues of concern, a Diverted Profits Tax (DPT) is to be implemented, hybrid mismatch arrangements will be addressed in legislation, and the effective date for the new/revised OECD’s arms-length principle standards will move forward to 1 July, 2016.
Ecuador: the most recently version, as of 1/1 of a taxpayer’s year, of the OECD’s Guidelines will be used as transfer pricing reference absent domestic rules.
Hungary: A “modified nexus” IP approach will come into force.
Netherlands: The innovation box rules will be amended to comply with OECD’s Action 5 guidelines.
New Zealand: Domestic anti-avoidance rules will trump double treaty arrangements.
Taiwan: CFC rules will be promulgated.
Turkey: An “electronic place of business” draft legislation would empower taxation.
Ukraine: A working group is forming anti-BEPS measures for consideration.
US: Treasury is trying to extricate itself from its 1-year lag in obligatory country-by-country (CbC) reporting, although global acceptance is not expected.
The impact of BEPS is still accelerating, although the efforts by countries to avoid treaty provisions will provoke additional disputes and double taxation. Accordingly, the veil of anti-BEPS legislative efforts overshadows mutual transparency and collecting a fair share of tax while avoiding double taxation. Thus, all multinationals should be extra vigilant in the new era of international tax for additional documentation and support for significant transactions with low-tax countries.
The Australian Tax Office (ATO) has recently released a consultation paper re: implementation of a Diverted Profits Tax (DPT); comments are due by 17 June 2016. Although Australia has taken a long look at the DPT in concert with UK’s quickly enacted provisions, it took a breather while the OECD urged restraint on a far-reaching “tax” that may go beyond the intent of the OECD’s Guidelines. A link to the paper is provided for reference:
The focus of the paper is summarized in the first sentence: “The Government is strongly committed to ensuring that multinationals pay their fair share of tax in Australia.”
Highlights of the proposal:
40% penalty tax (non-deductible) rate, not offset by another jurisdiction’s tax (30% tax rate if an amended tax return is filed)
Subjective determination (i.e. reasonable to conclude)
Will not operate on a self-assessment basis
Pay first, discuss later philosophy, copying UK’s direction (12-month review period and a right to appeal)
Effective for years commencing on or after 1 July, 2017
Flow chart appendix
Efective for transactions that have an effective tax mismatch test (objective test) and insufficient economic substance (subjective test)
Draft guidance will be developed in consultation with stakeholders.
All interested parties should review this consultation paper, and provide comments to the ATO for potential changes. It is interesting to see that transactions failing the effective mismatch test will be left exclusively with subjective determinations for possible assessments by the ATO without the benefit of dual transparency. Additionally, the philosophy of assess now and discuss later will not be a mechanism to effectively provide more trust by taxpayers as UK, Australia and other jurisdictions are creating unilateral laws to capture taxes payable on income in other jurisdictions, potentially without the right to access treaties, claim an offset in the other jurisdictions and have access to the full process of appeals prior to payment. As a result, the incidence of double taxation will increase.
It is hopeful the ATO will consider the comments received, and include changes to the current proposal to enhance transparency and mutuality by all parties.
Tax Executives Institute (TEI) has provided practical and insightful comments in response to UK’s Large Business Compliance Consultation by HMRC, which is far-reaching. A link to TEI’s comments is provided for reference:
The Consultation is focused on UK HQ companies, although the proposals also apply to non-UK based multinationals (MNE’s).
The underlying principle is unclear, especially for non-UK based MNE’s, and should be amended accordingly.
A separate UK tax strategy is an unrealistic expectation for most MNE’s, and will provide little relevance if enacted.
A UK Code of Practice is also unrealistic for MNE’s.
UK taxes, paid or accrued, generally bears little relevance to the global effective tax rate and is not relevant.
UK’s current tools of general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR), Senior Accounting Officer (SAO) tax framework, newly enacted Diverted Profits Tax, a Customer Relationship Manager (CRM) and other anti-abuse rules are already in place and would seem to remedy HMRC’s concerns.
Special measures are subjective and not subject to a formal independent panel for review prior to execution.
Board-level accountability may not be practical, while the SAO framework may accommodate this proposal.
Signing, or not signing, the Code of Practice should not be a trigger for public disclosure or risk assessment.
The Code of Practice includes determinations that transactions meet the intent of Parliament, an inherently subjective test that may be applied at will regardless of the law.
The tax transparency see-saw has now tilted to a dangerous level, in that transparency objectives no longer seem to meet the needs of tax authorities.
Information is being requested to satisfy presumed needs of the public and tax administrations, although similar efforts are not being made to have discussions with taxpayers to better understand tax risk and the relevant functions, assets and risks for which transfer pricing should be based in the relevant jurisdiction.
The UK proposal, and similar initiatives, may indeed erode the trust for which the tax authorities are seeking. It would be a novel concept to include the business community in discussions around these proposals prior to drafting, a welcome initiative that would better represent a win-win opportunity. Additionally, all audits should begin with a formal understanding of the transfer pricing practices of the MNE in that jurisdiction to focus tax queries accordingly and efficiently.
As the UK Diverted Profits Tax model has strayed from the OECD’s intent re: the BEPS Action Items, it has nonetheless been followed by other countries. This proposal may have a similar result, magnifying the concern of MNE’s and merits a detailed review by all MNE’s irrespective of UK business presence.
The press release cites the urgency of such legislation, while also stating that such initiatives will be consistent with the OECD BEPS Actions.
The UK’s new tax still has more questions than answers, and it is hopeful that Australia and members of the G20 will await OECD’s final guidance on BEPS initiatives and align any new tax with comprehensive documentation prior to issuance. Additionally, it will be interesting to note the trend away from citation of the well recognized arm’s length principle toward a concept of economic value and significant people functions.
The PwC summary, referenced herein, summarizes the UK Diverted Profits Tax (DPT) proposal. Additionally, it highlights the effect upon the current year tax provision, including the relevant deferred tax adjustment that includes the date of enactment (26 March 2015).
US GAAP / IFRS considerations:
Align with the auditor if the DPT qualifies as an “income tax” subject to US GAAP ASC 740 and IAS 12, Income Taxes under IFRS.
Determine if DPT is applicable (although such notification for DPT to HMRC is not due for six months).
Review adjustments for deferred taxes.
Calculate any effect for the current year effective tax rate.
Determine if tax reserves should be established.
Review footnote disclosures for DPT impact.
For new APAs, note that the DPT position will be considered first. This will require extensive documentation for the DPT position as well as the APA submission.
As this controversial legislation was passed less than 30 days ago, there will be a time constraint for determination of the tax accounting impact since any DPT notification and preparation of extensive documentation relevant for HMRC review is now commencing.
Note the tax accounting considerations apply to any new tax legislation, thus the above considerations will apply for similar measures related to new income tax legislation, including BEPS proposals and possibly the Australian DPT equivalent.