The European Parliament has adopted proposed changes to the draft seventh directive, amending 2011/16/EU, for information exchanges of online platforms.
Recent recommendations for adoption ensures this information can be used for other data sharing purposes (e.g., money laundering). Additionally, the expansion of beneficial ownership transparency and inclusion of real estate, trusts, crypto assets and some capital gains is included.
Attached is EY’s summary of the recent meetings, in which comments were provided for various applications of Pillar I and II.
The EU has also expressed its desire to move forward with a digital service tax if the OECD falls behind in its targeted 2021 dates to prescribe rules. The OECD’s approach will also encounter issues re: dispute resolution in multiple countries, for which countries may not yet be ready for.
As the U.S. presidency is now decided, its direction will also influence the ongoing discussions for global implementation.
The EU blacklist of noncooperative tax jurisdictions, which is used in one of the DAC6 hallmarks for reportable transactions, is revised as of February 18th to include the Cayman Islands, Panama, Seychelles and Palau, in addition to the official list, as included in the referenced link. It is noted that Turkey was not added to the list.
The Council of the EU published its latest report, summarized and referenced herein:
The US complies with all the EU Member States re: Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) due to its double tax treaty network, FATCA, etc.
Guidance on notional interest deductions who wish to adopt a similar method, as not harmful by the Group (no safe harbor; general criteria)
Delisting certain non-cooperative jurisdictions
Monitoring implementation of commitments by jurisdictions
Identification of new preferential regimes
Further defensive measures for non-cooperative jurisdictions
Treatment of partnerships re: substance
The way forward; future monitoring, etc.
This is important guidance, as it provides transparency into the tax measures adopted, or not adopted, by various jurisdictions. It also provides potential measures to incentivize non-cooperative jurisdictions.
As expected, the European Commission has sent a letter this week to US Treasury commenting that: the Foreign Derived Intangible Income (FDII) deduction violates international trade law. “The design of the FDII deduction is incentivizing tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning by offering a possibility to undercut local tax rates in foreign economies.” The Commission further described the FDII is an “incentive for foreign economies to lower corporate tax rates in a ‘race to the bottom.’” The letter included a statement that the European Commission was “ready to protect the economic interest of the European Union in light of discriminatory rules and practices.”
EY’s Global Tax Alert is provided for added reference.
The EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum recently published a paper illustrating when to use the profit split method (PSM) and how to accomplish the split of profits per the OECD Guidelines. The report is linked as a reference.
The report is a complement to, and supports, the OECD Revised Guidelines on the application of the Transactional Profit Split Method issued in June 2018.
As this method is not simple, and is also a focus on transfer pricing issues in the US, this paper is valuable into the application and concepts of PSM.
The European Commission has recently amended the definition of “exporter” for EU purposes. The new definition allows greater flexibility, although still postulates that non-EU established companies may not act as an EU exporter.
Article 1(19) of the UCC DA now requires a company that wants to act as an “exporter,” to be a person established in the EU customs territory and:
Has the power to determine that the goods are to be brought outside the customs territory of the Union
Is a party to the contract under which goods are to be taken out of that customs territory
In summary, the EU supply chains should be reviewed re: whom is acting as an exporter, as well as how the new rule may simplify such actions.
EY’s Global Tax Alert provides additional details for this important change:
The concepts of Common Corporate Tax Base (CCTB) and Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) once again emerge as a perceived solution to tax the Member States via a “digital presence” and commonality in computing tax liabilities of the EU Member States.
These proposals have emerged in prior years, now with a digital presence emphasis, although such measures have required a unanimous vote which is difficult to achieve. However, this trend is always worth watching as the public perception may help to sway those countries that strive to protect their sovereignty over taxation.
The Council of the European Union (ECOFIN) has published its list of uncooperative tax jurisdictions, numbering 17:
American Samoa, Bahrain, Barbados, Grenada, Guam, Korea (Republic of), Macao SAR, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Namibia, Palau, Panama, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates
The listing criteria are focused on three main categories: tax transparency, fair taxation and implementation of anti-BEPS measures.
There are potential counter-measures that could be employed by other jurisdictions, and there is the possibility of other countries aligning such countries on a comparable list. This list will be reviewed annually, thereby expanding or diminishing accordingly.
EY’s Global Tax Alert provides historical context for development of this list.
The UK EU exit bill has been introduced in Parliament, paving the way for suggested interpretations of:
Existing EU law
Loss of EU Directives
New customs regime
Transitional EU VAT case law
Social security contributions/benefits
Corporation tax impact of UK vs. EU law/Directives
This document portrays a glimpse into the thoughts behind the complex and myriad evolutions that will take place with the Brexit negotiations. Tax, supply chains, individual changes, VAT, etc. and related unknown implications are still to be discovered; the EY Global Tax Alert provides a primer into the brave new world of a country exiting the EU. Note, this is also a valuable reference for other countries considering this option.
On May 29. 2017 the EU Council adopted the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD), to be effective by 1/1/2020 between EU and the rest of world for hybrid mismatch arrangements. This Directive is known as ATAD-2 and follows the intent of BEPS Action 2, hybrid mismatch arrangements.
ATAD 2 expands the scope to address hybrid permanent establishment (PE) mismatches, hybrid transfers, imported mismatches, reverse hybrid mismatches and dual resident mismatches.
EY’s Global Tax Alert provides additional details; all hybrid mismatch arrangements will be of limited use going forward to the extent they are included in these new rules.
The Council of the European Union has proposed a draft EU Directive, to be in effect by June 30 2019, that would resolve double taxation disputes between Member States. A summary of the Draft Directive is provided, as well as referenced herein.
This proposal is based upon the foundation of the Union Arbitration Convention (90/436/EEC) re: cross-border tax disputes.
3 years, from first notification, to file a complaint by the taxpayer
Each competent authority (CA) acknowledges receipt within 2 months
Additional 3 months by CA’s to request additional information, by which the taxpayer has 3 months to provide
Approx. 6 months later, CA’s decide to accept or reject the complaint; or a CA can decide to resolve unilaterally by which the Directive is terminated
Taxpayer may appeal per national rules a rejection of the complaint
CA’s try to resolve issue within 2 years, which may be extended by 1 year
Upon taxpayer’s request, an Advisory Commission shall be established where the complaint is rejected by not all of the relevant CA’s, or a failure by CA’s to reach agreement. This request can be denied by a Member State on a case by case basis where a question of dispute does not involve double taxation.
Advisory Commission = Chair, 1-2 representatives of each CA, and 1-2 independent persons by each CA
Advisory Commission to adopt a decisions within 6 months
CA’s may, alternatively, set up an Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission instead of the Advisory Commission; this commission has freedom of techniques to settle
Professional secrecy standards are prescribed
Advisory or Alternative Commission opines in 3-6 months
CA’s shall agree within 6 months of the opinion on how to resolve the complaint; they can decide on a decision that deviates from the opinion or be bound by the opinion
Final decision does not constitute a precedent
(Redacted) decision is published and maintained in an online central repository
Evaluation of process by June 30, 2024 and issue a report
As the key point summary infers, there are many provisions in the Draft Directive, requiring a proactive effort by the taxpayer and relevant CA’s. The Directive can be reviewed via the attached link:
Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have put forth additional recommended disclosures and requirements for the Accounting Directive of public Country-by-Country (CbC) reporting, prior to enactment of the original proposal.
The Accounting Directive allows a simple majority for passage, and involves additional complexities and cost as the OECD model is now just a starting point for new information.
The Parliament would also like to extend the proposal to include the following information in company reports:
The geographical location of the activities
The number of employees employed on a full-time equivalent basis
The value of assets and annual cost of maintaining those assets
Sales and purchases
The value of investments broken down by tax jurisdiction
The amount of the net turnover, including a distinction between the turnover made with related parties and the turnover made with unrelated parties
Tangible assets other than cash or cash equivalents
Public subsidies received
The list of subsidiaries operating in each tax jurisdiction both inside and outside the EU and data for those subsidiaries corresponding to the data requirements on the parent undertaking
All payments made to governments on an annual basis as defined in the Directive, including production entitlements, income taxes, royalties and dividends
The report shall not only be published on the website of the company in at least one of the official languages of the EU, but the undertaking shall also file the report in a public registry managed by the Commission
EY’s Global Tax Alert, referenced herein, provides the relevant details, although it appears the CbC report is not being construed as one tool for total transfer pricing assessment, but a public tool to determine one’s fair share of tax irrespective of the legal laws and limitations in each country.
An alternative approach would be to design a standard (transfer pricing) audit template for the tax authorities that would include some, or all, of the above factors to the extent deemed important to assess a company’s tax liability in that relevant jurisdiction. However, this non-public and Best Practice audit tool is not the focus in this post-BEPS world, to date.
The latest BEPS updates are detailed in EY’s Global Tax Report, with the underlying premise of transparency.
OECD: On 5 December 2016, the OECD released an updated version of the Guidance on the Implementation of Country-by-Country Reporting, providing flexibility for notification filing dates for countries not requiring a country-by-country (CbC) report for 2016.
Belgium: New innovation deduction covering patent and other IP rights.
EU: Proposal for hybrid mismatch rules with non-EU countries
Norway: Adoption and regulations for CbC reporting
UK: Interest limitation rules, among other provisions
US: CbC Form 8975 released
From a MNE perspective, it is increasingly apparent that deductions to, and benefits from, tax haven countries are under attack and substance is the key to business and tax decisions.