Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Posts tagged ‘EU’

EU blacklist: Additions

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.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-list-of-non-cooperative-jurisdictions/

EU Code of Conduct

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.

Click to access 2019G_005707-19Gbl_EU%20Code%20of%20Conduct%20Group%20issues%20update%20report%20-%20new%20guidance.pdf

https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14114-2019-INIT/en/pdf

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12284-2019-REV-1/en/pdf

US int’l update: EC contests FDII

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.

Click to access 2019G_002276-19Gbl_Report%20on%20recent%20US%20international%20tax%20developments%20-%2010%20May%202019.pdf

EU: Profit Split method

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.

 

Click to access report_on_the_application_of_the_profit_split_method_within_the_eu_en.pdf

EU exporter: New definition

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

     

    or

  • 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:

 

Click to access 2018G_010770-18Gbl_Indirect_EC%20amends%20definition%20of%20exporter%20in%20the%20EU.pdf

EU: CCTB / CCCTB (It’s back!)

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.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20180219IPR98113/new-eu-corporate-tax-plan-embracing-digital-presence-approved-in-committee

EU’s List is published: Uncooperative Jurisdictions

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.

Click to access 2017G_06895-171Gbl_Council%20of%20the%20EU%20publishes%20list%20of%20uncooperative%20jurisdictions%20for%20tax%20purposes.pdf

%d bloggers like this: