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:
EY’s referenced Global Tax Alert shares Treasury’s position on pending updates, as well as the European Commission (EC) questionnaire being developed for the FDII incentive of the US Tax Act.
The GILTI provision of the Tax Act is admittedly very complex, even more so by the legislation that it is to be computed on a shareholder legal ownership chain basis, vs. consolidated group basis as the transition tax. This may produce non-intuitive results, and Treasury should provide an update in 4-6 weeks on this point. However, for purposes of calculating the annual effective tax rate for the first quarter, a taxpayer may need to be ready for calculation on a shareholder and group basis for timely preparation and reporting.
As expected, the European Commission is preparing questionnaires to multinationals to gauge the impact of the FDII. This particular provision was envisioned as being a driver of opposing international views and analyses. This provision is important to monitor going forward, as well as not putting reorganization structures in place that cannot be reversed if this provision would be repealed.
Finally, the deemed repatriation transition tax is not expected to change significantly. However, there is not universal certainty about the ability to deduct pro-rata foreign taxes on a November 2 calculation, vs. Dec. 31, for a foreign corporation.
The European Commission (EC) has proposed a new set of rules that is meant to introduce efficiencies into long-standing current practices.
The new principles include:
- One Stop Shop
- Destination principle, with VAT on goods collected by the selling State and transferred to the State of destination
- Charging VAT on cross-border trade
- “Certified Taxable Person” certification allowing simpler EU principles to apply
- Quick fixes, including storing goods in another Member State
The EY Global Tax Alert is included for reference, which thereby includes links to the related proposals.
This proposal is significant for all businesses trading in the EU, and its principles should be reviewed to enable proactive planning.
The European Commission has proposed a new Directive calling for additional transparency into cross-border arrangements. Initially, this proposal has the liability for such reporting borne by the advisor, however it may apparently be also transferred to the taxpayer. The effective date would be 1//1/2019 with recurring reporting by the EU Member States on a quarterly basis thereafter.
In a common theme when the “transparency’ envelope is opened, the relevant basket of potential transactions is widened from the most aggressive to ordinary tax-planning transactions. Hopefully, if the Directive is adopted, the Member States will use discretion and ask questions about such transactions prior to drawing intuitive conclusions and assessing taxpayers before having all facts and transactional history for consideration.
The potential transactions include arrangements:
- To which a confidentiality clause is attached
- Where the fee is fixed by reference to the amount of the tax advantage derived or whether a tax advantage is actually derived
- That involve standardized documentation which does not need to be tailored for implementation
- Which use losses to reduce tax liability
- Which convert income into capital or other categories of revenue which are taxed at a lower level
- Which include circular transactions resulting in the round-tripping of funds
- Which include deductible cross-border payments which are, for a list of reasons, not fully taxable where received (e.g., recipient is not resident anywhere, zero or low tax rate, full or partial tax exemption, preferential tax regime, hybrid mismatch)
- Where the same asset is subject to depreciation in more than one jurisdiction
- Where more than one taxpayer can claim relief from double taxation in respect of the same item of income in different jurisdictions
- Where there is a transfer of assets with a material difference in the amount treated as payable in consideration for those assets in the jurisdictions involved
- Which circumvent EU legislation or arrangements on the automatic exchange of information (e.g., by using jurisdictions outside exchange of information arrangements, or types of income or entities not subject to exchange of information)
- Which do not conform to the “arms’ length principle” or to OECD transfer pricing guidelines
- Which fall within the scope of the automatic exchange of information on advance cross-border rulings but which are not reported or exchanged
The proposal will be submitted to the European Parliament for consideration; this additional layer of transparent information will also be viewed by other countries as potential tools to uncover similar arrangements. Several “arrangements” are also highly subjective, leading to additional transfer pricing disputes and increased double taxation.
EY’s Global Tax Alert provides additional details for this important proposal:
The European Commission issued a significantly important proposal for a Double Taxation Dispute Resolution; it hopes to remain a leader in this ever-changing international tax arena with a mandate for binding arbitration, as applicable, as one of the leading initiatives. This proposal would require a unanimous adoption by all EU Member States (although UK’s vote may be considered to be of less significance as time moves on, it still counts).
Other proposals of the three-prong package include a renewed focus on the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) and hybrid mismatches with third countries. The last initiative is interesting, as the EU now seeks to expand its reach with those countries outside the EU.
Although each proposal is significant as a stand-alone initiative, the Dispute Resolution would provide the most benefit at a critical time for a win-win relationship going forward.
EY’s Global Tax Alert provides further details on this initiative for reference.
As a long-standing advocate of Tax Executive Institute’s (TEI’s) expertise and peer networking for all executive tax members of multinationals, their reappointment as a member of the VAT Expert Group is a sound testament to their advice for the international tax community.
Additionally, TEI’s training programs, and opportunities to be a guest speaker, should be taken advantage of if one has the opportunity.
TEI Appointed as Member to the European Commission’s VAT Expert Group
On September 30, 2016, the European Commission reappointed TEI as a member of the VAT Expert Group for a three-year term. The VAT Expert Group was established in 2012 for the purpose of “advis[ing] the Commission on the preparation of legislative acts and other policy initiatives in the field of VAT” and “provid[ing] insight concerning the practical implementation of legislative acts and other EU policy initiatives in the field of VAT.” The VAT Expert Group’s next meeting will take place on October 17, 2016 in Brussels.
TEI has participated as a member of the VAT Expert Group since its inception. Allard van Nes will continue to continue to serve as TEI’s primary representative and Lorry G. Limbourg will serve as Mr. van Nes’ alternate. TEI wishes to thank Lynne Clare for her work as the alternate representative during TEI’s prior terms.
With the recent decision re: Ireland state aid by the European Commission, the litigious stage now commences by Ireland, as the order has been provided to collect the state aid, with interest, from the multinational.
As the relevant rulings were not brought forward for approval upon their commencement by Ireland from the European Commission, the Commission now has the right to consider if such rulings are state aid.
This determination will not probably be final for several years as it progresses through the courts, however it does indicate a further trend of uncertainty re: transfer pricing rulings granted by EU Member States. Coupled with the intent of BEPS, the legal aspects of transfer pricing may start to sway towards a perceived “intention” for fairness and non-discrimination, with a “fair tax” flag being waved ever more rigorously.
This uncertainty will provide further chaos with new international tax perspectives being displayed in the public domain.
The EY Global Tax Alert is provided for reference.