Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Posts tagged ‘OECD’

Canada’s BEPS initiative, with Treaty Shopping: 2014 Federal Budget

Details of Canada’s initiative to develop its own Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) action plan are outlined in its 2014 Federal Budget, with a link to KPMG’s comments on the Budget referenced herein.

Click to access tnfc1408.pdf

Highlights of the tax initiatives include proposals to expand existing anti-avoidance rules for thin capitalization, and a back-to-back loan provision.  Additionally, the Budget has requested comments, by June 2014, to the following questions for a framework to develop its own BEPS Action Plan:

  • What are the impacts of international tax planning by multinationals on other participants in the Canadian economy?
  • Which of the international corporate income and sales tax issues identified in the OECD BEPS Action Plan should be considered the highest priorities for examination and potential action by the government?
  • Are there other corporate income tax or sales tax issues related to improving international tax integrity that should be of concern to the government?
  • What considerations should guide the government in determining the appropriate approach to take in responding to the issues identified?
  • Would concerns about maintaining Canada’s competitive tax system are alleviated by coordinated multilateral implementation of base protection measures?
  • What actions should  the government take to ensure the effective collection of sales tax on e-commerce sales to Canadian residents by foreign vendors?

The Budget also addressed the treaty shopping consultation paper released in August 2013, which TEI provided comments thereto (refer to 14 January 2014 post).  The government’s position is that  a domestic law re: treaty shopping is preferable to a treaty-based approach.  This proposed rule would be included in Canada’s Income Tax Convention Interpretation Act, thus applicable to all of Canada’s treaties.  Comments on this position are to be submitted within 60 days.  General provisions of this rule are summarized for reference, with a separate link provided for KPMG’s Submission on Canada’s Consultation on Treaty Shopping in December 2013 :

Click to access kpmg-submission-to-treaty-shopping-consultation.pdf

  • The domestic treaty-shopping rule is a “general purpose” provision, versus a “limitation on benefits” approach.
  • A tax treaty benefit is denied for relevant treaty income if it is reasonable to conclude that one of the main purposes for undertaking a transaction, or a transaction that is part of a series of transactions or events, that results in the benefit was for the person to obtain such benefit.
  • It relies on the conduit presumption for tax treaty benefits, absent proof to the contrary.  Safe harbour presumptions are provided for this test.

With the OECD working aggressively to finish the BEPS Action Plan items timely, including the recent draft of a Country-by-Country Reporting template for comment, it is hoped that new international principles and documentation standards being developed are not adopted earlier, and unilaterally, by countries each changing such rules based on its sole interpretation and discretion, which later are effected into local legislation.

Most importantly, multinationals and other interested parties should monitor BEPS related provisions in countries proposing separate legislation, in addition to that proposed by the OECD.  To the extent the OECD’s principles differ from separate country legislation, international tax challenges will significantly increase, with additional likelihood of double taxation.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

Saudi Arabia & Qatar Tax/TP developments

Saudi Arabia’s tax treaty with Tunisia, effective from 1 January 2014, generally follows the OECD model treaty.  Additionally, Saudi Arabia is pursuing treaties with Algeria, Kyrgyzstan and Barbados.

Saudi Arabia also introduced reforms to the Foreign Investment Act  in March 2013, providing penalties for Saudi Arabia General Investment Authority (SAGIA) registered foreign investors who fail to comply with its new Code of Conduct for Foreign Investors.  The Code provides for approx. 60 forms of breaches, including penalties that include fines and cancellation of the legal entity’s license, thus strict compliance with the Code should be adhered to and monitored.

The Qatar Financial Centre’s (QFC) new transfer pricing manual features guidance on transfer pricing regulations and rules.  Thin capitalization, capital / debt structuring, transfer pricing documentation and necessity of a comprehensive transfer pricing study to withstand lengthy queries are components in this new manual.  The arm’s length standard of the OECD is to be relied on by the QFC Tax Department for transfer pricing determinations.  Additionally, rulings and/or APAs can be requested.  Intercompany transactions are being closely reviewed by the QFC Tax Department, thus such changes should be reviewed.

KPMG has provided additional details for further reference:

http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/mesa-tax-update/Pages/saudi-arabia-tax-revenues.aspx

http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/mesa-tax-update/Pages/qatar-new-manual.aspx

As the Middle Eastern tax authorities gain transfer pricing expertise, legislative actions and experience in the application of transfer pricing methodologies, it is important to note alignment of such practices with OECD.  To the extent double tax treaties are not yet negotiated, double taxation issues should be considered.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

TP Compensating Adjustments: Update

A Report on Compensating Adjustments, issued by the EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum in January 2014, provides a practical solution to address different approaches by EU Member States.  The Glossary of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines defines a “compensating adjustment” as “an adjustment in which the taxpayer reports a transfer price for tax purposes that is, in the taxpayer’s opinion, an arm’s length price for a controlled transaction, even though this price differs from the amount actually charged between the associated enterprises.  This adjustment would be made before the tax return is filed.”  In general, an adjustment is made at a later time to the transfer prices set at the time of a transaction.

A link to this report, and an excellent article by CGMA, are provided for reference:

Click to access jtpf_009_final_2013_en.pdf

http://www.cgma.org/magazine/news/pages/20149479.aspx

Highlights of the Report:

  • Compensating adjustments are enacted using one of two approaches, an ex-ante (arm’s length price setting approach), or ex-post (arm’s length outcome testing approach).  The ex-post approach generally involves testing, and possible adjustment, of transfer prices at year-end, prior to closing the books or filing the tax return.
  • When both Member States apply an ex-post approach and require compensating adjustments, a risk of double taxation, or double non-taxation, may arise.
  • An ex-post approach by one Member State, with an ex-ante approach by a separate Member State, presents conflicts on making such adjustments.
  • Guidance by the OECD is limited, with reference to the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) to resolve disputes.  Member States use their discretion re: application of compensating adjustments.
  • A practical solution is described for transactions in which (i) profits are calculated symmetrically, and (ii) a compensating adjustment initiated by the taxpayer should be accepted if various conditions are met.  However, if the Member States have less prescriptive rules for such adjustments, those rules are to apply.
  • Upward as well as downward adjustments should be accepted.
  • The practical solution provided should not limit a tax administration’s ability to make a subsequent adjustment and has no bearing in a MAP procedure.
  • The adjustment should be made to the most appropriate point in an arm’s length range, with reference to OECD guidance.

The subject of compensating adjustments is an important topic in addressing potential double taxation, or double non-taxation.  The Report is timely, offering practical guidance for Member States to achieve consistency, although only within the EU.

It will be interesting to follow this topic, and future guidance, by the OECD, as well as commentaries from EU Member States, UN, and other interested parties.  The practical solution will be most effective if adopted in principle, or in legislation, by the EU Member States, with other countries referring to such guidance to resolve challenging transfer pricing issues fairly and effectively.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

Strategizing APA’s in Turkey & OECD’s Tax Transparency Report

KPMG has published an informative and timely publication reviewing strategies for the use of unilateral, bilateral  and multilateral Advance Pricing Agreements (APA’s), with a detailed focus on recent APA developments in Turkey.  The KPMG publication cites the OECD’s June 2013 report “A Step Change in Tax Transparency” prepared for the G8 Summit.  The KPMG and OECD reports are referenced herein for review.

Click to access turkey-feb3-2014.pdf

Click to access taxtransparency_G8report.pdf

The KPMG report is a valuable reference, providing strategic insight into using unilateral, bilateral and / or multilateral APA’s globally with a specific focus on Turkey.  The report includes chapters on Transfer Pricing in Turkey, Global APA Trend, Opportunities that APA Offers, When Should You Pursue an APA and the APA Process in Turkey.  The OECD report provides additional input on the exchange of information which is especially valuable against the backdrop of OECD’s recent request for guidance.

The transfer pricing landscape is changing, from a OECD perspective and also separate country initiatives that may, or may not, correlate with guidelines to be established this year and next by the OECD.  Accordingly, the use of APA’s should be reconsidered for developed and developing countries to achieve further certainty and avoidance of double taxation in these changing and challenging times.

Category:

OECD / UN, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

OECD Discussion Draft: TP Documentation & Country-by-Country Reporting

OECD has just published their Discussion Draft on Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country reporting, with comments due by 23 February.  A reference to the Draft is hereby provided:

Click to access discussion-draft-transfer-pricing-documentation.pdf

The Discussion Draft raises many questions and scenarios open to comment, with a very limited time frame in which to remit such comments.  All multinationals and interested parties should prioritize a review of this document and consider submitting comments, as it will be a cornerstone for additional reporting and documentation in the near future.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

Canadian Treaty Shopping: TEI comments

The Tax Executives Institute (TEI) has submitted comments in response to Canada’s treaty shopping proposals.  TEI’s comments are referenced herein:

Click to access Treaty_Shopping_in_Canada_TEI_submission.pdf

Canada proposes that if all of the following circumstances exist, it would be justified in denying treaty benefits due to the lack of economic substance, and a bona fide purpose, and the ultimate beneficiaries are third-country residents not entitled to direct benefits from the treaty.  Such circumstances include all of the following:

  • A tax treaty resident uses the tax treaty to obtain a reduction of Canadian tax otherwise payable on Canadian source income,
  • The intermediary entity is owned or controlled mainly by residents of another country which are not entitled to at least the same treaty benefits,
  • The intermediary entity pays no or low taxes in its country on the item of income earned in Canada, and
  • The intermediary entity does not carry on real and substantial business activities, other than managing investment income) in its country.

TEI also provides general comments stating the following concepts:

  • Treaty Limitation on Benefit (LOB) Provisions should be the favored approach rather than domestic legislation
  • Unilateral Approach should be eschewed in favor of a multilateral approach
  • Evidence of the scope and degree of treaty abuse in Canada is inconclusive

TEI’s comments also addressed the specific questions raised in the consultation paper of 14 August, 2013:

  1. Advantages and disadvantages of a domestic law approach, a treaty based approach, or a combination of both
  2. Merits of OECD approaches to treaty shopping, and other possible approaches re: treaty shopping
  3. Preference for a general, versus a specific and objective approach; achieving balance between effectiveness, certainty, simplicity, and administration
  4. Views on a domestic law general purpose test and its effectiveness in preventing treaty shopping and achieving taxpayer certainty
  5. Details for preference of a specific approach
  6. Comments addressing applicability of a domestic anti-treaty shopping rule in addition to a comprehensive anti-treaty shopping rule

TEI’s comments are well written, posing arguments for all multinationals to consider for Canada, and in the broader context of domestic general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR), vs. treaty based benefits, and the impetus behind countries to adopt unilateral domestic rules prior to dates in the OECD BEPS Action Plan for issues that should be internationally consistent.  For reference, prior posts have addressed GAAR provisions advocated by several countries that can be accessed for future insight.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

PwC TP update / Best Practices

PwC has published an informative update addressing hot topics in transfer pricing for different industries.

Click to access pwc-tpp-perspectives.pdf

Key industries and issues addressed comprise the following:

  • Oil & Gas: intercompany service charges re: direct/indirect benefit and Competent Authority in non-treaty countries
  • Global Audits: MAP, OECD BEPS Action Plan, Cooperative Compliance programs, arms-length principle, PE, GAAR and Strategic Risk Assessment
  • Industrial Products: Cost Sharing Agreements, Intangibles, Supply chain management, M&A interaction
  • Interco. Financing: Guarantee fees, transfer pricing methodologies
  • Financial Industry: Dodd-Frank Act, Regulatory practice coordination with transfer pricing
  • Russia TP: New rules 2012 introducing arms-length principle, new Department and work group re: TP, specialized TP group re: intercompany transactions
  • S. America: Global marketing/sourcing, intercompany services documentation, currency restrictions
  • Real Estate Funding
  • ERP Systems and TP
  • Politics of taxation: OECD BEPS Action Plan, TP disclosures, PE risks
  • Pharmaceutical / Life Sciences
  • Value Chain Transformation: Model Maturity matrix

This publication is relevant and timely, including Best Practices and transfer pricing issues for different industries.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

Holding Regimes: 2013

Loyens & Loeff provides their annual concise and practical holding company update of holding company regimes for 2013.

Click to access Holding_Regimes_2013.pdf

Several topics are covered for each of the following countries

  1. Belgium
  2. Cyprus
  3. Hong Kong
  4. Hungary
  5. Ireland
  6. Luxembourg
  7. Malta
  8. Netherlands
  9. Singapore
  10. Spain
  11. Switzerland
  12. United Kingdom
  • Tax on capital contributions
  • Corporate income taxes
  • Withholding taxes
  • Capital gains taxes
  • Anti-abuse provisions / CFC rules
  • Income tax treaties as of 1/1/2013

This publication is a timely and valuable update, especially with respect to non-European countries and the topics of anti-abuse provisions and CFC rules.

Best Practices should include an annual review of the global legal entity structure, especially with upcoming OECD guidelines, re: general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR), anti-abuse provisions and CFC rules.

Category:

Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

Dutch Holding companies: Substance requirements / information exchange

Holding companies in the Netherlands that conduct finance and leasing operations must meet substance requirements as of 1/1/2014, with confirmation provided in the annual income tax return.  To the extent that one, or more, of the requirements are not fulfilled, such information is required to be disclosed, with such disclosures spontaneously provided to the relevant treaty partner who can use it to review tax treaty benefits.  A Tax Flash from Loyens & Loeff provides a summary of these requirements, as well as an interesting comparison of the substance requirements to those relevant for an APA of a group financing company.

http://www.loyensloeff.com/nl-NL/News/Publications/Flashes/Pages/TaxFlash22October2013.aspx

A taxpayer must meet all of the following substance requirements:

  • 50% or more of decision-making board members reside in the Netherlands, and have the relevant professional knowledge to perform their duties
  • Qualified employees are in place to implement and register transactions
  • Management decisions are taken in the Netherlands
  • (Authority for) main bank accounts is retained in the Netherlands
  • Books are kept in the Netherlands
  • Business address is in the Netherlands
  • The taxpayer is not a dual resident with another country
  • Risks are evident for financing, licensing or leasing activities
  • An appropriate equity is maintained with regard to the functions performed

Beneficial ownership rules are subject to additional review and attention by OECD and global tax authorities, and Netherlands is using this prescriptive approach to ensure that substance is maintained and exchange of information provisions are in place to identity taxpayers not meeting such requirements.  All multinationals should monitor this topic, while also ensuring that Dutch holding companies meet the relevant substance requirements

Category:

Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

BEPS Action item 14: OECD Dispute Resolution Focus Group

OECD Working Party 1 has formed a Dispute Resolution Focus Group to address BEPS Action Plan item 14, copied herein for reference.

Focus areas of WP 1:

  • Access to Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP)
  • Arbitration
  • Multilateral MAPs & APAs
  • Adjustment issues, including timing for corresponding adjustments, self-initiated adjustments, and secondary adjustments
  • Interest & Penalties
  • Hybrid Entities
  • Legal status of a mutual agreement

In the US, IRS has also issued Notice 2013-78 detailing a proposed Rev. Procedure on US Competent Authority procedures, including an emphasis on informal consultation for US Foreign Tax Credit determinations.

Click to access n-13-78.pdf

OECD BEPS ACTION 14

Make dispute resolution mechanisms more effective

Develop solutions to address obstacles that prevent countries from solving treaty-related disputes under MAP, including the absence of arbitration provisions in most treaties and the fact that access to MAP and arbitration may be denied in certain cases.

(iv) From agreed policies to tax rules: the need for a swift implementation of the measures

There is a need to consider innovative ways to implement the measures resulting from the work on the BEPS Action Plan. The delivery of the actions included in the Action Plan on BEPS will result in a number of outputs.

Some actions will likely result in recommendations regarding domestic law provisions, as well as in changes to the Commentary to the OECD Model Tax Convention and the Transfer Pricing Guidelines. Other actions will likely result in changes to the OECD Model Tax Convention. This is for example the case for the introduction of an anti-treaty abuse provision, changes to the definition of permanent establishment, changes to transfer pricing provisions and the introduction of treaty provisions in relation to hybrid mismatch arrangements.

Changes to the OECD Model Tax Convention are not directly effective without amendments to bilateral tax treaties. If undertaken on a purely treaty-by-treaty basis, the sheer number of treaties in effect may make such a process very lengthy, the more so where countries embark on comprehensive renegotiations of their bilateral tax treaties. A multilateral instrument to amend bilateral treaties is a promising way forward in this respect.

This new initiative highlights innovative and forward thinking by the OECD.

Best Practice thoughts include:

  • Using MAP as a roll-forward mechanism to an APA to cover additional years beyond the MAP request
  • Using simultaneous appeals and Competent Authority relief provisions

These developments merit additional attention to self-initiated adjustments, Best Practices to address secondary / corresponding adjustments and creative thinking to resolve bilateral / multilateral disputes.

Related articles

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

Belgium renews transfer pricing emphasis

The Belgian tax authorities (BTA) are accelerating their focus on transfer pricing ahead of the OECD’s recommendations from its Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”) Action Plan.  The transfer pricing initiatives are highlighted herein for reference and are discussed in the attached link from PwC.

http://www.publications.pwc.com/DisplayFile.aspx?Attachmentid=7092&Mailinstanceid=28847

Summary of initiatives:

  • Additional transfer pricing resources, with 30 individuals assigned to transfer pricing by year-end 2013.
  • A targeted action plan was started in January 2013, selecting 230 companies for a transfer pricing audit.
  • Determine taxpayer selection via risk assessment by the transfer pricing audit team, leveraging on information exchange with foreign tax authorities.  Companies with significant loss carry-overs and/or volatile profit margins will reflect a high risk rating.
  • The Belgian Tax Authority’s Special Investigation Tax team, re: fiscal fraud, and its transfer pricing audit team will form a collaborative centre of excellence to collect and share transfer pricing knowledge, including sharing respective databases.
  • An extension of the 3 year statute of limitations is envisaged.

As evidenced by the Belgian initiatives, the focus on transfer pricing will intensify as information initiatives are being developed within a jurisdiction in addition to exchange of tax information with other tax administrations.  These initiatives dictate increased emphasis on transfer pricing documentation for risk assessment and issue consistency in response to audits as tax information is shared.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

Vietnam introduces anti-treaty shopping rules

A draft circular, released by the Ministry of Finance, introduces rules that would enable Vietnamese tax authorities to deny tax treaty benefits.  A substance-over-form principle would be used for those transactions concluded solely to achieve a tax benefit (i.e. the main purpose of an agreement is to obtain treaty benefits) and for which the benefit is not received by the beneficial owner.

Beneficial ownership benefits may be challenged if the applicant:

  • Has the obligation to distribute more than 50% of the income to another entity,
  • Only has business activities consisting of asset ownership or the right to generate income,
  • Has an amount of assets, business scale or employees not commensurate with the income received,
  • Does not have control or power over the assets of has low risks for such assets or income,
  • Has a back-to-back arrangement for lending, royalties or technical services with a third party,
  • Is resident of a country which has no, or a low, income tax, or
  • Is an intermediary solely for the purpose of accessing treaty benefits.

The Circular is presently in draft form, although the concept of “Beneficial Ownership” should be reviewed in every legal structure to determine potential risks and consequences.  This action in Vietnam is also mirrored by efforts of the OECD and other countries to restrict treaty benefits for certain activities.  For example, the UK has recently released rules enabling public disclosure of beneficial owners having ultimate ownership of the respective entity (refer to 1 Nov. post).

Note that the proposed tests for beneficial ownership are primarily objective, thus holding company structures, and their respective Articles of Association, should be reviewed in preparation for revised rules of “Beneficial Ownership.”

Click to access PwC%20Vietnam%20Newsbrief%20-%20Draft%20Circular%20on%20treaty%20shopping%20provisions_EN.pdf

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

EU Parent-Sub Directive: GAAR/Mismatch proposals

The proposals for the EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive have been published, with a summary and KPMG review in this post.

Proposed amendments on 25 Nov., 2013

•    Domestic law implementation

•    Financial mismatches (PPL, hybrids, etc.)

•    GAAR:

Artificial arrangements: to gain improper tax advantages, and defeats object, spirit & purpose of tax provisions

•     Compliance with Directive by 31 Dec. 2014

Determination of artificiality (one or more):

•     Legal characterization, vs. legal substance, of individual steps

•     Does not reflect economic reality

•     Arrangement is not ordinarily used in reasonable business conduct

•     Arrangement has offsetting or cancelling elements

•     Transactions are circular in nature

•     Arrangement results in a significant tax benefit which is not reflected in the business risks undertaken by the taxpayer

Click to access eu-nov25-2013.pdf

This proposal follows GAAR implementations by several countries in advance of the OECD BEPS Action Plan.  This subjective anti-avoidance action should be followed, as other countries will also be examining the relevant wording and guidance therein.

Category:

Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

OECD Task Force on Tax & Development: Meeting update

The OECD Task Force’s role is to advise the OECD Committees in delivering a Tax and Development Programme focused on developing countries.  Co-chaired by South Africa and the Netherlands, its members include OECD and developing countries, business, and regional/international organisations.

http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-global/taxanddevelopment.htm

Click to access taskforce-tax-development-korea-outcome-statement.pdf

The annual meeting was held 30-31 October in Seoul, Korea, with the following points of emphasis.

  • State building, accountability and effective capacity development, including governance of tax incentives and a feasibility study on Tax Inspectors Without Borders initiative (9 June post)
  • More effective transfer pricing regimes in developing countries, with country initiatives in Columbia, Ghana, Honduras, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Vietnam developed in partnership with the EU and World Bank.
  • Increased transparency in the reporting of financial data by MNEs, identifying Best Practices while monitoring developments of the Dodd-Frank Act and proposals for revising the EU Transparency Directive.
  • Countering international tax evasion/avoidance and improving transparency and exchange of information, preparing countries for peer reviews by the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information and developing exchange of information projects in Kenya and Ghana.

The report provides added value with numerous links to referenced initiatives (i.e., Tax Inspectors Without Borders, EU Transparency Directive) for a comprehensive understanding of the multiple initiatives being developed.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

EU JTPF: Transfer Pricing – Secondary adjustments review

The EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum (JTPF) report on secondary adjustments was agreed in October 2012.  With the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan currently under discussion, it is worthy to review the process of secondary adjustments and their various implications and complexities.  The report discusses the adjustments under the EU Parent Subsidiary Directive, EU Arbitration Convention, and Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP).  For non-EU countries, it is imperative to review consequences of a secondary adjustment due to additional costs, complication and double taxation risks.

Click to access final_report_secondary_adjustments_en.pdf

It is possible that a transfer pricing adjustment is accompanied by a so-called “secondary adjustment”.

Transfer pricing legislation in some States allows or requires “secondary transactions” in order to make the actual allocation of profits consistent with the primary adjustment. Double taxation may arise due to the fact that the secondary transaction itself may have tax consequences and results in an adjustment.

The OECD MTC does not prevent secondary adjustments from being made where they are permitted under domestic law.

Secondary adjustments may in some Member States be subject to specific penalties or result in penalties under the general penalty regime.

Procedure for removing double taxation: In their responses to the questionnaire on secondary adjustments most Member States which apply secondary adjustments stated that they do not consider double taxation issues resulting from secondary adjustments as being covered by the Arbitration Convention (AC), only a few consider them covered by the AC Convention, and some other MS indicated that the applicability of the AC to secondary adjustments remains an open question for them.  However, most Member States applying secondary adjustments would be willing to address them in the course of a MAP. Therefore, in cases where it is not possible to avoid double taxation at the outset, e.g. by way of applying the Parent Subsidiary Directive (PSD), a taxpayer would – in a case of (potential) double taxation resulting from a secondary adjustment – have to file two requests, i.e. a request under the Arbitration Convention and a request for a MAP. The latter would require in each case a treaty being concluded between Member States that includes a MAP provision comparable to Article 25 of the OECD MTC (preferably including an arbitration clause as per Article 25 (5) OECD MTC).

A review of secondary adjustments, and their application for transfer pricing adjustments, should be reviewed in advance of final audit settlements to ensure additional complexities do not arise.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with: