Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Posts tagged ‘OECD’

Tax avoidance strategies: Int’l human rights law violations? – IBA report

The facilitation of tax avoidance strategies could constitute a violation of international human rights law, according to a new report by the International Bar Association.

http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=4A0CF930-A0D1-4784-8D09-F588DCDDFEA4

The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) Task Force on Illicit Financial Flows, Poverty and Human Rights was convened to reflect upon these pressing questions from the perspective of international human rights law and policy. This innovative report:
  • provides a detailed overview of tax abuses and secrecy jurisdictions
  • investigates the links between tax abuses, poverty and human rights
  • draws on case studies from Brazil, Jersey and the SADC region
  • evaluates responsibilities and remedies to counter tax abuses affecting human rights
  • delivers unique recommendations for states, business enterprises and the legal profession

For the purposes of this report, tax abuses include the tax practices that are contrary to the letter or spirit of domestic and international tax laws and policies. They include tax evasion, tax fraud and other illegal practices − including the tax losses resulting from other illicit financial flows such as bribery, corruption and money laundering. The term ‘tax abuse’ also includes tax practices that may be legal, strictly speaking, but are currently under scrutiny because they avoid a ‘fair share’ of the tax burden and have negative impacts on the tax revenues and economies of developing countries.

This report covers developments in international tax cooperation on issues such as automatic exchange of information, and base erosion and profit-shifting. It also assesses trends in international development policy which are increasingly focused on strengthening good tax governance in developing countries – thereby reducing dependency on foreign aid and improving development outcomes. It demonstrates the evolution of international human rights law and policy, whilst highlighting tax abuses as a pressing human rights concern.

The Task Force’s goals and objectives are:

1. To publish an innovative report containing findings and a set of recommendations on the interaction between illicit financial flows, poverty and human rights.

2. To widely disseminate the report with the view of pushing the issue of tax evasion and human rights onto global policy agendas, and sustaining discussion thereafter.

3. To incite multi-level policy changes in the area of tax evasion and economic, social and cultural rights adjudication to help end global poverty.

The report cites the following topics for relevance in its comprehensive discussion:

  • OECD BEPS Action Plan
  • OECD Anti-Bribery Convention
  • OECD “Tax Inspectors Without Borders” initiative (refer to 9 June posting)
  • G8 and G20 countries
  • US FATCA rules
  • US Dodd Frank legislation
  • UK House of Commons
  • UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
  • EU Accounting and Transparency Directives
  • Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) (39 countries have signed up)

This report provides interesting insights into the complex relationship of international taxes and non-tax principles and objectives, for which all international tax executives should be aware.  Appendices of the report provide suggested recommendations for States, international business  and the legal profession to help combat today’s conflicts.

 

Category:

OECD / UN, Tax Risk Management, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

OECD Memorandum on TP Documentation & Country-by-Country Reporting

The OECD has provided a discussion memorandum in advance of its 12-13 November public consultation on the Revised Discussion Draft on Transfer Pricing Aspects of Intangibles and the White Paper on Transfer Pricing Documentation.  The memorandum presents questions for discussion in addressing implementation issues of a country-by-country reporting template.  A summary of the memorandum is provided, with a link for reference:

Click to access memorandum-transfer-pricing-documentation-and-country-by-country-reporting.pdf

The memorandum outlines two questions, with alternatives provided for each:

What information should be required?

A. The most critical item will be a report of income earned in a country, with the following approaches outlined.

  • Net income before tax for each legal entity
  • Taxable income per tax returns
  • Accounting segment reporting rules
  • Internal consolidating income statements
  • Other

B. Taxes paid by country

  • Cash or accrual basis
  • National vs. local income taxes
  • Non-income taxes

C. Measures of economic activity

  • Revenues by customer location
  • Tangible assets by location
  • Employees / payroll
  • Research expenditures by company/country
  • Marketing expenditures by company /country
  • Location of intangibles by country
  • Location of senior management (e.g. 25-50 most highly compensated employees of group)
  • Other

An interesting comment is also provided for insight: “A key question is whether such reporting will provide any meaningful guidance for risk assessment purposes about the location of real economic activity.”  It is noted that the emphasis seems to focus on economic activity, with little mention of transfer pricing functions, assets, or risks.

What mechanisms should be developed for reporting or sharing country-by-country data?

  • Template completed by parent company and shared  via treaty exchange of information mechanisms
  • Exclusion of information to countries where adequate provisions do not exist to protect confidentiality
  • Template inclusion in global master file to every country in which there is an affiliate subject to tax
  • Other

These developments provide valuable insight into the future trend of transfer pricing documentation that will provide numerous challenges for every multinational.

 

 

 

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

BIAC Tax Principles/Best Practices/comments re: OECD TP risk assessment

Three new publications have been issued by the Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) to the OECD.  The publications encompass Best Practices and Tax Principles for Multinational Enterprises (MNEs), as well as comments on the OECD Draft Handbook on Transfer Pricing Risk Assessment.  These reports are worthy to note in an effort to better understand the continuing trend of transfer pricing scrutiny.

http://www.biac.org/policygrp/stmts-tax.htm

BIAC Statement of Tax Best Practices for Engaging with Tax Authorities in Developing Countries.  This statement is designed to enhance cooperation, trust and confidence between tax authorities and international business.  Key observations include:

  • Each of the 10 Best Practices directs that “Business should” or “Business may.”  Accordingly, it is written from the perspective of business directives.  There are no views or statements addressing Best Practice methodologies to be conducted by tax administrations.
  • The last Best Practice states: “Business should consider how best to explain more fully to the public their economic contribution and taxes paid in the jurisdictions in which they operate, where they determine that such explanation would be helpful in building trust in the tax system.”  This statement integrates the concepts of economic contribution and taxes paid with public trust.  Additionally, there are no references to arms-length principles or analysis of functions, assets, or risks.  It is important to note that taxes paid in different jurisdictions arise from very complex laws and regulations that are different in every jurisdiction, thus making it difficult for the public to draw insightful and relevant conclusions.

BIAC Statement of Tax Principles for International Business.  Noted statements include:

  • As a tax training principle, international business should only engage in tax planning that is aligned with commercial and economic activity and does not lead to an abusive result.  There is an explicit reference to economic activity, but a lack of terminology referencing arms-length principle or transfer pricing functions, assets or risks.
  • A Transparency and reporting principle states: “Where they determine such explanations would be helpful in building public trust in the tax system, they should consider how best to explain to the public their economic contribution and taxes paid in the jurisdictions in which they operate.”  This statement mirrors that from the Statement of Tax Best Practices noted above.

BIAC Comments on the OECD Draft Handbook on Transfer Pricing Risk Assessment, published on 30 April 2013.  This is a very informative document that outlines many of the issues being considered by the OECD, and provides a thoughtful reference for discussions going forward.  Some key  statements include:

  • The risk assessment should not exceed 6 months.
  • A “low risk” status can bring tangible benefits in terms of a reduced documentation requirement as well as efficiencies in the overall audit process.
  • A “deep dive” audit is not always required.
  • The first step in transfer pricing risk assessment should consider how the business generates profit, its approach to tax planning, its supply chain and the legal environment in which it operates.
  • “From a Transfer Pricing Risk Assessment perspective, we are very keen to see the cooperative compliance approach endorsed early in the Handbook, as a precursor to narrower assessment of transfer pricing risk.”
  • “We are concerned that the overall tone and focus of the Handbook could result in a negative and sceptical view of taxpayers.”
  • We would be particularly concerned if the use of such subjective language (i.e. large, small and material payments, high-tax and low-tax jurisdictions) led to tax administrations ignoring the arm’s-length principle.
  • “Indications of profitability, effective tax rate and comparative profits of related parties are concerning as the implication may be that the transactions are inappropriate.”
  • Any risk assessment report should be shared with the taxpayer.

The Appendix provides specific comments to the related paragraphs within the Handbook.  Two examples from Chapter 1, par. 9 are cited for reference:

  • Shifting income into jurisdictions where it will be lightly taxed or engaging in related party transactions designed to erode the local country tax base-shifting income is an unhelpful phrase.
  • We would welcome clarification that income should be taxed where the functions/assets/risks are performed.

The BIAC comments should be read to better understand the context of the current transfer pricing environment, and how proposals will affect MNEs and tax administrations in the future.

Category:

Tax Risk Management, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

TEI’s comments: OECD Draft Handbook on Transfer Pricing Risk Assessment

Tax Executives Institute (TEI) has provided comments to the OECD Draft Handbook on Transfer Pricing Risk Assessment, for which the relevant links are provided for reference.  A link to TEI is also included in the Recommended Links page of this blog.

http://www.oecd.org/ctp/transfer-pricing/Draft-Handbook-TP-Risk-Assessment-ENG.pdf

Click to access TEI%20Comments%20-%20OECD%20Draft%20Handbook%20on%20Transfer%20Pricing%20Risk%20Assessment%20-%20FINAL%20to%20OECD%2011%20September%202013.pdf

These comments are useful in comprehending the complexity of transfer pricing risks and documentation concerns, especially against the backdrop of OECD’s recent White Paper on Transfer Pricing Documentation (31 July post) and its Revised Draft for the Transfer Pricing of Intangibles (3 August post).  International tax executives should review OECD’s proposals and public comments from TEI and other organizations to develop a risk framework for new transfer pricing challenges and country-specific initiatives.

Category:

OECD / UN, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

OECD Exchange of tax information portal

As a follow up to the OECD G20 Report post on 8 September, information about the Exchange of Tax Information Portal is provided for further reference.  The respective jurisdiction can be selected, with agreements available via PDF files.  This site will be even more useful as countries complete the relevant Peer 1 and Peer 2 reviews.

The Exchange of Tax Information Portal is an initiative of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes.  The Global Forum conducts peer reviews of its member jurisdictions’ ability to co-operate with other tax administrations in accordance with the internationally agreed standard. The standard provides for exchange of information on request where it is foreseeably relevant to the administration and enforcement of the domestic tax laws of the requesting jurisdiction. Effective exchange of information requires that jurisdictions ensure information is available, that it can be obtained by the tax authorities and that there are mechanisms in place allowing for the exchange of that information. The Global Forum’s peer review process examines both the legal and regulatory aspects of exchange (Phase 1 reviews) and the exchange of information in practice (Phase 2). The EOI Portal will track the development of these peer reviews, including changes that jurisdiction’s make in response to the Global Forum’s recommendations.  The Portal can be accessed from the following link:

http://www.eoi-tax.org/jurisdictions/AR

The Exchange of Tax Information Portal site should be used, and shared, for valuable reference on this important and current initiative.

Category:

OECD / UN, Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

OECD G20 Report & Best Practice Analogies

OECD’s report to the G20 leaders in St. Petersburg, Russia is attached for reference, consisting of a Progress Report to the G20 in Part I, and details of the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan and offshore tax evasion efforts in Part II.  This posting will capture some highlights from the report, and pose analogies for Best Practices in alignment with the OECD’s initiatives.  The report may be accessed at:

Click to access SG-report-G20-Leaders-StPetersburg.pdf

The Introduction provides commentary on “legal tax avoidance,” renewed demands for greater transparency, calling for all taxpayers to pay their fair share, and completion of a global model for automatic exchange of information by 2014.

Initiatives of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information (the Global Forum) have resulted in 119  jurisdictions committed to standards of transparency and exchange of information.  Best Practices includes communicating  results of the Global Forum to global and regional tax teams, and business leaders, to ensure that global consistency of information is being provided to tax authorities.  

The Global Forum promotes exchange of information via a monitoring and peer review process.  The process includes Phase 1 reviews, examining a jurisdiction’s legal framework for exchange of information, and Phase 2 reviews that examine information exchange in practice.  How well does the exchange of information process work for Multinational Enterprises (MNEs)?  Is this report, with a schedule of subsequent discussions on its impact, automatically sent to all tax team members, or is each individual personally responsible for accessing, reading and comprehending the report, including Phase 1 and Phase 2 reviews?

Peer reviews result in recommendations for improvement, with all jurisdictions required to provide follow-up reports describing actions taken. Re: global audits, are recommendations for improvement provided during, and after, the audit, with action steps documented?

The Global Forum has organized four training seminars in 2012, and five training seminars this year, in addition to implementation toolkits.  Appendix 4 of Part 1 provides a listing of members and observers, inherently resulting in potential impacts for these proposals beyond the OECD member countries.  How many training forums and business tools have been provided by MNEs in the last two years to review the ongoing trend of global tax proposals?

Part 2 lists the 15 activities of the BEPS Action Plan to be addressed by all relevant stakeholders.  For analogy, has the MNE also listed those same activities, addressing potential impacts, risk quantifications and expected actions for each of the proposals, including a relevant timeline and accountability?  Are all international tax team members and business leaders aware of the BEPS Action Plan?

Automatic exchange of information is becoming the norm, versus the exception, for tax authorities around the world.  How are tax changes, audit queries, changes in tax laws, etc., communicated within the MNE enterprise quickly and efficiently?  Is  a tax newsletter communicated to the global business, addressing areas of focus and learning?

Annex 2 of the Progress Report outlines a model of multilateral automatic exchange of information designed to implement a step change in transparency.    This section is useful in addressing future legislative changes, draft model competent authority agreements, legal / confidentiality concerns, and legal bases for the exchange of information.  MNEs should track public comments and future changes of OECD member countries and observers to address these initiatives.

The highlights of the OECD G20 Report, and suggested comments for Best Practices, are meant to promote creative thought and reflection to effectively plan for the rapid evolution of change in the international tax arena.

Related articles

Category:

OECD / UN, Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

OECD Multilateral Convention: Automatic information sharing among G20 countries

With China’s commitment on 27 August 2013, all G20 countries have signed the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (Convention), resulting in automatic exchange of information as the new global standard.

Tax authorities are cooperating multilaterally and automatically, as the Convention provides for spontaneous exchange of information, simultaneous tax examinations and tax assistance.  The accompanying press release, including a list of the 56 signatories, is available at:

http://www.oecd.org/tax/china-joins-international-efforts-to-end-tax-evasion.htm

What are the implications on Best Practices for these continuing developments?  Ideas for consideration include the following:

  • Providing taxpayer information to one authority should be viewed as being provided to many countries worldwide, thus maintaining consistency is essential.  A formal methodology will ensure Best Practices are being followed.
  • Tax assistance, simultaneous examinations and joint audits should be envisioned for reviewing the global Tax Risk Framework.
  • Best Practices for implementation of Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) are a topic of frequent discussion by tax authorities worldwide; thus Best Practices for Multinationals should also be focused on risk identification, measurement and application of MAP.
  • Related posts for reference:
  1. 23 July, OECD exchange of information: Multilateral Convention review
  2. 27 June, OECD FTA MAP forum to develop Best Practices
  3. 25 June, OECD report to the G20: Status, training, effectiveness
  4. 20 June, OECD Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information: Activities
  5. 18 June, OECD: Tax Transparency report.
Related articles

Category:

Audits, OECD / UN, Tax Risk Management, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

PE Best Practices Risk Review: BEPS Action Plan, OECD & UN Model Conventions

A Permanent Establishment (PE) risk review is an integral component of a global Tax Risk Framework, increasing in importance with issuance of the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan.  The PE risk review should be monitored on a recurring basis against the backdrop of current and future developments.  The OECD and UN Model Conventions, with related Commentaries, provide insight into the development and current state of international PE guidelines.  The Conventions provide a useful framework to document specific PE criteria, and exceptions thereto, for risk analysis.

Action 6 (Prevent Treaty Abuse) of the BEPS Action Plan states that the definition of PE must be updated to prevent abuses.  Action 7 (Prevent the artificial avoidance of PE status) provides additional PE initiatives.  Actions 6 and 7 are designed to implemented by September 2014 and September 2015, respectively.  It will be paramount to note any changes in the “preparatory or auxiliary” exception.  A link to the BEPS Action Plan is hereby provided for reference:  http://www.oecd.org/ctp/BEPSActionPlan.pdf

Article 5 of the OECD Model Convention provides an outline for PE determination, including a “fixed place of business” standard, building site or installation project criteria, the “preparatory or auxiliary character” exception, dependent agent rules and further exceptions for activities of an independent agent and related entities.  The OECD Model Convention can be accessed at: http://www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/oecdmtcavailableproducts.htm

The OECD Commentaries are required reading to fully comprehend the history, and intended meaning, of Article 5.  Paragraph 2 of the Commentary provides an outline for determination of a “fixed place of business,” consisting of (i) the existence of a “place of business,” (ii) this place of business must be “fixed,” and (iii) the carrying on of the business through this fixed place of business.  Paragraph 24 of the Commentary states that , for application of the “fixed place of business” rule, “the decisive criterion is whether or not the activity of the fixed place of business in itself forms an essential and significant part of the activity of the enterprise as a whole.”  Paragraph 33 further provides that “the authority to conclude contracts must cover contracts relating to operations which constitute the business proper of the enterprise.”

The attached reference provides access to the UN Model Convention, Letter from India (13 Aug 2012), revised commentary on existing Article 5 and definition of PE for comprehensive understanding of the current PE Article.  The UN Model Convention contains an Introduction, Part One (including the Articles), and Part Two with Commentaries.  Paragraph 20 of the Commentaries states that the Commentaries on the Articles are regarded as part of the UN Model Convention, along with the Articles themselves.  Most importantly, Part Two cites differences of the UN and OECD Model Conventions, such as the UN inclusion of a services standard, exceeding 183 days in any 12-month period, that is not within the OECD guidelines.   http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/tax/unmodel.htm

Best Practice ideas for outlining PE risk include:

  • Documenting potential significant PE risks by legal entity, with specific reference to the PE attribute that attracts such risk, such as a fixed place of business or dependent agent.
  • Outlining availability of the preparatory or auxiliary character exception for potential risks.
  • Inclusion of objective and subjective evidence that provides defense for a potential PE determination, including wording from the applicable Convention and Commentaries.
  • Tools available to reduce double taxation upon determination of a PE, such as the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP).

The above Best Practices should be combined with Best Practice ideas in former posts:

  • 14 April PE Risks: Best Practices for Awareness & Planning
  • 14 July: PwC PE survey: Trends & Challenges

PE determination is increasing in importance in today’s changing tax world, thus a detailed risk matrix is essential to determine current potential risk areas, as well as provide valuable information to assess proposed changes by the OECD and/or UN.

Category:

OECD / UN, PE, Tax Risk Management, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

EY 2013 survey: GAAR history/trends & Tax Treaty vs. domestic law application

Click to access GAAR_rising_1%20Feb_2013.pdf

The EY report is invaluable in explaining the origins of a general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR), recent developments and future trends.  It provides a comprehensive background on GAAR, including results from a survey of 24 countries.  The February 2013 report looks at various countries developing GAAR, European Commission recommendations, how and when GAAR measures may be invoked, and what companies can do to mitigate risk in their tax risk management.  One of the many highlights in the report is the comparison of tax treaties and domestic application of GAAR.

Examples of EY insights include the following:

  • GAAR is defined as a set of broad principles-based rules within a country’s tax code designed to counteract the perceived avoidance of tax.
  • Tax law designed to deal with particular transactions of concern are termed as either specific anti-avoidance rules (SAARs) or targeted anti-avoidance rules (TAARs).
  • China had started 248 GAAR cases in 2011, concluding 207 cases with taxes collected of $3.8 billion.
  • Each country will have its own definition of an “abusive” or “avoidance” transaction that could be the target of its GAAR.
  • A tax benefit, transaction or arrangement within GAAR regimes are not unified, thus requiring a close review of each country’s definitions.
  • GAAR independent review panels are developing to oversee its application
  • Virtually all countries have multiple SAAR and/or TAAR provisions, although only a few have been abolished with introduction of a GAAR.
  • Inconsistency of GAAR application to arrangements that have already been subject to one or more SAAR measures in that jurisdiction, including India, China and Chile.
  • China SAT seems to be expanding its beneficial ownership test into an anti-treaty shopping/anti-abuse test, creating more uncertainty.
  • The use of GAAR also extends to benefits provided by tax treaties.  Tax treaties include bilateral anti-avoidance provisions, although several countries are applying unilateral anti-avoidance measures via interpretations of existing treaties or applying domestic law GAAR provisions to treaty benefits.
  • Countries are including in their tax treaties explicit authorization of the application of domestic law anti-avoidance provisions.
  • Approx. 12 of 24 countries surveyed allow their GAAR provisions to override existing tax treaties, unilaterally or applying domestic GAAR.
  • 30% of participants from a 2012 GAAR webcast responded that they do not address GAAR within their tax risk management approach.
  • Best Practice: Use a tax governance framework with documented processes for significant transaction sign-off.
  • Best Practice: New GAAR, SAAR and TAAR proposals should be monitored and factored into the tax life cycle of a multinational business
  • Best Practice: Transaction documents should state the intended purpose of the overall transaction, as well as each step therein.
  • Best Practice: Document alternative positions considered, demonstrating that the final position was the only reasonable position to obtain the commercial objectives, and that there were no transactional steps taken that were explicable only in a tax benefit context.
  • Best Practice: Obtain external advice on significant transactions, including opinions on GAAR.

Several tables include insightful observations, including:

  1. Table 1, GAAR introduction timeline in various countries
  2. Table 2, Burden of proof for each country; taxpayer, tax authority, or shared
  3. Table 3, Examples of 2011-12 tax treaties with reference to application of domestic anti-avoidance rules in the treaty context.
  4. Table 4, Countries providing GAAR rulings/clearances

Additionally, eight questions are posed for a Board to ask in relation to GAAR:

  1. Does the transaction have a valid commercial purpose?
  2. Is the transaction unique and complex?
  3. Is the tax benefit material to the financial statement?
  4. Could the transaction  be undertaken in a different manner, without attracting the potential application of GAAR?
  5. Has an opinion been obtained that the transaction will more likely than not withstand a GAAR challenge?
  6. Is the transaction defendable in the public eye?
  7. What is the corporation’s tax risk profile both globally and locally?
  8. How comfortable is the corporation with litigation if it is required to defend the transaction?

The Appendix of the report provides answers, for each of the 24 countries, to the following queries:

  • Does a GAAR exist?  If so, year of introduction and effective date
  • Can the GAAR be applied retrospectively?
  • Do specific anti-abuse measures exist?
  • Does your country have specific legislation in place related to the indirect transfer of assets?
  • What are the circumstances in which the GAAR can be invoked?
  • Is the burden of proof on the taxpayer or taxing authority?
  • Does your country have a GAAR panel?
  • What is the attitude of the tax authority toward invoking a GAAR?
  • Is a clearance/rulings mechanism available?
  • Can the GAAR override treaties when invoked?
  • What penalties may result from the GAAR being invoked?
  • Provide a summary of key judicial decisions involving GAAR or other anti-abuse legislation.
  • Are there any legislative proposals or open consultations that may affect the future composition of a GAAR?

Prior posts for additional reference:

  • 6 August; U.N. Committee of Experts to address the Manual for Negotiation of Bilateral Tax Treaties in October 2013
  • 21 July; UK Finance Act 2013: GAAR has arrived
  • 19 July; OECD BEPS Report & Action Plan
  • 4 July; Italy: New Co-operative Compliance Program
  • 29 June; Board Oversight and Responsibilities for Tax Risk Management
  • 13 June; OECD: A Framework for Co-operative Compliance
  • 5 June; GAAR: India & International Perspective

This report is a comprehensive review of GAAR and should form a foundation for planning significant transactions and adopting Best Practices within the global Tax Risk Framework.  For example, the eight questions to be posed by the Board could form Best Practices for planning significant transactions.  The report is a valuable tool for regional and global tax teams as the trend of GAAR, and understanding its subjective principles, is becoming more complex in today’s ever-changing tax environment.   

Category:

Tax Risk Management, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

U.N. Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters: update

http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/tax/

The U.N. Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters (U.N. Committee ) is responsible for drafting the U.N. model tax treaty and the Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries.  The U.N. Committee’s work on international tax and transfer pricing developments should be watched closely by the international tax community.  Additionally, developments on important topics should be compared with that of the OECD, including its Revised Draft on Transfer Pricing Aspects of Intangibles (03 August post), White Paper on Transfer Pricing Documentation (31 July post) and the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Action Plan (19 July post).

The attached link provides reference to its provisional agenda for the 21-25 October 2013 session, the appointment of 25 members to the U.N. Committee for a 4-year term expiring on 30 June 3017 and the U.N. Model Double Taxation Convention.

The 9th session of the U.N. Committee will address U.N. Model Tax Convention issues, including the following:

  • Article 4 (Resident): Application of treaty rules to hybrid entities
  • Article 5 (PE), including international VAT cases
  • Article 7 (Business Profits): Force of attraction principles
  • Article 9 (Associated Enterprises): Commentary update
  • Article 26 (Exchange of information)
  • Other topics, including provision on taxation of fees for technical services, issues for the next update of The Practical Transfer Pricing Manual for Developing Countries, and The Manual for Negotiation of Bilateral Tax Treaties between Developed and Developing Countries.

The 25 members were appointed by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and will act in their personal capacity.  A detailed biography of each member is included in the press release; a listing of their name and current position is provided herein for quick reference.

  1. Mr. Khalid Abdulrahman Almuftah, Deputy Director, Revenues and Tax Dept., Ministry of Economy and Finance, Qatar
  2. Mr. Mohammed Amine Baina, Chief, Division for International Cooperation, Dept. of Taxation, Ministry of Economy and Finance, Morocco
  3. Ms. Bernadette May Evelyn Butler, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Finance, Bahamas
  4. Mr. Andrew Dawson, Head, Tax Treaty Team, HMRC, UK
  5. Mr. El Hadj Ibrahima Diop, Director of Legislation and Litigation Studies, Ministry of Economy and Finance, Senegal
  6. Mr. Johan Cornelius de la Rey, Legal Officer, Legal and Policy Division, South African Revenue Service (SARS)
  7. Ms. Noor Azian Abdul Hamid, Director, Multinational Tax Dept., Inland Revenue Board (IRBM), Malaysia
  8. Ms. Liselott Kana, Head, Dept. of International Taxation, Internal Revenue Service, Chile
  9. Mr. Toshiyuki Kemmochi, Director, Mutual Agreement Procedures, National Tax Agency, Japan
  10. Mr. Cezary Krysiak, Director, Tax Policy Dept., Ministry of Finance, Poland
  11. Mr. Armando Lara Yaffar, Director General, Int’l Affairs, Dept. of Revenue, Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, Mexico
  12. Mr. Wolfgang Karl Albert Lasars, Director, International Tax Section, Federal Ministry of Finance, Germany
  13. Mr. Tizhong Liao, Deputy Director General of Tax Treaty, Dept. of International Taxation, State Administration of Taxation, China
  14. Mr. Henry John Louie, Deputy to the Int’l Tax Counsel (Treaty Affairs), U.S. Dept. of the Treasury
  15. Mr. Enrico Martino, Head, International Relations, Dept. of Finance, Ministry of the Economy and Finance, Italy
  16. Mr. Eric Nii Yarboi Mensah, Chief Tax Treaty Negotiator, Ghana Double Tax Treaty Convention Team
  17. Mr. Ignatius Kawaza Mvula, Assistant Director, Zambia Revenue Authority
  18. Ms. Carmel Peters, Policy Manager, Inland Revenue, New Zealand
  19. Mr. Jorge Antonio Deher Rachid, Tax and Customs, Embassy of Brazil, Washington, D.C.
  20. Mr. Satit Rungkasiri, Director General, Revenue Dept., Ministry of Finance, Thailand
  21. Ms. Pragya S. Saksena, Joint Secretary, Tax Policy and Legislation, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Dept. of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, India
  22. Mr. Christoph Schelling, Head, Division for International Tax Affairs, State Secretariat for Int’l Financial Matters, Swiss Federal Dept. of Finance
  23. Mr. Stig B. Sollund, Director General and Head of Tax Law Dept., Ministry of Finance, Norway
  24. Ms. Ingela Willfors, Director, Int’l Tax Dept., Ministry of Finance, Sweden
  25. Mr. Ulvi Yusifov, Head, Int’l Treaties Division, Int’l Relations Dept., Ministry of Taxes, Azerbaijan

It will be interesting to observe the interaction of new U.N. Committee members, and most importantly the initiatives addressed against the backdrop of the OECD’s recent developments.

Related articles

Category:

OECD / UN, Tax Risk Management, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

EY 2013 Global Transfer Pricing survey: A sea of change

Click to access EY-2013-GTP-Survey.pdf

This very insightful, and timely, survey of senior tax professionals in 26 countries clearly portrays a significant increase in transfer pricing controversies and resulting double taxation.  The survey indicates that 66% of the respondents identified “risk management” as the highest transfer pricing priority.

Some challenges cited in the report include:

  • Governmental authorities expanding definitions of “aggressive tax planning”
  • Permanent Establishment (PE) assertions, including reliance on proposed changes to the commentary to Article 5 of the OECD Model Treaty
  • Reputational risks
  • Public perception
  • Increased transfer pricing complexity

Other findings include:

  1. 55% increase in Competent Authority cases from 2010
  2. 28% of the companies utilized Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP)
  3. 26% of the companies entered into Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs)
  4. Master file documentation methodology may not be compliant in Africa, Asia and Latin America
  5. 41% expect intangibles to be the most important area in the next 2 years
  6. Intangible issues included assertion of uncompensated marketing intangibles and dispute over legal vs. beneficial ownership
  7. Over 75% of PE issues arose from frequent business travelers, seconded employees and providing services through employees or other personnel abroad (PE statistics on page 23)
  8. BRICs and Africa are #1 or #2 ranking in transfer pricing priority for 30% of such companies, although 75% of those companies have no full-time transfer pricing personnel located in those jurisdictions

The report concludes with detailed survey responses for each of the 26 countries, addressing the following topics:

  1. Importance of transfer pricing
  2. Audit and controversy experience
  3. Trends in transfer pricing approaches, topics and enforcement
  4. Operationalizing transfer pricing

Best Practice considerations presented for insight include:

  • Indirect taxes, including customs and VAT, should be an integral part of the transfer pricing process, notwithstanding different functional reporting
  • Attention to detail, via frequent reviews, for intercompany transactions should be  a recurring process to ensure substance matches the form cited in transfer pricing documentation
  • Review of current transfer pricing methodologies
  • Renewed focus on controversy and dispute resolution techniques, including MAP, APAs and arbitration
  • Reputational risk consideration

The survey provides a thoughtful perspective in addition to recently issued consultation documents by the OECD re: transfer pricing documentation and intangibles, as well as recent general anti-abuse rules (GAAR) drafted and/or legislated into law.

This survey is especially insightful when compared to prior posts re: OECD Revised Draft on Transfer Pricing Aspects of Intangibles (3 August), OECD White Paper on Transfer Pricing Documentation suggesting a Masterfile and Local file approach (31 July), UK Finance Act 2013: GAAR has arrived (21 July), OECD BEPS report and Action Plan (19 July), PwC PE survey: Trends & Challenges (14 July), OECD: A Framework for Co-operative Compliance (13 June), UN: Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing & Tax Training Initiatives (2 June), A new role: Head of tax controversy (3 May), Global Mobility & International Tax: Alignment for Best Practices (24 April), and  PE Risks & Best Practices for Awareness & Planning (14 April).

Category:

Tax Risk Management, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

OECD (Revised) Draft: Transfer Pricing Aspects of Intangibles

http://www.oecd.org/ctp/transfer-pricing/intangibles-discussion-draft.htm

Working Party No. 6 of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) has prepared a Revised Discussion Draft on Intangibles, following an earlier Discussion Draft in June 2012.  This revised Draft includes changes based upon comments received, including a public consultation, in 2012.

This Draft addresses, directly and indirectly, actions contained in the OECD Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS Action Plan”).  Refer to my 19 July 2013 post for information on the OECD BEPS Action Plan.

The changes in the Draft  include a new section addressing local market features, location savings, assembled workforce and group synergies, in addition to explanatory changes to the definition of intangibles.  As stated in the Revised Discussion Draft, a transfer pricing intangible is not solely determined by its general tax or accounting characterization.  The intangible definition is also mutually exclusive from the definition of royalties for purposes of Article 12 of the OECD Model Tax Convention.  Additionally, functions, assets and risks related to intangibles are determined via the functional analysis, and are not presumed to be held by the legal owner of the intangible.

The Draft includes an interesting discussion of the use of projected growth rates and discount rates, including examples in the Annex to illustrate the guidance on special considerations for intangibles.

Written comments may be submitted to the OECD on or before 1 October 2013.  A public consultation will also be held on 12-13 November 2013 in Paris, France, selecting speakers from those providing written comments.

Analogous to my 31 July 2013 post for the OECD White Paper on Transfer Pricing Documentation, this Revised Discussion Draft should be reviewed and compared with the current methodology for intangibles, noting significant variations for internal analysis.  Intangibles are a significant component of transfer pricing, thus this Draft should be seriously considered by all multinationals.

Category:

OECD / UN, Tax Risk Management, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

OECD: White Paper on Transfer Pricing Documentation

http://www.oecd.org/tax/transfer-pricing-documentation.htm

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) is quickly following up Step 13 in its Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS Action Plan”) for enhanced transparency, information on global income allocation, economic activity and taxes paid among countries, according to a common template.  Refer to my 19 July 2013 post for information on the OECD BEPS and Action Plan.

The White Paper takes a “big picture” approach, with interested parties invited to comment by 01 October 2013.  An insightful summary outlines significant differences in transfer pricing documentation requirements from country to country, concluding with a recommended two-tiered approach (“Coordinated Documentation Approach”) consisting of a Masterfile and a Local file.

The recommended Masterfile is broad in scope, requesting global legal ownership/structure, geographical location of principal operating entities, in addition to management structure and geographical location of key management personnel.  Major business lines would be described in extensive detail, as well as intangible strategies, intercompany financing activities, listing of APAs, MAP procedures and the consolidating income statement.

The Local File describes local management structure and geographical location of senior executives, recent business restructurings including transfers of intangibles, controlled transactions and financial information.

Annex 1 and 2 provide multi-country surveys on transfer pricing documentation and tax return disclosure requirements, with related sources of information for reference.

The OECD believes the Coordinated Documentation Approach offers a balanced trade-off between greater transparency and streamlined transfer pricing documentation requirements.

All international tax executives should follow public comments that are posted by  OECD for this new Coordinated Documentation approach, discuss advantages and disadvantages with their peers, in addition to determining if they will provide comments directly.  The current methodology of preparing transfer pricing documentation reports should be compared to this suggested approach to initiate insightful planning and efficiencies that will form Best Practices for future years.

Category:

OECD / UN, Tax Risk Management, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

PwC transfer pricing survey: Intercompany loans, pooling, guarantees

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/tax/transfer-pricing/navigating-the-complexity/download.jhtml

PwC has conducted a survey, as referenced in the attached link, of transfer pricing aspects for financial transactions in over 40 countries in the Americas, Asia Pacific and Europe.  The insightful information, current as of 1/1/2013, initially provides a comprehensive overview of intercompany loans, cash pooling and guarantees followed by transfer pricing details for each country.

Each country included in the survey provided responses to the following topics:

  • Transfer pricing rules and regulations, domestic / OECD guidelines
  • Thin capitalisation
  • Intercompany loans (arms-length nature, transfer pricing methodologies, etc.)
  • Cash pooling; transfer pricing methodologies
  • Intercompany guarantees
  • Documentation requirements
  • Advance certainty via APA, etc.

Transfer pricing questions and issues re: intercompany loans and various aspects of financial transactions are becoming more common and complex as businesses are continuing global expansion.  Accordingly, multinational tax and treasury departments need to be mutually aware of transfer pricing rules for arms-length principles, contemporaneous documentation requirements, and inherent risks / opportunities for intercompany financial transactions.

Evolving rules in this area dictate continual training, awareness and strategizing risks from a global tax and treasury perspective.  Transfer pricing training should be provided at regional / global treasury conferences;  conversely treasury should ensure tax is aware of new financing tools that arise in different markets to ensure alignment.

Category:

Tax Risk Management, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

OECD Country MAP Profiles & Statistics – Valuable tools

http://www.oecd.org/ctp/dispute/countrymapprofiles.htm

http://www.oecd.org/ctp/dispute/mapstatistics20062011.htm

The links provide reference to the OECD Country MAP Profiles and MAP Statistics 2006-2011.  The OECD MAP content provides valuable information that should be included as an integral component of audit risk strategies.

The Country MAP Profiles provide the following content for OECD member countries, in addition to Argentina, People’s Republic of China, Russia, and South Africa:

  • Competent Authority contact information
  • Organisation of the Competent Authority
  • Scope of MAP & MAP Advance Pricing Arrangements (APAs)
  • References to domestic guidelines and administrative arrangements
  • MAP request content, timelines, fees and documentation requirements
  • Provisions on tax collection, penalties and interest pending outcome of the MAP process
  • Other dispute resolution mechanisms, and
  • Links to websites for the relevant jurisdiction.

The MAP Statistics include information on MAP inventories, cases initiated, completed, withdrawn, and average cycle time.  These statistics are provided for the OECD member countries and some non-OECD economies.  This information is very helpful in reviewing the trend of MAP filings in relevant jurisdictions.  There were 3,838 open MAP cases by OECD member countries at the end of 2011, with an average completion time of 25 months.

The OECD Forum on Tax Administration (FTA) convenes later this year to discuss Best Practices for improving MAP: refer to prior post 27 June 2013.

With the increase of transfer pricing controversies that are inherently complex and subjective in nature, MAP is a tool that is being used more frequently worldwide.  Examples of Best Practices to strategize MAP are provided for insight:

  • Document domestic and bilateral/multilateral avenues of appeal upon commencement of an audit to facilitate advance planning.
  • Review Double Tax Treaties for relevant Arbitration provisions that are providing an impetus for some jurisdictions to finalize negotiations.
  • Determine the interplay of domestic appeals (informal settlement, formal Appeals, Court filings, etc.) with MAP early in the audit process.
  • Outline deadlines for domestic appeals, MAP and other bilateral/multilateral tools (i.e. EU Arbitration Convention)
  • Develop a pro-forma multilateral calculation to strategize solutions minimizing double taxation.
  • Ensure MAP and other appeal strategies are integrated in the Tax Risk Framework.

    OECD Map with accession (green) and discussion...

    OECD Map with accession (green) and discussion (pink) countries added (Photo credit: Wikipedia the relevant jurisdictions)

Category:

Audits, OECD / UN, Tax Risk Management

Tagged with: