Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Posts tagged ‘OECD’

S. Africa CbC / TP requirements

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) released its final notice re: requirements for filing the Country-by-Country (CbC) report, Master File and Local File, in alignment with OECD BEPS Action Item 13.

It is interesting that, pursuant to minimum thresholds, both a Master File and Local File are required to be filed, rather than only the Local File.  This may become more of a norm, versus an exception, as the global transfer pricing and risk environment will need to be reviewed in alignment with local business operations.  Hopefully, the review will encompass confidential limitations on the information received and will only encompass transfer pricing practices of the local operations rather than extend CbC presumptions or Master File analogies against the local data.

EY’s Global Tax Alert provides the relevant details of the SARS requirement.

Click to access 2017G_05868-171Gbl_TP_South%20African%20RS%20releases%20Public%20Notice%20concerning%20CbCR%20master%20and%20local%20file.pdf

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

OECD: CbC-Effective tax risk assessment

OECD has published new handbooks, one of which relates to country-by-country (CbC) reports and how tax administrations can incorporate this information into their tax risk processes, inclusive of risk tools and governance processes.

Other reports/handbooks have also been issued that will be a valuable reference:

  • Tax Administration 2017
  • The Changing Tax Compliance Environment and the role of audit
  • Shining Light on the Shadow Economy
  • CbC: Handbook on effective implementation

 

Click to access 2017G_05389-171Gbl_OECD%20publishes%20two%20handbooks%20on%20Country-by-Country%20reporting.pdf

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

US int’l developments

EY’s Global Tax Alert highlights several postulates for potential US tax reform, in which both the House and Senate are busily writing new language this month to push this reform effort by President Trump.

The OECD’s additional guidance on Country-by-Country reporting is also reiterated, and the short-term extension for the US debt limit is provided to further the tax reform process.

Click to access 2017G_05086-171Gbl_Report%20on%20recent%20US%20international%20tax%20developments%20-%208%20September%202017.pdf

Category:

Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

New Zealand: OECD & beyond

New Zealand’s government has announced the introduction of new BEPS compliant rules that will be effective mid-2018.  Additionally, the government has taken this opportunity to expand upon the OECD’s rules, in an attempt to ensure that a “fair share of tax” is paid by multinationals doing business in the country.

Acknowledging the OECD’s intent to provide flexibility with its BEPS Actions and subjective language therein, New Zealand is looking for this legislation to impose rules above and beyond the BEPS Actions.  For example, anti-PE rules will be introduced that look to Australia’s provisions, which were initially introduced by the UK as diverted profit tax schemes to collect additional tax.

International tax practitioners should review these provisions and plan their tax strategies accordingly, knowing that New Zealand will introduce double taxation sooner vs. later in the global concept.

EY’s Global Tax Alert provides relevant details of New Zealand’s proposals.

Click to access 2017G_04691-171Gbl_New%20Zealand%20to%20implement%20wide%20ranging%20international%20tax%20reforms.pdf

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

OECD: Action 2 – Branch mismatches

OECD has published, pursuant to OECD BEPS Action 2, its framework entitled “Neutralising the Effects of Branch Mismatch Arrangements.”  A link to the report is provided for reference.

The report includes five types of branch mismatch arrangements:

  • Disregarded branch structures where the branch is not a Permanent Establishment (PE)
  • Diverted branch payments
  • Deemed branch/notional payments
  • Branch payments leading to a double deduction (DD)
  • Imported branch mismatches

Recommendations to domestic law are included to prevent perceived abuses for the five types of mismatch arrangements.  Numerous examples are also provided in the document to illustrate the branch arrangements and recommendations thereto.

This document is required reading for all international tax practitioners, as tax administrations will be seriously considering the recommendations and may decide to try to enforce such rules prior to official legislative actions.

http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxation/neutralising-the-effects-of-branch-mismatch-arrangements-action-2_9789264278790-en#.WX0tijOZOqA#page1

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

Tax raids: Are they necessary / Are you ready?

With the introduction of BEPS Action Items, recently followed by the subjective assent procedures of the Multilateral Instrument, it seems that the aggressiveness of tax administrations to apply current tax laws, and BEPS Actions yet to be enacted, is on the increase.  One result of such actions is the continuation, in certain jurisdictions, of tax raids which are unannounced, intense and producing immediate distrust between the parties.

For tax administrations, the question is “Does the necessity of such raids still exist?” and if so, they should be delegated to those that are egregious and potentially criminal in nature after the refusal of the taxpayer to legally comply with prior requests and inquiries.

For MNE’s, a tax raid causes immediate panic at the Business Unit, thus at least one legal or tax contact regionally and globally should be available at any time to address a phone call on necessary action steps that day and going forward.  This communication protocol should be common knowledge throughout the global organization to ensure alignment and appropriate steps are immediately taken if a tax raid were to occur.

It is hopeful these circumstances will become less frequent around the world, although learnings can be taken from past experiences to form Best Practices for the future.

Category:

Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

The Platform’s TP toolkit

On 22 June 2017, the “Platform for Collaboration on Tax” (the Platform) – a joint effort of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), United Nations (UN), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank Group (WBG) – released a toolkit (the Toolkit) designed to help developing countries address the lack of “comparables” for transfer pricing analyses and better understand mineral product pricing practices.

This Toolkit should also be reviewed by multinationals (MNEs) in developing countries to address the potential lack of comparables to better understand how the tax authorities will approach a transfer pricing audit.  The mining supplement is required reading for those working in that industry.

Additional toolkits will be forthcoming:

  • TP documentation
  • Indirect transfer of assets
  • Base eroding payments
  • Tax treaty negotiation capacity
  • Supply chain management
  • BEPS risk assessment

As the first edition of the Toolkit has now been published, it will be interesting to watch developing countries apply the tools prescribed, providing a baseline going forward.  All international tax practitioners should be familiar with this latest joint endeavor, as it is an indication of the shared resource approach that is now our future.

EY’s Global Tax Alert provides additional details, and the OECD Toolkit are referenced for review.

Click to access 2017G_04037-171Gbl_OECD%20UN%20IMF%20and%20World%20Bank%20issue%20toolkit%20for%20difficulties%20in%20accessing%20comparable%20data%20for%20TP%20analysis.pdf

Click to access toolkit-on-comparability-and-mineral-pricing.pdf

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

OECD / BEPS update

EY’s Global Tax Alert provides a succinct summary of the latest OECD and BEPS developments, including:

  • G20 and exchange of information upon request standard
  • Multilateral instrument, 68 countries moving forward
  • Peer reviews on BEPS 4 minimum standards:
    • Action 5, harmful tax practices
    • Action 6, treaty abuse
    • Action 13, country-by-country reporting (CbCR)
    • Action 14, dispute resolution
  • Action 5 peer reviews of preferential tax regimes
  • Action 13, CbCR exchange relationships; important for US MNE’s and similar jurisdictions without obligatory 2016 reporting
  • MAP peer reviews
  • Discussion drafts on profit splits and attribution of profits re: PE’s; comment period to Sept. 15, 2017
  • Branch mismatch forthcoming revisions
  • Common reporting standard
  • Digital taxation

OECD is still very busy, with a plethora of BEPS follow-up and other activities, although there seems to be continuing flexibility to gain collaboration that will also lead to added complexity and disputes.

Click to access 2017G_04094-171Gbl_OECD%20provides%20updates%20on%20tax%20activities%20in%20Tax%20Talk%20webcast.pdf

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

Intermediary transparency: EU’s wish list

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:

http://www.ey.com/gl/en/services/tax/international-tax/alert–european-commission-proposes-new-transparency-rules-for-intermediaries

Category:

OECD, Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

MLI instrument is born

The OECD provides a comprehensive list of countries that have signed the new multilateral instrument (MLI).

Most importantly, each country’s position on the various positions with other countries can be viewed.  While being transparent, this myriad of menu selections will produce an even more complex environment globally.  The strive for collaboration is somewhat achieved, based on more than 60 countries executing this document.  However, the goal of simplification can certainly be questioned.

OECD’s press release and a link to this list is provided for reference.  All international tax practitioners should review this long-awaited document.

http://www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/multilateral-convention-to-implement-tax-treaty-related-measures-to-prevent-beps.htm

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

Intangibles: OECD’s discussion draft

OECD has issued its latest discussion draft on hard-to-value intangibles; comments are due by June 30, 2017.

OECD’s press release states:  The Final Report on Actions 8-10 of the BEPS Action Plan (“Aligning Transfer Pricing Outcomes with Value Creation”) mandated the development of guidance on the implementation of the approach to pricing hard-to-value intangibles (“HTVI”) contained in Section D.4 of Chapter VI of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines.
This discussion draft, which does not yet represent a consensus position of the Committee on Fiscal Affairs or its subsidiary bodies, presents the principles that should underline the implementation of the approach to HTVI, provides examples illustrating the application of this approach, and addresses the interaction between the approach to HTVI and the mutual agreement procedure under an applicable treaty.

As intangibles are one of the most contested issues in transfer pricing, also fact specific with subjectivity, this discussion draft merits a review by all international tax practitioners to view the current thinking by the OECD, as well as a chance to provide comments in reaction.

EY’s Global Tax Alert and the Discussion Draft references are provided:

Click to access 2017G_03394-171Gbl_OECD%20releases%20implementation%20guidance%20on%20hard-to-value%20intangibles.pdf

Click to access BEPS-implementation-guidance-on-hard-to-value-intangibles-discussion-draft.pdf

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

UN: TP Manual for Developing Countries

The UN has published the second edition (First edition in 2013) of a transfer pricing manual for developing countries.

The world has changed considerably since 2013, notably affected by BEPS and the OECD’s  actions, including collaborating with developing countries.  However, the UN notes developing countries may not have the sophistication as other developed countries, and this manual provides valuable insight into the trends in this area.

The transfer pricing practices of Mexico, China and Brazil are also summarized in this edition.

The TP Manual is a “must read” for international tax practitioners to fully understand today’s complex dynamics that do not lead to global consistency or simplification.

Click to access UN-2017-Manual-TP.pdf

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

Multilateral Convention of the OECD; Prime time

After a long waiting period, with many discussions as to its predicted content, the OECD’s Multilateral Convention pursuant to BEPS Action 15 is ready for prime time.  Links to EY’s Global Tax Alert, and OECD’s Explanatory Statement and Multilateral Convention are provided for reference.

The Multilateral Convention is very flexible as to what a country wants, or does not want, within its treaty related provisions to signify its alliance with BEPS Actions.

EY’s Global Tax Alert states: “The tax treaty related BEPS measures covered by the multilateral instrument include (elements of): (i) Action 2 on hybrid mismatch arrangements, (ii) Action 6 on treaty abuse, (iii) Action 7 on the artificial avoidance of the PE status; and (iv) Action 14 on dispute resolution. The substance of the tax treaty provisions relating to these actions was agreed under the final BEPS package released in October 2015. The multilateral instrument does not modify or add to the substance of these provisions. The instrument is solely focused on how to modify the provisions in bilateral or regional tax treaties in order to align these treaties with the BEPS measures.”

Due to the flexibility of the new Convention, this unilateral based process poses many questions as to the consistency of intent for the related BEPS Actions around the world.  It is certain that, in the short term, there will be considerable complexity and varying interpretations of what the Convention means.  Accordingly, the Explanatory Statement and Multilateral Convention are to be reviewed carefully to understand short and long-term trends in this new era of international tax.

Click to access 2016G_04025-161Gbl_OECD%20releases%20MI%20to%20modify%20bilateral%20tax%20treaties%20under%20BEPS%20Action%2015.pdf

Click to access explanatory-statement-multilateral-convention-to-implement-tax-treaty-related-measures-to-prevent-BEPS.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/multilateral-convention-to-implement-tax-treaty-related-measures-to-prevent-BEPS.pdf:

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

CbC timing: OECD’s intent fails

As MNE’s are preparing for the country-by-country (CbC) reporting in 2017 for the 2016 tax year, it is readily apparent that the OECD’s intent of Dec. 31, 2017 is readily being eroded by several countries.

For example, US has proposed reporting (obligatory for the 2017 tax year) as of Sept. 15 of the following year, aligned with timing for filing of the federal income tax return.

China has imposed a May 31 date, if a Cbc report is required, aligned with its tax return due date.

Other countries are choosing different dates for CbC reporting, as well as Master File and Local File reporting, that impose additional compliance and timing demands on all MNE’s, based on the earliest date chosen by a country in which it operates.

What does this mean?  Earlier preparation, compressed timelines, mismatching of Master File, Local File and CbC reports, notwithstanding its intended comprehensive alignment.

Additionally, all US MNE’s must now review rules to determine if a surrogate filing entity is required for the 2016 CbC report as the US report is not obligatory.  The stated filing entity must be communicated by this year-end, 2016, with varying penalty amounts applicable for non-reporting.

As a simple idea is turning into a tsunami of complexity, tax administrations will have to understand how such information is beneficial for transfer pricing risk analysis, as most people will concede that a CbC report has no direct relationship to transfer pricing.

 

 

 

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

Luxembourg: CbC reporting

The draft country-by-country (CbC) law has been forwarded to Parliament, in alignment with the EU Directive for 2016 tax year reporting.

A surrogate parent entity should file a CbC report with the Luxembourg tax authorities in one of the following cases:

  • The ultimate parent entity (UPE) is not obliged to file a CbC report in its country of residence,
  • The UPE is obliged to submit a CbC report, but there is no automatic exchange of CbC reports between Luxembourg and the country of residence of the UPE or
  • The UPE is obliged to submit a CbC report,and there is automatic exchange of CbC reports, but due to systematic failure, no effective exchange of information takes place.

As the terminology includes “obliged” vs. voluntary filings in some countries, the filing entity and disclosure rules should be reviewed.  Additionally, there are significant penalties for late/non-filing.

 

The EY Global Tax Alert, linked for reference, provides additional details.

Click to access 2016G_02418-161Gbl_TP_Luxembourg%20introduces%20draft%20law%20on%20country-by-country%20reporting.pdf

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with: