Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Posts tagged ‘OECD’

OECD: CbC collaboration/(un)certainty

The OECD, in its June release of country-by-country (CbC) guidance, sets forth guidance of BEPS Action 13 re: parent-surrogate reporting that includes the US, Japan and tentatively Switzerland, for which there are no obligatory filing requirements for the calendar tax year 2016.

However, several countries have previously enacted legislation that may not literally accommodate such rules (i.e. voluntary filing to a parent surrogate).  To the extent there is this possibility, will the parent surrogate country indemnify such taxpayers for non-filing penalties, etc. imposed by another country for failing to file according to its specific legislation?  Alternatively, a detailed review of the specific legislation of all countries adopting CbC is in order.  Simplification of CbC filing is the intent of the OECD Guidelines, however additional assurance would be welcome by the parent surrogate countries to support this presumption.

The OECD guidance is attached for reference:

Click to access guidance-on-the-implementation-of-country-by-country-reporting-beps-action-13.pdf

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

US: Country-by-country (CbC) reporting

The US administration has released final regulations on its CbC reporting requirements.  This guidance provides voluntary filing for a 2016 calendar year US MNE, whereas 2017 is the required reporting year, due in 2018.  The OECD has also issued guidance to provide impetus for countries to accept voluntary filings by US MNE’s with IRS, rather than rely solely on its legislation for 2016.  However, this premise should be carefully reviewed, as countries have already enacted legislation and may not wish to change it.

Additionally, the filing period for a US MNE is Sept. 15th for a calendar year taxpayer, accelerating the Dec. 31st date proposed by the OECD.

This guidance will have widespread impact and contains many clarifications that should be  understood prior to collecting data.

Click to access 2016US_01933-161US_Final%20US%20CbC%20reporting%20regulations%20analyzed%20in%20depth.pdf

Category:

OECD, Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

BEPS update

EY’s Global Tax Alert provides recent developments for BEPS by Australia, Austria, Belgium, EU, Germany, Iceland, India, Niger, and Romania.

Click to access 2016G_01449-161Gbl_The%20Latest%20on%20BEPS%20-%206%20June%202016.pdf

Highlights:

  • Australia: Local File is OECD +, going beyond OECD’s recommendations, including transactional detail.  This development is proving that global consistency is a rapidly fading ideal, as countries legislate what they think benefits them the most.  Unfortunately, this adds to the cost, time and complexity of preparing global reports.
  • Austria: Transfer pricing documentation draft regulations follows the OECD.
  • Economic and Financial Affairs Council of the European Union (ECOFIN): EU Member States Finance Ministers, envision adopting the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive on 17 June 2016, subject to amendments.  Legal agreement was also reached on adoption of the Directive on the exchange of non-public country-by-country tax information.  Conclusions were also adopted on the European Commission communication on an external tax strategy and tax treaty abuse measures.
  • Germany: Transfer pricing technical draft introducing transfer pricing documentation standards as recommended by the OECD.  Master File and Local File documentation requirements introduced.
  • India: A 6% Equalization Levy (EL) to apply on gross payments for certain digital services received by a nonresident.
  • Niger: Thin capitalisation rules introduced.
  • Romania: To become a BEPS Associate and participate in the OECD’s framework.

As the above developments note, BEPS guidelines and intent remains very strong in the global community, with many changes already made and many more to come.

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

US: International update

EY’s Global Tax Alert highlights some significant areas of proposed reform:

  • Section 385 debt/equity regulations proposed for Labor Day issuance, noting there is alot of uncertainty until then based on the Proposed Regulations, including the impact on physical and/or notional cash pools.
  • US House tax reform blueprint to be released this month.
  • Country-by-country (CbC) voluntary reporting is being acknowledged as a gap and problematic for US based MNE’s, thus one US CbC global report is not anticipated to be the result, requiring multiple CbC reporting required by relevant countries.  For countries that have agreed to accept voluntary filing, it would be beneficial to provide a simple public chart by the administration for taxpayer access.

Click to access 2016G_01361-161Gbl_Report%20on%20recent%20US%20international%20tax%20developments%20-%203%20June%202016.pdf

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

OECD Multilateral Instrument: comments due

The OECD has released its draft of details for the impending Multilateral Instrument in alignment with BEPS Action 15, copied herein, with my bold accents highlighted for reference.  Comments are due 30 June 2016, thereby necessitating quick actions to review and respond.

This instrument will be a pivotal tool for many years to come, transforming the interpretation of tax treaties and further developing the intent of the BEPS Actions.  Thus, it will be important to understand such trends for future compliance and planning complexities.  

Development of a Multilateral Instrument to Implement
the Tax Treaty related BEPS Measures

31 May – 30 June 2016

REQUEST FOR INPUT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MULTILATERAL INSTRUMENT
TO IMPLEMENT THE TAX TREATY-RELATED BEPS MEASURES

1. Background
1. The OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project produced a number of recommendations that would be implemented through amendments to bilateral tax treaties. If undertaken on a treaty-by-treaty basis, the sheer number of treaties in effect would make such a process very lengthy. Recognising the need for an efficient and effective mechanism to implement the tax-treaty related measures resulting from the BEPS Project, Action 15 of the BEPS Action Plan called for the development of a multilateral instrument.
2. Drawing on the expertise of public international law and tax experts, the report “Developing a Multilateral Instrument to Modify Bilateral Tax Treaties” analysed the possibility of developing a multilateral instrument in order to allow countries to swiftly amend their tax treaties to implement the tax treaty-related BEPS recommendations. It concludes that such a multilateral instrument is not only feasible but also desirable, and that negotiations for the instrument should be convened quickly.
3. Based on this report, an Ad Hoc Group was established on 27 May 2015 with the objective of developing a multilateral instrument to modify existing bilateral tax treaties in order to swiftly implement the tax treaty measures developed in the course of the OECD-G20 BEPS Project. The Ad Hoc Group now includes 96 countries all participating on an equal footing, as well as a number of non-State jurisdictions and international organisations participating as Observers. The purpose of the multilateral instrument is to modify existing tax treaties to implement the tax treaty measures developed through the BEPS Project. As a result, with the exception of the development of a MAP arbitration provision (as discussed in section 2 below), the mandate of the Ad Hoc Group does not include changing the substance of the BEPS outputs or creating new measures that were not developed during the BEPS Project.
4. The Group began its work on 27 May 2015, and aims to conclude its work and open the multilateral instrument for signature by 31 December 2016. Development of the multilateral instrument is currently in progress. As with other bilateral and multilateral treaty negotiations, the draft text of the multilateral instrument is the subject of intergovernmental discussions in a confidential setting. Accordingly, the consultation has been organised around certain key technical issues and questions relating to the development of the instrument on which public input would be useful. Examples of the technical issues and questions on which input would be useful are outlined in sections 3 and 4 of this document. Comments should be focused solely on technical issues of implementation and on issues related to the development of a MAP arbitration provision, rather than on the scope of the provisions to be covered in the multilateral instrument or on the substance of the underlying BEPS outputs.
5. Comments and input should be submitted by 30 June 2016 at the latest, and should be sent by email to multilateralinstrument@oecd.org in Word format (in order to facilitate their distribution to government officials). Please note that all comments received will be made publicly available. Comments submitted in the name of a collective grouping or coalition, or by any person submitting comments on behalf of another person or group of persons, should identify all enterprises or individuals who are members of that collective group, or the person(s) on whose behalf the commentator(s) are acting. Persons and organisations who submit comments on this document are invited to indicate whether they wish to speak in support of their comments at a public consultation meeting that is scheduled to be held in Paris at the OECD Conference Centre on 7 July 2016 beginning at 10.00 am.
6. This consultation meeting will be open to the public and the press. To request to attend the public consultation, please click here [LINK] and follow the instructions. Due to space limitations, priority will be given to persons and organisations who register first and we reserve the right to limit the number of participants from the same organisations. This consultation meeting will also be broadcast live on the internet and can be accessed on line. No advance registration will be required to access the live broadcast.
2. The multilateral instrument
7. The multilateral instrument will modify existing bilateral tax treaties in order to swiftly implement the tax treaty measures developed in the course of the OECD-G20 BEPS Project. The provisions to be implemented include in particular:
The treaty provisions developed under Action 2 of the BEPS Project (Neutralising the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements), including (1) the revision of Article 1 (Persons Covered) of the OECD Model Tax Convention to address fiscally transparent entities, and (2) the measures to address issues with the application of the exemption method to relieve double taxation.
The provisions developed under Action 6 (Preventing the granting of treaty benefits in inappropriate circumstances), including the minimum standard on treaty abuse, the introduction of a “saving clause” to make explicit that treaties do not restrict a State’s right to tax its own residents, and the specific anti-abuse rules related to (1) certain dividend transfer transactions; (2) transactions involving immovable property holding companies; (3) situations of dual-resident entities; and (4) treaty shopping using third-country PEs.
Provisions developed under Action 7 (Preventing the Artificial Avoidance of PE Status), including (1) measures to address commissionnaire arrangements and similar strategies; (2) modifications the specific activity exemptions under Article 5(4) of the OECD Model and the addition of an anti-fragmentation rule; and (3) measures to address the splitting-up of contracts to abuse the exception in Article 5(3) of the OECD Model.
Measures included in the minimum standards and best practices produced under Action 14 (Making Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective), including the changes to paragraphs 1 through 3 of Article 25 of the OECD Model, as well as the inclusion of paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the OECD Model.

8. In addition to the implementation of the measures described above, a number of countries declared their commitment to provide for mandatory binding MAP arbitration as a mechanism to guarantee that treaty-related disputes will be resolved within a specified time frame. An optional provision on mandatory binding MAP arbitration is being developed as part of the negotiation of the multilateral instrument. The
3. Technical Issues Arising from Development of the Multilateral Instrument
9. A number of technical issues arise from developing a multilateral instrument to modify bilateral tax treaties. These include, for example, issues related to:
The relationship between the provisions of the multilateral instrument and the existing tax treaty network. Existing tax treaties vary widely from both model tax treaties and from each other. As a result, the multilateral instrument must be able to modify existing tax treaties effectively, either by adding a new provision where no provision exists or by modifying or superseding existing provisions. This can be done by including “compatibility clauses” that describe in detail under what circumstances the new provision is intended to be added to or replace the provisions of an existing tax treaty.
Ensuring consistent application and interpretation. The tax treaty-related BEPS outputs include agreed Commentary to facilitate their interpretation. Ensuring that this Commentary will be used to interpret the provision of the multilateral instrument will be important. In addition, because the multilateral instrument must modify a large network of existing treaties, it cannot provide the level of detail that a bilateral protocol can. The multilateral instrument may therefore need to be accompanied by tools, such as an explanatory statement or commentary, to ensure consistent application of its provisions to diverse bilateral tax treaties. The production of consolidated versions of the underlying bilateral tax treaties is also being considered.
Modifying bilateral treaties in multiple authentic languages. The multilateral instrument is being negotiated in English and French, and is expected to be concluded in only those two authentic languages, but will modify bilateral tax treaties concluded in many authentic languages. It will be important to ensure consistent application to those bilateral treaties despite differences of language.

4. Request for input
10. Comments are requested on the technical issues that may arise from implementing the treaty-related BEPS measures in the context of the network of existing bilateral tax treaties. In particular, comments are requested with respect to:
Technical issues that should be taken into account in adapting the BEPS measures to modify or supersede existing provisions of bilateral tax treaties that may vary from the OECD model, including:
Existing provision or types of provisions that serve the same purpose as the BEPS measures and that would need to be replaced
Existing provisions or types of provisions that are similar to BEPS measures but that would need to be retained
The approach to be taken in developing the optional provision on mandatory binding MAP arbitration, taking into account that it would need to serve the needs of the countries that have already committed to implement mandatory binding arbitration, as well as countries that are considering committing in the future.
The types of guidance and practical tools that would be most useful to taxpayers in understanding the application of the multilateral instrument to existing tax treaties.
Mechanisms that could be used to ensure consistent application and interpretation of the provisions of the multilateral instrument.

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

Denmark’s TP documentation: OECD+

Denmark has new transfer pricing documentation rules in place, effective for tax year 2016, while country-by-country (CbC) reporting for non-Danish HQ companies is delayed until tax year 2017.

The local transfer pricing file is to include a copy of intercompany arrangements and details of IP re: “DEMPE” functions including the Development, Enhancement, Maintenance, Protection and Exploitation attributes.

The additional details extend beyond the OECD Guidelines and will lead to further complexity re: the ability to efficiently provide globally consistent transfer pricing documentation around the world. This may be followed by other countries as they follow the particular leader at the team, and thus EY”s Alert should be reviewed by interested tax practitioners.

Click to access 2016G_01098-161Gbl_TP_DK%20issues%20stricter%20requirements%20for%20TP%20documentation.pdf

Category:

OECD, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

BEPS update; no slowing down

The drive for additional transparency, among efforts by countries to implement anti-avoidance rules that trump tax treaties, continues with the latest round of BEPS updates, as EY’s Global Tax Alert provides added insight:

Click to access 2016G_00921-161Gbl_The%20Latest%20on%20BEPS%20–%209%20May%202016.pdf

Highlights:

  •  Australian Tax Office (ATO) release of 4 tax alerts for issues of concern, a Diverted Profits Tax (DPT) is to be implemented, hybrid mismatch arrangements will be addressed in legislation, and the effective date for the new/revised OECD’s arms-length principle standards will move forward to 1 July, 2016.
  • Ecuador: the most recently version, as of 1/1 of a taxpayer’s year, of the OECD’s Guidelines will be used as transfer pricing reference absent domestic rules.
  • Hungary: A “modified nexus” IP approach will come into force.
  • Netherlands: The innovation box rules will be amended to comply with OECD’s Action 5 guidelines.
  • New Zealand: Domestic anti-avoidance rules will trump double treaty arrangements.
  • Taiwan: CFC rules will be promulgated.  
  • Turkey: An “electronic place of business” draft legislation would empower taxation.
  • Ukraine: A working group is forming anti-BEPS measures for consideration.
  • US: Treasury is trying to extricate itself from its 1-year lag in obligatory country-by-country (CbC) reporting, although global acceptance is not expected.

The impact of BEPS is still accelerating, although the efforts by countries to avoid treaty provisions will provoke additional disputes and double taxation.  Accordingly, the veil of anti-BEPS legislative efforts overshadows mutual transparency and collecting a fair share of tax while avoiding double taxation.  Thus, all multinationals should be extra vigilant in the new era of international tax for additional documentation and support for significant transactions with low-tax countries.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

Australia’s Diverted Profits Tax salvo

The Australian Tax Office (ATO) has recently released a consultation paper re: implementation of a Diverted Profits Tax (DPT); comments are due by 17 June 2016.  Although Australia has taken a long look at the DPT in concert with UK’s quickly enacted provisions, it took a breather while the OECD urged restraint on a far-reaching “tax” that may go beyond the intent of the OECD’s Guidelines.  A link to the paper is provided for reference:

http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Consultations%20and%20Reviews/Consultations/2016/Implementing%20a%20diverted%20profits%20tax/Key%20Documents/PDF/Diverted-profits-tax_discussion-paper.ashx

The focus of the paper is summarized in the first sentence: “The Government is strongly committed to ensuring that multinationals pay their fair share of tax in Australia.”

Highlights of the proposal:

  • 40% penalty tax (non-deductible) rate, not offset by another jurisdiction’s tax (30% tax rate if an amended tax return is filed)
  • Subjective determination (i.e. reasonable to conclude)
  • Will not operate on a self-assessment basis
  • Pay first, discuss later philosophy, copying UK’s direction (12-month review period and a right to appeal)
  • Effective for years commencing on or after 1 July, 2017
  • Flow chart appendix
  • Efective for transactions that have an effective tax mismatch test (objective test) and insufficient economic substance (subjective test)
  • Draft guidance will be developed in consultation with stakeholders.

All interested parties should review this consultation paper, and provide comments to the ATO for potential changes.  It is interesting to see that transactions failing the effective mismatch test will be left exclusively with subjective determinations for possible assessments by the ATO without the benefit of dual transparency.  Additionally, the philosophy of assess now and discuss later will not be a mechanism to effectively provide more trust by taxpayers as UK, Australia and other jurisdictions are creating unilateral laws to capture taxes payable on income in other jurisdictions, potentially without the right to access treaties, claim an offset in the other jurisdictions and have access to the full process of appeals prior to payment.  As a result, the incidence of double taxation will increase.

It is hopeful the ATO will consider the comments received, and include changes to the current proposal to enhance transparency and mutuality by all parties.

 

 

 

Category:

Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

BEPS update

EY’s Global Tax Alert provides the latest BEPS developments for the OECD, EU, Israel, Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay and Chile.  Brief extracts are provided, with Best Practice comments, with the Tax Alert provided for reference:

Click to access 2016G_00742-161Gbl_The%20Latest%20on%20BEPS%20–%2025%20April%202016.pdf

OECD:

  • Bermuda signed the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement for the automatic exchange of Country-by-Country reports (CbC MCAA), becoming the 33rd signatory of this instrument.
  • On 19 April 2016, the OECD released a communiqué announcing that together with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United Nations and the World Bank (collectively referred to as the “International Organizations”) have joined efforts to boost global cooperation in tax matters. The joint initiative, named “Platform for Collaboration on Tax” or simply “the Platform,” aims to produce concrete joint outputs and deliverables under an agreed work plan, strengthen dynamic interactions between standard setting, capacity building and technical assistance, and share information on activities more systematically.

The Platform will work on:

Developing appropriate tools for developing countries
Supporting developing countries to participate in the implementation of BEPS
Building effective tax systems and building awareness
Providing a venue for information sharing

The first of the toolkits addresses tax incentives and was issued in November 2015. The remaining seven toolkits will address the indirect transfer of assets (September 2016), transfer pricing comparability (October 2016), transfer pricing documentation (October 2016), tax treaty negotiation capacity (December 2016), base eroding payments (June 2017), supply chain management (March 2018), and BEPS risk assessment (March 2018).

The proposed amendments to the Accounting Directive would require large multinational companies operating in the European Union to draw up and publically disclose reports on income tax information, including a breakdown of profits, revenues, taxes and employees.  Note, this is an Accounting Directive that provides another legislative approach to implement transparency measures in addition to proposed EU Directives and/or separate country guidelines.  This is also another layer of complexity in reporting by multinational organizations, for which other countries may also adopt as part of statutory reporting that is public information.  This report will also dictate a Q&A proactive approach by organisations to address perceived gaps and comments by the public.  Such reporting, when finalized, should also be summarized to the Board of Directors as an alignment of their responsibilities.

Israel:

The concept of “significant digital presence” has been communicated in a circular to broaden the tax net for internet activities applicable for corporate income tax and VAT purposes.  Other countries have been, and will continue, embracing this subjective area of tax for additional revenue, albeit with subjectivity and avenues for additional disputes.

Portugal & South Africa:
Draft legislation adopting country-by-country (CbC) reporting has been published.  To the extent any US-based multinational thinks additional time is provided due to the potential 1-year lag for US CbC reporting, such legislation demanding obligatory reporting in the parent jurisdiction should reassess future internal reporting timelines and processes.

Switzerland:

A consultation process and draft legislation of CbC reporting for the 2018 tax year has commenced, with voluntary reporting for the 2016 and 2017 tax years.

Chile-Uruguay:

Chile and Uruguay signed a Double Tax Treaty that embodies several BEPS concepts, such as permanent establishment (PE) and hybrid mismatch arrangements.  Note, the new BEPS incentivized treaties are currently legislated in several countries, although the related BEPS guidelines may still not be finalized.  Accordingly, it is relevant to cross-check countries with significant transactions with the signature of new treaties.

 

 

 

 

 

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

OECD’s new MAP Peer Reviews: will it work?

As the MAP process is acknowledged to be inefficient, ineffective and time-consuming, the OECD will establish a peer review process to monitor performance of countries’ in resolving Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) cases.  The reviews should be ready in 2017.

Paascal Saint-Amans, director of the OECD’s Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, has stated: “I don’t know how successful the (BEPS) project will be in the long term, but what is for sure is that we have fed the political beast – the G-20 leaders and finance ministers – and they still have a lot of appetite.  They are asking us for more.  They need some more blood.”

The OECD’s Working Party 1 and the Forum on Tax Administration have started the peer review process under BEPS Action 14.  Reviews will consist of checking number of cases, time needed to resolve, etc.

OECD believes this is a game-changer due to new accountability.  However, without full transparency into what countries are doing, or not doing, how effective will the new peer review process be?  The level of transparency should be commensurate with the transparency demanded from multinationals.  It is hopeful this process will be a revolution for MAP, although many practitioners will be adopting a wait-and-see attitude.  

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

ECOFIN’s draft directive re: CbC

The EU Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) has drafted a directive, subject to European Parliament’s opinion, for EU consistency of country-by-country (CbC) reporting.

The proposed EU legal instrument provides for:

  • 2016 CbC reporting to the Member State where it is resident
  • Optional provision for non-EU parent companies; 2016 reporting is optional via its EU subsidiaries and such “secondary reporting” will be mandatory for the 2017 tax year.   
  • Automatic exchange of CbC reports between EU Member States

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/08-corporate-tax-avoidance/

This surprising draft directive will alleviate some concerns by US headquartered MNE’s (as 2016 CbC reports will probably not be required), although only within the EU.  To the extent non-EU Member States have CbC reporting obligations for the 2016 tax year, a Surrogate Entity or local filing may still be required for US MNE’s.

The EU is still recognized as a leader in pushing forward BEPS Action items, and this directive would provide much-needed consistency among Member States for CbC reporting.  This development is important to monitor going forward, as well as observing other non-EU countries for a follow-the-leader approach.

 

 

 

 

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

OECD: Inclusive / transparent objectives

The OECD’s Task Force on Tax and Development met in Paris, France, on 1 March 2016, to discuss the new inclusive framework proposed by the OECD for the global implementation of the BEPS project and to support developing countries on their domestic resource mobilisation efforts. Over 180 participants attended.

Co-Chaired by South Africa and the Netherlands, the Task Force is a multi-stakeholder advisory group set up to help to improve the enabling environment for developing countries to collect taxes fairly and effectively.

Recognition and participation in the Tax Inspectors Without Borders partnership was also an agenda item, including present (and future) toolkits for developing countries as a practical resource to implement BEPS Actions.

Participants also highlighted the need for the documentation toolkit to provide clear guidance on how the Country-by-Country Report should be used for risk assessment purposes.

The Task Force will endeavor to take the following steps, commencing with the first meeting in Kyoto Japan, 30 June- 1 July 2016.

  • Support the development of 7 further toolkits to translate the BEPS deliverables into user friendly guidance for developing countries by 2018.
  • Starting now, fully endorse the ATAF/EC/OECD/WBG transfer pricing capacity building support to address the full range of BEPS challenges in developing countries.
  • Support the Tax Inspectors Without Borders programme project to increase the number of TIWB deployment programmes to 20 by the end of 2017 and 30 by the end of 2018.

A copy of the press release is provided for reference:

Click to access co-chairs-statement-task-force-tax-development-march-2016.pdf

Best Practices – To address mutual transparency, OECD and the member countries should be willing to share the contents, and objectives, of the various toolkits under preparation to better understand the risk process and actions by tax administrations around the world. 

 

 

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

OECD’s MAP: Timeline & Best Practices

As the OECD renews its efforts to improve the process of dispute resolution, many practitioners, tax authorities and advisors have concluded that the current Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) process is slow, inefficient and not effective in resolving tax disputes and avoiding double taxation.

However, it is worthwhile to start with a suggested timeline and Best Practices from OECD’s Manual on Effective Mutual Agreement Procedures (MEMAP) published in 2007.  Annex 1 and 2 provide a suggested timeline and 25 Best Practices (summarized below) that are each discussed in MEMAP.  

To the extent these Best Practices and recommendations have not been implemented by countries around the world, one questions what will be the difference this time around?  It seems that the OECD has tried to provide remedies, although many countries do not view these recommendations as a priority or transparency objective to resolve disputes effectively.  

While the effectiveness of dispute resolution mechanisms continue, it would be prudent to  provide the tax authorities, including competent authorities, this Manual as a reinforcement of Best Practices and timelines that should be proactively followed. 

A link to the Manual is provided for reference:

Click to access 38061910.pdf

Appendix 2: Best Practices:

  1. Resolving and publishing issues of interpretation or application
  2. Robust use of Article 25(3) power to relieve double taxation
  3. Principled approach to resolution of cases
  4. Transparency and simplicity of procedures for accessing and using the MAP
  5. Providing complete, accurate, and timely information to the competent authorities
  6. Allowing electronic submissions
  7. Allowing early resolution of cases
  8. Earlier notification of a potential case
  9. Liberal interpretation of time limits and advising of treaty rights
  10. Avoiding exclusion from MAP relief due to late adjustments or late notification
  11. Consideration of MAP assistance for cases described as “tax avoidance”
  12. Countries eliminate or minimize “exceptions” to MAP
  13. Taxpayer presentations to competent authorities
  14. Cooperation and transparency
  15. Face-to-face meetings between competent authorities
  16. Bilateral process improvements
  17. Decision summaries
  18. Recommendation for MAP cases beyond two years
  19. Avoid blocking MAP access via audit settlements or unilateral APAs
  20. Interest relief
  21. Suspension of collections during MAP
  22. Readily available access to a competent authority
  23. Independence and resources of a competent authority
  24. Performance indicators for the competent authority function and staff
  25. Implementing and promoting ACAP and bilateral APA programs

 

 

 

 

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

EU & BEPS: Next steps

The EU, now recognized as the accelerator of BEPS for its Member States, have issued a roadmap of priorities and objectives for the near future.  A link to Deloitte’s World Tax Advisor is provided, and the attached article therein.

I have highlighted certain parts of the roadmap worth watching:

  • Country-by-Country reporting (will there be a consistent EU standard?)
  • Hybrid mismatch arrangements
  • Code of Conduct activities, including alignment of transfer pricing outcomes with value creation, an extension of BEPS Actions 8-10.  (Note Sweden and UK are already using such Actions re: clarification of existing transfer pricing policy)
  • Payments from an EU to non-EU country
  • The EU Arbitration Convention is mentioned, although it’s practical effect on mitigating dispute resolution is limited

Click to access dtt-tax-worldtaxadvisor-160226.pdf

European Union:
Dutch presidency issues EU-BEPS roadmap

The Netherlands, which currently holds the presidency of the council of the EU, issued an ambitious EU-BEPS “roadmap” on 19 February 2016 that sets out plans to move forward with previous EU proposals, as well as future efforts on areas relating to the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project. The roadmap includes the following:

  • Possibly including a minimum effective taxation clause in the EU interest and royalties directive, and also possibly including or referring to the OECD “modified nexus approach” (however, no mention is made of the previous proposals to reduce the shareholding requirement in the directive from 25% to 10%, add legal entities to the annex or remove the “direct” holding requirement);
  • Reaching consensus on the anti-avoidance directive proposed by the European Commission on 28 January 2016 (for prior coverage, see World Tax Advisor, 12February 2016);URL: http://newsletters.usdbriefs.com/2016/Tax/WTA/160212_1.html
  • Reaching agreement on the European Commission’s proposal to introduce the OECD BEPS minimum standard for country-by-country reporting in the EU;
  • Initiating discussions for reforming the EU Code of Conduct group (specifically, the group’s governance, transparency and working methods), followed by discussions on a revision to the mandate in relation to the concept that profits are subject, as appropriate, to an effective level of tax within the EU;
  • Reaching agreement on guidance and explanatory notes on hybrid permanent establishment mismatches in situations involving third countries;
  • Continuing to monitor the legislative process necessary to revise existing patent box regimes; and
  • Monitoring and exchanging views on the BEPS developments relating to tax treaties concluded by EU member states, the OECD multilateral instrument to modify tax treaties and the European Commission’s recent recommendations on the implementation of measures to combat tax treaty abuse. 

     

     

    The Code of Conduct group will start work on the following:

  • Preparing EU guidance on aligning transfer pricing outcomes with value creation, in accordance with BEPS actions 8-10;
  • Identifying potential issues that arise when payments are made from the EU to a non- EU country;
  • Assessing the opportunity for developing EU guidance for implementing the conclusions on BEPS action 12 (the disclosure of aggressive tax planning), notably, with a view to facilitating the exchange of information between tax authorities; and
  • Developing guidelines on the conditions and rules for the issuance of tax rulings by EU member states.Additionally, the High Level Working Party on Taxation may discuss the current situation regarding the EU arbitration convention that allows the settlement of transfer pricing disputes.

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

OECD: Welcome to BEPS

The OECD has introduced a new inclusive framework inviting all interested countries to address international tax rules ongoing.  All interested parties will be able to participate as BEPS Associates via the OECD’s Committee on Fiscal Affairs (CFA), thereby have equal participation as the OECD and G20 members including review and monitoring of BEPS implementation.

Indicative of the posture going forward, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria stated “It is another strong signal that behaviour which was considered both legal and normal in the past will no longer be accepted.”

This OECD proposal will require endorsement by the G20 at the meeting in Shanghai on 26-27 February, with the first meeting of the inclusive framework members in Kyoto, Japan on 30 June and 1 July 2016.

Links to the OECD press release and summary document are provided for reference.

http://www.oecd.org/tax/all-interested-countries-and-jurisdictions-to-be-invited-to-join-global-efforts-led-by-the-oecd-and-g20-to-close-international-tax-loopholes.htm

Click to access flyer-implementing-the-beps-package-building-an-inclusive-framework.pdf

This new framework would mark another major milestone in the BEPS story; with hopes that global coordination and consistency will be enhanced vs. numerous voices protecting their fiscal growth, thereby adding additional complexity and unilateral actions around the world.

Category:

OECD

Tagged with: