Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Posts tagged ‘OECD’

S. Africa: Draft notice on “reportable arrangements”

In an ever-increasing tidal wave of transparency proposals, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) issued a draft notice on Reportable Arrangements.

The proposals provides that a Reportable Arrangement must be reported to SARS with 45 business days if:

  • A nonresident renders technical, managerial or consultancy services (non-defined terms) to a resident, and
  • The nonresident, its employees, agents or representatives were or will be physically present in S. Africa in rendering such services, and
  • The expenditure will exceed R10M (approx. $823k) in the aggregate.

Penalties for non-disclosure are applicable, and SARS may use this new mechanism to determine if the non-resident company is registered for income tax or VAT in S. Africa and if there is a permanent establishment (PE) for profit attribution.

Click to access 2015G_CM5521_South%20Africa%20issues%20draft%20notice%20on%20reportable%20arrangements.pdf

This proposal is important to monitor, as it highlights different methodologies for determining what services are being provided by non-resident companies, and if such activities could be designated as a PE with some profits subject to tax.  

The UK’s Diverted Profits Tax, Australia’s follow the leader implementation in its General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) and this disclosure present different processes that tax administrations are looking to capture additional taxes for fiscal growth, incentived by the OECD BEPS Guidelines and objectives, although such Guidelines are not yet finalized.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

European Commission’s new Action Plan

My prior post of 30 May 2015 revealed that the European Commission would be developing a new Action Plan, the contents of which are hereby revealed.

The objectives of the new Action Plan are:

  1. Re-establish the link between taxation and where economic activity takes place
  2. Ensuring that Member States can correctly value corporate activity in their jurisdiction
  3. Creating a competitive and growth-friendly EU tax environment
  4. Protecting the Single Market and securing a strong EU approach to external corporate tax issues, including BEPS measures, to deal with non-cooperative tax jurisdictions and to increase tax transparency

The new Action Plan is provided for reference:

Click to access com_2015_302_en.pdf

5 Key Action Areas:

  1. Mandatory Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB), with the consolidation component included as a second step.
  2. Taxation of profits where they are generated (“However, it is clear that the current transfer pricing system no longer works effectively in the modern economy.”)
  3. Enhance the EU’s tax environment via cross-border loss offset and improving double taxation dispute resolution mechanisms.
  4. Increased tax transparency via an EU-wide list of third country non-cooperative tax jurisdictions and assessing whether additional disclosure obligations of certain tax information should be introduced.
  5. Providing EU Coordination Tools to improve Member States’ tax audit coordination and reforming the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation and the Platform on Tax Good Governance.

The European Commission’s Action Plan clearly reveals a large step away from the traditional arm’s-length transfer pricing principle and toward an economic activity based source of taxation.  This clear divergence, with the OECD and established legislation in most countries, sets the stage for a new evolution in transfer pricing and a hybrid of different approaches by various jurisdictions in the next several years.

Accordingly, the Action Plan is required reading to appreciate short and long-term objectives of the European Commission to unify the Member States.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

NID: Italy’s perspective

Italy’s new guidelines deny benefits of the Notional Interest Deduction (NID) to “tainted contributions” to avoid the granting of dual benefits by respective entities.  There is a tracing mechanism that can be confirmed in a ruling process to rebut the dual benefit presumption.

PwC’s publication provides a succinct summary of this latest development.

Click to access pwc-guidelines-notional-interest-deduction-anti-avoidance-rules.pdf

The NID arrangement may represent an opportunity to achieve a local tax benefit as OECD’s BEPS Action Item and unilateral legislation enacted by various countries restrict interest expense deductions premised on the basis of a base erosion / profit shifting technique, although not suggesting an interest income offset that would ameliorate double taxation for a multinational organization.  

However, the proposed US Model Income Tax Convention (refer to 23 May 2015 post) includes the denial of treaty benefits for Special Tax Regimes, which is inclusive of a NID arrangement.  The arrangement that Italy is providing may not receive treaty benefits with the US if this proposal is included in the final legislation, thereby providing evidence of unilateral actions that produce non-intuitive and disjunctive results.  This lack of coordination will increase with future unilateral actions by countries that mitigate the OECD’s brave intentions to achieve global consistency and uniform guidelines.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

BEPS Action 13 CbC reports: To whom, by whom, for whom

The OECD has released its final guidance on BEPS Action 13, Country-by-Country (CbC) Reporting Implementation Package.  The CbC reporting complements the previous drafts for transfer pricing documentation in the form of a master file and local country file.  The three pillars of reporting for this Action have been acknowledged by OECD as representing its definitive approach, with the dissemination of the Action 13 document to be issued later this year with the other Action items.

Click to access beps-action-13-country-by-country-reporting-implementation-package.pdf

Key points:

  • Three model Competent Authority Agreements based on the Multilateral Convention on Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, bilateral tax conventions, and Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs).
  • In accordance with the recent OECD webcast, countries will have 6 months for the initial year to exchange such information (i.e. June 30, 2018 calendar year basis for the 2016 tax information submitted by Dec. 31, 2017, and 3 months for the following reporting year).
  •   Introduces the term “Surrogate Parent Entity” for substitute reporting.
  • Provides conditions for application of the Surrogate Parent Entity approach.
  • The CbC report shall be filed in a form identical to the OECD template.
  • Confidentiality provisions are discussed.
  • Penalties: “It is assumed that jurisdictions would wish to extend their existing transfer pricing documentation penalty regime to the requirements to file the CbC report.”

The manner in which countries implement this initiative should be closely monitored, as there will be differences to the general approach.  For example, Poland recently introduced this proposal into its domestic legislation, whereas other countries have relied on the ultimate parent entity concept for collecting such information.  Additionally, Spain also requires amounts to be reported in local currencies, a process that will not be uniform globally.

MNE’s should be cognizant of the flexibility required for this new transfer pricing risk initiative, while also foreseeing the recent public disclosure proposals by the European Parliament, European Commission and other interested parties.

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

Tax reputation / transparency survey: 2014-15

EY’s publication discussing tax reputation readiness and transparency provides suggestions for increasing readiness with good processes, robust documentation/audit trail and class-leading data management.  The publication is very timely, noting the recent European Parliament’s unanimous vote for public reporting of country-by-country (CbC) and beneficial ownership information.

Click to access ey-managing-tax-transparency-and-reputation-risk.pdf

Key points:

  • More than 60% of companies believe that engaging with the media is a “no-win” situation.
  • Excellent timeline/events of transparency initiatives commencing from 2003 until present, and future, state.
  • 65% of respondents have developed a more structured approach to managing their public tax profile in the previous 2 years.
  • 94% of respondents expect increased growth in global disclosure and transparency initiatives.
  • “Business can do more and be more proactive to prepare for new reporting obligations and, as one proposed step, either proactively or defensively,  Whatever choices a business makes, developing and sustaining the ability to source accurate data, in the right format and in a timely manner will be a critical factor for all large businesses in the years ahead.”
  • Multiple transparency initiatives are succinctly depicted in a table on page 9.
  • Transparency will be the new normal.
  • Quality information requires quality data.
  • Transparency readiness is a significant and underestimated need of companies.
  • Transparency readiness assessment questions are posed for consideration.
  • Detecting risk anomalies in the data is an important consideration; thoughtful questions are posed for review.
  • Companies that can quickly and clearly explain their tax transactions and strategies are best positioned to manage reputation risks.
  • Six proactive actions to consider:
    • Actively monitor the changing landscape
    • Assess readiness, and desire, to respond
    • Enhance communication with internal and external stakeholders
    • Develop steps to prepare the total tax picture
    • Decide with whom the company wishes to communicate
    • Embed reputation risk thinking into core business strategy

This survey provides an excellent approach and proactive roadmap in addressing the challenges, readiness and complex actions required to develop transparency readiness and engage reputation risk proactively.  Accordingly, this should be required reading for all MNE’s as a primer and self test mechanism to address the new era of international tax transparency and potential angles of attack for reputation risk.

Category:

Tax Risk Management

Tagged with:

European Parliament 24-0 vote for public disclosure: CbC & Beneficial Ownership

The European Parliament recently voted unanimously for public disclosure rules to fight tax evasion, tax avoidance and establishing fair, well-balanced, efficient and transparent tax systems.  A copy of the press release is provided for reference:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20150601IPR61336/html/Development-MEPs-call-for-action-to-target-tax-evasion-in-developing-countries

Summary:

  • All countries to adopt country-by-country (CbC) reporting, with all information available to the public
  • Beneficial ownership information to be made publicly available
  • Call for coordination to combat tax evasion and avoidance by the European Investment Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and EU financial institutions.
  • Request to the Commission for an ambitious action plan, without delay

The outcry for public reporting, currently underway by the OECD, European Parliament and European Commission is increasing exponentially within Europe.  Other countries will obviously follow the EU approach, with perceptions of complicated international tax rules increasing disparity between application of the transfer pricing arm’s length principle.

The CbC reporting, and beneficial ownership detail, should be expected to be in the public domain if this trend continues.  Currently, it is a sign of an incoming tsunami that cannot be completely avoided.

 

Category:

OECD / UN, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

G20 Int’l Tax Symposium: BEPS topics

The G20 recently held a symposium including 300 participants from 60 countries.  The G20 tax agenda focused on the current status of BEPS in developed, and developing, countries.  The PwC summary outlines the current state of agreement, and disagreement, with the proposed BEPS Guidelines.

Click to access pwc-g20-international-tax-symposium.pdf

Key observations:

  • Hybrid mismatches will include treaty changes and domestic law recommendations
  • The interest limitation solution is not yet adequate
  • A clear analytical framework should be used to determine application of non-recognition transactions
  • The Amadeus database, macro-data and tax return data was used to measure the spill-over effect of BEPs
  • Not all measures to tackle BEPS will be supported by guidance, although guidance will continue in following years
  • Coordination and consistency of application is vital, although it is challenged by unilateral actions of residence countries
  • Implementation is key, although a single approach no longer works

The observations cited in the PwC summary are insightful, while providing further certainty that BEPS implementation will be diverse with different timelines, while guidance continues in post-2015.

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

BEPS Action 6 (Treaty Abuse), as revised

OECD’s latest draft on Action 6 of the BEPS Action Plan (Prevent Treaty Abuse) addresses previous questions raised and comments received, in addition to some new proposals.  Part I of the draft presents the alternative “Simplified” Limitation on Benefits (LOB) Rule, while Part II outlines the previous 20 questions for follow-up work, including changes to domestic law made after the conclusion of a treaty.

Succinct comments are to be submitted by 17 June 2015.  A link to the draft is provided:

Click to access revised-discussion-draft-beps-action-6-prevent-treaty-abuse.pdf

The discussion draft is very comprehensive and principle based, including additional examples from its previous draft.

However, it is worth noting that the OECD would not require an approval process for application of the subjective principal purposes test (PPT) (i.e. the state may “wish” to apply such process) and that the PPT would be included in the arbitration mechanism of paragraph 5 of Article 25, although this issue should also be discussed as part of the work on Action 14 (Make dispute resolution mechanisms more effective).  This latter point would seem to be area for additional confirmation in providing comments to avoid double taxation on issues that are inherently subjective.

The draft will provide important precedent in obtaining treaty relief in a post-BEPS era, thus the proposals should be reviewed in detail, with consideration to provide succinct comments.

 

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

US Model Income Tax Convention: A new world

The US Dept. of Treasury has released drafts of its proposed revisions to the US model income tax convention, for which it has requested comments.  The new Model treaty will serve as a template for future US treaties and protocols. A PwC summary and US Treasury press release, which further reference the proposed changes, are included for reference: http://www.pwc.com/en_US/us/tax-services/publications/insights/assets/pwc-us-treasury-proposes-changes-us-model-income-tax-convention.pdf http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl10057.aspx Key observations:

  • Exempt permanent establishment (PE) rule that will also apply to US branches
  • Denial of treaty benefits re: articles 11 (Interest), 12 (Royalties), and 21 (Other income) for recipients in a “special tax regime.”  There are several exceptions applicable to the general rule.
  • Disallowance of treaty benefits for payments of dividends, interest, royalties and other income for 10 years after a company expatriates.
  • Changes to Limitation on Benefits (LOB) article: (i) New derivative benefits test which is inclusive of a base erosion test, (ii) a base erosion test to the subsidiary of a public company requirement, (iii) changes to base erosion requirements in the public company test, ownership base erosion test and derivative benefits test, and (iv) a change to the discretionary grant of relief clause inclusive of a principal purpose test.
  •  Partial termination provisions for subsequent law changes exempting, or reducing the tax rate to less than 15% for dividends, interest, royalties and other income.

These significant changes represent acknowledgment of the OECD BEPS impact and its impact on the world’s tax treaties that will directly impact the taxation of a multinational company’s global structure.  Accordingly, these changes are required reading for international tax practitioners, as the rest of the world will be following along in measuring its respective treaties and new protocols. BEPS Action 6, Preventing treaty abuse, recognized the US Model Treaty’s LOB article, with an additional inclusion for a derivative benefits test.  The US proposal has now addressed that intent.

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

BEPS is ideology, not law: India’s Delhi Tribunal affirms

As the OECD BEPS Actions are a subject of discussion by tax administrations, the Indian Delhi Tribunal confirmed that such ideologies cannot be used as legislative doctrines for legal enforcement.

A non-legislative BEPS approach may become more common in the months/years prior to a country enacting such legislation into its regulatory framework.  However, the BEPS concepts should not be used as a basis for assessment or litigation.  Thus, there will be a short/long lead time, different in almost every country, as to when some, if any, of the BEPS Actions are enacted. This disparity should be recognized prior to raising BEPS concepts as an instrument of legal enforcement.

An EY Global Tax Alert provides additional information about the case.

Click to access 2015G_CM5447_Indias%20Delhi%20Tribunal%20rules%20BEPS%20is%20a%20tax%20policy%20consideration%20and%20not%20relevant%20for%20judicial%20determinations.pdf

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

BEPS Action 7: PE, Round 2

The OECD has released its second draft, following its initial draft on 31 October 2014, on BEPS Action 7: Preventing the Artificial Avoidance of PE Status.  Comments, which should be kept as short as possible, on this latest draft should be sent by 12 June 2015.  The discussion draft, and related comments, will be discussed at the Working Party 1 meeting of 22-26 June 2015.

A link to the latest discussion draft is provided for reference:

Click to access revised-discussion-draft-beps-action-7-pe-status.pdf

Key observations:

  • Objective is to address commissionnaire arrangements and fragmentation of operations to meet the “preparatory and auxiliary” exception.
  • Alternative PE options from the first draft have been reduced to 1 proposal re: each PE avoidance strategy, concluding that Option B re: commissionnaire arrangements, Option E re: specific activity exemptions and Option J re: fragmentation are the best models.
  • Follow-up work on attribution of profits issues re: Action 7 would result in additional guidance by the end of 2016, the deadline for negotiation of the multilateral instrument.
  • Low-risk distributor arrangements are to be addressed in Action 9, Risks and Capital.
  • Par. 5 alternative test: Independent agent exception is disregarded if it meets a control (50 % or more interest) test.  Persons (acting on behalf of an enterprise) habitually concluding contracts or habitually negotiating the material elements of contracts can lead to a PE, disregarding the act of formal conclusion/approval/review in another jurisdiction.  “Contracts” refers to the business proper of the enterprise.
  •   Each specific activity exemption would be restricted to activities that are otherwise of a “preparatory or auxiliary” character.  Additional Commentary guidance and examples are provided re: the phrase “preparatory or auxiliary.”
  • Re: splitting up of contracts for the 12-month threshold, the concept of “connected enterprises” replaces “associated enterprises” along with anti-abuse rules for determination.

The above captions provide only a snapshot of the detailed proposals and changes included in this latest draft; accordingly all interested parties should review this draft carefully and consider providing succinct comments for consideration in the final guidelines.

As PE is a strong pillar in the foundation of transfer pricing, this draft will chart the course for future PE determinations that may impact current organization structures and where profits from certain activities are taxed.

Category:

OECD

Tagged with:

Australia, UK DPT: Advancing beyond BEPS

The recent Guardian article highlights the danger that the UK Diverted Profits Tax (DPT) has incited.  Countries are acting unilaterally and/or in working groups (including the EU) to accomplish their fiscal objectives behind a thin veil of BEPS intentions.  Most importantly, such actions may never be unraveled after the final OECD BEPS Guidelines are published.

Accordingly, we will have overlapping  domestic and treaty provisions (including the arguable non-treaty DPT) for anti-avoidance rules, CFC rules, capturing low-taxed income from other jurisdictions in novel ways, non arms-length approaches, formulary calculations of the “right tax” and significant complexity for all.  To the extent public disclosure of tax related data becomes a reality by the OECD or EU, many questions will arise on a very complex topic for which most people will not comprehend.

It is hopeful that countries put a full stop on BEPS activities until the Guidelines are finalized, after which such Guidelines can be adopted in their final form for overall consistency.  Statements similar to the herein should be tempered by patience and a goal for global consistency.  Thus, working group meetings that are scheduled prior to that time will only exacerbate the tsunami of international tax guidance and documentation that will take place.

A link to the article is attached for reference:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/19/australia-working-with-uk-on-tackling-corporate-tax-says-joe-hockey

Joe Hockey, treasurer, provided the following statement:

Hockey said that the joint working group would enable Australia to go “further and faster” than the framework for change offered through multilateral groups like the OECD and G20.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

BEPS Action 3-CFC Rules: TEI comments

TEI has provided recent comments addressing OECD’s Discussion Draft for BEPS Action 3: CFC rules.  A link to their comments are provided for reference:

Click to access TEI%20Comments%20BEPS%20Action%203%20-%20CFC%20Rules%20FINAL%20to%20OECD%2030%20April%202015.pdf

Key comments:

  • Lack of definitive guidance will introduce additional complexity, double taxation and inconsistency of treaty applications.
  • Overlap with other BEPS Actions and the role of CFC rules questions new complex rules at this time.
  • Confusion re: transfer pricing rules and excess profits approach with arm’s length principle.

The well drafted comments provide clarity surrounding the complexity and uncertainty for new rules addressing BEPS concerns by interested parties.  The first question therefore should always be: Do we need these rules at this time?

Notwithstanding the Discussion Draft’s proposals and comments by TEI, among others, MNE’s should plan for increased efficiencies to coordinate and report information, while ensuring global consistency for application of transfer pricing methodologies.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

European Commission: Transparency blueprint

Commissioner Moscovici’s recent speech addressing the future of tax policy aims at developing an ambitious blueprint for taxation in Europe.  A link to his speech is provided for reference:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-4900_en.htm

Key comments:

  • Enhanced EU transparency in tax matters
  • Coordination of Member States tax systems
  • Cooperation between Member States, exemplified by EU Tax Transparency Package initiative (refer to 22 March 2015 post)
  • Full transparency cost/benefit assessment re: Country-by-Country reporting for public disclosure
  • New Action plan before summer (an issue that is fundamental to the EU) building on global developments
  • Assess relaunch of Common Consolidated Corporate tax base (CCCTB)

The European Commission is accelerating its efforts, resulting in a potentially different documentation framework than the OECD Guidelines may suggest and/or a basis that the rest of world will follow.  The Commission has the necessary momentum and political cohesiveness to achieve its efforts for the EU, although with a possible demarcation with the rest of the world.

CbC reporting by MNE’s continues its actions on center stage as MNE’s should plan for (if they have not already) public disclosure of such reporting.  Thereby, the topics of supplemental reporting (i.e. indirect tax contributions, etc.) become more important for senior leaders to consider.  Finally, such disclosure warrants a seamless governance process and alignment for addressing future questions by interested parties.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

BEPS Action 12-Mandatory Disclosure: TEI comments

Tax Executives Institute (TEI) has provided comments to the issuance of BEPS Action 12 Discussion Draft.

A link to TEI’s comments is provided for reference:

Click to access TEI%20Comments%20BEPS%20Action%2012%20-%20Mandatory%20Disclosure%20-%20FINAL%20to%20OECD%2029%20April%202015.pdf

Key comments:

  • Multiple levels of disclosure options are provided, leading to inconsistency and complexity
  • Information provided is yet another compliance burden for MNE’s, with little cost/benefit to tax authorities
  • Concern about release of information to the public, especially prior to the time that full appeals are exhausted
  • Tax disclosure should only be required upon filing a tax return with a tax benefit from a reportable transaction
  • Limited rules re: who should report
  • Primary purpose or de minims filter process is not recommended
  • Reporting should be limited to new or innovative aggressive tax planning structures
  • Countries with criminal liability provisions should exclude reported transactions with self-incrimination protection
  • Penalty protection for reported transactions

TEI’s comments are well written, concise, practical and relevant.  Their comments should be carefully reviewed prior to implementation of additional disclosures re: BEPS Action 12 that may prove to have little benefit and significant complexity.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with: