US and international accounting standards have introduced the CAM process into the audit process, some of which include income tax accounts as a selected disclosure due to their materiality and the nature of being especially complex, challenging, subjective or complex auditor judgment (which is increasingly the norm for international tax rules)
For each CAM communicated in the auditor’s report, the auditor must:
Identify the CAM, describe the principal considerations that led the auditor to determine that the matter is a CAM,
Describe how the CAM was addressed in the audit, and
Refer to the relevant financial accounts/disclosures that relate to the CAM
As income taxes become more complex and subjective, including the effect of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), MLI amendments to double tax treaties including permanent establishment (PE), OECD guidance and tax audit issues, a tax CAM may become more significant going forward, as it is an annual determination.
To the extent income tax is a CAM, there will be specific disclosures, preceded by more diligent review of the tax accounts, subjective determinations, etc. as part of the normal tax provision process.
PCAOB summary guidance and the relevant guidance links are referenced.
India’s Central Board of Direct Taxes has published a report for comments, due by May 18th.
The Committee has recommended a mixed or balanced approach (“fractional apportionment”) that allocates profits between the jurisdiction where sales take place and the jurisdiction where supply is undertaken. India’s position is that such approach is acceptable in other tax treaties. However, the risk of double taxation is present if this approach is not adopted by other countries. Additionally, the approach differs from the OECD approach, which then introduces more complexity for all multinationals with Indian operations.
India is known for its long appeals, and different approaches to its fisc. Accordingly this report should be reviewed, with a possibility to comment, prior to further actions. This report, and methodologies, will also be closely followed by other countries in this complex and subjective area of PE profit allocations.
EY’s Global Tax Alert provides additional details, for reference.
The OECD has published additional guidance on attributing profits to a Permanent Establishment (PE).
The main takeaway from the guidance is the excerpts as follows: The proposed analysis of the examples included in the Report is governed by the authorized OECD approach (AOA) contained in the 2010 version of Article 7. However, the Report is not intended to extend the application of the AOA to countries that have not adopted that approach in their treaties or domestic legislation.
Approx. 13 treaties have this provision, although countries may try to adopt such guidance notwithstanding their legal incapacity to enforce such mechanism.
EY’s Global Tax Alert highlights this significant development, as PE will almost certainly lead to double taxation assuming that Competent Authority will not be filed for or given.
As countries become creative re: permanent establishment (PE) taxation, this scenario presented by the EY Global Tax Alert reminds all tax practitioners to be cognizant of what intercompany provisions are provided.
The Danish Tax Board referred to the contract between the Austrian company and the Danish company, according to which the Danish company would make offices and storage facilities available to the Austrian company. The Danish Tax Board was informed that the premises would be used by the subcontractor only. The Danish Tax Board ruled that according to the wording of the contract between the Austrian company and the Danish company, the Austrian company would have a place of business in Denmark at its disposal regardless of the fact that the services would be outsourced to a subcontractor.
Thus, providing for a storage closet (in literal terms) may impose PE liability, with the ensuing compliance and fees a significant factor for what was probably an inadvertent error by the drafters of the intercompany agreement.
The treaty had the same PE provisions as OECD’s Article 5 language, although noting that the OECD’s recommendations were looked to by the tax administration.
As a Best Practice, all intercompany agreements (anywhere in the world) need to be reviewed by an international tax practitioner prior to execution, whether in-house personnel or outside advisors.
EY’s Alert provides additional details that should be reviewed to indicate the pervasiveness of the new PE rules, and the aggressiveness of tax administrations to literally interpret intercompany agreements.
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.
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
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.
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.
As the subject of permanent establishment (PE) becomes more controversial amid the ever-changing rules, multinationals (MNEs) should have a proactive partnership relationship with their global mobility service provider, whether in-sourced or outsourced.
Global mobility generally reports through the HR function, thus a silo approach may result without the proactive ability of the tax function to create a cohesive team. The concepts of legal employer, economic employer, intercompany allocations, foreign reporting relationships, contractual arrangements, intercompany agreements, etc. all need to be vetted and challenged for every assignment that may have adverse consequences for the employee and/or the company.
Countries are taking a more aggressive PE approach, thus a standard assignment template and / or agreement may not work in today’s post-BEPS world. India, for example, has very specific rules that dictate a PE without special attention to the control and payment arrangements of the assignment. Assessments may take years to resolve requiring additional cost and time, including the necessity of external advisors.
The organizational structure of significant functions that may cause consequences for a MNE’s tax organization should be reviewed, possibly adding dotted line relationships for global mobility, customs, external communications, etc. At the very least, these related functions should be discussing these potential issues on a regular basis, while forming a mini-university for learning.
As the subject suggests, the organizational structure and reporting relationships should not follow the same-as-last-year approach due to the BEPS evolution around the world.
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.
OECD has released discussion drafts on Action 7, attribution of profit to permanent establishments (PEs) and Actions 8-10 (profit splits).
It also requested public review of the document containing conforming changes to Chapter IX (business restructurings) of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (TPG).
The PE Discussion Draft is not restricted to issues related to PEs that will result from the changes made by the Action 7 Final Report, but also takes into account the results of the work on other parts of the BEPS Action Plan dealing with transfer pricing, in particular the work related to intangibles, risk and capital. This factor is especially important if countries do not adopt the new Action 5 PE Guidelines in a bilateral tax treaty or via the pending multilateral instrument. Thus, this section will be all-encompassing and important to understand the drivers, such as key people functions, behind this issue.
The profit split guidance is indicia of a trend for some governments to apply this standard, albeit not from a pure economic/technical perspective. Therefore, this complex guidance will enhance knowledge of those being asked the question from tax authorities, as well as in developing transfer pricing guidance.
EY’s Global Tax Alert describes these developments in greater detail.
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:
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.
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.
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 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.
The EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Package included a Commission recommendation on the implementation of measures against tax treaty abuse. Specifically, this statement was issued to address artificial avoidance of permanent establishment status as stated in BEPS Action 7 Action Plan.
Re: tax treaties of Member States that include a “principal purpose test” (PPT) based general anti-avoidance rule, the following modification is encouraged to be inserted:
“Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Convention, a benefit under this Convention shall not be granted in respect of an item of income or capita l if it is reasonable to conclude, having regard to all relevant facts and circumstances, that obtaining that benefit was one of the principal purposes of any arrangement or transaction that resulted directly or indirectly in that benefit, unless it is established that it reflects a genuine economic activity or that granting that benefit in these circumstances would be in accordance with the object and purpose of the relevant provisions of this Convention.”
This subjective phrase, that applies notwithstanding other provisions of the Convention, has already been used in new treaties and will proliferate as new treaties are drafted by a Member State, not necessarily with another Member State. Thereby, it is important to draft supporting documentation that will provide support for transactions against which it is aimed. This phrase will elicit additional appeals and court cases as to its meaning and / or intent for which non-consistent answers will be provided.
Questions that may be asked re: this statement:
Who is concluding on the reasonableness? What facts are used for such determination?
Which facts and circumstances are relevant?
What are all of the principal purposes of the arrangement or transaction?
How is a benefit measured, directly or indirectly?
What is a genuine, vs. non-genuine, economic activity?
How do you determine if such arrangement is in accordance with the object and purpose of the “relevant provisions” of the Convention?
The phrase is purposefully vague, and thereby subject to inconsistent interpretation.
It is hopeful that tax administrations will use this statement wisely to address egregious transactions rather than ordinary business transactions for which the clear intent was not an evasion of tax. This subjectivity will be important to monitor going forward to further understand subjective enforcement interpretations around the world.
The EU Council has provided a Directive that would introduce legislation ensuring the EU maintains its leadership role in anti-BEPS recommendations, as well as providing good tax governance for the rest of the world. EY’s summary of the Directive is provided for reference:
Automatic exchange of tax rulings would be effective 1/1/2017.
Changes would be introduced for the EU Code of Conduct.
EU anti-BEPS proposal to include the following BEPS Actions:
2: Hybrid mismatches
3: CFC rules
4: Interest limitations
6: General anti-abuse rule (noting its inclusion for the Royalty & Interest Directive, similar to the Parent-Subsidiary Directive)
7: PE status
13: Country-by-Country (CbC) reporting
Common Corp. Tax Base (absent later consolidation phase) proposal to be introduced in 2016
The EU continues its pace to maintain its global lead in addressing anti-BEPS concerns, which will impact non-EU countries around the world. Thereby, it provides another set of rules that would be mandated to achieve EU conformity.
Global mobility will face, directly and indirectly, various challenges resulting from OECD’s BEPS proposals. PwC’s Insights provide a concise summary of these proposals, included for reference:
Treaty changes, either bilaterally or via the Multilateral Instrument, will affect key issues and risks, including permanent establishment (PE).
Unilateral changes, several of which have been enacted, should be reviewed with a focus on global mobility functions.
The transparency initiative will encourage tax authorities to aggressively pursue PE and treaty based rules.
What is the impact of the change for PE dependent/independent test.
Responsibilities of senior executives, sales representatives and regionally based employees will need to be reviewed for the new rules.
People functions re: controlling risk should receive separate review.
Intercompany agreements (i.e. legal form) should be compared to practical substance responsibilities to evidence conformity, as analyses will use legal agreements as only a first step to understand the transactions and potential consequences.
Post BEPS, it is imperative that global mobility’s function and responsibilities should be reviewed, from a tax risk awareness perspective as well as internal governance controls. To the extent that global mobility is not closely collaborated with the tax function, the ways of working and reporting should be reviewed to address this new world of international tax transparency and the emphasis on multinationals paying their fair share of tax, however construed.
Kuwait’s Department of Inspections and Tax Claims (DIT) has introduced its interpretation of a Virtual Service PE, notwithstanding its nonconformity with the physical presence standard and its double tax treaties in accordance with OECD’s Model Convention.
Unfortunately, this concept is not new in the Middle East and it is hoped that other countries will not follow this breakaway interpretation.
EY’s Global Tax Alert provides additional details into this development:
The Virtual Service PE concept takes into account only the duration of the contract itself.
Work extending beyond the tax treaty threshold of 183 days will be presumed to have created a Service PE.
The DIT takes the position that a nonresident is deemed to have a PE in Kuwait, particularly, if the following conditions are met:
A nonresident furnishes services to an entity in connection with the latter’s activity in Kuwait.
The period during which such services are rendered according to the contract, exceeds the threshold period under the applicable tax treaty.
The immediate implication of the DIT’s current approach to a “Virtual Service PE” is that the applicability of tax treaty-based income tax exemptions with respect to cross-border services has become highly uncertain.
Accordingly, all legal agreements and provision for services to Kuwait (disregarding the physical standard) should be reviewed for potential disputes based on a Virtual Services PE argument. Practically, it may also be difficult to obtain tax treaty relief from double taxation.