Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Posts tagged ‘transfer pricing’

Meeting of G5 Ministers: Tools to fight tax fraud & evasion

The Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK (G5) held a meeting on 28 April, 2014 to discuss progress on their mutual objectives to promote tax transparency and cooperation, fight tax fraud and evasion, counter harmful tax practices and respond to aggressive tax planning practices.  The following link provides detailed actions that were discussed:

Click to access Comunicado%20del%20G-5%20sobre%20reunión%20en%20Par%C3%ADs%2028%20abril%202014%20en%20inglés.pdf

Summary of discussions:

  • Agreement to sign the Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) agreements in alignment with the new, single, global OECD standard, joining 39 other jurisdictions that will effect exchange of information in 2017 with respect to 2015 data.
  • Reiteration of support to the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project.
  • Re: taxation of digital economies, the countries where companies conduct economic activities must be able to receive their “fair share” of tax.  To align this initiative, the G5 Ministers agreed on the interest of a flexible interpretation of the territoriality rules, including a Digital Tax Presence concept.
  • Transfer pricing rules must be adapted to ensure that profit and value creation are aligned, citing economic justification.
  • Tax avoidance re: hybrid mismatch arrangements should be addressed.
  • Country-by-Country (CbC) reporting is important, as it should provide all relevant tax administrations with the information necessary to complete a high level risk assessment.
  • OECD BEPS developments must be reflected at the EU level, encouraging review of the EU law and its impact on aggressive tax planning practices.

The conclusions set forth are significant for the following reasons:  Proposal by the G5, EU focused, collaborative discussions and agreement re: “fair share” of tax alignment, economic justification profit / value drivers, and a presumption that CbC reporting will provide information to complete a relevant risk assessment.

These initiatives should be monitored in alignment with the OECD BEPS proposals set forth for 2014 and 2015.

 

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

Australia draft TP ruling: need for comment

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has issued a draft transfer pricing law introducing subjective provisions that would be enforced via self-assessment.  PwC has provided relevant details in the following link:

Click to access Australia-ATO+draft+ruling+-reconstruction+of+transactions+04252014.pdf

Key Aspects of Ruling:

  • Transactions would be reconstructed, with various exceptions
  • Self-assessment mechanisms are required, based on consistency with 2010 OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, for three exceptions:
  1. Form is inconsistent with substance
  2. Independent entities would have instead entered into other transactions that differ in substance from the actual transactions
  3. Independent entities would not have entered into commercial or financial relations at all
  • The taxpayer needs to hypothesize what independent entities behaving in a commercially rational manner would have done.  If different from the actual transactions, identification of the arm’s length conditions must be based on what the independent entities would have done
  • Thin capitalization reconstruction provisions are included in the self-assessment analysis
  • Comments are due by 30 May 2014

All interested parties should review this ruling, including the Appendix that does not form part of the binding ruling.  There are many reasons why the draft ruling will be difficult to implement by multinationals and the ATO, primarily due to the subjective content and process of hypothesizing.  Additionally, double taxation issues should be addressed re: reconstructed transactions and corresponding adjustments, as well as alignment and intent of the OECD provisions cited.

 

 

 

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

TP profiles: EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum update

The EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum has published a valuable update highlighting local country perspectives on a common criteria.  The link is attached for reference:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/company_tax/transfer_pricing/forum/index_en.htm#tpprofiles

The common criteria provided by each country is as follows:

  1. Reference to the Arm’s-Length Principle
  2. Reference to the OECD TP Guidelines
  3. Definition of related parties
  4. Transfer pricing methods
  5. Transfer pricing documentation requirements
  6. Specific audit procedures and/or specific transfer pricing penalties
  7. Information for small and medium enterprises on transfer pricing
  8. Information on dispute resolution
  9. Relevant regulations on Advanced Pricing Arrangements
  10. Links to relevant government websites
  11. Other relevant information

Countries included in the update consist of:

  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Bulgaria
  • Croatia
  • Cyprus
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Estonia
  • Finland
  • France (coming soon)
  • Germany (coming soon)
  • Greece
  • Hungary
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Latvia
  • Lithuania
  • Luxembourg
  • Malta
  • Netherlands
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Romania
  • Slovakia
  • Slovenia
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • UK

The information is highly relevant and should be used as a primary resource re: the respective country’s views on transfer pricing, OECD alignment and dispute resolution methodologies.

For Best Practices, the information should be compared with the transfer pricing documentation prepared re: the arm’s-length principle and consistency of audit principles by tax authorities.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

OECD: Cbc reporting update

The OECD has provided further observations on its country-by-country information template, based on the premise such information is a useful guide in the risk assessment of transfer pricing for relevant jurisdictions.  KPMG has provided a summary of the latest notes by OECD on this topic:

http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/taxnewsflash/Pages/2014-1/oecd-update-on-transfer-pricing-documentation-country-by-country-reporting.aspx

As this important initiative develops into final form, additional questions that may be asked include:

  • Will this information only be provided to tax authorities both currently and in the future, versus subject to public disclosure?  Will the OECD and/or separate countries’ provide for such legal assurance?
  • Should tax authorities be requested to share results of a risk assessment, based on this data, with the taxpayer prior to any assessments to ensure facts are aligned  to promote efficiencies upon assessment, and potentially in domestic or treaty based appeals?  A possible Best Practice for adoption?
  • How will relevance of the global information impact discussions and determinations in the relevant jurisdiction upon audit?
  • Is a post-adoption survey planned to compare expectations with actual results, providing flexibility for ongoing changes as a risk assessment tool?
  • To the extent that a country has adopted, or will adopt, different rules for global reporting, will the rules prescribed by OECD override, or supplement, domestic law?  What (legal) mechanisms will be put in place to align expectations for domestic and international rules?
  • What alignment is planned for countries utilizing the UN Model Convention?
  • Will this tool be used differently for co-operative compliance engagements and/or joint audits?

Many other questions should be carefully considered, looking at both immediate issues for implementation and long-term effects for taxpayers and tax administrations.

 

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

Portugal: Unilateral APA opportunities

Portugal has introduced new transfer pricing rules, including the ability to request a unilateral APA, absent a tax treaty between Portugal and the other jurisdiction.  KPMG has provided a concise summary for these changes:

http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/taxnewsflash/Pages/2014-1/portugal-transfer-pricing-law-changes-allow-more-unilateral-apa.aspx

Multinationals should consider this new provision to obtain additional certainty re: Portugal’s application of transfer pricing rules.  Recognizing that a unilateral APA does not eliminate the risk of double taxation, this opportunity should be reviewed within the context of the global tax risk framework.

 

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

TEI’s comments: UN TP Manual, Competent Authority & APA’s

TEI has published comments addressing the UN Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries, in addition to US IRS Notices for revisions to Revenue Procedures setting forth new policies to implement the Competent Authority (CA) and Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) procedures.  References to TEI’s submissions are included for reference:

UN TP Manual key comments:

Click to access TEI%20Comments%20on%20UN%20Transfer%20Pricing%20Manual%20March%202014.pdf

  • Harmonize UN and OECD Transfer Pricing (TP) guidelines to reduce cross-border disputes
  • Risk assessment should be the primary focus, with most multinationals (MNE’s) “low-risk” status due to global and consistent TP policies and documentation
  • First step of tax authorities should be to address overall business, group TP policy and risk control framework
  • Domestic legislation defeats the purpose of a standard international TP guideline
  • Recharacterization by tax authorities should only be permitted in clear cases of abuse
  • TP documentation flexibility must be preserved
  • Burden of proof should reside with tax authorities, with penalty protection granted to taxpayer upon providing sufficient TP documentation
  • Intangible discussion precedes work of the OECD on revision of its Chapter VI Guidelines, reducing likelihood of harmonization
  • Intra-group services and management fees: Consistency of UN and OECD approaches for clarity, in addition to uniform safe harbors
  • TP documentation: “Less is more” approach to assess risk, materiality consideration on a group and country level, global and regional comparables, English language
  • Chapter 10 policy objectives are not aligned with the UN TP Manual and the arm’s-length principle

US Competent Authority key comments to Notice 2013-78 re: revisions to Revenue Procedure:

Click to access TEI%20Comments%20on%20Notice%202013-78%20Revised%20CA%20Revenue%20Procedure%20-%20FINAL%20to%20IRS%20Mar%2010%202014.pdf

  • Opening the CA process to taxpayer initiated adjustments is welcome
  • A new procedure whereby an informal consultation is arranged with taxpayers to discuss its exhaustion of remedies to reduce its foreign tax before claiming a US Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) should not be compulsory.  The timeliness of such advice is also of concern.
  • CA initiated MAP cases and required inclusion of MAP issues that are not a part of the taxpayer’s request for assistance raises many questions.
  • Provision of all information to both CA’s is over broad and may not be mutually relevant.
  • US CA assistance may be denied if a foreign initiated adjustment is agreed to without consulting the US CA: this raises resource and timeliness issues and should also have no impact upon  the merits for claiming a US FTC.

US APA key comments to Notice 2013-79 re: revisions to Revenue Procedure

Click to access TEI%20Comments%20on%20Notice%202013-79%20Revised%20APA%20Revenue%20Procedure%20-%20FINAL%20to%20IRS%20Mar%2010%202014.pdf

  • The Notice reflects prior creation of the Advance Pricing and Mutual Agreement (APMA) program
  • Details are set forth regarding the “pre-filing” process
  • Appendix is included stating the required materials to be submitted for inclusion
  • Rules are provided for when the IRS may cancel or revoke a completed APA
  • Inapplicable information should not be submitted, but a “suitable explanation” why the information is not relevant must be provided
  • The suggested changes will increase information required for application, and time required for APA completion, thereby reducing the likelihood that taxpayers will proceed with an APA request

 

In alignment with the OECD’s BEPS proposals, unilateral country legislation including General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR), and the UN TP Manual principles for developing countries, tax controversies are expected to increase significantly.  Tremendous pressure will be placed on CA assistance around the world, and possibilities for new APA ‘s will be reviewed to reduce inherent uncertainty.

Accordingly, all multinationals and interested parties should read TEI’s excellent comments to better understand the issues to be confronted, with suggestions for thoughtful and practical ideas to achieve mutual objectives for taxpayers and tax authorities around the world.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

Nigeria: TP documentation to be filed with 2014 tax return

The Nigerian Transfer Pricing (TP) Division of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) has requested companies to submit copies of their Group’s Transfer Pricing Policy.  Additional details of this request are included in the KPMG link for reference:

Click to access tp-nigeria-march11-2014v2.pdf

Although this request is directed towards a “Transfer Pricing Policy” the initiative is an indication of the focused transfer pricing objectives of developing countries, and heightened awareness for application of the “arm’s-length” principle.  The initiative is interesting due to the fact that the request is for a macro basis policy re: arm’s-length transactions between related entities, vs. a detailed template of information that may not have direct relevance on assessing risk from a transfer pricing perspective.

For Best Practices, this request invites multinationals to develop a general transfer pricing policy as an integral part of the Tax Risk Framework documentation, with potential application of a useful documentation tool to provide publicly as applicable.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

OECD: Comparable Data draft released for comment

The OECD has released a paper for comment discussing four possible approaches to addressing concerns on utilization of comparable transactions for transfer pricing analysis.  Written comments should be provided by 11 April 2014.  The following link is provided for reference:  

Click to access transfer-pricing-comparability-data-developing-countries.pdf

The paper will be discussed in two parallel sessions on the last day of the Global Forum on Transfer Pricing meeting of 26–28 March 2014. 

This paper sets out and briefly discusses four possible approaches to addressing the concerns over the lack of data on comparables expressed by developing countries.

• Expanding access to data sources for comparables, including steps to improve the range of data contained in commercial databases, expand developing country access to such databases, and improve access to comparables data in developing countries with a significant number of sizeable independent companies.

• More effective use of data sources for comparables, including guidance or assistance in the effective use of commercial databases, the selection of foreign comparables, whether and how to make adjustments to foreign comparables to enhance their reliability, and alternative approaches to finding comparables.

• Approaches to identifying arm’s length prices or results without reliance on direct comparables, including guidance or assistance in making use of proxies for arm’s length outcomes, the profit split method, value chain analysis, and safe harbours, an evaluation of the impact, effectiveness and compatibility with the arm’s length principle of approaches such as the so called “sixth method”, which is increasingly prevalent particularly in developing countries in Latin America and Africa, and a review of possible anti-avoidance approaches.

• Advance pricing agreements and mutual agreement proceedings, including a review of developing country experiences with the pros and cons of advance pricing agreements and negotiations to resolve transfer pricing disputes, as well as guidance or assistance with respect to mutual agreement proceedings.

The paper is timely, relevant and addresses practical and administrative concerns addressed by developing countries, as well as discussion of the arm’s-length principle.  The items addressed should be considered in addressing Best Practices for transfer pricing documentation methodologies by taxpayers and tax authorities.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

Multilateral Convention: New countries

The Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, as amended by the 2010 protocol, is effective for the following countries:

  • March 1: Canada, New Zealand, Slovakia, South Africa
  • June 1: Croatia

The Convention provides for the mutual exchange of tax information with other tax administrations.

Best Practice ideas:

  1. Consistent coordination of responses to tax authorities by multinationals: As tax authorities share more information on a real-time basis, in accordance with the Multilateral Convention, global consistency is required for proper factual and risk determinations around the world.
  2. Regional and Headquarter tax office coordination to issues: Processes and methodologies should be in place to ensure consistency and internal governance.
  3. Tax (return) information reporting: More countries are adopting transfer pricing information reporting requirements, including transfer pricing methodology, and identification of relevant intercompany transactions in that country and/or other countries in accordance with their legislation.  A review of identifying current, and new information requirements should be established on a global master schedule ensuring internal coordination.
  4. Tax information questionnaires: A process should be established to identify questionnaires received with a global methodology for proper governance.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

Australia BEPS: Not waiting for OECD

KPMG has provided an excellent overview of Australia’s unilateral efforts to carry out OECD’s proposals.

http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/taxnewsflash/Pages/2014-1/australia-effects-of-documentation-country-by-country-reporting-for-australian-taxpayers.aspx

Some key questions include:

  • From a OECD perspective, Would penalties be applicable when a Country-by-Country (CbC) template is not completed, if such information is part of the Transfer Pricing Master File?
  • The Australian Tax Office (ATO) has already started its process to collect similar information as the CbC template, with 125 review notification letters to be sent to taxpayers, requesting detailed international data and a presentation to the ATO.
  • The ATO review would include details of global corporate value chains, including sales, profits, and taxes paid in every jurisdiction, payments to / from low tax jurisdictions, e-commerce and tax risk governance.  The ATO should ensure that confidential information is only shared with other tax authorities in alignment with confidentiality protocols judicially established in each respective jurisdiction.  Additionally, it will be interesting to note how such information is defined, or not defined, by the ATO to ensure information that is collected from taxpayers will be consistent for analyses.

These actions bring forth additional questions re: the OECD proposals, the ATO’s response and advance warnings to taxpayers of how such information will be collected and provided in advance of the OECD’s timelines.  To the extent procedures are enacted by taxpayers to collect such data, while the OECD and other tax authorities provide different rules, definitions and timelines, it will substantially increase time and cost by multinationals to respond to multiple initiatives.

Another point of consideration is the symmetry of ATO’s CbC request with that of the OECD: Will the ATO change their rules to coincide with that of the OECD when such rules are issued, and will the separate country’s legislation trump / override the OECD’s final recommendations?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

TEI’s response to OECD’s Discussion Draft on TP Documentation & Country by Country reporting

The Tax Executives Institute (TEI) has commented on the OECD Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country by Country Reporting (CbC) discussion draft.

Click to access OECD%20Transfer%20Pricing%20Documentation%20and%20CbC%20Reporting.pdf

TEI has provided strategic and logical arguments in response to requested comments by the OECD for transfer pricing documentation and CbC reporting.  One of the exemplary comments put forth is that the CbC reporting template should be the last item for completion, based upon actions of the other items, to achieve maximum efficiency, relevance and avoidance of duplication in work efforts.

The TEI comments should be read by all multinationals and interested parties to further understand the business rationale and inherent complexity of the OECD proposal that may lead tax authorities to deviate from the arm’s length principle based solely on the CbC information provided.

 

 

 

 

Category:

OECD / UN, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

OECD BEPS Action Plan: Revised timeline

The OECD has recently published a revised timeline for its Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan that can be accessed via the attached link:

Click to access calendar-planned-stakeholders-input-2013-2014.pdf

With a short timeframe for comment to multiple initiatives, it is imperative to review this timeline change, especially if comments are to be prepared.  This revision in timing also provides transparency for the OECD’s aggressive objectives to assess the milestones accordingly.

The OECD timeline also highlights the expedited actions of individual EU Member States, and other countries, to implement independent BEPS initiatives that may, or may not, be in alignment with the OECD’s final proposals.  To the extent such objectives are significantly different in principle and approach, it has not yet been envisaged if, and how, such disparities will be resolved by taxpayers and tax authorities.

Category:

OECD / UN

Tagged with:

Saudi Arabia & Qatar Tax/TP developments

Saudi Arabia’s tax treaty with Tunisia, effective from 1 January 2014, generally follows the OECD model treaty.  Additionally, Saudi Arabia is pursuing treaties with Algeria, Kyrgyzstan and Barbados.

Saudi Arabia also introduced reforms to the Foreign Investment Act  in March 2013, providing penalties for Saudi Arabia General Investment Authority (SAGIA) registered foreign investors who fail to comply with its new Code of Conduct for Foreign Investors.  The Code provides for approx. 60 forms of breaches, including penalties that include fines and cancellation of the legal entity’s license, thus strict compliance with the Code should be adhered to and monitored.

The Qatar Financial Centre’s (QFC) new transfer pricing manual features guidance on transfer pricing regulations and rules.  Thin capitalization, capital / debt structuring, transfer pricing documentation and necessity of a comprehensive transfer pricing study to withstand lengthy queries are components in this new manual.  The arm’s length standard of the OECD is to be relied on by the QFC Tax Department for transfer pricing determinations.  Additionally, rulings and/or APAs can be requested.  Intercompany transactions are being closely reviewed by the QFC Tax Department, thus such changes should be reviewed.

KPMG has provided additional details for further reference:

http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/mesa-tax-update/Pages/saudi-arabia-tax-revenues.aspx

http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/mesa-tax-update/Pages/qatar-new-manual.aspx

As the Middle Eastern tax authorities gain transfer pricing expertise, legislative actions and experience in the application of transfer pricing methodologies, it is important to note alignment of such practices with OECD.  To the extent double tax treaties are not yet negotiated, double taxation issues should be considered.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

TP Compensating Adjustments: Update

A Report on Compensating Adjustments, issued by the EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum in January 2014, provides a practical solution to address different approaches by EU Member States.  The Glossary of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines defines a “compensating adjustment” as “an adjustment in which the taxpayer reports a transfer price for tax purposes that is, in the taxpayer’s opinion, an arm’s length price for a controlled transaction, even though this price differs from the amount actually charged between the associated enterprises.  This adjustment would be made before the tax return is filed.”  In general, an adjustment is made at a later time to the transfer prices set at the time of a transaction.

A link to this report, and an excellent article by CGMA, are provided for reference:

Click to access jtpf_009_final_2013_en.pdf

http://www.cgma.org/magazine/news/pages/20149479.aspx

Highlights of the Report:

  • Compensating adjustments are enacted using one of two approaches, an ex-ante (arm’s length price setting approach), or ex-post (arm’s length outcome testing approach).  The ex-post approach generally involves testing, and possible adjustment, of transfer prices at year-end, prior to closing the books or filing the tax return.
  • When both Member States apply an ex-post approach and require compensating adjustments, a risk of double taxation, or double non-taxation, may arise.
  • An ex-post approach by one Member State, with an ex-ante approach by a separate Member State, presents conflicts on making such adjustments.
  • Guidance by the OECD is limited, with reference to the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) to resolve disputes.  Member States use their discretion re: application of compensating adjustments.
  • A practical solution is described for transactions in which (i) profits are calculated symmetrically, and (ii) a compensating adjustment initiated by the taxpayer should be accepted if various conditions are met.  However, if the Member States have less prescriptive rules for such adjustments, those rules are to apply.
  • Upward as well as downward adjustments should be accepted.
  • The practical solution provided should not limit a tax administration’s ability to make a subsequent adjustment and has no bearing in a MAP procedure.
  • The adjustment should be made to the most appropriate point in an arm’s length range, with reference to OECD guidance.

The subject of compensating adjustments is an important topic in addressing potential double taxation, or double non-taxation.  The Report is timely, offering practical guidance for Member States to achieve consistency, although only within the EU.

It will be interesting to follow this topic, and future guidance, by the OECD, as well as commentaries from EU Member States, UN, and other interested parties.  The practical solution will be most effective if adopted in principle, or in legislation, by the EU Member States, with other countries referring to such guidance to resolve challenging transfer pricing issues fairly and effectively.

Category:

Transfer Pricing

Tagged with:

Strategizing APA’s in Turkey & OECD’s Tax Transparency Report

KPMG has published an informative and timely publication reviewing strategies for the use of unilateral, bilateral  and multilateral Advance Pricing Agreements (APA’s), with a detailed focus on recent APA developments in Turkey.  The KPMG publication cites the OECD’s June 2013 report “A Step Change in Tax Transparency” prepared for the G8 Summit.  The KPMG and OECD reports are referenced herein for review.

Click to access turkey-feb3-2014.pdf

Click to access taxtransparency_G8report.pdf

The KPMG report is a valuable reference, providing strategic insight into using unilateral, bilateral and / or multilateral APA’s globally with a specific focus on Turkey.  The report includes chapters on Transfer Pricing in Turkey, Global APA Trend, Opportunities that APA Offers, When Should You Pursue an APA and the APA Process in Turkey.  The OECD report provides additional input on the exchange of information which is especially valuable against the backdrop of OECD’s recent request for guidance.

The transfer pricing landscape is changing, from a OECD perspective and also separate country initiatives that may, or may not, correlate with guidelines to be established this year and next by the OECD.  Accordingly, the use of APA’s should be reconsidered for developed and developing countries to achieve further certainty and avoidance of double taxation in these changing and challenging times.

Category:

OECD / UN, Transfer Pricing

Tagged with: