BEPS Action 4: Interest Deductions and other financial payments Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
|
|
- Brian Walters
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 BEPS Action 4: Interest Deductions and other financial payments Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) is pleased to respond to the Public discussion draft published on 18 December 2014 on BEPS Action 4: Interest Deductions and other financial payments. 1.2 The discussion draft on Action 4 focusses on group-wide interest limitations based around a group s external borrowings. We are far from convinced that an interest limitation rule is the best option to address the BEPS concerns arising around interest deductions. 1.3 Although it is noted (at paragraph 5 of the discussion draft) that there is a sense that unilateral action by countries is failing to tackle some of the issues at the heart of the problem, we note that other Actions of the BEPS project are addressing a number of base erosion issues arising in respect of interest deductibility, and differences between countries regarding the treatment of debt are a natural part of an international tax system where countries retain sovereignty over tax matters. 2 Policy considerations 2.1 We support the work which the BEPS project is doing to counter arrangements which have (rightly) caused so much public concern, namely structures whose purpose is to enable some multinational enterprises (MNEs) to pay low levels of tax in jurisdictions from which they generate significant amounts of profit. However, the proposals set out in the Action 4 discussion draft go beyond action to counter the splitting of profits from the activities which generate those profits. These proposals seek to harmonise the rules which countries have for determining how much interest is tax deductible, even in situations where the amount of profit generated is commensurate with the activity performed and in situations where no tax advantage arises.
2 2.2 We can see merit in proposals to reduce the scope for tax to distort commercial decision-making but whilst countries retain sovereignty to set their own tax rates, reliefs etc., tax will play a part in investment decisions. It seems to us that domestic rules regarding what expenses qualify for tax relief are, as much as headline rates of tax, matters for each country to determine taking into account all aspects of its tax system (for example, its CFC regime). As such, we take the view that the approach adopted by this consultation document goes well beyond the scope of the BEPS project. 2.3 The area addressed in this discussion draft is different from the other areas addressed by the various BEPS Actions. It considers an issue which is fundamental to all businesses that is how to finance the business. This is a very different matter to tackling, say, hybrid mismatch arrangements, which are a specific tax tool that can be used by MNEs. Every group has to finance its business. 2.4 The document seems to assume that a group is in effect a single entity and any internal financing of a group is merely an allocation of capital, and the form of this allocation is irrelevant. However, this ignores the fact that groups are made up of separate legal entities, and the transactions between them do have legal and contractual reality. The document assumes a form of formulary apportionment can be applied, ignoring the fundamental concept of separate legal personality. 2.5 The proposals do not distinguish between debt used for tax planning purposes and debt simply used to finance trading and investment activity. 2.6 We accept that intra-group loans and interest deductions can be used to shift profits. However, the vast majority of intra-group debt does not result in base erosion or profit shifting. Most internal debt financing within groups is undertaken because this is the easiest and most convenient method of financing business activities. Equity financing and the payment of dividends is a much less flexible approach, and, generally, requires far more bureaucracy. 2.7 We take the view that a basic premise should be that interest should be deductible if it meets two conditions: (i) an arms-length test ie the entity could borrow the debt in question on the terms in question from a bank or other lender; and (ii) a taxation of interest test, ie the amount deducted is matched by an amount taxed in the recipient (ignoring possible timing differences). This is one of the targeted rules noted in the discussion draft. 2.8 There is no reason, for example, why a well-capitalised and cash rich group headquartered in a relatively low taxed jurisdiction should be penalised by financing a subsidiary by debt, if that subsidiary could raise the debt externally if it were an independent entity. 2.9 We are of the view there are ways of limiting the BEPS impact of debt financing whilst retaining the ability for groups to finance themselves internally in the most convenient way. For example, if a concern is that groups can use internal debt to shift profits from high tax to a low tax jurisdiction where there is little substance, CFC rules and transfer pricing rules of the type proposed in Actions 8-10 are a better way to tackle this than interest restrictions by way of a cap. P/tech/subsfinal/IT/2015 2
3 3 Why groups use debt 3.1 The discussion draft appears to take the view that it is equally easy for a group to finance its subsidiaries by debt or equity. We would dispute the perception that equity is an equivalent funding option. Although funding by equity may appear to work from a purely economic perspective, in reality equity is much more bureaucratic, regulated and inflexible. As a result debt is often the commercially preferred route of financing. 3.2 In reality, inter-company debt will usually be the first choice in cash and debt management; equity financing will be a long term financing base. This is because debt is much easier to create, is more flexible in terms of repayment and is integrated into a group s treasury and cash management systems. 3.3 On a day to day basis, a group of companies will be receiving funds from various sources and locations and paying amounts out in various locations which may or may not be the same as where revenue is being received. 3.4 Very few businesses will have an even cash flow over a year. Some businesses may be geared to a seasonal event, for example, harvest in agriculture, or the return to school for a publisher of textbooks. Some subscription based businesses may receive an extremely high proportion of their cash receipts in a concentrated period. There will also be spikes in expenditure, around the time of dividend payments to shareholders or bonus season. 3.5 Typically, a group treasury function will run some form of short-term inter-company lending process, which could include cash pooling to ensure funds received in one place are able to be used elsewhere. This itself creates a large number of loan relationships. These may be transferred into longer term structural loans where a business is in a net investment/cost position; and sometimes, businesses have to make long term loans of surplus funds if there are barriers to dividend or capital repatriation. From time to time, a group will look to capitalise loans or pay dividend/return capital where it is clear loans are unlikely to be repaid. However, equity events generally require more paperwork and are subject to more conditions than loan events for example, it may only be possible to pay a dividend after a set of audited accounts are produced. There may be capital duties associated with equity issues. 3.6 Groups thus prefer the flexibility of loan financing for a variety of non-tax reasons. The proposals as put are likely to penalise groups by increasing their tax rates if they cannot constantly turn loans into equity, or eliminate upstream loans by way of dividends. 3.7 We would also suggest that affordable debt is a good thing for businesses and global growth generally. Debt indicates growth within a business and the ability to service debt should be viewed as an indicator of a strong, growing business. Debt is often a preferred route for financing a business as it can be used for growth promoting investment without diluting the interests of equity holders. 4 A group-wide interest limitation 4.1 For the reasons set out above we do not think that the G20/OECD should seek to harmonise global interest deductibility rules using an interest cap. P/tech/subsfinal/IT/2015 3
4 4.2 We will now detail our specific concerns around the group-wide interest limitation proposed in the discussion draft. 4.3 First, as a matter of principle, a group-wide interest limitation would be a departure from the arm s length principle and would be a significant move in the direction of formulary apportionment. 4.4 The discussion draft says that the arm s length test should not form part of this consultation process (paragraph 21). We would like to comment, however, on the concerns cited regarding the arm s length tests in paragraph 22. We suggest that, given the increasing focus, as a result of the BEPS project, on transfer pricing and reporting to substantiate all types of intra-group arrangements, most MNEs will be producing annual transfer pricing and country by country reports. Hence the expense and burden of applying the arm s length tests are already with MNEs. We suggest that these reports should be considered by countries as providing a robust safety net for tax administrations and for taxpayers. Application of the arm s length tests using these mechanisms should be seen as a valuable tool in the protection against BEPS, rather than as an irrelevance. 4.5 A group-wide interest limitation would also result in distortive effects for groups considering similar investments, but with different cash/debt profits. In particular, the implications for cash-rich groups would be significant, in that if they have little or no external interest expense. Financing a subsidiary by a loan could result in a borrower not receiving a tax deduction for the interest even where the lender is in a higher tax jurisdiction than the borrower, and the loan had no tax benefit to the group. 4.6 The proposal would also create the situation where a company funded by a loan from a foreign bank could deduct all its interest, but the same company funded by a foreign parent might not be able to deduct any interest; a clear contravention of the arm s length principle. 4.7 Some of these effects could in part be mitigated by the proposed combined approach discussed in Part X of the discussion draft. However situations where a group is funding a large capital project, which is expected to be highly cash generative and economically can support a substantial amount of interest, and gives rise to a high debt/equity ratio in the company undertaking the project would not be covered by the combined approach. 4.8 As discussed above, we take the view that the BEPS effects of debt financing can be dealt with by CFC and transfer pricing rules, along with actions on matters such as hybrids. Work on harmful tax regimes to eliminate financing rulings with little economic rationale also has a part to play. 4.9 However, if, following this consultation exercise, the OECD nonetheless concludes that some form of interest restriction rule is required, a better approach would be a limit on interest deductibility across a group by reference to what the group could borrow, not what it has borrowed. This would prevent discrimination between highly externally leveraged groups and well capitalised groups Such a limit on interest deductibility should be subject to two levels of test: at the level of the entity paying the interest, it should be shown that the interest payment meets an arm s length standard test; and a fixed ratio approach a fixed ratio is adopted for all entities, subject to a P/tech/subsfinal/IT/2015 4
5 maximum limit across the group for deductions equating to the fixed ratio applied to the relevant group figure. This fixed ratio would be related to the Group s borrowing capacity, not by its actual borrowing A group having net interest expense in excess of the interest cap percentage should be allowed to carry forward the excess interest, as with other interest disallowances arising Examples are attached showing how this approach would affect groups with various levels of leverage. What is important is that they show that the outcomes are much more closely grouped using this combined approach than by allocating a cap based on actual interest expense, and correcting internal financing to avoid disallowances can be done whilst maintaining inter-company debt financing. Adopting this approach would mean that discrimination between groups is significantly reduced without creating base erosion. 5 Part IV. What is interest and what are payments economically equivalent to interest? 5.1 We are cautious about what payments/expenses might be included on the basis that they are economically equivalent to interest. In our experience such other things are often not all that comparable when other considerations are taken into account. In this context, we think it is very important that any test which seeks to include other payments/expenses involves both limbs in paragraph 34 of the discussion draft. That is the payment/expense is: (a) linked to financing AND (b) calculated by reference to an interest rate. 5.2 Ensuring there is a link to financing would (properly) exclude the following situations from the proposed rule: (i) a trader agrees to buy an asset say some land with completion due 1 January As the trader is slow getting its finance in order, it pays interest at the agreed daily rate on the overdue completion monies; (ii) the trader sells goods and offers a discount for advance payment calculated by reference to an interest rate; and (iii) damages are awarded against the trader subject to judgement interest. 5.3 It would also be useful to see an acknowledgement that a payment that is restricted by reference to the performance of the overall business ie a dividend on a share in a jurisdiction that has a distributable profits rule is never economically equivalent to interest. This is because it is a hallmark of interest that it is payable whether or not the business is profitable and whether or not the borrower is able to pay it. The two limbs test above does not seem to exclude fixed rate dividends. However, we suggest that fixed rate dividends should not be taken treated as interest: it would seem incorrect to treat non-deductible items as interest for the purposes of a deduction limitation rule. P/tech/subsfinal/IT/2015 5
6 5.4 This leads us to suggest that there should be a third limb to the test that is an amount is only economically equivalent to interest if it is tax deductible on no less favourable a basis in the relevant jurisdiction than interest would have been. If it does not command the same tax treatment, it isn t economically equivalent. 5.5 With regard to the payments identified in paragraph 35 of the discussion draft, we have concerns about the final three bullet points. 5.6 Foreign Exchange (FX) gains and losses many groups enter into hedging arrangements of various kinds to neutralise the impact of foreign exchange fluctuations. Many tax regimes have already developed detailed rules to accommodate this and prevent abuse. It is very difficult to see how these regimes could be aligned with the type of measures proposed in the consultation document. FX gains and losses should not be considered interest for these purposes. 5.7 Guarantee fees, arrangement fees and similar - whilst these amounts are often added to finance costs such as interest for the purposes of reporting, they are auxiliary and contractual amounts required for the finance to be provided, and are generally not seen as high risk items used for base erosion. To the extent that such items occur as inter-group payments, they are better dealt with from a transfer pricing perspective, and should not be dealt with in this action. 5.8 Question 1 refers to amounts incurred with respect to Islamic finance as an example of, presumably, economic equivalent payments. It would be helpful to clarify what other types of payments Working Party No 11 has in mind. 6 Part V. Who should a rule apply to? 6.1 We suggest that a 25% control test to determine whether entities are related is too high. 25% control is no control at all if one other shareholder has 75% control. Equally, if there are four 25% shareholders, one of them on their own has no power to force things through against the wishes of the others. We note that the 3 rd bullet point of paragraph 38 of the discussion draft actually refers to a 25% investment, and not control. Is this intended to pick up relationships involving loan stocks etc. as well as shares? If this is the case, then the result could be that the rules would capture things which should really fall within scenario 4 ; for example where a bank has loaned an amount which represents 25% of the total financing or conceivably where there is a Eurobond in issue which is held by a depositary for a clearing system or where a bond trustee holds rights on behalf of investors. 6.2 We suggest that using a 25% test and definition similar to the definition of related parties for the purposes of anti-hybrid rules recommended under Action 2, is not appropriate in these circumstances. The anti-hybrids rules are designed to negate benefits to people who would otherwise be getting them and structures to access hybrid benefits do not generally happen outside fully controlled groups. However an interest disallowance rule that works mechanically without enquiring whether the arrangements have in fact been engineered to produce a BEPS effect is rather different; the rule could have quite harsh and/or unexpected effects in commercial situations, particularly where capital/financing structures have been entered into without thinking about the tax consequences or in the context of joint ventures between unrelated parties. P/tech/subsfinal/IT/2015 6
7 6.3 We would therefore suggest a higher level of control to determine whether parties are related. 7 Part VI What should a rule apply to? 7.1 The conclusion in paragraph 45 of the discussion draft demonstrates the bluntness of the proposed interest limitation rule. Consider a company A, which is financially sound and is making good profits; the interest rate on which it can borrow funds is likely to be lower than company B which is struggling and thus pays more interest on the same amount of debt and has lower profits. If the restriction looks at debt by reference to EBITDA, company B is more likely to be denied a deduction than company A simply because it is struggling commercially and not because it is indulging in BEPS. We do not think that it can be right to have rules which restrict a company s deductions and, thereby increase its tax bill at a time when it is struggling. 7.2 Although it could be argued that the business should not be so highly geared, we are considering a situation where the debt was supportable at the time it was borrowed but a shock to the trade has changed things. There is a risk that a badly-designed BEPS Action 4 rule could apply with increasing harshness the more the company struggled. Paragraphs 51 and 52 of the discussion draft suggest that a company would not have to be large to be within the rule, so it could apply to companies with low profitability. 8 Part VII. Should a small entity exception or threshold apply? 8.1 We suggest that, at least for an initial period of, say, seven years the new rules should apply only to large groups (as with UK Debt cap) so that the cost of addressing any initial issues arising on the implementation of any new rules and the expertise to do so is provided by those groups that have most resources. Such an exception for small entities would also be helpful for tax authorities as it would mean that the number of groups that they have to deal with is smaller and they can concentrate their resources. 8.2 We note the point made in the first sentence of paragraph 56 of the discussion draft, that if a group is close to a country s threshold for moving into the new BEPS interest limitation, it may decide not to locate its new factory there. We agree that this is a concern and suggest that where, as in this case, a BEPS solution may end up distorting commercial decision making and capital ownership neutrality (see paragraph 3) then one has to query whether the approach is the correct one. Although the concern in paragraph 56 can be addressed by not having a threshold to entry to the new rule, the same concerns will arise if not all States agree to adopt the new rules, fearing a cost to jobs and inward investment etc. 9 Part VIII. Whether interest deductions should be limited with reference to the position of an entity s group 9.1 Part VIII of the discussion draft begins to consider the considerable accounting and compliance issues that would result from the proposals. At the very least any rule that allocates group debt, would need to have a mechanism that takes into account different types of businesses within a group. For example, if you had a group where P/tech/subsfinal/IT/2015 7
8 some companies owned land, other companies carried on farming trades and other companies engaged in commodity trading, there might have to be some acknowledgement of the different types of debt levels/interest costs incurred by the different types of trades in allocating group debt rather than allocating on a strictly pro rata basis. We would anticipate that this area would be one where considerable effort would be required to make an interest limitation work. 10 Part IX. Whether interest deductions should be limited with reference to a fixed ratio 10.1 We agree that there is very little to be said in favour of a fixed ratio rule on its own other than simplicity. It has the potential to produce the distortion referred to in paragraph 176 of the discussion draft. However, we do take the view that a ratio rule related to a Group s ability to borrow, rather than actual borrowing, would be a better approach for any interest restriction rule. 11 X. Whether a combined approach could be applied 11.1 Approach 1 is effectively using a fixed ratio test as a gateway to a more complex test. This seems quite a practical approach, within the context of a limitation of interest by reference to external borrowing (and thus does not deal with our fundamental points discussed above). However approach 2 seems to impose a higher compliance burden on groups with a poor credit rating (implying high interest and lower profits). These are just the sort of companies which do not need to incur extra compliance costs. 12 Part XI. The role of targeted rules 12.1 The discussion on targeted rules, comes back to the initial question, which is: what is BEPS Action 4 trying to achieve? Is it to prevent too much interest expense in the entity in question (as measured against some form of yardstick for the right amount) or is it trying to prevent interest expense arising in an entity for the wrong reasons? If the entity has no more interest expense than permitted by the yardstick, does it matter why it has the interest expense? If the reason for having the interest expense is important, then why are deductions for good interest (ie interest borne for bona fide commercial reasons) denied by the yardstick? 12.2 Please refer to the circumstances discussed at paragraph 7 above for an example of situations in which the rule as proposed could operate harshly. 13 Part XII. The treatment of non-deductible interest expense and double taxation 13.1 Under BEPS 2 (Hybrid mismatch) the OECD recommend rules to prevent asymmetries which lead to double deductions or deduction/non-recognition. It is disappointing that in BEPS 4 the OECD is not prepared to recommend rules that prevent double taxation. Indeed the application of interest cap as outlined would lead to double taxation in many cases. P/tech/subsfinal/IT/2015 8
9 13.2 There is no need to take the step of re-characterising the amount as a dividend if that leads to complications (as indicated in paragraphs of the discussion draft), it would be sufficient to recommend that the rules in the other country do not impose a tax charge. This linked approach is of course the one adopted for Hybrid Mismatches. This is particularly important if BEPS Action 4 is going to produce a general rule that does not look at the purpose of the interest flow in question With regard to carry forwards, in principle it seems odd when the interest in question might be over the limit, but not produced by any form of tax avoidance (it just failed the yardstick test) to have an arbitrary cut-off. It may be that one group takes longer to turn its operations around than another or that one industry sector has different needs from another If the interest disallowance is a function of interest paid and EBITDA or some other profit metric, and there is no tax-avoidance criterion, interest carry-forward would be essential otherwise start-ups would be in a very odd position (lots of interest, no profits yet) and so would any other company which had a major problem or experienced a recession. The same problem could also be faced by groups which invested in long term projects. Putting a cap on the number of years would disadvantage long term investments, 13.5 A further point in relation to carry forwards: even if an MNE retains the ability to carry forward an interest deduction following the implementation of rules under BEPS 2, the ability to utilise the carry forward will still be subject to domestic rules which may, effectively render the benefit worthless. For example, the UK rules only allow nontrading interest deductions to be off set against future non-trading interest (and other loan relationship) income. For a holding company which has interest expense, but whose income is non-taxable dividends, the deferred tax asset of the carried forward interest expense will not be recognised under most GAAPs as its potential utilisation is too remote; hence, commercially, it has no value on the balance sheet. 14 Part XIII. Considerations for groups in specific sectors 14.1 The discussion draft recognises that banks and insurance companies present particular issues. Although noted above, for all MNEs the decision to use debt is nearly always commercially driven, it is important to remember that for the insurance and banking sectors, commercial (and where applicable regulatory) rather than tax considerations drive funding structure and the issue of debt and, often govern where it can be located. Capital is particularly expensive for insurers and banks, as regulators force insurers and banks to hold high quality capital in excess of expected liabilities, and limit the amount and type of debt that may be included in regulatory capital. There is therefore a natural tension between the minimum amount of capital required by regulators and ratings agencies, and the maximum amount of capital an insurance and banking group can use effectively. In light of this we welcome the recognition that specific rules should be developed for these sectors REITs in the UK are subject to a special tax regime which includes restrictions on interest allowed through the financing cost ratio rules (in Corporation Tax Act 2010 section 543). In addition the profits of the property rental business calculated under tax rules are not subject to corporation tax but instead there is a requirement that 90% of the profits are distributed to shareholders. P/tech/subsfinal/IT/2015 9
10 14.3 The majority of REITs have gearing between 25% and 40%. If a fixed ratio rule was introduced with a lower percentage no tax payment would result but the profits required to be distributed may increase. A REIT could therefore have insufficient reserves to make the distribution required, particularly if they were highly geared. We suggest that REITs are carved out of these provisions as they already have an interest cover test as described above. 15 The Chartered Institute of Taxation 15.1 The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) is the leading professional body in the United Kingdom concerned solely with taxation. The CIOT is an educational charity, promoting education and study of the administration and practice of taxation. One of our key aims is to work for a better, more efficient, tax system for all affected by it taxpayers, their advisers and the authorities. The CIOT s work covers all aspects of taxation, including direct and indirect taxes and duties. Through our Low Incomes Tax Reform Group (LITRG), the CIOT has a particular focus on improving the tax system, including tax credits and benefits, for the unrepresented taxpayer. The CIOT draws on our members experience in private practice, commerce and industry, government and academia to improve tax administration and propose and explain how tax policy objectives can most effectively be achieved. We also link to, and draw on, similar leading professional tax bodies in other countries. The CIOT s comments and recommendations on tax issues are made in line with our charitable objectives: we are politically neutral in our work. The CIOT s 17,000 members have the practising title of Chartered Tax Adviser and the designatory letters CTA, to represent the leading tax qualification. The Chartered Institute of Taxation 6 February 2015 P/tech/subsfinal/IT/
11 Example A Interest Cap Rule - Cap - 30% earnings "Normally leveraged" Group Bank Owes Bank - pays 25m interest A. Co Earnings 10m B owes A, pays 24m interest Revised interest payment 30m B. Co Earnings 45m C owes B, pays 18m interest Revised interest payment 16.5m Bank Deposit - earns 3m interest C. Co Earnings 45m BASE FIGURES Earnings Entity Cap Net third party interest income/(expense) (25.00) (22.00) Allocation of overriding cap Interest paid Interest received Net Interest income (expense) (1.00) (6.00) (15.00) (22.00) Entity Cap (3.00) (13.50) (13.50) (30.00) Interest allowed (1.00) (6.00) (13.50) (20.50) Net third party interest (22.00) Interest disallowed 1.50 ALTERNATIVE FIGURES Earnings Entity Cap Net third party interest expense (25.00) (22.00) Allocation of overriding cap Interest paid Interest received Net Interest income (expense) 5.00 (13.50) (13.50) (22.00) Entity Cap (3.00) (13.50) (13.50) (30.00) Interest allowed 0.00 (13.50) (13.50) (27.00) Interest taxed Net interest allowed (22.00) Net third party interest (22.00) Interest disallowed 0.00
12 Example B Interest Cap Rule - Cap - 30% earnings Cash Rich Group A. Co Earnings 10m B owes A, pays 24m interest 30 B. Co Earnings 45m C owes B, pays 18m interest 16.5 Bank Deposit - earns 3m interest C. Co Earnings 45m BASE FIGURES Earnings Entity Cap Net third party interest expense Allocation of overriding cap Interest paid Interest received Net Interest income (expense) (6.00) (15.00) 3.00 Entity Cap (3.00) (13.50) (13.50) (30.00) Interest allowed 0.00 (6.00) (13.50) (19.50) Interest taxed Net interest taxed/(allowed) 4.50 Net third party interest 3.00 Interest disallowed 1.50 ALTERNATIVE FIGURES Earnings Entity Cap Net third party interest expense Allocation of overriding cap Interest paid Interest received Net Interest income (expense) (13.50) (13.50) 3.00 Entity Cap (3.00) (13.50) (13.50) (30.00) Interest allowed 0.00 (13.50) (13.50) (27.00) Interest taxed Net interest Taxed/(allowed) 3.00 Net third party interest 3.00 Interest disallowed 0.00
13 Example C Interest Cap Rule - Cap - 30% earnings Highly Leveraged Group Bank Owes Bank - pays 37m interest A. Co Earnings 10m B owes A, pays 24m interest 30 B. Co Earnings 45m C owes B, pays 18m interest 16.5 Bank Deposit - earns 3m interest C. Co Earnings 45m BASE FIGURES Earnings Entity Cap Net third party interest expense (37.00) (34.00) Allocation of overriding cap Interest paid Interest received Net Interest income (expense) (13.00) (6.00) (15.00) (34.00) Entity Cap (3.00) (13.50) (13.50) (30.00) Interest allowed (3.00) (6.00) (13.50) (22.50) Interest taxed 0.00 Net interest taxed/(allowed) (22.50) Net third party interest (34.00) Interest disallowed ALTERNATIVE FIGURES Earnings Entity Cap Net third party interest expense Allocation of overriding cap Interest paid Interest received Net Interest income (expense) (7.00) (13.50) (13.50) (34.00) Entity Cap (3.00) (13.50) (13.50) (30.00) Interest allowed (3.00) (13.50) (13.50) (30.00) Interest taxed 0.00 Net interest Taxed/(allowed) (30.00) Net third party interest (34.00) Interest disallowed 4.00
14 Example D Interest Cap Rule - Cap - 30% earnings "Normally leveraged" Group, one company loss making Bank Owes Bank - pays 25m interest A. Co Earnings 10m B owes A, pays 42m interest 31 Deposit - earns 3m interest B. Co Earnings 125m Bank C. Co Earnings - 35m BASE FIGURES Earnings (35.00) Entity Cap Net third party interest expense (25.00) 3.00 (22.00) Allocation of overriding cap Interest paid Interest received Net Interest income (expense) (39.00) 0.00 (22.00) Entity Cap (2.22) (27.78) 0.00 (30.00) Interest allowed 0.00 (27.78) 0.00 (27.78) Interest taxed Net interest taxed/(allowed) (10.78) Net third party interest (22.00) Interest disallowed ALTERNATIVE FIGURES Earnings (35.00) Entity Cap (10.50) Net third party interest expense Allocation of overriding cap Interest paid Interest received Net Interest income (expense) 6.00 (28.00) 0.00 (22.00) Entity Cap (2.22) (27.78) (30.00) Interest allowed 0.00 (27.78) 0.00 (27.78) Interest taxed Net interest Taxed/(allowed) (21.78) Net third party interest (22.00) Interest disallowed 0.22
BEPS Action 12: Mandatory disclosure rules Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
BEPS Action 12: Mandatory disclosure rules Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) is pleased to respond to the Public discussion draft
More informationRe: BEPS Action 4: Interest Deductions and Other Financial Payments
OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs Working Party No. 11 By email: interestdeductions@oecd.org 6 February 2015 Dear Sirs, Re: BEPS Action 4: Interest Deductions and Other Financial Payments We are writing
More informationHMRC consultation: Alternative method of VAT collection split payment Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
HMRC consultation: Alternative method of VAT collection split payment Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 The Chartered Institute of Tax (CIOT) welcomes the opportunity to
More informationCorporate tax and the digital economy Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
Corporate tax and the digital economy Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 We refer to the government s position paper on Corporate tax and the digital economy published in
More informationPartnerships: A review of two aspects of the tax rules 2) Profit & Loss Allocation Schemes Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
Partnerships: A review of two aspects of the tax rules 2) Profit & Loss Allocation Schemes Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT)
More informationIrish Tax Institute. Response to OECD Discussion Draft: Interest Deductions and other Financial Payments
Irish Tax Institute Response to OECD Discussion Draft: Interest Deductions and other Financial Payments February 2015 Table of Contents About the Irish Tax Institute... 2 Summary of the Institute s observations...
More informationHMRC Consultation Document Income Tax: Extension of averaging period for farmers Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
HMRC Consultation Document Income Tax: Extension of averaging period for farmers Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 This consultation discusses the extension of the averaging
More informationTax Treaty Treatment of Termination Payments Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
Tax Treaty Treatment of Termination Payments Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation Introduction The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) refer to the public discussion draft published by the
More informationKPMG LLP 2001 M Street, NW Washington, D.C Comments on the Discussion Draft on Cost Contribution Arrangements
KPMG LLP 2001 M Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036-3310 Telephone 202 533 3800 Fax 202 533 8500 To Andrew Hickman Head of Transfer Pricing Unit Centre for Tax Policy and Administration OECD From KPMG cc
More informationBEPS Action 3: Strengthening CFC rules
Achim Pross Head International Co-operation and Tax Administration Division OECD / CTPA 2 rue André Pascal 75775 Paris Cedex 16 By Email CTPCFC@oecd.org Our Ref Your Ref 1 May 2015 Dear Mr Pross BEPS Action
More informationStamp Taxes on Share Consideration Rules. Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
30 Monck Street London SW1P 2AP T: +44 (0)20 7340 0550 E:post@ciot.org.uk Stamp Taxes on Share Consideration Rules Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 We refer to the consultation
More informationEmployee Benefits and Expenses exemption for paid or reimbursed expenses. Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
Employee Benefits and Expenses exemption for paid or reimbursed expenses Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction and Summary 1.1 The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) sets outs
More informationHMRC Consultation Document Tackling Offshore Tax Evasion: A Requirement to Correct Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
HMRC Consultation Document Tackling Offshore Tax Evasion: A Requirement to Correct Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 This is the latest in a series of consultations by
More informationAligning the tax treatment of Islamic finance and conventional finance Submission by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
Aligning the tax treatment of Islamic finance and conventional finance Submission by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 Successive governments have supported and legislated for a level
More informationEuropean Business Initiative on Taxation (EBIT)
European Business Initiative on Taxation (EBIT) Comments on the OECD Public Discussion Draft on BEPS ACTION 4: INTEREST DEDUCTIONS AND OTHER FINANCIAL PAYMENTS 18 December 2014-6 February 2015 At the time
More informationCapital Gains Tax: Payment window for residential property gains (payment on account) Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
Capital Gains Tax: Payment window for residential property gains (payment on account) Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 This Stage Two 1 consultation follows the government
More informationAlternative method of VAT collection Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
Alternative method of VAT collection Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) is pleased to set out its comments in relation to the
More informationTermination payments: CIOT Comments 7 October 2016
Simplification of the tax and National Insurance treatment of termination payments: consultation on draft legislation Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 The Chartered Institute
More informationB.E.P.S. ACTION 4: LIMIT BASE EROSION VIA INTEREST PAYMENTS AND OTHER FINANCIAL PAYMENTS
B.E.P.S. ACTION 4: LIMIT BASE EROSION VIA INTEREST PAYMENTS AND OTHER FINANCIAL PAYMENTS Authors Stanley C. Ruchelman Sheryl Shah Tags Action 4 Financial Payments Interest Equivalents Interest Expense
More information1 Introduction. Background
Revenue Scotland Scottish Landfill Tax guidance on how to determine the rate of tax chargeable on waste fines A Consultation Paper Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 This
More information1 Introduction. 2 Executive summary
HMRC Consultation Document Strengthening Sanctions for Tax Avoidance a Consultation on Detailed Proposals Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 This consultation follows the
More informationStakeholder Consultation: Review of Double Taxation Treaties 2018
Ref: IT 30 November 2018 David Price Tax Treaty Team BAI International Relations and Capacity Building Zone C, Floor 9 10 South Colonnade Canary Wharf E14 4PU Via email: taxtreaty.team@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk
More informationRoyalties Withholding Tax Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
Royalties Withholding Tax Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 We refer to consultation document on Royalties Withholding Tax published on 1 December 2017. We welcome the
More informationNon-resident companies chargeable to Income Tax and non-resident CGT Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
Non-resident companies chargeable to Income Tax and non-resident CGT Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 The CIOT responds to this Stage 1 1 consultation exploring the case
More informationCOMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document. Proposal for a Council Directive
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Strasbourg, 25.10.2016 SWD(2016) 345 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive (EU) 2016/1164 as regards
More informationOECD releases final BEPS package
6 October 2015 Tax Flash OECD releases final BEPS package On 5 October 2015, the OECD published the final reports of the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting ( BEPS ) project, which consist of a package
More informationE/C.18/2016/CRP.2 Attachment 9
Distr.: General * October 2016 Original: English Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters Twelfth Session Geneva, 11-14 October 2016 Agenda item 3 (b) (i) Update of the United Nations
More information1.5 We note that the purpose of this consultation is to enable the government to gain an understanding of:
Taxation of self-funded work-related training: Consultation on the extension of tax relief for training by employees and the self-employed Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction
More informationHybrid and branch mismatch rules
August 2018 A special report from Policy and Strategy, Inland Revenue Hybrid and branch mismatch rules Sections FH 1 to FH 15, EX 44(2), EX 46(6)(e), EX 46 (10)(db), EX 47B, EX 52(14C), EX 53(16C), RF
More informationFinance Bill 2016 summary of key changes for fund managers
Finance Bill 2016 summary of key changes for fund managers On 24 March 2016 the Government published the Finance (No. 2) Bill 2016. One of the most relevant aspects of the finance bill for alternative
More informationOverview of OECD Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS)
Overview of OECD Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Monia Naoum, IBFD Research Associate Emily Muyaa, IBFD Research Associate 18 June 2015 1 Introduction: Globalization and its impact
More informationCorporation Tax, etc (clauses and related schedules)
Further written evidence submitted by the Chartered Institute of Taxation (clauses 19-32 and related schedules) (FB18) Representation from the Chartered Institute of Taxation for Public Bill Committee
More informationDiverted Profits Tax. Key points
Diverted Profits Tax Given the publicity surrounding the practices of multinationals in particular a number of the large US technology corporations - in structuring their affairs to minimise their tax
More informationSimplifying the PAYE Settlement Agreement (PSA) process Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
Simplifying the PAYE Settlement Agreement (PSA) process Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) sets out below its response to the
More informationPenalties for enablers of defeated tax avoidance HMRC s draft guidance Comments from the Chartered Institute of Taxation
1 Introduction Penalties for enablers of defeated tax avoidance HMRC s draft guidance Comments from the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1.1 We set out below our comments on HMRC s draft guidance on the
More informationTax deductibility of corporate interest expense: consultation on detailed policy design and implementation
Tax deductibility of corporate interest expense: consultation on detailed policy design and implementation May 2016 Tax deductibility of corporate interest expense: consultation on detailed policy design
More informationJOINT SUBMISSION BY. Date: 30 May 2014
JOINT SUBMISSION BY Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia, Law Council of Australia, CPA Australia, The Tax Institute and the Corporate Tax Association Draft Taxation Ruling TR 2014/D3 Income tax:
More informationHMRC Consultation Document: Company Distributions Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
HMRC Consultation Document: Company Distributions Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction outline of the consultation 1.1 This consultation 1 concerns the tax rules governing distributions
More informationSWEDEN GLOBAL GUIDE TO M&A TAX: 2017 EDITION
SWEDEN 1 SWEDEN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 1. WHAT ARE RECENT TAX DEVELOPMENTS IN YOUR COUNTRY WHICH ARE RELEVANT FOR M&A DEALS AND PRIVATE EQUITY? Effective as of 1 January 2016, dividend income is not
More informationVAT registration threshold: call for evidence Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
VAT registration threshold: call for evidence Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 The Chartered Institute of Tax (CIOT) welcomes the opportunity to respond to HM Treasury
More informationAchim Pross Head, International Co-operation and Tax Administration Division OECD/CTPA 2, rue Andre Pascal Paris Cedex 16 France
Achim Pross Head, International Co-operation and Tax Administration Division OECD/CTPA 2, rue Andre Pascal 75775 Paris Cedex 16 France By email to: interestdeductions@oecd.org 6 February 2015 Dear Mr.
More informationProposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE. amending Directive (EU) 2016/1164 as regards hybrid mismatches with third countries. {SWD(2016) 345 final}
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Strasbourg, 25.10.2016 COM(2016) 687 final 2016/0339 (CNS) Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE amending Directive (EU) 2016/1164 as regards hybrid mismatches with third countries {SWD(2016)
More informationTHE TAXATION INSTITUTE OF HONG KONG CTA QUALIFYING EXAMINATION PILOT PAPER PAPER 3 INTERNATIONAL TAX
THE TAXATION INSTITUTE OF HONG KONG CTA QUALIFYING EXAMINATION PILOT PAPER PAPER 3 INTERNATIONAL TAX NOTE This Examination paper will contain SIX questions and candidates are expected to answers any FOUR
More informationAmCham EU s position on the Commission Anti-Tax Avoidance Package
AmCham EU s position on the Commission Anti-Tax Avoidance Package Executive summary AmCham EU welcomes attempts to ensure that adoption of the OECD s recommendations is consistent across the EU and with
More informationProposed hybrid mismatch rules: impact on Australian securitisation industry
Chris Dalton Chief Executive Officer 3 Spring Street, Sydney NSW 2000 T +61 (0)2 8243 3906 M +61 (0)403 584 600 E cdalton@securitisation.com.au www.securitisation.com.au 29 March 2018 William Potts Senior
More information1 Introduction. 2 Executive summary
HMRC Consultation Document Tackling offshore tax evasion: Civil sanctions for enablers of offshore evasion Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 This consultation is inviting
More informationTackling offshore tax evasion A requirement to notify HMRC of offshore structures: CIOT Comments 27 February 2017
HMRC consultation document Tackling offshore tax evasion: A requirement to notify HMRC of offshore structures Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 This consultation is considering
More information1 Introduction. 1.4 Our stated objectives for the tax system include:
HMRC Technical Consultation: The Value Added Tax (Section 55A) (Specified Services and Excepted Supplies) Order 2019 Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 The Chartered Institute
More informationVAT and Vouchers Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
VAT and Vouchers Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 This is a response from the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) to HM Revenue and Customs consultation: VAT and Vouchers.
More informationInternational Tax Primer. Third Edition. Brian J. Arnold
International Tax Primer Third Edition Brian J. Arnold Wolters Kluwer Preface xi CHARTER 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Objectives of This Primer 1 1.2 What Is International Tax? 2 1.3 Goals of International Tax
More informationBEPS ACTION 2: NEUTRALISE THE EFFECTS OF HYBRID MISMATCH ARRANGEMENTS
Public Discussion Draft BEPS ACTION 2: NEUTRALISE THE EFFECTS OF HYBRID MISMATCH ARRANGEMENTS (Treaty Issues) 19 March 2014 2 May 2014 Comments on this note should be sent electronically (in Word format)
More informationGERMANY GLOBAL GUIDE TO M&A TAX: 2017 EDITION
GERMANY 1 GERMANY INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 1. WHAT ARE RECENT TAX DEVELOPMENTS IN YOUR COUNTRY WHICH ARE RELEVANT FOR M&A DEALS AND PRIVATE EQUITY? Germany has recently seen some legislative developments
More informationDepartment for Education Northern Ireland
Department for Education Northern Ireland Consultation on changes to eligibility criteria for free school meals and uniform grants Response from the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group (LITRG) 1 Executive Summary
More informationEmployee Benefits and Expenses Real time collection of tax on benefits in kind and expenses through Voluntary Payrolling
Employee Benefits and Expenses Real time collection of tax on benefits in kind and expenses through Voluntary Payrolling Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction and Summary 1.1 The
More informationWritten evidence submitted by the Chartered Institute of Taxation (FB13)
Written evidence submitted by the Chartered Institute of Taxation (FB13) Employment Income, etc (clauses 7-17 and related schedules) Executive Summary Clause 9: Benefits in kind: diesel cars We believe
More informationCorporate interest restriction (clause 20 and schedule 5)
Corporate interest restriction (clause 20 and schedule 5) Briefing Note from the Chartered Institute of Taxation for Finance Bill 2017-19 Summary Notwithstanding that the delay as a result of the general
More informationKPMG. To Achim Pross Head, International Co-operation and Tax Administration Division OECD/CTPA. Date 30 April 2015
KPMG International To Achim Pross Head, International Co-operation and Tax Administration Division OECD/CTPA Date From KPMG s Global International Tax Services Professionals Ref KPMG OECD CFC Action 3
More informationTRANSNATIONAL TAX NETWORK 2015 HONG KONG CONFERENCE. Hong Kong 9 February David Russell QC Outer Temple Chambers London and Dubai
TRANSNATIONAL TAX NETWORK 2015 HONG KONG CONFERENCE Hong Kong 9 February 2015 David Russell QC Outer Temple Chambers London and Dubai B.E.P.S. for BEGINNERS OR MISERY LOVES COMPANY A TALE OF TWO CITIES
More information24 NOVEMBER 2009 TO 21 JANUARY 2010
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT REVISED DISCUSSION DRAFT OF A NEW ARTICLE 7 OF THE OECD MODEL TAX CONVENTION 24 NOVEMBER 2009 TO 21 JANUARY 2010 CENTRE FOR TAX POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
More informationGeneral Comments on Deduction of Expenses by Mexican Companies and the Case of the Deduction of Pro-Rata Expenses
General Comments on Deduction of Expenses by Mexican Companies and the Case of the Deduction of Pro-Rata Expenses By Fernando Camarena * General Comments on Deduction of Expenses FERNANDO CAMARENA is a
More informationCharges on income for corporation tax purposes
Charges on income for corporation tax purposes Part 8 /Chapter 2 This document should be read in conjunction with section 247 of the Taxes Consolidation Act Document last updated/reviewed on June 2017
More informationWORKING PAPER. Brussels, 03 February 2017 WK 1119/2017 REV 1 LIMITE FISC ECOFIN
Brussels, 03 February 2017 WK 1119/2017 REV 1 LIMITE FISC ECOFIN WORKING PAPER This is a paper intended for a specific community of recipients. Handling and further distribution are under the sole responsibility
More informationHot topics Treasury seminar
Hot topics Treasury seminar Treasury in a transparent and new tax world Discover and unlock your potential Program Introduction on BEPS Potential implications for treasury o Interest deduction o Treaty
More informationInterest paid (6) Minority interest dividend (working (v)) (10 4) (16 4)
Answers Professional Level Essentials Module, Paper P2 (IRL) Corporate Reporting (Irish) December 2010 Answers 1 (a) Jocatt Group Cash Flow Statement for the year ended 30 November 2010 Cash flow from
More informationInterest deductibility: Evaluating the advantage of earnings stripping regimes in preventing thin capitalisation
Interest deductibility: Evaluating the advantage of earnings stripping regimes in preventing thin capitalisation Craig Elliffe, University of Auckland The problem When a payment of interest is made cross-border
More informationHMRC Consultation Landfill Tax: improving clarity and certainty for taxpayers Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
HMRC Consultation Landfill Tax: improving clarity and certainty for taxpayers Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) presents its
More informationUK releases draft legislation on rules restricting deductibility of corporate interest expense
World Tax Advisor Connecting you globally. 16 December 2016 UK releases draft legislation on rules restricting deductibility of corporate interest expense On 5 December 2016, following extensive consultation,
More informationOverview of Practical Portfolio
United Nations Practical Portfolio: Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries with respect to Base Eroding Payments of Interest Brian Arnold Senior Adviser Canadian Tax Foundation UN-ITC Workshop
More informationAnalysing BEPS Impact Infrastructure sector
Analysing BEPS Impact Infrastructure sector January 2016 Second line optional lorem ipsum B Subhead lorem ipsum, date quatueriure In October 2015, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
More informationOffshore trusts: anti avoidance consultative clause and Schedule (published 13 September 2017) Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
Offshore trusts: anti avoidance consultative clause and Schedule (published 13 September 2017) Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1. Introduction 1.1. The consultative clause and Schedule
More informationTAX EXECUTIVES INSTITUTE, INC. INCOME TAX QUESTIONS. Submitted to DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE DECEMBER 6, 2017
TAX EXECUTIVES INSTITUTE, INC. INCOME TAX QUESTIONS Submitted to DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE DECEMBER 6, 2017 Tax Executives Institute Inc. ( TEI or the Institute ) welcomes the opportunity to present the following
More informationInternal or external comparables can be used to determine the gross profit margin.
Question 1 Part 1 The Resale Price Minus Method(RPM) is a transfer pricing method use generally by distribution companies in order to determine the arm's length price of transactions with related parties.
More informationInformation will then be exchanged between tax administrations.
OECD Public Discussion Draft Mandatory Disclosure Rules for Addressing CRS Avoidance Arrangements and Offshore Structures Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 In response
More informationSTEP response to HMRC s consultation on Tax Avoidance Involving Profit Fragmentation.
STEP response to HMRC s consultation on Tax Avoidance Involving Profit Fragmentation. About us STEP is the worldwide professional association for those advising families across generations. We help people
More informationFinance Bill 2016, clause 82 Inheritance Tax: Increased Nil Rate Band (Downsizing)
Ref: ST 8 June 2016 Via email only: danka.wigley@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk Dear Danka Finance Bill 2016, clause 82 Inheritance Tax: Increased Nil Rate Band (Downsizing) Policy Objective Paragraph 1.53 of the 16
More informationTAXING GAINS MADE BY NON-RESIDENTS ON UK IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
TAXING GAINS MADE BY NON-RESIDENTS ON UK IMMOVABLE PROPERTY Response by the Association of Taxation Technicians 1 Introduction 1.1 The Association of Taxation Technicians (ATT) is pleased to have the opportunity
More informationScottish Landfill Tax A Consultation on Subordinate Legislation Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
Scottish Landfill Tax A Consultation on Subordinate Legislation Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 We have previously commented on the Scottish Government s consultation
More informationExecutive Summary. This paper discusses some of these key tax considerations that the Government should review closely:
FSDC Paper No.26 A Paper on Tax Issues Affecting Hong Kong to Become a Preferred Location for Regional and International Financial Institutions to Originate and Trade International Financial Products December
More informationWe have no comments on The Income and Corporation Taxes (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) Regulations.
Tax and VAT affecting Making Tax Digital for businesses Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) 1 Introduction 1.1 The primary legislation introducing Making Tax Digital (MTD) for businesses
More informationTax Cuts & Jobs Act: Considerations for Multinationals
ALE R T MEM ORAN D UM Tax Cuts & Jobs Act: Considerations for Multinationals February 5, 2018 On December 22, 2017, the President signed into law the 2017 U.S. tax reform bill formerly known as the Tax
More informationPUBLIC INTRODUCTION /15 AS/FC/mpd 1 DG G 2B LIMITE EN. Council of the European Union Brussels, 23 November 2015 (OR. en) 14302/15 LIMITE
Conseil UE Council of the European Union Brussels, 23 November 2015 (OR. en) PUBLIC 14302/15 LIMITE FISC 159 ECOFIN 883 REPORT From: To: Subject: Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) Permanent Representatives
More informationBase erosion & profit shifting (BEPS) 25 May 2016
Base erosion & profit shifting (BEPS) 25 May 2016 Introduction Important to distinguish between: Tax avoidance Using legal provisions to minimise tax liability Covers interventions that are referred to
More informationUK Anti-Hybrid Rules: Some challenges for corporate groups and a limited opportunity for improvements
UK Anti-Hybrid Rules: Some challenges for corporate groups and a limited opportunity for improvements The UK s complex new regime for counteracting hybrid and other mismatches came into force on 1 January
More informationRent a room relief: call for evidence Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
Rent a room relief: call for evidence Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Government
More informationPEPANZ Submission: New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme Review 2015/16
29 April 2016 NZ ETS Review Consultation Ministry for the Environment PO Box 10362 Wellington 6143 nzetsreview@mfe.govt.nz PEPANZ Submission: New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme Review 2015/16 Introduction
More informationOur commentary focuses on five main issues. Supplementary comments relating to specific paragraphs or issues are provided in the appendix.
Comments on the Revised Discussion Draft on Transfer Pricing Aspects of Intangibles by the Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers (VNO-NCW) We are pleased to see the significant progress which
More informationMaking Tax Digital: interest harmonisation and sanctions for late payment Response from the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group (LITRG)
Making Tax Digital: interest harmonisation and sanctions for late payment Response from the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group (LITRG) 1 Executive Summary 1.1 We welcome the fact that the proposed model for
More informationHMRC consultation on tax deductibility of corporate interest expense
Submitted via email to: BEPSinterestconsultation@hmtreasury.gsi.gov.uk 4 August 2016 RE: HMRC consultation on tax deductibility of corporate interest expense Dear Sirs, BlackRock [1] is pleased to have
More informationUK launches consultation on tax deductibility of corporate interest expense
UK launches consultation on tax deductibility of corporate interest expense The UK HM Treasury published a consultation document on 12 May 2016 concerning the detailed policy design and implementation
More informationThe OECD s 3 Major Tax Initiatives
The OECD s 3 Major Tax Initiatives 1. The Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes Peer review of ~ 100 countries International standard for transparency and exchange of
More informationConsultation: Taxing gains made by non-residents on UK immovable property Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
Consultation: Taxing gains made by non-residents on UK immovable property Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 The CIOT responds to the consultation Taxing gains made by non-residents
More informationNew Zealand s International Tax Review
New Zealand s International Tax Review Extending the active income exemption to non-portfolio FIFs An officials issues paper March 2010 Prepared by the Policy Advice Division of Inland Revenue and the
More informationNational Insurance and Self-employed Entertainers Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
National Insurance and Self-employed Entertainers Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) is pleased to comment on the proposals to
More informationOECD issues Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS)
22 July 2013 OECD issues Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Executive summary On 19 July 2013, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) issued its much-anticipated
More informationVODAFONE GROUP PLC TAX STRATEGY
VODAFONE GROUP PLC TAX STRATEGY In accordance with Para 16(2) Schedule 19 Finance Act 2016 this represents the Group s tax strategy in effect for the year ended 31 March 2018. 1 The areas below form the
More informationTax Insights Hybrid Mismatch and Multinational Group Financing Integrity Rules. Snapshot. 22 June 2018 Australia 2018/12
22 June 2018 Australia 2018/12 Tax Insights Hybrid Mismatch and Multinational Group Financing Integrity Rules Snapshot On 21 June 2018, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) released draft Practical Compliance
More informationComments on Public Consultation Document Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digitalisation of the Economy
Ernst & Young, LLP 1101 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005-4213 Tel: +202-327-6000 ey.com 6 March 2019 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Centre for Tax Policy and Administration
More informationDutch Tax Bill 2018: what will change?
1 Dutch Tax Bill 2018: what will change? The Dutch government has presented its Tax Bill 2018. Three amendments are particularly relevant for multinationals, international investors and investment funds
More information1. What are recent tax developments in your country which are relevant for M&A deals?
Netherlands General Netherlands 1. What are recent tax developments in your country which are relevant for M&A deals? Most recent tax developments in the Netherlands are based on the OECD (BEPS) and EU
More informationBELGIUM GLOBAL GUIDE TO M&A TAX: 2018 EDITION
BELGIUM 1 BELGIUM INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 1. WHAT ARE RECENT TAX DEVELOPMENTS IN YOUR COUNTRY WHICH ARE RELEVANT FOR M&A DEALS AND PRIVATE EQUITY? A major corporate income tax reform has been published
More information