B y now, most if not all of us have heard about the
|
|
- Evan Morris
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Daily Tax Report Reproduced with permission from Daily Tax Report, 216 DTR J-1, 11/09/2015. Copyright 2015 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. ( ) Information Reporting Kimberly Tan Majure and Monica Zubler of KPMG look at country-by-country reporting requirements under the OECD s base erosion and profit shifting program, and at questions multinational groups face in characterizing partnerships and entities that have made U.S. check-the-box elections. It doesn t take long for the difficulties posed by partnerships to play out on the CbyC report, the authors write. Country-by-Country Reporting: Is a Partnership a Corporation by Any Other Name? BY KIMBERLY TAN MAJURE AND MONICA ZUBLER B y now, most if not all of us have heard about the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, or BEPS, initiatives launched by the Group of 20 (G-20) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The BEPS project was driven by a sense that the existing framework of international tax standards is inadequate to address perceived abuses by multinational enterprises (MNEs), particularly in a world with increasing economic integration. At heart, BEPS represents a sea change in the way companies approach international tax planning. Historically, a good international tax director or adviser would structure a multinational company both in Kimberly Tan Majure is a principal in the International Group of KPMG s Washington National Tax practice, and is national lead for Country-by-Country Reporting. Monica Zubler is a senior manager in the International Group of KPMG s Washington National Tax practice. The information contained herein is of a general nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. Applicability of the information to specific situations should be determined through consultation with your tax adviser. This article represents the views of the authors only, and does not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG LLP. terms of entities and operations in a way that was most tax efficient from an overall global perspective. Among other things, elements of a comprehensive international tax plan would generally include: s maximizing income recognition in lower tax jurisdictions, while maximizing deductions in higher tax jurisdictions (quite possibly using intercompany transactions to do so); s taking advantage of preferential tax regimes and other local tax benefits; s implementing hybrid financial instruments and entities to create tax arbitrage opportunities; and s structuring foreign operations to avoid taxable permanent establishment status. In large part, this planning was made possible by the inherent inconsistencies among individual jurisdictions differences in timing, character and choices regarding fiscal protectionism versus competition for inbound investment and limited visibility of one jurisdiction into inconsistencies with another. By acting collectively to enact coordinated standards and develop mechanisms for sharing information, the OECD and G-20 countries believe they can eliminate some of the opportunities for tax arbitrage that exist in the current framework, and better match the location of profits and taxation with that of an enterprise s economic value drivers. After months of discussion and negotiations, the OECD/G-20 BEPS project recently published final reports articulating 15 actions to accomplish these objectives. COPYRIGHT 2015 BY THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. ISSN
2 2 Among other things, the BEPS Action Plan items include neutralization of hybrid instruments, limitations regarding preferential tax regimes, expansion of treaty permanent establishment concepts, and greater visibility and consistency among jurisdictions with respect to transfer pricing. Reporting Critical to Project A critical component of the BEPS Project and the element that is likely to impact MNEs first is the country by country (CbyC) reporting set forth in Action As part of the effort to increase global transparency, countries have committed under Action 13 to require large MNEs to file an annual CbyC report, and provide jurisdiction-specific data on where they generate related and unrelated operating revenue and pre-tax profits, and accrue and pay income tax. MNEs would also disclose the jurisdictions where they maintain tangible assets, head count and capital, and where they accumulate earnings. Ultimately, the CbyC data is expected to guide foreign tax and, when matched up with new master and local filing packages, transfer pricing audits. An MNE group s ultimate parent entity (or, if the parent isn t subject to CbyC filing requirements in its country, a chosen surrogate entity) would file the CbyC report in the jurisdiction where it resides, and the disclosed information would be shared with other jurisdictions via automatic exchange of information mechanisms pursuant to treaties or tax information exchange agreements. Ultimately, the CbyC data is expected to guide foreign tax and, when matched up with new master and local filing packages, transfer pricing audits. The final report on Action 13 includes templates for capturing the required information, as well as general and specific instructions and model implementing legislation. As with the proposed templates published in July 2014 (as part of the 2014 Report ), the final CbyC report template contains three tables: s Table 1 shows jurisdiction-specific information regarding the items described above (revenues, profits before taxes, taxes, etc.). s Table 2 requires a listing of all Constituent Entities in the group by country, along with a high level indication of their main activities. s Table 3 is an open-ended narrative for filing entities to provide more detail regarding their operations 1 See OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project: Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting, Action Final Report ( Action 13 Final Report ). and activities, and otherwise flesh out the raw data presented in the first two tables. Along with the reporting template, the OECD published high level instructions. A mere four pages in length, the instructions provide very limited practical guidance on how the tables are to be completed. With initial filings anticipated no later than Dec. 31, 2017, 2 MNE groups are starting to prepare dry run CbyC reports. MNEs want to be sure they put their best feet forward on their initial filings, particularly as changes in data or approach including reasons for and effects of any changes would need to be flagged in future reports. 3 With scant OECD instructions and ahead of Internal Revenue Service guidance, however, MNEs are inevitably running into issues in preparing their dry run reports. Partnership Confusion One cause of significant confusion is the intended treatment of, and disclosures in relation to, U.S. and foreign partnerships. The Action 13 instructions take a business unit approach with respect to the identification of Constituent Entities. Similar to the U.S. concept of qualified business unit, 4 the term Constituent Entity sweeps in companies, corporations, partnerships, trusts and even taxable branches/permanent establishments that are included in the consolidated financial statement reporting group of the reporting entity. 5 Once included within the group, Constituent Entities data must be included on the group s CbyC report. The inclusion of partnerships as Constituent Entities makes sense conceptually. Partnerships are formed to pursue business activities, and are as capable of conducting an economic enterprise as corporations. As a practical matter, however, partnerships and corporations may be reflected very differently on the CbyC re- 2 Action 13 Final Report, Chapter V.E.2.1. (para. 50) ( It is recommended that the first Country-by-Country Reports be required to be filed for MNE fiscal years beginning on or after 1 January Given the recommendation in paragraph 31 that MNEs be allowed one year from the close of the fiscal year to which the Country-by-Country Report relates to prepare and file the Country-by-Country Report, this recommendation means that the first Country-by-Country Reports would be filed by 31 December ). MNE groups having a fiscal year ending on a date other than 31 December would be able to file their first report later in 2018, but no later than 12 months after the close of the relevant MNE fiscal year. Note, a U.S. Treasury official has suggested that the IRS may require businesses to file their CbyC reports with their U.S. tax returns three months earlier than the OECD recommendation. See 2015 TNT U.S. May Set CBC Report Deadline Earlier Than OECD. (Release Date: June 12, 2015) (Doc ). 3 Action 13 Final Report, Chapter V, Annex III (B), p. 32 ( If a change is made to the source of data used from year to year, the Reporting MNE should explain the reasons for the change and its consequences in the Additional Information section of the template. ). 4 Section 989 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 5 Note, the Action 13 Final Report didn t include an illustrative list of specific entities such as the one included in the definition of Constituent Entities in the July 2014 Report. However, the definition of Constituent Entity hasn t changed and, consequently, we don t view the omission of the examples of Constituent Entities as a substantive modification COPYRIGHT 2015 BY THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. DTR ISSN
3 3 port. This is because the CbyC instructions are based not on the concept of Constituent Entities, but on the principles of tax residence. Back in the 1990s, the OECD struggled to apply tax residence principles to fiscally transparent entities, including partnerships, in the treaty context. At a high level, the OECD s conclusion (which was ultimately incorporated into the OECD Model Treaty and related Commentary) was that tax residency at least for treaty purposes should only apply to partnerships that under the laws of that State, [are] liable to tax therein by reason of [their] domicile, residence, place of management or any other criterion of a similar nature. 6 The OECD s work on fiscally transparent entities informs current views regarding partnerships: Aside from relatively rare taxable partnerships (e.g., a Maltese partnership en commandite or a Dutch open CV (a commanditaire venootschap)), a partnership generally is understood not to have a tax residence. A partnership may have a balance sheet, and may conduct a business and even receive revenues, but its tax items aren t its own. From the tax perspective, the real action happens at the partner level. It doesn t take long for the difficulties posed by partnerships to play out on the CbyC report. Table 1 begins with Column 1 listing tax jurisdictions in which the MNE group has Constituent Entities resident for tax purposes. In addition, the instructions provide that a separate line should be included for all Constituent Entities in the MNE group determined not to be tax resident in any jurisdiction. As discussed above, because partnerships are generally not considered to be tax resident anywhere, they appear to fall into the no country of residence box (which we will refer to as having Stateless status). Once the country-specific (including Stateless ) rows of Table 1 are established, MNE groups proceed to fill out data pertaining to the entities in each jurisdiction. Here is where things get a little trickier. The instructions in the Action 13 Final Report ( Final Instructions ) emphasize the importance of a consistent approach to the presentation of data. However, the instructions governing each item to be reported on Table 1 aren t entirely uniform. Moreover, the Constituent Entity concept seems to treat partnerships as entities, but tax residence is often applied to partnerships under an aggregate approach. This mix of concepts raises a host of confusing issues. The confusion starts with the reporting of revenues (Columns 2-4), which are to be reported for all the Constituent Entities... in the relevant tax jurisdiction. 7 It is unclear what that means for partnerships; partnership revenues could arguably be reported as in the jurisdiction where the partnership was formed or where it is managed, or possibly default to Stateless status. In contrast, profits before tax (PBT) and income taxes paid and accrued, as well as all other items, are to be reported by line for all the Constituent Entities resident for tax purposes in the relevant tax jurisdiction. 8 6 See OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital 2010, Article 1(4), Commentary on Article 1 Note 5. 7 Action 13 Final Report, Chapter V.E.2.1. (para. 50); Annex III(C), p Action 13 Final Report, Annex III (B), p. 31; Annex III(C), p. 33. Assuming the difference in language means something, the partnership doesn t appear precluded from claiming the revenues at the partnership level and reporting them with respect to the jurisdiction in which the partnership is organized or is operating. In contrast, as tax residence is the required condition for reporting other pieces of data, and as partnerships generally aren t tax resident in any jurisdiction, the remaining items are at risk of all being reported as Stateless. The real question is whether any of the partnership items could be treated as flowing up to the partners, as would generally be the case when determining ownership of partnership items (e.g., income and expenses) for tax purposes. If the partnership were viewed as a pure flow-through (i.e. if it were treated as an aggregate of the partners), PBT and income taxes could all be reportable at the partner level. In contrast, if the partnership were viewed as an entity (which would be consistent with its status as a Constituent Entity) these items would be recorded at the partnership level, and remain Stateless. To add one more twist, query whether, if income is received by a fiscally transparent partnership and liability for taxes arises at the partner level, PBT and income taxes must be reported at the partner level regardless of whether an entity or aggregate approach is applied to the partnership. Let us make this a little more concrete with a simple example, illustrated here: US1 and US2, two U.S. corporations, form a U.K. partnership (UKP). UKP earns foreign source royalty income subject to a 5 percent non-u.k. withholding tax. Assuming that UKP isn t liable for tax in the United Kingdom, and that it doesn t otherwise create a U.K. permanent establishment, it doesn t trigger a U.K. line on Table 1. Unless it is liable for tax anywhere else in the world (assume not), the partnership is designated as Stateless. If the IRS interprets the Final Instructions as locating the revenues where the partnership is factually located and assuming there is a United Kingdom line otherwise created on Table 1 the revenues could arguably be reported in the United Kingdom. Otherwise, the revenues seem to be Stateless. As noted above, head count, capital, accumulated earnings and assets could also be treated as Stateless under an entity theory of the partnership. DAILY TAX REPORT ISSN BNA
4 4 Alternatively, if reporting follows an aggregate theory of partnerships, some or even all of the data could possibly end up reflected as partner-level items in the U.S. What happens with the withholding tax? In this case, assuming that the source country treats the partners as the beneficial owners of the income, the partners would likely be the persons with primary liability for the withholding taxes. Reporting the taxes as related to the partnership even if UKP cash funded them would artificially increase Stateless taxes and decrease U.S. taxes; that doesn t seem right. Reporting the taxes as both Stateless and U.S. amounts seems inappropriately duplicative. The Final Instructions don t directly address the issue, but nonetheless appear to adopt a technical taxpayer approach, by providing that a Country A resident should report tax withheld (presumably at source) on interest earned in Country B. 9 Consistent with this, the right answer appears to be reporting the withholding taxes as related to US1 and US2, and in the U.S. The next question is, how should PBT be reported? Legal liability for the tax and beneficial ownership of the underlying income should logically go hand in hand. If the income taxes are reported at the partner level, it is reasonable to assume that related PBT should be reported there as well as should related revenues. But the extent to which some or all of these items should be reported at the partnership or partner level is simply not clear in the Final Instructions. Only two things are apparent: s Non-taxable partnerships are included as Constituent Entities, and the Final Instructions contain different language for revenues as for the other items. s The OECD didn t explain the rationale behind either of these instructions, nor did it publish clarifying detail. For example, consistent with the instructions published in the 2014 Report, the Final Instructions indicate that corporate dividends should be excluded from shareholder revenues. This makes sense for pinpointing an enterprise s value drivers; if revenues are supposed to arise from operating activities, and if dividends are nondeductible for the payor, then inclusion of dividends distorts the payee s revenue data. Along these lines, dividends from other members of the MNE group are excluded from revenues while interest, royalties and other amounts which are generally deductible for the payor are included in the payee s revenues. The Final Instructions are silent on the treatment of branch profits remittances or partnership allocations but, assuming the partnership is taxable, there should be no reason to distinguish either of them from corporate dividends; all artificially duplicate the MNE group s operating yield and mask the location of its generating Constituent Entity. Without a specific exclusion, however, MNE groups may get the benefit (or, depending on the circumstances, suffer the burden) of reporting the additional revenue. Hybrid Entities Finally, although MNE groups around the world are beginning their CbyC report dry runs, U.S. multinationals face a unique challenge: To what extent, if any, should check-the-box elections be reflected on Table 1? In the absence of IRS guidance, there is no way to be certain whether, and to what extent, an MNE group s CbyC report should reflect the effect of an election. Let us look at a variation of the example above, the foreign hybrid entity, i.e., a corporation for foreign tax purposes that is treated as a partnership for U.S. tax purposes: In order to give life to both of these anomalies, MNE groups may be stuck with illogical results. Presumably the OECD didn t intend to create a form that merely reflects standard choice of entity. BEPS isn t about mandating a classical tax system for the entire world. Reporting partnership items as Stateless may raise eyebrows, but to what end? 10 Absent IRS guidance, it just isn t clear how MNE groups should handle the reporting of partnership items. To complicate matters, even if we assumed a taxable partnership, the Final Instructions still contain glitches between instructions for partnerships versus their corporate counterparts. 9 Action 13 Final Report, Annex III (C), p An alternative if the IRS guidance permitted could be to apply the rules for branches and permanent establishments. Permanent establishments aren t normally viewed as having tax residence in a source country. The Final Instructions, however, provide that permanent establishment data should be reported by reference to the jurisdiction in which it is situated.... It might make sense to apply the same rule to partnerships. That way, there is a clear mechanism for disclosing partnerships and, at least, their revenues and balance sheet items. PBT and related taxes could then be reported at the partner level, consistent with the discussion above. The flaw of this approach is that no Constituent Entity would be left reporting as Stateless, thus rendering the designation superfluous. The only difference between this structure and the one in Example 1 is that UKP is an entity that is liable for U.K. tax on its income. It is only viewed as a partnership (and a passthrough entity) as a result of a U.S. check-the-box election, and then only for U.S. tax purposes. Which controls on the U.S. CbyC report the U.S. tax fiction or the rest-of-world tax perspective? If we adopt the rest-of-world view of this structure, UKP s U.K. tax residence establishes it as a U.K. Constituent Entity and that, in turn, triggers creation of a COPYRIGHT 2015 BY THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. DTR ISSN
5 5 U.K. line on Table 1. All of UKP s data is reported as in the United Kingdom, including the 5 percent non-u.k. withholding tax paid on the royalties and any income tax imposed by the United Kingdom. If we adopt the U.S. view, we get different results. This view wouldn t change where UKP is tax resident (the U.K.), but arguably would cause the items to be items of the partners, rather than UKP. Now let us flip things around a little bit and take a look at a reverse hybrid, i.e., an entity treated as a partnership for foreign tax purposes, but as a corporation for U.S. tax purposes: Is there a right answer as to which view should control CbyC reporting? Not necessarily. One could argue that the U.S. tax view, i.e., showing the planning that a U.S. MNE group implemented to manage its target effective tax rate, is the one that the IRS would be more interested in understanding. On the other hand, given that copies of the CbyC report will be provided to other tax authorities under treaty information exchange provisions or pursuant to a tax information exchange agreement, it makes sense to provide information from the foreign (and U.S. non-tax) perspective. Absent specific IRS guidance, the authors believe the foreign tax perspective to be more compelling, in that it permits apples to apples comparisons between U.S. and foreign MNE groups operating in a given jurisdiction. If clear IRS guidance hasn t been issued by the time the initial CbyC reports are due, U.S. MNE groups will need to make judgment calls regarding their Table 1 presentation of the issues discussed above, and should consider disclosing their rationale on Table 3 of the report. The reverse hybrid may actually present the worst of all worlds. That is, the entity isn t taxable anywhere, so is Stateless in any case. From the U.K. tax perspective, UKP s data appears to be split: PBT and related income taxes may be allocated to UKP s partners and reported in the U.S.; revenues are arguably reportable in the United Kingdom; and balance sheet items and head count are reported as Stateless. Under the U.S. view of the world, no items flow up to the U.S. partners, so all data remain Stateless. As these examples illustrate, the issue of whether a U.S. MNE group should reflect the U.S. or foreign tax perspective on its CbyC reports can be highly sensitive. We can only hope that the IRS will address the issue clearly in upcoming guidance. One thing is certain, that MNE groups will be required to take a consistent view among all of their hybrids and reverse hybrids. It may be difficult enough teasing required information out of multiple entities general ledgers, statutory accounts or management accounts much less having to do so with two different organizational charts (U.S. tax and restof-world tax) in mind. Planning Ahead As MNE groups approach the task of creating and filing CbyC reports, they will need to plan ahead. It takes time to trace and compile information through a multinational group particularly one big enough to trigger CbyC filing requirements. 11 MNE groups should be considering not only the practical implications of finding and collating raw information, but also the conceptual issues of characterizing data and the relevant entities, and identifying the jurisdiction(s) to which they relate. They may, in particular, wrestle with their approach to partnerships. Where are partnerships tax residents (if anywhere)? Should they be consistently treated as entities throughout the report, or should MNE groups take an aggregate approach to some or all of partnership data? How should a U.S. reporting entity treat partnerships that are either creations of, or whose treatment is modified for U.S. tax purposes by, check-thebox elections? In structuring and implementing a CbyC reporting plan, what the model instructions don t say is, perhaps, just as important as what they do say. The U.S. Treasury has indicated that CbyC guidance will be issued by the end of the year. 12 Let us hope the guidance also brings us an end to these questions. 11 The Action 13 Final Report, like the 2014 Report, established a 750 million euro ($821 million) revenue filing threshold for MNE groups TNT 198-2, Stack Sheds Light on Coming U.S. CBC Guidance, 10/13/15 (Doc ). DAILY TAX REPORT ISSN BNA
OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project
OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project Action 13: Guidance on Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting Country-by-Country Report Instructions Manual 24 June 2015 Page
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 information7148/16 HG/NT/kp,vm DGG 2B
Council of the European Union Brussels, 11 May 2016 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2016/0010 (CNS) 7148/16 FISC 39 ECOFIN 231 LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS Subject: COUNCIL DIRECTIVE amending
More informationDelegations will find attached the text of the draft Directive, resulting from the discussions held at the ECOFIN Council of 8 March 2016.
Council of the European Union Brussels, 15 March 2016 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2016/0010 (CNS) 6949/16 FISC 38 ECOFIN 216 NOTE From: To: General Secretariat of the Council Delegations No. prev.
More informationContents. Overview of integrity measures Multinational (MNE) anti-avoidance provision... 2
Contents Overview of integrity measures... 1 Multinational (MNE) anti-avoidance provision... 2 GST on digital products and services by offshore suppliers... 3 Status of main changes from G20-OECD Action
More informationThe OECD s Discussion Draft on Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting: A work in progress
Global Transfer Pricing Arm s Length Standard (Special Edition) In this issue: The OECD s Discussion Draft on Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting: A work in progress... 1 The
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 informationBEPS Action Plan Item 13: The New Documentation Standard and Implications for the Financial Services Industry
BEPS Action Plan Item 13: The New Documentation Standard and Implications for the Financial Services Industry The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development completed and released the Guidance
More informationStrategic Dispute Resolution in a Post-BEPS World
Tax Management International Journal TM Reproduced with permission from Tax Management International Journal, 46 TM International Journal 317, 6/9/17. Copyright 2017 by The Bureau of National Affairs,
More informationHONG KONG. 1. Introduction. Contact Information Henry Fung Candice Ng
HONG KONG Contact Information Henry Fung +852 2969 4054 hernyfung@pkf-hk.com Candice Ng +852 2969 4016 candiceng@pkf-hk.com 1. Introduction 1.1. Legal context Currently, the Hong Kong Inland Revenue Ordinance
More informationCountry-By-Country Reporting. Some Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Country-By-Country Reporting Some Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) These Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) are designed to provide information in relation to the introduction of Country-by-Country Reporting
More informationINSIGHT: Transfer Pricing of Financial Transactions
INSIGHT: Transfer Pricing of Financial Transactions Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place The EU earnings stripping rules are expected to come into force by January 1, 2019, and multinationals will be
More informationTen Questions on the OECD s DEMPE Concept and Its Role in Valuing Intangibles
Tax Management Transfer Pricing Report TM Reproduced with permission from Tax Management Transfer Pricing Report, Vol. 26, 06/01/2017. Copyright 2017 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033)
More informationIRAS e-tax Guide. Country-by-Country Reporting
IRAS e-tax Guide Country-by-Country Reporting Published by Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore Published on 10 October 2016 Disclaimers: IRAS shall not be responsible or held accountable in any way for
More informationTransfer Pricing: The New Frontier Transfer Pricing Documentation in a Post-BEPS World: Evolution or Revolution? November 8, 2018
Transfer Pricing: The New Frontier Transfer Pricing Documentation in a Post-BEPS World: Evolution or Revolution? November 8, 2018 Today s Speakers Astrid Pieron Partner, Brussels apieron@mayerbrown.com
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 informationE/C.18/2016/CRP.7. Note by the Secretariat. Summary. Distr.: General 4 October Original: English
E/C.18/2016/CRP.7 Distr.: General 4 October 2016 Original: English Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters Eleventh session Geneva, 11-14 October 2016 Item 3 (a) (i) of the provisional
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 informationGuidance on Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting
OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project Guidance on Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting ACTION 13: 2014 Deliverable ANNEX III TO CHAPTER V. A MODEL TEMPLATE FOR THE
More informationStanding up to scrutiny: BEPS country-by-country reporting
: BEPS country-by-country reporting At first glance, the country-by-country reporting required under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development s (OECD) Base Erosion and Profit Shifting
More informationCountry-by-Country Report
Protected B when completed Country-by-Country Report Do not use this area Refer to the instructions before you complete this form. Use for reporting the allocation of income, taxes and business activities
More informationCountry-by-Country Reporting: Data Access & Usage. TDM Part
Tax and Duty Manual Part 38-03-20 Country-by-Country Reporting: Data Access & Usage TDM Part 38-03-20 This document should be read in conjunction with section 891H of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 Document
More informationTax Management International Forum
Tax Management International Forum Comparative Tax Law for the International Practitioner Reproduced with permission from Tax Management International Forum, 39 FORUM 38, 6/5/18. Copyright 2018 by The
More informationSection 894. Income Affected by Treaty
46876, 46877) under section 894 of the Code relating to eligibility for benefits under income tax treaties for payments to entities. A notice of proposed rulemaking (REG 104893 97, 1997 2 C.B. 646) cross-referencing
More informationVOLUME 18, NUMBER 1 >>> JANUARY 2016
VOLUME 18, NUMBER 1 >>> JANUARY 2016 Turkey Abdulkadir Kahraman KPMG, Turkey As a member of the G-20, Turkey is still an attractive market for MNEs. This article addresson Turkey s current tax climate,
More informationTransfer Pricing Perspectives: The new normal: full TransParency. Final BEPS guidance places renewed emphasis on intercompany agreements
Final BEPS guidance places renewed emphasis on intercompany agreements 4 Specifically, the OECD has stated that written contracts alone should not drive the economic outcome. Summary On 5 October 2015,
More informationEuropean Commission publishes Anti Tax Avoidance Package
28 January 2016 - Number 65 Brazil Desk e-mail bulletin European Commission publishes Anti Tax Avoidance Package On 28 January 2016 the European Commission published an Anti Tax Avoidance Package containing
More informationTransfer Pricing Documentation Requirements
Articles China (People's Rep.) Andreas Riedl and Thomas Steinbach* Transfer Pricing Documentation Requirements The authors compare the documentation standard arising from the BEPS Action 13 Final Report
More informationApril 30, Re: USCIB Comment Letter on the OECD discussion draft on BEPS Action 3: Strengthening CFC Rules. Dear Mr. Pross, General Comments
April 30, 2015 VIA EMAIL Mr. Achim Pross Head, International Cooperation and Tax Administration Division Center for Tax Policy and Administration (CTPA) Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
More informationJuly 27, Barbara Angus International Tax Counsel Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C.
July 27, 2001 Barbara Angus International Tax Counsel Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20220 Patricia Brown Deputy International Tax Counsel Department of the
More informationGlobal Tax Alert. OECD releases report under BEPS Action 13 on Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting.
23 September 2014 EY Library Access both online and pdf versions of all EY Global Tax Alerts. Copy into your web browser: http://www.ey.com/gl/en/ Services/Tax/International- Tax/Tax-alert-library#date
More informationCA T. P. OSTWAL. T. P. Ostwal & Associates LLP
CA T. P. OSTWAL BEPS strategies may not necessarily be illegal Increased globalisation enables companies to exploit gaps arising on interaction of domestic tax systems and treaty rules within the boundary
More informationKPMG report: Final and temporary regulations under Chapters 3 and 61
KPMG report: Final and temporary regulations under Chapters 3 and 61 January 2017 kpmg.com KPMG report: Final and temporary regulations under Chapters 3 and 61 The Department of Treasury and IRS on December
More informationSUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations that would require annual
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 12/23/2015 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2015-32145, and on FDsys.gov [4830-01-p] DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
More informationPresentation by Shigeto HIKI
Presentation by Shigeto HIKI Co-chair of Forum on Harmful Tax Practices Director International Tax Policy Division, Tax Bureau Ministry of Finance, Japan The Fifth IMF-Japan High-Level Tax Conference For
More informationTax Seminar: Transfer Pricing A Customs Perspective. Peter Caxton Kinuthia Director, Tax Services KPMG Kenya. 30 April 2015
Tax Seminar: Transfer Pricing A Customs Perspective Peter Caxton Kinuthia Director, Tax Services KPMG Kenya 30 April 2015 Presentation Outline Background TP and Customs Valuation Worldwide Developments
More informationPhoto credits: Cover MIND AND I Shutterstock.com OECD 2017
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any
More informationGuidance on the Implementation of Country-by-Country Reporting BEPS ACTION 13
Guidance on the Implementation of Country-by-Country Reporting BEPS ACTION 13 Updated February 2018 Guidance on the Implementation of Country-by-Country Reporting: BEPS Action 13 Updated February 2018
More informationTax Reform: Taxation of Income of Controlled Foreign Corporations
Reproduced with permission from Daily Tax Report, 14 DTR S-15, 1/22/18. Copyright 2018 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com CFCs Lowell D. Yoder, David G. Noren, and
More informationBEPS Action 7 Additional Guidance on Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments
Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Public Discussion Draft BEPS Action 7 Additional Guidance on Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments 22 June-15 September 2017 DISCUSSION DRAFT ON ADDITIONAL
More informationVIA . Pragya Saksena Coordinator, Subcommittee on Royalties UN Committee of Tax Experts
November 30, 2016 VIA EMAIL Pragya Saksena Coordinator, Subcommittee on Royalties UN Committee of Tax Experts Re: Amendments to the Commentary on Article 12 (Royalties) Dear Pragya, USCIB appreciates the
More informationOECD Publishes Guidance on Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting
17 September 2014 OECD Publishes Guidance on Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting Action 13 On 16 September 2014, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (
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 informationOECD releases final report on preventing the artificial avoidance of permanent establishment status under Action 7
19 October 2015 Global Tax Alert EY OECD BEPS project Stay up-to-date on OECD s project on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting with EY s online site containing a comprehensive collection of resources, including
More informationOECD releases discussion draft on transfer pricing documentation and
Tax Policy Bulletin Tax Insights from Transfer Pricing OECD releases discussion draft on transfer pricing documentation and country-by-country reporting 31 January, 2014 In brief Multinational enterprises
More informationKPMG report: Initial impressions, proposed regulations implementing anti-hybrid provisions of new tax law
KPMG report: Initial impressions, proposed regulations implementing anti-hybrid provisions of new tax law December 21, 2018 kpmg.com 1 The U.S. Treasury Department and IRS on December 20, 2018, released
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 informationTrends I Netherlands moves away from fiscal offshore industry
1 Trends I Netherlands moves away from fiscal offshore industry The Netherlands is slowly but surely steering away from facilitating the use of its corporate income tax system by companies that are set
More informationThe Post-BEPS World of Permanent Establishment
taxnotes The Post-BEPS World of Permanent Establishment by Kevin Cunningham Reprinted from Tax Notes Int l, May 2, 2016, p. 503 international Volume 82, Number 5 May 2, 2016 The Post-BEPS World of Permanent
More informationHeadline Verdana Bold International Tax matters ICPAU Tax Seminar, Hotel Africana November, 2017
Headline Verdana Bold International Tax matters ICPAU Tax Seminar, Hotel Africana November, 2017 Contents Related party transactions 3 URA practice on international tax 14 OCED Action Plan on BEPS 30 2017
More informationPartnerships and the Proposed Debt-Equity Regulations
taxnotes Partnerships and the Proposed Debt-Equity Regulations By Charles Kaufman Reprinted from Tax Notes, September 26, 2016, p. 1843 Volume 152, Number 13 September 26, 2016 Partnerships and the Proposed
More informationconcerning the perceived abuse of commissionaire structures
The OECD report on BEPS concerning the perceived abuse of commissionaire structures Commissionaire structures are to brought under the working of the permanent establishment article of tax treaties, Jos
More informationGuidance on the Implementation of Country-by-Country Reporting BEPS ACTION 13
Guidance on the Implementation of Country-by-Country Reporting BEPS ACTION 13 Updated November 2017 Guidance on the Implementation of Country-by-Country Reporting: BEPS Action 13 Updated November 2017
More informationInternational Tax Netherlands Highlights 2018
International Tax Netherlands Highlights 2018 Investment basics: Currency Euro (EUR) Foreign exchange control No Accounting principles/financial statements IAS/IFRS/Dutch GAAP. Financial statements must
More informationAre the Final BEPS Reports on Actions 8-10 Effective Now? by Jason Osborn, Brian Kittle, and Kenneth Klein
taxnotes Are the Final BEPS Reports on Actions 8-10 Effective Now? by Jason Osborn, Brian Kittle, and Kenneth Klein Reprinted from Tax Notes Int l, August 22, 2016, p. 709 international Volume 83, Number
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 informationRecent BEPS related legislation/guidance impacting Luxembourg
Recent BEPS related legislation/guidance impacting Luxembourg Recently a set of BEPS related draft legislation/guidance has been published: (i) on 21 June 2016, the Council of the European Union ( EU )
More informationKPMG report: Analysis and observations of final section 199A regulations
KPMG report: Analysis and observations of final section 199A regulations January 24, 2019 kpmg.com 1 Introduction The U.S. Treasury Department and IRS on January 18, 2019, publicly released a version of
More informationComments on Public Discussion Draft: Clarification of the Meaning of Beneficial Owner in the OECD Model Tax Convention
Deloitte & Touche LLP Certified Public Accountants Unique Entity No. T080LL0721A 6 Shenton Way #32-00 DBS Building Tower Two Singapore 068809 Our Ref: 2944/MD Tel: +65 6224 8288 Fax: +65 6538 6166 www.deloitte.com/sg
More informationBEAT s Impact on Transfer Pricing Alternative Dispute Resolution
Reproduced with permission from Daily Tax Report, 33 DTR 18, 2/16/18. Copyright 2018 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com Transfer Pricing BEAT s Impact on Transfer
More informationBrave new world. The OECD s Base Erosion & Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan poses immediate challenges for oil and gas companies.
Brave new world The OECD s Base Erosion & Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan poses immediate challenges for oil and gas companies December 2015 Introduction Already on the radar of governments and regulatory
More informationBEPS Country-by-Country Reporting Rules and New Documentation Requirements
BEPS Country-by-Country Reporting Rules and New Documentation Requirements, EY LLP, Couzin Taylor LLP 67 th Annual Tax Conference 67e Conférence fiscale annuelle 2015 Agenda 1. The BEPS project: Action
More informationUnited Nations Practical Portfolio. Protecting the Tax Base. of Developing Countries against Base Erosion: Income from Services.
United Nations Practical Portfolio Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries against Base Erosion: Income from Services asdf United Nations New York, 2017 Copyright January 2017 United Nations All
More informationThe discussion draft addresses BEPS Actions 8, 9, and 10, which concern the development of:
BEPS Actions 8, 9, and 10: Discussion Draft on Revisions to Chapter I of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines (Including Risk, Recharacterization, and Special Measures) The Organization for Economic Cooperation
More informationKPMG Trade & Customs Hot Topics. January 30th, 2018
KPMG Trade & Customs Hot Topics January 30th, 2018 Disclaimer The following information is not intended to be written advice concerning one or more Federal tax matters subject to the requirements of section
More informationLuxembourg transfer pricing legislation at a glance
2017 EY TAX Alert Luxembourg Luxembourg transfer pricing legislation at a glance Executive summary The law of 23 December 2016 on the budget for the year 2017 ( Budget Law ) has introduced a new article
More informationOECD Release on Transfer Pricing Documentation: The New Global Standard
OECD Release on Transfer Pricing Documentation: The New Global Standard The OECD s final revisions to Chapter V of the transfer pricing guidelines (issued September 16) materially reduce the documentation
More informationT he relatively strong U.S. economy continues to attract
Daily Tax Report Reproduced with permission from Daily Tax Report, 243 DTR J-1, 12/18/15. Copyright 2015 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com Foreign Taxpayers Jenny
More informationKorean Tax Update BEPS Implementation
Presentation for KGCCI Korean Tax Update BEPS Implementation May 2018 CONTENTS I. BEPS: Backgrounds What is BEPS? Backgrounds for OECD BEPS Project BEPS Action plans II. BEPS Implementation in Korea I.
More informationMarch Brave new world. The OECD s Base Erosion & Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan poses immediate challenges for oil and gas companies
March 2015 Brave new world The OECD s Base Erosion & Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan poses immediate challenges for oil and gas companies Originally featured in the Oil & Gas Financial Journal, January
More informationMr. Joe Andrus Head of Transfer Pricing Unit Centre for Tax Policy and Administration OECD 2, rue Andre Pascal Paris France.
PricewaterhouseCoopers Aktiengesellschaft Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft Mr. Joe Andrus Head of Transfer Pricing Unit Centre for Tax Policy and Administration OECD 2, rue Andre Pascal 75775 Paris France
More informationPUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DISCUSSION DRAFT ON THE ATTRIBUTION OF PROFITS TO PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENTS PART I (GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS) 1
PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DISCUSSION DRAFT ON THE ATTRIBUTION OF PROFITS TO PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENTS PART I (GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS) 1 Goodmans LLP 2 Summary of the Proceedings of an Invitational
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 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 informationOn behalf of the Public Affairs Executive (PAE) of the EUROPEAN PRIVATE EQUITY AND VENTURE CAPITAL INDUSTRY
On behalf of the Public Affairs Executive (PAE) of the EUROPEAN PRIVATE EQUITY AND VENTURE CAPITAL INDUSTRY 9 April 2014 To Re Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Consultation
More informationPROPOSED GENERAL ANTI-AVOIDANCE RULE COMMENTARY FOR A NEW ARTICLE
Distr.: General 30 November 2016 Original: English Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters Thirteenth Session New York, 5-8 December 2016 Item 3 (a) (iii) of the provisional agenda*
More informationBase Erosion and Profit Sharing Action Plan 11, 12, 14 & 15. Mr. S.P. Singh, Ex-IRS 7th November, 2015
Base Erosion and Profit Sharing Action Plan 11, 12, 14 & 15 Mr. S.P. Singh, Ex-IRS 7th November, 2015 Contents Action 11 - Establishing Methodologies to Collect and Analyze Data on BEPS Action 12 Requiring
More informationStatement for the Record
Statement for the Record of Dorothy Coleman Vice President, Tax & Domestic Economic Policy National Association of Manufacturers For the Hearing of the Senate Finance Committee on International Tax: OECD
More informationEU JOINT TRANSFER PRICING FORUM
EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL TAXATION AND CUSTOMS UNION Direct taxation, Tax Coordination, Economic Analysis and Evaluation Company Taxation Initiatives Brussels, Taxud/D1/ January 2011 DOC:
More informationAdditional Guidance on the Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments BEPS ACTION 7
Additional Guidance on the Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments BEPS ACTION 7 March 2018 OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project Additional Guidance on the Attribution of Profits
More informationChapter C.2. DOCUMENTATION
Chapter C.2. DOCUMENTATION C.2.1. Introduction C.2.1.1. Adequate transfer pricing documentation can serve several useful functions. Quality transfer pricing documentation will: (i) ensure that taxpayers
More informationReview on Transparency and Disclosure: From the perspective of Bangladesh and other developing countries
Review on Transparency and Disclosure: From the perspective of Bangladesh and other developing countries (BEPS Action Item-13) * Read with Transparency and Disclosure by Diane Ring SYED MOHAMMAD ABU DAUD
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 informationTransfer Pricing Update
Transfer Pricing Update Ray Brown, Principal Economist, DLA Piper - Los Angeles Mike Patton, Partner, DLA Piper - Los Angeles Eric Ryan, Partner, DLA Piper - Silicon Valley *This presentation is offered
More informationReport 1297 NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION TAX SECTION REPORT ON GUIDANCE IMPLEMENTING REVENUE RULING 91-32
Report 1297 NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION TAX SECTION REPORT ON GUIDANCE IMPLEMENTING REVENUE RULING 91-32 January 21, 2014 REPORT ON GUIDANCE IMPLEMENTING REVENUE RULING 91-32 This report ( Report )
More informationGlobal Tax Alert. OECD releases report under BEPS Action 2 on hybrid mismatch arrangements. Executive summary
23 September 2014 EY Library Access both online and pdf versions of all EY Global Tax Alerts. Copy into your web browser: http://www.ey.com/gl/en/ Services/Tax/International- Tax/Tax-alert-library#date
More informationUnited States Tax Alert
International Tax United States Tax Alert Contacts Harrison Cohen harrisoncohen@deloitte.com Christine Piar cpiar@deloitte.com Dan Skoczylas dskoczylas@deloitte.com June 5, 2015 OECD Releases a Discussion
More informationLund University. School of Economics and Management Department of Business Law
Lund University School of Economics and Management Department of Business Law How can the proposed changes to the OECD tax model convention in action 1 and action 7 counter the issue of an artificial avoidance
More informationAnnex I to Chapter V. Transfer pricing documentation Master file
ANNEX I TO CHAPTER V. TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION MASTER FILE 27 Annex I to Chapter V Transfer pricing documentation Master file The following information should be included in the master file: Organisational
More informationProtecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries: An Overview
Papers on Selected Topics in Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries Draft Paper No. 1 May 2013 Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries: An Overview Hugh J. Ault Professor Emeritus of Tax
More informationANNEX II CHANGES TO THE UN MODEL DERIVING FROM THE REPORT ON BEPS ACTION PLAN 14
E/C.18/2017/CRP.4.Annex 2 Distr.: General 28 March 2017 Original: English Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters Fourteenth Session New York, 3-6 April 2017 Agenda item 3 (b)
More informationNote from the Coordinator of the Subcommittee on Tax Treatment of Services: Draft Article and Commentary on Technical Services.
Distr.: General 30 September 2014 Original: English Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters Tenth Session Geneva, 27-31 October 2014 Agenda Item 3 (a) (x) (b)* Taxation of Services
More informationBrazil: BEPS Action Plan 13 Country-by-Country Reporting
Brazil: BEPS Action Plan 13 Country-by-Country Reporting December, 2016 Fernando Retzler Martins WFaria Advogados BEPS Base Erosion and Profit Shifting The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action
More informationREVISED COMMENTARY ON ARTICLE 7 OF THE OECD MODEL TAX CONVENTION
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT REVISED COMMENTARY ON ARTICLE 7 OF THE OECD MODEL TAX CONVENTION 10 April 2007 CENTRE FOR TAX POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION 10 April 2007 REVISED COMMENTARY
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 informationAn Evaluation of the OECD s Final Guidance on Application of the Transactional Profit Split Method
What s News in Tax Analysis that matters from Washington National Tax An Evaluation of the OECD s Final Guidance on Application of the Transactional Profit Split Method October 29, 2018 by Stephen Blough,
More informationNotice 98-5, CB 334--IRC Sec(s). 42
Notice 98-5, 1998-1CB 334--IRC Sec(s). 42 December 23, 1997 Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service understand that certain U.S. taxpayers (primarily multinational corporations) have entered into or
More informationSession Report: US Model Treaty 2015 Proposals
Session Report: US Model Treaty 2015 Proposals By Christie Galinski Session: The New Model Treaty and Treasury Explanation: What Is Proposed and What Is Needed September 18, 2015: 2015 Joint Fall Meeting:
More informationCOMMENTS ON TEMPORARY AND PROPOSED REGULATIONS GOVERNING ALLOCATION OF PARTNERSHIP EXPENDITURES FOR FOREIGN TAXES (T.D. 9121; REG )
COMMENTS ON TEMPORARY AND PROPOSED REGULATIONS GOVERNING ALLOCATION OF PARTNERSHIP EXPENDITURES FOR FOREIGN TAXES (T.D. 9121; REG-139792-02) The following comments are the individual views of the members
More informationCountry-by-country report Outliers Analysis in practice
OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, Action 13: Guidance on Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by- Country Reporting Country-by-country report Outliers Analysis in practice 5 July
More information