Analysis of BEPS Action Plan 3 Strengthening CFC Rules
|
|
- Jack Lucas Stevens
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Analysis of BEPS Action Plan 3 Strengthening CFC Rules 1. Introduction Pavan R Kakade* Puneet Putiani** With the increase in globalization and foreign trade in the last century, taxpayers have been resorting to aggressive planning measures to minimise tax costs. Though these planning measures are legitimate, there were certain instances of shifting of profits to low or no tax jurisdictions which has led the authorities to introduce measures to curb the same. While such kind of tax abuse is dealt with by transfer pricing regulations, some jurisdictions also apply a more mechanical rule to counter such tax abuse in the form of CFC Rules. CFC or Controlled Foreign Company Rules aim at taxation in the parent company s jurisdiction, of profits which are parked outside that jurisdiction in foreign companies in low or no tax jurisdictions. Most developed countries have a detailed CFC regime which clearly lay down the parameters for invocation and implementation of CFC Rules. In the Indian context, no CFC regime exists today, although the CFC Rules did form part of the Direct Taxes Code which was proposed to replace the current Income-tax Act, Although the Direct Taxes Code has been scrapped, the CFC regime now exists in an elementary form through the Place of Effective Management residency test for foreign companies. As part of the BEPS Action Plan, the OECD published a discussion draft on Action Plan 3 which deals with strengthening CFC Rules in April 2015 calling for public comments. Post receipt of the public comments, the OECD shall release the final deliverable. In this article, we have analysed the recommendations of the OECD in its discussion draft on Action Plan 3 and how these recommendations can be incorporated in the Indian context while introducing the CFC Rules. * Pavan R Kakade, Director, Tax and Regulatory Services, PricewaterhouseCoopers (P.) Ltd. ** Puneet Putiani, Asstt. Manager, Tax and Regulatory Services, PricewaterhouseCoopers (P.) Ltd. 314 International Taxation Vol. 13 October
2 2. Overview of Action Plan 3 The OECD recognised that CFC Rules is one area where not much work has been done and that the CFC Rules of many countries does not always counter BEPS in an effective manner. Action Plan 3 reads as under: Develop recommendations regarding the design of controlled foreign company rules. This work will be co-ordinated with other work as necessary The discussion draft considered all constituent elements of CFC Rules and articulated five building blocks that are necessary for effective CFC Rules as under: Definition of a CFC Threshold requirements Definition of control Definition of CFC income Rules for computing income Rules for attributing income Rules to prevent or eliminate double taxation Prior to discussing the above building blocks in detail, the OECD has discussed a few policy considerations to be considered in Action Plan 3 as under: Purpose of CFC Rules The OECD has mentioned that for most countries, the purpose of CFC Rules would be to prevent shifting of income either from the parent jurisdiction or from parent and other tax jurisdictions and long term deferral of income Striking a balance between taxing foreign income and maintain competitiveness A balance must be maintained in designing CFC Rules between taxation of income of foreign subsidiaries and addressing competitiveness concerns. Competitiveness concerns would arise since jurisdictions with CFC Rules would find themselves at a disadvantage against jurisdictions with no or less stringent CFC Rules. Competitive concerns would also arise due to differential treatment of foreign subsidiaries vis-à-vis domestic subsidiaries. To counter such concerns, a few recommendations of the OECD are (i) including a substance analysis to subject taxpayers to CFC Rules only if the CFC did not engage in genuine business activity, (ii) applying CFC Rules equally to both domestic subsidiaries and cross-border subsidiaries, (iii) applying CFC Rules to transactions that are partly artificial, i.e. target even partly artificial transactions, (iv) Explicitly ensuring balanced allocation of taxing power CFC Rules could be permitted to apply more broadly if they could be explained by the need for a country to tax profits arising from activities carried out in its territory Limiting administrative and compliance burdens while not creating opportunities for avoidance CFC Rules need to strike a balance between reduced complexity and administration burden in mechanical rules and the effectiveness of more subjective rules which cause more burden CFC Rules as preventive measures CFC Rules are to be designed to act as a deterrent and not to raise significant revenue in the form of additional corporate taxation Scope of base stripping CFC Rules can be designed to prevent profit shifting from either the parent company jurisdiction (parent jurisdiction base stripping) or from any foreign company jurisdiction as well (foreign jurisdiction base stripping) Avoiding double taxation Double taxation concerns need to be addressed discussed in detail later CFC Rules and transfer pricing Although both, the CFC Rules and transfer pricing rules, operate in a similar field, one set of rules does not eliminate the need for the other set of rules. Neither set International Taxation Vol. 13 October
3 of rules fully captures the income that the other set of rules intends to capture. The discussions on the various building blocks have been analysed in the ensuing paragraphs. 3. Definition of a CFC The first element which needs to be discussed is what or which kind of an entity constitutes a CFC. In this context, the recommendations of the OECD are as under: Although the name CFC suggests that the CFC Rules would apply only to corporate entities, the definition of CFC should include within its scope other entities such as partnerships, trusts etc. In case CFC Rules are only extended to corporations, it could be possible to escape CFC taxation merely by changing legal form of subsidiaries CFC Rules should also apply to a PE in a case where the residence country where the parent of the PE is situated, applies the exemption method to the income of the PE A modified hybrid mismatch rule should be included where intra group payments should be covered under CFC Rules if the payment would have otherwise been included in CFC income if the parent jurisdiction had classified the entities and arrangements in the same way as the payer or the payee jurisdiction. 4. Threshold requirements The next element which needs to be considered is the level of threshold beyond which attributable income of an entity should be categorised as a CFC income and the CFC Rules should apply. In this context, the OECD discussed various approaches as under: De minimis threshold As per this approach, a de minimis amount of income is set and entities earning income or entities having attributable income lower than such threshold are not treated as a CFC. Such an approach would be beneficial from an administrative and compliance burden perspective. For eg: a country may have a rule whereby attributable CFC income is not taken into account if the income is Iess than 5% of the total income or USD 10,00,000 whichever is lower. However, given that the de minimis threshold can be circumvented by fragmentation, ie splitting of income of the CFC into various entities or CFC s, it is necessary to incorporate suitable anti-abuse rules in the CFC Rules. Possible anti-abuse rules could be whereby income of all CFC s in a particular jurisdiction is clubbed with a rebuttable presumption that the principal purpose for separately managing various CFC s or entities is to circumvent CFC Rules. Anti-avoidance requirement An anti-avoidance threshold requirement would only subject transactions and structures designed for tax avoidance to CFC Rules. Such a threshold being too narrow may not be effective in tackling BEPS and would increase the administrative and compliance burden since such a threshold is very subjective and requires in-depth verification and analysis. Low-tax threshold Most countries apply a low-tax threshold since it provides certainty to taxpayers and reduces the administration and compliance burden. However, at the same time, such a threshold does not counter BEPS arising on account of profit shifting from high tax jurisdictions to medium tax jurisdictions. A low-tax threshold can be applied by a jurisdiction on a case-to-case basis or by incorporating a negative or a black list of lowtax jurisdictions. A low-tax threshold would require that the CFC is paying tax either below (i) a fixed rate which is considered as a low tax, eg: 15% or (ii) a percentage (say 60%) of the tax the CFC would have paid had it been a resident in parent jurisdiction. Whichever option is adopted, the threshold 316 International Taxation Vol. 13 October
4 or benchmark should be meaningfully lower than the tax rate in parent jurisdiction. The threshold needs to be compared to the tax payable by the CFC. This is done in one of the following ways, by comparing the threshold to (i) the statutory tax rate in CFC jurisdiction or (ii) the effective tax rate paid by CFC. It is recommended that the second approach, ie the effective tax rate approach is adopted since the first approach can lead to circumvention of CFC Rules by locating the CFC in a jurisdiction with a medium tax rate but plenty of exemptions in tax base. Further, in calculation of the effective tax rate, the tax base needs to be computed as per the laws or rules in the parent jurisdiction or according to an international accounting standard or IFRS, since considering the tax base as per CFC jurisdiction would equate the effective tax rate to the statutory tax rate. The OECD also discussed the various approaches to calculation of effective tax, ie income-byincome, company-by-company or countryby-country basis and recommended that the company-by-company basis would be the most effective. The OECD recommends that the low-tax threshold with the effective tax rate approach should be adopted. 5. Definition of control The next element for discussion is the definition of control. This element is important since CFC Rules should not be applied to entities not having control or influence over the CFC but merely a shareholding in the CFC. Type of control Legal control This type of control looks at the percentage holding of share capital or percentage of voting rights in a subsidiary. Such type of control can be easily circumvented through avoidance structures and hence countries usually focus more on economic control. However, tests such as entitlement to acquire shares, contingent rights (eg: options etc) help mitigate some weaknesses of legal control. Economic control This type of control recognises that a person can control an entity through entitlement to underlying value of company even where the person does not hold majority of the shares. This control may result in rights over proceeds of company either at time of distribution of profits or winding up. This control is a majorly mechanical test which can be determined in an objective manner. However, even such kind of control test can be circumvented through insertion of new group holding companies. De facto control This type of control is similar to the residency test and looks at the test of control and management over the CFC, ie who takes the top-level decisions or who exercises dominant influence over the CFC. Thus, such a test is very factual and hence requires significant analysis resulting in added costs, complexity and uncertainty for taxpayers. Further, based on countries experience in operating residency rules, such kind of control can also be circumvented easily. Control based on consolidation This type of control looks at whether the CFC is consolidated in the accounts of the parent company in accordance with the IFRS or the accounting standards. This type of control will not provide very different results from the legal or the economic control since the criterias for consolidation are usually similar to the legal or economic control test. Basis the above discussion, the OECD has recommended adoption of a combined International Taxation Vol. 13 October
5 rule which focusses on atleast legal and economic control. Level of control The next question for consideration is how much control needs to be maintained for the CFC Rules to apply. The OECD mentioned that to catch all cases where control is exercised to shift profits to a CFC, the CFC Rules would need to capture situations where the resident shareholder has more than 50% control (ie legal or economic as discussed above). In case the resident shareholder owns 50% or less, the holding company can still exert influence in certain situations and hence, the resident shareholder may not have the necessary control. The next question for consideration is how to determine whether more than 50% interest is held by the resident shareholder. In case a single shareholder holds more than 50%, the threshold is clearly met. However, in cases where minority shareholders act together to exercise control, an acting-in-concert test may need to be applied, which is a fact based analysis as to whether the shareholders together have influenced the CFC. If yes, their interests are aggregated for the purposes of checking the control test. However, this approach is not very common since it creates significant administrative and compliance burdens. The second way of determining whether minority shareholders are acting together is to look at the relationship of the parties and include the interests of all the related parties when determining the 50% threshold. Such an approach would be less fact based and also address most of the BEPS concerns. The third way of determining whether minority shareholders are exerting influence is to impose a concentrated ownership requirement which requires aggregation of all resident shareholders shareholding exceeding a prescribed limit, say 10%. The recommendation of OECD is to not include interest of non-resident shareholders under all the three approaches to reduce complexity. Additionally, the OECD has recommended that CFC Rules should apply to direct as well as indirect shareholding. 6. Definition of CFC Income The next element which the OECD has discussed is the definition of attributable income which is referred to as CFC income. Countries today either adopt a full inclusion system or a partial inclusion system in their CFC regimes. The full inclusion system means all income of a CFC is included in the income of the resident shareholder and hence there is no need for a definition of CFC income. Although such system is more mechanical and results in less administrative and compliance burden, it also results in inclusion of income which may not necessarily be arising from profit shifting or giving rise to BEPS concern. On the other hand, a partial inclusion with suitable attribution rules would be a more appropriate approach. The OECD further mentions that CFC Rules need to be capable of dealing with at least incomes in the nature of dividends, interest and other financing income, insurance income, sales and services income and royalties and other IP income. The OECD mentions that the general principal surrounding partial inclusion system is that highly mobile and passive income such as interest, royalties and dividend should be attributed to the shareholders. The OECD first discusses the general approaches which could be used to define CFC income: Form based analysis This approach categorises CFC income based on its formal classification. This analysis would therefore categorise interest, royalty and dividend as CFC income and exclude sales and services income since the latter would be associated with an active trade or business carried out by the CFC. Although such approach is more mechanical and has the benefits of reduced administrative and 318 International Taxation Vol. 13 October
6 compliance burden, it can be easily manipulated by characterising a passive income as a sales and service income to escape CFC applicability. Further, such an approach would cover all interest, royalty and dividend as CFC income even though such income may have been earned through an active trade or business. Substance based analysis This analysis looks at whether the CFC undertook substantial activities to earn the income. Substance analysis could take either of following forms: Substantial contribution analysis This would be a threshold test and entities or CFC s would be factually tested to determine whether their employees have made substantial contribution in earning income for the CFC. If the threshold is fulfilled, no income would be attributed to the CFC. Viable independent entity analysis This analysis would include looking at all the significant functions carried out by the entities within the group and determining whether the CFC is the entity most likely to own the necessary assets, carry out the necessary functions and undertake the necessary risks to earn the income. If it is not likely that the CFC should own a particular asset, the income associated with that asset should be included in CFC income and accordingly taxed in the resident shareholder company. One of the major advantages of the viable independent analysis is that it can be used in the context of IP related profits since the analysis would cover whether the CFC is the appropriate entity to hold the IP. Also, another advantage of this analysis is that it is similar to a transfer pricing analysis which the resident shareholder would any way be undertaking, thereby reducing additional compliance. However, this approach is generally very fact specific and requires element of judgment which makes it administratively burdensome. Employees and establishment analysis This approach uses the employees and establishment as a more mechanical way and benchmark. This approach involves comparing the employees and establishment available in the CFC with the employees and establishment which would ideally be required to earn the income earned by the CFC. In case the CFC does not have the requisite employees and/or establishment as per the analysis, the income is included in the CFC income. This approach is more mechanical and less fact intensive as compared to the viable independent entity analysis. However, one disadvantage of this approach is that it is difficult to ascertain the ideal requirement of employees and establishment to earn the income, thereby making the comparison difficult. Both the second and third approaches can either be applied as a threshold or proportionate tests. In case the approaches are applied as a threshold test, the fulfilment of the level of activities or employees or establishment as required by the approach would remove all CFC income from the rigours of taxation. Conversely, the failure to fulfil the level of activities/employees would trigger taxation for all the income. In case however, the approaches are applied as a proportionate test, only the proportionate income between the comparative level and the actual level would be subject to CFC taxation. Although the proportionate test is more burdensome, it ensures that only the income that arose from BEPS is attributed. International Taxation Vol. 13 October
7 The OECD has next discussed how CFC Rules can accurately attribute income that raises BEPS concerns: Dividend The OECD has mentioned that dividend income should first be treated as passive income but then excluded from CFC income if it was paid out of active income (or by related parties out of active income) or if the CFC were in the active trade or business of dealing in securities. This would require a factual analysis of whether the CFC was carrying out an active business. The dividends should be exempt in the resident shareholder jurisdiction if the dividends would have been exempted if directly earned by the resident shareholder. Interest and other financing income Interest and other financing income should first be treated as passive but then excluded from CFC income if the CFC was in the active trade or business of financing and it was not overcapitalised. This would require a factual analysis of whether the CFC was carrying out an active business of financing and whether the CFC was overcapitalised or not. Insurance income Income from insurance will generally be treated as active (and therefore excluded) unless (1) the income was derived from contracts or policies with a related party or (2) the parties to the insurance contract or the risks insured were located outside the CFC jurisdiction. However, income from insurance that falls under these two exceptions will only be treated as passive (and therefore included) if the CFC was overcapitalised or did not have sufficient substance to assume and manage the risks on its own accord. This would require a substance analysis to determine if the CFC was overcapitalised or did it have substance to manage risk on its account. Sales and service income, royalties and IP income Due to the particular difficulties or challenges posed by IP income (such as easy to disguise, highly mobile etc), all sales and services income including IP income should be treated as passive unless the CFC has engaged in substantial activities to earn the income. The OECD has next discussed two different approaches that jurisdictions could use to accurately attribute income earned by a CFC: Categorical approach This approach basically means having separate set of attribution rules for different incomes as discussed above. The advantage of this approach is that each type of income is treated accurately. However, since such approach requires a substance analysis for accurate attribution, it increases the administrative and compliance burden. Excess profits approach This involves a more simpler and mechanical approach and is intended to target situations that give rise to BEPS by characterising as CFC income excess profits in low tax jurisdictions. There are different views on the excess profits approach because some countries believe that an excess profits approach will include income irrespective of whether it arises from genuine economic activity of the CFC and where there is appropriate substance. Other countries believe that excluding a normal return on eligible equity is an effective method for identifying CFC income. An excess profits approach must calculate the normal return and then subtract this normal return from the income earned by the CFC. The difference is the excess return, all of which is treated as CFC income. The normal return would be calculated as (rate of return) x (eligible equity). The rate of return would generally be a risk free return increased by an equity premium. 320 International Taxation Vol. 13 October
8 The OECD has suggested four alternatives to determine a rate of return: A fixed percentage such as 10% - simpler but less accurate A 10 year government bond yield in the parent jurisdiction increased by a fixed equity premium of 5% or 7% - more complicated but more accurate on a country by country basis The group s cost of capital as per capital asset pricing method (CAPM) or any other accepted calculation more accurate for individual groups but more complex for administration Alternative approach in which first or second approach is available by default but groups could opt to use their individual cost of capital increases accuracy for some groups and reduces compliance burden for ones selecting simpler option. In calculation of the eligible equity, only equity invested in assets used in the active conduct of a trade or business, including IP assets, should be treated as eligible equity. Further, one way of calculation of eligible equity would be to use the book value of eligible assets less the liabilities apportioned to the eligible equity. The excess profits would be calculated as the CFC income not subject to tax under other CFC Rules less the normal return as calculated above. With respect to substance based exclusion, as mentioned above, countries have different views. The OECD has recommended that those jurisdictions which are of the view that excess profits approach can attribute income which is not on account of profit shifting, can include a substance based exclusion in the excess profits approach. The OECD has lastly discussed whether CFC Rules should apply an entity or transactional approach. Once income has been determined to be within the definition of income to be caught by a CFC regime, the next question is how CFC Rules should attribute that income. CFC Rules generally take one of two approaches to this question: the entity approach, which attributes income entity-byentity, and the transactional approach, which attributes individual streams of income. Under the entity approach, an entity that does not earn a certain amount or percentage of attributable income or an entity that engages in certain activities will be found not to have any attributable income, even if some of its income would be of an attributable character. Under the transactional approach, in contrast, the character of each stream of income is assessed to determine whether that stream of income is attributable. The difference between the two approaches is that, under the entity approach, either all or none of the income will be included depending on whether the majority falls within the definition of CFC income. Under the transactional approach, some income can still be included even if the majority does not fall within the definition of CFC income, and some income can be excluded even if the majority does fall within this definition. 7. Rules for computing income The next element is the rules for computing the income. In this context, the OECD has first discussed the aspect as to which rules should be used to compute the taxable income. The OECD has provided 4 options: The law of the parent jurisdiction (i.e., the jurisdiction that is applying the CFC Rules), which would be logically consistent with BEPS concerns particularly if CFC Rules focus on the erosion of the parent jurisdiction s tax base. This option would also reduce costs for the tax administration. The law of the CFC jurisdiction, but this would be inconsistent with the goals of International Taxation Vol. 13 October
9 Action Plan 3 as using the CFC jurisdiction s rules may allow for less income to be attributed. Allow taxpayers to choose either jurisdiction s computational rules, but this is likely to create opportunities for tax planning. Compute income using a common standard, such as IFRS or any internationally accepted accounting standard The OECD has recommended the first option since the same is consistent with the goals of the Action Plan 3. The second aspect for discussion was as to whether any specific rules are necessary. In this context, the OECD has recommended that a specific rule limiting the offset of CFC losses should be incorporated so that such losses can only be set off against the profits of the same CFC or against profits of other CFC s in the same jurisdiction. 8. Rules for attributing income The OECD has recommended rules for the different steps for income attribution as under: Which taxpayers should have income attributed to them The attribution threshold should be tied to the minimum control threshold when possible, although countries can choose to use different attribution and control thresholds depending on the policy considerations underlying CFC Rules How much income should be attributed The amount of income to be attributed to each shareholder or controlling person should be calculated by reference to both their proportion of ownership and their actual period of ownership or influence. Some jurisdictions attribute the entire portion of income based on ownership on the last day of the year. Whilst this could lead to inaccurate attribution and could create opportunities for tax planning, this may accurately capture whether or not the taxpayer was able to influence the CFC if voting or other power is determined based on ownership on the last day of the year. Other jurisdictions attribute income based on the period of ownership, which results in taxpayers being taxed on an amount that is similar to their actual share of the CFC profits When the income should be included in the returns of the taxpayers and how the income should be treated Jurisdictions can determine when income should be included in taxpayers returns and how it should be treated so that CFC Rules operate in a way that is coherent with existing domestic law. What tax rate should apply to the income The tax rate of the parent jurisdiction should be applied to the income. 9. Rules to prevent or eliminate double taxation In the context of CFC Rules, double taxation can arise in a few situations. Such situations along with the recommendation of the OECD for each situation are discussed below: Situations where the attributed CFC income is also subject to foreign corporate taxes To address the situation where the CFC income is subject to taxation in both the CFC jurisdiction and the parent jurisdiction, the OECD has recommended providing for an indirect foreign tax credit that credits taxes that were incurred by a different taxpayer. Situations where CFC Rules in more than one jurisdiction apply to the same CFC income An indirect foreign tax credit could be applied in this situation but in order to provide such a credit countries may need to change their double taxation relief provisions in order for CFC tax paid in an intermediate country to qualify as a foreign tax eligible for relief. 322 International Taxation Vol. 13 October
10 There should also be a hierarchy of rules to determine which countries should have priority, and this hierarchy could prioritise the CFC Rules of the jurisdiction whose resident shareholder is closer to the CFC in the chain of ownership. Situations where a CFC actually distributes dividends out of income that has already been attributed to its resident shareholders under the CFC Rules or a resident shareholder disposes of the shares in the CFC The recommendation of OECD for addressing this situation is to exempt dividends and gains on disposition of CFC shares from taxation if the income of the CFC has previously been subject to CFC taxation, but the precise treatment of such dividends and gains can be left to individual jurisdictions so that provisions are coherent with domestic law. 10. CFC Rules in India in Direct Taxes Code Below is a brief summary of the CFC Rules which were proposed to be implemented in India vide the Direct Taxes Code and the comparative OECD recommendation in its Action Plan: The definition of CFC covered only a foreign company and no other forms of entity whereas as per the OECD, the CFC Rules should also apply to partnerships, trusts and permanent establishments A foreign company would qualify as a CFC only if it was a resident of a territory with lower rate of tax. The lowtax threshold was 50% of the tax that would have been paid by the foreign company as a domestic company per the DTC. Further, the foreign company s shares should not have been listed on any recognised stock exchange. As per the OECD as well, a low-tax threshold should be introduced in the CFC Rules; the OECD does not recommend any test with respect to listing of shares The control tests had a legal and economic control test (in the form of shareholding, dominant influence, access to income etc) and the control threshold was 50%. The OECD s has also recommended a similar test of control. An additional condition for an entity to qualify as CFC was that the entity should not be engaged in an active trade or business - hence any entity having an active trade or business would not be considered as a CFC for any stream of income whereas the OECD has not included the test of active trade or business in the definition of CFC. The OECD however has included such test in considering whether a stream of income should be attributed to the CFC. The CFC Rules had a full inclusion system and hence all income of a CFC would be taxable in India while the OECD has not included a full inclusion system since the same would result in higher income to be attributed to the CFC than which would raise BEPS concerns. The OECD has recommended a partial inclusion system with rules/approaches to attribute income to the CFC. 11. Conclusion The aforementioned recommendations of the OECD will be finalised in a final report after considering the public comments. Compared to the recommendations in the other action plans, it would be comparatively easier to incorporate the recommendations under this action plan since this would only require amendments in the domestic tax law and not any tax treaty. Nevertheless, significant amount of work and attention would need to be given to each building block or parameter as mentioned in International Taxation Vol. 13 October
11 the OECD discussion draft. As can be seen from the aforesaid discussion, the CFC Rules in India in the Direct Taxes Code were at a nascent level and would require a lot of fine-tuning and streamlining to be in line with the recommendations of the OECD. Lastly, in the Indian context, given that the amount of overseas investment by Indian entities or companies is currently not significant, the introduction of CFC Rules may not be of immediate relevance. However, given the anticipation of growth of Indian economy and correspondingly overseas outbound investment, it is important to understand these recommendations of the OECD and also plan the businesses for the same. i 324 International Taxation Vol. 13 October
Carry forward and set off of unabsorbed losses permissible even if shareholding changes by more than 49%, so long as there is no change in control
Tax Insights from India Tax & Regulatory Services Carry forward and set off of unabsorbed losses permissible even if shareholding changes by more than 49%, so long as there is no change in control October
More informationOECD releases final report on CFC rules under BEPS Action 3
11 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 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 informationAnalysis of New Law UK CORPORATE TAX REFORM. Nikol Davies *
70 Analysis of New Law UK CORPORATE TAX REFORM Nikol Davies * INTRODUCTION The long anticipated consultation document for corporate tax reform was published by the government on 29 November 2010. The document
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 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 informationCONTROLLED FOREIGN COMPANIES
CONTROLLED FOREIGN COMPANIES PRESENTATION BY [NAME] [DATE] OUTLINE 1. Controlled Foreign Company ( CFC ) The Concept 2. CFC International scenario 3. BEPS Action Plan 3 THE CONCEPT CFC THE CONCEPT CFC
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 informationAnswer-to-Question- 1
Answer-to-Question- 1 The arm's length principle is the standard used by all OECD parties in setting and testing prices between related parties. It aims to assess the level of profits which would have
More informationAgreement on EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive
Agreement on EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive On 21 June 2016, the EU Council finally agreed on the draft EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD). The agreement was reached following discussions by the Economic
More informationResponse to the Department of Finance "Consultation on Coffey Review" January 2018
Response to the Department of Finance "Consultation on Coffey Review" January 2018 Table of Contents 1. About the Irish Tax Institute... 3 2. Executive Summary... 4 3. List of recommendations... 7 4. Response
More informationGijs Fibbe (Baker Tilly / Erasmus University) Bart Le Blanc (Norton Rose Fulbright) Andrew Roycroft (Norton Rose Fulbright) September 25, 2017
Implementation of the ATAD in the UK and NL Gijs Fibbe (Baker Tilly / Erasmus University) Bart Le Blanc (Norton Rose Fulbright) Andrew Roycroft (Norton Rose Fulbright) September 25, 2017 UK/NL (as many
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 informationSMU-TA Centre for Excellence in Taxation Inaugural Conference Tax Structures using Branches and Hybrid Entities Moving with the times
SMU-TA Centre for Excellence in Taxation Inaugural Conference 2015 Tax Structures using Branches and Hybrid Entities Moving with the times Use of hybrids and branches in tax structures Globalisation has
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 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 informationBEPS 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 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 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 informationUK Tax Update: It s not all about Brexit!
August 2016 UK Tax Update: It s not all about Brexit! There has rightly been a great deal of attention paid to the UK s decision to leave the EU and what that may mean from a business (including tax) perspective.
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 informationTurkish Perspective on OECD Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting
Turkey Ramazan Biçer and Mehmet Erginay* Turkish Perspective on OECD Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting The OECD Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) is a focal point of
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 informationAMENDMENTS EN United in diversity EN. European Parliament 2016/0011(CNS) Draft report Hugues Bayet (PE578.
European Parliament 2014-2019 Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs 2016/0011(CNS) 18.4.2016 AMDMTS 40-237 Draft report Hugues Bayet (PE578.569v01-00) Rules against tax avoidance practices that directly
More informationA8-0189/ Proposal for a directive (COM(2016)0026 C8-0031/ /0011(CNS)) Text proposed by the Commission
3.6.2016 A8-0189/ 001-091 AMDMTS 001-091 by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs Report Hugues Bayet Rules against tax avoidance practices A8-0189/2016 (COM(2016)0026 C8-0031/2016 2016/0011(CNS))
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 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 informationGeneral Comments. Action 6 on Treaty Abuse reads as follows:
OECD Centre on Tax Policy and Administration Tax Treaties Transfer Pricing and Financial Transactions Division 2, rue André Pascal 75775 Paris France The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise: Comments on
More informationBEPS Impact on Private Equity
BEPS Impact on Private Equity BEPS impact on private equityspace An Indian perspective In this age of increasing focus on bottomlines, it is indeed tempting for a global tax director of a multinational
More informationNeutralising the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch
OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project Neutralising the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements ACTION 2: 2015 Final Report OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project Neutralising the
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 informationPreventing the Granting of Treaty Benefits in Inappropriate Circumstances
OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project Preventing the Granting of Treaty Benefits in Inappropriate Circumstances ACTION 6: 2014 Deliverable OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project
More informationAction 6 Preventing the granting of treaty benefits in inappropriate circumstances
KPMG FLASH NEWS KPMG in India 30 October 2015 Action 6 Preventing the granting of treaty benefits in inappropriate circumstances Introduction Analysis of the Action 6 On 5 October 2015, the Organisation
More informationAnalysing BEPS Impact Private Equity sector
Analysing BEPS Impact Private Equity sector January 2016 Second line optional lorem ipsum B Subhead lorem ipsum, date quatueriure In this age of increasing focus on bottomlines, it is indeed tempting for
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 informationTHE KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT BOX Public Consultation JANUARY 2015
THE KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT BOX Public Consultation JANUARY 2015 Public Consultation Paper: The Knowledge Development Box Department of Finance January 2015 Tax Policy Division Department of Finance Government
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 informationCPA Esther Wahome. Thursday, 16 August 2018
Current trends in international tax planning (focus on BEPS). Presentation by: CPA Esther Wahome Senior Manager Taxation Services Deloitte & Touche Thursday, 16 August 2018 Uphold public interest Contents
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 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 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 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 informationTAX LAWS AMENDMENT (CROSS BORDER TRANSFER PRICING) BILL 2013: MODERNISATION OF TRANSFER PRICING RULES EXPOSURE DRAFT - EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
2012 TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (CROSS BORDER TRANSFER PRICING) BILL 2013: MODERNISATION OF TRANSFER PRICING RULES EXPOSURE DRAFT - EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM (Circulated by the authority of the Deputy Prime Minister
More informationBUDGET DAY CORPORATE AND INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
NEWSFLASH SEPTEMBER 2018 BUDGET DAY 2018 - CORPORATE AND INTERNATIONAL TAXATION This week, Budget Day 2018 in the Netherlands brought a collection of fiscal legislative proposals which might have an impact
More informationLimitation of Interest deduction u/s. 94B An Analysis
Limitation of Interest deduction u/s. 94B An Analysis Western India Regional Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Mumbai 10th June, 2017 CA Rutvik Sanghvi Presentation Layout Sr.
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 19.12.2006 COM(2006) 824 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
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 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 informationWORKING PAPER. Brussels, 15 February 2019 WK 2235/2019 INIT LIMITE ECOFIN FISC
Brussels, 15 February 2019 WK 2235/2019 INIT LIMITE ECOFIN FISC WORKING PAPER This is a paper intended for a specific community of recipients. Handling and further distribution are under the sole responsibility
More informationProposal for amending the Parent-Subsidiary Directive: European Commission is waging war against double non-taxation
Proposal for amending the Parent-Subsidiary Directive: European Commission is waging war against double non-taxation David Ledure/Frederik Boulogne/Pieter Deré On 25 November 2013, the European Commission
More informationBEPS Impact on Manufacturing
BEPS Impact on Manufacturing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting India has emerged as the seventh largest economy. Favorable demographics, a burgeoning domestic market and an annual growth rate in excess
More informationMultilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting
Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting A briefing note prepared for the Finance and Expenditure Committee Policy and Strategy, Inland
More informationControlled Foreign Corporation
Controlled Foreign Corporation Certificate Course on International Taxation, Chennai Arpit Jain Director International Tax Background Spread of CFC legislation across the world in last 30-40 years US-perhaps
More informationAchim Pross Head, International Co-operation and Tax Administration Division OECD 2, rue Andre Pascal Paris Cedex 16 France
Achim Pross Head, International Co-operation and Tax Administration Division OECD 2, rue Andre Pascal 75775 Paris Cedex 16 France By email to: CTPCFC@oecd.org 1 May 2015 Dear Mr. Pross, BEPS Discussion
More informationV. Interest Deductibility and CFC Rules
V. Interest Deductibility and CFC Rules Panelists Achim Pross, Head of International Cooperation and Tax Administration Division, OECD Doug Poms, Acting Deputy International Tax Counsel, U.S. Treasury
More informationTEXTS ADOPTED. having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2016)0683),
European Parliament 2014-2019 TEXTS ADOPTED P8_TA(2018)0087 Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base * European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 March 2018 on the proposal for a Council directive
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 informationTransparent Entities and Elimination of double taxation Article 3 and 5 of MLI
Transparent Entities and Elimination of double taxation Article 3 and 5 of MLI October 5, 2018 Vispi T. Patel & Associates Index Background of BEPS BEPS Action Plan 15 (MLI) Constitutional Framework MLI
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 informationNEW OECD GUIDANCE ON PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENTS
NEW OECD GUIDANCE ON PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENTS PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS & RECENT TAX DISPUTES PAOLO RUGGIERO 16 NOVEMBER 2017 INTRODUCTION Paolo Ruggiero Fantozzi & Associati, Taxand Italy T: +39 02 7260
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 informationBEPS and ATAD: Where do we stand?
BEPS and ATAD: Where do we stand? by Nicky Gouder Tax Partner Summary Quick Overview of the BEPS Project and ATAD; A Comparison of the BEPS Recommendations and the ATAD obstacles, conflicts. Is harmonious
More informationEU Developments: C(C)CTB and corporate tax reform
EU Developments: C(C)CTB and corporate tax reform 27 October 2016 Introduction On 25 October, the European Commission published a corporate tax reform package that provides three new proposals: To provide
More informationDutch Tax Bill 2019: what will change?
1 Dutch Tax Bill 2019: what will change? On 18 September 2018, the Dutch government presented a number of tax measures as part of the 2019 budget proposals. The key measures are: Abolition of withholding
More informationThe Guiding Principle and the Principal Purpose Test
oecd The Guiding Principle and the Principal Purpose Test I. The background to the Guiding Principle The 2003 OECD Commentary on Article 1 raised two questions with respect to improper use of tax treaties
More informationPermanent establishment issues arising from global insurance distribution models
Permanent establishment issues arising from global insurance distribution models Sebastian Ma ilei & Jeremy Brown, Deloitte UK The competitive nature of the insurance sector has led to the increased use
More informationBUSINESS MODELS IN THE CURRENT BEPS ENVIRONMENT DO YOU NEED TO CHANGE? Lyndon James, Partner Pete Rhodes, Senior Manager PwC
BUSINESS MODELS IN THE CURRENT BEPS ENVIRONMENT DO YOU NEED TO CHANGE? Lyndon James, Partner Pete Rhodes, Senior Manager PwC Agenda The current environment and the case for change Australian measures most
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 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 informationBEPS - Current Status of Implementation in EU Countries. Prof. Guglielmo Maisto 1 March 2019
BEPS - Current Status of Implementation in EU Countries Prof. Guglielmo Maisto 1 March 2019 1 Pillar I COHERENCE Action 2 Neutralizing Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements Action 3 CFC Rules Action 4 Interest
More informationITALY GLOBAL GUIDE TO M&A TAX: 2017 EDITION
ITALY 1 ITALY INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 1. WHAT ARE RECENT TAX DEVELOPMENTS IN YOUR COUNTRY WHICH ARE RELEVANT FOR M&A DEALS AND PRIVATE EQUITY? Italy s corporate income tax rate (IRES) is set at 24%
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 informationDelegations will find in the Annex a Presidency compromise on the abovementioned proposal.
Council of the European Union Brussels, 29 November 2018 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2018/0073(CNS) 14886/18 FISC 511 ECOFIN 1149 DIGIT 239 NOTE From: To: Presidency Council No. Cion doc.: 7420/18
More informationIBFD Course Programme Current Issues in International Tax Planning
IBFD Course Programme Current Issues in International Tax Planning Summary This intermediate-level course provides participants with an in-depth understanding of the current discussions relating to international
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 17.10.2003 COM(2003) 613 final 2003/0239 (CNS) Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE amending Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation
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 informationBEPS Multilateral Instrument (MLI), India s Corresponding Positions, Implementation (GAAR)
BEPS Multilateral Instrument (MLI), India s Corresponding Positions, Implementation (GAAR) Dr. Parthasarathi Shome Chairman International Tax Research and Analysis Foundation (ITRAF) www.itraf.org Visiting
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 informationThe Anti Tax Avoidance Package Questions and Answers (Updated)
European Commission - Fact Sheet The Anti Tax Avoidance Package Questions and Answers (Updated) Brussels, 21 June 2016 1. Why has the Commission made the fight against corporate tax avoidance a priority?
More informationFrequently Asked Questions
OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project 2015 Final Reports www.oecd.org/tax/beps.htm ctp.beps@oecd.org Follow us @OECDtax ninog / Fotolia Frequently Asked Questions Table of contents A. BEPS
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 informationWORKING PAPER. Brussels, 16 November 2016 WK 877/2016 INIT LIMITE FISC
Brussels, 16 November 2016 WK 877/2016 INIT LIMITE FISC WORKING PAPER This is a paper intended for a specific community of recipients. Handling and further distribution are under the sole responsibility
More informationIBFD Course Programme Current Issues in International Tax Planning
IBFD Course Programme Current Issues in International Tax Planning Amsterdam, 14 16 June 2017 Summary This intermediate-level course provides participants with an in-depth understanding of the current
More informationSignificant changes in the 2016 US Model Income Tax Convention
from India Tax & Regulatory Services Significant changes in the 2016 US Model Income Tax Convention February 22, 2016 In brief On 17 February, 2016, the US Treasury Department released a revised US Model
More informationRoundup of Australia s BEPS developments
TaxTalk Insights Global Tax Roundup of Australia s BEPS developments 12 April 2017 In brief Since its presidency of the G20 in 2014, Australia has been at the forefront of efforts to combat tax avoidance
More informationHONG KONG BEPS AND NEW TRANSFER PRICING LAW
10 July 2018 HONG KONG BEPS AND NEW TRANSFER PRICING LAW Executive summary Hong Kong's Legislative Council on 4 July 2018 passed the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 6) Bill 2017), which became effective
More informationEFAMA Position Paper Draft Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive
EFAMA Position Paper Draft Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive I. GENERAL REMARKS EFAMA fully supports the aim of eliminating tax abuse enshrined in the draft Anti-Tax Avoidance (ATA) Directive which the European
More informationTax Summit 2017 THE EU ANTI-TAX-AVOIDANCE DIRECTIVE taking a further look at the GAAR 27 October 2017
Tax Summit 2017 THE EU ANTI-TAX-AVOIDANCE DIRECTIVE taking a further look at the GAAR 27 October 2017 Background and introduction The international tax policy environment EU Anti-Tax-Avoidance-Package
More informationG8/G20 TAXATION ISSUES : Tax Training Day, ODI, London 16 September 2013
G8/G20 TAXATION ISSUES : Tax Training Day, ODI, London 16 September 2013 BASE EROSION AND PROFIT SHIFTING 2 OECD Work on Taxation Focus has historically been on the development of common standards to eliminate
More informationEU Anti-Tax Avoidance Package: impacts on the real estate industry
EUDTG/RE March 2016 EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Package: impacts on the real estate industry On 28 January 2016, the EU Commission (EC) presented its EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Package (ATAP). The below provides
More informationATRiD: Harmonizing the rules on the allocation of taxing rights within the EU and in the relations with third countries
ATRiD: Harmonizing the rules on the allocation of taxing rights within the EU and in the relations with third countries Paolo Arginelli 1This contribution lays down a general plan for what the EU should
More informationLimiting Base Erosion Involving Interest Deductions
OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project Limiting Base Erosion Involving Interest Deductions and Other Financial Payments ACTION 4: 2015 Final Report OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting
More informationTax Planning International Review
Tax Planning International Review Source: Tax Planning International Review: News Archive > 2018 > 04/30/2018 > Articles > Anti abuse legislation: The Importance of Substance in a Private Equity Fund Context
More informationOECD Model Tax Convention on Income and Capital An overview. CA Vishal Palwe, 3 July 2015
OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and Capital An overview CA Vishal Palwe, 3 July 2015 1 Contents Overview of double taxation 3 Basics of tax treaty 6 Domestic law and tax treaty 11 Key provisions of
More informationIn 2002 the arm s length principle was codified in the Netherlands by section 8b of the Corporate Income Tax Act (VPB) 1969.
This is an official English translation of a decree issued by the State Secretary for Finance. In the event of a dispute concerning discrepancies between this translation and the original version in the
More informationINCEPTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT
TITLE OF THE INITIATIVE LEAD DG RESPONSIBLE UNIT AP NUMBER LIKELY TYPE OF INITIATIVE INCEPTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT Re-launch of the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) DG TAXUD.D DATE OF ROADMAP
More information2018 Annual Tax Reform entails significant changes for corporations
changes for corporations The draft for the upcoming 2018 annual tax reform has finally been published. This draft proposes a number of tax changes which are of significant relevance in particular for internationally
More informationTaxation (International Taxation, Life Insurance, and Remedial Matters) Bill
Taxation (International Taxation, Life Insurance, and Remedial Matters) Bill Commentary on the Bill Hon Peter Dunne Minister of Revenue First published in July 2008 by the Policy Advice Division of Inland
More informationThe CFC consultation. - The latest step on the road to reform. Application of the Regime
The CFC consultation - The latest step on the road to reform After some four years since the process for the reform of the controlled foreign company ( CFC ) rules commenced, the Government finally published
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 information