OECD BEPS ACTION 6. Prevention of Treaty Abuse Case Study

Similar documents
M&A OUTLOOK - POST BEPS. International Tax Refresher Course

Article 22 (Limitation on Benefits) 2016 U.S. Model Treaty An Overview

Anti Avoidance Rules and Treaty Shopping (including Limitation of Benefits) CA Sanjay Tolia. December 2014

Preventing the Granting of Treaty Benefits in Inappropriate Circumstances

BEPS and its impact on Mergers & Acquisitions

Eligibility for Treaty Benefits Under The Sweden-U.S. Income Tax Treaty

New US income tax treaty and protocol with Italy enters into force

Eligibility for Treaty Benefits Under The Australia-U.S. Income Tax Treaty

Alter Domus CYPRUS NEWSLETTER. November 2017 WE RE WHERE YOU NEED US.

What s New in the 2016 US Model Treaty?

New Protocol to Modernize 1990 US-Spain Income Tax Treaty

United States Tax Alert

OECD releases final report under BEPS Action 6 on preventing treaty abuse

Basics of International Taxation 2016

Bombay Chartered Accountants Society DTAA Course Multilateral Instrument (MLI) Note for discussion 20 th January Contents

Session Report: US Model Treaty 2015 Proposals

Eligibility for Treaty Benefits Under The Switzerland-U.S. Income Tax Treaty

IFA Colombia V CONGRESO COLOMBIANO DE TRIBUTACIÓN INTERNACIONAL November 2016

CPA Esther Wahome. Thursday, 16 August 2018

Impact of recent U.S. tax legislation on Israeli Companies May 13, 2008 Doron Sadan, Tax Partner, PwC Israel Tel:

Cyprus Tax Update. Kyiv May 2018

Parent Subsidiary Directive and Interest and Royalty Directive

KPMG Japan tax newsletter

2015 IADC International Tax Seminar. U.S. Inbound Planning Post U.S.-Hungary Treaty Ratification

BEPS Impact on Manufacturing

NEW OECD GUIDANCE ON PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENTS

IFA - Comparative Study of the US Conventions with Benelux countries

Overview. Preserving domestic law restrictions on the deduction of rent or royalties. Introduction

Taxation of financial instruments in a changing world

Protocol to New Zealand-U.S. treaty: A New Zealand perspective

Transfer Pricing Forum

QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE TREATMENT OF INTEREST PAYMENTS AND RELATED TAX BASE EROSION ISSUES

UN HANDBOOK ON SELECTED ISSUES IN PROTECTING THE TAX BASE OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

New United States-Japan Tax Treaty Enters Into Force: New Withholding Rates Take Effect on July 1, 2004

International Taxation Recent Developments in India

Overview of OECD Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS)

Simplifying BEPS Action Plan

BUSINESS MODELS IN THE CURRENT BEPS ENVIRONMENT DO YOU NEED TO CHANGE? Lyndon James, Partner Pete Rhodes, Senior Manager PwC

INTERNATIONAL TAX STRUCTURING FOR INVESTING ADROAD INTERNATIONAL TAX CONFERENCE

PASSIVE INCOMES DIVIDEND, INTEREST & CAPITAL GAINS BASIC CONCEPTS. CA Kusuma Yathish B.Com, LLB, FCA PARTNER M/S. SHEKAR & YATHISH 1/23/2010

General Comments. Action 6 on Treaty Abuse reads as follows:

EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive 2: hybrid mismatches with third countries

GERMANY GLOBAL GUIDE TO M&A TAX: 2017 EDITION

Norway signs Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent BEPS

Hong Kong and India sign income tax treaty

CIOT-NOB European Branch Amsterdam Conference 2017

BEPS and ATAD: Where do we stand?

Analysing the likely trends in treaty anti-avoidance provisions in selected Asian jurisdictions post OECD BEPS Action 6

Transparent Entities and Elimination of double taxation Article 3 and 5 of MLI

International Taxation Issues for EI

32nd Annual Asia Pacific Tax Conference November 2016 JW Marriott Hotel Hong Kong

KPMG Japan Tax Newsletter

THE FUTURE OF TAX PLANNING: TRANSPARENCY AND SUBSTANCE FOR ALL? Friday, 26 February AM PM Conrad Hotel, Hong Kong

OECD DISCUSSION DRAFT: FOLLOW UP WORK ON BEPS ACTION 6, PREVENTING TREATY ABUSE

Comparison of Key Anti-Base Erosion Rules in the Tax Reform Act of 2017 and under UK Tax Law Calum Dewar, PwC Mike Williams, HM Treasury

IBFD Course Programme Principles of International Taxation

BEPS Multilateral Instrument (MLI), India s Corresponding Positions, Implementation (GAAR)

China s SAT publishes new rules on beneficial owners

LUXEMBOURG GLOBAL GUIDE TO M&A TAX: 2018 EDITION

January 8, Dear Mr. Ernewein: Fifth Protocol

Principles of International Taxation

Tax Reform Issues Related to Group Financing - 163j, 267A, BEAT and GILTI Issues International Tax Institute, Inc. June 11, 2018

Australia s adoption of the BEPS Convention (Multilateral Instrument) Consultation Paper December 2016

Action 6 Preventing the granting of treaty benefits in inappropriate circumstances

Principles of International Tax Planning

MULTILATERAL CONVENTION TO IMPLEMENT TAX TREATY RELATED MEASURES TO PREVENT BASE EROSION AND PROFIT SHIFTING

Tax Planning in the Middle East

PROPOSED GENERAL ANTI-AVOIDANCE RULE COMMENTARY FOR A NEW ARTICLE

Comments on Discussion Draft on Follow Up Work on BEPS Action 6: Preventing Treaty Abuse

Significant changes in the 2016 US Model Income Tax Convention

The OECD s 3 Major Tax Initiatives

BEPS Beyond Fortune 1000 October Armanino LLP amllp.com Armanino LLP amllp.com

BEPS - Current Status of Implementation in EU Countries. Prof. Guglielmo Maisto 1 March 2019

OECD releases final BEPS package

Georgia Stamatelou Partner, Head of Tax 19 April 2018

Summary of international and Dutch tax developments in 2017

IBFD Course Programme Tax Planning in Africa and the Middle East

IBFD Course Programme Practical Aspects of Tax Treaties

BASE EROSION AND PROFIT SHIFTING

Hong Kong-India income tax treaty enters into force

PwC s comments on Action 6

BEPS Impact on Private Equity

US Treasury Department releases 2016 US Model Treaty including new provisions to combat base erosion and profit shifting

KPMG Japan Tax Newsletter

ACTL Conference on REITs

Università Carlo Cattaneo LIUC

OECD releases draft changes to be incorporated in 2017 update to OECD Model Tax Convention

BEPS ACTION 2: NEUTRALISE THE EFFECTS OF HYBRID MISMATCH ARRANGEMENTS

Luxembourg Tax Alert OECD BEPS Multilateral Convention: Luxembourg s choices published

New Protocol to Mexico-Spain Treaty to enter into force

New Australia- Germany Tax Treaty enters into force

SOUTH AFRICA GLOBAL GUIDE TO M&A TAX: 2017 EDITION

Prevention of Treaty Abuse

Overview of Practical Portfolio

Bombay Chartered Accountants Society

Japan and Chile sign income tax treaty

EFFECTS ON TRADING AND AND SOLUTIONS

Malta - UK IFSP. Conrad Cassar Torregiani Leader International Tax Deloitte. John Ellul Sullivan Manager KPMG

International Taxation in Nepal

PAPER 2.03 CYPRUS OPTION

Transcription:

OECD BEPS ACTION 6 Prevention of Treaty Abuse Case Study

TREATY ENTITLEMENT Country A Co. A Treaty Entitlement depends upon the following: Resident of one of the State Income recipient Person as defined in Treaty India Income Co. B Under BEPS, Not anymore New rules on Treaty Entitlement: [LOB+PPT rules] Qualified Person [all income from Source State] Qualified Activities [an item of income] Residuary [Equivalent Benefit] Refer to pg. 23, 25, 26 of PDF attachment [Final Report]

Summary of the BEPS Anti-treaty abuse rules Proposal Conditions for treaty benefits Exceptions Limitation on benefits (LOB) Art. 22 US TT Principle Purpose Test (PPT) 3 rd Country PE Test The resident person must Be qualified person in relation to R Co.; OR Pass an active trade or business test in R Co.; OR Be more than 95% owned by 7 or fewer equivalent beneficiaries in other countries and pass a base erosion test ( derivative benefits rule ) Obtaining treaty benefits must not be one of the main purposes of the arrangement or transaction For income earned via a 3 rd country PE, the total tax rate in the residence and PE countries must be more than 60% of the residence country s general tax rate Obtaining treaty benefits was not one of the principle purpose for establishing or operating the person (discretionary powers) Granting the benefit would be in accordance with the object and purpose of the relevant provisions of the treaty (discretionary powers) For royalties: IP was developed through PE For others: PE passes the active trade or business test in the PE country

LOB clause Concept Qualified Person Active Trade or Business Test Summary Type A Type B Type C Resident individuals, government entities, charities and pension funds (a, b, d) R Co. listed on RSE and primarily traded / managed in R State (c(i)) R Co. Subsidiary (50%) of qualified listed company (c(ii)) R Co. and satisfying ownership and base erosion test (e) The resident is engaged in active conduct of trade or business in R Co. (making or managing investments is generally Income is unconnected with or incidental to that trade or business and R Co. activities are substantial relative to S Co. activities of the resident person/affiliates N

DIAGRAMMATIC LOB A Co (List Co) Listed in R State or POM in R State Listed requirements: Principle shares; and disproportionate shares (such as differential voting rights, Preference Shares **) Will below diagram change the answer: Income B Co. (Op Co) Income C Co (List Co) India Refer to pg. 74, 75 India D Co. (Op Co)

DIAGRAMMATIC LOB A Co (List Co) 50 % Listed in R State or POM in R State Subsi to Listed requirements 50% of : Principle shares; and disproportionate shares (such as differential voting rights, Preference Shares **) B Co. (Hold Co) Each Intermediary to be Resident in or India - Optional India Income C Co. (Op Co)

DIAGRAMMATIC LOB BASE EROSION A Co (Listed Co) 50 % Entity (non- Individual) Same Dedn 50% to non [Resident & Listed] Ownership requirements 50% of : Principle shares; and disproportionate shares (such as differential voting rights, Preference Shares **) Each Intermediary to be Resident in Only Optional India Income C Co. (Op Co) Base erosion: excludes: Tax Deduction claimed but income subject to full taxation Arms length payment Depreciation and amortization

DIAGRAMMATIC LOB - ATB A Co (Op Co) Active Business in R State Active conduct of business Other than business of making or managing investments for Residents own account Income must be derived in connection with or incidental to that business Treaty Entitlement towards that item of income India Income (activity nexus) B Co. (Op Co) Income derived from business activity in S State: If business activity in R State substantial to Business activity in S State Income derived from AE: same as above Qualify if engages in de minimis connected business activities

DIAGRAMMATIC LOB - ATB ATB in S State ATB in R State A Co (Op Co) A Co (Hold Co) A Co (Hold Co) A1 (Op Co) Income (activity nexus) B Co. (Op Co) Income B Co. (Op Co) (AE) Income B Co. (Op Co) India India India E.g. 7 and E.g. 8

DIAGRAMMATIC LOB EQVI BENEFITS /P A Co (Listed Co) EQVI Intermediary also equivalent beneficiaries (not optional) Country P Country S 95 % B Co Dedn <50% to non EQVI EQVI: under -S DTAA R + Listed Company of Other State; and Dividend, FTS, Royalty tax rate per item of income under R-S DTAA is at least as low as the rate under P- S DTAA ATB for an item of income and not for others cannot satisfy this item. Income C Co. (Op Co) Refer to pg. 79

PRINCIPLE PURPOSE TEST The term benefit includes all limitation in the hands of the Source Country. Can deny entitlement under general rule, even if LOB is satisfied Interpreted along with the Preamble and Object of DTAA Group transactions or inter-linked transactions Eg: Back to back loans, where no DTAA available directly Transfer of right to receive dividends, where no DTAA available directly (usufruct) Manufacturing plant build in Country S where beneficial tax rates availed With increased concessional tax rate, Company increased its shareholding.

DIAGRAMMATIC LOB - ATB Country T T Co (Listed) R Co maintains centralized cash management system and is responsible for disbursing or receiving cash payments. Loan USD 10 mn @ 5% R Co (Op Co) Treasury Function for Group ATB in S State Whether treasury functions a commercial function? Loan USD 10 mn @ 5.15% S Co (Op Co) Country S

CASE STUDY 1 Dividend #1 Dividend #2 Dividend #3 A. Co (Listed) B Co. (Hold Co) C Co (Hold Co) D Co. (Op Co) General Assumption Each entity is resident in its respective country for: Purpose of domestic law; and DTAA. Subsidiary companies are WOS of A Co, directly and indirectly. Questions: 1)Treaty A-B? 2)Treaty B-C? 3)Treaty C-D? Guidelines: To satisfy LOB test (apart from PPT) A] 1) Listed; 2) Subsidiary of listed; 3) Ownership & Base Erosion; B] ATB; C] Derivative Benefit Test

CASE STUDY 1 Dividend #1 Dividend #2 Dividend #3 A. Co (Listed) B Co. (Hold Co) C Co (Hold Co) A-B DTAA: 1)LOB: Listed company; But principle class of shares and disproportionate class of shares to be listed; Regularly traded on Exchange; Primarily traded in Country A; or Primary Place of Management and Control in Country A PPT test to be satisfied D Co. (Op Co)

CASE STUDY 1 Dividend #1 Dividend #2 Dividend #3 A. Co (Listed) B Co. (Hold Co) C Co (Hold Co) D Co. (Op Co) B-C DTAA: 1.LOB Qualified Person Publicly listed No Subsidiary of listed: Yes; But not qualified person under B-C DTAA Erosion Test: No (Needs A Co to be resident of Country B) ATB No (Holding co.) Derivative Benefits A Co need to be qualified person under A-C DTAA Dividend WHT (A-C TT) = or < than Dividend WHT (B-C TT) Discretionary grant depends 1.PPT fact specific

CASE STUDY 1 Dividend #1 Dividend #2 Dividend #3 A. Co (Listed) B Co. (Hold Co) C Co (Hold Co) D Co. (Op Co) C-D DTAA: 1.LOB Qualified Person Publicly listed No Subsidiary of listed: No; Indirect subsidiary not allowed Erosion Test: No ATB No (Holding co.) Derivative Benefits A Co or B Co; A Co need to be qualified person under A-D DTAA Intermediate B Co. need to be equivalent beneficiary (Opt.) Dividend WHT (A-D TT) = or < than Dividend WHT (C-D TT) Discretionary grant depends 1.PPT fact specific

CASE STUDY 2 Parent Co. Interest #2 Facts: - Fin Co interposed between Par Co and Sub Co. Country T Fin Co. -Less favorable TT between Par Co and Sub Co. -Minimal profits in Fin Co. Country S Whether TT apply? Sub Co. Interest #1 -Par Co Fin Co -Fin Co - Sub Co

CASE STUDY 2 Country T Parent Co. Fin Co. Interest #2 Fin Co LOB: No qualified person No derivative benefits test No ATB test PPT - Fails Country S Sub Co. Interest #1

CASE STUDY 3 Parent Co. Royalties#2 LOB test: ATB might (if IP Co. active) and Not if PE active in Country P Purpose Test Country T IP Co. 3 rd PE Test -PE Test: Taxes in PE and R State > 60% of corp. tax rate in R State Country P -IP not developed in Branch PE Country S can tax max. 15% Country S Royalties#1 Sub Co.

CASE STUDY 4 A Co (Op Co) Worldwide Sale of Flowers Income received from F Co G Co / H Co / I Co Country S F Co (Hold Co) Nature of Income: Business Income Royalties Dividend Interest Distribution of Flowers G Co (Op Co) H Co (Op Co) I Co (Op Co) R-S TT Entitlement? Marketing Lawn Care Fish Distribute from R to S

CASE STUDY 5 - ATB Dividend A Co (List Co) B Co. (Op Co) When Dividend in connection with or incidental to active business by A Co? Activities of B Co. also to be taken into account. Activity in to be Substantive in relation to Activities carried on by itself or AE in Country S Country S B Co. (Op Co)

CASE STUDY 6 Country A Country B A Co (Listed Co) B Co (Hold Co) Benefit obtained: No PE C CO: Purchased from D Co. 2 and sells to D Co. 3 Bears financial and commercial risk Country C Country D C Co (P) D Co 1 (LRD) D Co 2 (CM)

CASE STUDY 6 Country A Country B Country C Country D D Co 1 (LRD) A Co (Listed Co) B Co (Hold Co) C Co (P) D Co 2 (CM) C Co: LOB: Listed: No Subsi of Listed : No Ownership erosion: No ATB: Documentation set-up, ATB may be EQVI: No PPT: Main purpose:?? If Branch of C Co in E State carries on activity, ABT not met in C State BUT to check tax paid in C State and E State with Tax rate in C State Still fails LOB in C Co and therefore not entitled

THANK YOU