Preventing Tax Treaty Abuse

Similar documents
United Nations Practical Portfolio. Protecting the Tax Base. of Developing Countries against Base Erosion: Income from Services.

PROPOSED GENERAL ANTI-AVOIDANCE RULE COMMENTARY FOR A NEW ARTICLE

Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries: An Overview

Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters Fourteenth session

BEPS ACTION 2: NEUTRALISE THE EFFECTS OF HYBRID MISMATCH ARRANGEMENTS

Overview. General Anti-Avoidance Rule. The Role of a General Anti-Avoidance Rule in Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries

BEPS and ATAD: Where do we stand?

United States Tax Alert

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

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

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

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

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

International Tax Planning and Prevention of Abuse. A Study under Domestic Tax Law, Tax Treaties and EC Law in relation to Conduit and Base Companies

Action 6 Preventing the granting of treaty benefits in inappropriate circumstances

Australia releases draft anti-hybrids law

Base Erosion and Profit Sharing Action Plan 11, 12, 14 & 15. Mr. S.P. Singh, Ex-IRS 7th November, 2015

IBFD Course Programme Practical Aspects of Tax Treaties

GAAR v. SAAR or both?

Note by the Coordinator of the Subcommittee on Improper use of treaties: Proposed amendments *

Article 23 A and 23 B of the UN Model Conflicts of qualification and interpretation

Tax Summit 2017 THE EU ANTI-TAX-AVOIDANCE DIRECTIVE taking a further look at the GAAR 27 October 2017

Dispute Resolution: the Mutual Agreement Procedure

Preventing the Granting of Treaty Benefits in Inappropriate Circumstances

TAX STRUCTURING WITH BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES KIEV ARBITRATION DAYS: THINK BIG CONFERENCE KIEV, UKRAINE NOVEMBER 15, 2013

BASE EROSION AND PROFIT SHIFTING

Chairman Camp s Discussion Draft of Tax Reform Act of 2014 and President Obama s Fiscal Year 2015 Revenue Proposals

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

European Commission publishes Anti Tax Avoidance Package

Global Tax Alert. OECD releases report under BEPS Action 2 on hybrid mismatch arrangements. Executive summary

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

CONCEPT OF BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP: DISCUSSION OF KEY ISSUES AND PROPOSALS FOR CHANGES TO THE UN MODEL COMMENTARY*

International Taxation Recent Developments in India

Global Tax Alert. OECD releases final report on Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements under Action 2. Executive summary

Simplifying BEPS Action Plan

BEPS nears the finish line. The inevitable BEPS changes are close to the final stages of implementation.

A rapidly changing tax landscape Recent Asian tax developments

Università Carlo Cattaneo LIUC

Tax Brief. 24 March OECD Recommendations on Cross-border Hybrids. 1. Background

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

Overview of Practical Portfolio

Agreement on EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive

The Guiding Principle and the Principal Purpose Test

Taxation of financial instruments in a changing world

Corporate Taxpayers Group

Insurance Tax Insight The Global Tax Reset: BEPS & Insurance

Analysing BEPS Impact Private Equity sector

Tax Policy: Designing and Drafting a Domestic Law to Implement a Tax Treaty. Kiyoshi Nakayama Fiscal Affairs Department

Master Thesis. LLM International Business Taxation/ Track: International Business Tax Law

Contents I-13. About the author I-5 Preface I-7 Chapter-heads I-9

New Australia- Germany Tax Treaty enters into force

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and Capital An overview. CA Vishal Palwe, 3 July 2015

OECD BEPS final reports have implications for sovereign wealth and pension funds

EU countries facing BEPS: the case of France. Stéphane Austry Partner, CMS Bureau Francis Lefebvre France

Diverted Profits Tax. Key points

Substance: A wake up call. ATOZ Briefing

The UAE has joined the Inclusive Framework on BEPS

Planning for Intangible Property Migration in an Uncertain Environment. ABA Section of Taxation Mid Year Meeting January 25, 2013

E/C.18/2018/CRP.10. Distr.: General 2 October Original: English. Summary

1. What are recent tax developments in your country which are relevant for M&A deals?

ANTI-AVOIDANCE PROVISIONS UNDER TAX TREATIES AND DOMESTIC LAWS

Session Report: US Model Treaty 2015 Proposals

Re: Taxand Comments on the Clarification of the Meaning of 'Beneficial Owner' found in Articles 10, 11 and 12 of the OECD Model Tax Convention

Tax Treaty Abuse and the Principal Purpose Test: Part II

TRANSNATIONAL TAX NETWORK 2015 HONG KONG CONFERENCE. Hong Kong 9 February David Russell QC Outer Temple Chambers London and Dubai

Basic International Taxation

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

Citation for published version (APA): du Toit, C. P. (1999). Beneficial Ownership of Royalties in Bilateral Tax Treaties Amsterdam: IBFD

Do we have the wrong tax system for the digital economy? Alf Capito, Tax Policy Leader, EY Asia Pacific July 2014

BASE EROSION AND PROFIT SHIFTING ISSUES : THAILAND

BEPS transfer pricing and permanent establishment avoidance

IRS Releases Proposed Anti-Hybrid Regulations

BEPS ACTION 15. Development of a Multilateral Instrument to Implement the Tax Treaty related BEPS Measures

Transparency and Disclosure

The OECD s 3 Major Tax Initiatives

Analysing BEPS Impact Infrastructure sector

Taxing Non Residents Capital Gains. Wei Cui (UBC Faculty of Law) September 23, 2014

BEPS Impact on Private Equity

A holding company belonging to an equity investor group was not considered as an equity investor

Astera Primanto Bhakti. Asian Tax Authorities Symposium

Base Erosion Profit Shifting (BEPS)

IBFD Course Programme Current Issues in International Tax Planning

IBFD Course Programme Current Issues in International Tax Planning

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

PANEL I : Tax Treaties: opportunity or source of inequality?

Recent BEPS related legislation/guidance impacting Luxembourg

POSSIBLE UPDATE OF THE EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES HANDBOOK

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

Study on Structures of Aggressive Tax Planning and Indicators

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

Allocation of taxing rights to source countries under tax treaties. Richard J Vann Challis Professor of Law University of Sydney

Roundup of Australia s BEPS developments

EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESENTS ANTI-TAX AVOIDANCE PACKAGE

Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

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

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

VI. Permanent Establishments and Profit Attribution to Permanent Establishments

Recent and expected tax changes in Bulgaria and Greece important for cross-border operations

Trends in Indian Tax Policy: Practitioner's perspective

Comments on Public Discussion Draft: Clarification of the Meaning of Beneficial Owner in the OECD Model Tax Convention

Transcription:

Papers on Selected Topics in Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries Draft Outline - Paper No. 5 May 2014 Preventing Tax Treaty Abuse Graeme S. Cooper Professor of Tax Law, University of Sydney, Australia Draft papers and outlines on selected topics in protecting tax base of developing countries, are preliminary documents for circulation at the workshop on Tax base protection for developing countries (New York, 4 June 2014) to stimulate discussion and critical comments. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations Secretariat. The designations and terminology employed may not conform to United Nations practice and do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Organization. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs United Nations Secretariat, DC2-2178 New York, N.Y. 10017, USA Tel: (1-212) 963-8762 Fax: (1-212) 963-0443 e-mail: TaxffdCapDev@un.org http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/tax/2014tbp/ United Nations 1

Preventing Tax Treaty Abuse Graeme S. Cooper Many developing countries have already negotiated a number of tax treaties with their neighbours and with capital exporting countries, while others are keen to expand their existing tax treaty network. This chapter is about how developing countries can protect their domestic tax base against erosion through the abuse of the tax treaties they have negotiated or are pursuing. This chapter will provide an overview of the problem of tax treaty abuse and the range of potential options available to developing countries to counter it, including examples of country practices. Measures to counter the abuse of treaties can involve changes to domestic tax law and domestic administrative rules as well as changing provisions in future (and existing) treaties. 1 Some preliminary definitions and concepts: What is tax treaty abuse and why is it a problem? Treaties as a limit on source country tax. One of the principal effects of a tax treaty is to limit the ability of source countries to retain tax claimed under domestic law. As developing countries are predominantly source countries, rather than capital exporting countries, this effect is particularly important for them. When developing countries negotiate a treaty, therefore, they are making a decision to surrender tax claimed under domestic law in exchange for the benefits that the treaty promises. Treaties as negotiated bargains. Treaties are individually negotiated between sovereign states with the intention that the benefits delivered by a treaty are enjoyed only by the residents of the other contracting state. Where residents of third states are able to enjoy those benefits, governments cannot be sure that they will enjoy the other aspects of the bargain they have struck. The role of intention or purpose in defining the problem. It is not always easy to identify whether non-residents claiming to be entitled to the benefits of a treaty should be denied those benefits. Many different definitions and different terms are used to denote the inappropriate enjoyment of treaty benefits the most common being treaty shopping. Most of the definitions of treaty shopping or treaty abuse involve some notion of purpose or 2

intention that is the result of deliberate planning and conscious decision making, rather than a more objective set of facts and circumstances. Tests which rely upon notions of purpose or intention are notoriously difficult for tax administrations to administer and for taxpayers to comply with. It is not surprising, therefore, that other less abstract tests are used to control the misuse of treaties. These tests, however, can create their own problems if they are triggered in inappropriate circumstances. It can, therefore, be important to have a further fall-back, allowing the competent authorities to deliver access to treaties or deny access that might otherwise be given. Different types of treaty abuse. It can be helpful to draw a distinction between: shopping into a tax treaty a taxpayer resident in State C (a state which does not have a treaty with the source country, State A) puts in place a mechanism to get access to the treaty between State A and State B, and shopping between tax treaties a taxpayer resident in State C (a state which has a treaty with the source country, State A) puts in place a mechanism to get access to the treaty between State A and State B, instead of being subject to the terms of the treaty between State A and State B. As we will see, the difference can matter when tax officials try to decide what situation should be taxed in lieu of the offending situation ie, if the benefits of the treaty are to be denied what tax consequences follow instead? The importance of divergence in making treaty abuse attractive. The principal factors which encourage shopping into tax treaties and shopping between tax treaties are: the extent of the divergence of the tax treaty from the claims made under domestic tax law; and the extent of the divergences between tax treaties negotiated with different countries. Where the tax claims made by domestic law are not significantly reduced by the terms of a treaty and the terms of the individual treaties in a State s treaty network are not significantly different, the attractiveness of treaty shopping is much reduced. There is a place for States to consider the settings in their domestic law as a means of controlling treaty abuse. Important issues in choosing treaty partners. Source countries surrender tax claimed under domestic law in exchange for the benefits that the treaty promises. But source countries should also take into account whether amounts of income which they will no longer 3

be taxing will instead be taxed in the residence country. If income is not taxed in the residence country, this may be significant to the source country. 2 Examples of structures and instruments that might be used to defeat limits on treaty benefits This part of the chapter describes some common mechanisms used by multinational enterprises and investors by which treaty benefits can be inappropriately enjoyed: dual residence arrangements agency arrangements nominees and custodians bare trusts fiscally transparent entities interposed (shell) corporations interposed (substantive) corporations making base eroding payments tax exempt entities tax preference regimes labour hire arrangements income assignments income re-characterization indirect asset transfers Many of these arrangements should already be viewed as ineffective to deliver treaty benefits under language commonly used in the Model Treaties. However, some might not be able to be struck down. 3 Some examples of domestic law approaches to prevent treaty abuse Most countries will have domestic rules which can prevent or minimise the scope for tax treaty abuse. Two issues arise: making sure that a country has a complete set of domestic anti-avoidance rules and making sure that their operation is not limited by the terms of the country s tax treaties. Administrative requirements for overseeing access to treaty benefits can also be important. Administrative oversight of access to treaty benefits whether to deliver treaty benefits at source requirements for proving the entitlements to treaty benefits 4

ex post confirmation and verification using exchange of information to verify / detect Domestic tax base anti-avoidance rules thin capitalization rules CFC and PFIC rules offshore asset transfer rules transfer pricing rules SAARs GAARs Existing judicial doctrines may also play a role in preventing tax treaty abuse. 4 Implicit protections underlying the interpretation and operation of tax treaties The UN and the OECD Models have very detailed Commentary on the operation of various provisions in their Model Treaties. This Commentary also outlines doctrines and ideas which already underlie the operation and interpretation of tax treaties as international instruments. The Commentary to Article 1 of the UN Model examines the notion of the abuse of a treaty as a doctrine of international law which might allow the benefits of a treaty to be denied. The Commentary on individual articles in each Model also contains many passages which draw attention to possible interpretations of the text which can buttress the arguments of tax officials seeking to deny treaty benefits. The chapter will also discuss adjusting the preamble to future treaties as a means of clarifying the scope and application of the treaty. 5 Existing provisions in treaties to prevent treaty abuse This part of the chapter examines the operation of some common provisions in the text of the UN and OECD Models that already give a measure of protection against tax treaty abuse treaty definition of resident and how to handle transparent entities handling PEs properly beneficial ownership requirements 5

entertainers and athletes article 6 Provisions currently being encouraged to prevent abuse This part of the chapter examines a number of provisions that are currently being encouraged by the OECD and UN. Some are in common use; others are not. Developing countries may wish to include provisions such as these in their treaties in order to enhance the integrity of future treaties. specific limitation of benefit articles, especially in the dividend, interest and royalties articles conduit financing back to back transaction rules general limitation of benefit articles based on observable structural features o Status: listed and actively traded o Ownership: owned by resident individuals o Activity: engaged in active trade or business general limitation of benefits article based on a purpose test 7 Reconstruction of tax liabilities after the denial of benefits This part of the chapter considers the next question: having struck down an arrangement as involving the abuse of a particular treaty, what should be the tax consequences instead? This can be important in cases of shopping between treaties. 8 Modifying existing treaties to prevent treaty abuse This part of the chapter considers the special problem of a state that already has an extensive treaty network. In this situation, a slightly different question arises: what can be done to buttress that network, once the terms of the treaty have been negotiated? renegotiation exchange of notes unilateral treaty override terminating treaties 9 References 6

The chapter will include references to sources (available free on the Internet) discussing the problem of tax treaty abuse and mechanisms used by countries to protect the integrity of their tax treaty network 7