EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESENTS ANTI-TAX AVOIDANCE PACKAGE

Similar documents
European Commission publishes Anti Tax Avoidance Package

A8-0189/ Proposal for a directive (COM(2016)0026 C8-0031/ /0011(CNS)) Text proposed by the Commission

The Anti Tax Avoidance Package Questions and Answers (Updated)

2017 Global BEPS Survey Report

Recent BEPS related legislation/guidance impacting Luxembourg

The Anti Tax Avoidance Package Questions and Answers

BEPS and ATAD: Where do we stand?

AMENDMENTS EN United in diversity EN. European Parliament 2016/0011(CNS) Draft report Hugues Bayet (PE578.

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

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

Base erosion & profit shifting (BEPS) 25 May 2016

7148/16 HG/NT/kp,vm DGG 2B

Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries: An Overview

Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting

EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Package: impacts on the real estate industry

Delegations will find attached the text of the draft Directive, resulting from the discussions held at the ECOFIN Council of 8 March 2016.

Presentation by Shigeto HIKI

Tax & Legal Weekly Alert

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

The OECD s 3 Major Tax Initiatives

EU's Anti-Tax Avoidance Proposal Is Problematic

Tax Obstacles in Cross Border Planning

The OECD report on base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) and EU measures against aggressive tax planning and tax fraud

International Taxation Recent Developments in India

OECD releases final BEPS package

How BEPS fits in with the EU s tax agenda. The European Union (EU) has actively participated in the entire

Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE. amending Directive (EU) 2016/1164 as regards hybrid mismatches with third countries. {SWD(2016) 345 final}

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document. Proposal for a Council Directive

IBFD Course Programme Current Issues in International Tax Planning

CA T. P. OSTWAL. T. P. Ostwal & Associates LLP

BASE EROSION PROFIT SHARING INITIATIVE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE BAHAMAS

EU Developments: C(C)CTB and corporate tax reform

The EU draft anti-avoidance directive (ATAD) A focus on CFC rules from a Swiss perspective

Australian perspective on 2015 BEPS package

Welcome to the EFS-seminar. BEPS and transfer pricing, but what about VAT and Customs? Conference Chairman: René van der Paardt

IBFD Course Programme Current Issues in International Tax Planning

2016 GLOBAL BEPS READINESS SURVEY REPORT

AmCham EU s position on the Commission Anti-Tax Avoidance Package

Engaging title in Green Descriptive element in Blue 2 lines if needed

The International Tax Landscape

TAX EVASION AND AVOIDANCE: Questions and Answers

a) Title of proposal Proposal for a Council Directive amending Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1164 as regards hybrid mismatches with third countries

The conceptual boundaries of tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning. Pasquale Pistone Kiev (Ukraine), 6 February 2018

Roundup of Australia s BEPS developments

Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

IBFD Course Programme BEPS Country Implementation

Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE

ATRiD: Harmonizing the rules on the allocation of taxing rights within the EU and in the relations with third countries

Study on Structures of Aggressive Tax Planning and Indicators

BEPS Country-by-Country Reporting Rules and New Documentation Requirements

CPA Esther Wahome. Thursday, 16 August 2018

Agreement on EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive

THE OECD S REPORT ON HARMFUL TAX COMPETITION JOANN M. WEINER * & HUGH J. AULT **

Hybrid mismatches with third countries

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

WORKING PAPER. Financial Counsellors - ECOFIN preparation Presidency Issues Note on 'Tax Certainty in a Changing Environment'

European Commission releases package on taxation of the digital economy

EU state aid and other developments. 18 November 2016

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

Prior to joining Microsoft, Angel worked for Arthur Andersen in their New York Office.

Tax and Legal News. Changes in the Slovak tax legislation and other topics

Tackling Aggressive Tax Planning in the European Union - Recent Developments

International Tax Cooperation

The UAE has joined the Inclusive Framework on BEPS

INCEPTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Hot topics Treasury seminar

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL. Building a fair, competitive and stable corporate tax system for the EU

OECD meets with business on base erosion and profit shifting action plan

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

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

Recent developments in international tax

Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE. on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) {SWD(2016) 341 final} {SWD(2016) 342 final}

BEPS: What does it mean for funds and asset managers?

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

Practical Implications of BEPS

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

Gijs Fibbe (Baker Tilly / Erasmus University) Bart Le Blanc (Norton Rose Fulbright) Andrew Roycroft (Norton Rose Fulbright) September 25, 2017

Review on Transparency and Disclosure: From the perspective of Bangladesh and other developing countries

A FAIR SHARE. Taxation in the EU for the 21st century

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

A Guide To Changes In Irish Tax Rules

Official Journal of the European Union. (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES

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

Tax Planning International Review

Examining the impact of BEPS on the life sciences sector. Overview of select BEPS final reports and timing of implementation

5. Ireland is Countering Aggressive Tax Planning

THE INTERSECTION OF TAX & TREASURY

IBFD Course Programme International Tax Planning after BEPS and the MLI

Flash News. PwC Luxembourg BEPS Series- What it means for the Luxembourg Asset Management industry

International Tax Update. Friday, December 1, 2017 Grant Thornton's Year End taxguide Event Brandon Joseph Senior Manager, International Tax

PwC s comments on Action 6

Contents. Introduction. Good tax system - Canons of taxation. What is a competitive tax system? Post BEPS era New world order in tax?

BEPS Impact on Manufacturing

G8/G20 TAXATION ISSUES : Tax Training Day, ODI, London 16 September 2013

Response to the Department of Finance "Consultation on Coffey Review" January 2018

Global FS view on BEPS latest developments for asset managers. Event Date: Thursday 22 October Event Time: 9am EDT/3pm CET

The OECD BEPS Project and Developing Countries

Headline Verdana Bold International Tax matters ICPAU Tax Seminar, Hotel Africana November, 2017

Comments on Public Consultation Document Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digitalisation of the Economy

IFA Colombia V CONGRESO COLOMBIANO DE TRIBUTACIÓN INTERNACIONAL November 2016

Transcription:

EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESENTS ANTI-TAX AVOIDANCE PACKAGE tax.thomsonreuters.com

On January 28, 2016, the European Commission presented its Communication on the Anti-Tax Avoidance Package (ATA Package). The goal of the Package is to prevent aggressive tax planning, increase tax transparency and create a level playing field for businesses in the EU. According to Commissioner Moscovici, tax evasion results in a 50 70 billion loss each year in the EU. Moscovici said that the ATA Package offers measures to prevent companies from transferring profits to tax havens and from taking advantage of differences in national legislation to reduce taxes. The measures will also strengthen rules against the misuse of bilateral tax agreements. Moscovici also touched on country-by-country (CbC) reports and the exchange of information across member states. Although the information in the reports should not be made public, the Commission is considering amending this rule going forward. According to the ATA Package, certain corporations have not been paying their fair share of taxes and a coordinated approach to tackle tax avoidance is essential for a well-functioning Single Market. The Commission discouraged unilateral and uncoordinated actions by member states to close the tax gap as this could potentially undermine the effectiveness of rules in other states. In some cases, the Commission said that legislation that the EU proposed is the appropriate course to ensure that a minimum standard is set across all states. In the case of tax treaties, however, a Commission Recommendation is viewed as a better option and would provide guidance on an EU-law compatible approach. Transparency is essential in ensuring fairer taxation among member states. Three of the primary measures in the ATA Package are: 1. Amendments to the existing administrative cooperation directive to implement CbC reporting, as recommended in the OECD BEPS Action 13 final report 2. Draft anti-tax avoidance directive (ATA Directive) that incorporates the recommendations from OECD BEPS Actions 2-4 3. Recommendations to EU member states on how to reinforce tax treaties in an EU-law compliant manner Within the EU, Directives are legally binding on all member states, requiring them to adopt legislation that is at minimum in line with the rules in the respective Directive. In order for the ATA Package to be adopted, unanimous consent of all member states is required. The current draft ATA Directive is the second draft, following an earlier version from December 2015. The Commission has an ambitious goal to have this draft approved in the next four to six months, which would allow the ATA Directive to become effective as early as January 1, 2017. 2

ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION DIRECTIVE TO IMPLEMENT CBC REPORTING (BEPS ACTION 13) On January 28, 2016, the Commission proposed a Council Directive ( CbC Directive ) that would amend Council Directive 2011/16/EU, addressing the political priority of combating tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning. The CbC Directive responds to demands of the European Parliament, imposing transparency requirements on multinational enterprises (MNEs), and is in line with the initiatives announced in the Commission s Action Plan on a Fairer Corporate Tax System (COM (2015) 302) to tackle tax avoidance. In its Communication on the ATA Package, the Commission acknowledged that transparency is essential in ensuring fairer taxation among member states. As a result, these states need to have access to information on taxes paid in other jurisdictions. In March 2015, the Commission introduced a proposal aimed at achieving additional transparency through the automatic exchange of information on cross-border tax rulings, a topic discussed by the OECD BEPS Action 5 recommendations. The Council adopted the proposal in December 2015. Nevertheless, tax administrations continue to lack information necessary to identify companies that have artificially shifted substantial amounts of income into low- or no-tax jurisdictions through transfer pricing or other practices. The CbC Directive requires MNEs to provide annually and for each tax jurisdiction in which they do business, certain information including the amount of revenue, profit before income tax, income tax paid and accrued, number of employees, stated capital, retained earnings and tangible assets. This information will enable tax authorities to react to harmful tax practices through changes in legislation or adequate risk assessments and tax audits. Increased transparency should also incentivize MNEs to pay their fair share of tax in the country where profits are made. The new transparency requirements should ensure that the administrative burden imposed on businesses is minimized. EU MNEs should not be obligated to submit the information to each EU member state where they operate, but only to the tax authorities of their country of residence. The CbC Directive requires member states, on receipt of the CbC report, to share the information with other states in which companies are either resident for tax purposes or are subject to tax, with respect to the business carried out through a permanent establishment (PE). To ensure an appropriate balancing of reporting burden and benefit to tax administrations, only MNEs with total consolidated group revenue of at least 750 million will be required to file the CbC report. According to OECD estimations, approximately 85% 90% of MNEs will be excluded from the requirement, but the CbC report will nevertheless be filed by MNEs controlling approximately 90% of corporate revenues. EU legislation provides for administrative cooperation between member states tax authorities and sets out rules, including exchange of information, to assist them in collecting revenues. Council Directive 77/799/EEC 1 was the first response to member states need for enhanced mutual assistance in taxation. The purpose of the present proposal is to ensure that Council Directive 2011/16/EU continues to provide for comprehensive and effective administrative cooperation between tax administrations through the mandatory automatic exchange of information regarding CbC reports. Approximately 85% 90% of MNEs will be excluded from the requirement, but the CbC report will nevertheless be filed by MNEs controlling approximately 90% of corporate revenues. 3

The CbC Directive is in line with international developments. On October 5, 2015, the OECD presented its BEPS final reports, which represented a major initiative for modifying existing international tax rules. On November 15 16, 2015, the G20 leaders endorsed the OECD package. The work on OECD BEPS Action 13 resulted in a set of standards for providing information on MNEs transfer pricing positions, including the master file, local file and CbC report. Most member states, in their capacity as OECD members, have committed to implementing the BEPS final reports. The goal of the CbC Directive is to achieve a certain degree of uniformity in implementing OECD BEPS Action 13 across the EU. The Directive also intends to foster fair competition between businesses and ultimately to protect the tax base of EU member states. It provides for the automatic information exchange of CbC reporting to build on the existing rules in Council Directive 2011/16/EU, including the use of standard forms. The Commission is currently analyzing whether to make public, on an EU-wide level, the information submitted by MNEs on the CbC report. By making this information public, the Commission aims to ensure that profits are effectively taxed where generated and unfair differences in tax treatment between companies are reduced. However, the analysis should take into account the need to protect legitimate business secrets and promote a level playing field. ANTI-TAX AVOIDANCE DIRECTIVE (BEPS ACTIONS 2 4) On January 28, 2016, the Commission presented its ATA Directive, which is broadly inclusive and aims to capture all taxpayers that are subject to corporate tax in a member state. Its scope also includes PEs, located in the EU, of corporate taxpayers that are not subject to the Directive. The ATA Directive encourages member states to take a more coordinated stance against companies that seek to avoid paying their fair share of tax and to implement international standards against base erosion and profit shifting. The schemes targeted include situations where taxpayers take advantage of disparities between national tax systems to reduce their taxes. Taxpayers may benefit from low tax rates, double deductions or having income deductible in one jurisdiction but not included in another jurisdiction. These situations distort business decisions and create unfair tax competition. This Directive aims to achieve a balance between the need for a certain degree of uniformity in implementing the BEPS outputs across the EU and Member States needs to accommodate the special features of their tax systems within these new rules. The ATA Directive lays down anti-tax avoidance rules in six specific fields, some of which were also discussed by the OECD BEPS Project: 1. Deductibility of interest see also OECD BEPS Action 4 recommendations 2. Exit taxation 3. Switch-over clause 4. General anti-abuse rule (GAAR) 5. Controlled foreign company (CFC) rules see also OECD BEPS Action 3 recommendations 6. Framework to tackle hybrid mismatches see also OECD BEPS Action 2 recommendations A coordinated EU approach with regard to these rules would strengthen the link between profit generation and taxation. Each of these topics is discussed on the next page. 4

DEDUCTIBILITY OF INTEREST MNEs often finance group entities in high-tax jurisdictions through debt and arrange that these companies pay back interest to subsidiaries resident in low-tax jurisdictions. As a result, the MNE deducts interest at a higher tax rate, while including the amount in income at a lower rate. Overall, the outcome is a reduced tax base for the MNE as a whole. The ATA Directive intends to discourage this practice by limiting the amount of interest that the taxpayer is entitled to deduct in a tax year. Net interest expenses will be deductible only up to a fixed ratio based on the taxpayer s gross operating profit. The OECD recommends that the rate for deductibility be 10% 30%, and member states can introduce stricter rules. Although it is generally accepted that financial undertakings, i.e. financial institutions and insurance undertakings, should also be subject to limitations on interest deductibility, it is also acknowledged that these two sectors present special features that call for a more customized approach. Contrary to other sectors of the economy, financial undertakings are part of their core trade. EXIT TAXATION Taxpayers may try to reduce their tax bill by moving their tax residence or assets or both to a low-tax jurisdiction. Such practices distort the market because they erode the tax base of the state of departure and shift future profits to low-tax jurisdictions. If taxpayers move their tax residence out of a certain member state, that state will be deprived of its future right to tax revenues, which may have already been created but not yet realized. The same issue arises when taxpayers transfer assets (without disposing of them) out of a member state and those assets incorporate unrealized profits. Editor s Note: The U.S. has attempted to address the same issue by tightening its rules regarding corporate inversions in Treasury Notices 2014-52, 2014-42 IRB 712 and 2015-79, 2015-49 IRB 775. 5

GAAR Where current tax legislation does not protect sufficiently against tax-avoidance schemes, jurisdictions implement GAAR, which allows abusive tax practices to be captured despite the absence of a specific anti-tax avoidance rule. The proposed GAAR is designed to reflect the artificiality tests of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) when this is applied within the EU. CFC RULES Taxpayers with controlled subsidiaries in low-tax jurisdictions may engage in tax planning to shift large amounts of profits out of the (higher-taxed) parent company toward lower-taxed subsidiaries. The effect is to reduce the group s overall tax liability. The income shifted to the subsidiary is usually mobile passive income. A common scheme consists of first transferring, within a group, the ownership of intangible assets (e.g., IP) to the CFC and later shifting large amounts of income in the form of royalty payments in consideration for the right to use the assets owned and managed by the CFC. The functioning of the EU internal market is affected by these profit-shifting practices, primarily when the income is shifted out of the EU toward low-tax third countries. CFC rules re-attribute the income of a low-taxed controlled foreign subsidiary to its parent company. As a result, the parent company is taxed on this income in its state of residence. CFC legislation, therefore, aims to eliminate the incentive of shifting income. The functioning of the EU internal market is affected by these profit-shifting practices, primarily when the income is shifted out of the EU toward low-tax third countries. FRAMEWORK TO TACKLE HYBRID MISMATCHES Hybrid mismatches are the consequence of differences in the legal characterization of payments (financial instruments) or entities when two legal systems interact. Such mismatches often lead to double deductions (i.e., deduction on both sides of the border) or a deduction of the income on one side of the border without its inclusion on the other side. Taxpayers, especially those engaged in cross-border structures, often take advantage of such disparities among national tax systems to reduce their overall tax liability. This problem has been explored by both the Group of the Code of Conduct on Business Taxation and the OECD. To ensure that member states introduce rules to effectively combat these mismatches, this Directive says that the legal characterization given to a hybrid instrument or entity by the member state where a payment, expense or loss originates will be followed by the other member state involved in the mismatch. 6

TREATY ABUSE There are specific circumstances that would not be suited to a standalone Directive. In particular, issues relating to tax treaties have not been included in the ATA Directive. Nevertheless, a coordinated approach is necessary to prevent further tax evasion. The Commission, therefore, presented a recommendation on the implementation of measures relating to PEs, as well as to the G20/OECD report on tax treaty abuse. The recommendation says: It is essential for the good functioning of the internal market that the Member States are able to operate efficient tax systems and prevent their tax bases from being unduly eroded because of inadvertent non-taxation and abuse and that the solutions to protect their tax bases create no undue mismatches and market distortions. The OECD and EU support rules that make it more difficult for companies to artificially avoid having a taxable presence in a member state or to abuse tax treaty agreements. The ATA Package recommends that member states that conclude tax treaties with other states and with third parties apply the proposed new provisions to Article 5 of the OECD Model Tax Convention to address artificial avoidance of PE status addressed in the OECD BEPS Action 7 report. Although the OECD BEPS Action 6 report includes limitation-of-benefits clauses as an option, the Commission acknowledged this may not be appropriate in all jurisdictions. These clauses limit the benefits of tax treaties to entities owned by residents of only one member state and, therefore, can be seen as detrimental to the Single Market by discouraging cross-border investment. Therefore, when member states include rules based on the G20/OECD option of a principal purpose test in their tax treaties, the Commission recommends that they should do so in an EU-law compliant manner and include additional specific language to further prevent tax treaty abuse. CONCLUSION The measures outlined in the ATA Package give the member states a single and coordinated approach to address tax avoidance. The Commission s goal is to create a level playing field for EU businesses, creating a common standard by which each jurisdiction can follow. It will be up to each member state to take advantage of this standard during implementation. 7

BEPS SOLUTIONS EMPOWERING YOU WITH KNOWLEDGE. PREPARING YOU FOR ACTION. Thomson Reuters BEPS research and technology solutions empower you with up-to-date knowledge, analysis and documentation tools to respond, comply and advise as new laws and standards are passed on a country-by-country basis. We combine data, software and research with global and local expertise to solve multinational tax compliance challenges. LEARN MORE TAX.THOMSONREUTERS.COM/BEPS THOMSON REUTERS CHECKPOINT BEPS GLOBAL CURRENTS Get the clarity and perspective you need to see beyond the surface of the OECD BEPS Action Plan and better understand its impact on your organization. Thomson Reuters Checkpoint BEPS Global Currents provides a comprehensive and customizable overview of the latest BEPS developments for all 15 Action Items in 47 countries, enabling you to respond proactively to new developments, make strategic plans to minimize impact to your organization and ensure you are in compliance with new laws and standards as they are passed by various countries. LEARN MORE TAX.THOMSONREUTERS.COM/BEPS-GLOBAL-CURRENTS THOMSON REUTERS ONESOURCE BEPS ACTION MANAGER Thomson Reuters ONESOURCE BEPS Action Manager combines research, data management, entity charting, document storage, reporting and analytics in a single solution, guaranteeing worldwide compliance and collaboration in a post-beps era. Across the globe, from start to finish, BEPS Action Manager lays the foundation for a standardized and sustainable worldwide data collection process, enabling multinational corporations to document and report their results to taxing authorities. With up-to-date research, valuable risk assessments and intuitive analytics, multinational tax departments can remain current amidst an ever-evolving legislative landscape and stay ahead of inquiries from various tax administrations. LEARN MORE TAX.THOMSONREUTERS.COM/BEPS-ACTION-MANAGER tax.thomsonreuters.com 2016 Thomson Reuters/Tax & Accounting. All rights reserved. T-600925 8