IFA Conference. Hybrid Instruments Olivier Van Ermengem May 2016, Nice. A and A

Similar documents
IFA Conference. Hybrid Instruments Olivier Van Ermengem May 2016, Nice

- Simplification rule for pure intermediary companies : remuneration

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

BEPS ACTION 2: NEUTRALISE THE EFFECTS OF HYBRID MISMATCH ARRANGEMENTS

WORKING PAPER. Brussels, 03 February 2017 WK 1119/2017 REV 1 LIMITE FISC ECOFIN

Hybrid and branch mismatch rules

Tax Insights Hybrid Mismatch and Multinational Group Financing Integrity Rules. Snapshot. 22 June 2018 Australia 2018/12

Neutralising the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch

EXPOSURE DRAFT TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (OECD HYBRID MISMATCH RULES) BILL 2017 EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

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

UK Anti-Hybrid Rules: Some challenges for corporate groups and a limited opportunity for improvements

LUXEMBOURG GLOBAL GUIDE TO M&A TAX: 2018 EDITION

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

OECD releases final BEPS package

Tax Management International Forum

BEPS Targets Commonly Used Canada-U.S. Hybrid Structures

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

PUBLIC INTRODUCTION /15 AS/FC/mpd 1 DG G 2B LIMITE EN. Council of the European Union Brussels, 23 November 2015 (OR. en) 14302/15 LIMITE

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

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

Tax Obstacles in Cross Border Planning

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

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

Taxation of financial instruments in a changing world

EFFECTS ON TRADING AND AND SOLUTIONS

WORKING PAPER. Brussels, 16 November 2016 WK 877/2016 INIT LIMITE FISC

FINLAND GLOBAL GUIDE TO M&A TAX: 2017 EDITION

Previous OECD work on hybrids concluded that hybrid mismatch arrangements:

Recent BEPS related legislation/guidance impacting Luxembourg

Taxation of cross-border mergers and acquisitions

Cyprus Tax Update. Kyiv May 2018

Dutch Tax Bill 2018: what will change?

Canadian Back-To-Back Loan Proposals

New Zealand to implement wide ranging international tax reforms

U.S. Tax Legislation Corporate and International Provisions. Corporate Law Provisions

C(C)CTB 28 February CORIT

Canada s federal budget affects back-to-back arrangements

BEPS and ATAD: Where do we stand?

Taxation of Investment Derivatives

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

Next Generation Fund Structuring Are you ready? 10 May 2017

UK ANTI-HYBRID RULES AN OVERVIEW

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

Trends I Netherlands moves away from fiscal offshore industry

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

Hybrid Entities; avoidance of double (non-) taxation under the Parent-Subsidiary Directive and the OECD Model Tax Convention

BELGIUM GLOBAL GUIDE TO M&A TAX: 2018 EDITION

3.2. EU Interest-Royalty Directive Background and force

MULTILATERAL INSTRUMENT

Answer-to-Question- 1

European Holding and Financing Companies, the OECD MLI, and EU Anti-Tax-Avoidance Directive

IMPLEMENTING THE REVISED PARENT SUBSIDIARY DIRECTIVE ACROSS THE EU

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

The OECD s 3 Major Tax Initiatives

BEPS CORNER. tax notes international. Hybrid Mismatches: Game Over? by Charles-Albert Helleputte and Séverine Bouvy

Managing Effective Tax Rate: Global Tax Reform Tax Executive Institute. May 1, 2017 Houston, TX

Proposed hybrid mismatch rules: impact on Australian securitisation industry

Spanish Tax Considerations for U.S. Investors

KPMG report: Initial impressions, proposed regulations implementing anti-hybrid provisions of new tax law

Dutch Tax Bill 2019: what will change?

BUDGET DAY CORPORATE AND INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

Luxembourg s draft law implementing EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive: A detailed review

UNITED KINGDOM GLOBAL GUIDE TO M&A TAX: 2017 EDITION

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

Sustainability of upper tier structures impact of BEPS

EU state aid and other developments. 18 November 2016

United Kingdom Tax Alert

Crossing Borders: International Acquisitions and Related Tax Issues, 2nd Edition John Giakoumakis, B.Sc., M.A., C.A., C.P.A.

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

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

Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill

Tackling Aggressive Tax Planning in the European Union - Recent Developments

IMPACT OF TAX ON M&A. Simon Fletcher 14 October 2016

Part I. Entity Classification under Domestic Tax Law

International Fiscal Association 2017 Rio de Janeiro Congress. cahiers. de droit fiscal international. volume 102. B: The future of transfer pricing

Structuring Investments into Africa: Tax and BITs Aspects

European Commission publishes Anti Tax Avoidance Package

CYPRUS GLOBAL GUIDE TO M&A TAX: 2017 EDITION

Tax Planning International Review

International Tax Primer Andrew D. Oppenheimer, Esq. October 31, 2017

General Comments on Deduction of Expenses by Mexican Companies and the Case of the Deduction of Pro-Rata Expenses

Qualification of taxable entities and treaty protection

Study on Structures of Aggressive Tax Planning and Indicators

UNITED NATIONS

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

Belgium introduces 100% participation exemption

LEGAL ALERT LUXEMBOURG UPCOMING TAX CHANGES NOVEMBER

Netherlands. Wouter Vosse & Servaas van Dooren Hamelink & Van den Tooren N.V.

BEPS Action 4. Webinar. 6 July 2016

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

Adverse Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty Hybrid Entity Rules Coming into Effect January 1, 2010

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

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

RSM InterTax Tax Insights February Belgian corporate income tax reform

CANADA GLOBAL GUIDE TO M&A TAX: 2018 EDITION

Parent Subsidiary Directive and Interest and Royalty Directive

Analysing BEPS Impact Private Equity sector

Tax Management International Forum

Addressing hybrid mismatch arrangements

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

Transcription:

IFA Conference. Hybrid Instruments Olivier Van Ermengem May 2016, Nice A31877602 and A31886727

OECD BEPS Report - Action 2 Neutralising the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements. Luxembourg

General principles and the consequences of a political momentum. 1. Double tax treaties Recognised by leading authors and courts as an important complimentary source of interpretation of bilateral treaties (based on the OECD model) Dynamic approach, i.e., interpretation in light of commentary in force at date of judges decision (CA, 17 Jan 2006, n 20316C), BUT only to the extent underlying provisions remain unchanged (CA 2 May 2013, n 32185C and 17 May 2013, n 32221C) 2. Transfer pricing Interpretation of arm s length principle introduced into Luxembourg tax law (art. 56, ITL and TP Circular) on the basis of OECD guidelines Position of the Luxembourg government in the FIAT Finance and Trade case 3. BEPS General intention to comply with BEPS initiatives, including addressing hybrid mismatch arrangements, BUT Not a first mover Luxembourg will probably await EU measures and implement a minima IFA Conference May 2016 2

EU Parent Subsidiary Directive Anti-Hybrid Rule. Luxembourg

Implementation a minima. Text of the new anti-hybrid rule [The Luxembourg participation exemption regime] shall not apply to any income within the meaning of Council Directive 2011/96/EU on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States of 30 November 2011 distributed by a company resident in another member state of the European Union as defined in article 2 of directive 2011/96/EU, to the extent that it is deductible in such Member State [ ]. - Article 166 of the Luxembourg Income Tax Law Scope of the Luxembourg anti-hybrid rule Only applicable to dividends Not applicable in a purely domestic context Not applicable where the subsidiary is resident in a third country outside the EU (contra, e.g., the Netherlands) Legal arguments supporting such position Literal interpretation: the anti-hybrid rule refers to dividends paid to a company resident in another member state Context: European directives aim at regulating a (European but) cross-border situation Reference to the scope of the initial Parent-Subsidiary Directive limits the scope of Council Directive 2014/86/EU Luxembourg traditionally follows the principle of an implementation a minima ( la directive, rien que la directive ) For future reference Doc. parl. 6847 and A31445805 IFA Conference May 2016 4

EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive and other expected changes. Luxembourg

What s in the pipeline - ATAD. Wording of proposed ATAD following Final Presidency Compromise dated 17 May 2016* Art. 2(8) - Definition of «hybrid mismatch» currently aligned with OECD definition i.e., targeting situations between associated enterprises and structured arrangements, but only between Member States Art. 10 - [ ] To the extent that a hybrid mismatch results in a deduction without inclusion, the Member State of the payer shall deny the deduction of such payment Typical situations Practical impact in Luxembourg (post ATAD implementation possibly as from 1 January 2018) Luxembourg payer under hybrid instrument (e.g., PEC), whereby recipient most of the time located in third country (e.g., U.S., Canada) Conversion of convertible debt instrument into shares of EU issuer and subsequent sale of such shares by Luxembourg parent Redemption by Luxembourg issuer of convertible debt instrument at FMV In scope, but impact limited, unless extended to third countries (as suggested during discussions leading to Presidency Compromise). Commission to propose a complement to the text on hybrid mismatches (to apply the provision also with third countries) by October 2016. Luxembourg grants rollover upon conversion of debt into equity. Is deferral of taxation sufficient to constitute non inclusion? Potentially, but in the present case presumably no deduction; liability to creditor simply replaced by «liability» to shareholder. If parent opts out of rollover regime, no non-inclusion, parent fully taxable on gains. A subsequent sale of shares should benefit from exemption. Deduction at Luxembourg issuer level, but presumably inclusion at EU parent level. If not, this rule would require Luxembourg payer to deny deduction. Luxembourg recipient of dividend from EU subsidiary In scope. In the event the Luxembourg recipient holds a debt instrument stapled with an equity instrument, Luxembourg has under its rules considered interest paid under the debt instrument (deductible at EU subsidiary level) as a dividend, exempt under the participation exemption regime (e.g., ELPD). The current anti-hybrid provision (even implemented a minima) requires a Luxembourg parent to include any income which is deductible in the subsidiary country into the taxable basis of the parent; the dividend would hence not benefit form the Luxembourg participation exemption regime. *Note: No agreement between Member States could be reached on 25 May, the proposal is expected to be rediscussed at the ECOFIN meeting on 17 June IFA Conference May 2016 6

Expected changes to standard structures. Luxembourg

Are PECs issued to a US investor bound to disappear? Example Payer jurisdiction treats preferred equity certificates ( PECs ) as debt and accruals/payments as deductible interest Payee jurisdiction (i.e., the US) treats PECs as equity, whereby payee is fully taxable at regular rates on returns earned, but only upon receipt, which is deferred Related US Investor (Payee) Tax Deferral Luxembourg payer uses funds received under the PECs to grant an ordinary loan to UK BidCo (the Ordinary Loan ) PECs OECD Recommendations Primary Rule: No (immediate) deduction in payer jurisdiction No provision of Luxembourg law currently allowing this principle to be applied; ATAD will (at least initially) only apply to EU Member States Defensive rule: Ordinary income inclusion in payee jurisdiction As a rule Luxembourg payer, not payee Luxembourg HoldCo (Payer) Interest Deduction Ordinary Loan UK BidCo IFA Conference May 2016 8

Are PECs issued to a US investor bound to disappear? Cont ed. Interpretation of difference in timing of recognition in line with OECD Action 2 Safe harbour No mismatch if payment required to be included in ordinary income by payee in an accounting period that commences within 12 months of the end of the payer s accounting period Interest payments on PECs financing tax exempt shares are subject to Luxembourg domestic recapture rule (i.e., no deduction to the extent of tax exempt income received). Is this sufficient to render anti-hybrid rule not applicable (partially)? A difference in timing of recognition of payments will not give rise to D/NI outcome if payer can establish, to the satisfaction of the tax administration, that payee can be expected to include the payment in ordinary income within a reasonable period of time (OECD Final Report on Item 2, Rec. 1.1, 56) Special situations: Related US Investor (Payee) Luxembourg HoldCo (Payer) PECs Tax Deferral Interest Deduction Lender has right to waive interest at any time prior to payment? (OECD Final Report on Item 2, (OECD Final Report on Item 2, Ex. 1.21) Dividend blocker (e.g., majority shareholder receives no dividend if minority shareholder does not receive actual payment of interest under PEC (OECD Final Report on Item 2, Ex. 1.22) Imported mismatch rule requires disallowance in payer jurisdiction (UK) of deductions under an instrument (Ordinary Loan) ultimately sheltered by a hybrid instrument (absent effective mismatch rules); implementation in the UK may create issues with common structures involving UK corporate tax payer UK BidCo Ordinary Loan Refusal of immediate deduction given imported mismatch rules IFA Conference May 2016 9

MRPS and non tax hybrids. Mandatorily redeemable preferred shares ( MRPS ) In Luxembourg, MRPS generally equity from corporate law perspective (formal approach) and debt for tax purposes (domestic hybrid) MRPS may qualify as equity abroad (e.g., in Canada), hence MRPS in scope Recent LTA position: accounting opinion that MRPS qualify as debt under Lux GAAP required to benefit from debt qualification for tax purposes Anti-hybrid rule will eliminate deduction; however probably no change in character of payment, hence arguably no dividend withholding tax (domestic legislation) Additional Tier 1 Capital Eligibility criteria: Subordination even to subordinated creditors, no or very long maturity, full discretion of the issuer to postpone/cancel distributions, coupons payable solely out of distributable income Luxembourg tax follows (i) Lux GAAP rather than IFRS and (ii) substance over form principle ( 11 StAnpG) Generally, instruments such as additional tier one capital qualify as debt instruments for Luxembourg tax purposes (notwithstanding equity features); entitlement to deduct coupons, no withholding tax at Luxembourg issuer level and inclusion at holder level Hybrid features do not aim at achieving hybrid treatment for tax purposes, but only for IFRS / Basel III Guidelines, i.e., they often qualify as debt in both payer and payee jurisdiction; additional tier 1 capital should not be caught by Action 2 IFA Conference May 2016 10