Thursday, September 20, 2018
State aid: Commission investigation did not find that Luxembourg gave selective tax treatment to McDonald's
The Commission has found that the non-taxation of certain McDonald's profits in Luxembourg did not lead to illegal State aid, as it is in line with national tax laws and the Luxembourg-United States Double Taxation Treaty.
At the same time, the Commission welcomes steps taken by Luxembourg to prevent future double non-taxation.
Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, said: "The Commission investigated under EU State aid rules whether the double non-taxation of certain McDonald's profits was the result of Luxembourg misapplying its national laws and the Luxembourg-US Double Taxation Treaty, in favour of McDonald's. EU State aid rules prevent Member States from giving unfair advantages only to selected companies, including through illegal tax benefits. However, our in-depth investigation has shown that the reason for double non-taxationin this case is a mismatch between Luxembourg and US tax laws, and not a special treatment by Luxembourg. Therefore, Luxembourg did not break EU State aid rules.
Of course, the fact remains that McDonald's did not pay any taxes on these profits – and this is not how it should be from a tax fairness point of view. That's why I very much welcome that the Luxembourg Government is taking legislative steps to address the issue that arose in this case and avoid such situations in the future."
Following an in-depth investigation launched in December 2015, based on doubts that Luxembourg might have misapplied its Double Taxation Treaty with the United States, the Commission has concluded that Luxembourg's tax treatment of McDonald's Europe Franchising does not violate the Double Taxation Treaty with the United States. On that basis the tax rulings granted to McDonald's do not infringe EU State aid rules.
McDonald's Europe Franchising corporate structure
McDonald's Europe Franchising is a subsidiary of McDonald's Corporation, based in the United States. The company is tax resident in Luxembourg and has two branches, one in the United States and the other in Switzerland. In 2009, McDonald's Europe Franchising acquired a number of McDonald's franchise rights from McDonald's Corporation in the United States, which it subsequently allocated internally to the US branch of the company.
As a result, McDonald's Europe Franchising receives royalties from franchisees operating McDonald's fast food outlets in Europe, Ukraine and Russia for the right to use the McDonald's brand.
McDonald's Europe Franchising also set up a Swiss branch responsible for the licensing of the franchise rights to franchisors and through which royalty payments flowed from Luxembourg to the US branch of the company.
McDonald's tax rulings in Luxembourg
In March 2009, the Luxembourg authorities granted McDonald's Europe Franchising a first tax ruling confirming that the company did not need to pay corporate tax in Luxembourg since the profits would be subject to taxation in the United States. This was justified by reference to the Luxembourg – US Double Taxation Treaty, which exempts income from corporate taxation in Luxembourg, if it may be taxed in the United States. Under this first ruling, McDonald's Europe Franchising was required to submit proof every year to the Luxembourg tax authorities that the royalties transferred to the United States via Switzerland were declared and subject to taxation in the United States and in Switzerland.
Following this first tax ruling, the Luxembourg authorities and McDonald's engaged in discussions concerning the taxable presence of McDonald's Europe Franchising in the United States (a so-called "permanent establishment"). McDonald's claimed that although the US branch was not a "permanent establishment" according to US tax law, it was a "permanent establishment" according to Luxembourg tax law. As a result, the royalty income should be exempt from taxation under Luxembourg corporate tax law.
The Luxembourg authorities ultimately agreed with this interpretation and, in September 2009, issued a second tax ruling according to which McDonald's Europe Franchising was no longer required to prove that the royalty income was subject to taxation in the United States.
The role of EU State aid control is to ensure that Member States do not give selected companies a better treatment than others, through tax rulings or otherwise. In this context, the Commission's in-depth investigation assessed whether the Luxembourg authorities selectively derogated from the provisions of their national tax law and the Luxembourg – US Double Taxation Treaty and gave McDonald's an advantage not available to other companies subject to the same tax rules.
The Commission concluded that this was not the case.
In particular, it could not be established that the interpretation given by the second tax ruling to the Luxembourg – US Double Taxation Treaty was incorrect, although it resulted in the double non-taxation of the royalties attributed to the US branch. Therefore, the Commission found that the Luxembourg authorities did not misapply the Luxembourg –US Double Taxation Treaty and that the tax advantage conferred to McDonald's Europe Franchising cannot be considered State aid.
McDonald's Europe Franchising's US branch did not fulfil the relevant provisions under the US tax code to be considered a permanent establishment.
At the same time, the Commission found that the Luxembourg authorities could exempt the US branch of McDonald's Europe Franchising from corporate taxation without violating the Double Taxation Treaty because the US branch could be considered a permanent establishment according to Luxembourg tax law. Under the relevant provision in the Luxembourg tax code, the business carried on by the US branch of McDonald's Europe Franchising fulfilled all the conditions of a permanent establishment under Luxembourg tax law.
Therefore, the Commission concluded that the Luxembourg authorities did not misapply the Luxembourg – US Double Taxation Treaty by exempting the income of the US branch from Luxembourg corporate taxation.
Preventing future double non-taxation in Luxembourg
This interpretation of the Luxembourg – US Double Taxation Treaty led to double non-taxation of the franchise income of McDonald's Europe Franchising.
The Luxembourg government presented on 19 June 2018 draft legislation to amend the tax code to bring the relevant provision into line with the OECD's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project and to avoid similar cases of double non-taxation in the future. This is currently being discussed by the Luxembourg Parliament.
Under the proposed new provision, the conditions to determine the existence of a permanent establishment under Luxembourg law would be strengthened. In addition, Luxembourg would be able to, under certain conditions, require companies that claim to have a taxable presence abroad to submit confirmation that they are indeed subject to taxation in the other country.
Tax rulings as such are not a problem under EU State aid rules, if they simply confirm that tax arrangements between companies within the same group comply with the relevant tax legislation. However, tax rulings that confer a selective tax advantage to specific companies can distort competition within the EU's Single Market, in breach of EU State aid rules.
Since June 2013, the Commission has been investigating individual tax rulings of Member States under EU State aid rules. It extended this information inquiry to all Member States in December 2014.
Regarding investigations concerning tax rulings that have already been concluded by the Commission:
- In October 2015, the Commission concluded that Luxembourg and the Netherlands had granted selective tax advantages to Fiat and Starbucks, respectively. As a result of these decisions, Luxembourg recovered €23.1 million from Fiat and the Netherlands recovered €25.7 million from Starbucks.
- In January 2016, the Commission concluded that selective tax advantages granted by Belgium to at least 35 multinationals, mainly from the EU, under its "excess profit" tax scheme are illegal under EU State aid rules. The total amount of aid to be recovered from 35 companies is estimated at approximately €900 million, including interest. Belgium has already recovered over 90% of the aid.
- In August 2016, the Commission concluded that Ireland granted undue tax benefits to Apple, which led to a recovery by Ireland of €14.3 billion.
- In October 2017, the Commission concluded that Luxembourg granted undue tax benefits to Amazon, which led to a recovery by Luxembourg of €282.7 million.
- In June 2018, the Commission concluded that Luxembourg granted undue tax benefits to Engie of around €120 million. The recovery procedure is still ongoing.
The Commission also has one ongoing in-depth investigation concerning tax rulings issued by the Netherlands in favour of Inter IKEA, and one investigation concerning a tax scheme for multinationals in the United Kingdom.
Statement by Commissioner Vestager on Commission decision that the non-taxation of certain McDonald's profits in Luxembourg is not illegal State aid
The Commission has today decided that the non-taxation of certain McDonald's profits in Luxembourg is not illegal State aid.
Our case concerned two tax rulings granted by Luxembourg to McDonald's in 2009. These exempt from taxation in Luxembourg all franchise profits that McDonald's receives from third parties operating McDonald's outlets in Europe, the Ukraine and Russia. In the first ruling, Luxembourg falsely assumed that these profits were taxable in the US. They were not. In the second ruling, Luxembourg then removed any obligation on McDonald's to prove that the revenues were taxable in the US. This means that these profits were neither taxed in Luxembourg nor the US.
The Commission investigated under EU State aid rules whether this double non-taxation was the result of Luxembourg misapplying its national laws and the Luxembourg-US Double Taxation Treaty, in favour of McDonald's. EU State aid rules prevent Member States from giving unfair advantages only to selected companies, including through illegal tax benefits.
However, our in-depth investigation has shown that the reason for double non-taxation in this case is a mismatch between Luxembourg and US tax laws, and not a special treatment by Luxembourg. Therefore, we concluded that Luxembourg did not break EU State aid rules.
Details of the McDonald's structure
First, let me tell you a bit more about the facts of the case.
Our case concerns McDonald's Europe Franchising, a Luxembourg-based subsidiary of the McDonald's Corporation. This company also has a branch in the US.
McDonald's Europe Franchising owns the rights to the McDonald's brand and other related rights. It licenses these rights to third parties, who operate the McDonald's fast food outlets and pay franchise fees to McDonald's Europe Franchising.
In February 2009, McDonald's Europe Franchising contacted the Luxembourg tax authorities to ask for a tax ruling confirming that profits from its franchise rights would not be taxable in Luxembourg. McDonald's claimed that this was because these rights are attributed to its US branch. It further argued that the Luxembourg – US Double Taxation Treaty exempts from taxation in Luxembourg any income that may be taxed in the US, if the company has a taxable presence there, for example through a branch.
In March 2009, the Luxembourg authorities issued a first tax ruling agreeing to McDonald's interpretation of the Double Taxation Treaty. At the same time, they requested that the company provide proof that the income of the US branch had been declared and could indeed be taxed in the US.
However, six months later, the Luxembourg tax authorities issued a second tax ruling that removed this requirement to submit proof. In other words, Luxembourg confirmed that the income is exempt from taxation in Luxembourg as well, even though it is not taxable at the US branch.
The State aid investigation
You may wonder how Luxembourg can rely on a Treaty meant to avoid double taxation to endorse double non-taxation. We asked ourselves the same question, which is why we opened a State aid investigation in December 2015.
The purpose of such investigations is to give the Member State and company concerned, as well as other third parties, the opportunity to submit their views on the Commission's preliminary concerns. We then carefully assess them.
The short summary of our conclusion in this case is that the Double Taxation Treaty between Luxembourg and the US explains Luxembourg's tax treatment of McDonald's. Luxembourg did not misapply the Treaty in a selective manner and, on that basis, did not break EU State aid rules.
The more complicated answer starts with a taxation concept called "permanent establishment". If a company has a "permanent establishment" in a specific country, this means that it carries out business and has a taxable presence there.
The Luxembourg – US Double Taxation Treaty says that Luxembourg cannot tax the profits of companies, if they may be taxed in the US because they have a permanent establishment there. Luxembourg can assume that the income of this permanent establishment is taxed in the US.
However, whether a permanent establishment exists in the US is assessed differently by the US and by the Luxembourg tax authorities, under their respective tax codes.
The US did not consider the US branch of McDonald's Europe Franchising to be a permanent establishment under its tax law, and so did not tax the profits of this US branch. However, the Luxembourg authorities considered that the same US branch fulfilled all the conditions necessary to be a permanent establishment under Luxembourg tax law. It therefore exempted this income from Luxembourg taxation in line with the Double Taxation Treaty.
The result was double non-taxation of the income by Luxembourg and the US. However, this was not due to any special treatment awarded by Luxembourg to McDonald's, which was the issue that our investigation under EU State aid rules focused on. In other words, Luxembourg's tax treatment of McDonald's is not illegal under EU State aid rules.
As usual, we will publish the non-confidential version of our decision as soon as we have agreed with Luxembourg on any business secrets that need to be removed from it.
New Luxembourg tax rules
Of course, the fact remains that McDonald's did not pay any taxes in Luxembourg on these profits – and this is not how it should be from a tax fairness point of view.
That's why I very much welcome that the Luxembourg Government is taking legislative steps to address the issue that arose in this case and avoid such situations in the future.
Among other things, Luxembourg will strengthen the criteria under its tax code to define a permanent establishment. This proposal is currently with the Luxembourg parliament. Once adopted, the new provision will require the taxpayer, in certain circumstances, to provide a certificate of residence in the other country, if it wants to benefit from a tax exemption in Luxembourg. This would be proof that the other country recognises the existence of a taxable permanent establishment of that company. This new provision is presented to the Luxembourg parliament together with other measures to transpose the EU's Anti-Tax-Avoidance Directive.
Over the past few years, we have seen an international determination to deal with the issue of tax avoidance. Through closing loopholes in tax laws and working on the OECD's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project.
Also within the EU, under the responsibility of my colleagues Valdis Dombrovskis and Pierre Moscovici, the Commission has pursued a coherent strategy towards fair taxation and greater transparency. And Member States have been using the momentum to reform their corporate taxation framework, to make it both fairer and more efficient.
Progress on recovery cases
Finally, I would like to update you on significant progress made on the implementation of Commission decisions requiring Member States to recover unpaid taxes. This is important because otherwise companies continue to benefit from an illegal advantage.
In May, Luxembourg completed the recovery of more than 280 million euros from Amazon, of which 21 million euros is interest.
I am also happy to confirm that Ireland has now recovered the full illegal aid from Apple. The final amount recovered is 14.3 billion euros, of which about 1.2 billion euros is interest. This money will be held in an escrow account, pending the outcome of the ongoing appeal of the Commission's decision before the EU courts. This means that we can proceed to closing the infringement procedure against Ireland for failure to implement the decision.
These are important steps forward to tackling multinationals' tax avoidance and to meeting our ultimate goal of ensuring that all companies, big or small, pay their fair share of tax in the future.
The Minister for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform, Paschal Donohoe TD, on behalf of the Government, confirms that the full recovery of the alleged State Aid from Apple has been completed. Over the course of Q2 and Q3 2018, Apple deposited c. €14.3 billion into the Escrow Fund which represents the full recovery of the alleged State Aid of c. €13.1 billion plus EU interest of c. €1.2 billion.
The full recovery of the alleged State Aid is a significant milestone and is in line with the commitment given earlier in the year that the alleged State Aid would be recovered by end Q3 2018.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Government does not accept the Commission’s analysis in the Apple State Aid decision and have lodged an appeal with the European Courts, the collection of the alleged State Aid from Apple demonstrates that it was always the Government’s intention to comply with its legal obligations.
Speaking today Minister Donohoe said: ‘While the Government fundamentally disagrees with the Commission’s analysis in the Apple State Aid decision and is seeking an annulment of that decision in the European Courts, as committed members of the European Union, we have always confirmed that we would recover the alleged State aid. We have demonstrated this with the recovery of the alleged State Aid which will be held in the Escrow Fund pending the outcome of the appeal process before the European Courts’.
“This is the largest State Aid recovery at c. €14.3 billion and one of the largest funds of its kind to be established. It has taken time to establish the infrastructure and legal framework around the Escrow Fund but this was essential to protect the interests of all parties to the agreement.”
Notes to editors
Recovery of alleged State Aid
- The State has recovered the alleged State Aid from Apple. The total amount is €14.285 billion (which is the principal amount and relevant EU interest). The final payment was made in early September.
- There has been continuous and extensive engagement with the Commission Services throughout the recovery process, including in relation to agreeing the amount of the alleged State Aid and the relevant EU interest.
- The alleged State Aid has been placed into an Escrow Fund with the proceeds being released only when there has been a final determination in the European Courts over the validity of the Commission’s Decision.
- Notwithstanding the appeal in the Apple State Aid case and the difference in view between Ireland and the Commission on the issue, the Government has always been committed to complying with the binding legal obligations the Commission’s Final Decision places on Ireland.
- Significant developments during 2018:
- On 7 March 2018, the Department of Finance confirmed that the Bank of New York Mellon, London Branch, was selected as preferred tenderer for the provision of escrow agency and custodian services following a competitive tender process.
- On 23 March 2018, the Department of Finance confirmed that Amundi, BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited and Goldman Sachs Asset Management International were selected as preferred tenderers for the provision of investment management services.
- On 24 April 2018, the Minister for Finance confirmed that the Escrow Framework Deed, which sets out the detailed legal agreement regarding the recovery of the alleged State Aid was signed by the Minister and Apple.
- On 18 May 2018, the Minister for Finance confirmed that the collection of the alleged State Aid had commenced.
6. In October 2017, the European Commission announced the intention to launch infringement proceedings against Ireland over the recovery of the alleged Apple State Aid. As recovery of the alleged State Aid has now been effected, it is now hoped that these proceedings will be withdrawn by the Commission. The Irish Government is in discussion with the Commission in respect of this.
Appeal on State Aid case
7. The Government profoundly disagrees with the Commission’s analysis in the Apple State Aid case. An appeal is therefore being brought before the European Courts in the form of an application to the General Court of the European Union (GCEU), asking it to annul the Decision of the Commission.
8. The case has been granted priority status and is progressing through the various stages of private written proceedings before the GCEU. It is at the discretion of the Court to determine if there will be oral proceedings, either in public or in private.
9. It will likely be several years before the matter is ultimately settled by the European Courts.
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
OECD releases fourth round of BEPS Action 14 peer review reports on improving tax dispute resolution mechanisms
The work on BEPS Action 14 continues with today’s publication of the fourth round of stage 1 peer review reports. Each report assesses a country’s efforts to implement the Action 14 minimum standard as agreed to under the OECD/G20 BEPS Project.
The reports of Australia, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Malta, Mexico, New Zealand and Portugal published today contain over 130 targeted recommendations that will be followed up in stage 2 of the peer review process. A document addressing the implementation of best practices is also available for each jurisdiction that opted to have such best practices assessed. The peer review reports incorporate MAP statistics from 2016 and 2017, as reported under the recently developed MAP Statistics Reporting Framework.
These stage 1 peer review reports continue to represent an important step forward to turn the political commitments made by members of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS into measureable, tangible progress. Many countries are already working to address deficiencies identified in their respective reports. The OECD will continue to publish stage 1 peer review reports in accordance with the Action 14 peer review assessment schedule. In total, 29 peer reviews have been finalised, with 8 more pending approval. The sixth batch of Action 14 peer reviews were launched this month with 8 more countries beginning their peer review process.
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
New content is available on the CbC Reporting pages:
- The Jurisdiction Status Table contains recently signed Competent Authority Arrangements for the exchange of CbC Reports.
- The Country-by-Country Reporting Guidance webpage contains new guidance and resources.
Monday, July 9, 2018
At the OECD Headquarters in Paris, H.E. Ambassador Alar Streimann, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Estonia to the OECD, signed Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (the Multilateral Instrument) in the presence of Masamichi Kono, Deputy Secretary-General of the OECD. Estonia becomes the 82nd jurisdiction to join the MLI. Estonia’s signature follows the signatures by Kazakhstan, Peru and the United Arab Emirates earlier this week.
Also today, the United Kingdom deposited its instrument of ratification for the Multilateral Instrument with the OECD. Joining eight jurisdictions that previously ratified, the United Kingdom demonstrates its strong commitment to prevent the abuse of tax treaties and base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) by multinational enterprises.
The text of the Convention, the explanatory statement, background information, database, and positions of each signatory are available at http://oe.cd/mli.
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
Public comments are invited on a discussion draft on financial transactions, which deals with follow-up work in relation to Actions 8-10 ("Assure that transfer pricing outcomes are in line with value creation") of the BEPS Action Plan.
The 2015 report on BEPS Actions 8-10 mandated follow-up work on the transfer pricing aspects of financial transactions. Under that mandate, the discussion draft, which does not yet represent a consensus position of the Committee on Fiscal Affairs or its subsidiary bodies, aims to clarify the application of the principles included in the 2017 edition of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, in particular, the accurate delineation analysis under Chapter I, to financial transactions. The work also addresses specific issues related to the pricing of financial transactions such as treasury function, intra-group loans, cash pooling, hedging, guarantees and captive insurance.
While comments are invited on any aspect of the discussion draft, the document also identifies a number of issues on which feedback is particularly sought.
Interested parties are invited to send their comments on this discussion draft, and to respond to the specific questions included in the boxes, by 7 September 2018 by e-mail to TransferPricing@oecd.org in Word format (in order to facilitate their distribution to government officials). Comments in excess of ten pages should attach an executive summary limited to two pages. Comments should be addressed to the Tax Treaties, Transfer Pricing and Financial Transactions Division, OECD/CTPA.
Please note that all comments received on this discussion draft will be made publicly available. Comments submitted in the name of a collective “grouping” or “coalition”, or by any person submitting comments on behalf of another person or group of persons, should identify all enterprises or individuals who are members of that collective group, or the person(s) on whose behalf the commentator(s) are acting.
Monday, June 25, 2018
OECD releases new guidance on the application of the approach to hard-to-value intangibles and the transactional profit split method under BEPS Actions 8-10
the OECD released two reports containing Guidance for Tax Administrations on the Application of the Approach to Hard-to-Value Intangibles, under BEPS Action 8; and Revised Guidance on the Application of the Transactional Profit Split Method, under BEPS Action 10.
In October 2015, as part of the final BEPS package, the OECD/G20 published the report on Aligning Transfer Pricing Outcomes with Value Creation (OECD, 2015), under BEPS Actions 8-10. The Report contained revised guidance on key areas, such as transfer pricing issues relating to transactions involving intangibles; contractual arrangements, including the contractual allocation of risks and corresponding profits, which are not supported by the activities actually carried out; the level of return to funding provided by a capital-rich MNE group member, where that return does not correspond to the level of activity undertaken by the funding company; and other high-risk areas. The Report also mandated follow-up work to develop:
- Guidance for Tax Administrations on the Application of the Approach to Hard-to-value Intangibles (BEPS Action 8)
The new guidance for tax administration on the application of the approach to hard-to-value intangibles (HTVI) is aimed at reaching a common understanding and practice among tax administrations on how to apply adjustments resulting from the application of this approach. This guidance should improve consistency and reduce the risk of economic double taxation by providing the principles that should underlie the application of the HTVI approach. The guidance also includes a number of examples have been included to clarify the application of the HTVI approach in different scenarios and addresses the interaction between the HTVI approach and the access to the mutual agreement procedure under the applicable tax treaty. This guidance has been formally incorporated into the Transfer Pricing Guidelines as an annex to Chapter VI.
This report contains revised guidance on the profit split method, developed as part of Action 10 of the BEPS Action Plan. This guidance has been formally incorporated into the Transfer Pricing Guidelines, replacing the previous text on the transactional profit split method in Chapter II. The revised guidance retains the basic premise that the profit split method should be applied where it is found to be the most appropriate method to the case at hand, but it significantly expands the guidance available to help determine when that may be the case. It also contains more guidance on how to apply the method, as well as numerous examples.
Addressing base erosion and profit shifting continues to be a key priority of governments around the globe. In 2013, OECD and G20 countries, working together on an equal footing, adopted a 15-point Action Plan to address BEPS. In 2015, the BEPS package of measures was endorsed by G20 Leaders and the OECD. In order to ensure the effective and consistent implementation of the BEPS measures, the Inclusive Framework on BEPS was established in 2016 and now has 116 members. It brings together all interested countries and jurisdictions on an equal footing at the OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs.
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
On 25 May 2018, the Council adopted rules aimed at boosting transparency to prevent aggressive cross-border tax planning.
The directive targets intermediaries such as tax advisors, accountants and lawyers that design and/or promote tax planning schemes. It will require them to report schemes that are potentially aggressive.
The information received will be automatically exchanged through a centralised database. Penalties will be imposed on intermediaries that do not comply.
"The new rules are a key part of our strategy to combat corporate tax avoidance ", said Vladislav Goranov, minister for finance of Bulgaria, which currently holds the Council presidency. “With greater transparency, risks will be detected at an earlier stage and measures taken to close down loopholes before revenue is lost."
The directive was adopted at a meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council, without discussion. Member States will have until 31 December 2019 to transpose it into national laws and regulations.
Thursday, May 17, 2018
Governments are continuing to make swift progress in bringing their preferential tax regimes in compliance with the OECD/G20 BEPS standards to improve the international tax framework.
- Four new regimes were designed to comply with FHTP standards, meeting all aspects of transparency, exchange of information, ring fencing and substantial activities and are found to be not harmful (Lithuania, Luxembourg, Singapore, Slovak Republic).
- Four regimes were abolished or amended to remove harmful features (Chile, Malaysia, Turkey and Uruguay).
- A further three regimes do not relate to geographically mobile income and/or are not concerned with business taxation, as such posing no BEPS Action 5 risks and have therefore been found to be out of scope (Kenya and two Viet Nam regimes).
Eleven new preferential regimes are identified since the last update, bringing the total to 175 regimes in over 50 jurisdictions considered by the FHTP since the creation of the Inclusive Framework. Of the 175, 31 regimes have been changed; 81 regimes require legislative changes which are in progress; 47 regimes have been determined to not pose a BEPS risk; 4 have harmful or potentially harmful features and 12 regimes are still under review.
This update shows the determination of the Inclusive Framework to comply with the international standards. For the updated table of regime results, see www.oecd.org/tax/beps/update-harmful-tax-practices-2017-progress-report-on-preferential-regimes.pdf.
Sunday, May 13, 2018
OECD invites public comments on the scope of the future revision of Chapter IV (administrative approaches) and Chapter VII (intra-group services) of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines
The OECD is considering starting two new projects to revise the guidance in Chapter IV (administrative approaches) and Chapter VII (intra-group services) of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines.
Public comments are invited on:
- the future revision of Chapter IV, “Administrative Approaches to Avoiding and Resolving Transfer Pricing Disputes” of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines, and
- the future revision of Chapter VII, “Special Considerations for Intra-Group Services”, of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines.
Interested parties are invited to send their comments no later than 20 June 2018 to TransferPricing@oecd.org in Word format . Comments in excess of ten pages should attach an executive summary limited to two pages.
All comments received will be made publicly available. Comments submitted in the name of a collective “grouping” or “coalition”, or by any person submitting comments on behalf of another person or group of persons, should identify all enterprises or individuals who are members of that collective group, or the person(s) on whose behalf the commentator(s) are acting.
For more information, please contact Jeff VanderWolk, Head of the Tax Treaties and Transfer Pricing Division, Tomas Balco, Head of the Transfer Pricing Unit or the Communications Office at the OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration.
Friday, May 11, 2018
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
OECD and IGF invite comments on a draft practice note that will help developing countries address profit shifting from their mining sectors via excessive interest deductions
For many resource-rich developing countries, mineral resources present an unparalleled economic opportunity to increase government revenue. Tax base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS), combined with gaps in the capabilities of tax authorities in developing countries, threaten this prospect. One of the avenues for international profit shifting by multinational enterprises is the use of excessive interest deductions. Download Limiting-excessive-interest-deductions-discussion-draft
Building on BEPS Action 4, this practice note has been prepared by the OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration under a programme of co-operation with the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development (IGF), to help guide tax officials on how to strengthen their defences against BEPS. It is part of wider efforts to address some of the challenges developing countries are facing in raising revenue from their mining sectors. This work also complements action by the Platform for Collaboration on Tax and others to produce toolkits on top priority tax issues facing developing countries.
Tuesday, April 3, 2018
Notice 2018-31 provides additional guidance concerning country-by-country (CbC) reporting requirements under section 6038 and §1.6038-4. In consideration of the national security interests of the United States, this notice addresses modifications to the reporting requirement under §1.6038-4 with respect to certain U.S. multinational enterprise (MNE) groups.
Based on subsequent consultations with the Department of Defense, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that national security interests require modifications to the reporting requirements for U.S. MNE groups that are specified national security contractors.
The Treasury Department and the IRS intend to amend §1.6038-4 to provide the definition of specified national security contractor and modifications to the manner of reporting on Form 8975 for such U.S. MNE groups. The amended regulations will provide that U.S. MNE groups that have a Form 8975 filing obligation under §1.6038-4 and are specified national security contractors may provide Form 8975 and Schedules A (Form 8975) in the following manner:
• Complete Form 8975 with a statement at the beginning of Part II, Additional Information, that the U.S. MNE group is a specified national security contractor as defined in this notice;
• Complete one Schedule A (Form 8975) for the Tax Jurisdiction of the United States with aggregated financial and employee information for the entire U.S. MNE group in Part I, Tax Jurisdiction Information, and only the ultimate parent entity’s information in Part II, Constituent Entity Information; and
• Complete one Schedule A (Form 8975) for the Tax Jurisdiction “Stateless” with zeroes in Part I, Tax Jurisdiction Information, and only the ultimate parent entity’s information in Part II, Constituent Entity Information.
No other Schedule A (Form 8975) or additional information is required.
A specified national security contractor that has already filed Form 8975 and Schedules A (Form 8975) for prior reporting periods may file an amended Federal income tax return (following the instructions for filing of amended Federal income tax returns) and attach an amended Form 8975 and Schedules A (Form 8975) in the manner provided in section 3.02 with the amended report checkbox on Form 8975 marked.
Monday, April 2, 2018
This interim report of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS is a follow-up to the work delivered in 2015 under Action 1 of the BEPS Project on addressing the tax challenges of the digital economy. It sets out the Inclusive Framework’s agreed direction of work on digitalization and the international tax rules through to 2020. It describes how digitalization is also affecting other areas of the tax system, providing tax authorities with new tools that are translating into improvements in taxpayer services, improving the efficiency of tax collection and detecting tax evasion. Download Digitalization tax interim report 2018
Friday, March 16, 2018
This interim report of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS is a follow-up to the work delivered in 2015 under Action 1 of the BEPS Project on addressing the tax challenges of the digital economy. It sets out the Inclusive Framework’s agreed direction of work on digitalisation and the international tax rules through to 2020. It describes how digitalisation is also affecting other areas of the tax system, providing tax authorities with new tools that are translating into improvements in taxpayer services, improving the efficiency of tax collection and detecting tax evasion.
More than 110 countries and jurisdictions have agreed to review two key concepts of the international tax system, responding to a mandate from the G20 Finance Ministers to work on the implications of digitalisation for taxation.
The members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS will work towards a consensus-based solution by 2020, as set out in their Interim Report on the Tax Challenges Arising from Digitalisation released today. The Interim Report will be presented by OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría to the G20 Finance Ministers at their meeting on 19-20 March in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Building on the 2015 BEPS Action 1 Report, the Interim Report includes an in-depth analysis of the changes to business models and value creation arising from digitalisation, and identifies characteristics that are frequently observed in certain highly digitalised business models. Describing the potential implications for the international tax rules, the Interim Report identifies the positions that different countries hold, which drive their approach to possible solutions. These approaches range from those countries that consider no action is needed, to those that consider there is a need for action that would take into account user contributions, through to others who consider that any changes should apply to the economy more broadly. The Interim Report lays the ground to move forward at the OECD towards a long-term multilateral solution in the next phase of work.
“The international community has taken an important step today towards resolving the tax challenges posed by the digitalisation of the economy,” said Mr Gurría. “We have underlined the complexity of the issues, and highlighted the importance of reaching international agreement, both for our economies and the future of the rules-based system. The OECD stands ready to accompany countries as they seek to build a common understanding of the issues related to the digital economy and taxation, as well as the long-term solutions.”
Under the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project, a number of important new standards were delivered aimed at tackling double non-taxation. Country-level implementation of the wide-ranging BEPS package is already having an impact, with evidence emerging that some multinationals have already changed their tax arrangements to better align with their business operations. The measures are already delivering increased revenues for governments - for example, over 3 billion euros in the European Union alone as a result of the implementation of the new International VAT/GST Guidelines. Despite this success in tackling BEPS, the Interim Report underlines that many countries believe challenges to the international tax system still remain.
Inclusive Framework members recognise that they share a common interest in maintaining a single, relevant set of international tax rules. As part of the next phase of their work, they have agreed to undertake a coherent and concurrent review of the “nexus” and “profit allocation” rules - fundamental concepts relating to the allocation of taxing rights between jurisdictions and the determination of the relevant share of the multinational enterprise’s profits that will be subject to taxation in a given jurisdiction. In exploring potential changes, members would consider the impacts of digitalisation on the economy, relating to the principles of aligning profits with underlying economic activities and value creation.
While agreeing to work towards a long-term solution by 2020, some countries believe that there is a strong imperative to act quickly and are in favour of the introduction of interim measures, while other countries are opposed to them and consider that such measures will give rise to risks and adverse consequences. Those countries in favour have identified a number of considerations that they believe need to be taken into account to limit the possible adverse side-effects.
The Interim Report also looks at how digitalisation is affecting other areas of the tax system, including the opportunities that new technologies offer for enhancing taxpayer services and improving compliance, as well as the tax risks, including those relating to the block chain technology that underlies crypto-currencies.
Thursday, March 15, 2018
IRS provides additional details on section 965, transition tax; Deadlines approach for some 2017 filers
The Internal Revenue Service today provided additional information to help taxpayers meet their filing and payment requirements for the section 965 transition tax.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act requires various taxpayers that have untaxed foreign earnings and profits to pay a tax as if those earnings and profits had been repatriated to the United States. The new law outlines details on the tax rates, and certain taxpayers may elect to pay the transition tax over eight years.
As the March 15 and April 17 deadlines approach for various filers, the IRS released information today in a question and answer format. The Frequently Asked Questions address basic information for taxpayers affected by section 965. This includes how to report section 965 income and how to report and pay the associated tax liability. The information on IRS.gov also provides details on several elections under section 965 that taxpayers can make.
The Treasury Department and the IRS previously released three pieces of guidance related to section 965 issues including Notices 2018-07 and 2018-13 and Revenue Procedure 2018-17. The IRS will provide additional guidance and other information on IRS.gov in the weeks ahead.
Friday, February 23, 2018
First Global Conference of the Platform for Collaboration on Tax - Taxation and the Sustainable Development Goals
The Platform for Collaboration on Tax (PCT) held its First Global Conference on February 14-16, 2018 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. The conference focused on the key directions for tax policy and administration needed to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Speakers and participants included senior country policymakers, tax administrators, and representatives from academia, the private sector, civil society, donor organizations, and regional tax organizations. Conference sessions will cover five thematic areas:
domestic resource mobilization and the state
the role of tax in supporting sustainable economic growth, investment and trade
the social dimensions of tax (poverty, inequality, and human development)
tax capacity development
The conference built on the vibrant global dialogue on taxation, and insights and views from the conference helped inform and shape the future work of the PCT and its members. The conference provided guidance to individual countries and other stakeholders on how to better target tax efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Plenary sessions were broadcast live here: http://webtv.un.org
About the PCT
The PCT is a joint initiative of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), United Nations (UN), and the World Bank Group to strengthen collaboration on domestic resource mobilization (DRM). The Platform, which is also supported by the governments ofLuxemburg, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, fosters collective action for stronger tax systems in developing and emerging countries. The four PCT members each support country efforts through policy dialogue, technical assistance and capacity building, knowledge creation and dissemination, and input into the design and implementation of standards for international tax matters. The PCT also produces guidance and tools on key issues of capacity building and international taxation, and has also developed the Medium-Term Revenue Strategy, which is an approach for coordinated and sustained support to country-led tax reform.
Saturday, February 10, 2018
The Inclusive Framework on BEPS has released additional guidance to give certainty to tax administrations and MNE Groups alike on the implementation of Country-by-Country (CbC) reporting (BEPS Action 13). The Inclusive Framework also approved updates to the results for preferential regime reviews conducted by the Forum on Harmful Tax Practices (FHTP) in connection with BEPS Action 5.
Further guidance on Country-by-Country reporting
The additional guidance addresses two specific issues: the definition of total consolidated group revenue and whether non-compliance with the confidentiality, appropriate use and consistency conditions constitutes systemic failure. The complete set of guidance related to CbC reporting issued so far is presented in the document released today. Also released today is a compilation of the approaches adopted by member jurisdictions of the Inclusive Framework with respect to issues where the guidance allows for alternative approaches. These documents will continue to be updated with any further guidance that may be agreed.
Updated conclusions on preferential tax regimes
Members of the Inclusive Framework are continuing to make progress in delivering the international standard on BEPS Action 5. Two Barbados' regimes, the International financial services and the Credit for foreign currency earnings/Credit for overseas projects or services, were concluded as "potentially harmful" by the Inclusive Framework in the 2017 Progress Report on Preferential Regimes. In a ministerial letter Barbados committed to amend these regimes within the FHTP's agreed timelines and in accordance with the criteria of the FHTP. The Inclusive Framework therefore agreed to update the conclusions for these two regimes to "in the process of being amended".
Canada's regime for international banking centres (IBCs) was determined to be "potentially but not actually harmful" by the FHTP in the 2004 Progress Report. Canada has abolished the IBC regime, with limited grandfathering which is consistent with the FHTP guidance and therefore the conclusion for this regime is updated to "abolished".
An updated table of regime results is now available. The OECD will continue to communicate updated results of reviews of preferential regimes as approved by the Inclusive Framework.