Tuesday, May 25, 2021
Over the last two days, leaders from the Office of Tax Policy at the U.S Department of the Treasury participated in meetings with the Steering Group of the Inclusive Framework on base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) as part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) / G20 international tax negotiations. As part of those meetings, discussions on the global corporate minimum tax rate began in earnest.
Treasury expressed its belief that the international tax architecture must be stabilized, that the global playing field must be fair, and that we must create an environment in which countries work together to maintain our tax bases and ensure the global tax system is equitable and equipped to meet the needs of for the 21st-century global economy. It is imperative to work multilaterally to end the pressures of corporate tax competition and corporate tax base erosion. Treasury reiterated that with the global corporate minimum tax functionally set at zero today, there has been a race to the bottom on corporate taxes, undermining the United States’ and other countries’ ability to raise the revenue needed to make critical investments. Treasury made clear that a global corporate minimum tax rate would ensure the global economy thrives based on a more level playing field in the taxation of multinational corporations and would spur innovation, growth, and prosperity while improving fairness for the middle class and working people.
Treasury proposed to the Steering Group that the global minimum tax rate should be at least 15%. Treasury underscored that 15% is a floor and that discussions should continue to be ambitious and push that rate higher.
Treasury was heartened by the positive reception to its proposals and the unprecedented progress being made towards establishing a global corporate minimum tax.
Wednesday, May 19, 2021
The EU needs a robust, efficient and fair business tax framework that supports the post-COVID-19 recovery, removes obstacles to cross-border investment and creates an environment conducive to fair and sustainable growth.
That is why, on 18 May 2021, the Commission published the Communication on Business Taxation for the 21st Century. The Communication sets out both a long-term vision to provide a fair and sustainable business environment and EU tax system, and a tax agenda for the next two years, with targeted measures that promote productive investment and entrepreneurship and ensure effective taxation.
What are the main problems this Communication addresses?
The context for EU business taxation policy has changed radically in the past year. The public health challenges stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic turned into the most drastic economic crisis in the EU history, causing rising inequality, and deeply impacting social safety nets.
The pandemic has also accelerated existing trends, such as digitalisation, and highlighted problems with the current corporate tax system:
- The current international corporate tax system was designed more than a century ago and is based on outdated principles of tax residence and source. Developments in globalisation and digitalisation have left these principles increasingly out of synch with the economy of today and the made tax rules increasingly difficult to apply to modern business realities.
- In the EU, the patchwork of national corporate tax rules creates complexities for businesses operating cross-border in the Single market. Grappling with up to 27 different national tax systems creates particular challenges for EU SMEs, start-ups and other businesses looking to grow, expand and trade cross-border. This hurts investment and growth, as well as the EU’s competitiveness.
- While corporate income is taxed at the national level, business models continue to become ever more international, complex and digital. This creates high compliance costs for business and risks of double taxation. At the same time, some companies exploit loopholes between tax systems through aggressive tax planning strategies. This also makes it difficult for citizens to know how much companies are actually paying in tax, which risks undermining trust in the tax system as a whole.
What will the Commission propose?
In the long-term, the Communication will create a new framework for business taxation in the EU, which will reduce administrative burdens, remove tax obstacles and foster a more business-friendly environment in the Single Market. The “Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation” (or BEFIT) will provide a single corporate tax rulebook for the EU, based on a formulary apportionment and a common tax base. BEFIT will cut red tape, reduce compliance costs, reduce tax avoidance opportunities and support jobs, growth and investment in the EU.
In the short term, the Communication also sets out a series of targeted initiatives to address current problems in business taxation and create a more stable, supportive and fair corporate tax framework for the future. The Commission will propose to:
- Better support business, and particularly SMEs, in their recovery, with a Recommendation on the domestic treatment of losses. The Recommendation prompts Member States to allow loss carry back for businesses to at least the previous fiscal year. Loss carry back has the advantage of benefitting only the businesses that were profitable in the years before the pandemic, so it supports healthy businesses. Companies that were making a profit and paying taxes in the years prior to 2020 would be able to offset their 2020 and 2021 losses against these taxes. This ensures that the measure is targeted at businesses suffering as a direct result of the pandemic, and that public money is not spent trying to help private businesses that are failing for reasons unrelated to the crisis. Member States will also have to limit the amount of losses to be carried back to €3 million per loss making fiscal year. This will help level the playing field and better support business during the recovery, and will particularly benefit SMEs.
- Promote innovation by addressing the debt-equity bias in corporate taxation through an allowance system. The economic crisis following the COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to a significant increase in companies’ stock of debts. The current pro-debt bias of tax rules, where businesses can deduct interests attached to a debt financing, but not the costs related to equity financing, can encourage companies to accumulate debts. This could lead to high waves of insolvency, with a negative effect for the EU as a whole. The Commission proposal will try to redress the debt-equity bias and contribute to the re-equitisation of companies financially vulnerable because of the COVID-19 crisis.
- Ensure greater public transparency on the taxes paid by businesses, by proposing that certain large companies operating in the EU should have to publish their effective tax rates. The proposal will allow public scrutiny where aggressive tax planning strategies are used and will provide policy-makers with a better overview of the tax contribution made by large multinational companies in the EU.
- Tackle the abusive use of shell companies, through new anti tax-avoidance measures. Shell companies are legal entities and arrangements that have little or no substance and economic activity, and in some cases may be used purely for aggressive tax planning. The Commission will propose new monitoring and reporting requirements for shell companies, so that tax authorities have better oversight and can better respond to aggressive tax planning through these entities.
What is the timing for the upcoming proposals?
- Adopt a recommendation on the domestic treatment of losses for SMEs during the recovery (alongside this Communication) – published
- Table a legislative proposal to address aggressive tax-planning opportunities linked to the use of shell companies (ATAD 3) - by Q4 2021
- Make a legislative proposal creating a Debt Equity Bias Reduction Allowance (DEBRA) - by Q1 2022
- Make a legislative proposal for the publication of effective tax rates paid by large companies, based on the methodology under discussion in Pillar 2 of the OECD negotiations - by 2022
- Table a proposal for BEFIT (Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation), moving towards a common tax rulebook and providing for fairer allocation of taxing rights between Member States - 2023
Find out more:
Wednesday, February 24, 2021
This document sets out the new terms of reference, methodology and questionnaires for conducting the annual review of jurisdictions’ compliance with the BEPS Action 5 transparency framework for the 2021-2025 period.
In January 2019, the OECD released Harmful Tax Practices - 2018 Progress Report on Preferential Regimes, approved by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS. The Progress Report includes the results of the review of preferential tax regimes, which has been undertaken by the Forum on Harmful Tax Practices (FHTP) since the start of the BEPS Project in accordance with the BEPS Action 5 minimum standard. It reflects results as at January 2019. While the consolidated regime results are now contained in the 2018 Progress Report, the 2017 Progress Report includes important guidance on the standards applicable to substantial activities requirements for non-IP regimes, the timelines for amending or abolishing regimes and the monitoring of certain regimes in practice.
The 2018 Progress Report also includes three annexes:
- Output of BEPS Action 5 mandate for considering revisions or additions to FHTP framework;
- Monitoring data on grandfathered non-IP regimes; and
- Key reference documents.
In November 2020, the Inclusive Framework released updated conclusions on the review of preferential regimes.
On 1 February 2017, the OECD released the Terms of Reference and Methodology for peer reviews on the Action 5 standard for the exchange of information on tax rulings (the "transparency framework"), approved by the Inclusive Framework on BEPS. The peer review and monitoring process will be conducted by the Forum on Harmful Tax Practices (FHTP) in accordance with the Terms of Reference and Methodology, with all members participating on an equal footing.
The Terms of Reference are broken down into four aspects, which capture the key elements of the transparency framework:
- Information gathering process;
- Exchange of information;
- Confidentiality of information received;
The methodology sets out the procedural mechanisms by which jurisdictions will complete the peer review, including the process for collecting the relevant data, the preparation and approval of reports, the outputs of the review and the follow up process. The methodology contemplates collecting the data points relevant to the peer review by using standardised questionnaires, sent to the reviewed jurisdiction as well as the peers (i.e. the other members of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS).
Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings
- 2019 Peer Review Reports - This report reflects the outcome of the fourth annual peer review of the implementation of the Action 5 minimum standard and covers 124 jurisdictions. It assesses implementation for the 1 January - 31 December 2019 period.
- 2018 Peer Review Reports - This report reflects the outcome of the third annual peer review of the implementation of the Action 5 minimum standard and covers 112 jurisdictions. It assesses implementation for the 1 January 2018 – 31 December 2018 period.
- 2017 Peer Review Reports - This report reflects the outcome of the second annual peer review of the implementation of the Action 5 minimum standard and covers 92 jurisdictions. It assesses implementation for the 1 January 2017 – 31 December 2017 period.
- 2016 Peer Review Reports - The first annual report on compliance with the transparency framework covers the jurisdictions which participated in the BEPS Project prior to the creation of the Inclusive Framework. It assesses implementation for the 1 January 2016 – 31 December 2016 period.
The Exchange on Tax Rulings XML Schema and User Guide standardised electronic format for the exchange on tax rulings between jurisdictions.
A dedicated XML Schema and User Guide have also been developed to provide structured feedback on received exchange of tax rulings (ETR) information. The ETR Status Message XML Schema will allow tax administrations to provide structured feedback to the sender on frequent errors encountered, with a view to improving overall data quality and receiving corrected information, where necessary.
The current version of the ETR XML Schema and User Guide, as well as the related Status Message Schema and User Guide, is applicable for all exchanges until 31 March 2020, whereas the second, new version will be in use as from 1 April 2020.
The Inclusive Framework on BEPS has decided to resume the application of the substantial activities requirement for no or only nominal tax jurisdictions. Originally a criteria set out in the harmful tax framework from 1998, it had not been applied to date. However, with the elevation of the substantial activities requirements in preferential regimes, and the broad-based membership of the Inclusive Framework working together on an equal footing, it was considered the right time to ensure that equivalent substance requirements apply in no or only nominal tax jurisdictions. This global standard means that mobile business income cannot be parked in a zero tax jurisdiction without the core business functions having been undertaken by the same business entity, or in the same location. In doing so, the Inclusive Framework will ensure that substantial activities must be performed in respect of the same types of mobile business activities, regardless of whether they take place in a preferential regime or in a no or only nominal tax jurisdiction.
In July 2019, the Inclusive Framework released the results of the review of no or only nominal tax jurisdictions.
In October 2019, the Inclusive Framework released guidance on the framework for the spontaneous exchange of information collected by no or only nominal tax jurisdictions pursuant to the standard. The guidance addresses the practical modalities regarding the exchange of information requirements of the standard, including the exchange timelines, the international legal framework and clarifications on the key definitions. The guidance also contains the standardises IT-format to be used for the exchanges, the NTJ XML Schema.
Tuesday, February 23, 2021
OECD releases the final batch of the stage 1 peer review reports for BEPS Action 14 on dispute resolution mechanisms
The stage 1 peer review assessments for Aruba, Bahrain, Barbados, Gibraltar, Greenland, Kazakhstan, Oman, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, United Arab Emirates and Viet Nam evaluate the efforts made by each jurisdiction to implement the Action 14 minimum standard of the OECD/G20 BEPS Project, which aims to improve the resolution of tax-related disputes between jurisdictions.
The reports published today contain almost 340 targeted recommendations that will be followed up in stage 2 of the peer review process. The peer review reports incorporate MAP statistics from 2016 to 2019.
These stage 1 peer review reports continue to represent an important step forward to turn the political commitments made by members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS into measureable, tangible progress. Many countries are already working to address deficiencies identified in their respective reports.
The OECD has now published stage 1 peer review reports for all batches and stage 2 peer review reports for batches 1-3. The OECD will continue to publish stage 2 peer review reports in batches in accordance with the Action 14 peer review assessment schedule. In total, 82 stage 1 peer reviews and 37 stage 1 and stage 2 peer reviews have been finalised, with the fourth batch of stage 2 report to be released in a few months.
Monday, February 22, 2021
63 countries and jurisdictions ratify Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting
Croatia and Malaysia have deposited their instrument of ratification for the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (Multilateral Convention or MLI), which now covers over 1700 bilateral tax treaties, thus underlining their strong commitment to prevent the abuse of tax treaties and base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) by multinational enterprises. For Croatia and Malaysia, the MLI will enter into force on 1 June 2021.
With 95 jurisdictions currently covered by the MLI, the ratifications today by Croatia and Malaysia now bring to 63 the number of jurisdictions which have ratified, accepted or approved it. The Multilateral Convention became effective on 1 January 2021 for approximately 650 treaties concluded among the 63 jurisdictions, with an additional 1200 treaties to become effectively modified once the MLI will have been ratified by all Signatories.
The text of the Multilateral Convention, the explanatory statement, background information, database, and positions of each signatory are available at http://oe.cd/mli.
Thursday, February 11, 2021
Thursday, January 7, 2021
Barbados deposited its instrument of ratification for the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (Multilateral Convention or MLI), which now covers over 1700 bilateral tax treaties, thus underlining its strong commitment to prevent the abuse of tax treaties and base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) by multinational enterprises. For Barbados, the MLI will enter into force on 1 April 2021.
With 95 jurisdictions currently covered by the MLI, the ratification by Barbados now brings to 60 the number of jurisdictions which have ratified, accepted or approved it. The Multilateral Convention became effective on 1 January 2021 for over 600 treaties concluded among the 60 jurisdictions, with an additional 1200 treaties to become effectively modified once the MLI will have been ratified by all Signatories.
The text of the Multilateral Convention, the explanatory statement, background information, database, and positions of each signatory are available at http://oe.cd/mli.
Monday, December 21, 2020
Germany and Pakistan deposit their instrument of ratification for the Multilateral BEPS Convention and other updates
Germany and Pakistan have deposited their instrument of ratification for the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (Multilateral Convention or MLI), which now covers almost 1700 bilateral tax treaties, thus underlining its strong commitment to prevent the abuse of tax treaties and base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) by multinational enterprises. For Germany and Pakistan, the MLI will enter into force on 1 April 2021.
With 95 jurisdictions currently covered by the MLI, today’s ratification by Germany and Pakistan now brings to 59 the number of jurisdictions which have ratified, accepted or approved it. The Multilateral Convention will become effective on 1 January 2021 for over 600 treaties concluded among the 59 jurisdictions, with an additional 1200 treaties to become effectively modified once the MLI will have been ratified by all Signatories.
In addition, Switzerland notified in relation to Article 35(7)(a)(i) of the MLI the confirmation of the completion of its internal procedures for the entry into effect of the provisions of the MLI with respect to its treaties with the Czech Republic and Lithuania in accordance with Article 35(7)(b) of the MLI.
The text of the Multilateral Convention, the explanatory statement, background information, database, and positions of each signatory are available at http://oe.cd/mli.
Saturday, December 19, 2020
OECD publishes information on the state of implementation of the hard-to-value intangibles approach by members of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS
The OECD has published jurisdiction-specific information on the implementation of the hard-to-value intangibles ("HTVI") approach. To date, 40 jurisdictions have provided information on whether their domestic legal system provides for transfer pricing rules aimed at transactions involving HTVI.
The publication of this information is part of the monitoring process of the implementation of the HTVI approach agreed by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS, whereby participating jurisdictions report on their legislation and administrative practices relevant to the application of the HTVI approach. Importantly, this information provides tax administrations, taxpayers and other stakeholders with a better understanding of the extent to which the HTVI approach has been adopted and applied in practice by countries around the world, with the aim to reduce misunderstandings and disputes between governments. The information published today was provided by those countries to which the information relates.
The HTVI approach was the outcome of the work done under Action 8 of the Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, which is found in the 2015 Final Report for Actions 8-10, Aligning Transfer Pricing Outcomes with Value Creation and it was formally incorporated into the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (Guidelines), as Section D.4 of Chapter VI. The HTVI approach protects tax administrations from the negative effects of information asymmetry by ensuring that they can consider ex post outcomes as presumptive evidence about the appropriateness of ex-ante pricing arrangements. At the same time, the approach permits taxpayers to rebut such presumptive evidence by demonstrating the reliability of the information supporting the pricing methodology adopted at the time the controlled transaction took place. In 2018, the HTVI approach was supplemented with a new annex to Chapter VI of the Guidelines that contains guidance that would ensure a common understanding and practice among tax administrations on how to apply adjustments resulting from the application of the HTVI approach.
Further information on the state of jurisdictions’ transfer pricing legislation and practices can be found in the Transfer Pricing Country Profiles.
William Byrnes’ two-volume 4th Edition Practical Guide to U.S. Transfer Pricing (2021 version forthcoming December 2020) is revised and updated annually to help multinationals cope with the U.S. transfer pricing rules and procedures, taking into account the international norms established by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It is also designed for use by tax administrators, both those belonging to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and those belonging to the tax administrations of other countries, and tax professionals in and out of government, corporate executives, and their non-tax advisors, both American and foreign. Professor Byrnes organizes the sixty leading industry advisors form the contributing subject matter expert team that analyzes the highly technical issues faced by tax and risk management counsel, translating them into actionable strategy.
“As the transfer pricing treatise’s primary author, I take an active role in working with each of my subject matter experts within the chapters, as well as developing and cultivating additional subject matter tax experts to contribute to the expansion of country-based and industry-based chapters. I organize the law, create an interpretive framework, clarifies the role of legal rules and the enforcement institutions, and demonstrate what ‘the law’ requires. Moreover, I ensure the most up to date analysis and risk strategy for a business navigating the complexity of intra-group transfer pricing among multiple taxing jurisdictions.” William Byrnes
Friday, October 30, 2020
On October 29, Egypt deposited its instrument of ratification for the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (Multilateral Convention or MLI), which now covers almost 1700 bilateral tax treaties, with the OECD’s Secretary-General, Angel Gurría, thus underlining its strong commitment to prevent the abuse of tax treaties and base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) by multinational enterprises. The MLI will enter into force on 1 January 2021 for Egypt.
With 94 jurisdictions currently covered by the MLI, this ratification now brings to 54 the number of jurisdictions which have ratified, accepted or approved it. The Convention will become effective on 1 January 2021 for over 600 treaties concluded among the 54 jurisdictions, with an additional 1100 treaties to become effectively modified once the MLI will have been ratified by all Signatories. The text of the Multilateral Convention, the explanatory statement, background information, database, and positions of each signatory are available at http://oe.cd/mli.
Sunday, October 11, 2020
The OECD has released the outcomes of the third phase of peer reviews of the BEPS Action 13 Country-by-Country (CbC) reporting initiative, demonstrating strong progress in continuing efforts to improve the taxation of multinational enterprises (MNEs) worldwide.
CbC reporting, one of the four minimum standards of the BEPS Project, requires tax administrations to collect and share detailed information on all large MNEs doing business in their country. Information collected includes the amount of revenue reported, profit before income tax, and income tax paid and accrued, as well as the stated capital, accumulated earnings, number of employees and tangible assets, broken down by jurisdiction. CbC reporting provides an unprecedented level of transparency to tax administrations worldwide. As a result, tax administrations, often for the first time, will have received detailed information on all large MNEs doing business in their country. As CbC Reporting is one of the four minimum standards of the BEPS Project, all members of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS have committed to implement it, and to have their compliance with the standard reviewed and monitored by their peers. This is to ensure a timely and consistent implementation across the world, which is key to the success of CbC reporting.
This third annual peer review considers implementation of the CbC reporting minimum standard by jurisdictions as of April 2020. Highlights include:
- Coverage increased to 131 jurisdictions. The peer review includes a comprehensive examination of 131 Inclusive Framework members. A small number of members were not included in this review either because they recently joined the Inclusive Framework or they faced capacity constraints, but these will be reviewed as soon as possible.
- Practically all MNEs that are over the threshold for filing are now covered. Over 90 jurisdictions have already introduced legislation to impose a filing obligation on MNE groups, covering almost all MNE Groups with consolidated group revenue at or above the threshold of EUR 750 million. Remaining Inclusive Framework members are working towards finalising their domestic legal frameworks with the support of the OECD.
- Implementation largely consistent with BEPS Action 13. Where legislation is in place, the implementation of CbC Reporting has been found largely consistent with the Action 13 minimum standard.
- Jurisdictions acting on prior recommendations. A large number of recommendations made in the first two peer review phases have now been addressed and these recommendations have been removed.
- Over 2500 exchange relationships now in place. Exchanges of CbC reports began in June 2018 and more than 2500 bilateral relationships for CbC exchanges are now in place.
In addition, work progresses on the 2020 review of the CbC reporting minimum standard, to be completed this year. This will take into account feedback received from a public consultation, including a meeting held in May 2020 via Zoom with around 270 participants from business and non-business stakeholders.
Wednesday, July 29, 2020
This is the fourth annual progress report of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS. The report describes the progress made to deliver on the mandate of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework, covering the period from July 2019 to July 2020, while also taking stock of the progress made since BEPS implementation began.
The report contains an overview and four sections of substantive content. Part I focuses on inclusivity and support for developing countries. Part II describes the progress made on strengthening coherence. Part III describes the progress made on substance. Part IV describes the progress made with respect to evaluation, transparency and tax certainty. These are followed by two annexes providing information on the membership of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS (Annex A) and the text of the Statement by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS on the Two-Pillar Approach to Address the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy as agreed in January 2020 (Annex B).
Friday, July 17, 2020
Oman deposited its instrument of ratification for the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (Multilateral Convention or MLI) with the OECD’s Secretary-General, Angel Gurría, thus underlining its strong commitment to prevent the abuse of tax treaties and base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) by multinational enterprises. For Oman, the MLI will enter into force on 1 November 2020.
With 94 jurisdictions currently covered by the MLI, today’s ratification by Oman now brings to 49 the number of jurisdictions which have ratified, accepted or approved it.
Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its online international tax risk management graduate curricula for industry professionals.
Wednesday, July 15, 2020
Scroll down to paragraph 241-245 for the application of arm's length to the Irish branches, paras 255-309, and then paragraph 322 for the analysis of the application of the TNMM transfer pricing method - The most relevant parts excerpted from the EU General Court's decision are on my WordPress blog here
(ii) Whether the Commission correctly applied the Authorised OECD Approach in its primary line of reasoning
241 Ireland and ASI and AOE submit, in essence, that the Commission’s primary line of reasoning is inconsistent with the Authorised OECD Approach, inasmuch as the Commission considered that the profits relating to the Apple Group’s IP licences should necessarily have been allocated to the Irish branches of ASI and AOE, in so far as the executives of ASI and AOE did not perform active or critical functions with regard to the management of those licences.
242 In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, in accordance with the Authorised OECD Approach..., the aim of the analysis in the first step is to identify the assets, functions and risks that must be allocated to the permanent establishment of a company on the basis of the activities actually performed by that company. It is true that the analysis in that first step cannot be carried out in an abstract manner that ignores the activities and functions performed within the company as a whole. However, the fact that the Authorised OECD Approach requires an analysis of the functions actually performed within the permanent establishment is at odds with the approach adopted by the Commission consisting, first, in identifying the functions performed by the company as a whole without conducting a more detailed analysis of the functions actually performed by the branches and, second, in presuming that the functions had been performed by the permanent establishment when those functions could not be allocated to the head office of the company itself.
243 In its primary line of reasoning the Commission considered, in essence, that the profits of ASI and AOE relating to the Apple Group’s IP (which, according to the Commission’s line of argument, represented a very significant part of the total profit of those two companies) had to be allocated to the Irish branches in so far as ASI and AOE had no employees capable of managing that IP outside those branches, without, however, establishing that the Irish branches had performed those management functions.
245 In those circumstances, as is rightly argued by Ireland and ASI and AOE ..., it must be found that the Commission erred in its application, in its primary line of reasoning, of the functional and factual analysis of the activities performed by the branches of ASI and AOE, on which the application of section 25 of the TCA 97 by the Irish tax authorities is based and which corresponds, in essence, to the analysis provided for by the Authorised OECD Approach.
(1) Strategic decision-making within the Apple Group
298 Ireland and ASI and AOE claim that the ‘centre of gravity’ of the Apple Group’s activities was in Cupertino and not in Ireland. All strategic decisions, in particular those concerning the design and development of the Apple Group’s products, were taken, in accordance with an overall business strategy covering the group as a whole, in Cupertino. That centrally decided strategy was implemented by the companies of the group, which include ASI and AOE, which acted through their management bodies, much like any other company, according to the rules of company law applicable to them.
299 In that regard, it should be noted, in particular, that ASI and AOE submitted evidence, in the administrative procedure and in support of their pleadings in the present instance, on the centralised nature of the strategic decisions within the Apple Group taken by directors in Cupertino and then implemented subsequently by the various entities of the group, such as ASI and AOE. Those centralised procedures concern, inter alia, pricing, accounting decisions, financing and treasury and cover all of the international activities of the Apple Group that would have been decided centrally under the direction of the parent company, Apple Inc.
300 More specifically, with regard to decisions in the field of R&D — which is, in particular, the functional area behind the Apple Group’s IP — ASI and AOE provided evidence showing that decisions relating to the development of the products which were then to be marketed by, inter alia, ASI and AOE, and concerning the R&D strategy which was to be followed by, inter alia, ASI and AOE had been taken and implemented by executives of the group based in Cupertino. It is also apparent from that evidence that the strategies relating to new product launches and, in particular, the organisation of distribution on the European markets in the months leading up to the proposed launch date had been managed at the Apple-Group level by, inter alia, the Executive Team under the direction of the Chief Executive Officer in Cupertino.
301 In addition, it is apparent from the file that contracts with third-party original equipment manufacturers (‘OEMs’), which were responsible for the manufacture of a large proportion of the products sold by ASI, were negotiated and signed by the parent company, Apple Inc., and ASI through their respective directors, either directly or by power of attorney. ASI and AOE also submitted evidence regarding the negotiations and the signing of contracts with customers, such as telecommunications operators, which were responsible for a significant proportion of the retail sales of Apple-branded products, in particular mobile phones. It is apparent from that evidence that the negotiations in question were led by directors of the Apple Group and that the contracts were signed on behalf of the Apple Group by Apple Inc. and ASI through their respective directors, either directly or by power of attorney.
302 Consequently, in so far as it has been established that the strategic decisions — in particular those concerning the development of the Apple Group’s products underlying the Apple Group’s IP — were taken in Cupertino on behalf of the Apple Group as a whole, the Commission erred when it concluded that the Apple Group’s IP was necessarily managed by the Irish branches of ASI and AOE, which held the licences for that IP.
(2) Decision-making by ASI and AOE
303 With regard to ASI and AOE’s ability to take decisions concerning their essential functions through their management bodies, the Commission itself accepted that those companies had boards of directors which held regular meetings during the relevant period, and reproduced extracts from the minutes of those meetings confirming that fact in Tables 4 and 5 of the contested decision.
304 The fact that the minutes of the board meetings do not give details of the decisions concerning the management of the Apple Group’s IP licences, of the cost-sharing agreement and of important business decisions does not mean that those decisions were not taken.
305 The summary nature of the extracts from the minutes reproduced by the Commission in Tables 4 and 5 of the contested decision is sufficient to allow the reader to understand how the company’s key decisions in each tax year, such as approval of the annual accounts, were taken and recorded in the relevant board minutes.
306 The resolutions of the boards of directors which were recorded in those minutes covered regularly (that is to say, several times a year), inter alia, the payment of dividends, the approval of directors’ reports and the appointment and resignation of directors. In addition, less frequently, those resolutions concerned the establishment of subsidiaries and powers of attorney authorising certain directors to carry out various activities such as managing bank accounts, overseeing relations with governments and public bodies, carrying out audits, taking out insurance, hiring, purchasing and selling assets, taking delivery of goods and dealing with commercial contracts. Moreover, it is apparent from those minutes that individual directors were granted very wide managerial powers.
307 In addition, with regard to the cost-sharing agreement, it is apparent from the information submitted by ASI and AOE that the various versions of that agreement in existence during the relevant period were signed by members of the respective boards of directors of those companies in Cupertino.
308 Moreover, according to the detailed information provided by ASI and AOE, it is the case for both ASI and AOE that, among ASI’s 14 directors and AOE’s 8 directors on their respective boards for each tax year during the period when the contested tax rulings were in force, there was only one director who was based in Ireland.
309 Consequently, the Commission erred when it considered that ASI and AOE, through their management bodies, in particular their boards of directors, did not have the ability to perform the essential functions of the companies in question by, where appropriate, delegating their powers to individual executives who were not members of the Irish branches’ staff.
(d) Conclusions concerning the activities within the Apple Group
310 It is apparent from the foregoing considerations that, in the present instance, the Commission has not succeeded in showing that, in the light, first, of the activities and functions actually performed by the Irish branches of ASI and AOE and, second, of the strategic decisions taken and implemented outside of those branches, the Apple Group’s IP licences should have been allocated to those Irish branches when determining the annual chargeable profits of ASI and AOE in Ireland.
The EU General Court of Justice press release described its decision as follows: In 2016 the Commission adopted a decision concerning two tax rulings issued by the Irish tax authorities (Irish Revenue) on 29 January 1991 and 23 May 2007 in favor of Apple Sales International (ASI) and Apple Operations Europe (AOE), which were companies incorporated in Ireland but not tax resident in Ireland. The contested tax rulings endorsed the methods used by ASI and AOE to determine their chargeable profits in Ireland, relating to the trading activity of their respective Irish branches. The 1991 tax ruling remained in force until 2007, when it was replaced by the 2007 tax ruling. The 2007 tax ruling then remained in force until Apple’s new business structure was implemented in Ireland in 2014.
By its decision, the Commission considered that the tax rulings in question constituted State aid unlawfully put into effect by Ireland. The aid was declared incompatible with the internal market. The Commission demanded the recovery of the aid in question. According to the Commission’s calculations, Ireland had granted Apple 13 billion euro in unlawful tax advantages.
By today’s judgment, the General Court annuls the contested decision because the Commission did not succeed in showing to the requisite legal standard that there was an advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU. According to the General Court, the Commission was wrong to declare that ASI and AOE had been granted a selective economic advantage and, by extension, State aid.
The General Court endorses the Commission’s assessments relating to normal taxation under the Irish tax law applicable in the present instance, in particular having regard to the tools developed within the OECD, such as the arm’s length principle, in order to check whether the level of chargeable profits endorsed by the Irish tax authorities corresponds to that which would have been obtained under market conditions.
However, the General Court considers that the Commission incorrectly concluded, in its primary line of reasoning, that the Irish tax authorities had granted ASI and AOE an advantage as a result of not having allocated the Apple Group intellectual property licences held by ASI and AOE, and, consequently, all of ASI and AOE’s trading income, obtained from the Apple Group’s sales outside North and South America, to their Irish branches. According to the General Court, the Commission should have shown that that income represented the value of the activities actually carried out by the Irish branches themselves, in view of, inter alia, the activities and functions actually performed by the Irish branches of ASI and AOE, on the one hand, and the strategic decisions taken and implemented outside of those branches, on the other.
In addition, the General Court considers that the Commission did not succeed in demonstrating, in its subsidiary line of reasoning, methodological errors in the contested tax rulings which would have led to a reduction in ASI and AOE’s chargeable profits in Ireland. Although the General Court regrets the incomplete and occasionally inconsistent nature of the contested tax rulings, the defects identified by the Commission are not, in themselves, sufficient to prove the existence of an advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Furthermore, the General Court considers that the Commission did not prove, in its alternative line of reasoning, that the contested tax rulings were the result of discretion exercised by the Irish tax authorities and that, accordingly, ASI and AOE had been granted a selective advantage.
This case will be analyzed and included in William Byrnes' annually update of his 4th Edition of Practical Guide to U.S. Transfer Pricing. The next supplement will contain 50 chapters of 2,000 pages of technical, jurisprudence, and regulatory analysis to advise clients from a tax risk management perspective and to mitigate controversy. Order a copy here: https://store.lexisnexis.com/products/practical-guide-to-us-transfer-pricing-skuusSku60720
[download entire Apple State Aid CJEU decision 15 July 2020]
Friday, July 10, 2020
New OECD CbCR corporate tax statistics data crunch with analysis of activities of multinational enterprises
New data, released today, provides aggregated information on the global tax and economic activities of nearly 4,000 multinational enterprise (MNE) groups headquartered in 26 jurisdictions and operating across more than 100 jurisdictions worldwide.
The data, released in the OECD’s annual Corporate Tax Statistics publication, is a major output based on the Country-by-Country Reporting requirements for MNEs under the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project.
The BEPS Project has seen more than 135 jurisdictions collaborating to tackle tax avoidance strategies by MNEs that exploit gaps and mismatches in international tax rules to avoid paying tax. Under Country-by-Country Reporting, large MNEs are required to disclose important information about their profits, tangible assets, employees as well as where they pay their taxes, in every country in which they operate. Country-by-Country reports (CbCRs) provide tax authorities with the information needed to analyse MNE behaviour for risk assessment purposes, and with the release of today’s anonymised and aggregated statistics will support the improved measurement and monitoring of BEPS.
The anonymised and aggregated CbCR statistics for 2016 have been provided to the OECD by member jurisdictions of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS. This new dataset contains a vast array of aggregated data on the global tax and economic activities of MNEs, including profit before income tax, income tax paid (on a cash basis), current year income tax accrued, unrelated and related party revenues, number of employees, tangible assets and the main business activity (or activities) of MNEs.
While the data contain some limitations and it is not possible to detect trends in BEPS behaviour from a single year of data, the new statistics suggest a number of preliminary insights:
- There is a misalignment between the location where profits are reported and the location where economic activities occur, with MNEs in investment hubs reporting a relatively high share of profits compared to their share of employees and tangible assets.
- Revenues per employee tend to be higher where statutory CIT rates are zero and in investment hubs.
- On average, the share of related party revenues in total revenues is higher for MNEs in investment hubs.
- The composition of business activity differs across jurisdiction groups, with the predominant business activity in investment hubs being “holding shares and other equity instruments”.
Noting the limitations of the data and that these observations could also reflect some commercial considerations, they are indicative of the existence of BEPS behaviour and reinforce the need to continue to address remaining BEPS issues as part of the Inclusive Framework’s work on Pillar 2 of the ongoing international efforts to address the tax challenges arising from digitalisation.
The new OECD analysis also shows that corporate income tax remains a significant source of tax revenues for governments across the globe, accounting for 14.6% of total tax revenues on average across the 93 jurisdictions in 2017, compared to 12.1% in 2000. Corporate taxation is even more important in developing countries, comprising on average 18.6% of all tax revenues in Africa and 15.5% in Latin America and the Caribbean, compared to 9.3% in the OECD.
This second edition of Corporate Tax Statistics also collects for the first time, information on controlled foreign company (CFC) rules, which are designed to ensure the taxation of certain categories of MNE income in the jurisdiction of the parent company in order to counter certain offshore structures that result in no or indefinite deferral of taxation (BEPS Action 3); as well as new data on interest limitation rules, which can assist in understanding progress related to the implementation of BEPS Action 4.
The publication and data are accessible at: https//oe.cd/corporate-tax-stats
A list of Frequently Asked Questions on CbCR is available at https://oe.cd/corporate-tax-stats-CbCR-FAQ
Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its online international tax risk management graduate curricula for industry professionals.
Texas A&M University is a public university, ranked in the top 20 universities by the Wall Street Journal / Times Higher Education university rankings, and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018).
Friday, June 5, 2020
Platform for Collaboration on Tax releases toolkit to help developing countries tackle the complex issues around taxing offshore indirect transfers of assets
The Platform for Collaboration on Tax (PCT) released a Toolkit on the Taxation of Offshore Indirect Transfers (OIT) providing guidance on the design and implementation issues when one country seeks to tax gains on the sale of interests in an entity owning assets located in that country by an entity which is a tax resident in another country. This is the third Toolkit1 published by the PCT to provide guidance on areas of international taxation of particular concern to developing countries.
This toolkit addresses a concern of particular significance to developing countries, mostly but not exclusively natural resource rich countries—primarily from the perspective of the country where the underlying assets are located. Taxation of the indirect transfer of assets such as mineral rights, and other assets generating location specific such as licensing rights for telecommunications, has been the subject of protracted public interest. This topic is a concern in many developing countries, magnified by the revenue challenges that governments around the world face as a consequence of the COVID-19 crisis.
The significance of this issue was recognised in the development of the OECD led Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent BEPS (the "MLI"). The MLI includes a provision based upon the OECD and UN model tax conventions, for purposes of extending the reach of existing tax treaties to allocate rights to tax such indirect transfers to location countries, should treaty partners so choose.
The toolkit assesses the economic rationale for such an allocation of taxing rights on such transfers to the country where the underlying assets are located. The toolkit proposes that location countries may wish to tax offshore indirect transfers of at least those assets which are immovable—within the meaning of current UN and OECD model treaties—and perhaps additional assets that also generate location specific rents. If location countries do wish to extend taxing rights to such transfers the toolkit suggests two models for domestic legislation which such countries may adopt.
The first model seeks to tax the resident asset owner under the deemed disposal model- treating it as having realised the gain on the assets in question immediately before the transfer and reacquired the asset immediately after the transfer. The second model seeks to tax instead the non-resident seller of the asset. The toolkit also suggests a model definition of immovable property for the purposes of such domestic legislation and provides further guidance to support enforcement and collection.
This toolkit takes into account extensive comments received during two rounds of public consultation in 2017 and 2018 from numerous groups representing country authorities, civil society organisation and the private sector.
The launch of this toolkit will be complemented with a launch webinar in the coming weeks. French and Spanish versions of the toolkit will follow, as well as virtual learning opportunities based on the toolkit.
The PCT is a joint initiative of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United Nations (UN) and the World Bank Group (WBG). More information can be found on the PCT's official website.
1 The PCT released a toolkit on Options for Low Income Countries' Effective and Efficient Use of Tax Incentives for Investment in 2015, and another for Addressing Difficulties in Accessing Comparables Data for Transfer Pricing Analyses in 2017. Others are in varying stages of development and public comment.
Thursday, May 14, 2020
to prohibit the use of tax flow-through entities and the provision of trust services to high-risk third countries and EU Blacklisted jurisdictions
Loyens & Loeff writes that the Netherlands government proposal entails the following prohibitions:
- The prohibition to facilitate the use of a flow-through entity, which currently is one of the trust services under the Wtt 2018.
- It will be prohibited to enter into a business relationship or provide a trust service in case a client, object company or the UBO of a client or object company resides in or has its seat in (a) a high-risk third country or (b) a non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes. The original list of high-risk third countries adopted by the European Commission may be found here, more countries were added to the list in October 2017, December 2017 and July 2018. A list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes is kept by the EU Council and can be found here.
Proposals in Dutch from Dutch Ministry here
Tuesday, February 11, 2020
Final OECD Transfer Pricing Guidance on Financial Transactions: Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Actions 4, 8-10
The report is significant because it is the first time the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines include guidance on the transfer pricing aspects of financial transactions, which will contribute to consistency in the interpretation of the arm’s length principle and help avoid transfer pricing disputes and double taxation.
The guidance in this report describes the transfer pricing aspects of financial transactions. It also includes a number of examples to illustrate the principles discussed in the report. Section B provides guidance on the application of the principles contained in Section D.1 of Chapter I of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines to financial transactions. In particular, Section B.1 of this report elaborates on how the accurate delineation analysis under Chapter I applies to the capital structure of an MNE within an MNE group. It also clarifies that the guidance included in that section does not prevent countries from implementing approaches to address capital structure and interest deductibility under their domestic legislation. Section B.2 outlines the economically relevant characteristics that inform the analysis of the terms and conditions of financial transactions. Sections C, D and E address specific issues related to the pricing of financial transactions (e.g. treasury functions, intra-group loans, cash pooling, hedging, guarantees and captive insurance). This analysis elaborates on both the accurate delineation and the pricing of the controlled financial transactions. Finally, Section F provides guidance on how to determine a risk-free rate of return and a risk-adjusted rate of return.
Sections A to E of this report are included in the Guidelines as Chapter X. Section F is added to Section D.1.2.1 in Chapter I of the Guidelines, immediately following paragraph 1.106. The guidance describes the transfer pricing aspects of financial transactions and includes a number of examples to illustrate the principles discussed in this report.
Saturday, February 1, 2020
International community renews commitment to multilateral efforts to address tax challenges from digitalisation of the economy
The international community reaffirmed its commitment to reach a consensus-based long-term solution to the tax challenges arising from the digitalisation of the economy, and will continue working toward an agreement by the end of 2020, according to the Statement by the Inclusive Framework on BEPS released by the OECD Friday. Download Statement-by-the-oecd-g20-inclusive-framework-on-beps-january-2020
The Inclusive Framework on BEPS, which groups 137 countries and jurisdictions on an equal footing for multilateral negotiation of international tax rules, decided during its Jan. 29-30 meeting to move ahead with a two-pillar negotiation to address the tax challenges of digitalisation.
Participants agreed to pursue the negotiation of new rules on where tax should be paid ("nexus" rules) and on what portion of profits they should be taxed ("profit allocation" rules), on the basis of a "Unified Approach" on Pillar One, to ensure that MNEs conducting sustained and significant business in places where they may not have a physical presence can be taxed in such jurisdictions. The Unified Approach agreed by the Inclusive Framework draws heavily on the Unified Approach released by the OECD Secretariat in October 2019.
Endorsement of the Unified Approach is a significant step, as until now Inclusive Framework members have been considering three competing proposals to address the tax challenges of digitalisation. A Programme of Work agreed in May 2019 has been replaced with a revised Programme of Work under Pillar One, which outlines the remaining technical work and political challenges to deliver a consensus-based solution by the end of 2020, as mandated by the G20. Inclusive Framework members will next meet in July in Berlin, at which time political agreement will be sought on the detailed architecture of this proposal.
The Statement by the Inclusive Framework on BEPS takes note of a proposal to implement Pillar One on a "safe harbour" basis, as proposed in a December 3, 2019 letter from US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría. It recognises that many Inclusive Framework members have expressed concerns about the proposed "safe harbour" approach. The Statement also highlights other critical policy issues that must be agreed under Pillar One before a decision can be taken. The "safe harbour" issue is included in the list of remaining work, but a final decision on this issue will be deferred until the architecture of Pillar One has been agreed upon.
The Inclusive Framework also welcomed the significant progress made on the technical design of Pillar Two, which aims to address remaining BEPS issues and ensure that international businesses pay a minimum level of tax. They noted the further work that needs to be done on Pillar Two.
"It is more urgent than ever that countries address the tax challenges arising from digitalisation of the economy, and the only effective way to do that is to continue advancing toward a consensus-based multilateral solution to overhaul the international tax system," said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría. "We welcome the Inclusive Framework’s decision to move forward in this arduous undertaking, but we also recognise that there are technical challenges to developing a workable solution as well as critical policy differences that need to be resolved in the coming months."
"The OECD will do everything it can to facilitate consensus, because we are convinced that failure to reach agreement would greatly increase the risk that countries will act unilaterally, with negative consequences on an already fragile global economy," Mr Gurría said.
The Inclusive Framework’s tax work on the digitalisation of the economy is part of wider efforts to restore stability and increase certainty in the international tax system, address possible overlaps with existing rules and mitigate the risks of double taxation.
The ongoing work will be presented in a new OECD Secretary-General Tax Report during the next meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank governors in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on 22-23 February.
Friday, December 20, 2019
Six new tables presenting data from Form 8975, Country-by-Country Report, and Form 8975 Schedule A, Tax Jurisdiction and Constituent Entity Information, are now available on SOI's Tax Stats Web page. The tables present data from the estimated population of corporate and partnership returns filed for Tax Year 2017. Five tables display the number of filers, revenues, profit, income taxes, earnings, number of employees, and tangible assets. The first three tables are classified by major geographic region and selected tax jurisdiction. The fourth table is classified by major industry group, geographic region, and select tax jurisdiction. The fifth table is classified by effective tax rate of multinational enterprise subgroups. A sixth table displays number of constituent entities classified by major geographic region, selected tax jurisdiction, and main business activities.
The following tables are available as Microsoft Excel® files.
Country-by-Country Report: Tax Jurisdiction Information
Data Presented: Number of Filers, Revenues, Profit, Income Taxes, Earnings, Number of Employees, Tangible Assets
|Classified by:||Major Geographic Region and Selected Tax Jurisdiction|
|Tax Years:||2017 | 2016|
|Classified by:||Major Geographic Region and Selected Tax Jurisdiction with Positive Profit Before Income Tax|
|Tax Years:||2017 | 2016|
|Classified by:||Major Geographic Region and Selected Tax Jurisdiction with Negative or Zero Profit Before Income Tax|
|Tax Years:||2017 | 2016|
|Classified by:||Major Industry Group, Geographic Region, and Selected Tax Jurisdiction|
|Tax Years:||2017 | 2016|
|Classified by:||Effective Tax Rate of Multinational Enterprise Sub-groups|
|Tax Years:||2017 | 2016|
Country-by-Country Report: Constituent Entities
Data Presented: Number of Constituent Entities
|Classified by:||Major Geographic Region, Selected Tax Jurisdiction, and Main Business Activities|
|Tax Years:||2017 | 2016|
William Byrnes’ 4th Edition of his industry-leading Practical Guide to U.S. Transfer Pricing treatise was published on December 19, 2019 by Matthew Bender LexisNexis. William Byrnes is the author or co-author of nine Lexis titles and an advisory board member of Law360’s International Tax journal.
William Byrnes’ completely revised 4th Edition Practical Guide to U.S. Transfer Pricing (2020) has been expanded to 2,000 pages of analyses and practice notes, 47 chapters divided over six parts: Part I: U.S. regulatory analysis, application of transfer pricing methods, and jurisprudence; Part II: OECD; Part III: United Nations; Part IV: European Union; Part V: Industry topics; and Part VI: Country practice and tax risk management. Professor Byrnes brings together 50 of the industry’s eminent transfer pricing counsel, economists, and financial accountants to provide a comprehensive two-volume “go-to” resource for tax risk management.
William Byrnes explained, “I am fortunate to be able to call upon and work with the industry’s leading transfer pricing professionals from firms such as Alston, Covington, Pillsbury, Jones Day, McDermott, Duff & Phelps, Miller Chevalier, PwC, KPMG, and multinational companies like Vertex and Veritas.” Sixty contributors add subject matter expertise on technical issues faced by tax and risk management counsel.
Last chance to join one of the case study teams for TRANSFER PRICING taught live online, using Zoom, by Dr. Lorraine Eden, Prof. William Byrnes, and many industry experts… The courses are for tax attorneys, accountants, or economists and count toward the Texas A&M’s INTERNATIONAL TAX Master degree (taught online).
The class of a maximum of 18 students will be grouped into teams of 3 students each. The 6 teams meet using Zoom to prepare a weekly presentation to respond to a real-world post-BEPS client study. Then all teams meet together online via Zoom twice each week at 8:00am Dallas time Wednesdays and Sundays to discuss and present the case study solutions. Students are provided without charge textbook materials, videos with PPT, and podcasts, and granted access to a large online law & business database library including Lexis, Bloomberg, IBFD, Kluwer/CCH, Thomson, among many other tax resources.
To apply for the transfer pricing courses and international tax courses, contact Jeff Green, Graduate Programs Coordinator, T: +1 (817) 212-3866, E: email@example.com or contact David Dye, Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs, T (817) 212-3954, E: firstname.lastname@example.org. Texas A&M Admissions website: https://law.tamu.edu/distance-education/international-tax (applications and previous university transcripts must be received by Admissions before Wednesday, January 8th at 5pm Texas time). Note that the university is closed for the holidays from Dec. 20 until Jan. 2, 2020.