Lewis Rice attorney Timothy G. Stewart co-presented to the St. Louis International Tax Group on the OECD's efforts to address Base Erosion and Profit Shifting.
International Business Transactions has indeed made the world smaller and more developed. However due to the free cross boundary transactions, business entities are now able to generate revenue and not pay the appropriate taxes in their respective countries.
The G20 Countries had assigned OECD to come up with some non tax evasion rules so that the countries of the world may accept the same without any dispute.
This presentation covers the BEPS Rules suggested by OECD and explains the changes in Tax Laws that India has incorporated in order to align with BEPS and to curb Tax Evasion.
This presentation was performed by my GMCS Team during the GMCS 2 Course at Mangalore Branch of SIRC of ICAI.
International Tax Planning after BEPS - A Country SpotlightTIAG_Alliance
The OECD initiative against “Base Erosion and Profit Shifting” was
commissioned by the G-20 in 2013. Final deliverables were presented to the G-20 in November 2015.
“Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) refers to tax planning strategies that exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules to artificially shift profits to low or no-tax locations where there is little or no economic activity, resulting in little or no overall corporate tax being paid. BEPS is of major significance for developing countries due to their heavy reliance on corporate income tax, particularly from multinational enterprises (MNEs.)”
Creators and Presenters:
• Russell Brown, LehmanBrown, China
• Florence Bastin, Fiduciaire du Grand-Duché de
Luxembourg S.à r.l. (FLUX)
• Fabrice Rymarz, Racine, France
• Simone Hennessy, HSOC, Ireland
• Fuad Saba, FGMK, Chicago, USA (Moderator)
HDG - Base Erosion & Profit Shifting (BEPS) - Conceptual Analysis & Country b...Hitesh Gajaria
How Tax Authorities are Globally Coming Together to Combat the Digital Disruption
World's Largest Cab Co ... Owns No Cabs! - (Uber)
Largest Accommodation Provider .... Owns No Real Estate! (Airbnb)
World's Most Valuable Retailer .. Has No Inventory!
World's Largest Movie House ... Owns No Cinemas! (NetFlix)
Most Popular Media Owner .. Creates No Content! (Facebook)
Tax management within multinational enterprises (MNEs) has never been more challenging. 'Getting to grips with the BEPS Action Plan' is the latest Grant Thornton report exploring the OECD’s planned overhaul of the international tax system, what it means for businesses and how they can prepare.
International Business Transactions has indeed made the world smaller and more developed. However due to the free cross boundary transactions, business entities are now able to generate revenue and not pay the appropriate taxes in their respective countries.
The G20 Countries had assigned OECD to come up with some non tax evasion rules so that the countries of the world may accept the same without any dispute.
This presentation covers the BEPS Rules suggested by OECD and explains the changes in Tax Laws that India has incorporated in order to align with BEPS and to curb Tax Evasion.
This presentation was performed by my GMCS Team during the GMCS 2 Course at Mangalore Branch of SIRC of ICAI.
International Tax Planning after BEPS - A Country SpotlightTIAG_Alliance
The OECD initiative against “Base Erosion and Profit Shifting” was
commissioned by the G-20 in 2013. Final deliverables were presented to the G-20 in November 2015.
“Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) refers to tax planning strategies that exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules to artificially shift profits to low or no-tax locations where there is little or no economic activity, resulting in little or no overall corporate tax being paid. BEPS is of major significance for developing countries due to their heavy reliance on corporate income tax, particularly from multinational enterprises (MNEs.)”
Creators and Presenters:
• Russell Brown, LehmanBrown, China
• Florence Bastin, Fiduciaire du Grand-Duché de
Luxembourg S.à r.l. (FLUX)
• Fabrice Rymarz, Racine, France
• Simone Hennessy, HSOC, Ireland
• Fuad Saba, FGMK, Chicago, USA (Moderator)
HDG - Base Erosion & Profit Shifting (BEPS) - Conceptual Analysis & Country b...Hitesh Gajaria
How Tax Authorities are Globally Coming Together to Combat the Digital Disruption
World's Largest Cab Co ... Owns No Cabs! - (Uber)
Largest Accommodation Provider .... Owns No Real Estate! (Airbnb)
World's Most Valuable Retailer .. Has No Inventory!
World's Largest Movie House ... Owns No Cinemas! (NetFlix)
Most Popular Media Owner .. Creates No Content! (Facebook)
Tax management within multinational enterprises (MNEs) has never been more challenging. 'Getting to grips with the BEPS Action Plan' is the latest Grant Thornton report exploring the OECD’s planned overhaul of the international tax system, what it means for businesses and how they can prepare.
Session by Raffaele Russo, Head, BEPS Project, OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, Meeting of the OECD Parliamentary Group on Tax, 19 Oct 2015
Session by Achim Pross, Head, International Co-operation and Tax Administration Division, OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, Meeting of the OECD Parliamentary Group on Tax, 19 Oct 2015
A whole new world! International tax structuring in light of the OECD BEPS project.
• What does this all mean in practice? How will the OECD BEPS project have legal effect?
• Tax structuring, before and after: the effect of the OECD BEPS project on international business structures
• Tax compliance and risk management, before and after: what will your business have to do differently going forward?
Omleen Ajimal, Director of International Tax, Squire Sanders
In July 2013 the OECD unveiled the Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), which aims to develop a new set of standards to prevent double non-taxation and ensure that profits are taxed where they are actually generated. By Grace Perez-Navarro, Deputy Director, and Raffaele Russo, Head of the BEPS Project, Centre for Tax Policy and Administration.
BEPS: Action #1 - Addressing the tax challenges of the digital economyAlex Baulf
No new taxes or recommendations unique to the digital economy were suggested by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) but the door is still open for unilateral safeguard actions.
Session by David Bradbury, Head, Tax Policy Statistics Division, OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, Meeting of the OECD Parliamentary Group on Tax, 19 Oct 2015
BEPS Webcast #4 - Presentation of 2014 DeliverablesOECDtax
As part of the official launch of the BEPS 2014 Deliverables, you are invited to join senior members from the OECD's Centre for Tax Policy and Administration (CTPA) for a live webcast on 16 September 2014 at 4:00PM (CEST, Paris time) as they discuss the details of the first set of deliverables, the involvement of developing countries, the input from stakeholders, as well as the planned next steps.
View the webcast: http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps-webcasts.htm
Exchange on request, automatic exchange of financial account information and TRACE (Treaty Relief and Compliance Enhancement), spontaneous exchange of rulings, country-by-country reporting, voluntary disclosure programmes.
Session by Achim Pross, Head, International Co-operation and Tax Administration Division, OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration and Monica Bhatia, Head, Secretariat of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, Meeting of the OECD Parliamentary Group on Tax, 19 Oct 2015
Presentation from the International Taxation session at the ICTD 7th annual meeting. The panel featured a discussion with Sol Picciotto, Alex Ezenagu, Michael Durst, Catherine Ngina Mutava, Martin Hearson, and Annet Oguttu.
With a number of important recent and upcoming developments in the OECD's international tax work, we invite you to join the OECD's Centre for Tax Policy and Administration (CTPA) for the latest tax update. Topics include:
- The BEPS Project: Outcomes from the inaugural meeting of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS, including the latest discussion drafts and progress on implementation.
- The upcoming G20 Tax Policy Symposium.
- The months ahead: Our work programme, and how you can be involved.
Prices charged between associated enterprises established in different countries may not reflect an independent market price, which is called transfer pricing. This is a major concern for tax authorities, who worry that MNEs may set transfer prices on cross-border transactions to reduce taxable profits in their jurisdiction. This has led to the rise of transfer pricing regulations and enforcement, making transfer pricing a major tax compliance issue. While there were too much gaps and frictions in the combination of domestic tax rules and the OECD guidelines, the OECD issued its BEPS Action Plan.
Session by Raffaele Russo, Head, BEPS Project, OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, Meeting of the OECD Parliamentary Group on Tax, 19 Oct 2015
Session by Achim Pross, Head, International Co-operation and Tax Administration Division, OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, Meeting of the OECD Parliamentary Group on Tax, 19 Oct 2015
A whole new world! International tax structuring in light of the OECD BEPS project.
• What does this all mean in practice? How will the OECD BEPS project have legal effect?
• Tax structuring, before and after: the effect of the OECD BEPS project on international business structures
• Tax compliance and risk management, before and after: what will your business have to do differently going forward?
Omleen Ajimal, Director of International Tax, Squire Sanders
In July 2013 the OECD unveiled the Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), which aims to develop a new set of standards to prevent double non-taxation and ensure that profits are taxed where they are actually generated. By Grace Perez-Navarro, Deputy Director, and Raffaele Russo, Head of the BEPS Project, Centre for Tax Policy and Administration.
BEPS: Action #1 - Addressing the tax challenges of the digital economyAlex Baulf
No new taxes or recommendations unique to the digital economy were suggested by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) but the door is still open for unilateral safeguard actions.
Session by David Bradbury, Head, Tax Policy Statistics Division, OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, Meeting of the OECD Parliamentary Group on Tax, 19 Oct 2015
BEPS Webcast #4 - Presentation of 2014 DeliverablesOECDtax
As part of the official launch of the BEPS 2014 Deliverables, you are invited to join senior members from the OECD's Centre for Tax Policy and Administration (CTPA) for a live webcast on 16 September 2014 at 4:00PM (CEST, Paris time) as they discuss the details of the first set of deliverables, the involvement of developing countries, the input from stakeholders, as well as the planned next steps.
View the webcast: http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps-webcasts.htm
Exchange on request, automatic exchange of financial account information and TRACE (Treaty Relief and Compliance Enhancement), spontaneous exchange of rulings, country-by-country reporting, voluntary disclosure programmes.
Session by Achim Pross, Head, International Co-operation and Tax Administration Division, OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration and Monica Bhatia, Head, Secretariat of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, Meeting of the OECD Parliamentary Group on Tax, 19 Oct 2015
Presentation from the International Taxation session at the ICTD 7th annual meeting. The panel featured a discussion with Sol Picciotto, Alex Ezenagu, Michael Durst, Catherine Ngina Mutava, Martin Hearson, and Annet Oguttu.
With a number of important recent and upcoming developments in the OECD's international tax work, we invite you to join the OECD's Centre for Tax Policy and Administration (CTPA) for the latest tax update. Topics include:
- The BEPS Project: Outcomes from the inaugural meeting of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS, including the latest discussion drafts and progress on implementation.
- The upcoming G20 Tax Policy Symposium.
- The months ahead: Our work programme, and how you can be involved.
Prices charged between associated enterprises established in different countries may not reflect an independent market price, which is called transfer pricing. This is a major concern for tax authorities, who worry that MNEs may set transfer prices on cross-border transactions to reduce taxable profits in their jurisdiction. This has led to the rise of transfer pricing regulations and enforcement, making transfer pricing a major tax compliance issue. While there were too much gaps and frictions in the combination of domestic tax rules and the OECD guidelines, the OECD issued its BEPS Action Plan.
This PPT is mainly on the basics of International Taxation which is confusing for many students and many professionals too nowadays. During this evolving world of multinational culture, International Taxation has gained significant importance of which all the professionals should be aware of.
I have tried to compile the concepts of international taxation in this PPT except the concept of Transfer Pricing which in itself is like a whole book.
I have inserted the core concepts which lead to the emergence of International Taxation in India.
Unitary Taxation with a Global Formulary Approach as a Realistic and Appropriate Option for Developing Nations: A China Case Study
This is a Presentation by Kerrie Sadiq
(project funded by the ICTD)
Slides of the Webinar "International Tax Planning for Trading Companies" presented by NEWCO.
In this webinar, the concept of trading is explained, as well as the key factors normally considered when choosing a jurisdiction, namely safety and credibility, transparency, human resources and know how, operational costs, infrastructures and tax regime. The specific advantages of Madeira and Malta for international trading companies are also outlined.
As an alumni to the courses taught by Professor Alan Cerf at UC Berkeley, Brian Rowbotham and Cindy Hsieh returns to campus each semester to be a guest lecturer for the new classes.
IBSA Webinar on FATCA & Exchange of Information which took place on 27 January 2015. Presented by Ross Belhomme of Saffery Champness (Geneva) and Peter Grant of KPMG (London). To view the webinar on demand, please visit our Bright Talk channel at https://www.brighttalk.com/channel/11641
Keynote Presentation
The BEPS Project and the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy
• The overview of the OECD/G20 BEPS project: progress to date and future developments
• Tax challenges of the digital economy: how has digitalisation transformed the global economy?
• Creating a sustainable regulatory ecosystem for the development of digital economy
Raffaele Russo, Head of BEPS Project, The OECD
Multinationals are challenged by changing tax laws, accounting practices, valuation methods and penalties as administrations around the world clamp down on tax avoidance
Key Takeaways:
- Background of BEPS Conflict
- Recommendations and Measures in place
- Significance and impact of G7 Policy Decision
- Way forward on implementation
Key Takeaways:
- Background and Overview of Legal Provision
- Facts of the Case
- Contentions of the Assessee and Revenue
- Supreme Court’s Verdict
- Key Learnings and Way Forward
Addressing international corporate tax evasion an analysis of the oecd acti...Florian Marchal
This presentation aims to describe the issue around the international tax standards which are not adapted to the ongoing changes in the economy, creating loopholes and opportunities for base erosion and profit shifting. Such issue is currently being tackled and is taking place in a context where the OECD established the BEPS action plan.
This work is based around the following research question: Is the BEPS initiative an appropriate approach to harmonize the international tax system and consequently reduce base erosion and profit shifting?
Director: Professor Jean-Pierre De Laet
Assessor and jury president: Professor Pascal Minne
The way to Tax Multinational Corporations?Howie Thomas
John Woodward is an Australian Accountant who has invented a simplified way of Taxing Multinational Corporations globally. It's simplicity is such that you stop and think why has nobody done this before?
Professionals in the tax community are tasked with developing planning strategies under existing statutory schemes that minimize or eliminate their clients’ global tax burden. It is these planning structures that draw the attention of tax authorities as causing the “erosion” of taxable income bases and consequently, the tax revenues for their respective countries.
Global companies investing in the United States face unique opportunities and challenges. Doing business in the US reviews the key tax issues and provides insights to help investors navigate the US business environment.
Similar to International Tax Planning as Viewed through the Eyes of BEPS (20)
Military Commissions details LtCol Thomas Jasper as Detailed Defense CounselThomas (Tom) Jasper
Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Notice of the Chief Defense Counsel's detailing of LtCol Thomas F. Jasper, Jr. USMC, as Detailed Defense Counsel for Abd Al Hadi Al-Iraqi on 6 August 2014 in the case of United States v. Hadi al Iraqi (10026)
ALL EYES ON RAFAH BUT WHY Explain more.pdf46adnanshahzad
All eyes on Rafah: But why?. The Rafah border crossing, a crucial point between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, often finds itself at the center of global attention. As we explore the significance of Rafah, we’ll uncover why all eyes are on Rafah and the complexities surrounding this pivotal region.
INTRODUCTION
What makes Rafah so significant that it captures global attention? The phrase ‘All eyes are on Rafah’ resonates not just with those in the region but with people worldwide who recognize its strategic, humanitarian, and political importance. In this guide, we will delve into the factors that make Rafah a focal point for international interest, examining its historical context, humanitarian challenges, and political dimensions.
WINDING UP of COMPANY, Modes of DissolutionKHURRAMWALI
Winding up, also known as liquidation, refers to the legal and financial process of dissolving a company. It involves ceasing operations, selling assets, settling debts, and ultimately removing the company from the official business registry.
Here's a breakdown of the key aspects of winding up:
Reasons for Winding Up:
Insolvency: This is the most common reason, where the company cannot pay its debts. Creditors may initiate a compulsory winding up to recover their dues.
Voluntary Closure: The owners may decide to close the company due to reasons like reaching business goals, facing losses, or merging with another company.
Deadlock: If shareholders or directors cannot agree on how to run the company, a court may order a winding up.
Types of Winding Up:
Voluntary Winding Up: This is initiated by the company's shareholders through a resolution passed by a majority vote. There are two main types:
Members' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is solvent (has enough assets to pay off its debts) and shareholders will receive any remaining assets after debts are settled.
Creditors' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is insolvent and creditors will be prioritized in receiving payment from the sale of assets.
Compulsory Winding Up: This is initiated by a court order, typically at the request of creditors, government agencies, or even by the company itself if it's insolvent.
Process of Winding Up:
Appointment of Liquidator: A qualified professional is appointed to oversee the winding-up process. They are responsible for selling assets, paying off debts, and distributing any remaining funds.
Cease Trading: The company stops its regular business operations.
Notification of Creditors: Creditors are informed about the winding up and invited to submit their claims.
Sale of Assets: The company's assets are sold to generate cash to pay off creditors.
Payment of Debts: Creditors are paid according to a set order of priority, with secured creditors receiving payment before unsecured creditors.
Distribution to Shareholders: If there are any remaining funds after all debts are settled, they are distributed to shareholders according to their ownership stake.
Dissolution: Once all claims are settled and distributions made, the company is officially dissolved and removed from the business register.
Impact of Winding Up:
Employees: Employees will likely lose their jobs during the winding-up process.
Creditors: Creditors may not recover their debts in full, especially if the company is insolvent.
Shareholders: Shareholders may not receive any payout if the company's debts exceed its assets.
Winding up is a complex legal and financial process that can have significant consequences for all parties involved. It's important to seek professional legal and financial advice when considering winding up a company.
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...Finlaw Consultancy Pvt Ltd
Introduction-
The process of register multi-state cooperative society in India is governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. This process requires the office bearers to undertake several crucial responsibilities to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks. The key office bearers typically include the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, along with other elected members of the managing committee. Their responsibilities encompass administrative, legal, and financial duties essential for the successful registration and operation of the society.
Introducing New Government Regulation on Toll Road.pdfAHRP Law Firm
For nearly two decades, Government Regulation Number 15 of 2005 on Toll Roads ("GR No. 15/2005") has served as the cornerstone of toll road legislation. However, with the emergence of various new developments and legal requirements, the Government has enacted Government Regulation Number 23 of 2024 on Toll Roads to replace GR No. 15/2005. This new regulation introduces several provisions impacting toll business entities and toll road users. Find out more out insights about this topic in our Legal Brief publication.
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
RIGHTS OF VICTIM EDITED PRESENTATION(SAIF JAVED).pptxOmGod1
Victims of crime have a range of rights designed to ensure their protection, support, and participation in the justice system. These rights include the right to be treated with dignity and respect, the right to be informed about the progress of their case, and the right to be heard during legal proceedings. Victims are entitled to protection from intimidation and harm, access to support services such as counseling and medical care, and the right to restitution from the offender. Additionally, many jurisdictions provide victims with the right to participate in parole hearings and the right to privacy to protect their personal information from public disclosure. These rights aim to acknowledge the impact of crime on victims and to provide them with the necessary resources and involvement in the judicial process.
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v/s Union of India.pptxshweeta209
transfer of the P.I.L filed by lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in Delhi High Court to Supreme Court.
on the issue of UNIFORM MARRIAGE AGE of men and women.
NATURE, ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.pptxanvithaav
These slides helps the student of international law to understand what is the nature of international law? and how international law was originated and developed?.
The slides was well structured along with the highlighted points for better understanding .
DNA Testing in Civil and Criminal Matters.pptxpatrons legal
Get insights into DNA testing and its application in civil and criminal matters. Find out how it contributes to fair and accurate legal proceedings. For more information: https://www.patronslegal.com/criminal-litigation.html
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
International Tax Planning as Viewed through the Eyes of BEPS
1. SEPTEMBER 17, 2015
Basic (and Not So Basic)
International Tax Planning as
Viewed through the Eyes of BEPS
St. Louis International Tax Group, Inc.
TIMOTHY G. STEWART
LEWIS RICE LLC
PHILIP B. WRIGHT
BRYAN CAVE LLP
2. International Income Tax Planning
Fundamental Principals
Base of Taxation
Source Based Taxation
Define Source
Residence Based Taxation
Define Residence (Organized/Incorporated – Management and
Control)
Treatment of Legal Entities as Separate Taxpayers
Fiscally Transparent Entities
Hybrid Entities
Planning Techniques
Gross Income Earned In Lowest Tax Jurisdiction
E.g. – Migration of Intangibles
Deductions Incurred In Highest Tax Jurisdiction with low or no
offsetting withholding or Income Taxation
E.g. – Leverage
3. BEPS – Background
Prologue
Media Focus on MNE Tax Planning
Senate Permanent Committee on Investigations
Offshore Profit Shifting and the U.S. Tax Code - Part 1 (Microsoft &
Hewlett-Packard) (Sept. 20, 2012) (S. Hrg. 112-781)
Offshore Profit Shifting and the U.S. Tax Code - Part 2 (Apple Inc.)
(May 21, 2013) (S. Hrg. 113-90)
Caterpillar’s Offshore Tax Strategy (April 1, 2014) (S. Hrg. 113-408)
Impact of the U.S. Tax Code on the Market for Corporate Control
and Jobs (July 30, 2015)
4. BEPS – Background
OECD Reports
Prior OECD Reports
BEPS Focus
OECD (2013) Addressing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, OECD Publishing, Paris
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264192744-en
OECD (2013), Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, OECD Publishing, Paris
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264202719-en
Country Unilateral Action
U.S. Reaction
Hatch, Ryan Call on Treasury to Engage Congress on OECD International Tax
Project (June 9, 2015)
Senate Finance Committee - The International Tax Bipartisan Tax Working Group
Report (July 7, 2015)
Treasury Department Priority Guidance Plan - Regulations under §§6011 and 6038
relating to the country-by-country reporting of income, earnings, taxes paid, and
certain economic activity for transfer pricing risk assessment (July 31, 2015)
Hatch, Ryan Question Treasury’s Planned Country-by-Country Reporting
Regulations (August 27, 2015)
6. What is BEPS?
Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”)
• Arrangements that result in low or no taxation
by:
• shifting profits away from jurisdictions where the
activities related to those profits are performed, or
• exploiting gaps in the interaction of domestic tax laws
in order to avoid taxation
7. What is BEPS’ focus?
• Focus on tax planning that shifts profits from high
taxed countries to low taxed countries without
materially changing the way in which the taxpayer
operates
• Examples include discrepancies where:
• Products and services are produced;
• Sales and distribution result;
• Research and development is undertaken;
• How a taxpayer’s capital and labor are used
8. What is the base being eroded?
The base is the net taxable income (i.e., pre-tax
income) in a particular country.
9. Key Pressure Areas Identified by the OECD
• Key pressure areas identified by the OECD that
create BEPS opportunities include:
• Hybrids and mismatches that result in tax arbitrage
• Residence-source tax (e.g., digital commerce)
• Intragroup financing
• Transfer pricing issues
• Anti-avoidance rules
• Preferential tax regimes
11. BEPS Actions
Action 1: Address the tax challenges of the digital
economy
Actions 8, 9 & 10: Assure that transfer pricing
outcomes are in line with value creation.
Action 2: Neutralize the effects of hybrid mismatch
arrangements
Action 11: Establish methodologies to collect and
analyze data on BEPS and the actions to address it
Action 3: Strengthen CFC rules Action 12: Require taxpayers to disclose their
aggressive tax planning arrangements
Action 4: Limit base erosion via interest
deductions and other financial payments
Action 13: Re-examine transfer pricing
documentation
Action 5: Counter harmful tax practices more
effectively, taking into account transparency and
substance
Action 14: Make dispute resolution mechanisms
more effective
Action 6: Prevent treaty abuse Action 15: Develop a multilateral instrument
Action 7: Prevent the artificial avoidance of PE
status
12. OECD Published Reports
Action 1 – Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital
Economy
Action 2 – Neutralising the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch
Arrangements
Action 5 – Countering Harmful Tax Practices More
Effectively, Taking into Account Transparency and Substance
Action 6 – Preventing the Granting of Treaty Benefits in
Inappropriate Circumstances
Action 8 – Guidance on Transfer Pricing Aspects of
Intangibles,
Action 13 – Guidance on Transfer Pricing Documentation
and Country-by-Country Reporting
Action 15 – Developing a Multilateral Instrument to Modify
Bilateral Tax Treaties
13. Digital Economy
Primary conclusion
Digital economy is so widespread that that it represents more
than a special part of the economy– it is the economy
Not possible to isolate the digital economy for purposes of
creating separate tax rules
Digital Economy Task Force (“DETF”) given
authority to propose its own solutions
DETF raised certain specific points but provided no specific
conclusions
14. Digital Economy
Special points raised by the DETF include:
The OECD model treaty PE article needs to be reviewed
Reliance on concluding a contract in one territory to avoid
taxation in another
Highlights the role of intangibles and the increasing
importance of data
Highlights the possibility of changing CFC rules to target
the types of income in a digital economy
Addresses consumption tax questions
15. ANNEX C
OECD REPORT - ADDRESSING BASE
EROSION AND PROFIT SHIFTING
MNE Tax Planning Structures
16. E-Commerce structure
Transfer of Intangibles with Hybrid Entities
Žŵ ĂŶƉ LJ
Ž ŶƵ ƚƌLJ
Žŵ ĂŶƉ LJ
Ž ŶƵ ƚƌ ͬLJ
Žŵ ĂŶƉ LJ
Ž ŶƵ ƚƌLJ
Žŵ ĂŶƉ LJ
Ž ŶƵ ƚƌLJ
Sub-license
Royalty
(no withholding tax)
Transfer of rights to pre-
existing IP and IP from
new R&D.
“Buy-in” payment for pre-existing IP.
Contract R&D service payments for IP
from new R&D.
17. E Commerce Structure
Background
Company A, organized in Country A, initially developed technology and
intangibles to support its business in Country A
Rights to technology developed by Company A is licensed or transferred
to Company C under a cost sharing or cost contribution arrangement
Company C is resident outside of Country A
Company C agrees to make a “buy in” payment equal to the value of the
existing technology
Company C licenses all of its rights in the technology to Company D in
exchange for a royalty
Company D is organized and managed and controlled in Country D
Company D sublicenses the technology to Company B
Company B employs significant workforce in Country B in its operations
18. E-Commerce Structure Result
Country B imposes corporate income tax on taxable profit in Country B
but the taxable profit is substantially “eroded” as a result of the royalty
payment from Company B to Company D
Country D taxes the profits of Company D such profits reduced by the
royalty it pays to Company C
Company D performs no functions and holds no assets so Company D is
allocated little income
Country D does not impose withholding tax on royalty payments under its
domestic law
Company C is managed and controlled in Country C. Country C does not
impose a corporate income tax. Company C has no presence in Country B.
The royalty income received by Company C is not taxed by Country D, Country C or Country B
19. Tax Residence – Residence Taxation
• Conflict among jurisdictions over the right to tax (i.e., potential double
tax) are resolved by treaty by either allocating exclusive taxing rights to
one of the contracting states or by allocating the primary right to tax
either to:
• the country that is the source of the income, or
• the country in which the profit earner is resident
Where the taxing right is based on residency, the ideal corporate entity
for tax purposes is an entity that is a tax resident of a tax haven (i.e., no
tax country) or a nowhere resident, so that no jurisdiction has a taxing
right. Irish residency law provides asymmetry which provides planning
opportunities.
• For U.S. tax purposes tax residence is based on the place of incorporation
• For Irish tax purposes, tax residence is based on where the company is
“managed and controlled”
21. Apple Structure
Irish Holdco (Company C) is managed and controlled in
Bermuda. Ireland taxes only Irish source income generated
by Irish Holdco. Non-Irish source income is not subject to
tax in Ireland
Netherlands does not tax the royalty income under the EU
and the Netherlands Royalty Directive. The Netherlands also
provides a favorable treaty to avoid withholding taxes on
royalty payments
Result: Irish source income is subject to Ireland’s 12.5% tax
and non-Irish Source income is not taxed
Apple’s effective tax rate on earnings through this structure is
reportedly less than 3% --approx. 2.4%
22. Google Structure
“Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich”
' ŽŽŐůĞ
h ^͘ ͘
Žŵ ĂŶƉ LJ
/ ĞůĂŶĚƌ ͬĞ ŵ ĚĂƌ Ƶ Ύ
Žŵ ĂŶƉ LJ
E Ğ ŚĞ ůĂŶĚƚ ƌ Ɛ
Žŵ ĂŶƉ LJ
/ ĞůĂŶĚƌ
Sub-license
Interco Royalty
“Buy-in” payment for pre-
existing IP and IP from new
R&D..
Transfer of rights to pre-
existing IP and IP from new
R&D.
*Incorporated in Ireland, managed and controlled in
Bermuda.
23. Google Structure
The Irish Holdco (Company C) is managed and controlled
outside of Ireland. Ireland taxes only Irish source income.
Non Irish source income is treated as having no tax
residence and is not taxed.
The Netherlands does not tax the royalty income under the
EU and the Netherlands Royalty Directive.
The result – only Irish source income is subject to Ireland’s
12.5% tax and the result is not taxed.
24. Transfer of manufacturing operations and supporting intangibles
cost contribution arrangement
Žŵ ĂŶƉ LJ
Žŵ ĂŶƉ LJ
Žŵ ĂŶƉ LJ Žŵ ĂŶƉ LJ
Principal operating company
responsible for manufacture of
Group products
Contract manufacturing
company
Company A holds rights to the
manufacture and sale of Group
products in Country A ((100-s)
percent of total Group sales).
R&D carried out by Company A.
Costs of R&D and rights to IP
shared between Company A
and B, under R&D cost sharing
agreement (CSA).
R&D
Payments to Company C for
manufacture of Group
products to be sold in
Country A ((100-s)of total
Group sales). Payment
covers costs and risks
associated with
manufacture.
Cost-plus payments to Company D
for manufacture of Group products
(contract manufacturing agreement)
Payments to Company A under CSA for
(s) percent of R&D costs, giving
Company B rights to the manufacture
and the sale of Group products outside
Contry A (s percent of the Group sales).
license
royalty
25. Transfer of Manufacturing Operations and Intangibles
Background
Company A is a publicly traded company based in country A and parent of a
multinational group (“Group”).
Group invests heavily in research, product design and development
Company A carried out all of the R&D and it owns all of the resulting IP
Company A has sole responsibility for all risks associated with the manufacture and sale of products throughout
the world.
Company A creates Company B in Country B and assigns to Company B its IP and
responsibility for the manufacture and sale of products outside Country A
Company A retained domestic IP rights related to the manufacture and sale of products
within Country A and continues to carry out R&D for the Group
Group creates two additional foreign entities
Company C organized in Country C and serves as the principal company responsible for
the manufacture and sale of Group products outside of Country A
Company D is a manufacturing entity responsible for the production of Group products
outside of Country A
For U.S. tax purposes, both Company C and D are treated as disregarded for U.S. tax
purposes but they are considered corporations in Country C and Country D.
26. Transfer of Manufacturing Operations and Intangibles
Background
Transfer of IP from Company A to Company B is taxable in Country A via a cost-
sharing arrangement (CSA)
Under CSA, Company B is required to make a buy-in payment to Company A for the pre-
existing IP
Buy-in payment is either a lump sum or running royalty
Company B assumes responsibility to reimburse Company A for a share of
ongoing R&D expense reflecting its share of the anticipated benefit Company B
expects to derive from ongoing R&D
For example, if Company B is responsible for 45% of global revenues, it would be
expected to reimburse Company A for approximately 45% of product area R&D under
the CSA.
Even though Company B reimburses Company A for its R&D costs, Company A is
entitled to an R&D credit in Country A for the full amount of its R&D expenditures.
Company B is treated as the owner of the non-Country A IP rights of the Group.
Company B licenses those rights to Company C and Company C contractually
assumes responsibility for producing and selling Group products outside Country
A.
27. Transfer of Manufacturing Operations and Intangibles
Result
Company C engages Company D to serve as a contract manufacturer. Under
manufacturing agreement, Company D manufactures for a fee equal to direct
and indirect production costs plus a 5% mark-up. Manufacturing agreement
between Company C and Company D specifies that Company C bears the
principal risks associated with the production of the product.
Actual production may take place in Country D or in a branch of Company D in a low-cost
manufacturing country
Company D includes fee in its taxable income
Manufactured products are the property of Company C, which sells the
products to or through related sales entities in high tax jurisdictions
Contractual arrangements between Company C and marketing companies specify that Company C
assumes the principal risks related to the marketing of the products
Sales and marketing companies are compensated on a basis reflecting their limited risk (Limited
Risk Distributor)
Company C earns profit equal to its gross sales revenue on sales, less fees paid
to Company D for the manufacture of the goods, payments to any related
commission based marketing entities and less royalties paid to Company B
28. Transfer of Manufacturing Operations and Intangibles
Result
Royalties paid to Company B by Company C for its foreign IP rights are
deductible by Company C. Country C does not impose withholding tax on
royalty payments and Country B does not impose corporate income tax; thus,
the royalty payment is free of withholding and income tax
Country A taxation is avoided on the royalty payment from Company C to
Company B under Country A’s CFC rules due to “check the box” elections,
royalty payment from Company C to Company B is disregarded for Country A
tax purposes
Group erodes Country C tax base with deductible royalty payments and avoid
Country A taxation on what would otherwise be passive royalty income
Dividends paid to Company B are free of tax at source as Country B does not tax
dividend income and dividend payment is disregarded for Country A tax
purposes
29. Leveraged Acquisition
D E ' Žƌ ƵƉ
>, ŽůĚĐŽ
d, ŽůĚĐŽ
dĂ ŐĞ Žƌ ƚ ͘
State P
Ž
State L
Tax grouping
Ğ ŶĂůĂŶŬdžƚ ƌ
Interest
Loan
EUR 600m
Dividends/
Interest
Hybrid Instrument
EUR 400 m
^ĞůůĞƌ
State T
Loan
EUR 400m
EUR 1 billion
Tax grouping
30. Leveraged Acquisition
Background
MNE is headquarter in State P with operations in various countries,
including State L. MNE plans to acquire Target Co., a State T
manufacturing company The purchase price is EUR 1 billion, 60% to be
financed externally and 40% to be financed by MNE.
MNE sets up a holding company in State L (L Hold Co) which receives
an intra-group loan for EUR 400 million. L Holdco, in turn, sets up a
company in State T (T Holdco). T Holdco is financed party by L Hold Co
through a hybrid instrument (EUR 400 million) and party with external
bank debt (EUR 600 million).
T Holdco acquires Target Co and enters into a tax grouping with Target
Co for State T tax purposes.
31. Leveraged Acquisition
Benefit
Debt push-down ensures that subject to interest expense limitations interest
expenses on the external bank debt are deducted from the target company’s
operating income through the applicable group tax regimes
L Hold Co finances T Hold Co through a hybrid instrument, e.g., redeemable
preferred shares. Financing is treated as debt in State T while it is treated as
equity in State L.
Subject to applicable limitations, additional interest expense will be deducted against the income of Target
Co for tax purposes.
Payment will be treated as a dividend for State L purposes and be exempt from tax under State L local law.
Interest L Hold Co. pays on the EUR 400 million intra-group loan can be
deducted against the income of other group companies in State L
Upon exiting the investment, shares in T Hold Co can be sold tax-free to the
purchaser. State T may be prevented from taxing the income under relevant
double tax treaty, while State L exempts capital gain on shares under its
domestic law.
33. Residency Challenge
Response to Residency mismatch:
In October 2013, in response to international pressure arising from the
media coverage of the Google arrangement, Ireland changed its domestic law.
Ireland’s law change is basically a “throw back” rule. If an Irish incorporated
entity fails the “management and control” test but it is not a tax resident of
another jurisdiction, it will be subject to tax in Ireland.
In October 2014, Ireland’s Finance Minister proposed a new budget, which
includes a provision that would align its residency in line with incorporation.
The current proposal phases in over six years, from 2015 through 2020.
Taxpayers need to monitor this proposal. Regardless of the success of this
proposal, residency reform is considered essential for the success of BEPs.
Even assuming the proposal succeeds, the income “thrown back” to Ireland
would be taxed at a 12.5%, resulting in a 22.5% tax arbitrage (35% less 12.5%).
34. Planning Considerations
MNEs can consider transferring the underlying intangibles to the
Netherlands and access the Innovation Box regime
If the intangible assets are considered by Ireland to be owned in Bermuda
(where the profit related to the intangibles has been attributed), a transfer to
the Netherlands should not give rise to local tax on the outbound asset
transfer. Even if Ireland considers the intangibles to be owned in Ireland,
gain on the transfer may be exempt from tax under the Irish group relief
provisions.
Transfer of intangibles may impact royalty withholding rates. If the
intangibles are transferred to the Netherlands, the royalties attributed
to the intangibles should be taxed at 5%. While this rate is higher than
the effective tax rate from the current structure, it may still be an
acceptable rate increase in light of the substantial changes that may
result from international tax initiatives.
Consider dual incorporation
35. Withholding tax challenge
In the Dutch Sandwich structure, insertion of the Netherlands entity
reduces withholding tax on the royalty payments. A royalty payment
from Ireland to the Irish/Bermuda resident company would require
withholding tax.
Within the EU, cross-border exemptions, such as the Royalties and
Interest Directives are a foundation of the region’s economic unity.
Adoption of anti-abuse rules to assess lower withholding tax on intra-
group payments will quell certain structures, such as the Dutch
Sandwich (i.e., intra-company payments will little business purpose
other than tax avoidance would be subject to the anti-abuse rules).
36. Planning Considerations in Answer to Withholding Tax
Challenge
The MNE could concentrate intangible assets in a patent box regime
(e.g., Netherlands or UK).
Again, there may be no outbound capital gain tax on the transfer of the
IP (i.e., the IP could be considered owned by Bermuda or gain on the
transfer could be exempt under the Irish tax rules).
Payments from sales companies in many jurisdictions for the right to
license the intangible should be distinguished from the Netherlands
acting merely as an intermediary entity.
Locating the IP in a favorable withholding tax jurisdiction could
alleviate anti-abuse challenges related to a mere intermediary entity.