Global Connect Admin BV.

DAC6: Prepare for Reportable Cross-Border Arrangements in 4 Steps

09 Sep 2021

BEPS, Cross-border, Europe, Tax Planning

Annex IV of the DAC6 Directive, cross-border, cross-border transactions, DAC6, DAC6 Directive, DAC6 hallmarks, EU Mandatory Disclosure Rules, EU Mandatory Disclosure Rules for cross-border arrangements, intermediary, main benefit test, prevent tax penalties, reportable cross-border arrangements, taxpayer, transfer pricing

Doing business in Europe means taking into account the many local rules, EU laws and international regulations. It is not unusual to benefit from various tax benefits or to research the best possible tax solutions. However, tax evasion and aggressive tax schemes are highly unwanted and will be fined. Therefore, it is beneficial to look into the DAC6: The EU Mandatory Disclosure Rules for cross-border arrangements. Let’s check if your company is well-prepared for cross-border arrangements.

What is DAC6?

DAC6 is an EU Council Directive that entered into force on 25 June 2018 and is implemented by EU jurisdictions into EU national law. Furthermore, DAC6 amends the cooperation between the EU Member States by focusing on joint actions and audits.

This directive’s primary goal is to harmonize tax rules in Europe by providing tax authorities an early’ warning system’ that notifies potentially aggressive tax planning schemes. Therefore, intermediaries are obligated to disclose potentially aggressive tax planning schemes on cross-border arrangements, otherwise called ‘reportable cross-border arrangements.

Step 1: Check who is required to disclose reportable cross-border arrangements

Intermediaries, and in certain situations, taxpayers, have an obligation to report cross-border arrangements to the authorities. An intermediary may be relieved from its reporting obligation if they can prove that another intermediary has already reported the relevant arrangement. The image below shows an overview of who is required to disclose these arrangements.

Step 2: Check if the arrangement is cross-border and ‘reportable’

For an arrangement to be cross-border, at least one of the participants must be located in more than one EU Member State. There is no reporting obligation if all participants are tax residents in the same jurisdiction or if there is no connection with any EU Member State. However, even an arrangement between two entities from the same EU Member State may be considered cross-border in some cases. A prime example is an EU entity with foreign shareholders. Below is a short overview of examples of non-cross-border and cross-border transactions.

For an arrangement to be reportable, one or more of the DAC6 Hallmarks must be met as set out in Annex IV of the DAC6 Directive. Therefore, a cross-border arrangement will only be reportable if one or more DAC6 Hallmarks are met. These hallmarks are characteristics or features of a cross-border arrangement that may indicate a potentially aggressive tax planning structure. The five categories of the hallmarks set out by the DAC6 directive are:

Generic hallmarks linked to the main benefit test
Specific hallmarks linked to the main benefit test
Specific transactions related to cross-border transactions
Specific hallmarks concerning automatic exchange of information and beneficial ownership
Specific hallmarks concerning transfer pricing arrangements

The ‘arrangements’ mentioned in the hallmarks represent undefined terms included in the five hallmark categories.

Step 3: Do the Main Benefit Test

The intermediary or taxpayer may benefit from a tax advantage when they fulfill the ‘main benefit test.’ However, this tax advantage may only be considered under generic hallmarks of categories A, B, and (some parts of) C.

However, it is crucial to keep in mind that due to the broad scope of the hallmarks, DAC6 creates a risk of under-reporting and over-reporting. Furthermore, there is no consistent interpretative guidance agreed between the EU Member States.

Step 4: Act on time and prepare for penalties

You should report reportable cross-border arrangements through a special reporting form. Each Member State has its tax authority, so it is recommended to check out your local tax authority website. Generally, you must report a reportable cross-border arrangement within thirty days of the earliest of:

the day after the arrangement is made available for implementation;
the day after the arrangement is ready for implementation; or
when the first step in the implementation of the arrangement has been made.

In case of non-compliance, such as non-reporting, incomplete or inaccurate information, the relevant intermediary and taxpayer may be subject to penalties. These penalties are up to a maximum of €870,000. In some instances, there will be a criminal prosecution. In other words, it is better to prevent penalties altogether. After all, significant sanctions and reputational risks apply to not only the businesses but also the intermediaries!

As mentioned earlier, there are risks in reporting your cross-border arrangements, such as under- and over-reporting. Meanwhile, many companies either miss out on tax benefits or end up overlooking essential hallmarks. We at Global Connect Admin provide tax advice for many European companies and international companies that have activity in the EU. Do you have any questions regarding the DAC6, (reportable) cross-border arrangements or other vital information to do business successfully? Feel free to send us any questions our way; we would love to assist you.

Sources

AKD Benelux Lawyers – EUR-Lex

The Future of Accounting Standards in Japan: IFRS or Japanese GAAP

The four sets of accounting standards in Japan are the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), Japanese Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (J-GAAP), Japan’s Modified International Standards (JMIS) and the United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP). In this article, we explain why IFRS and J-GAAP are the most prominent accounting standards in Japan. Whereas J-GAAP is mostly used for Japanese small-medium enterprises (SMEs), more and more Japanese companies apply to IFRS every year. As a Japanese company, with or without (foreign) subsidiaries, what should you keep in mind when applying these standards? Is it more convenient to use J-GAAP since it is well implemented? Or is it perhaps more desirable to choose IFRS since this method makes comparing per country more convenient?

IFRS in Japan

IFRS is principle-based, emphasizes balance sheets, and has global standards, with a flexible implementation convenient to use and easy to understand. Both Japan and the US implement GAAP but have adopted IFRS as a bylaw principle. This is a set of detailed rules regarding accounting standards, interpretation guidelines, practical guidelines and more. However, the rules are roughly sketched compared to J-GAAP. Many notes need to be taken with efficient substantiation for a sufficient interpretation of details per company and country. Unlike J-GAAP, IFRS includes non-operating income as ‘other operating income’ and ‘other operating expenses.’

J-GAAP

In Japan, the income statement is emphasized as information for evaluating the asset value required for investors and creditors and the profit and loss statement for a certain period. Japanese accounting standards implement ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’ profit and loss. Non-operating income – such as dividends and stock interests, deposits and savings – and operating income – such as main business profit – are included. After deducting non-operating expenses (e.g., loss on sales of interest payments and loans), ordinary income is an essential indicator of corporate profitability under the Japanese accounting standards.

IFRS versus J-GAAP

For companies with a subsidiary or subsidiaries overseas, the implementation of IFRS can unify the accounting indicators: Accounting management becomes convenient by comparing everyone’s performance efficiently. Japanese companies without subsidiaries can apply to IFRS as well if they have a capital of 2 billion yen or more, or are newly registered to the stock market. The application is voluntary, as a de facto national policy. At this moment (March 2021), no conclusion has been reached by the Japanese government regarding compulsory applications.

As stated by the Companies Act, disclosure under J-GAAP is still required, so companies have to prepare multiple reports for both IFRS and the Japanese accounting standards. As IFRS is based on principles, a significant amount of information is necessary, which increases the amount of clerical work involved and the burden on the person in charge.

‘Goodwill’ is the difference between a company’s acquisition price and its book value. Under J-GAAP, a fixed amount is amortized and expensed every year, so profits in the account settlements will inevitably decrease. Goodwill must be amortized within every 20 year acquisition period, but in IFRS, this is not the case. In the IFRS case, goodwill is amortized unless the corporate value drops significantly, resulting in not being recorded as an expense. The value decreases after each period, registered as an impairment loss without amortization.

It will cost a certain amount of money to switch from J-GAAP to IFRS. Changing standards, systems, and audits costs time and money, making companies think twice before switching systems, especially if they choose to do business in Japan only.

Companies that are active in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) can profit in their financial results with IFRS. Since IFRS is a globally used method, many foreign investors understand IFRS better than J-GAAP. Examples of companies applying IFRS that are active in M&A are Rakuten and Softbank.

In December 2018, Japan erased the variances between IFRS and J-GAAP, by bridging the gaps. However, IFRS is different from Japanese conventional accounting standards, which can make application challenging. IFRS is frequently revised, so companies have to consider this as well. As mentioned before, Japanese companies adopting IFRS are increasing but compared to the world, the number of applications is still small, making referred information scarce.

In Japan, J-GAAP still mostly applied standard; however, with global IFRS support and more Japanese companies applying this standard, IFRS is most likely the accounting future for Japan. IFRS is frequently revised and has different rules than J-GAAP, so you need to keep up to-to-date with the latest information and knowledge, which is both rewarding yet time and cost-consuming. This track of data can be quite challenging, so many companies leave this part to an expert. If you are looking for an expert to help you with this, feel free to contact us. Global Connect Admin (GCA) already helps multinationals with subsidiaries with IFRS standards, accounting and financial management, and fiscal reports. While they focus on their core business, we assist them with their financial business. Feel free to ask us questions or read other GCA articles.

Related GCA articles

Cross-Border Positions during the pandemic

The Brexit impact on Japan

The Bond Market in EU, China and Japan

Cultural business differences between Germany and the Netherlands – an Overview for the Japanese businessperson who might be working with both countries

The New IFRS 16 in China

Sources

Digima – KPMG Japan

Transfer Pricing Agenda 2021: Tax Certainty

29 Jan 2021

BEPS, Current news, Europe, Tax Planning, Tax Pricing Agenda

ADS, BEPS, BEPS 2.0, CFB, global tax, KPMG, OECD, Pillar One, Tax digitalisation

Tax security and certainty are the backbones of the world of taxes. The goal of the OECD/G20 BEPS project is to create a consensus-based international tax rule to address base erosion and profit shifting, thereby protecting tax bases. At the same time, this also ensures the provision of more certainty and predictability to the taxpayer.

The development of BEPS 2.0

On the 14^th of October 2020, the OECD, with support of the G20, published the Tax Challenges Arising from Digitalisation report on the BEPS 2.0 Pillar One¹ Blueprint. The deadline for (draft) submissions for the report focusing on Pillar Two² was the 14^th of December 2020, with virtual public consultation meetings on the 14^th and 15^th of January 2021. Reports with a consensus solution and elaboration of technical aspects are expected to be published during this year, with implementation – using MLI – for the relevant agreement by the end of 2021.

¹In Pillar One the profits are redistributed among market countries.

²Pillar Two introduces the global minimum tax rates.

Pillar One

Pillar One aligns tax rights with the involvement of the local market. There is a need for a multination consensus for this to happen; otherwise, the unilateral digital tax measures could increase significantly.

Pillar One is a series of proposals to rethink tax allocation rules in a changing economy. The intent is to attain some of the remaining profits of multinational corporations taxed in the jurisdiction resulting in revenue. Think of residual profit generated by capital, risk management functions, and/or intellectual property. Automated Digital Services (ADS) and Consumer-Facing Businesses (CFB) apply as well. This makes the scope wide enough so that the encompassing companies can benefit from significant and long-lasting interactions with customers and market users. This process links tax rights related to these companies’ income sources, which do not need to depend on physical presence in the jurisdiction.

Amount A:

The new tax law awards high profits based on a formula, which does not necessarily take the business position. Amount A includes winnings earned through online activities of an automated digital nature of goods or services sold to consumers, including the associated IP licenses. Specific inclusions and exclusions are suggested from this. In addition, Amount A has been allocated based on local revenues, determined through procurement rules, with elimination measures for double taxation.

Amount B:

Amount B is the standard business compensation for ‘baseline’ routine marketing and distribution activities. Alternative methods for this Amount can be applied if supported by evidence.

What companies should be aware of

The changes regarding taxation have a multinational set-up. They are also technically complex; the effects and uncertainties will be drastic for many companies. The size of the covered companies is not yet final. However, this is by no means limited to highly digitized business models.

Implementation of the BEPS 2.0 measures is likely to occur soon, although many details are still unclear. The rules do not only apply to classic digital companies. In addition, these rules will shift the installation location in favor of the market states. The technical implementation is demanding; the demands on availability and integrity of data are high. New risks of double taxation are emerging, which can probably only be mitigated by international communication processes.

It is important to stay on top of the news and keep your business as stable as possible. Useful and necessary information on BEPS can be found on the websites of OECD and KPMG. Seeking professional assistance is always helpful to avoid potential issues. We are always here to hear your needs.

Related GCA articles

Tax Pricing Agenda 2021: Tax Innovation

Tax Pricing Agenda 2021: Tax Efficiency

Transfer Pricing Guidance on Financial Transactions by OECD

Certainty in Global Tax Issues Expected to Increase

Base Erosion and Profit Shifting

Sources

OECD – KPMG

Transfer Pricing Agenda 2021: Tax Efficiency

27 Jan 2021

BEPS, Current news, Europe, Tax Planning, Tax Pricing Agenda

BEPS, COVID-19, tax, taxes, Transfer Pricing Model

To perform tax work efficiently, one must be aware of developments in the tax world, as well as the external factors that come into play. According to the OECD, COVID-19 significantly affects the tax world. However, what is the situation during and after the pandemic? How do you efficiently work on the BEPS-analysis, design a TP-model, make the correct situation analysis, and implement an appropriate implementation strategy?

COVID-19

On the 18^th of December 2020, the OECD published their guidance on the transfer pricing implications of the COVID-19 pandemic. The guidance states the need for the analysis of industries and the competitive situation. However, the current situation cannot be compared to the financial crisis of 2008. Therefore, you should pay attention to the differentiated benchmarking, based on the outcome tests and the allocation of extraordinary costs, according to the distribution of functions and risks. ‘Force majeure’ is an exception. State aid is granted according to general TP principles. Besides, always stay alert to changes and assume that you have to make adjustments once the pandemic is over.

BEPS-analysis (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting)

Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) refers to tax planning strategies of multinational corporations that exploit gaps and discrepancies of tax rules to avoid tax. The BEPS-package provides governments with 15 actions with (inter)national instruments to tackle tax evasion. The tools give businesses greater certainty by reducing disputes over the application of international tax rules and standardizing compliance requirements.

Recognizing the characteristics and risks of tax evasion, as well as safeguarding the assets and other value drivers, is useful for companies. A DEMPE-analysis (Development, Enhancement, Maintenance, Protection & Exploitation) is convenient for intangible assets.

TP-model (Transfer Pricing Model)

The aftermath of COVID-19 has caused changes in TP-models for multinationals. Multinational corporations must evaluate specific steps in their transfer pricing policies for protection and support during the pandemic.

In addition, a suitability analysis – e.g., benchmarking, TNMM and/or profit distribution – can help you with the design of a TP-model. A transaction structure, such as the extraction of permits, can play a significant role in the TP-model format.

The requirements fora n efficient TP-model are:

Be holistic. Take all tax aspects into account and make use of the operational management concept.
Be flexible. Respond flexibly to operational developments and take economic cycles into account.
Be alert. Active management of profit distribution by function and risk distribution is possible, so make sure you keep an eye on this. In addition, ensure sufficient availability and integrity of data.
Be compatible. Always work according to the correct specifications, work globally and consistently and ensure that you sufficiently document and declare.

Tax situation analysis

When analyzing the tax situation, pay attention to the following:

The BP history
The tax attributes, in particular, loss compensation
The tax rulings
The tax incentives
The extra tax aspects

Implementation strategy

Consider the following points in the implementation strategy:

The advance uni- or bilateral price agreements
The rollbacks
Joint audits of tax audits

Crisis-related adjustments to the TP-model concerning compliance and tax efficiency may be necessary. In principle, the situation regarding COVID-19 does not allow for unique TP routes; however, there are planning options. BEPS sets new requirements for the TP-model but also offers the possibility to check the efficiency of this model. The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting often suggest the analysis of margin-based TP-models with central strategy carriers. International mutual agreement procedures can be part of the tax strategy.

If you have any inquiries, feel free to talk to us, so we can work together to see how you can move forward with your company. You can find information about tax matters on the websites of the OECD and KPMG as well.

Related GCA articles:

Transfer Pricing Agenda 2021: Tax Innovation

Transfer Pricing Agenda 2021: Tax Certainty

Transfer Pricing Guidance on Financial Transactions by OECD

More Global Transparency on Assets and Less Tax Havens on the List

Certainty in Global Tax Issues Expected to Increase

Sources

OECD – KPMG – KPMG Germany

Transfer Pricing Agenda 2021: Tax Innovation

25 Jan 2021

Aktuelles, BEPS, Current news, Europe, German SMEs, Germany, Steuerplanung, Tax Planning, Tax Pricing Agenda

ATAD, Europe, European Commission, Germany, KPMG, OECD, tax, Tax CMS, Tax Pricing Agenda, Transfer Pricing Life Cycle, VerSanG

Tax security is a high priority for tax authorities. The most critical influences on investment and location decisions are uncertainties in corporate tax and the VAT system. It is crucial to ensure financial security, which is also the case with digital business models in Germany.

To have Tax Certainty, you need Compliance and Controversy. You have obligations to cooperate with the tax audit, and you need to record your work before and during this audit. Are there tax disputes? Then you can use dispute settlement instruments.

Verwaltungsgrundsätze 2020

The recently applied administrative principles of the tax auditing practice in Germany are:

Increased duty of cooperation, according to Section 90 (2) AO. The relevance of documents and data of foreign persons, such as e-mails, Messenger messages, and electronic media, is necessary. If necessary, you can contractually guarantee the internal group relationship.
Increased obligation to cooperate in accordance with Section 90 (3) AO. You must provide evidence for data or documents as a basis for testing by using different methods.
Suitability documentation. With the introduction of the “Best Method”-rule, you can leverage third-party comparison data for budget calculations and sensitivity analysis for valuation.
Estimates, according to Section 162 (3) and (4) AO. Please refer to this Section if your documentation cannot be used, even if the content differs from the tax authorities’ view.

ATAD implementation law (Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive)

Little change has taken place in ATAD. If you wish to read about this law, the European Commission is consistent in releasing ATAD information.

Tax CMS: Accounting obligations and tax audits in Germany

“For tax evasion of the various forms of intent, conditional intent is already sufficient.” Legal Framework – Decision Implementing Section 143 AO.

If the taxpayer has set up an internal control system (ICS) to meet tax obligations, this may be an indication against intent or recklessness. However, this does not exclude an investigation of the concerned individual case.

Verbandssanktionengesets/Association Sanctions Act (VerSanG):

The basis of the association sanction is a so-called association law. This includes tax evasion. Association acts can be punished with hefty fines; the amount of the fine depends on the company’s size. If there are sufficient factual indications, public prosecutors are obliged to conduct an investigation (principle of legality). It is explicitly stated that (fiscal) CMS measures can have a mitigating effect as part of the sanction.

Transfer Pricing Life Cycle

Even errors down to the smallest details can cause issues. You can use the Transfer Pricing Life Cycle to determine where attention is necessary.

Identification: Provide continuous identification of transfer pricing issues.
Tax Assessment: Provide a tax analysis of the identified transfer pricing issues based on provided calculations.
Contract and Action Instructions: Ensure documented formalization of transfer pricing models in written agreements and instructions.
Methodology and Actual Implementation: Ensure uniform application of transfer pricing methods for comparable transactions.
Data Delivery and Calculation: Provide a consistent calculation of transfer prices according to the defined methodology.
Booking: Provide the accounting mapping of transfer prices in an understandable and uniform form. Monitoring: Provide regular monitoring of compliance with transfer pricing models throughout the year.
Archiving: Provide audit-proof storage of the data in an understandable form.
Process Monitoring and Escalation: Provide monitoring of processes and escalations.
TP Documentation: Secure the documentation content for so-called local files.
Tax audit: Ensure implementation of tax audit findings in subsequent years.

If you need further information, or if you have any questions, feel free to contact us. You can find the necessary information on this topic on the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), the BMF (Federal Ministry of Finance of Germany), the European Commission, and KPMG Germany websites.

Related GCA articles:

Transfer Pricing Agenda 2021: Tax Efficiency

Transfer Pricing Agenda 2021: Tax Certainty

Transfer Pricing Guidance on Financial Transactions by OECD

Base Erosion and Profit Shifting

Transfer Pricing Focus of International Tax Authorities

Country by Country Reporting

Sources:

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development – Federal Ministry of Finance (Germany) – European Commission – KPMG Germany

European Tax Returns in Comparison

12 Sep 2017

Current news, Tax Planning, Uncategorized

The Fine Line Between Privacy and Transparency

An increased level of transparency is one of the declared aims of the OECD and the EU in the fight against tax avoidance and fraud. According to experts, the current lack of transparency promotes not only an unfair distribution of the tax burden between companies and individuals but also unfair competition between international and national companies in the EU.

In recent years, a wide range of EU initiatives have been put in place in order to ensure increased tax transparency. At the end of June 2017, for example, the EU proposed an obligation to report questionable and “potentially aggressive” tax deals, which as expected sparked protest on the part of the professional associations affected (such as lawyers, tax advisors, and auditors). This shows that the issue of tax secrecy remains a hot topic in many European countries. Other EU countries, however, apply a more transparent approach to dealing with the tax data of their citizens and companies.

Pixabay/ TayebMEZAHDIA

Transparency as a Fundamental Pillar of Democracy

In the UK, a similar arrangement is already in place, as is the case, incidentally, in many other Anglo-Saxon countries.

In Sweden, the model country for transparency, they take the matter even one step further, as the tax data of all Swedish citizens and corporations are published unsolicited every year. In this way, everyone can see exactly what taxable income from earnings and capital and even the amount of assets and liabilities a neighbor or a particular company has.

This level of transparency is based on the so-called principle of public access, which the Swedes see as a key building block for democracy, as anyone can request information on administrative operations. Perhaps this approach is conceptually deeply rooted in Puritanism, based on the saying “If you have nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear”, for other Nordic countries handle the personal data of their citizens in a similar way. Norway, for example, also openly deals with tax data, and Denmark assigns a personal number to each individual, to which all information as well as operations, both private and official, are linked.

Transparency vs. Protection of Privacy

The situation is quite different in German-speaking countries, where privacy is given a much higher priority than the public interest. In Germany, for example, tax secrecy is constitutionally protected and considered part of general personal rights.

Austria also provides for tax secrecy, yet with some exceptions. For example, it is revoked if it facilitates tax proceedings, if there is a compelling public interest, or if the person does not have a legitimate interest to protect his or her data.

In Switzerland, in turn, tax secrecy is generally defined as “qualified professional secrecy”, which obliges anyone involved to keep all information confidential. However, there are considerable differences between the Cantons. Some even publish tax registers for a limited period – whereas the information merely contains so-called tax factors, that is, the taxable income and assets of persons or the earnings and equity of a company.

Conclusion

To sum up, it can be said that there are still significant cultural differences within Europe on the issue of tax transparency. For the politicians in Brussels, it will be a long and bumpy path to reach an agreement on a uniform transparency regulation.

Transfer Pricing Focus of International Tax Authorities

16 Mar 2017

BEPS, Current news, Tax Planning

Transfer Pricing Once Again the Focus of International Tax Authorities Thanks to BEPS

Discussions on the topic of transfer pricing are again gaining steam given more stringent international guidelines, which can be a sensitive issue for companies. Often within multinational corporations, internal revenues are just as important as revenues generated externally. The OECD is attempting to address the subsequent tax and revenue opportunities for international companies with its action plan to address BEPS (base erosion and profit shifting).

Internal Transactions Account for More than Half of World Trade
International tax authorities are very interested in transfer pricing, which is not surprising when you consider that internal transactions are estimated to represent more than half of the overall world trade. And now, the international tax authorities want to know more details on this half of global trade than was previously the case. BEPS is intended to provide increased transparency, consistency in reporting requirements and tax planning security for all parties involved, for example by breaking down reporting on internal sales into a master file, a local file, and country-by-country reporting.

International Standardization Unfortunately Not Yet a Reality
However, it is precisely this desired consistency and predictability that are lacking so far in the process of implementing the proposed measures. Many countries have been quick to adopt the OECD’s proposal, but the implementation has been anything but consistent. For example, some countries have introduced CbC Reporting but not adapted their local reporting guidelines to it. Other countries, on the other hand, have added the idea of breaking down reporting into a master and local file but have yet to implement the guidelines recommended by the OECD.

A Strategic Approach Is Now Required
At the moment, multinational corporations generally associate the new reporting requirements with significant additional effort and costs while at the same time experiencing uncertainty about the exact requirements. Until now, it was not seldom the case that comprehensive reporting of internal sales was limited to suspected high-risk business units. Now, corporations are structurally compelled to implement strategic planning in order to collect, evaluate, and prepare all necessary data across the entire group, broken down both globally and by country for individual branches.

Potentially Devastating Lack of Compliance
Many companies have neither uniform processes nor professional IT solutions for these complex tasks, and they have not yet clearly defined the responsibilities for each task. Business units that may be involved such as the tax department, accounting and controlling often pass the buck to each other, which can easily lead to accusations of organizational failure in case of a negative tax inspection. Subsequently, management may have to pay back taxes or even worse run the risk of claims for damages due to negligence or intent.

Companies Must Act Now
Companies should therefore implement preventive measures now in order to professionalize and automate their reporting processes as much as possible. A company-wide compliance management system for taxes is an important step that can lead to a more lenient assessment by many tax authorities in the case of back taxes.

OECD Is Also Taking Corrective Action
The OECD has also recognized the need to make improvements when it comes to BEPS. The measures in different countries which can vary widely, inaccurate wording of individual measures and frequent changes have led to a high level of uncertainty on taxes for companies. In a first step, a list of countries for CbC Reporting was recently published with information on the status of implementation of the action plan as well as national regulations to be observed. The affected companies will have no choice but to remain abreast of the current status and adapt their actions accordingly.

Country by Country Reporting

26 Jan 2017

BEPS, Country by Country Reporting, Current news, Netherlands, Tax Planning

New Challenges for Companies Active in International Markets

Country by Country Reporting (in short CbCR) is part of the action plan of the OECD and G20 Member States to reduce base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) in multinational corporations. The draft aims to counteract multinational companies’ skillful ability to take advantage of different tax systems. In the future, companies should pay their taxes in the countries in which the added value is generated. For this purpose, profits, tax payments, and entrepreneurial activities should be prospectively documented for each country.

Companies with Annual Turnover of € 750 Million and Above

In principle, Country by Country Reporting applies to multinational corporations with an annual turnover of € 750 million and above if a company’s consolidated report includes at least one foreign company or a foreign permanent establishment. All documentation must be drawn up and disclosed on an annual basis. Each national tax authority may then exchange the data with other foreign tax authorities.

Country by Country Reporting as Part of Transfer Pricing Documentation

Country by Country Reporting is included in Action 13 of the OECD’s BEPS initiative, which requires that transfer pricing documentation in the future is conducted based on a three-tiered structure. This means that the requirements for transfer pricing documentation developed almost 20 years ago have been completely revised. In the future, the documentation requirements should be completed based on this three-tiered approach: a master file, company-specific documentation in the local file, as well as country-specific reporting in the form of Country by Country Reporting.

Criticism from Different Viewpoints

While NGOs such as Tax Justice Network, Oxfam or Tax Research UK say the new regulations are not consistent enough, the OECD’s Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC), which represents the interests of the industry, warns of significant administrative overhead and increased costs incurred by companies.

New Compliance Requirements

The guidelines for Country by Country Reporting have already been ratified by most European countries, the United States and Canada. Given these developments, the major accounting firms warn their clients of the risk of double taxation and complex compliance requirements. Therefore, companies should study the new regulations at an early stage and adapt their operations to them.

The Netherlands: An Ideal Location for Companies

23 Jan 2017

Current news, Netherlands, Tax Planning

How IKEA, Starbucks and the Rolling Stones Benefit from the Netherlands as a Financial Center

According to the Dutch newspaper Financieel Dagblad, the Netherlands is the financial hub of the world. Many multinational companies such as IKEA and Starbucks call this small country on the North Sea home.

Tax Conventions with over 80 Countries

An open trading culture, great level of internationalism and hospitality characterize the interactions in this traditional trading nation. The Netherlands offers excellent business infrastructure, optimal tax conditions for foreign companies and tax conventions with over 80 countries. Multinational companies also have the opportunity to reach separate, confidential agreements with the Dutch Tax Office.

Low Taxes on Interest, Dividends, and Intellectual Property

The Dutch state collects little or even no taxes on income such as dividends and interest that companies have generated abroad. The same applies for patents, trademarks and licensing rights. These tax conditions allow multinationals to save a significant amount of money.

Tax Planning in the Netherlands

This is not tax evasion, but rather legal tax planning and is used by more than 12,000 foreign companies in the Netherlands. Even the share of German companies is growing steadily. More than 800 German companies have subsidiaries in its neighboring country and benefit from the Netherlands as a financial center.