HIDE

Other Publications

Insights

Publications

Insights Vol. 4 No. 8: Updates & Other Tidbits

Insights Vol. 4 No. 8: Updates & Other Tidbits

This month, Neha Rastogi and Nina Krauthamer look briefly at certain timely issues: (i) a European parliament proposal to extend the scope of country-by-country (“CbC”) reporting by group members when the group parent is not obligated to report and (ii) regulations identified by the I.R.S. as imposing undue burden on taxpayers.

Read More

I.R.S. Pushes to Ease Implementation of Country-by-Country Reporting for U.S. M.N.E.’s

I.R.S. Pushes to Ease Implementation of Country-by-Country Reporting for U.S. M.N.E.’s

It is widely known that the U.S. is following its own path towards international tax compliance.  It has not signed onto the O.E.C.D.’s Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement on the Exchange of Country-by-Country Reports; it does not participate in the Common Reporting Standard; and it did not sign the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent B.E.P.S.  Nonetheless, at the request of U.S. multinationals, the I.R.S. has adopted domestic income tax regulations on country-by-country (“CbC”) reporting.  In May, the I.R.S. confirmed the first bilateral competent authority agreement regarding CbC reporting was signed with the Netherlands.  That agreement has now been followed by agreements with Canada, Denmark, Guernsey, Iceland, Ireland, Korea, Latvia, New Zealand, Norway, Slovakia, and South Africa.  Galia Antebi and Kenneth Lobo delve into the U.S. rules and forms for CbC reports.

Read More

Insights Vol. 3. No. 5: B.E.P.S. Around The World

Kenneth Lobo and Stanley C. Ruchelman look at recent happenings in the world of B.E.P.S.  Items covered include (i) recent decisions of the Canada Revenue Agency regarding tax rulings that will be exchanged automatically with other countries, (ii) I.R.S. consideration of accepting early CbC reports from U.S.-based groups, (iii) multilateral procedures to deal with the expected flood of mutual agreement requests arising from double taxation claims when B.E.P.S.-generated taxation claims begin to appear, and (iv) the emerging need for B.E.P.S. compliance officers in multinational groups.

Read More

Insights Vol. 3 No. 4: B.E.P.S. Around The World

Under political pressure from N.G.O. watchdogs, governments are striving to demonstrate their support for the B.E.P.S. Action Plan on a national level. Kenneth Lobo and Stanley C. Ruchelman look at implementation issues around the world. Included are issues in Germany related to exchanges of information, treatment of C.I.V.’s for income tax treaty purposes, and U.K. tax penalties for aggressive tax planning.

Read More

Country-by-Country Reporting – Where Are We Going?

B.E.P.S. Action 13 addresses country-by-country reporting among tax authorities as a means of ferreting out mismatches between functions and profits. Now, CbC reporting is morphing in Europe to a public disclosure tool to bring N.G.O.’s into the process. Your tax savings through planning becomes a global problem for the N.G.O.’s to redress through public outcry. Michael Peggs and Kenneth Lobo tell all.

Read More

Insights Vol. 3 No. 1: Updates & Other Tidbits

This month, Insights discusses recent events including a Beanie Baby billionaire’s light sentence; a tax reform report by the European Parliament addressing tax rulings, a common consolidated corporate tax base, a crackdown on tax havens, whistle-blower protection, public access to country-by-country (CbC) reports, and a lower threshold to approve E.U. tax legislation; a House Ways and Means Committee action in regard to B.E.P.S., E.U. investigations on State Aid, patent box regimes, and inversions; identity theft risk in I.R.S. proposed regulations regarding charitable deductions; and allowance of accounting non-conformity for foreign-based groups that do not adopt L.I.F.O. accounting when that method is adopted by a U.S. member.

Read More

Transfer Pricing Implications of the B.E.P.S. Action Plan

Read Publication

Determined to eliminate so-called “double non-taxation,” as well as no or low taxation, associated with practices that are perceived to segregate taxable income from the activities that generate them, the Group of Twenty (“G20”) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (“O.E.C.D.”) released their Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“B.E.P.S. Action Plan”) in 2013. Included in the B.E.P.S. Action Plan are several provisions related to transfer pricing:

  • Action 4: Limit base erosion via interest deductions and other financial payments;
  • Action 8: Assure that transfer pricing outcomes are in line with value creation – Intangibles;
  • Action 9: Assure that transfer pricing outcomes are in line with value creation – Risks and capital;
  • Action 10: Assure that transfer pricing outcomes are in line with value creation – Other high-risk transactions; and
  • Action 13: Re-examine transfer pricing documentation.

The O.E.C.D. has since delivered a number of reports and recommendations related to these actions, including revisions to the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (“Transfer Pricing Guidelines”), and it continues to perform additional work on deliverables scheduled for later this year.