HIDE

Other Publications

Insights

Publications

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

IRS Faces House Concerns About BEPS Initiative’s Impact on U.S. Companies

Published in GGi FYI International News No. 4, Spring 2016 (p.12).

Read More

2016 Model Treaty – B.E.P.S. and Expatriated Entities

On February 17, 2016, the Treasury Department released its 2016 Model Treaty. The model serves as the baseline from which the U.S. initiates treaty negotiations. Various provisions are discussed in detail in this month’s Insights.

The 2016 Model Treaty adopts certain B.E.P.S. provisions, including those that eliminate double non-taxation through a splintered operation which divides a long-term project among several related parties and each party maintains the project for a limited time. That type of planning no longer works. Other B.E.P.S.-related revisions are missing. Sheryl Shah and Elizabeth V. Zanet explain what is out and what is in. They also address the way payments from expatriated entities are treated. It is not all bad news.

Read More

2016 Model Treaty – Introduction

On February 17, 2016, the Treasury Department released its 2016 Model Treaty. The model serves as the baseline from which the U.S. initiates treaty negotiations. Various provisions are discussed in detail in this month’s Insights.  

Stanley C. Ruchelman examines several provisions, pointing out various areas of super-complexity that are encountered in the 2016 Model Treaty in order to prevent double non-taxation. This shift in policy is a byproduct of the O.E.C.D.’s B.E.P.S. initiative.

Read More

U.S. Treasury Announces New U.S. Model Income Tax Treaty

On February 17, 2016, the Treasury Department released its 2016 Model Treaty. The model serves as the baseline from which the U.S. initiates treaty negotiations. Various provisions are discussed in detail in this month’s Insights.

Read More

India Budget 2016-17

On February 29, 2016, the Indian Finance Minister presented Budget 2016-17 and Finance Bill, 2016 to the Indian Parliament. Significant amendments to the tax law reflecting several B.E.P.S. recommendations and key economic policy proposals were announced. Jairaj Purandare, the Founder and Chairman of JPM Advisors Pvt. Ltd. explains the winners and losers.

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

A Proposed Treatment For H.T.V.I.

H.T.V.I. has been singled out as being one of the leading causes of base erosion and profit shifting (“B.E.P.S.”). Michael Peggs, co-head of the transfer pricing practice of Ruchelman P.L.L.C., makes a valiant attempt at explaining a method to value intangible property that is “hard to value” while being compliant with the B.E.P.S. Action Plan. He suggests a combination of common sense and reliable data.

Read More

Neutralizing the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements: The New OECD Discussion Drafts Regarding Base Erosion and Profit Shifting

Published in Journal of Taxation and Regulation of Financial Institutions, Volume 27, Number 5: May/June 2014. © Civic Research Institute. Authorized Reprint.

Read More

BEPS Action 4: Limiting Base Erosion via Interest and Other Financial Payments

Published in Journal of Taxation and Regulation of Financial Institutions, Volume 28, Number 4: March/April 2015. © Civic Research Institute. Authorized Reprint.

Read More

Indian Investors Purchasing U.S. Real Estate – From a U.S. Point of View

Published in International Taxation, Volume 13, Issue 3: September 2015.

Read More

Final Stages of B.E.P.S. Implementation and its Effects

As the conclusion of the O.E.C.D.’s B.E.P.S. Project draws ever nearer, Rusudan Shervashidze examines domestic implementation efforts in a number of foreign countries and the unanticipated tax ramifications for multinational enterprises. In their attempts to meet these requirements, countries are making some of the most significant changes to international taxation policy that we have seen in decades.

Read More

The Past, Present, and Future of Luxembourg Special Purpose Companies

Amid a global context of widespread budget deficits, it seems that politicians have finally discovered that multinational enterprises, entrepreneurs, and high net worth individuals have recourse to legal frameworks that allow for the tax efficient structuring of investments. This article addresses the evolution of international tax planning through the use of Luxembourg S.P.V.’s from its origins to its heyday and future prospects in light of ongoing discussions at the level of the O.E.C.D. and the European Commission.

Read More

Busy Month for B.E.P.S.

The busy season for the B.E.P.S. Project opened at the end of July, as O.E.C.D. Working Parties completed their assignments. Readers may wish to see how the world will look after all B.E.P.S. Actions are completed. Galia Antebi and Stanley C. Ruchelman discuss several developments.

Read More

Can B.E.P.S. Survive Without U.S. Support?

Read Publication

On May 28, 2015, the O.E.C.D. announced the countries that will participate in a meeting to begin substantive work on drafting a multilateral instrument under B.E.P.S. Action 15. Currently, more than 83 countries have expressed interest in joining the discussion, which will take place on November 5 and 6, 2015. The United States was noticeably absent from the list. However, the O.E.C.D. hopes that support will continue to grow in the intervening months and that the meeting may ultimately include as many as 100 countries.

The U.S. Treasury chose not to participate in negotiating a multilateral instrument under B.E.P.S. Action 15. After a careful review of the agenda for the discussion on the multilateral instrument, the U.S. Teasury felt that participation did not seem like a good use of its scarce resources. This decision was prompted by the question, “What is there for U.S. to gain by participating in the discussions?”

Ten Year Throwback

Read Publication

Two years ago, a U.S. Senate investigation accused Ireland of granting Apple Inc. special tax treatment. This accusation sparked a seemingly never-ending investigation into the state aid granted by certain European countries to specific multinational companies. More recently, Apple, Starbucks, Fiat, and various other companies exposed in the “Luxembourg Leaks” scandal were accused of having paid substandard taxes as a result of agreements between those companies and the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Ireland, which constituted illegal state aid.

Now, the European Commission (the “Commission”) is looking into the penalties that should be levied upon the income earned through these agreements. The Commission’s investigations into these advance rulings and advance pricing agreements (“A.P.A.’s”) between E.U. member-states and major U.S. multinationals could lead to tax adjustments dating as far back as ten years.

STATE AID

State aid is defined as “an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to undertakings by national public authorities.” This does not include subsidies or tax breaks available to all entities. A measure of state aid constitutes an intervention by a state, or through state resources, that gives specific companies or industry sectors an advantage on a selective basis, thereby distorting competition and affecting trade between E.U. member states.

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.

Shifting Income and Business Operations

volume 2 no 4   /   Read article

By Stanley C. Ruchelman and Kenneth Lobo

This month, our team delves into the Joint Committee Report addressing international tax reform in a series of articles.The report discovers that a better tax result is obtained when income is booked in low tax countries. Stanley C. Ruchelman and Kenneth Lobo explain.  See more →

See all articles in this series →