Hybrid mismatch arrangements

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
U.S. Cross-Border Tax Arbitrage Examples. Dual Resident Corporations Without Arbitrage Structure: U.K. group earns $100 and faces U.K. tax of $30 (30%);
Advertisements

Tax Transparency Proposal on Automatic Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings Brussels, 18th March 2015.
1 “Ireland as a Platform for European Expansion” Tax Considerations Adrian Crawford KPMG Tax Partner Dublin & New York “Ireland as a Platform for European.
© Allen & Overy 2014 Luxembourg hybrids 1. General context –Various structures involve hybrids, with debt (deduction, no WHT) or equity treatment (exemption)
The new Germany/UK Treaty - The German Perspective IFA Trilateral Meeting 3 November 2010 Jan Brinkmann.
TAXATION TAXATION OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC.
C-342/10 Commission v. Finland Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Free movement of capital – Article 63 TFEU – EEA Agreement – Article 40.
Hybrids – the Netherlands
CHAPTER 15 International taxation. Contents  Introduction – Main types of taxation  Corporate income tax and dividends  Deferred taxation  International.
Page 1 Business income and associated enterprise Prashant Khatore.
Ministry of Economy and Finance Public Revenues and Taxes Department Main features of the new Income Tax Law December 2009.
HYBRID MISMATCH ARRANGEMENTS OMLEEN AJIMAL Director of International Tax 21 November 2014.
GLOBALSERVE INTERNATIONAL TAX PLANNING. MAXIMISATION OF NET RETURN THROUGH INTERNATIONAL TAX PLANNING GLOBALISATION OF THE WORLD ECONOMY HAS LED TO CROSS.
General Features of Finnish Corporate Taxation
DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRANCE AND HONG KONG PRESS CONFERENCE CONSULATE GENERAL OF FRANCE 8 DECEMBER 2011.
CYPRUS – THE IDEAL HOLDING COMPANY LOCATION, ADVANTAGES OF THE CYPRUS TAX SYSTEM By Marios Efthymiou Senior Partner Dinos Antoniou & Co Ltd Certified Public.
Thin Capitalisation What is Thin Capitalisation.
Johan Boersma TAXATION OF COMPANIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC.
1 Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments -Recent Developments- Xiamen University – 18 February 2011 Josine van Wanrooij.
Transfer Pricing & Expatriate They Could Cross! August 20, 2015 UTA Mary K. Thomas Weaver, LLP Slide 1.
5-c. Case Study - Overview of issues TRANSFER PRICING CASE STUDIES WORKSHOP SAN JOSE 31 MARCH - 4 APRIL 2014 OECD freely authorises the use of this material.
Preliminary Double Taxation Conventions / Agreements United Arab Emirates and Mexico SCOF: 24 June 2008.
1 Belgium-China income tax treaty Marc De Mil Fiscal Department for Foreign Investments Federal Public Service Finance.
CORPORATE EXPATRIATION IN MEXICO RICARDO LEON-SANTACRUZ Washington D. C. APRIL 16, 2009.
Nexia International Tax Conference Istanbul Rajesh Sharma, Smith & Williamson Limited, London.
Institute of International Bankers Tax Treaty Developments & The New U.S. Model Income Tax Treaty Tuesday - June 19, : :45 AM Daniel J. RaimondoBenedetta.
Horlings is a world-wide network of independent accountants and consultants firms 6 February 2009 The Dutch co-operative Nexia European Tax Group Meeting.
1 Nexia International Tax Conference - Istanbul “ Loan Restructuring” June 4, 2011.
International Accounting Standard 12 Income Taxes.
The BEPS final reports Daniel Szmaragowski
Chapter – 3 setoff and carry forward of losses
Exchange of information 11 Initial Directive EU 2011/16/EU as regards administrative cooperation in the field of taxation, covering: exchange of information.
The U.S. and the Implementation of BEPS Ivan Strunin Managing Director US Tax, Deloitte APICE Ltd. Hong Kong IFA Seoul May 12, 1016 Copyright © 2016 Deloitte.
Tax Planning of International Enterprises Dimensions of tax planning Assistant professor Tomi Viitala.
The Panel on Exit Taxation and Business Restructuring The OECD Business Restructuring Project - some EC Law and EU Tax Policy Issues Kerstin Malmer former.
F Designed to give you the knowledge and application of: Section C: Financial Statements C1. Statements of cash flows C2. Tangible non-current.
CCCTB and Third Countries (No) Withholding Taxation Jan van de Streek Amsterdam Center for Tax Law 1.
The BEPS action plan: French anticipation and European adjustments Master 2 DFA – Rennes Law School 16 June 2016.
The European Commission´s Tax Transparency Package 18 March 2015.
Assessing the EU measures in the BEPS context Prof. Edoardo Traversa, UCLouvain EATLP Annual Congress Munich, 3 June 2016.
Fight Against Tax Avoidance in the EU
Tax opportunities for enterprises investing in Italy
Taxable Income from Business Operations
Accounting for Income Tax
Corporate Compliance with IAS Regarding Income Tax: IAS 12 (revised 2000), Income Taxes Key Words / Outline.
Chapter 15 Entities Overview.
OECD BEPS and Tax Reform
Income & Capital Receipts Lecturer: Arvin Ajay Sami
About The extent to which the Multilateral Instrument (MLI) modifies an existing tax agreement depends on the MLI Positions of the Contracting Jurisdictions.
Tech Mahindra Limited v Commissioner of Taxation
Circularity between measures Questions regarding financial instruments
European and international tax law
TRANSFER PRICING EFFECTS ON TRADING AND FINANCING CYPRUS COMPANIES AND SOLUTIONS By Marios Efthymiou Managing Director.
Revisiting Tax Avoidance EATLP 2016 Ana Paula Dourado SESSION 4
Chapter 14: Income Taxation of Trusts & Estates
Chapter 4 Entities Overview.
Conference on Territorial Income Taxation
Auditing Multinational Enterprises
Income tax and Deferred tax
Singapore’s Position on BEPS Action 15: Multilateral Instrument
Changing Australian environment
Resource Capital Fund III LP v Commissioner of Taxation
Platform for Tax Good Governance
Provisions of Turkey Tax Amnesty Law
Case Study 1: global anti-avoidance
Preliminary Double Taxation Conventions / Agreements United Arab Emirates and Mexico PCOF: 17 June 2008.
CHAPTER 15 Taxation in financial statements Lecturer: Dr. Bashir Abdisamed Printer: Ali Nur Dirie.
UK/EU Developments February 2019.
Methods for avoidance of double taxation
International Tax Institute
Presentation transcript:

Hybrid mismatch arrangements ATAD 2 Hybrid mismatch arrangements

Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive " 'hybrid mismatch' means a situation between a taxpayer in one Member State and an associated enterprise in another Member State or a structured arrangement between parties in Member States where the following outcome is attributable to differences in the legal characterisation of a financial instrument or entity:  (a) a deduction of the same payment, expenses or losses occurs both in the Member State in which the payment has its source, the expenses are incurred or the losses are suffered and in another Member State ('double deduction'); or  (b) there is a deduction of a payment in the Member State in which the payment has its source without a corresponding inclusion for tax purposes of the same payment in the other Member State ('deduction without inclusion')."

Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive "1. To the extent that a hybrid mismatch results in a double deduction, the deduction shall be given only in the Member State where such payment has its source. 2. To the extent that a hybrid mismatch results in a deduction without inclusion, the Member State of the payer shall deny the deduction of such payment."

ECOFIN Council statement "The Council requests the Commission to put forward a proposal by October 2016 on hybrid mismatches involving third countries in order to provide for rules consistent with and no less effective than the rules recommended by the OECD BEPS report on Action 2, with a view to reaching agreement by the end of 2016."

ATAD 2 Amendment to the ATAD, built on rule in ATAD. Covers not only hybrid entity and hybrid financial instruments with 3rd countries, but also: Hybrid permanent establishments Imported mismatches Hybrid transfers (repos and securities lending) Dual resident mismatches

ATAD 2 Scope Corporate taxpayers in EU. Hybrid mismatches between associated enterprises or structured arrangements. Arising from conflicting rules between countries. Does not affect general features of a tax system.

ATAD 2 – 3rd countries Hybrid entity and financial instrument mismatches between different jurisdictions. In case of DD: MS should deny payment. In case of D/NI: MS should either deny the payment or require taxpayer to include the payment, as the case may be. Taking into account dual inclusion income. (Also in case of mismatches between MSs.)

Hybrid entity mismatches – double deduction HE B is non-transparent in the MS, but regarded as transparent by the 3rd country. Interest payment deducted by A Co and by HE B. Payment by B Co is set-off against income of C Co under group tax regime. Based on ATAD 2 the MS should deny the deduction of the payment. A - 3rd Country MS B Interest payment - C +

Hybrid entity mismatches – double deduction HE B is non-transparent in the 3rd country, but regarded as transparent by the MS. Interest payment deducted by A Co and by HE B. Payment by B is set-off against income of C Co under group tax regime. Based on ATAD 2 the MS should deny the deduction of the payment. A - MS 3rd Country B Interest payment - C +

Hybrid entity mismatches – deduction without inclusion Hybrid entity B is non-transparent in MS but transparent in 3rd country. Royalty payment from B to A Co is deducted by HE B, but not included by A Co. The payment by B is set-off against C Co’s income under a group tax MS should deny the deduction of the royalty payment. A 3rd C MS Royalty payment B - C +

Hybrid entity mismatches – deduction without inclusion Hybrid entity B is non-transparent in 3rd country but transparent in MS. Royalty payment from B to A Co is deducted by HE B, but not included by A Co. The payment by B is set-off against C Co's income under a group tax MS should require A Co to include the royalty payment. A MS 3rd C Royalty payment B - C +

Hybrid entity mismatches - deduction without inclusion HE entity B is transparent in a 3rd country, but is regarded as non-transparent by the MS (reverse HE). Interest payment to reverse RHE B is deducted by C Co, but is neither included by RHE B nor by A Co. Based on ATAD 2 the MS should require A Co to include the payment in its income. A MS 3rd Country B Interest payment C -

Hybrid entity mismatches - deduction without inclusion HE entity B is transparent in 3rd country II, but is regarded as non-transparent by 3rd country I (reverse HE). Interest payment to reverse RHE B is deducted by C Co in MS, but is neither included by RHE B nor by A Co. ATAD 2 applies because A Co and C Co are associated. Based on ATAD 2 the payment by C should be denied. A 3rd Country I 3rd Country II B Interest payment MS C -

Hybrid PE mismatches "differences in the treatment of a commercial presence as a permanent establishment." Both between MS and with 3rd countries. Leading to DD, D/NI and No Taxation Without Inclusion. Also taking into account dual inclusion income.

Hybrid PE - No Taxation Without Inclusion 3rd Country B does not recognise a PE. No taxation in state B. MS A sees a PE in 3rd country B (reverse hybrid PE). Profits attributed to reverse hybrid PE are exempt in the MS. Based on ATAD 2 A Co should include and not exempt the profit attributed to the PE. A MS 3rd Country B

Imported mismatches Non-hybrid payment by taxpayer to associated enterprise in a 3rd country. Received payment is set-off against another payment that is deducted twice (DD) or not included by recipient (D/NI). ATAD 2: no deduction on non-hybrid payment to extent of hybrid mismatch.

Imported mismatches - - - Interest payment 1 from D Co to C is deducted by D Co. Interest payment 1 received by C Co is in principle taxable in 3rd Country I, but is set-off against interest payment 2, made by hybrid entity B, a under group tax regime. Interest payment 2 is also deducted in 3rd Country II by A Co. So: double deduction of interest payment 2. ATAD 2: MS should deny the deduction of interest to the extent of the double deduction. A - 3C II Interest Payment 2 B - Interest Payment 1 C D + - MS 3C I

Imported mismatches - + - Interest payment by C Co to B Co deducted in MS. B Co includes interest payment as income, but this interest income is set-off by B Co against a payment to A Co under a PPL. Payment on the PPL is deducted in 3rd Country I as interest, but exempt for A Co as dividend. So: deduction without inclusion. ATAD 2 MS should deny the deduction of interest to the extent of the deduction without inclusion. A 3C II Payment - + B 3C I MS Interest payment C -

Dual resident mismatch Dual resident company of MS and 3rd country. Leading to DD. MS should deny deduction, taking into account dual inclusion income. See example 7.1 in BEPS Action Item 2 Report.

Hybrid transfers Transfer of a financial instrument, for example: repo or securities lending. Jurisdictions differ on who has ownership of underlying return on instrument. Leading to D/NI or double tax credit. D/NI: payment should be denied or included. Double tax credit: "limit the benefit … in proportion to the net taxable income regarding such payment" See examples 1.31, 1.32 and 2.2 in BEPS Action Item 2 Report.

Hybrid transfers Hybrid mismatch arises because A Co makes a deemed interest payment to B Co which is not included.