Members of Ruchelman P.L.L.C. contribute to publications throughout the world and the Firm’s monthly tax journal, Insights.
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 MoreIt 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 MoreThis month, Astrid Champion, Nina Krauthamer, and Jennifer Lapper look briefly at several timely issues, including (i) instructions for Form 8975, Country-By-Country Report, and Schedule A, Tax Jurisdiction and Constituent Entity Information, for U.S.-based multinationals, (ii) tax breaks for midsized companies in China, (iii) an executive order calling for review of all I.R.S. regulations issued in 2016, with a view to their withdrawal, and (iv) the French Constitutional debate over penalties for nondisclosure of trust assets.
Read MoreKenneth 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 MoreOne of the fallouts of the Panama Papers is a European call for a blacklist of countries that fail to meet the O.E.C.D. C.R.S. standards. The European Parliament and several E.U. Member States contend that if the U.S. should be declared a tax haven and added to the European Commission’s new blacklist if it does not implement the C.R.S. and B.E.P.S. Project recommendations. Are these contentions based on fact or on political agenda? Christine Long and Beate Erwin explain a trend that that is inching towards an outright trade war.
Read MoreIn this month’s update, Sheryl Shah and Stanley C. Ruchelman look at the following recent developments: (i) one-time payments for off-the-shelf software are not considered to be royalties in India, (ii) offshore voluntary disclosure in Greece, (iii) the movement of Slovak companies to other jurisdictions, and (iv) the effect of the Panama Papers on CbC reporting in Europe.
Read MoreUnder 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 MoreB.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 MoreThis month, Insights looks at the latest development in the deferred prosecution agreement with Swiss banks, a property tax increase in Jerusalem for “ghost apartments,” Canadian procedures to exempt foreign employers from withholding tax on salaries paid to certain individuals that are resident outside of Canada but work in Canada from time to time, and the adverse effect outside the U.S. of deferred CbC reporting for U.S.-based multinationals.
Read MoreIn December, the I.R.S. released Prop. Treas. Reg. §1.60384 -15, which details the country-by-country (CbC) reporting that will be required of large U.S.-based business entities. The proposed regulations define the persons required to file the CbC report, companies that are to included in the report, information that must be reported, acceptable measurement methodologies to be used, and uses to which data may be put.
These regulations closely follow the model recommended by the O.E.C.D. B.E.P.S. report. Sheryl Shah and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain the I.R.S.’s reasons and request for input regarding national security exemptions not otherwise considered by the O.E.C.D.
Read MoreOn July 19, 2013, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“O.E.C.D.”) released its full Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (the “B.E.P.S. Action Plan”), with expectations to roll out specific items over the subsequent two years. According to the O.E.C.D., the B.E.P.S. Action Plan will allow countries to draft coordinated, comprehensive, and transparent standards that governments need to prevent B.E.P.S., while at the same time updating the current rules to reflect modern business practices. Of the 15 action items listed in the B.E.P.S. Action Plan, four relate specifically to transfer pricing and several others indirectly address this area, as well. The four with direct impact on transfer pricing are Action Items 8, 9, 10, and 13:
With these and the 11 other Action Items, the O.E.C.D. aims to foster (i) coherence of corporate income taxation at the national level; (ii) enhanced substance, through bilateral tax treaties an in transfer pricing; and (iii) transparency and consistency of requirements.
