Mutual Agreement Procedure and Tax Arbitration in BRICS

1. BRICS Law Institute Mutual Agreement Procedure and Tax Arbitrationin BRICS Andrey Savitsky, PhD, Lead Researcher,BRICS Law Institute a.savitsky@bricslawinstitute.com September 13, 2018 – Yekaterinburg BRICS Law Institute: http://bricslawinstitute.com

2. Agenda Article 25 “MAP”: Tax Treaties Analysis Tax Arbitration: Tax Treaties Analysis MAP Case-Law BEPS MLI BRICS Law Institute: http://bricslawinstitute.com

3. I. Article 25 “MAP”: Tax Treaties Analysis • Most DTTs of BRICS states comprise “Mutual Agreement Procedure” article with some exceptions (there is no MAP in: Russia – UAE; India – Sierra Leone; China – Germany; South Africa – Grenada, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Zambia); • Generally, most DTTs follow Art. 25 of the UN Model – alternative A (no arbitration); • Usual deviations comprise: • Reference to a “national” in cases of tax discrimination (Art. 24(1)); • Limitation periods (no limits; 1, 2, 3, 5 years, domestic limitations); • Tax Arbitration clause; • Other unusual provisions (GATT, examples for communications, etc.). BRICS Law Institute: http://bricslawinstitute.com

4. I. Article 25 “MAP”: BRAZIL • Usually, Art. 25 MAP is addressed to a “resident” person; about 5 DTTs have reference to a “national” in tax discrimination case; • Limitation periods for a claim: • No limitations – 22 DDTs; • 2 years – 3 DDTs; • 3 years – 3 DTTs; • 5 years – 2 DTTs (India and the Netherlands); • Domestic limitations – 2 DTTs (South Africa and Peru). • No Tax Arbitration clause. BRICS Law Institute: http://bricslawinstitute.com

5. I. Article 25 “MAP”: RUSSIA • Usually, Art. 25 MAP is addressed to a “resident” person, about 45 DTTs have reference to a “national” in tax discrimination case; • Limitation periods for a claim: • No limitations – 7 DDTs; • 2 years – 9 DDTs; • 3 years – 57 DTTs; • There is 1 effective DTT with the Netherlands comprising the Tax Arbitration clause. There are 3 DTTs with Belgium (2015), Switzerland and Japan (2017)* providing for application of Tax Arbitration under condition the other Contracting State has inserted such provision in a DTT with the third states. BRICS Law Institute: http://bricslawinstitute.com

6. I. Article 25 “MAP”: INDIA • Usually, Art. 25 MAP is addressed to a “resident” person, about 62 DTTs have reference to a “national” in tax discrimination case; • Limitation periods for a claim: • No limitations – 5 DDTs (Egypt, Greece, Lybia, Turkey and UK); • 2 years – 4 DDTs (Belgium, UAE, Canada, Italy); • 3 years – 85 DTTs; • 5 years – 1 (Brazil). • No Tax Arbitration clause. BRICS Law Institute: http://bricslawinstitute.com

7. I. Article 25 “MAP”: CHINA • Usually, Art. 25 MAP is addressed to a “resident” person, about 94 DTTs have reference to a “national” in tax discrimination case; • Limitation periods for a claim: • No limitations – 2 DDTs (Canada and UK); • 1 year – Turkey; • 2 years – 1 DDT (Italy); • 3 years – 91 DTTs. • No Tax Arbitration clause. BRICS Law Institute: http://bricslawinstitute.com

8. I. Article 25 “MAP”: SOUTH AFRICA • Usually, Art. 25 MAP is addressed to a “resident” person, about 61 DTTs have reference to a “national” in tax discrimination case; • Limitation periods for a claim: • No limitations – 4 DDTs (Germany, Israel, Thailand and UK); • 2 years – 5 DDTs (Canada, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan and Seychelles); • 3 years – 62 DTTs; • Domestic limitations – 2 DDTs (Brazil and Turkey). • There are 3 effective DTTs with the Netherlands, Switzerland and Canada comprising the Tax Arbitration clause. BRICS Law Institute: http://bricslawinstitute.com

9. I. Article 25 “MAP”: BRICS MATRIX BRICS Law Institute: http://bricslawinstitute.com

10. II. Tax Arbitration: RUSSIA – Netherlands 5. If after the procedures of paragraph 1 to 4 any dispute arising as to the interpretation or application of the Agreement in a particular case cannot be resolved by the competent authorities of the Contracting States in a mutual agreement procedure, the case may, if both competent authorities agreebe resolved through an arbitration board created by the competent authorities and supplemented by independent persons and according to internationally accepted arbitration procedures. These procedures shall by mutual agreement be established between the competent authorities of both Contracting States. The decision of the arbitration board shall be binding on both Contracting States and the taxpayer or taxpayers involved with respect to that case. This paragraph will only apply after the competent authorities of both Contracting States have established the above-mentioned procedures. The Contracting States may release to the arbitration board, established under the provisions of this paragraph, such information as is necessary for carrying out the arbitration procedure. Such release of information shall be subject to the provisions of Articles 27 and 29. BRICS Law Institute: http://bricslawinstitute.com

11. II. Tax Arbitration: SOUTH AFRICA – Netherlands 5. If any difficulty or doubt arising as to the interpretation or application of the Convention cannot be resolved by the competent authorities of the Contracting States in a mutual agreement procedure pursuant to the previous paragraphs of this Article within a period of two years after the question was raised, the case may, at the request of either Contracting State, be submitted for arbitration, but only after fully exhausting the procedures available under paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article and provided the taxpayer or taxpayers involved agree in writing to be bound by the decision of the arbitration board. The decision of the arbitration board in a particular case shall be binding on both Contracting States and the taxpayer or taxpayers involved with respect to that case. The composition of the arbitration board and the arbitration procedures shall be determined by the competent authorities of the Contracting States. BRICS Law Institute: http://bricslawinstitute.com

12. II. Tax Arbitration: SOUTH AFRICA – Switzerland 5. If any difficulty or doubt as to the interpretation or application of the Convention cannot be resolved by the competent authorities of the Contracting States in a mutual agreement procedure pursuant to the previous paragraphs of this Article within a period of three years after the question was raised, the case may, at the request of either Contracting State, be submitted for arbitration, but only after fully exhausting the procedures available under paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article and provided the taxpayer or taxpayers involved agree in writing to be bound by the decision of the arbitration board. The arbitration board shall make a decision within one year after the case was submitted for arbitration. The decision of the arbitration board in a particular case shall be binding on both Contracting States and the taxpayer or taxpayers involved with respect to that case. The composition of the arbitration board and the arbitration procedures shall be determined by the competent authorities of the Contracting States. BRICS Law Institute: http://bricslawinstitute.com

13. II. Tax Arbitration: SOUTH AFRICA – Canada 6. If any question, difficulty or doubt arising as to the interpretation or application of the Convention cannot be resolved or dealt with by the competent authorities as a result of the application of the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2 or 3, these questions, difficulties or doubts may, if the competent authorities agree, be submitted to an arbitration commission. The decisions of the commission shall be binding on the competent authorities. The composition of the commission and the arbitration procedures shall be determined by the competent authorities. BRICS Law Institute: http://bricslawinstitute.com

14. III. MAP Case-Law: INDIA • Herbalife International India Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO • ITA No. 842 to 844 (Bang.)/2007 of 23 December 2009 • Taxpayerpaidtothe US resident „administrative servicefees“ and treatedthemtobe non-taxable in India. • Taxauthoritieschargedwithholdingtax of 100% (90%) of thefees in India. • ITAT upheldthetaxpayersincethere was the MAP agreementtreatingthe same servicefeesforprevioustaxperiodsastaxableonly on 25% of them in India. • See also: • McKinsey and Co. Inc. v. UOI, DDIT, DIT and Ors., 13 April 2010; • Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, 11 October 2013; • UPS Worldwide Forwarding Inc. v. DIT, 25 October 2013, etc. BRICS Law Institute: http://bricslawinstitute.com

15. III. MAP Case-Law: RUSSIA • Court upheld the taxpayer since the tax certificate without apostil is agreed with Cyprus under MAP (9th Appellate Tribunal case №А40-124556/16); • Court considered that the agreement under MAP between Russia and Kazakhstan on acceptance of tax certificate without apostil is not applicable at the moment (9th Appellate Tribunal case № А40-144798/16); • Court considered agreement under MAP between Russia and Norway on taxation of certain income of the Russian company (Murmansk Arbitration Tribunal case № А42-2441/2017); • Court considered agreement under MAP between Russia and Kazakhstan on the absence of a construction site PE in a given case (case №А50-19094/2014); • О проведении взаимосогласительной процедуры в рамках соглашения между РФ и Республикой Казахстан об устранении двойного налогообложения Письмо Минфина от 24.04.2018 № 03-08-05/27645 BRICS Law Institute: http://bricslawinstitute.com

16. IV. BEPS MLI: BRICS MATRIX BRICS Law Institute: http://bricslawinstitute.com

17. Obrigado pela suaatenção! Спасибо за внимание! ध्यान देने के लिए धन्यवाद! 感謝您的關注！ Ngiyabongaukulalelakwenu! BRICS Law Institute: http://bricslawinstitute.com