1 / 23

Prof . Dr. Wolfgang Kessler Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftliche Steuerlehre

Prof . Dr. Wolfgang Kessler Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftliche Steuerlehre. BEPS: Base Erosion and Profit Shifting – the lack of harmonization and the double taxation as a result. International Tax Forum September 19 th 2013 St. Petersburg.

matteo
Télécharger la présentation

Prof . Dr. Wolfgang Kessler Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftliche Steuerlehre

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang KesslerLehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftliche Steuerlehre BEPS: Base Erosion and Profit Shifting – the lack of harmonization and the double taxation as a result International Tax ForumSeptember 19th 2013St. Petersburg Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg – Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftliche Steuerlehre – StB Prof. Dr. W. Kessler Werthmannstr. 8 – 79085 Freiburg i.Br. – Telefon 0761/203-9200 – Telefax 0761/203-9202

  2. Agenda • Fundamentals • Tax planning structures • Google • Apple • OECD measures • Report Addressing BEPS (10/02/2013) • Action plan on BEPS (19/07/2013) • Implications of the OECD measures

  3. 1. Fundamentals (1/6) - taxcreditmethod vs. exemptionmethod - IE IE Inc. AG 65 profit ./. 35 CIT ./. 1,3 *CIT + 12,5 FTC 87,5 dividend 87,5 dividend 86,2 profit OpCo OpCo USA 87,5 profit ./. 12,5 CIT ./. 12,5 CIT 100 EBT 100 EBT activeincome activeincome 87,5 profit DE *) Exemption method (tax base = 0), but 5% of dividend deemed as non deductible expenses.

  4. 1. Fundamentals (2/6) - taxdeferral vs. CFC rules - IE IE Inc. Inc. -22,5 loss 0 profit ./. 35 CIT + 12,5 FTC ./. 0 CIT 0EBT nodividend 0EBT nodividend OpCo USA USA CFC 87,5 profit 87,5 profit ./. 12,5 CIT ./. 12,5 CIT 100 EBT 100 EBT activeincome passive income

  5. 1. Fundamentals (3/6) - calculation -

  6. 1. Fundamentals(4/6) - US Corporate Income Taxes - • Federal tax: Corporate Income Tax • residence: place of incorporation (notplace of management) • U.S. taxation of worldwide income – as a basic principle • stepped rates up to 35% + state/local taxes (approx. 2-6%) • avoidance of international double taxation: foreign tax credit-method (FTC) with option to “deemed paid tax credit” (gross up) • Subpart F: current inclusion of passive income (e.g. dividends, interest, royalties) from controlled foreign corporations (CFC) • “check the box”-regulation (Form 8832): option to treat a corporation as permanent establishment (disregarded entity) • US-GAAP • expectedeffectivetaxrate (ETR) of 35-41%! • exception: no deferred taxes, “if sufficient evidence shows that the subsidiary has invested or will invest the undistributed earnings indefinitely …” (APB 23)

  7. 1. Fundamentals (5/6) - transfer of intangible assets fromthe USA - ② cost sharing agreement (buy-in) US Inc. BM ① research & development Offshore-Co intangible assets intangible assets USA ③ IP transfer EU-OpCo EU ④ license

  8. 1. Fundamentals (6/6) - jurisdictiontotaxfor CIT purposes - *) There is an exception to this rule if a related company is controlled or is regularly traded on a recognized stock exchange.

  9. 2. Taxplanningstructures (1/4) - Google: structure - Google Inc. ⑧ dividends(deferred) USA ① IP transfer Google Ireland Holdings (*) ⑦ royalties BM IE Google NL Holding B.V. ② license NL ③ sublicense Google Ire-landLtd. ⑥ royalties ④ online promotion DE ⑤ fees clients *) The Google Ireland Holdings was founded in Ireland, but theplace of managementis in Bermuda.

  10. 2. Taxplanningstructures (2/4) - Google: CIT - • USA: • Google Inc.: US CIT on dividends (but deferral in Bermuda) and no CFC taxation (active income from Irish subsidiaries) • Google Ireland Holdings: intangible assets transferred via cost sharing arrangement (APA) from the USA to Bermuda (no super royalty rule) • Google Ireland Ltd. / Google NL Holding B.V.: • no tax resident (both companies are not incorporated in the USA) • no CFC taxation (check-the-box-election  active revenues from Irish subs) • Bermuda: Google Ireland Holdings: no CIT and no withholding tax (tax haven) • Netherlands: • Google Ireland Holdings: no withholding tax on royalties outgoing (local tax code) • Google NL Holding B.V.: ruling on royalty net income (handling fee) • Ireland: • Google Ireland Holdings: no tax resident (no place of management in Ireland) • Google NL Holding B.V.: no withholding tax (Council Directive 2003/49/EC) • Google Ireland Ltd.: CIT = 12,5%, but low net income (high TP on royalties) • Germany: Google Ireland Ltd.: no CIT (no permanent establishment)

  11. 2. Taxplanningstructures (3/4) - Apple: structure - Apple Inc. IE DE Apple „OpCo“ International USA Apple Distri-bution Int. Apple OpCoEurope Apple Retail Holding Europe ① IP transfer ③ sale Apple SalesInternational ② sale Apple Retail Germany TW Foxconn clients ④ sale

  12. 2. Taxplanningstructures (4/4) - Apple: CIT - • USA: • Apple Inc.: • no CFC taxation (active income from disregarded “Irish” sub-subsidiaries) • Apple OpCo International / Apple OpCo Europe / Apple Sales International: • incorporated in IE, but have no tax residency in Ireland (no employees, no PE) and in the USA (ghost company) – board meetings in CA! • intangible assets transferred via cost sharing arrangement from the USA • no CFC taxation (check-the-box-election  sales income of Irish subsidiaries is active income of AOI) • Ireland: • Apple OpCo International / Apple OpCo Europe / Apple Sales International: • subject to non-resident taxation, but special tax rate of 2% • Apple Distribution International / Apple Retail Holding Europe: • tax resident, but low net income (TP: low risk distributor) • Germany: • Apple Distribution International: no CIT (no permanent establishment) • Apple Retail Germany: tax resident, but low net income (TP: low risk distributor) • Taiwan: Foxconn: tax resident, but low net income (TP: low risk distributor)

  13. 3. OECD measures& EU Code of Conduct - timeline - 1997 EU: Code of Conduct for business taxation 1998 Report: Harmful Tax Competition – An Emerging Global Issue 2001 Discussion paper: The Impact of the Communications Revolution on the Application of “Place of Effective Management" as a Tie Breaker Rule 2004 TAG Final Report: Are the Current Treaty Rules for Taxing Business Profits Appropriate for E-Commerce? 12/02/2013 BEPS-Report (diagnosis) 15/02/2013 G20 Finance Ministers meeting in Moscow 19/07/2013 G20 Finance Ministers meeting in Moscow OECD Action Plan on BEPS (therapy) 05/09/2013 G20 Leader’s Summit in St. Petersburg

  14. 3. OECD reportaddressing BEPS (10/02/2013) - Global Foreign Direct Investments in 2010 - Source: OECD, 2013. value of retained offshore profits ≈ 1.7 trillion $ ==> deferred US CIT ≈ 600 billion $ (Source: Pinkernell, IStR 2013, p. 180-187)

  15. 3.OECD action plan on BEPS (19/07/2013) - 15 actions -

  16. 4.Implications of the OECD measures (1/5)- actions - • Action 1: address the tax challenges of the digital economy • expected output: • report identifying the main difficulties that the economy poses for the application of existing international tax rules • development of detailed options to address these difficulties • object of investigation: • companies with a significant digital presence in the economy of another country without being liable to taxation (no nexus) • attribution of value for digital products and services and characterization of income of these digital products and services • application of related source rules • ensure the effective collection of VAT/GST with respect to the cross-border supply of digital goods and services • implications forthe tax structures of Google & Apple: • possibly non-resident tax liability in EU via the fiction of a (virtual) PE • possibly tax residency of the „ghost“ companies in the USA or in Ireland • global formulary apportionment?

  17. 4.Implications of the OECD measures (2/5) - actions - • Action 3: strengthen CFC rules • expectedoutput: • recommendationsregardingthe design of domesticrules • object of investigation: • design of rulesforcontrolledforeigncompanies • implicationsforthetaxstructuresof Google & Apple: • currently: US CFC taxationisavoided via check-the-box-election • in theory the CFC taxation in the USA could be strengthened so that CFC legislation would work properly • companies which are resident in EU member states: no relevance due to the judgments of the ECJ (Cadbury Schweppes), if the subsidiary has substance (not fully artificial) • thus CFC legislation is in fact a phase-out model

  18. 4.Implications of the OECD measures (2/5) - actions - • Action 5: counter harmful tax practices more effectively, taking into account transparency and substance • expectedoutput: • finalized review of member countries’ regimes • revision of existing criteria • object of investigation: • revamping the work on harmful tax practices with a priority on improving transparency (including compulsory spontaneous exchange on rulings related to preferential regimes) • requirement of a substantial activity for any preferential regime • implicationsforthetaxstructures of Google & Apple: • no rulings for conduit companies in the Netherlands • no special tax rates for IP companies (IE) or IP-boxes (NL, Lux, UK) • no preferential tax regimes for artificial holding companies

  19. 4.Implications of the OECD measures (3/5)- actions - • Action 7: prevent the artificial avoidance of permanent establishment status • expected output: • changes to the OECD Model Commentary and Tax Convention • recommendations regarding the design of domestic rules • object of investigation: • prevention of the artificial avoidance of the PE status – e.g. commissionaire arrangements and specific activity exemptions • implications forthe tax structures of Google & Apple: • currently: non-taxable direct business activities in EU member states • in the future: non-resident tax liability in EU member states via a sales agent PE, no exemption for facilities solely for the purpose of storage, display … and activities of preparatory or auxiliary character (Art. 5 P 4)

  20. 4.Implications of the OECD measures (4/5) - actions - • Action 8: assurethat transfer pricing outcomes are in line with value creation (intangibles) • expectedoutput: • changestotheTransfer Pricing Guidelines (WP6 discussiondraft on intangibles) • changestothe Model TaxConvention • object of investigation: • broad and clearly delineated definition of intangibles • appropriate allocation of the profits associated with the transfer and use of intangibles (in accordance with the creation of economic value) • development of TP rules for transfers of hard-to-value intangibles • updating the guidance on cost contribution arrangements • implicationsforthetaxstructuresof Google& Apple: • preventinga tax-free transfer of intangible assets from the USA to a tax haven

  21. 4.Implications of the OECD measures (5/5)- actions - • missingmeasures • Coordination of tax residency of corporations • place of incorporation vs. • place of (effective) management ( daily business) vs. • place of management ( strategic decisions) • OECD Discussion paper: The Impact of the Communications Revolution on the Application of “Place of Effective Management” as a Tie Breaker Rule (2001) • withholdingtax on interestandroyalties(for non-EU countries!) • alternative taxationconcepts • global formularyapportionment • fullinclusionsystem

  22. Conclusions • Controversial and open-ended project due to the clash of interests / distortion of competition • biggest problems in USA, massive export subsidy and offshore dilemma • while Germany is a model student who does even more than enough – earningstrippingrule, taxationat „transferring“ andtransfer of functions, strength CFC taxation, treaty override, intentional double taxation, … • CH, NL, Lux, UK, … are juvenile delinquents due to their preferential regimes • E-Commerce discussion: New Wine into Old Wineskins • Possible improvements: • country-by-country-reporting • abolition of preferential regimes („level playing field“) • revised version of Art. 5 P 4 OECD Model Tax Convention • tie-breaker rule for anti-avoidance measures • fundamental US tax reform • Worst case scenario: • massive treaty override, massive double taxation, endless TP disputes, …

  23. ThankYouforYour Attention!

More Related