Presentations: Tax Certainty Day 2019 - search.oecd.org · 16/09/2019 · TAX CERTAINTY DAY Item 2...
Transcript of Presentations: Tax Certainty Day 2019 - search.oecd.org · 16/09/2019 · TAX CERTAINTY DAY Item 2...
TAX CERTAINTY DAY
Item 2 – Tax certainty and the bigger picture
Achim Pross
16 September 2019, OECD Conference Centre
© OECD |
Why international tax certainty matters?
2Tax certainty and the bigger picture
• It matters to government 60% of businesses indicated that
tax uncertainty affects investment and location decisions,
impacting growth and jobs.
• It matter to business 90% indicated that uncertainty adversely
affects their business operations and costs.
• It matters to tax administrations the largest businesses are
responsible for around half of total tax revenue.
© OECD |
Why large business matters to tax administrations
3Tax certainty and the bigger picture
Around 50% of
net revenue …
0%
50%
100
%
Ne
t re
ve
nu
e c
olle
cte
d
by t
ax a
dm
inis
tratio
ns
Around 8 thousand MNE groups controlling around
90% of corporate revenues file CbC Reports
… received from 2% of corporate taxpayers.
90%
© OECD |
We know the legislative design tools…
Simple and clear rules
Compatible and consistent with those of other jurisdictions
Keep stable, do not change them too often, but keep up with changes in business environment
4Tax certainty and the bigger picture
© OECD |
Unilateral audit Co-ordinated / Joint audit
MAP
Arbitration
To
wa
rds ta
x c
erta
inty
Dis
pu
te p
reve
ntio
nD
isp
ute
reso
lutio
nUnilateral APA Bilateral / Multilateral APA
Binding APA
legal
Audit outcomes
legal
legal
legal
Unilateral co-operative compliance Bilateral / Multilateral co-operative compliance
Co-operative compliance outcomes
de facto
Unilateral risk assessment Co-ordinated risk assessment Multilateral risk assessment (ICAP)
Risk assessment outcomes
de facto
And where uncertainty remains in the international space-
tax administration have the tools…
5Tax certainty and the bigger picture
© OECD |
Tax certainty tools in FTA jurisdictions (53)
6Tax certainty and the bigger picture
MAP
53 (100%)
APA Joint
audits
Committed to
Arbitration
ICAP
45 (85%)
25+ (47%)24 (45%)
18 (34%)
© OECD |
Where are we? Does today’s system provide the right level of tax certainty ? Lets hear from you. Please go to www.menti.com and enter
code 83 07 30
7Tax certainty and the bigger picture
Only provide an answer for your
respective group (e.g. if you are a
business representative, please
“skip” the part where you are
asked to provide the “government /
tax administration” perspective).
2018 MAP STATISTICS AT A GLANCE
8
© OECD |
Reporting jurisdictions
• Up to 89 jurisdictions (85 in 2017)
• Covering almost all jurisdictions with MAP cases
2018 MAP statistics – what’s new?
Third year of use of the common framework to report MAP statistics
=> Increased consistency in the
analysis
Publication of key indicators on MAP
statistics (time, overall performance)
9Tax certainty and the bigger picture
© OECD |
2018 MAP statistics – overview
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Start inventory01.01.2018
Cases started Cases closed End inventory31.12.2018
Total MAP Caseload actual numbers
Cases pre-2016 or year of IF membership Cases post-2016 or year of IF membership
10Tax certainty and the bigger picture
© OECD |
2018 MAP statistics - Global trends
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2016 2017 2018
Cases started
Transfer pricing cases
Other cases
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2016 2017 2018
Cases closedapproximation
Transfer pricing cases
Other cases
11Tax certainty and the bigger picture
© OECD |
Transfer pricing cases: 33 months (30 months in 2017)
Other cases: 14 months (17 months in 2017)
MAP cases closed in 2018
Average time necessary to close MAP cases
2% 1%6%
4%
6%
1%
4%
17%
2%
57%
MAP Outcomesno agreement including agreement to disagree
any other outcome
denied MAP access
objection is not justified
withdrawn by taxpayer
agreement that there is no taxation not in accordance with tax treaty
resolved via domestic remedy
unilateral relief granted
agreement partially eliminating double taxation / partially resolving taxation not in accordancewith tax treatyagreement fully eliminating double taxation / fully resolving taxation not in accordance with taxtreaty
12Tax certainty and the bigger picture
MAP AWARDS
13
© OECD |
Co-operationCaseload
managementInventory reduction
Speed
MAP AWARDS – What is measured?
14Tax certainty and the bigger picture
© OECD |
Average time to close MAP cases
15Tax certainty and the bigger picture
© OECD |
Average time
16Tax certainty and the bigger picture
38.35
35.34
34.98
31.04
30.64
29.93
29.4
28.58
27.7
24.52
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
India
France
United States
Spain
Netherlands
Japan
Italy
United Kingdom
Denmark
Canada
Months
Transfer pricing cases (top 10 - more than 50 cases closed)
18.65
17.71
16.97
16.97
15.49
13.72
13.29
10.8
8.83
6.1
0 5 10 15 20
Austria
France
Switzerland
Sweden
Canada
Belgium
Germany
Luxembourg
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Months
Other cases (top 10 - more than 20 cases closed)
Time taken to close MAP cases - Cases closed in 2018
1
2
3
1
2
3
© OECD |
Inventory evolution
17Tax certainty and the bigger picture
-16% -16%
-7%
-5% -5%-3%
-3%
-1%
0% 1%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
Canada China(People's
Republic of)
Belgium UnitedKingdom
Netherlands Germany Denmark Luxembourg United States Austria
Top 10 jurisdictions with more than 100 cases in end inventory
Comparison total 2018 end inventory with total 2018 start inventory
1 2 3
© OECD |
Caseload management
18Tax certainty and the bigger picture
© OECD |
Caseload management
19
19%
21%
25%
29%
29%
30%
31%
43%
48%
56%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Mexico
Ireland
Czech Republic
Portugal
Indonesia
Greece
South Africa
Japan
Singapore
Australia
Top 10 jurisdictions with more than 20 and fewer than 100 cases left in end inventory
31%
33%
37%
41%
42%
47%
56%
62%
72%
83%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Denmark
France
Switzerland
Norway
Germany
United Kingdom
Canada
Belgium
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Top 10 jurisdictions with more than 100 cases left in end inventory
Tax certainty and the bigger picture Comparison cases closed in 2018 with actual caseload
(start inventory + new cases)
1
2
3
1
2
3
© OECD |
Co-operation
20Tax certainty and the bigger picture
© OECD |
United Kingdom +
France
41%
France + United States
50%
United States + Canada
54%
Co-operation
21Tax certainty and the bigger picture
Transfer pricing cases Other cases
Belgium + Netherlands
79%
Germany + United
Kingdom
83%
Germany + Luxembourg
83%
Note: data analysed for pairs of jurisdictions that had more than 20 cases of a type to resolve in 2018
Comparison cases closed in 2018 with actual caseload
(start inventory + new cases) for each pair of jurisdictions
1
2
3
1
2
3
© OECD |
MAP awards – conclusion
22
Congratulations
to all participants!
… See you next
year!
Tax certainty and the bigger picture
TAX CERTAINTY DAY
Item 3 – Advance Pricing Agreements
16 September 2019, OECD Conference Centre
© OECD |
Introduction to the panel
2
Alexandra MacLean, DG International Business, Canada Revenue Agency
Katherine Amos, Global Head, Transfer Pricing, Johnson & Johnson
Rocio Bermudez, Global Transfer Pricing Manager, REPSOL
John Hughes, Director, Advance Pricing & Mutual Agreement, IRS
Kristina Juth, Senior Adviser, Tax Finland
Jere Törmänen, Head of Tax, Bata Corporation
Mark Johnson, Head of Unit, OECD
© OECD |
Unilateral audit Co-ordinated / Joint auditCo-ordinated / Joint Audit
MAP
Arbitration
Towards tax certainty
Dis
pute
pre
vent
ion
Dis
pute
re
solu
tion
Unilateral APA Bilateral / Multilateral APA
Binding APA
legal
Audit outcomes
legal
legal
legal
Unilateral co-operative compliance Bilateral / Multilateral co-operative compliance
Co-operative compliance outcomes
de facto
Unilateral risk assessment Co-ordinated risk assessment Multilateral risk assessment (ICAP)
Risk assessment outcomes
de facto
Global Trends in Achieving Tax Certainty:Routes to Certainty for International Tax
3
© OECD |
Unilateral audit Co-ordinated / Joint auditCo-ordinated / Joint Audit
MAP
Arbitration
Towards tax certainty
Dis
pute
pre
vent
ion
Dis
pute
re
solu
tion
Unilateral APA Bilateral / Multilateral APA
Binding APA
legal
Audit outcomes
legal
legal
legal
Unilateral co-operative compliance Bilateral / Multilateral co-operative compliance
Co-operative compliance outcomes
de facto
Unilateral risk assessment Co-ordinated risk assessment Multilateral risk assessment (ICAP)
Risk assessment outcomes
de facto
Global Trends in Achieving Tax Certainty:Routes to Certainty for International Tax
4
© OECD |
Bilateral/multilateral APAs and other routes to tax certainty
5
By providing legal certainty over specific transactions for a defined multi-year period, APAs eliminate the need for additional work on risk ratings, tax audit and/or MAP, but…..
– unilateral APAs only provide one-sided tax certainty– bilateral APAs are time-consuming and resource intensive – multilateral APAs pose greater challenges and are currently
infrequently agreed in practice
© OECD |
Extract from the FTA Plenary CommuniquéSantiago, Chile – March 2019
6
“The FTA MAP Forum, in conjunction with the FTA Large Business International Programme, will study other avenues to advance on the tax certainty agenda, including by identifying improvements that could be made to the APA process and exploring the potential for the wider use of multilateral APAs and MAPs. In addition, we will explore the potential use and sharing of benchmarks for standard situations in the area of transfer pricing.”
© OECD |
Strengths of APAs
7
• Legal certainty• Co-operative and transparent process• Multilateral relationships• Other?
© OECD |
Obstacles to the broader use of APAsPlease go to www.menti.com and enter code: 35 00 43
What are the main causes for delay in concluding bilateral or multilateral APAs?
Complexity of transactions
Tax administration
resourcesMNE
resources
Time for multilateral discussions
Lack of clear deadlines / timeframes
8
© OECD |
Tools to tackle obstacles to the broader use of APAsPlease go to www.menti.com and enter code: 26 21 14
9
What focus would best tackle obstacles to the broader use of APAs?
Target timeframes for
each stage
More targeted documentation / information
Increased tax administration
resources
Focus on multilateral
APAs
Greater use of benchmarks / safe harbours
© OECD |
Tools to tackle obstacles: Cross Border Dialogue
10
Cross-Border Dialogue is a tool for tax administrations and taxpayers
• to enhance predictability and tax certainty
• to enter into a bilateral or multilateral dialogue procedure to determine in advance or in real time
• the tax treatment of a specified international tax issue
• related to two or more countries
© OECD | 11
© OECD |
Fee structures
12
• Various fee structures globally:– Fixed fee– No fee– Hourly fee– Graduated fee– Revenue neutral structure
© OECD |
Concluding remarks
13
TAX CERTAINTY DAY
Item 4 – MAP and arbitration
16 September 2019, OECD Conference Centre
© OECD |
Unilateral audit Co-ordinated / Joint audit
MAP
Arbitration
Towards tax certainty
Dis
pute
pre
vent
ion
Dis
pute
re
solu
tion
Unilateral APA Bilateral / Multilateral APA
Binding APA
legal
Audit outcomes
legal
legal
legal
Unilateral co-operative compliance Bilateral / Multilateral co-operative compliance
Co-operative compliance outcomes
de facto
Unilateral risk assessment Co-ordinated risk assessment Multilateral risk assessment (ICAP)
Risk assessment outcomes
de facto
Global Trends in Achieving Tax Certainty:Routes to Certainty for International Tax
2MAP and Arbitration
© OECD |
BEPS Action
14
FTA MAP
Forum
Peer reviews
MAP statistics
3
What’s going on in the MAP world?
130+ members of the BEPS Inclusive
Framework
80+ jurisdictions peer reviewed
(last batch to be launched in Dec 2019)
MAP and Arbitration
MAP trainings
© OECD |
Action 14 is already delivering…
•Increased resources
•Reorganisation of CA
•Treaties modified / measures taken to enable implementation of all MAP agreements
•Access in TP cases, even if the treaty does not include Article 9(2)
•New or updated MAP guidance
•Allowing roll-back of bilateral APAs
Prevention Access
ResolutionImplementation
4MAP and Arbitration
© OECD |
Treaty provisions are not always in line with the minimum standard and
may not be fixed by the MLI
Timely resolution of MAP cases remains a challenge - about 60% of
reporting jurisdictions met the 24 months target in 2018
5
… but we are not there yet
MAP and Arbitration
© OECD | 6
Trends in the main jurisdictions
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Germany United States France India Italy Belgium UnitedKingdom
Spain Switzerland Netherlands
MAP inventory in number of cases (all cases)Top 10 jurisdictions
2016 Start inventory 2017 Start inventory 2018 Start inventory 2018 End inventory
MAP and Arbitration
© OECD |
How well is MAP currently working for your jurisdiction on a scale from 1 to 10?
7
Mentimeter question for tax administration officials
MAP and Arbitration
© OECD |
Mentimeter question for business representatives
What is your MAP experience since 2016? We do not even try MAP Issues with accessing MAP Issues with timely resolution It takes time to implement the agreement MAP has improved
8MAP and Arbitration
© OECD |
Introduction to the panel
9
John Hughes, Director, Advance Pricing & Mutual Agreement, IRS
Karsten Flüchter, Head of Division, MAPs and APAs, German Federal Central Tax Office
Sharon Katz-Pearlman, Head of KPMG’s Global Tax Dispute Resolution & Controversy Team
Erik Knijnenburg, Global Head of Tax & Transfer Pricing, H&M
Evelyn Lio, Assistant Commissioner, Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Martin O’Rourke, Competent Authority Transfer Pricing, HMRC
Sandra Knaepen, Head of MAP Unit, OECD
MAP and Arbitration
MAP and Arbitration –How are we doing?
MAP and Arbitration –What about developing countries?
MAP and Arbitration –How to deal with continuous increase of MAP cases?
MAP and Arbitration –Other ways to avoid MAP
TAX CERTAINTY DAY
Item 6 – Co-operative Compliance & the International Compliance Assurance Programme (ICAP)
16 September 2019, OECD Conference Centre
© OECD |
Unilateral audit Co-ordinated / Joint auditCo-ordinated / Joint Audit
MAP
Arbitration
Towards tax certainty
Dis
pute
pre
vent
ion
Dis
pute
re
solu
tion
Unilateral APA Bilateral / Multilateral APA
Binding APA
legal
Audit outcomes
legal
legal
legal
Unilateral co-operative compliance Bilateral / Multilateral co-operative compliance
Co-operative compliance outcomes
de facto
Unilateral risk assessment Co-ordinated risk assessment Multilateral risk assessment (ICAP)
Risk assessment outcomes
de facto
Global Trends in Achieving Tax Certainty:Routes to Certainty for International Tax
2
© OECD |
Risk assessment outcomes
Unilateral audit Co-ordinated / Joint auditCo-ordinated / Joint Audit
MAP
Arbitration
Towards tax certainty
Dis
pute
pre
vent
ion
Dis
pute
re
solu
tion
Unilateral APA Bilateral / Multilateral APA
Binding APA
legal
Audit outcomes
legal
legal
legal
Unilateral co-operative compliance Bilateral / Multilateral co-operative compliance
Co-operative compliance outcomes
de facto
Unilateral risk assessment Co-ordinated risk assessment Multilateral risk assessment (ICAP) de facto
Global Trends in Achieving Tax Certainty:Routes to Certainty for International Tax
3
© OECD |
Background to the first ICAP pilot
4
• ICAP is a voluntary programme for the multilateral risk assessment of large MNEs
• There is a focus on common international tax risks that are best looked at by tax administrations working together (initially transfer pricing & PE issues)
• MNEs receive outcome letters detailing areas found to be “low risk” (e.g. where there is no expectation that further enquiries will be needed)
• A first pilot was launched in January 2018, with eight tax administrations participating
© OECD |
From the first pilot to ICAP 2.0
5
• A second pilot, ICAP 2.0, was announced at the FTA Plenary in Santiago, Chile in March 2019
• Based on tax administration and MNE experiences in the first pilot, key changes for ICAP 2.0 include:
• a clearer more flexible process
• a more targeted approach to documentation
• specific option for issue resolution within a risk assessment stage
• participation has increased from 8 to 18 tax administrations (France confirmed its participation in September 2019)
© OECD |
ICAP 2.0 – Participating tax administrations
6
Australia Austria Belgium
Canada Denmark Finland
France Germany Ireland
Italy Japan Luxembourg
Netherlands Norway Poland
Spain United Kingdom United States
© OECD |
ICAP 2.0 – Process and planned timeframe
7
Stage I: Pre-entry
Stage II: Scoping
Stage III: Risk assessment …
Stage IV: Outcomes
… and issue resolution20-36 weeks
4-8 weeks
To commence by June 2019
To commence Autumn 2019
© OECD |
ICAP and other routes to greater tax certainty
8
• Comparing ICAP with other routes to greater tax certainty:
• the level of certainty provided
• the point at which certainty is provided
• the risks and jurisdictions covered
• the level of documentation to be provided
• the time taken
• ICAP is a complement to bilateral/multilateral APAs, joint/simultaneous audits and MAP
© OECD |
Introduction to the panel
9
Jo Wakeman, Director, Large Business Directorate, HMRC
Jennifer Best, Director, Treaty and Transfer Pricing, Internal Revenue Service
Letizia Coviello, Group Tax Director, Prada
Giuseppe Lamberti, Group International Tax Director, Prada
Ronald Russo, Professor, Fiscal Institute, Tilburg University
Graeme Wood, Director, Global Taxes – Transfer Pricing, Procter & Gamble
Marco Zonetti, Large Taxpayer Department, Italian Revenue Agency
Mark Johnson, Head of Unit, OECD
© OECD |
Participation in ICAPPlease go to www.menti.com and enter code: 75 86 02
10
In your view, would your MNE group or tax administration be interested in participating in ICAP in future?
Tax admin:No
MNE: Yes / already participated
MNE:No
MNE: Uncertain
Tax admin:Yes / already participates
Tax admin:Uncertain
© OECD |
How does the level of comfort provided through ICAP compare with that available via
other routes (e.g. APAs)?
11
© OECD |
How can learnings from ICAPbe used to provide greater tax
certainty to all MNEs?
12
© OECD |
Concluding remarks
13
TAX CERTAINTY DAY
Item 7 – Joint Audit
Nadia Altenburg16 September 2019, OECD Conference Centre
© OECD | 2
2
• two or more tax administrations joining together
• common or complementary interest
• proceeding in a pre-agreed and co-ordinated manner
• high level of integration in the process and including the presence of officials from the other tax administration
• where the tax administrations jointly engage with the taxpayer, enabling the taxpayer to share information with them jointly
• and the teams include Competent Authority representatives from each tax administration for the exchange of information.
Joint Audits: What are we talking about?
TAX CERTAINTY DAY
Item 7 – Joint Audit
Eveline E. Klein Entink16 September 2019, OECD Conference Centre
© OECD |
Joint Audit Project 2019 - Participating jurisdictions
4Presentation Title
BelgiumCanadaDenmarkFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNorwayPortugalRussiaSingaporeSouth AfricaSpainUKUS
© OECD |
Joint Audits in the spectrum of Mutual assistance
5Presentation Title
STE with active presence
presence in administrative offices
Exchange of Information
(EoI)
STE with passive presence
STE (Simultaneous Tax Examinations)
Presence of Foreign Tax Officers
Joint Audits
© OECD | 6
6
• two or more tax administrations joining together
• common or complementary interest
• proceeding in a pre-agreed and co-ordinated manner
• high level of integration in the process and including the presence of officials from the other tax administration
• where the tax administrations jointly engage with the taxpayer, enabling the taxpayer to share information with them jointly
• and the teams include Competent Authority representatives from each tax administration for the exchange of information.
Joint Audits: What are we talking about?
© OECD |
Key benefits of Joint Audits
• a joint approach to fact finding avoiding misunderstandings/better quality of information achieving a holistic overview a more efficient and faster process reduced burdens for taxpayers and tax administrations no need to undo decisions that have already been taken
• a better understanding of the differences in legislation • common accepted outcome - early tax certainty • timeframe: faster than domestic audit followed by a MAP• …
7Presentation Title
TAX CERTAINTY DAY
Example of a Joint Audit Case NL / DE
Kirsten Rösel16 September 2019, OECD Conference Centre
© OECD | 9
2011 – 2014 audit period
2015 - 2016March – July
2018 audit activities
timing activity
22. January 2018 Initiation of the Joint Audit by the Dutch Tax Authorities
March 2018 Start meeting of the delegations from NL and DE
April 2018 Joint questionnaire sent to the taxpayer
9. – 10. June 2018 Interviews in Germany
20. – 22. June 2018 Interviews in The Netherlands
6. – 7. July 2018 Final meeting
Example Joint Audit – NL / DE
TAX CERTAINTY DAY
Joint Audits: Practical Experiencesof an MNEDr. Sven Bremer, Siemens AG16 September 2019, OECD Conference Centre
Frei verwendbar
© OECD |
Transfer Pricing Disputes – a key challenge
Double taxation arising from TP adjustments is a key challenge Majority of TP adjustments (in volume) relate to routine function profitability
MAP – suitable, but significant time lags
Siemens considers MAPs a suitable instrument to reduce double taxation and uses them whenever possible
However, the duration of such procedures is usually significant MAPs only provide an ex-post solution, with arbitrary results based on negotiations between tax
authorities and often no transparency on the basis for those outcomes Resource-intensive without the benefit of binding results for the future, resulting in continuing
uncertainty
Siemens MAPs
CasesDuration (avg.) in months
Currently open 22 3 - 66 (40)
Closed (last 5 yrs) 16 21-70 (40)Bilateral APA - not considered a favourable option for Siemens
Highly formalized process, no tax certainty for complex issues within a reasonable time frame Siemens has limited APA experience – one major bilateral APA for a routine margin case (only
closed after (!) APA period)
Routine functions
IP
Other
TP adjustments
Transfer Pricing Disputes
© OECD |
Joint Audits within SiemensJoint Audits (JA) – Siemens Siemens has participated in various JAs
Germany-Netherlands: concerning mostly compensation for financing functions Germany-Austria: mostly related to deliveries from Austria to Germany
Other countries were approached by the German tax authorities regarding proposed JAs, but were rejected
Taxpayer
Local tax authorities
Competent authorities
Joint Audit / Multilateral Control Mutual Agreement Procedure/APA
Direct negotiation between local tax authorities MAP still possible
Negotiation only between CAs CA sometimes "bottleneck", MAPs/APA take more time
A Positive Experience – effective collaboration and improved tax certainty Double taxation was resolved and/or avoided within less time than experienced for MAPs Field auditors/tax officers (with detailed knowledge of underlying business facts) from both sides were able to discuss and
align directly Tax and business functions of Siemens were involved to a high degree Issues addressed and outcomes were similar to results achieved under MAPs, however much more transparency regarding
results for Siemens Although no formalized certainty, a high degree of practical certainty for taxpayer in consecutive tax years
12
© OECD |
Joint Audits – ConsiderationsPositive aspects of JA experience could be considered as potential development platforms for dispute resolution process improvements:
Scope of JA: Bottom up (joint) audits are not necessarily possible for large MNEs – a JA has to focus on specific topics which have
significant tax impact on both sides. Most likely within MNEs this results in income allocation disputes JA can be used as an instrument to achieve a common understanding and focus on rare, complex corporate tax issues
and purely abusive structures Flexibility:
Determination and alignment on the facts and circumstances automatically triggers tax consequences. Participating tax authorities need to be willing to compromise.
Leverage on the existing knowledge of the Taxpayer’s business: Local tax authorities and audit teams usually have existing in-depth factual knowledge of resp. MNEs. Involving local field audit teams in the process, instead of centralized teams with no understanding of the industry and
business model of the taxpayer, increases efficiency by cutting duplicative discussion and fact gathering efforts. Key Takeaways
Preferred approach: Use JA as substitute for future MAPs to achieve more transparent and/or timely solutions Potential alternative approach: To resolve double taxation in majority of simple cases, MAP/APA procedures could be
improved
13
© OECD |
Joint Audits: TWO audit teams – ONE common solution – ZERO double taxation
14
14
Better quality of
information
Different audit
approaches and
dynamics
Under-standing of
foreign legal
frameworks
~100% Success Rate
Common understanding between tax
administrations and taxpayersJo
int F
act F
ind
ing
Pro
cess
• Unilateral audits of bi- and multilateral tax issues simply do not make sense!
• Tax administrations increasingly realise that Joint Audits are an effective tool to achieve common understanding on TP and PE questions.
• The joint fact finding process can be used to enhance the outcome of other tax certainty approaches.
© OECD |
Further work
• Practical guidance for the conduct of a Joint Audit
• Training programmes
• Guidance on case selection and evaluation
• Just get started!
15Presentation Title