This article describes the issues relating to hybrid entities in a tax treaty context and the solution to these issues as proposed by the OECD in the context of Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action 2. The OECD solution and possible improvements thereto are analysed in light of the international tax treaty practice of the Netherlands and Germany.
The topics of double non-taxation and hybrid entities have acquired a particular importance in a context where transformations within the tax world seem to be leading to an international commitment most materially manifested in the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. In what is the first systematic in-depth critique of the BEPS Action Plan 2 with regard to hybrid entities, this timely book provides a critical review of the OECD’s approach and proposes a deeply informed alternative method based on the tax policy aims of simplicity, coherence and ease of administration. The author analyses the interaction between the double non-taxation outcome and the use of hybrid entities in an approach not strictly linked to any specific tax jurisdiction. To this end, the analysis includes case studies and examples from a range of jurisdictions emphasizing the international tax context, including the application of tax treaties. Among the seminal matters covered are the following: – foundations of the concepts of double non-taxation and hybrid entities, absent of the specific limitations of domestic tax legislation; – extensive analysis based on the rules of characterization of foreign entities for tax purposes in the United States, Spain, Denmark and Germany, as well as on the Poland/United States and Canada/United States tax treaties; – detailed analysis on the implications of Article 1(2) OECD Model Tax Convention and Article 3(1) Multilateral Instrument, especially having in mind the position of developing (source) countries; and – EU tax law as part of the international context, including an extensive analysis on the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) I and ATAD II. Detailed comparisons between the author’s proposal and other existing rules elucidate common points and deviations. If merely for its unparalleled clarification of the issues, this book will prove of immeasurable value to practitioners, tax authorities, policymakers and academics concerned with international tax law. Beyond that, as an authoritative guide that promises to reorient the discussion to what really matters in the debate regarding double non-taxation and hybrid entities, this analysis elaborates solutions applicable to a generality of cases worldwide, and thus hugely promotes the urgent quest for alternative solutions.
The topics of double non-taxation and hybrid entities have acquired particular importance in a context where transformations in the tax world have led to international commitments materialised in the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. In what is the first systematic in-depth analysis of the OECD BEPS Action Plan 2 and hybrid entities, this timely book provides a critical review of the approach adopted by the OECD and proposes a deeply informed alternative method to deal with the problem of hybrid entity mismatches. The author analyses the interaction between the double non-taxation outcome and the use of hybrid entities in an approach not strictly linked to any specific tax jurisdiction. To this end, the analysis includes case studies and examples from a range of jurisdictions emphasising the international tax context, also including the application of tax treaties. Among the seminal matters covered in this edition are the following: foundations of the concepts of double non-taxation and hybrid entities; extensive analysis based on the rules of characterisation of foreign entities for tax purposes in the United States, Spain, Denmark, and Germany, as well as on the Poland/United States and Canada/United States tax treaties; in-depth analysis of the implications of Article 1(2) OECD Model Tax Convention and Article 3(1) Multilateral Instrument (MLI), especially considering the position of developing (source) countries; detailed analysis of the OECD BEPS Action 2 and its recommendations (linking rules), including its implementation in the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD); and elaborated alternative method to deal with hybrid entity mismatches (reactive coordination rule), which is informed by the tax policy aims of simplicity, coherence, and administrability. Detailed comparisons between the author’s proposal and other existing rules elucidate common points and deviations. If merely for its unparalleled clarification of the issues, this book will prove of immeasurable value to practitioners, tax authorities, policymakers and academics concerned with international tax law. Beyond that, as an authoritative guide that promises to reorient the discussion to what really matters in the debate regarding hybrid entity mismatches, this analysis elaborates solutions applicable to a generality of cases worldwide and, therefore, hugely promotes the urgent quest for alternative views.
Tax treaty law and EU tax law in connection with hybrid entities Hybrid entities have traditionally been used as an avenue for international tax planning, and extending benefits under tax treaties to such entities has been a source of controversy for many years now. Although the OECD Partnership Report provided solid policy footing on this issue, there was still no common legal basis that countries could rely on for such positions. The increasing focus of countries towards the curbing of tax avoidance and abuse involving hybrid mismatch arrangements culminated in a specific action plan in the BEPS Project being dedicated to the design of domestic rules and the development of treaty provisions that would neutralize the tax effects of such arrangements. This volume provides an in-depth analysis of various aspects of this topic. It is divided into two parts – the first dealing exclusively with tax treaty issues arising in connection with hybrid entities and the second dealing with EU tax law issues surrounding hybrid entities. The former part comprises chapters analysing how tax treaties have historically dealt with this issue with a focus on domestic court jurisprudence, the positions in the OECD and the UN Model Conventions, the developments that have come about owing to the BEPS Project, and the impact of several existing measures, regimes, and vehicles on these tax treaty provisions. The latter part comprises chapters on how hybrid entities are dealt with under primary EU law, under various secondary law directives including the newly enacted Anti-Tax Avoidance Directives, and an analysis of policy solutions offered in this direction.
Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments: Issues and Developments The profit attribution to permanent establishments is one of the most controversial topics in international tax law. In recent years it was subject to various changes based on the introduction of the “Authorized OECD Approach” in 2008 and 2010, the outcomes of Final Report on OECD BEPS Action 7 and the Final Report on “Additional Guidance on the Attribution of Profits to a Permanent Establishment under BEPS Action 7” from 2018 (with the previous Discussion-Drafts). This publication discusses the most important issues and recent developments related to the attribution of profits to permanent establishments. Starting with an in-depth analysis on the commonalities and differences between the profit attribution provisions in modern double tax treaties (ie Art 7 AOA vs Art 9 OECD/UN Models), it further deals with topics such as profit attribution to PEs and PE exemptions (Art 5 para 4), profit attribution to agency PEs (Art 5 para 5 and 6), and profit attribution to a "significant economic presence" and to market states. This book is based on the outcomes of the presentations and discussions held during the WU Transfer Pricing Symposium that took place in October 2019 at the WU Vienna University of Economics and Business. The authors, apart from providing a theoretical background to the discussed issues, also present case studies that show how certain issues can be approached in practice. Every chapter ends with a summary of the opinions on the issues at stake of representatives of tax administrations, multinationals and tax advisories, which completes this essential practical guideline.
The benefits of a tax treaty are generally granted to persons who are residents of one of the Contracting States. The determination of such tax residence status is, however, not always an easy task and is particularly problematic in relation to entities whose tax characterisation differs from one Contracting State to another thereby giving rise to conflicts of allocation of income. As a remedy for this, the OECD has introduced a new Article 1(2) in to the OECD Model Tax Convention 2017 (the OECD Model), the text of which is also replicated in Article 3(1) of the Multilateral Instrument (MLI). This provision, which reproduces the principles already settled within the 1999 OECD Partnership Report and which uses a wording which mirrors Article 1(6) of the US Model, is presented as the most effective way of dealing with the use of hybrid entities within the context of tax treaties. This is, however, only partially true. As is argued in this article, Article 1(2) of the OECD Model - and by extension Article 3(1) of the MLI - is not designed to interplay properly with other attribution rules within the relevant tax treaties, especially with regard to the beneficial ownership requirement of Articles 10, 11 and 12 of the OECD Model. Accordingly, Article 1(2) of the OECD Model maintains an unjustified preference for the interests of the residence state over those of the source state thereby generating concerns especially for developing (source) countries. As stressed in this article, a better solution might perhaps be found outside the treaty context, specifically through the use of a domestic rule that co-ordinates the characterisation of entities for tax purposes. This solution would not only eliminate any potential hybrid entity mismatch before the application of a treaty, but would also indirectly provide more consistent tax treaty outcomes without the need to replace or modify the current wording of Article 1(2) of the OECD Model.
It is of great importance to be able to determine who or what is considered ‘resident’ within the meaning of tax treaty provisions. However, the concept of residence has never been fundamentally adjusted to current circumstances in which technological developments make it possible for corporations to explore the wide gap between their actual business operations and the ‘legalistic’ requirements for corporate residence. In this study of the OECD Model Tax Convention – the basis for most tax treaties – the author develops a clear understanding of the content of the residence concept as regards entities and proposes solutions to current problems, finishing with his own thoroughgoing definition. In seeking a definition of the term ‘resident’ that covers all uses in treaties, the analysis draws on, in addition to the current and earlier iterations of the OECD Model Law itself, such elements as the following: domestic law meaning of residence in the tax law of France, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States; Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; historical documents that uncover the ordinary meaning of treaty terms; tax treaty case law and court decisions; and fiscal, tax and legal scholarship surrounding the concept of residence for taxation purposes. The analysis includes a comprehensive description of tiebreaker rules, various perspectives on ‘place of effective management’ and policy considerations as to the further development of the treatment of entities under double tax conventions. Given the inordinate importance of the definition of ‘resident’, the differences in interpretation to which the current definition gives rise and the economic developments that call for an evaluation of the provision, this thorough examination of the treaty rules on residence of entities will be welcomed by tax lawyers, corporate counsel and policymakers and academics concerned with tax law. The author’s guidance on the concept of residence for tax purposes and his original proposals for reform will prove of great practical value for tax practitioners.
Permanent Establishments (PEs) are a key facet of international taxation. They constitute the crucial threshold for the assignment of taxing rights to a jurisdiction in all cases of enterprises operating in more than one country. The issue of whether there is a PE, and how much profit should be allocated to it, is an increasingly important factor in tax planning, tax accounting, tax compliance, and related tax risk management. Groundbreaking developments have reshaped the face of the classical PE concept during the year 2017. Following action item no. 7 of the Anti-BEPS efforts of G20 and OECD, the OECD has presented the Multilateral Instrument (MLI) on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting in June 2017. Based on the MLI as well as earlier drafts, Article 5 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and the Official Commentary have been amended in November 2017. Similarly, Article 7 of the OECD Model Tax Convention on the allocation of income in PE situations is influenced by the October 2015 OECD BEPS proposals. This academically rigorous yet thoroughly practical work provides comprehensive guidance on a variety of complex PE issues. Its initial chapters analyse the latest OECD and EU developments in the context of Articles 5 and 7 of the OECD Model Tax Convention. 21 country chapters cover domestic PE issues as well as country-specific treaty developments from a practical perspective. Contributors: Fabrizio Acerbis, Maret Ansperi, Yumiko Arai, Ákos Burján, Anna Berglund, Peter Collins, Mike Cooper, David Cuellar, Veronika Daurer, Frank Feng, Mikhail Filinov, Sandra Fleurier, Jose Antonio Gonzalez, Herbert Greinecker, Søren Jesper Hansen, Lars Ellegård Holst, Mauricio Hurtado, Martin Jann, Renaud Jouffroy, David Lermer, Peter Lindblad, Iren Lipre, Jessica Ma, Anna Mallol, Dennis Matthijs, Hamish McElwee, Kunal Mehta, Osman Mollagee, Matthew Mui, Ramón Mullerat, Luis Felipe Muñoz, Stephen Nauheim, Francesco Nuzzolo, Yoshiyasu Okada, Marianne Orell, Oren Penn, Martin Poulsen, Lene Munk Rasmussen, Ekkehart Reimer, Daniel Rinke, Stefan Schmid, Mathias Schreiber, Vishal J. Shah, Smit Sheth, Tom Stuer, Maarten Temmerman, Eszter Turcsik, Hein Vermeulen, Huili Wang, Sonia Watson, Ciska Wisman, Raymond Wong & Alan Yam.
"The substantive scope of a tax treaty determines the extent of protection it can provide against international double taxation. Countries worldwide have adopted the text of Art. 2 ('Taxes covered') of the OECD Model Tax Conventions in their bilateral tax treaties. However, the structure and wording of Art. 2, which have remained virtually unchanged since the beginnings of tax treaty law in the 1920s, create interpetive issues and uncertainties in practical treaty application. This book not only provides in-depth analysis of recent case law and academic literature, but also sheds light on the background to the standard formulations so widely used in the provision on the substantive scope of today's tax treaties. The source documents used have rarely found their way into publications before: historical OEEC and OECD Reports and Minutes, originally largely classified as 'restricted' and thus inaccessible to the public for decades, provide an insight into the drafting process of Art. 2 and the discussions of Delegates from various nations on practical implications for treaty application. The book offers a unique perspective on this core treaty provision and aims to provide guidance for determing the 'taxes covered' in any tax treaty"--Page 4 of cover.
