Download Free Beps And Aggressive Tax Planning Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Beps And Aggressive Tax Planning and write the review.

The aim of this paper is to assess the feasibility to introduce the OECD-BEPS measures to deal with aggressive tax planning in South America and Sub-Saharan Africa. The BEPS and its Action Plan have been developed by the OECD following the G20 mandate and it provides new international tax standards to be applicable to all countries including OECD and non-OECD countries.This paper will provide a comparative analysis of the South America and the Sub-Saharan African region taking into account the country's economic development, tax administration capacity and resources, and the use (or not) of domestic laws and tax treaty rules to tackle aggressive tax planning. The South American and Sub-Saharan African regions have been chosen since they consist mostly of developing (non-OECD) countries. The comparative analysis of the exchange of best practices and challenges in these two regions will be useful for the OECD-BEPS Project and for the BEPS Multilateral Instrument that will be open for adoption by developing and developed countries.This paper is structured as follows: Section 1 contains a short introduction to the BEPS Actions dealing with aggressive tax planning and the discussions at OECD and UN level. Section 2 will provide the assessment of feasibility of the BEPS in South America and Sub-Saharan Africa. Finally, in Section 3, conclusions and recommendations will be presented.
This report presents studies and data available regarding the existence and magnitude of base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS), and contains an overview of global developments that have an impact on corporate tax matters.
The purpose of this article is to critically assess the meaning of aggressive tax planning and its scope in the current international move to fight against base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS). In the context of the BEPS initiative, aggressive tax planning has been broadly used in severalOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and EU soft law instruments. However, it is not clear what new features aggressive tax planning does bring to the settled legal concepts of tax avoidance and tax evasion, and whether it is a legal or merely a tax policyconcept. In order to find the meaning of aggressive tax planning in the BEPS context, some of the recommendations put forward in BEPS actions 2 and 6 and in the EC Recommendation on Aggressive Tax planning are analysed and compared in this article.The article also aims to illustrate some of the reciprocal influences and interaction between EU law and OECD recommendations and tax treaties. For example, the EC Recommendation on ATP, proposing the introduction of a General Anti-Abuse Rules (GAAR) in the Member States' legislation, and the BEPS Action 6 proposal to introduce a GAAR (a Principal Purposes Test Rule or PPT Rule) in tax treaties illustrate the same spirit and a holistic approach. Moreover, a PPT Rule in tax treaties concluded by EU Member States will have to be compatible with the EUfundamental freedoms and the principle of abuse in EU law. The GAAR amending the EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive and approved by the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) on 9 December 2014 illustrates how EU Member States could introduce a GAAR in theirtreaties compatible with EU law. These reciprocal influences among domestic, international and EU law and practices lead to an acquis communautaire and to international standards which may be justified as products of global identity and related to a global sense of fairness andunfairness and ultimately of a global tax morale calling for global solutions and global tax standards.
This national report has been prepared as a contribution to the Conference of the European Association of Tax Law Professors entitled 'Tax Avoidance Revisited: Exploring the Boundaries of Anti-Avoidance Rules in the EU BEPS Context. The conference is to be held in Munich, Germany, on 2-4 June 2016. The national report - quite comprehensively - deals with the phenomena of tax avoidance and tax planning by multinationals and the addressing of these in the Netherlands' corporation tax system. Topics addressed include: • General observations on tax avoidance, tax planning and aggressive tax planning;• National GAAR (fraus legis), and accompanying case law including case law on mismatches;• Tax Base Calculation/Transfer Pricing, and accompanying case law (e.g. “Non-Businesslike Loans”, “Umbrella guarantee”, “Mauritius” and “Italian Listed Company”);• SAARS (interest deduction limitations - 10a, 10b, 13l, and 15ad CITA) including case law;• SAARS (other than interest deduction limitations - 13(17), 13a, 13aa, 17(3)(b), 20(4), 20a CITA, 4(7) DWTA) and accompanying case law;• Case law on corporate interrelationships anti-abuse; • OECD BEPS impacts;• EU BEPS/EU interrelationships (soft law/hard law; both primary/secondary law - e.g. Freedoms, Parent-Subsidiary Directive);• Rulings practices;• Netherlands international tax policy aspects involving BEPS measures.
This action plan, created in response to a request by the G20, identifies a set of domestic and international actions to address the problems of base erosion and profit sharing.
The power of a country to freely design its tax system is generally understood to be an integral feature of sovereignty. However, as an inevitable result of globalization and income mobility, one country’s exercise of tax sovereignty often overlaps, interferes with, or even impedes that of another. In this collection of essays, internationally respected practitioners and academics reveal how the OECD’s Base Erosion and Pro t Shifting (BEPS) initiative, although a major step in the right direction, is insuf cient to resolve the tax sovereignty paradox. Each contribution deals with different facets of a single topic: How tax sovereignty is shaped in a post ,BEPS world. The contributors provide in ,depth analysis of such relevant issues as the following: hy multilateral cooperation and soft law consensus are the preferred solutions to a loss of autonomy over national tax policy; – how digital commerce has upended traditional notions of source and residence; – why residence and source continue to be the two essential building blocks of tax sovereignty and the backbone of the international tax system; – how developing countries can take advantage of the new international tax architecture to ensure that their voices are truly shaping the standards; and – transfer pricing reform. Collectively, the authors provide an authoritative commentary on the necessary preconditions for exercising the power to tax in today’s world. Their perspectives and recommendations will prove of great value to all policymakers, legislators, practitioners, and academics in the international taxation arena.
The article aims to demonstrate how EU law and the OECD are establishing a unifying conceptual framework in which the two different seminal phenomena, "tax abuse" and "aggressive tax planning", can be acknowledged in the new (global) operating environment. The purpose of this article is to critically assess the meaning of these concepts, broadly used in several EU and OECD soft law instruments. These concepts cannot be completely formalized or objectified, but the resulting uncertainty of their application can be reduced to an acceptable level. In the search for a useful reference point to delimit tax abuse from aggressive tax planning, particular attention is paid to the definitions conveyed (and the wording used) by EU institutions and the OECD. Indeed, the purpose of this article is also to establish a starting point for the discussion on linguistic discrepancies that can arise, and it provides for a preliminary categorization of them. Further to the analysis of these discrepancies, the article explains the reciprocal influences between the European Union and the OECD, and highlights how the promotion of a theoretical understanding and careful empirical handling of the relevant practices should enrich the discussion and foster consistent implications. In particular, how consensus on the development of a linguistic and conceptual framework could enhance the resolution of some issues is emphasized and, more specifically, to what extent EU law allows the base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) Project to be applied in the EU area, knowing that EU institutions cannot provide for any ex ante guarantee on the compliance of BEPS with EU law. To ensure that the important goals of global tax coordination - that the implementation of the BEPS Project implies - are achieved, this contribution aims to delineate preliminary clarifications in these areas.Full-text Paper.
The article aims to demonstrate how EU law and the OECD are establishing a unifying conceptual framework in which the two different seminal phenomena, "tax abuse" and "aggressive tax planning", can be acknowledged in the new (global) operating environment. The purpose of this article is to critically assess the meaning of these concepts, broadly used in several EU and OECD soft law instruments. These concepts cannot be completely formalized or objectified, but the resulting uncertainty of their application can be reduced to an acceptable level. In the search for a useful reference point to delimit tax abuse from aggressive tax planning, particular attention is paid to the definitions conveyed (and the wording used) by EU institutions and the OECD. Indeed, the purpose of this article is also to establish a starting point for the discussion on linguistic discrepancies that can arise, and it provides for a preliminary categorization of them. Further to the analysis of these discrepancies, the article explains the reciprocal influences between the European Union and the OECD, and highlights how the promotion of a theoretical understanding and careful empirical handling of the relevant practices should enrich the discussion and foster consistent implications. In particular, how consensus on the development of a linguistic and conceptual framework could enhance the resolution of some issues is emphasized and, more specifically, to what extent EU law allows the base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) Project to be applied in the EU area, knowing that EU institutions cannot provide for any ex ante guarantee on the compliance of BEPS with EU law. To ensure that the important goals of global tax coordination - that the implementation of the BEPS Project implies - are achieved, this contribution aims to delineate preliminary clarifications in these areas.
This book discusses the legal meaning of tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning in 23 EU and non-EU jurisdictions and analyses the repercussions of the BEPS initiatives on those concepts. It further discusses (i) whether there is a supranational meaning of tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning, both at the OECD/G20 and EU levels; (ii) the role played by transfer pricing rules in tax avoidance; and (iii) consistency and hierarchy among the BEPS initiatives. National reports examine the response to tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning in individual jurisdictions, taking into account the OECD/G20 BEPS recommendations and the European Union's reactions. They also give notice of general anti-avoidance rules, special anti-avoidance rules and transfer pricing rules in force in each jurisdiction, analyse their meaning and scope, and trace the interactions among them. The national reports are accompanied by a general report, along with four thematic reports covering the main topics discussed during the 2016 EATLP Congress, held in Munich.