Latest Documents

This 2017 report sets out recommendations for branch mismatch rules that would bring the treatment of these structures into line with the treatment of hybrid mismatch arrangements as set out in the 2015 Report on Neutralising the Effects of Hybrids Mismatch Arrangements (Action 2 Report). Branch mismatches arise where the ordinary rules for allocating income and expenditure between the branch and head office result in a portion of the net income of the taxpayer escaping the charge to taxation in both the branch and residence jurisdiction. Unlike hybrid mismatches, which result from conflicts in the legal treatment of entities or instruments, branch mismatches are the result of differences in the way the branch and head office account for a payment made by or to the branch. The 2017 report identifies five basic types of branch mismatch arrangements that give rise to one of three types of mismatches: deduction / no inclusion (D/NI) outcomes, double deduction (DD) outcomes, and indirect deduction / no inclusion (indirect D/NI) outcomes. This report includes specific recommendations for improvements to domestic law intended to reduce the frequency of branch mismatches as well as targeted branch mismatch rules which adjust the tax consequences in either the residence or branch jurisdiction in order to neutralise the hybrid mismatch without disturbing any of the other tax, commercial or regulatory outcomes. The annexes of the report summarise the recommendations and set out a number of examples illustrating the intended operation of the recommended rules.

The mobility and fungibility of money makes it possible for multinational groups to achieve favourable tax results by adjusting the amount of debt in a group entity. The 2015 Report established a common approach which directly links an entity’s net interest deductions to its level of economic activity, based on taxable earnings before interest income and expense, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA). This approach includes three elements: a fixed ratio rule based on a benchmark net interest/EBITDA ratio; a group ratio rule which allows an entity to deduct more interest expense based on the position of its worldwide group; and targeted rules to address specific risks. Further work on two aspects of the common approach was completed in 2016. The first addressed key elements of the design and operation of the group ratio rule, focusing on the calculation of net third party interest expense, the calculation of group-EBITDA and approaches to address the impact of entities with negative EBITDA. The second identifies features of the banking and insurance sectors which can constrain the ability of groups to engage in BEPS involving interest, together with limits on these constraints, and approaches to deal with risks posed by entities in these sectors where they remain.

This report sets out recommendations for domestic rules to neutralise the effect of hybrid mismatch arrangements and includes changes to the OECD Model Tax Convention to address such arrangements. Once translated into domestic law, the recommendations in Part 1 of the report will neutralise the effect of cross-border hybrid mismatch arrangements that produce multiple deductions for a single expense or a deduction in one jurisdiction with no corresponding taxation in the other jurisdiction. Part 1 of the report will be supplemented by a commentary, which will explain the recommended rules and illustrate their application with practical examples. Part 2 of the report sets out proposed changes to the Model Convention that will ensure the benefits of tax treaties are only granted to hybrid entities (including dual resident entities) in appropriate cases. Part 2 also considers the interaction between the OECD Model Convention and the domestic law recommendations in Part 1.

Corporate losses raise compliance risks if aggressive tax planning is used as a means of increasing or accelerating tax relief in ways not intended by the legislator, or to generate artificial losses. This report describes the size of loss carry-forwards, the rules applicable in relation to losses, and identifies the following risk areas: corporate reorganisations, financial instruments and non-arm’s length transfer pricing. After having summarised aggressive tax planning schemes on losses, as well as country detection and response strategies, it offers a number of conclusions and recommendation for tax administration and tax policy officials.  

The financial and economic crisis had a devastating impact on bank profits, with loss-making banks reporting global commercial losses of around USD 400 billion in 2008.  This comprehensive report sets the market context for bank losses and provides an overview of the tax treatment of such losses in 17 OECD countries; describes the tax risks that arise in relation to bank losses from the perspective of both banks and revenue bodies; outlines the incentives that give rise to those risks; and describes the tools revenue bodies have to manage these potential compliance risks. It concludes with recommendations for revenue bodies and for banks on how risks involving bank losses can best be managed and reduced.

High Net Worth Individuals (HNWIs) pose significant challenges to tax administrations due to the complexity of their affairs, their revenue contribution, the opportunity for aggressive tax planning, and the impact of their compliance behaviour on the integrity of the tax system.  This publication examines in detail this taxpayer segment, describes their usage of aggressive tax planning schemes and proposes prevention, detection and response strategies that tax administrations can use to respond to these challenges. It also addresses aspects of voluntary disclosure initiatives for past non-compliance that may be particularly pertinent in the current environment.The publication outlines a number of innovative approaches to enable governments to better manage the risks involved with marketed tax schemes and tailor-made arrangements.  To improve compliance, tax administrations could consider changing the structure of their operations to focus resources effectively, for example, through the creation of a dedicated HNWI unit. Other recommendations include creating the appropriate legal framework, exploring forms of co-operative compliance and engaging more in international co-operation, at both the strategic and operational level.