1© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Impact of BEPS and EU initiatives on
intercompany treasury and financing
Deloitte Academy Seminar
10 November 2015
2© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Agenda
1. Introduction
2. BEPS papers and EU initiatives affecting I/C treasury and financing
• Selected Final OECD BEPS papers
• EU Commission initiatives
3. Which treasury and financing solutions are affected and which not (part I)?
Coffee break
4. Which treasury and financing solutions are affected and which not (part II)?
5. What do we expect still to come?
6. What are the related documentation implications?
7. What are the related operational treasury implications?
8. Tax audits trends
9. Q&A
3© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Introduction
4© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Introduction
High Taxed Countries Low Taxed Countries
Central question: Are countries getting their fair share of tax revenue?
What is it all about?
Interest
Royalties
Products
Services
5© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Introduction
True / false?
• MNE affiliates in low tax countries report c. 2 x the profit
rate relative to assets
• Global corporate tax revenue losses estimated between 4%
to 10% of global corporate tax revenues (USD 100 to 240
billion annually)
Policy objectives
of initiatives
• Align substance and taxing rights
• Address double non-taxation
• Increase transparency
Intercompany
financing in tax
optimisation
• Well-known tool for managing a MNC’s ETR
• Intercompany financing (e.g. hybrids) a major focus area for
the OECD and EU
What is it all about?
6© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Introduction
EU Initiatives
• EU PS Directive (modified)
• EU IR Directive (to be modified)
• State aid investigations (e.g. Fiat case)
• Tax Transparancy Package
• CCCTB (common consolidated corporate tax base)
• Financial transaction tax
OECD BEPS
initiatives
• Action 2 (hybrids)
• Action 3 (CFC)
• Action 4 (interest deductions)
• Action 5 (harmful tax practices)
• Action 6 (treaty abuse)
• Action 8-10 (aligning TP outcome with value creation)
• Action 13 (TP documentation and country-by-country
reporting)
Relevant initiatives for intragroup financing
7© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Selected Final OECD
BEPS Reports
8© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Final OECD BEPS Reports
Minimum standards• Action 5 on Harmful Tax Practices
• Action 6 on Treaty Abuse• Action 7 on PE’s
• Action 8 – 10 on TP
• Action 13 on Country by Country reporting• Action 14 on Dispute Resolution
Common approach• Action 2 on Hybrid Mismatches
• Action 4 on Interest Deductions
Recommendations• Action 3 on Controlled Foreign Company (CFC’s)• Action 12 on Disclosure of Aggressive Tax Planning
Implementation categories
9© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Final OECD BEPS Reports
Interest
deductions
• Further defining of the “group ratio rule” (end of 2016)
• Specific rules to take into account features of the banking and
insurance sectors (end of 2016)
Transfer pricing
• Further revised guidance on transactional profit splits (mid 2017)
• Further revised guidance on financial transactions (2016 - 2017)
• Consolidation of other parts of the transfer pricing guidelines with the
new guidance
Follow up work still to be done
Permanent
Establishments
• Additional guidance on the amount of profits resulting from changes
to the definition of PE (profit attribution) (December 2016)
Harmful Tax
Practices
• Expand participation of non-OECD non-G20 members
• Revision of harmful tax practises criteria
Treaty abuse• Treaty entitlement of non-collective investment funds (non-CIVs)
(2016)
• Low tax PE specific anti-abuse provision (first half of 2016)
10© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS – Action 2
Neutralising hybrid
mismatch arrangements
11© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 2 Hybrid Mismatches
Part II
• Ensure hybrid instruments / entities and dual resident
entities not used to unduly obtain treaty benefits
• Ensure treaties do not prevent application of domestic rules
Part I
• General recommendations for domestic rules to address
mismatches in tax outcome arising in respect of payments
made
- under hybrid financial instruments
- to or by a (reverse) hybrid entity
- to a payee not directly caught by hybrid mismatch rules
(imported mismatch)
• Linking rules (primary and secondary / defensive) designed
to align tax treatment of instrument or entity with
counterparty jurisdiction
• Specific tax policy recommendations
Two parts – domestic vs. treaty law
12© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 2 Hybrid Mismatches
Policy
recommendations
• Tax treatment of financial instruments
• Tax treatment of reverse hybrids
Rule
recommendations
• Hybrid financial instrument rule
• Disregarded hybrid payment rule
• Reverse hybrid rule
• Deductible hybrid payments rule
• Dual-resident payer rule
• Imported mismatch rule
Part I – 12 chapters
Design principles
and definitions
• Targeted outcome
• Cooperation in relation to implementation and consistent /
effective application
• Structured arrangement
• Related persons, control group
13© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 2 Hybrid Mismatches
Types /
classification
• Deduction/no inclusion (D/NI): deduction in payer
jurisdiction and no inclusion in ordinary income of payee
jurisdiction
• Double deduction (DD): two deductions for same payment
• Indirect deduction/no inclusion (Indirect D/NI):
deduction in payer jurisdiction and off-setting hybrid
mismatch arrangement deduction in payee jurisdiction
Hybrid mismatch
• Mismatch in tax outcome further to a hybrid element
- including : difference in tax treatment of entities
(opaque vs. transparent) and in characterisation of
instruments
- excluding : notional interest deduction and mismatch
solely due to differences in valuation
Part I – Hybrid mismatch and classification
14© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 2 Hybrid Mismatches
Specific
• Financial instrument as defined under local law
• Payment in relation to loan agreement, incl. payment to
modify terms of or cancel financial instruments
• Payment includes amounts capable of being paid, incl.
future or contingent obligations to make a payment
General
• Payment under financial instrument (or substitutive payment
under arrangement to transfer financial instrument)
• to related person (or third-party under structured
arrangement)
• resulting in D/NI outcome (payment deducted in payer
jurisdiction and not included in (ordinary)income in payee
jurisdiction)
• further to different tax treatment / characterisation of
instrument and payment thereunder under local laws (tax
law, accounting law, valuation, timing)
• attributable to terms of instrument
Part I – Hybrid financial instrument rule
15© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 2 Hybrid Mismatches
Questionable
positions ?
• Credit for distributed profit : credit is equivalent to deduction
/ deduction includes “equivalent tax relief”
• Mismatch in same jurisdiction
Specific
• Non-inclusion (NI) when different treatment leads to e.g.
- no recognition / treatment as ordinary income (within
reasonable time frame)
- no taxation or (partial) tax exemption
- taxation at separate (low) rate
• No non-inclusion (NI) further to e.g.
- low tax rate applies to all ordinary income from all
types of financial instruments
- tax exempt payee
- in no-tax or territoriality tax regime country
- sole difference in valuation of payment
Part I – Hybrid financial instrument rule
16© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Recommended hybrid financial instrument rule
Primary rule Secondary /
defensive rule
Scope
Deny deduction in
payer jurisdiction
Include payment in
ordinary income in
payee jurisdiction
Related parties
(25%) and structured
arrangements
BEPS - Action 2 Hybrid Mismatches
Part I - Hybrid financial instrument rule
ParentCo
PPL Payment
HoldCo
Equity
OpCo
17© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 2 Hybrid Mismatches
Specific
• Only in case hybrid financial instrument rule does not apply
• Also applies to (disregarded) payment by PE of hybrid
payer
General
• (Disregarded) payment
• by hybrid payer
• to party of the same control group (or third party under
structured arrangement)
• resulting in D/NI outcome (payment deducted in payer
jurisdiction and not recognised in payee jurisdiction)
• further to tax treatment / characterisation of payer entity
under payee tax law (and insofar exceeding dual inclusion
income)
Part I – Disregarded hybrid payment rule
18© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 2 Hybrid Mismatches
Part I - Disregarded hybrid payment rule
Recommended disregarded hybrid payment rule
Primary rule Secondary /
defensive rule
Scope
Deny deduction in
payer jurisdiction
Include payment in
ordinary income in
payee jurisdiction
Control group and
structured
arrangements
Equity
Loan
Group
relief
regime
US ParentCo
HoldCo
OpCo
19© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 2 Hybrid Mismatches
Specific
• Reverse hybrid is opaque for investor jurisdiction and
transparent for establishment jurisdiction
• Payment includes amounts capable of being paid, incl.
future or contingent obligations to make a payment
• Only applies in case no mismatch under direct payment to
investor and no inclusion in any jurisdiction
General
• Payment
• to a reverse hybrid payee
• by party of the same control group (or third party under
structured arrangement)
• resulting in D/NI outcome (payment deducted in payer
jurisdiction and not recognised in payee / investor
jurisdiction)
• further to different tax treatment / characterisation of payee
entity under payee and investor jurisdiction tax laws
Part I – Reverse hybrid rule
20© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 2 Hybrid Mismatches
Part I - Reverse hybrid rule
Recommended reverse hybrid rule
Primary rule Secondary /
defensive rule
Scope
Deny deduction in
payer jurisdiction
Unnecessary
(proposed CFC and
specific
recommendations)
Control group and
structured
arrangements
Loan(s)
Partnership
ParentCo
OpCo
21© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 2 Hybrid Mismatches
Specific
• Payment includes amounts capable of being paid, incl.
future or contingent obligations to make a payment
• Only applies in case reverse hybrid rule does not apply
General
• Payment
• by a hybrid payer
• resulting in DD outcome (payment deducted in payer and
parent jurisdiction)
• further to different tax treatment / characterisation of payer
entity under payer and parent jurisdiction tax laws and
insofar exceeding dual inclusion income
Part I – Deductible hybrid payments rule
22© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 2 Hybrid Mismatches
Part I - Deductible hybrid payments rule
Recommended reverse hybrid rule
Primary rule Secondary /
defensive rule
Scope
Deny deduction in
parent jurisdiction
Deny deduction in
payer jurisdiction
No limitation
(primary rule) and
control group and
structured
arrangements
(secondary rule)
Loan
Partnership
OpCo
tax
consolidation
/ group relief
bank
ParentCo
23© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 2 Hybrid Mismatches
Specific
• Payment includes amounts capable of being paid, incl.
future or contingent obligations to make a payment
• Hybrid deduction cf. definition in hybrid financial instrument,
disregarded hybrid payment, reverse hybrid, deductible
hybrid payment (and dual resident payer) rule
General
• Payment
• by a group company
• to another group company
• resulting in an indirect D/NI outcome (deduction in payer
jurisdiction and off-set against hybrid deduction in payee
jurisdiction)
• further to payee not being subject to hybrid mismatch rule
Part I – Imported mismatch rule
24© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 2 Hybrid Mismatches
Part I - Imported mismatch rule
Recommended reverse hybrid rule
Primary rule Secondary /
defensive rule
Scope
Deny deduction in
payer jurisdiction
Control group and
structured
arrangements
HoldCo 1
HoldCo 2
tax
consolidation /
group relief
Loan
Loan(s)
OpCo
25© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 2 Hybrid Mismatches
Examples
• Examples per recommendation
• Many examples with elaborative application of different
recommendations / rules
• Practical guidance on interaction between different
recommendations
Part II chapters
• Dual resident companies
• Treaty provisions on transparent entities
• Interaction between Part I and tax treaties
Part II and Examples
26© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS – Action 3
Strengthen CFC rules
27© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 3 CFC rules
Recommendation
• Final Report provides for recommendations only: no
minimum standard to introduce CFC regime
• Provides building block for effective CFC rules that do
tackle BEPS concerns
Recommendations for CFC building blocks
Building Blocks
• Definition of CFC
• CFC exemptions and threshold requirements
• Definition of CFC income
• Computation of income
• Attribution of income
• Prevention and elimination of double taxation
CFC regimes
• 30 countries in the OECD / G20 Group currently have CFC
rules
• Many CFC rules considered having design features that do
not tackle BEPS effectively
28© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 3 CFC rules
Compatibility
with EU law
(Cadbury
Schweppes)
• CFC rules to be compatible with EU law.
- ECJ Cadbury Schweppes case: CFC regime only
justified under EU laws if it specifically targets “wholly
artificial arrangements” which do not reflect
economic reality and whose only purpose would be to
obtain a tax advantage.
- Final Report mentions two more recent developments
in the ECJ analysis that suggest that CFC rules may
be justified and proportionate even if they apply
beyond wholly artificial arrangements
- Cfr. ECJ Thin Cap Group Litigation: justified as
long as the transaction giving rise to the income
is at least “partly artificial”.
- Cfr. ECJ SGI / Oy AA: justified by the need to
maintain a balances allocation of taxing rights if
regime is designed to prevent conduct capable of
jeopardising the right of a Member State to
exercise its tax jurisdiction in relation to activities
carried out in its territory.
Recommendations for CFC building blocks
29© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 3 CFC rules
CFC exemptions
and threshold
requirements
• Final report clearer on tax rate exemptions and use of lists
such as a white list
Recommendations for CFC building blocks
Definition of a
CFC
• Includes transparent entities and PE’s where raising BEPS
concerns
• Report also includes a form of anti-hybrid rule to prevent
avoidance of CFC rules
Definition of CFC
income
• Recognising different policy objectives of countries, there is
more flexibility and options.
Elimination of
double taxation
• Stronger emphasis on ensuring that rules do not lead to
double taxation.
30© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS – Action 4
Interest deductions and
other financial payments
31© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 4 Interest deductions
Definition of
EBITDA
• “Tax” EBITDA as measurement of taxable economic activity,
possibly in relation to average of number of years (cf.
mitigate volatility)
• Alternatively, EBIT or asset-based measure with ratio being
adjusted accordingly
General rule
• Fixed ratio rule, based on EBITDA and (net) interest and
equivalent payments
• Restriction within corridor of 10% and 30% of EBITDA;
factors to help determine a respective country’s benchmark:
- Group ratio rule “fall back”
- Carry forward or carry back of excess deductions
and/or capacity
- Market interest environment
- Targeted rules
- Size of entity’s group
Best practice approach – General rule
32© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 4 Interest deductions
Optional
rules
• Group ratio rule as a “fall back” (safe haven):
- Deduction of interest expense up to group’s net
interest / EBITDA ratio if higher
- Option to apply uplift to group’s net third party interest
expense by up to 10%
- Group ratio based on consolidated figures (entities
fully consolidated on line-by-line basis)
- Group ratio can be replaced by “equity escape” rule
(e.g. equity / total assets)
- Further work on whether tax adjustments should be
considered, and application to loss making entities
• Carry-forward or back of disallowed interest expense or
unused interest capacity
• De minimis rule to exclude low levels of debt
Best practice approach – Supplementary rules
Targeted rules • Targeted anti-avoidance rules to supplement best practice
approach and address specific risks
33© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 4 Interest deductions
Interest and
equivalent
payments
• Interest on all forms of debt (group entities, related parties
and third parties)
• Payments “economically equivalent to interest”, including:
- Imputed interest on convertible / zero coupon bonds
- Interest element of finance leases
- (Amortisation of) capitalized interest
- Guarantee fees
- Payments under debt related derivative and hedging
instruments
• Expenses incurred in connection with the raising of debt
(arrangement fees, non-usage fees, …)
• Silent on treatment of preference shares and factoring, and
operating lease payments specifically excluded
• Deemed deductions on equity out of scope
Best practice approach – Scope / definitions
34© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 4 Interest deductions
Entities covered
• All entities part of a multinational group
• Possibility to consolidate entities in one jurisdiction
• Targeted rules encouraged to prevent group ratio’s being
artificially inflated
Best practice approach – Implementation
Implementation
• Recommended to come into force in 2017
• Suggestion to give “reasonable time” to restructure existing
financial arrangements before fixed ratio rule comes into
effect
• Transitional rules could exclude interest on certain existing
third party loans (for a fixed period or indefinitely)
35© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 4 Interest deductions
Business and
Industry
Advisory
Committee to the
OECD (BIAC)
study
• Based on data from publicly traded MNC with positive
EBITDA
• Various assumptions considered
• Results:
- At fixed ratio of 10%, 62% of net third party interest
expense tax deductible
- At fixed ratio of 20%, 78% of net third party interest
- expense tax deductible
- At fixed ratio of 30%, 87% of net third party interest
expense tax deductible
- Above fixed ratio of 30%, the rate of tax deductible
expense increase increases more slowly
Best practice approach - Potential impact
36© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS – Action 5
Harmful tax practices
37© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 5 Harmful tax practices
Retroactive
exchange
• Rulings issued on or after 1 January 2010 and still in effect
on 1 January 2014: to be exchanged by 31 December 2016
• Rulings issued on or after 1 April 2016: to be exchanged
within three months of issue date
• Subject to country’s legal framework
Minimum Standard – Tax Transparancy
Exchanged to
whom?
• Countries of residence of related parties with transaction
covered by ruling, or in case of PE ruling country of head
office / PE as case may be
• Country of immediate parent company
• Country of ultimate parent company
• Information to be kept confidential
Definition of
ruling
• “Any advice, information or undertaking provided by a tax
authority to a specific taxpayer or group of taxpayers
concerning their tax situation and on which they are entitled
to rely”.
38© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 5 Harmful tax practices
Preferential
regimes
• Filter approach:
- within the scope of work of FHTP
- are preferential
- meet the low or no effective tax rate factor
Categories of
rulings to be
exchanged
1. Rulings related to preferential regimes
2. Unilateral APA’s and other cross-border unilateral TP
rulings
3. Cross-border rulings granting an unilateral downward
adjustment of taxable profits
4. Permanent establishment (PE) rulings
5. Related party conduit rulings
6. Other rulings subsequently agreed by the Forum for
Harmful tax practise (FHTP) to give rise to BEPS concerns
Minimum Standard – Tax Transparancy
39© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 5 Harmful tax practices
Downward
adjustment of
taxable profits
• Explicitly covers the following:
- Excess profit rulings
- Informal capital rulings
- TP adjustment on interest free loans
- Other transfer pricing adjustments (adjustment up to
the difference of the actual price paid and an arm’s
length price)
• If no ruling required to benefit from the adjustment,
information to be provided on all cases where the regime
has been utilized to other relevant tax authorities
Minimum Standard – Tax Transparancy
PE rulings• Decision on the existence or absence of a PE
• Profit attribution to the PE
40© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
investors
BEPS - Action 5 Harmful tax practices
Minimum Standard – Tax Transparancy
Lower tier Co
OpCo
Interest
Loans
Higher tier Co
Related party conduit rulings
Conduit arrangement
• Cross border flow of funds or income
• Through an entity in the country giving the tax
ruling where those funds or income flow to
another country directly or indirectly
Example of an indirect conduit arrangement
• OpCo pays interest to Lower Tier Co
• Lower Tier Co pays interest onwards to Higher
tier Co leaving a small taxable margin
• Higher Tier entity treated as tax transparent
under domestic law and as non-resident
investors no taxation on income flow
Interest
investors
Loans
41© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 5 Harmful tax practices
Minimum Standard – Tax Transparancy
Best practices for
a country’s ruling
procedures
• Best practices for country’s ruling procedures, including :
- process of granting a ruling
- term of ruling (only for a fixed term) and subsequent
audit procedure
- publication and exchange of information
42© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS – Action 6
Treaty abuse
43© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 6 Treaty abuseMinimum standard - General
Express Statement in
Title / Preamble
OECD’s BEPS project
Introduction Anti-
Avoidance Rule
Common intention to eliminate double taxation without creating treaty shopping
opportunities
1. PPT rule 2. PPT rule + LOB3. LOB rule + mechanism dealing
with conduit arrangements
44© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 6 Treaty abuse
Targeted treaty abuse
• Source state WHT reduced under DTT source
state & residence state
• Income (e.g. interest income) allocated to a
branch in a third country benefitting from a
favorable tax treatment
• Residence state exempts or taxes at low rates
PE profits
Targeted rule (subject to change)
• Specific anti-abuse provision to be included in
the Model treaty
• Source state only to grant treaty benefits if
aggregate ETR of PE and FinCo is greater than
60% of the standard corporate tax rate of FinCo,
with some exceptions
• Exception: active trade of business
Low-taxed
PE
Minimum standard – Low-taxed PEs
FinCo
(Residence
state)
Foreign
Parent
OpCo
Loan(s)
Residence state
PE state
Source state
45© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 6 Treaty abuse
Follow up work
• Report states that “subsequent work revealed
that changes were required with respect to
different aspects”.
• In May 2015, the US released a new version of a
similar treaty provision on which public
comments were received by 15 September 2015
• Final version of the provision and OECD
commentary to be produced in the first half of
2016
• To be considered in the negotiation of a
multilateral instrument. Low-taxed
PE
Minimum standard - Low-taxed PEs
FinCo
(Residence
state)
Foreign Parent
OpCo
Loan(s)
Residence state
PE state
Source state
46© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Action 6 – Treaty abuse
New tie-breaker
rule
• Residency to be determined by mutual agreement between
Competent Authorities
• Case by case basis analysis
• Various factors to be considered, incl. location of:
- BoD or equivalent body
- C-suits
- Senior day-to-day management
- Headquarter location
- Accounting records
• No entitlement to relief or exemption from tax provided by
the convention prior to agreement by Competent Authorities
Minimum standard - Dual resident companies
Old tie-breaker
rule• Place of effective management (article 4 §3)
47© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS – Action 8-10
Aligning Transfer Pricing
outcomes with value
creation
48© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 8-10 Aligning TP outcomes
General objective
• Prevention of allocation of profits to locations where no
contributions are made to these profits
• Achieved by accurate delineation (substance over form)
- Not based on contractual arrangements that do not
reflect economic reality
- Looking at actual contributions
• If the transaction lacks commercial rationality, the guidance
continues to authorize tax authorities to disregard
transactions for TP purposes
• Revised transfer pricing guidelines (guidance will take the
form of amendments to the Transfer Pricing Guidelines)
Minimum standard – General objective
49© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 8-10 Aligning TP outcomes
Holistic approach
cfr. other BEPS
actions
• Marginal profits of cash rich entity also targeted by interest
deductibility rules at the level of the payer entity (Action 4).
• Extremely difficult to structure payments to country where
cash box is tax-resident in way that avoids withholding
taxes (Action 6)
• A cash box with limited activities is likely to be target of CFC
rules (action 3)
• “Secures that the role of cash boxes is seriously
discouraged”
Cash boxes
• Capital-rich entities without any other relevant economic
activities / substance (“cash boxes or capital without
functionality”) will not be entitled to excess profits
• Profits the cash box is entitled to retain will be equivalent to
no more than a risk-free return or less if e.g. the
transaction is not commercially rational
Minimum standard – Financial transactions
50© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
BEPS - Action 8-10 Aligning TP outcomes
Follow up work
• Further guidance on economically relevant characteristics
for determining arm’s length conditions for financial
transactions
• Work will be undertaken in 2016 and 2017
Minimum standard – Financial transactions
51© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
EU initiatives
52© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
EU initiatives
Parent-
Subsidiary
Directive
• Art. 4 (1) (a): Neutralization of hybrid mismatches
- MS of parent company obliged to deny exemption for
dividends received to extent dividends are deductible
at subsidiary
- Debt qualification is not affected
- Capital gains on the instruments should still be exempt
• Art. 1 (2): de minimis GAAR
• Effective as of 1/1/2016
• Implementation: Belgium and most other MS still to adopt
legislation; Dutch government published draft bill
Interest-Royalty
Directive
• 2-step approach proposed (11/6/2015):
- Introduction of a de-minimis GAAR similar to EU PS
Directive and update of Annex 1 (list of eligible
companies); and
- Clear commitment to continue discussion on
remaining parts, including effective taxation
Amendments to EU Directives
53© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
EU initiatives
State aid investigations
Commission’s
Draft Notice 2014
• Tax rulings are acceptable if they merely provide legal
certainty
• Tax rulings are not acceptable if they lead to lower taxation
than that of other undertakings in similar legal & factual
situation (selective advantages)
• No presumption of aid if ruling merely contains
interpretation of relevant tax provisions (‘interpretative
ruling’)
Presumption of state aid if ruling departs from general
tax rules and benefits individual undertakings
(‘derogatory ruling’)
EC investigations
• Fiat and Starbucks cases held illegal by EC
• No update yet on other cases (Apple / Amazon / Belgian
excess profit rulings)
54© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
EU initiatives
CCTB - CCCTB
2011 Proposal on
CCCTB
Revisited CCCTB proposal in 2016
• Objective: avoid profit shifting (TP) and simplify cross
border operations within the EU
• Taxable bases are consolidated
• Optional regime to define taxable profits based on
same set of rules in every MS (incl. common tax rate)
• Becomes mandatory; Staged approach:
- First step: common corporate tax base (CCTB) –
no common tax rate
- Second step: CCCTB (consolidation = long term
objective) - until full consolidation is achieved:
cross-border loss offset (temporary relief subject
to recapture)
Too ambitious to implement in one single step
55© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
EU initiatives
Tax transparency
Tax Transparancy Package
Proposal for Directive
• What: mandatory automatic
exchange of info on cross-
border tax rulings and APA’s
every 6 months
• Retrospective: 5 years back
• Which info:
− Push: name of taxpayer and
group, issues addressed, MS
and other taxpayers that are
likely to be affected, etc.
− Pull: MS can as for more info
if relevant to them
• To whom: all other MS and the
EC
• As from 1/1/2017
Country by country reporting
• EC will examine feasibility of new
transparency requirements for
multinationals
• Revision of the Shareholder Rights
Directive
− Approved by European
Parliament on 8/7/2015
− Includes country by country
obligation for large companies
and PIES:
− What: profit or loss before
tax; tax on profit or loss;
public subsides received;
− How: specifying by member
state and by 3rd country
Country by Country Reporting
• Pending discussions on whether
(part of) info reported in Country by
Country should be made available
to the public
− UK disagrees
− Netherlands agree
− No Belgian position (yet)
Between tax
authoritiesTo the tax authorities To the public
56© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
EU action plan on corporate taxation
Financial transaction tax (FTT) - Developments
FTT
developments
• FTT initiative has been under discussion for several years
• Scope of 2013 FTT proposal:
- If financial institution is established in FTT zone and is involved
in the transaction, or if a financial institution is acting on behalf
of a party established in the FTT zone
- Financial instruments issued in one of the participating MS
- Applicable to all markets, all instruments and all actors
• Minimum rates: 0.1% on shares and bonds and 0.01% on
derivative transactions
• France (and Austria) leading initiative :
- Tax base as wide as possible with low tax rates
- Launch FTT as of 1 January 2016
57© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Which treasury and financing
solutions are affected and
which not?
58© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Hybrid instrument solutions
59
BE FinCo
ParentCo
Subsidiaries
PPL
Interest Loans
Payment
Commonly used financing solutions
Tax characteristics
• BE FinCo: PPL classified as debt and
payments made under PPL as interest, tax
deductible subject to limitations
• LuxCo: PPL classified as equity and payments
received under the PPL as dividend, tax
exempt under participations exemption regimeLuxCo
Hybrid instrument (1)
Equity
60
BE FinCo
ParentCo
Foreign
Subsidiaries
PPL / PPB
Interest
Loans
Interest
Commonly used financing solutions
Tax characteristics
• BE FinCo: PPL classified as debt and
payments made under PPL as interest, tax
deductible subject to limitations
• LuxCo: PPL classified as equity and payments
received under the PPL as dividend, tax
exempt under participations exemption regimeLuxCo 2
Hybrid instrument (2)
LuxCo 1
PPL
95% 5%
61
BE FinCo
US ParentCo
Subsidiaries
CPEC /
MRPS
InterestLoans
Payment
Commonly used financing solutions
Tax characteristics
• LuxCo: CPEC classified as debt and payment
made thereunder as interest, generally tax
deductible
• US ParentCo: CPEC classified as equity and
the payment received thereunder as dividend,
with possible stock dividend qualificationLuxCo
Hybrid instrument (3)
Loan(s)Interest
62© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Hybrid entity solutions
63
Loans
Loan(s)
Interest
Interest
Partnership
(BE/ Lux / NL)
US ParentCo
FinCo
(BE / Lux / NL)
Commonly used financing solutions
Hybrid entity – US outbound (1)
Tax characteristics
• FinCo: Interest payment by FinCo to hybrid
entity tax deductible subject to limitations
• Partnership: no income recognition in US
(CFC and disregarded loan), and no local
taxation because of insufficient nexus
Subsidiaries
64© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Loan(s)
Equity
Equity
Loan
Group
relief
regime
Commonly used financing solutionsHybrid entity (tower) – US outbound (2)
US ParentCo
BE FinCo
UKCo 3
UKCo 1
UKCo 2
Tax characteristics
• UK: UKCo 1 interest cost off-set against
UKCo 3 interest income (group relief)
• US ParentCo: no interest income recognition
(disregarded loan transaction)
Subsidiaries
Loans
65© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Loan
Loantax
consolidation
Commonly used financing solutionsHybrid entity (tower) – US inbound (1)
Tax characteristics
• UK/Lux: UKCo/LuxCo 2 interest cost off-set
against UKCo/LuxCo 1 interest income (group
relief, tax consolidation)
• US: no interest income recognition at USCo 1
(disregarded loan transaction); US CO 1
interest cost generally deductible (within tax
consolidation with USCo 2) provided loan
classification
UKCo/LuxCo 1
ParentCo
USCo 1
UKCo/LuxCo 2
USCo 2
66© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Lux tax
consolidation
US tax
consolidation
Loan Loan(s)
Commonly used financing solutionsHybrid entity (tower) – US inbound (2)
Tax characteristics
• US: no interest income recognition at USCo1
(disregarded loan transaction); interest cost
on BE FinCo loan generally deductible
provided loan classification
• Luxembourg: interest cost at LuxCo 2 off-set
against interest income at LuxCo 1 (horizontal
tax consolidation)
• BE FinCo: PPL classified as debt and
payment made thereunder as interest,
deductible under limitations
USCo 1
ParentCo
LuxCo 2
US Co(s)
LuxCo 1
USCo 2 BE FinCo
PPL
67© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Loan
Commonly used financing solutionsHybrid entity (tower) – US inbound (3)
BelCo 1
ParentCo
US GP
US Co(s)
BelCo 2
Tax characteristics
• Belgium: USGP interest cost deductible in
case no US PE, provided USGP is fiscally
transparent and subject to limitations
• US: USGP interest cost off-set against USCo
income (tax consolidation)
tax
consolidation
bank
68© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Country regimes
69
Commonly used financing solutions
Tax characteristics
• Interest income subject to low
corporate income tax rate
- Bulgaria: 10%
- Hungary (10% up to 500 mHUF
– 19% > 500 mHUF)
- Ireland: 12.5% (trading income)
- Latvia/Serbia: 15%
Notes
• Internal dealing (OECD / Authorized
Economic Approach - AEA)
FinCo
Foreign Parent
Subsidiaries
Interest
Loans
Equity
Low corporate income tax rate
Foreign Parent
FinCo
Finance
branchLoans
Subsidiaries
70
BE FinCo
ParentCo
Subsidiaries
Equity
InterestLoans
Commonly used financing solutions
Tax characteristics
• BE Finco: interest income offset by a
(notional) deduction on adjusted equity
• ParentCo: interest expense deductible subject
to limitations
Debt
Notional interest deduction
71
BE FinCo
ParentCo
Subsidiaries
Interest
Loan(s)/
PPL
Commonly used financing solutions
Tax characteristics
• BE FinCo: interest on PPL / loans deductible
subject to limitations
• SingCo / HKCo: interest income not effectively
taxed in Singapore or Hong Kong insofar
qualifying as foreign source income not
(deemed) remitted (territoriality based tax
regime)
Loans
SingCo/HK Co
Offshore tax regime
Interest
Interest
72
Loan(s)/
IFL
Loan(s)/
PPL
Loans
LuxCo 1
ParentCo
Commonly used financing solutions
Tax characteristics
• LuxCo 1: US PE exemption
• LuxCo 2: notional deduction on IFL off-set
against interest income, subject to limitations
• US branch: no imputed interest income on IFL
(not effectively connected income to US trade
or business)
• Be FinCo: interest costs deductible subject to
limitations, off-set against interest income
Interest free loan(s) (1)
BE FinCo
US branch
Subsidiaries
LuxCo 2
73
0
Commonly used financing solutions
Tax characteristics
• NLCo/LuxCo/HUCo: notional deduction on IFL
off-set against interest income subject to
limitations
• IRCo: no upward transfer pricing adjustments
on IFL
• Be FinCo: interest deductible subject to
limitations and off-set against interest income
Interest free loan(s) (2)
ParentCo
IR CoNLCo/LuxCo/
HUCoBE FinCo
Subsidiaries
Loans
Interest free
loan (IFL)
Loan(s)
74© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Branch solutions
75
(Deemed) head-office loan/IFL
ParentCo
BE FinCo
Branch
(Lux / CH /
Dubai)
Commonly used financing structures
Tax characteristics
• Branch: tax-exemption (Dubai) or notional
deduction on deemed head-office loan/IFL,
off-set against interest income, subject to
limitations
• BE FinCo: no imputed interest income on
(deemed) head-office loan/IFL
Subsidiaries
Finance branch (1)
Loans
76© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Commonly used financing solutionsFinance branch (2)
ParentCo
LuxCo
(Deemed)
HO loan /
IFL
Belgian
Branch
Tax characteristics
• Belgian branch: notional deduction on
(deemed) head-office loan/IFL off set against
interest income, subject to limitations ?
• LuxCo: no imputed interest income on
(deemed- head-office loan/IFL; Belgian PE
exemption
Subsidiaries
Loans
77© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Commonly used financing solutionsFinance branch (3)
Tax considerations
• Luxembourg: interest cost LuxCo 2 off-set
against interest income LuxCo 1 (tax
consolidation)
• US branch: LuxCo 2 interest proportionally
deductible (provided debt classification)
• BelCo: US PE exemption
ParentCo
LuxCo 1
BelCoBelCo
Subsidiaries
Loans
US branch
Loan(s)
LuxCo 2
tax
consolidation
78
ParentCo
LuxCo
Lux
branch
Commonly used financing solutions
Tax characteristics
• Lux branch: notional deduction on IFL off set
against imputed interest income, subject to
limitations
• LuxCo: notional deduction on IFL offset
against interest income, subject to limitations
• ParentCo: no imputed interest income on IFL
(disregarded loan)
Subsidiaries
Loan(s)/PPL
Finance branch (4)
Bel FinCo
Loans
IFL
IFL
79© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Other solutions
80
Loan(s)
Loans
ParentCo
LuxCo
Commonly used financing solutions
Tax characteristics
• LuxCo: interest income off-set against tax
losses carried forward (flexible changes of
control rules)
• BE FinCo: interest cost deductible, off-set
against interest income subject to limitations
Subsidiaries
BE FinCo
Tax losses carried forward
81
Interest loans
convertible
loan
BE FinCo
Subsidiaries
Commonly used financing solutions
Tax characteristics
• BE FinCo: interest differential (between
contractual and hypothetical non-
convertible/straight loan rate) is accounted for
as financial cost on actuarial basis and, by
lack of deviating tax provisions, deductible
and off-set against interest income
• LuxCo: interest differential is not accounted
for. Capital gain upon conversion is not
taxable / rolls-up into share value
Convertible loan
ParentCo
LuxCo
Interest
82
Loan(s)
Interest
Zero
coupon
convertible
bondLuxCo2
BE FinCo
Commonly used financing solutions
Tax characteristics
• LuxCo 2: interest differential is accounted for
as financial cost and by lack of deviating tax
provisions, deductible and off-set against
interest income
• LuxCo 1: interest differential is not accounted
for. Capital gain upon conversion is not
taxable and rolls up in LuxCo 2 share value
• BE FinCo : interest cost deductible and off-set
against interest income subject to limitations
Zero coupon convertible bond
Foreign Parent
LuxCo 1
Interest
Subsidiaries
Loan(s)
83© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
What do we expect still
to come?
84© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Timeline BEPS / EU initiatives
Countries sign Multilateral Convention
Review of country-by-
country reporting
2016Oct 2015
Nov 2015
Sept 2015
2017 2020
Committee on Fiscal
Affairs approves Actions
G20 Finance Ministers
G20 leaders
approve
actions
Release of updated OECD
model treaty
Countries implement
agreed actions – 2016-18?
CbyC Treaty
Updated OECD
Transfer Pricing
guidelines
CC(c) TB Proposal
EU BEPS Directive
Amendment to PS Directive
Tax transparency Directive
FTT
85© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Translation into law
Transfer pricing
guidelines
• Practice
• Treaty interpretation
• Domestic law
EU Directive/
Domestic law
• Interest restrictions
• Hybrid mismatches
• Country by country reporting
• Disclosure rules
• CFC rules
• Tax transparency
• FTT
Multilateral
convention
• Treaty abuse
• Permanent establishment
• Dispute resolution
86© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
TP documentation
implications
87© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Action 13 – TP documentation and CbC reporting
Minimum standard
Country-by-Country Template• Key financial information on all group members on an aggregate country basis with an activity
code for each member
Master File• Key information about the group's global operations including a high-level overview of a
company’s business operations along with important information on a company’s global
transfer pricing policies with respect to intangibles and financing
Local File• Information and support of the intercompany transactions that the local company engages in
with related parties
3-tiered approach
88© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Action 13 – TP documentation and CbC reporting
Minimum standard - Timing
Filing of the 1st
CbC
Preparation of
the 1st CbC
Transmission of the 1st CbC
to concerned tax authorities
2016 2017 2018
Next steps
• Adoption of new documentation requirements in
domestic legislations
• Creation of a centralized exchange platform for tax
authorities
• Formal signing ceremony of MCAA (January 2016)
89© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Action 13 – TP documentation and CbC reporting
Te
ch
no
log
ica
l M
atu
rity
Functional Capabilities
Minimum standard - Deloitte CbC reporting
CDX
CDX+
• Multiple ERP
or no ERP
• No dual GAAP
capabilities in
system or not
maintained /
used currently
• No uniform
Statutory
Accounts
Process /
System (Excel
based
adjustments)
90© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Action 13 – TP documentation and CbC reportingMinimum standard - Deloitte CbC reporting
CDX overview
A user–driven tool that organizations can use to self–assess their readiness
CDX
1. Business HQ
Business administrator accesses
CDX online to manage the input of
basic data regarding the
organization, entities, locations, and
data providers; companies can run
multiple simulations including top–
down and bottom–up scenarios
5. Deloitte
As countries enact and/or
amend the OECD
requirements, follow on
options may allow
businesses to see updated
visualizations or be
prompted for additional data
requirements
2. Business data providers
Provisioned individuals, in
various locations, receive an
access link to upload data in
flexible formats
3. Business HQ
Once data has been uploaded, teams can
review online CbC reports to see their data in
the prescribed OECD format as well as
sort/filter aggregated data in the reports to
help set priorities
4. Business HQ
Teams can download
their aggregate data in a
generic CbC template or
their entire data set for
offline use
• Percent of related
revenues to total revenue
• Cash ETR
• ETR
• Unrelated party revenues vs. numberof employees
• PBT vs. number of
employees
• Stated capital vs. number
of employees
• Tangible assets vs.
number of employeesVisualizations
and ratio analyses:
91© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Action 13 – TP documentation and CbC reporting
Minimum standard - Deloitte CbC reportingCDX+ overview
A modular and scalable approach that delivers flexible CbC data analytics with drilldown
capabilities and compliance reporting
CDX+ can
help you:
Business HQ
Business provides insight
into all data sources and
IT landscape, and all
intercompany
transactions
Deloitte
Deloitte develops a
process to extract and
transform necessary data
in an automated and
repeatable manner
Deloitte & Business HQ
Deloitte works with
business to perform
necessary quality checks
and testing of CDX+
Business HQ
Client utilizes CDX+ for:
• CbC compliance
reporting and analysis
• Drilldown analytics
• Standard and custom
reporting
• Track CbC reporting
requirements across
countries and entities on
a regular basis
• Automate and
standardize the
CbC process
• Facilitate root–cause
analyses of deviations
from policies/target and
determine corrective
actions
92© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Action 13 – TP documentation and CbC reporting
Minimum standard - Deloitte CbC reporting
93© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Action 13 – TP documentation and CbC reporting
Minimum standard - Deloitte CbC reporting
94© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Action 13 – TP documentation and CbC reporting
Minimum standard - Deloitte CbC reporting
95© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Action 13 – TP documentation and CbC reporting
Minimum standard - Deloitte CbC reporting
96© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Action 13 – TP documentation and CbC reporting
Minimum standard - Deloitte CbC reporting
97© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Operational treasury
implications
98© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Operational treasury implications
Business Model
OperationsTreasury Operations
Intercompany Leverage
Structures
Risk Management
Structures
Location, administration and
value of the treasury
function
Greater visibility of risk and
function allocation
Increased Substance
Qualified personnel
Technology supports
decision making
Head office guidance/
coordination NOT
execution
Intra group services
Liquidity model changes
Financing entities
Back-to-Back lending
Intercompany lending
Cash pooling
Factoring
Working capital
management
Revised cash forecasting
Timing and manner of
repatriation of built up cash
Treasury/Shared Service
Centers (SSC)
Types of Instruments used
Related party loan
structures
Routing of funds through
intermediaries to obtain tax
benefits
Excessive debt push downs
Level of interest
deductibility
Rate setting and review
Documentation
Tax rulings and requisite
substance
Exposure Identification
Payments/Receipts on
behalf of
Foreign exchange risk
management and interest
risk management
99© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Operational treasury implications
1) Does the group provide cross-border financial services ‘remotely’? (e.g., FX management)
2) Are there any payment flows that are deductible to the payer but not included as taxable income of the
recipient?
3) Does the group have any funding structures that result in two or more deductions for the same payment?
4) Does the group own foreign subsidiaries through territories that either do not have or have limited controlled
foreign company rules such as Ireland, Switzerland or Luxembourg?
5) Does the group have intercompany loan guarantees in place for which no guarantee fees are charged?
6) Are the group’s worldwide net interest deductions for tax purposes greater than the group’s third party cost
of borrowing?
7) Does the group contain subsidiaries in low tax jurisdictions that, when compared to the group’s overall
debt/equity position, may be regarded as ‘over-capitalized’?
8) Does the group have interest or royalty flows which benefit from treaty relief between intermediary
companies that are not the ultimate owners of the assets?
9) Does the group operate any sales principal/commissionaire structures?
10) Does the group have material sales in any territories, supported by local teams that are not booked as a sale
revenue to that territory?
11) Are there high profits within low tax in locations with a limited number of employees compared to other
operations?
12) Has the group valuable IP owned by one entity that has been developed/contributed by another and which
further develops such IP primarily through funding only?
100© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Operational treasury implications
Revisit Liquidity & FX (including in-house banks) to reflect revised
operational structures
Contractual arrangements must
allocate risk to reflect underlying
economic substance
more oversight, controls,
governance and documentation
Offshore cash mobilization
structures may need to be revised
Intercompany financing
structures and lending agreements
may be effected
Substance Requirements affect People, Process, and Technology
101© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Operational treasury implicationsTreasury
Build
Assess current state and
identify gaps
Identify business requirements,
processes and tools
Build tools for Business Model
readiness
Execute quality assurance and
systems testing
Meet Data, Reporting and
Technology Requirements
Treasury
Go-Live
Impact
Analysis
Treasury
Test
Treasury
Design
• Identify risky areas from
BEPS “Actions” for Treasury
Operating model
Financing
Technology
• Analyze substance factors
(People, Property, Functions)
• Evaluate current financial
systems readiness to satisfy
proposed data, reporting
requirements
• Perform GAP analysis of
current state compared to
future state and prioritize
action items
Operating model
System functionality and
capability
Data & Documentation
Reporting Compliance
• Prioritize business requirements
that address both current and
support future treasury functions
from an organizational and
technology perspective
• Refine Operating model
Structures to modify (e.g.
Finance company/In-house
banking strategy, Cash pooling
etc.)
People to deploy (Treasury/
Shared Service centers)
Data sources involved
(Documentation & Reporting)
Technology capabilities (ERP,
TMS and other core systems)
• Design a treasury support model
for potential new structures
(central vs. de-centralized model),
costs and scope of treasury
services (People, Property,
Function)
• Business Model
Increased substance
Qualified Personnel
Head Office
guidance/coordination NOT
execution
• Treasury Operations
Liquidity model changes
Risk management needs
FX and Interest risk needs
Cash management needs
Cash transfer methods
Cash concentration
Cash forecasting
Working capital management
• Financing Model
Debt management
Equity management
Investment management
Intercompany structures
Supply chain finance
• Test financial systems readiness
to gather and consolidate data
ERP
TMS
Ancillary systems
• Assess timely availability of
source data required for group-
wide reporting purposes
• Perform analysis on customized
reports to test system flexibility for
accurate reporting on
Capital allocation
Cash forecast changes due to
Financing (Interest expenses)
Investing
Operations
Intercompany funding
(Medium, Long-term)
Cash pooling (Short-term)
Rates (e.g. Transfer prices)
Risk management (FX/IR)
• Global visibility enabled
through new technology
(ERP/TMS/Other ancillary
systems)
• Strong alignment between
treasury and other finance
functions to enable timely data
gathering for reporting and
analytics
• Monitor cross border
structures/initiatives and
identify those potentially
impacted by reforms meet
requirements
• Collaborate with the tax teams
to ensure the key treasury
functions are integrated into
the tax strategy
• Educate key stakeholders
around potential impacts of
non-compliance
Technology Considerations
• Determine countries and
entities to understand data
sourcing, data volume, data
complexity and technical risk
issues
• Determine original data
formats can be leveraged
• Review if new systems need
to be implemented or existing
systems could be leveraged
• Determine data sources and
extraction formats
• Review IHB structure changes
• Intercompany loan relationships
• Possible unwinding of existing
loan structures in TMS
• Transfer prices
• Evaluate system core
configuration
• Accounting
• Rate setting (FX & IR)
• Onboard countries and legal
entities to TMS where partially
integrated into financial systems
• Build and update core
configurations
• Customize and build reports to
satisfy compliance requirements
• Examine reports for
inconsistencies that require
interpretation or adjustment
• Administer system entitlements
(new people/locations)
• Define test strategy and test
scenarios
• Execute and evaluate end-to-end
test scenarios
• Track test results and remediate
system defects
• Facilitate and support end user
training
• Examine results of disaster
recovery plan (data backup and
data restore)
• Review KPIs and re-measure
to address performance
outliers phase by phase
• Measure post go-live
stabilization and performance
• Monitor and perform ongoing
refinement
• Implement contingency plan
for treasury systems
102© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Major trends in tax
audits across Europe
103
Major Trends in tax audits across Europe
83%
11%
89%
28%
11%
22%
72%
28%
17%
89%
11%
28%
61%
78%
28%
72%
44%
28%
I N C R E AS E D T AX AU T H O R I T I E S ' AG G R E S S I V E N E S S
S P E C I AL T AX AU D I T D E P AR T M E N T F O R F & T
I N C R E AS E D F O C U S O N I N T E R E S T D E D U C T I B I L I T Y
I N C R E AS E D F O C U S O N I N T E R E S T W H T I S S U E S
I N C R E AS E D C H A L L E N G E S O F D O M E S T I C T AX …
B L AC K L I S T
T AR G E T E D J U R I S D I C T I O N S
B E P S P R I N C I P L E S AL R E AD Y B E I N G U S E D
TAX AUDIT EXPERIENCE
Yes No NA
© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
104© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Key take aways
105© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Key take aways
Assume
transparency
Expect disputes &
uncertainty
Ensure substance1.
2.
3.
106© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Speakers
Tax Senior Manager
Deloitte Brussels
+32 2 600 65 08
Steven Byloos
Tax Partner
Deloitte Brussels
+ 32 2 600 67 60
Brecht Sohier
Tax Senior Manager
Deloitte Brussels
+32 600 67 34
Mourad Chatar
Treasury Solutions Director
Deloitte Brussels
+ 32 2 800 26
Kristine Dooreman
107© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Questions
109
Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its
network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for
a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms.
Deloitte provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services to public and private clients spanning multiple
industries. With a globally connected network of member firms in more than 150 countries, Deloitte brings world-class
capabilities and high-quality service to clients, delivering the insights they need to address their most complex business
challenges. Deloitte has in the region of 200,000 professionals, all committed to becoming the standard of excellence.
This communication contains general information only, and none of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, its member firms, or
their related entities (collectively, the “Deloitte Network”) is, by means of this publication, rendering professional advice or
services. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your finances or your business, you should consult
a qualified professional adviser. No entity in the Deloitte Network shall be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by
any person who relies on this communication.
© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
110