dac6 seminardac6.ro/_docs/seminar_dac6_tps_nndkp.pdf · seminar bucuresti, 5 februarie 2020 dac6...
TRANSCRIPT
Adrian Luca – TPSSilviu Badescu – NNDKP
Seminar Bucuresti, 5 Februarie 2020
DAC6 Seminar
Sursa: Internet
§ Each tax administration has its own vision on how to interpret the “most interpretable” directive – i.e. DAC6 (e.g. can one arrangement be reportable in one jurisdiction and not-reportable in the other jurisdiction?);
§ Legal professional privilege may lead to competition issues among liberal professions in some EU member states;
§ “Associated enterprises” definition (see also impact on E.3), different interpretation of the term “cross border arrangement”, “value of the arrangement”, “payment” etc.;
§ DAC6 penalties are not aligned with CbCR penalties;
§ DAC6 is preparing the level field for tax harmonization and the implementation of CC(C)TB;
§ Other challenges (e.g. over reporting, arrangements designed after 25 June 2018 but not implementedyet etc.).
DAC 6
EU member states implementation status
in alliance with
5
DAC 6 Status of implementation in EU [28]
Colour on map Status: No. of countries Country codes
Draft legislation 7 CZ, IT, LV, LU, PT, ES, SE
Consultation process 1 CY
DAC 6 legislation adopted 19 AT, BE, BG, HR, DK, EE, FI, FR, DE, HU, IE, LT, MT, NL, PL, RO, SK, SI, GBNo draft legislation available 1 GR
TOTAL 28
in alliance with
6
Taxes covered – Local deviations
Colour on map Taxes Covered No. of countries Country codes
Direct taxes 24 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, RO, SE, SI, SK
Direct and indirect taxes 2 PL, PT
No information available 2 GR, LV
TOTAL 28
in alliance with
7
Cross-border & domestic arrangements – Local deviations
Colour on map Domestic transactions No. of countries Country codes
Only cross-border arrangements 24 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, RO, SE, SI, SK
No information publicly available 2 GR, LV
Domestic transactions also included 2 PL, PT
TOTAL 28
in alliance with
8
Have any additional hallmarks been added? – Local deviations
Colour on map Additional hallmarks No. of countries Country codes
Hallmarks aligned with the Directive 24 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, RO, SE, SI, SK
No information publicly available 2 GR, LV
Additional hallmarks implemented 2 PL, PT
TOTAL 28
in alliance with
LPP - Legal professional privilege
LPP status No. of countries Country codes Exemption granted for more categories of intermediaries 13 AU, BE, HR, CZ, EE, FI, FR, DE, MT, NL, PL*, SK, ES
No information publicly available 3 GR, IR, LV
Exemption granted only for law firms 10 BG, CY, DK, HU, IT, SI, SE, GB, LU, RO
No exemption 2 LT (explanation expected in detailed regulations), PT*
TOTAL 28
* In Portugal, law-firms are challenging the non-LPP.
** Article 65 of the Polish Constitution guarantees the professional secrecy of the lawyers and their freedom of performing their activity. Also, in Poland LLP is not applicable for “marketable arrangement”.
9in alliance with
Details of DAC 6 penalties in each EU[28] jurisdiction
Ranking Top 5 countries in maximum penalties Maximum penalty (EUR)
1. Poland 5.000.000
2. Netherlands 830.000
3. Luxembourg 250.000
4. Slovenia 150.000
5. France 100.000
Note: The chart does not include Poland.
DAC 6 general requirements regardingpenalties to be implemented in each EU [28]country:
q effectiveness;
q proportionality with fees (forintermediaries) and tax savings generatedby tax schemes (for taxpayers);
q to be dissuasive.
The penalties from Finland (legislation enacted) and Spain (draft legislation) are in line with the proportionalityprinciple stated by DAC 6, as the penalties from these two countries are fixed in accordance with the fiscal benefitgenerated by the arrangements.
Country Maximum penalty
Finland Maximum of the fees (intermediaries) or value of the tax savings (taxpayers)
Spain Value of the tax impact of the agreement
10in alliance with
Countries where additional guidance is availableSome examples of countries that issued additional guidance regarding the local EU MDR implementation are:
q UK (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/25/pdfs/uksiem_20200025_en.pdf);
q Poland (https://www.podatki.gov.pl/mdr/objasnienia-podatkowe-mdr/);
q Austria (https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVI/ME/ME_00150/imfname_751457.pdf);
q Sweden (https://www.regeringen.se/4ae6db/contentassets/01c19176a1204b7e84057c83c4f2e4d3/genomforande-av-eus-direktiv-om-automatiskt-utbyte-av-upplysningar-som-ror-rapporteringspliktiga-gransoverskridande-arrangemang.pdf);
q Poland (available https://mf-arch2.mf.gov.pl/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=864af355-652d-402d-93c6-ee9b905109c0&groupId=764034);
q Germany (http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/19/158/1915876.pdf);
q Slovakia (https://www.nrsr.sk/web/Dynamic/DocumentPreview.aspx?DocID=467438);
q Netherlands (https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-35255-3.html).
11in alliance with
BEPS – BE PREPARED TO SWITCH!
WHAT WE WITNESS IS THE NEW NORMAL
in alliance with
DAC6 - ROMANIA
in alliance with
INTERMEDIAR
in alliance with
CONTRIBUABIL RELEVANT
in alliance with
SECRETUL PROFESIONAL
in alliance with
SEMNE DISTINCTIVE
in alliance with
PROCESE
in alliance with
SOLUTIA AUTOMATIZATA DE RAPORTARE DAC6
in alliance with
INTREBARI SI RASPUNSURI
in alliance with
MULTUMIM
ADRIAN [email protected]+40742.159.142
SILVIU [email protected]+40722.724.920
in alliance with