steve towers /david weisner/kristy ton may 9 – 10, 2012

92
1 Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012 International Tax Review Asia Tax Forum 2012 International Tax Developments: The Cross-Border Issues Making a Difference

Upload: abdalla

Post on 14-Jan-2016

27 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

International Tax Review Asia Tax Forum 2012 International Tax Developments: The Cross-Border Issues Making a Difference. Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012. Agenda. What hope for tax reform in the US? OECD developments: beneficial ownership, PE, intangibles - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

1

Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton

May 9 – 10, 2012

International Tax Review Asia Tax Forum 2012

International Tax Developments:The Cross-Border Issues Making a Difference

Page 2: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited2

Agenda

What hope for tax reform in the US?

OECD developments: beneficial ownership, PE, intangibles

2011 Update to the UN Model Treaty and Commentary

FATCA – It’s getter closer. What taxpayers need to know

Recent international tax cases: the global top 10

Q & A

Page 3: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited3

2012 ElectionsEconomy is driving election outcomes

• Economic issues driving 2012 elections Only Roosevelt re-elected (1936) with unemployment rate >8.3% Only Eisenhower re-elected (1956) with GDP growth <2%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Top Five Issues of Concern to Voters

% o

f A

du

lts

Su

rve

yed

Source: NBC/WSJ Survey, March 3, 2012

45%

10%

20%

Page 4: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited4

• Obama approval rating on the economy has improved Obama had a negative 18 point rating in the fall It’s currently a negative 7 point rating

45%

60%

39%

52%

26%

57%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Feb

'09

Ap

r'09

Jun

'09

Au

g'09

Oct

'09

Dec

'09

Feb

'10

Ap

r'10

Jun

'10

Au

g'10

Oct

'10

Dec

'10

Feb

'11

Ap

r'11

Jun

'11

Au

g'11

Oct

'11

Dec

'11

Feb

'12

Ap

r'12

Approve Disapprove% o

f A

du

lts

Su

rve

yed

2012 ElectionsObama’s performance on the economy is up

Source: NBC/WSJ Survey, April 2012

Obama Performance on the Economy

Page 5: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited5

• Politicians usually in trouble with disapprovals > approvals• Last August, Obama was looking like a “dead duck” (-10.2%)• Today, he has a positive 1.2% rating

48.3

47.1

53.2

43.0

2012 ElectionsObama’s approval ratings have improved significantly

Obama Approval/Disapproval Average Ratings

Page 6: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited6

• Romney out-polled Obama slightly last October (+0.5%)• Now Obama is out-polling Romney (+3.1%) • Charlie Cook’s assessment: Obama wins…50/50 race

46.1

45.6

47.5

44.4

2012 ElectionsObama’s re-election looks likely today, but it’s a 50/50 race

Obama vs. Romney, Average Polling Data

Page 7: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited7

• Leadership in both Houses suffer with weak majorities• Huge ideological struggle for elections

‒ Republican strategy: cut spending, no tax increases, rollback regulation‒ Democratic strategy: grow jobs, protect entitlements, tax the wealthy

• Conventional wisdom/political analysts projections:‒ House: Republican majority shrinks by 15 to 20 seats, but remains under GOP

control‒ Senate: Democrats lose 3 to 5 seats, but Republican majority 50/50 competitive

chance

2012 ElectionsElection dynamics in Congress

Party Alignment in the 112th Congress

House * Senate

Democrats 190 51

Republicans 242 47

Independents (caucus with Ds) 0 2

Margin of Majority Control Republicans +24 Democrats +2

* 3 vacancies

Page 8: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited8

• 51.8% likely Obama wins (average of last eight polls)• 60% likely GOP maintains majority in the House• 50% likely that GOP takes majority in the Senate

Scenario Probability (if election held today)

Obama wins and GOP wins both Houses of Congress 26%

Obama wins and Congress remain under divided control (current situation)

34%

Romney wins and Congress remains split or shifts to Democratic control

25%

GOP or Democrats sweep control of Presidency and Congress

15%

2012 ElectionsElection dynamics in Congress

Page 9: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited9

• GOP supports a territorial system with a low corporate tax rate, which Democrats oppose

• Other issues which may impact tax reform, i.e. long-term budget deficits, unemployment, environmental.

• If Obama wins and Congress is split or under GOP control Obama will propose Tier 3 and protect it against a Republican attack Congressional GOP will press Obama for a territorial system with a

low corporate rate• If Romney wins and Congress is split or under Democratic

control Romney will drive for a territorial tax system with a low corporate rate

that Senate Democrats and GOP House Members will support But, Romney will kill Tier 3

• Unified control by one party, is unlikely

2012 Elections Impact on US Tax Legislative Reforms

Note: LEV III reduces emissions from LD vehicles for MY17-25 by 70%. Tier 3 will nationalize LEV III and cut sulfur content in gasoline from an average of 30ppm to 10ppm

Page 10: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited10

• Budget Control Act set a course to reduce the deficits, assuming expiring provisions are not extended

• If all the expiring provisions are extended, the deficits explode by factor of 4

Deficits and DebtImpact of alternative scenarios on deficits as percent of GDP

Deficit Averaged -2.8% AnnuallyFY 1971-2011

Per

cen

t o

f G

DP

-8.7%

-1.2%

-3.0%

-5.9%

Source: CBO

Deficit Projections Under Alternative Scenarios

Page 11: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited11

• Budget Control Act reduces debt/GDP ratio by 16%, assuming expiring provisions are not extended Assumption is flawed Debt/GDP ratio explodes from 73% to 93% if provisions are extended

• Impact: enormous pressure to increase taxes

Debt Projections Under Alternative Scenarios

Per

cen

t o

f G

DP

Debt Averaged 37% Annually

FY 1971-2011

73.3%

Source: CBO

Deficits and DebtImpact of alternative scenarios on debt as percent of GDP

76.3.%

93.2%

61.3%

Page 12: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited12

Tax Reform

• Tax reform will be discussed in context of deficit reduction and will be controversial Obama/Democrats see it as a revenue raiser Republicans see it as a way to cut tax rates and make the code more tax

efficient• Ways & Means Chairman Camp pushing his tax reform package

‒ Cuts the corporate rate to 25%‒ Converts the global system to a territorial system ‒ Deems past foreign income subject to deferral repatriated and taxed at 5.25%‒ Subjects intangibles to a 15% tax

• Business groups undecided on Camp proposal• Tax reform likely will not be enacted before the November 2012 elections (more

likely will not be settled until 2013 or later). However, Congress will need to address high-profile tax issues by year-end, including scheduled expiration of Bush 2001/2003 individual tax cuts and status of tax extenders such as CFC look-through.

• DANGER: deficit reduction in context of tax reform needs to raise revenue

Page 13: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited13

Revenues and Spending Under Budget Control Act, 2011-2021

Per

cen

tag

e o

f G

DP

15.3%

20.9%

12.2%

7.7%

12.0%

10.4%

Tax Reform Deficit reduction will require increased revenue

Source: CBO

Page 14: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited14

President Obama Business Tax Reform Framework

• President Obama’s Framework issued in February 2012 contained five key elements of business tax reform:1. Broaden the base and reduce corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%.2. Strengthen American manufacturing & innovation

‒ Increase domestic manufacturing income deduction to 10.7%, effectively reducing corporate tax rate on manufacturing income to 25%

‒ Expand, simplify and make permanent R&E tax credit‒ Extend, consolidate, and enhance clean energy tax incentives

3. Strengthen international tax system – limit deferral of foreign earnings by imposing minimum tax on foreign earnings, tax excess IP returns and limit interest deduction on overseas investment.

4. Simplify and cut taxes for small businesses.5. Eliminate or making permanent temporary tax provisions.

Page 15: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited15

House Ways & Means Chairman Dave CampInternational Tax Reform Discussion Draft

• Reduce corporate tax rate to 25% (base broadening provisions to be determined).

• Shift to territorial based system‒95% dividend received deduction (DRD)‒Subpart F inclusions on all accumulated E&P with 85% DRD.‒Previously untaxed earnings are taxed twice:

• As deemed repatriation of all accumulated E&P (85% DRD)• Again when actually repatriated (95% DRD)

‒Subpart F provisions maintained for FBCSI and FBCSvI (954(d)& 954(e); three alternatives for new subpart F categories to address base erosion – excess returns, low-tax foreign income (ETR < 10%), carrot & stick option

‒Previously tax income rules repealed.‒FTCs repealed except for passive income (but not on exempted

income).

Page 16: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited16

Territorial Tax System – Enzi vs. Camp

• On February 9, 2012, Senator Michael Enzi introduced an international tax reform bill (“U.S. Job Creation & International Tax Reform Act of 2012”) that adopts a territorial tax system and makes significant changes to the subpart F and foreign tax credit (“FTC”) regime.

• The bill has some similarities to the October 26, 2011, Discussion Draft release by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (although it does not include a provision to lower the top corporate tax rate).

Page 17: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited17

Territorial Tax System – Enzi vs. CampComparison of key provisions of the participation exemption system

Enzi Camp

DRD 95% 95%

ETR on qualified dividends

1.75% 1.25%

Foreign taxes paid or accruedon qualified dividends

No FTC or deduction No FTC or deduction

Section 78 gross-up Not required Not required

One-year holding period requirement

Required Required

10/50 company Each 10/50 company may elect to be treated as CFC

All or none 10/50 company may elect to be treated as CFC

Tiered CFC structures No specific guidance except in the context of hybrid dividends but permanent extension of CFC look-through should produce similar effect as under Camp

CFC to CFC dividends exempt from US tax to the extent 95% DRD is applicable if paid directly to 10% US shareholder

Page 18: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited18

Territorial Tax System – Enzi vs. Camp (Cont’d)Comparison of key provisions of the participation exemption system

Enzi Camp

Hybrid dividends Not eligible for 95% DRDHybrid dividends of tiered CFCs are treated as subpart F incomeNo FTC or deduction for any tax paid or accrued Treated as US-source income

N/A

First-tier foreign branch

Not treated as CFC Treated as CFC

Deduction for foreign income derived from US-developed IP

50% deduction 40% deduction provided under anti-base erosion Option C

Undistributed pre-2013 earnings

Taxed under present law upon repatriationDistributions on a first-in, first out basis

Taxed at 1.25% upon repatriation

Page 19: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited19

Territorial Tax System – Enzi vs. Camp (Cont’d)Comparison of key provisions of the participation exemption system

Enzi Camp

Gain or loss on sales of foreign corporation stock

Section 1248 amount eligible for 95% DRD Capital gain in excess of section 1248 amount taxed under current lawNo deduction allowed for loss if the foreign corporation was a CFC during the 5 years preceding the saleSales of stock by upper-tier CFC in lower-tier CFC and electing 10/50 company – Gain: subpart F, eligible for DRD to the extent of dividend / Loss: E&P deduction disallowed

95% DRD applies to all gain recognized by US shareholder DRD is available only if 30% or less of foreign corporation’s assets give rise to FPHCI during a 3-year testing periodDeduction for loss deniedSales of stock by upper-tier CFC in lower-tier CFC and electing 10/50 company –Gain: subpart F / Loss: E&P deduction (as under current law)

Page 20: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited20

Territorial Tax System – Enzi vs. Camp (Cont’d)Comparison of key transitional provisions

Enzi Camp

DRD 70% 85%

ETR on deferred foreign earnings

10.5% if elect under section 965 5.25% (before FTC) + 1.25% (upon repatriation)

Foreign taxes paid or accrued

FTC or deduction disallowed if elect under section 965

FTC or deduction disallowed on exempted dividends but allowed on taxable dividends

Section 78 gross-up Not required Applicable to taxable dividends

10/50 company Not eligible for DRD Eligible for DRD

Undistributed pre-2013 earnings

Section 965 election made at each CFCIf no 965 election, taxed under present law upon distributionDistributions on a first-in, first out basis

Deemed inclusion of all accumulated deferred foreign incomePTI taxed at 1.25% upon repatriation

Page 21: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited21

Territorial Tax System vs. Obama’s Int’l Tax ReformComparison of key modifications to Subpart F

Enzi Camp Obama 2013 Budget Proposals

Section 956 (investment in US property)

No change Repeal No change

Section 959 (PTI) No change Repeal No change

Section 954(d) (FBCSI) Repeal No change No change

Section 954(e) (FBCSvI) Repeal No change No change

Section 954(h) (active financing)

Permanently extend Silent Extend for an additional year (to 12/31/2013 for calendar-

year taxpayers)

Section 954(c)(6) (look-through)

Permanently extend Silent Extend for an additional year (to 12/31/2013 for calendar-

year taxpayers)

New subpart F categories Low-tax foreign income (ETR <17.5%)

Qualified business income exception

Three alternatives“excess returns” proposal w/o separate FTC basketLow-tax foreign income (ETR<10%) Carrot & stick option

Excess returns proposal w/ separate FTC basket

excess return = 50% mark-up over the CFC’s directly allocable costs, excl. interest and taxesLow foreign ETR (10% floor, 15% ceiling)

Page 22: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited22

Territorial Tax System vs. Obama’s Int’l Tax Reform Comparison of key modifications to Foreign Tax Credits

Enzi Camp Obama 2013 Budget Proposal

Section 902 Repeal 902 credits on dividends out of post-2012 E&P or pre-2013 E&P w/ section 965 electionStill relevant on dividends out of pre-2013 E&P w/o section 965 election

Repeal No change

Section 960 Preserve w/ modification Preserve w/ modification No change

Section 901 Allowed except w/h tax on exempted dividend

Allowed except w/h tax on exempted dividend

No change

Section 909 Preserve Eliminate No change

Section 78 gross-up Apply to pre-2013 E&P w/o section 965 election & section 960

Apply to section 960 only No change

Separate FTC baskets Preserve Eliminate No change

New FTC basket Foreign intangible income N/A Foreign base company excess intangible income

Page 23: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited23

Territorial Tax System vs. Obama’s Int’l Tax ReformComparison of key modifications to Foreign Tax Credits (Cont’d)

Enzi Camp Obama 2013 Budget Proposal

Cumulative tax pools Maintain pools attributable to pre-2013 earnings w/o section 965 election

Eliminate Remove foreign taxes from tax pools when the associated E&Ps are eliminated

Blending section 902 foreign tax pools

N/A N/A Limit 902 credits to the average rate of total foreign tax actually paid on the combined earnings of all of a group’s CFCs

Allocation and apportionment of indirect expenses

Preserve Eliminate No change

WW interest expense allocation

Accelerate the effective date to taxable years beginning 12/31/12

N/A Legislation enacted in 2009 and 2010

postpones the effective date to 2021

5% taxable dividends US-source Foreign-source N/A

Page 24: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited24

Territorial Tax System vs. Obama’s Int’l Tax Reform Comparison of key modifications to Foreign Tax Credits (Cont’d)

Enzi Camp Obama 2013 Budget Proposal

Section 862(a)(6) (inventory purchased within US sold outside US)

US- source Foreign-source No change (Foreign-source)

Section 863(b)(2) (inventory produced in US sold outside US or produced outside US sold in US)

US-source Partly US-sourcePartly foreign-source

No change (Partly US-sourcePartly foreign-source)

Extend section 338(h)(16) to certain asset acquisitions

N/A N/A Extend the application of section 338(h)(16) to any covered asset acquisitions (“CCA”), within the meaning of section 901(m), to prevent a seller from increasing allowable FTCs as a result of CCAs.

Page 25: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited25

Territorial Tax System vs. Obama’s Int’l Tax Reform Comparison of miscellaneous proposals

Enzi Camp Obama 2013 Budget Proposal

Thin capitalization Silent Disallow US net interest deduction if (1) the US corporation is overleveraged compared to the worldwide affiliated group (the “relative leverage test”), and (2) the US corporation’s net interest expense exceeds an unspecified percentage of adjusted taxable income (the “ATI test”), using section 163(j) rules. The lesser of the amounts determined under these tests is the amount disallowed. Interest disallowed could be carried forward.

Limit earnings stripping by inverted companies

Page 26: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited26

Territorial Tax System vs. Obama’s Int’l Tax Reform Comparison of miscellaneous proposals (Cont’d)

Enzi Camp Obama 2013 Budget Proposal

Treatment of partnership

Silent Grant Treasury broad authority to issue regulations providing 95% DRD treatment to partnership of which US corporation own more than 10% interest.

Tax gain from the sale of a partnership interest on a look-through basis by treating the sale or exchange of partnership interest as ECI to the extent the gain or loss attributable to ECI property

Deferral of deduction allocable to unremitted foreign earnings

N/A N/A Defer foreign-related interest deductions until the foreign earnings are subjected to US taxation.Deductible interest = (CY dividends + subpart F inclusions) Post-86 E&Ps x (CY + deferred foreign-related interests)

Page 27: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited27

Territorial Tax System vs. Obama’s Int’l Tax Reform Comparison of miscellaneous proposals (Cont’d)

Enzi Camp Obama 2013 Budget Proposal

Prevent the use of leveraged distributions from related foreign corporations to avoid dividend treatment

N/A N/A To the extent a foreign corporation (funding corporation) funds a second, related foreign corporation (distributing corporation) with the principal purpose of avoiding dividend treatment on distributions to a US shareholder, the US shareholder’s basis in the stock of the distributing corporation will not be taken into account for the purpose of determining the treatment of the distribution under section 301.

Page 28: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited28

Territorial Tax System vs. Obama’s Int’l Tax Reform Comparison of miscellaneous proposals (Cont’d)

Enzi Camp Obama 2013 Budget Proposal

Limit income-shifting through outbound transfer of intangibles

Remove the incentive for moving IP offshore by providing 50% deduction for foreign income derived from US-developed IP under the territorial system

Remove the incentive for moving IP offshore by providing 40% deduction for foreign-source intangible income under anti-base erosion Option C under the territorial system

Amend section 367, 936 & 482-Add workforce-in-place, goodwill & going concern value to the list of IP-Provide IRS with authority to value transfer of IP to achieve a more reliable result or a realistic alternative

Provide tax incentives for locating jobs and business activity in the US and remove tax deductions for shifting jobs overseas

N/A N/A Create a new general business credit equal to 20% of the eligible expenses paid or incurred in connection with insourcing a US trade or business while disallow deductions for expenses paid or incurred in connection with outsourcing a US trade or business.

Page 29: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited29

Tax Reform Comparison of Tax Reform Proposals

ProposalsHouse Republican

(Camp)

Senate Republican

(Enzi)Governor

Romney (R)President Obama (D)

Corporate tax rate 25% 35% 25% 28%

AMT TBD TBD Repealed Repealed

International Territorial Territorial Territorial Minimum ETR on foreign earnings

Base Erosion Principle 3 options:      

  “excess returns” proposal

Low-tax foreign income (ETR <17.5%)

TBD CFC income not subject to min tax

  Low-tax foreign income (ETR<10%)

Qualified business income exception

   

  Carrot & stick option

     

Timing of taxation Immediately under Subpart F

Immediately under Subpart F

TBD Immediately under Subpart F

Page 30: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited30

Agenda

What hope for tax reform in the US?

OECD developments: beneficial ownership, PE, intangibles

2011 Update to the UN Model Treaty and Commentary

FATCA – It’s getter closer. What taxpayers need to know

Recent international tax cases: the global top 10

Q & A

Page 31: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited31

OECD developments : permanent establishment• 12 October 2011 : proposed changes to Commentary on Art. 5 issued for public

comment (by 10 February 2012)• Sub-group of Working Party 1• Final changes to be included in next update of the Model Convention &

Commentary (scheduled 2014)

Included

W “At the disposal” : principles & factors

W Contract manufacturing (but no reference to toll manufacturing)

W Home office

W Secondment : cross-reference to Commentary on Art. 15(2) (but no reference to Art. 5(3)(b), UN model treaty)

W Examples elaborating on existing Commentary

Not Included

W Logistics company’s warehouse

W Cloud computing

W Situations in which subsidiary’s employees could be deemed to be employees of parent (Rolls Royce)

W Express rejection of “Sidney Robert’s view” re agency PE1

¹ Sidney I. Roberts, “The Agency Element of Permanent Establishment : The OECD Commentaries from the Civil Law View”, 1993/ 9&10 Intertax.

Page 32: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited32

OECD developments : beneficial ownership

Page 33: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited33

Proposed changes

Existing Commentary

4 key notionsNot narrow technical sense

First disqualifying condition

Second disqualifying condition

Look through

New Commentary (after proposed changes)

8 key notions

Not narrow technical sense (amended)

Domestic law meaning relevant(if consistent)

First disqualifying condition

Second disqualifying condition

Look through

Full right to use and enjoy the income unconstrained by a contractual or legal obligation

Cross-reference to anti-avoidance rules

Contextual meaning

In summary

1

2

3

42

3

4

5

6

7

1A

1B

Page 34: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited34

Proposed changes (cont’d)

Full right to use and enjoy the income unconstrained by a contractual or legal obligation

“In these various examples (agent, nominee, conduit company acting as a fiduciary or administrator), the recipient of the dividend is not the ‘beneficial owner’ because that recipient does not have the full right to use and enjoy the dividend that it receives and this dividend is not its own; the powers of the recipient over that dividend are indeed constrained in that the recipient is obliged (because of a contractual, fiduciary or other duty) to pass the payment received to another person. The recipient of a dividend is the ‘beneficial owner’ of that dividend where he has the full right to use and enjoy the dividend unconstrained by a contractual or legal obligation to pass the payment received to another person. Such an obligation will normally derive from relevant legal documents but may also be found to exist on the basis of facts and circumstances showing that, in substance, the recipient clearly does not have the full right to use and enjoy the dividends; also, the use and enjoyment of a dividend must be distinguished from the legal ownership, as well as the use and enjoyment, of the shares on which the dividend is paid.” (proposed new paragraph 12.4 to Commentary on Art. 10, all new text; bolding added)

5

Sentence #1

Sentence #2

Sentence #3

Page 35: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited35

OECD developments : intangibles

Page 36: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited36

What is the relevance of the OECD Commentary in Asia Pacific?

• Only substantive, multi-lateral double tax treaty guidance available[ UN Commentary? 90% the same as OECD Commentary

• Views of non-members are included in OECD Commentary, including : China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand & Vietnam. With the exception of India, areas of disagreement are relatively few

• OECD members disagree with, or don’t apply, OECD Commentary, at times

[ Disagreements vs. interpretation issues[ Substance over form / GAAR[ Consider : Zimmer, Dell, Roche

Page 37: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited37

Relevance of OECD Commentary in Asia Pacific

Paragraph Topic Disagreements² with OECD Commentary

India Malaysia Vietnam 9 other AP jurisdictions1

18 Twelve months test not applicable to short term sites or projects

1.1 Introduction to elimination of Art. 14

5.3 & 5.4 Example of painter and consultant

8 Leasing of tangible or intangible properties may not constitute PE

10 Leasing of ICS equipment may not constitute PE

12 & 42.25 Examples constituting a priori PE

23 Scientific research exclusion in the list of examples indicating preparatory or auxiliary

25 Substantial negotiations of an enterprise through office and employees constitute PE

OECD Commentary to Art. 5

Disagreements1 Note: Other Asia Pacific jurisdictions are : Australia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand. (OECD members & non-members)² Or position reserved

Page 38: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited38

Relevance of OECD Commentary in Asia PacificOECD Commentary to Art. 5 (cont’d)

Disagreements

Paragraph Topic Disagreements² with OECD Commentary

India Malaysia Vietnam 9 other AP jurisdictions1

33 Mere participation or attending negotiations of contracts should not constitute contract-concluding agency PE

42 Member of an MNC group engaged in manufacturing / providing services on behalf of another group company may constitute a PE

42.2 Website may not constitute a PE

42.3 Hosting of website on a server should not constitute a PE

42.14 & 42.15 Furnishing of services only in source state

42.18 & 42.46 Tax rights when services are furnished by non-residents outside state

42.19 Fees paid for services : net vs. gross taxation

1 Note: Other Asia Pacific jurisdictions are : Australia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand. (OECD members & non-members)² Or position reserved

Page 39: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited39

Relevance of OECD Commentary in Asia PacificOECD Commentary to Art. 5 (cont’d)

Disagreements

Paragraph Topic Disagreements² with OECD Commentary

India Malaysia Vietnam 9 other AP jurisdictions1

42.22 Minimum level of presence not necessary for taxing services

42.31 Physical presence of individual not essential for taxation of furnishing of services

42.40 & 42.43 No PE for services on two different projects for a single customer. Provision of services through employees of separate enterprise

42.44 Example of services for the same or connected projects

5.5 Satellite footprint in the space of source country may not constitute a PE

9.1 Foreign network not at the disposal of the home network operator

26.1 Undersea cables and pipelines lying in source country may not constitute a PE

1 Note: Other Asia Pacific jurisdictions are : Australia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand. (OECD members & non-members)² Or position reserved

Page 40: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited40

Relevance of OECD Commentary in Asia Pacific

Paragraph Topic Disagreements² with OECD Commentary

China India Malaysia 9 other AP jurisdictions1

10.1 Payments for distribution rights

11.2 Provision of services will generally fall under Art. 7

14.2 Payments for computer software for own use

8.2, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 10.1,

10.2, 14, 14.1, 14.2, 14.4, 15,

16, 17.3

Payments for property transfers; transponder leasing; telecom roaming agreements; spectrum licences; distribution rights; computer software; digital products

OECD Commentary to Art. 12

Disagreements

1 Note: Other Asia Pacific jurisdictions are : Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam (OECD members & non-members)² Or position reserved

Page 41: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited41

Agenda

What hope for tax reform in the US?

OECD developments: beneficial ownership, PE, intangibles

2011 Update to the UN Model Treaty and Commentary

FATCA – It’s getter closer. What taxpayers need to know

Recent international tax cases: the global top 10

Q & A

Page 42: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited42

2011 Update to the UN Model Treaty & Commentary

• 2011 Update to UN Model double tax treaty & Commentary launched on 15 March 2012 (first update for 10 years)

• Significant changes to the Commentary on Art.1

• Although the OECD Commentary to Art. 1 does discuss (and generally endorses) the use of domestic law or treaty-based anti-avoidance rules to combat treaty “abuse”, the 2011 Update adds significant original content to the UN Commentary on this issue

Page 43: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited43

UN Commentary to Art. 1 : Examples of improper use of tax treaties

Number Examples

Dual residence and transfer of residence

1 Movement of individual’s residence

2 Movement of company’s residence

3 Movement of shareholder’s residence

Treaty shopping

4 * Direct conduit

5 * “Stepping-stone” conduit

Triangular cases

6 Third country permanent establishment (“PE”)

Attributing profits or income to a specific person or entity

7 Thin capitalization

8 Base company

9 Directors’ fees

10 Attribution of interest to a tax-exempt or government entity

11 * Non arm's length transfer prices

Number Examples

Hiring of labor

12 * Short-term hiring

Artistes and sportspersons

13 * Star companies

Transactions that modify the treaty classification of income

14 Conversion of dividends into interest

15 Allocation of price under a mixed contract

16 Conversion of royalties into capital gains

17 Use of derivative transactions

Transactions that seek to circumvent thresholds found in treaty provisions

18 Ownership threshold

Time limit for certain PEs

19 Art. 5(3) planning

Thresholds for the source taxation of capital gains on shares

20 Land-rich company

* Straightforward idea

Page 44: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited44

Agenda

What hope for tax reform in the US?

OECD developments: beneficial ownership, PE, intangibles

2011 Update to the UN Model Treaty and Commentary

FATCA – It’s getter closer. What taxpayers need to know

Recent international tax cases: the global top 10

Q & A

Page 45: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited45

FATCA Background

• “Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act” or “FATCA” was signed into law on March 18, 2010 as a revenue raiser for the “Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act” or “HIRE”

• Various effective dates. FATCA withholding on U.S. source income begins on January 1, 2014.

• Objective is to combat offshore tax evasion by U.S. persons who invest‒ Directly through financial accounts maintained offshore‒ Indirectly through ownership of foreign entities

• FATCA works by requiring foreign financial institutions (“FFIs”) and non-financial foreign entities (“NFFEs”) to provide this information

• FATCA’s lever is a NEW 30% withholding tax levied on “withholdable payments” to non-participating FFIs and NFFEs

Page 46: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited46

FATCA Background: Withholding as an Enforcement Tool

30 Percent FATCA withholding• Imposed on “withholdable payments”, including

‒ U.S. source income from securities‒ Interest on bank deposit accounts maintained in the United States or in a

foreign branch of a U.S. bank ‒ Gross proceeds from the sale/redemption of U.S. securities

• When made to foreign financial institutions (FFIs) or non-financial foreign entities (NFFEs)‒ Does not apply to payments made to individuals

• Unless‒ the FFI enters into an agreement with the IRS (a participating FFI)‒ the NFFE discloses the identity of its U.S. owners or certifies to non-US

ownership to the withholding agent

Page 47: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited47

The Role of Withholding Under Present US Tax Law

30 Percent U.S. Non-resident tax • Is a flat rate tax that imposed on foreign persons • Applies to U.S. source dividends, interest, royalties and other “income”, unless

a reduced rate or an exemption applies• Does not apply to gross proceeds or gains from the sale of securities• Does not apply if FATCA withholding applies

28 Percent backup withholding • Applies to noncompliant U.S. non-exempt recipients• Can apply to any payments that are reportable on Forms 1099

‒ U.S. source and foreign source income‒ Gross proceeds from the sale/redemption of securities

• Is a credit against the federal tax liability of U.S. taxpayers

Page 48: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited48

Illustration of Application of Passthru Payment Rule

• FATCA may apply for US indirect investments.

• Foreign Bank makes investment in Participating FFI, which in turn invests in various US and non-US portfolio investments that generate US and non-US source investment income, respectively, and eventually proceeds from the exit.

• If Foreign Bank does not enter in an agreement with the IRS, 30% tax would be withheld on payments from Participating FFI to Foreign Bank “related” to US investments of the Participating FFI determined as a function of US/total assets ratio of the Participating FFI.

ForeignBank

ForeignBank

USPortfolio

Investments

USPortfolio

Investments

ParticipatingFFI

ParticipatingFFI

Non-USPortfolio

Investments

Non-USPortfolio

Investments

Income from FFI of US$ 10M

US Withholding Tax of US$ 1.8M(US$ 10M x 60% x 30%)

Passthru Payment Percentage = 60%

Page 49: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited49

Initial Guidance on Passthru Payments

• Why?

– The primary purpose behind the passthru payment concept is to prevent an FFI to be used as a blocker for US persons trying to avoid US tax by making indirect investments in US assets.

– The IRS also noted that the passthru payment rule is to encourage FFIs to enter into FFI agreements (i.e., a passthru payment paid to a PFFI is not subject to FATCA’s withholding requirement, whereas a passthru payment paid to a non-participating FFI would be subject to FATCA withholding).

• What is it?

– A passthru payment is defined in the statute and it includes withholdable payments from direct US investment and other payments from an indirect US investment through a PFFI.

Withholdable Payment

Non-withholdable

Payment

Passthru Payment

Percentage

Direct US Investment Indirect US Investment

Page 50: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited50

Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) Defined

Under FATCA, the term FFI is quite broad Includes any foreign entity that• Accepts deposits in the ordinary course of a banking or similar business• Is in the business of holding financial assets for the account of others• Is engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting, or trading

in securities, partnership interests, commodities, or any interest in such securities.

FFI Examples: non-U.S. banks, custodian banks, securities brokers and dealers, hedge funds, collective and family investment vehicles.• Includes personal investment corporation (“PIC”) holding solely passive

assets – the PIC is an FFI.

Page 51: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited51

Non-Financial Foreign Entity (NFFE) Defined

An NFFE that has one or more “substantial” U.S. owners (other than exempt U.S. owners) is considered a U.S. owned NFFE

Substantial ownership means more than 10 percent of:• Vote or value of a corporation’s stock• Profit or capital interest in a partnership• Beneficial interest in a trust if any grantor is a non-exempt US person• Example: A closely-held manufacturing company

Exempt U.S. owners include• A corporation the stock of which is regularly traded on an established

securities market and any of its affiliates• Any tax-exempt organization under IRC section 501(a) or an individual

retirement plan• Any bank, any REIT or any RIC • Any common trust fund, charitable lead or remainder trust

Page 52: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited52

New Way to Categorize Client Accounts

Need to determine whether to treat

• An individual account holder as a U.S. person or a foreign person

• An entity account holder as ‒ a U.S. person‒ A foreign financial institution (FFI)‒ An excepted foreign organization (e.g., a foreign government)‒ A non-financial foreign entity (NFFE)

• An FFI as‒ A participating FFI‒ A deemed-compliant FFI or ‒ Non-participating FFI

• An NFFE as‒ A U.S. owned NFFE (having a substantial US owner)‒ An excluded NFFE‒ A recalcitrant account

Observation: Presents a new and completely different way to categorize client accounts and service providers

Page 53: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited53

Indicia of Potential U.S. Status

Searches for U.S. indicia are used to identify U.S. persons that own accounts

An account holder has indicia of U.S. status if he:

1. Is a U.S. citizen or resident

2. Was born in the U.S.

3. Has a U.S. residence or mailing address;

4. Has a U.S. telephone number

5. Has provided standing instructions to transfer funds to a U.S. based account

6. Has granted power of attorney over the account to a person with a U.S. address

7. Has a “care of” or hold mail address that is the sole address of account holder

Page 54: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited54

Account due diligence rules for FFIs

Account Type Individuals: Entities:

Pre-existing Pre-existing individual accounts

Pre-existing entity accounts

New New individual accounts New entity accounts

Balance Individual Entity

De-minimus $50,000 $250,000

High Value $1,000,000 $1,000,000

Page 55: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited55

Account due diligence rules to identify U.S. account holders

Individual Accounts (only applies to FFIs, not USFIs)

New individual accounts

• Review all of the information provided at the opening of the account, including identifying information collected under AML/KYC rules

If an indicator of U.S. ownership is found, obtain additional documentation or treat the account as held by a recalcitrant account holder

Page 56: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited56

Account due diligence rules to identify U.S. account holders

Entity Accounts

Pre-existing entity accounts

• $250,000 or less – Excluded from review, until account balance exceeds $1,000,000. Must collect documentation sufficient to establish account holder’s FATCA status (e.g., U.S. entity, Participating FFI, Active non-financial foreign entity (NFFE), Passive NFFE)

• Passive NFFEs – Must identify substantial U.S. owners

‒ Balance more than $1,000,000 – Must obtain information regarding substantial U.S. owners

‒ Balance not more than $1,000,000 – May rely on information collected for AML

New individual accounts

• Must collect documentation sufficient to establish account holder’s FATCA status (e.g., U.S. entity, Participating FFI, Active non-financial foreign entity (NFFE), Passive NFFE)

• Review all of the information provided at the opening of the account, including identifying information collected under AML/KYC rules

Page 57: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited57

Client Management Issues for FATCA Compliance

• Certain products and services may no longer be available to certain clients

• New clients must provide extensive personal information beyond current requirements (Relationship Manager’s role expanded)

• Clients must waive privacy rights and grant permission for personal and account information to be reported to the IRS

• Recalcitrant accounts may require closure against client wishes

Page 58: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited58

Reporting requirements – a phased approach

Calendar Year Reporting Due Reporting Requirement to U.S. Accounts1

2013 September 30, 2014Required to report only name, address, TIN, account number, and account balance with respect to U.S. accounts identified as of June 30, 2014

2014 March 31, 2015Required to report only name, address, TIN, account number, and account balance

2015 March 31, 2016Required to report only name, address, TIN, account number, account balance, and income paid

2016 March 31, 2017Required to report name, address, TIN, account number, account balance, income paid, and gross proceeds

2017 March 31, 2018 All of the reporting for calendar-year 2016 as well as foreign passthru payments

1 In the case of a U.S.-owned foreign entity, the information must be reported for the entity as well as the name, address, and TIN for each substantial U.S. owner.

Page 59: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited59

Timelines – phased implementation

FFIs and USFIs each have their own timeline

Phased implementation starting in 2013, and ending no earlier than 2017

Some systems and procedures need to be ready on Jan 1, 2013

Major key dates:

• January 1, 2013 – USFIs need new account procedures in place

• July 1, 2013 – Participating FFIs should have signed agreement in place with the IRS

• January 1, 2014 – FATCA withholding commences on withholdable payments

• July 1, 2014 – Need to certify due diligence is complete on high value accounts

• September 30, 2014 – First FATCA account reporting is due

• January 1, 2017 – FATCA withholding scheduled to commence on foreign passthru payments

Page 60: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited60

Legal Issues for Implementation

• FFI is required to seek a waiver of applicable bank secrecy, confidentiality, data collection or other information disclosure prohibitions from the U.S. account holder that might otherwise prohibit or limit FATCA reporting, and close accounts in certain circumstances.

• Local Privacy Laws

• Conflict with Local Laws

• Burden on FFI

• Account Opening Documentation

• Transactional Documentation

Page 61: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited61

Impact to MNCs (NFFEs)

• Impact on the Treasury Function

• “Stealth” Foreign Financial Institutions that might be part of Consolidated Group

• Impact to Accounts Payable and other Departments

• Legal Documentation Changes

Page 62: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited62

Loans: Gross-Up

“The Borrower shall not be required to make an increased payment to a Finance Party under paragraph (a) above for (i) a Tax Deduction imposed by reason of such Finance Party’s failure to comply with any certification, identification, information, documentation or other reporting requirement if such compliance is required by law, regulation, administrative practice or an applicable treaty as a precondition to exemption from, or reduction in the rate of, deduction or withholding of any Tax Deduction, (ii) a Tax Deduction imposed by reason of such Finance Party’s failure to comply with Clause 14.7 or (iii) any U.S. federal income withholding tax imposed under FATCA.”

Page 63: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited63

ISDA

“Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. (a) For purposes of any Payer Tax Representation, the words “any Tax from any payment” shall not include any tax imposed under Sections 1471 and 1472 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (or the United States Treasury regulations or other guidance issued or any agreements entered into thereunder) (“FATCA Withholding Tax”); (b) for the avoidance of doubt the parties agree that for purposes of Section 2(d)(i) the deduction or withholding of FATCA Withholding Tax is required by applicable law; and (c) the definition of “Indemnifiable Tax” shall not include any FATCA Withholding Tax.”

Page 64: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited64

Offering Circular

“We intend to structure our investments so that we will not be required to withhold 30% FATCA withholding tax earlier than 2017 although no assurances can be given in this regard. Pursuant to the FFI Agreement we intend to enter into, beginning no earlier than 2017, we will be required to withhold 30% FATCA withholding tax on certain dividends that we pay to foreign financial institutions that have not entered into an FFI Agreement (including Name of Depository) if it does not enter into an FFI Agreement) or to Shareholders that do not verify their status under the FATCA rules, to the extent such dividends are foreign passthru payments.”

Page 65: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited65

Offering Circular

“The application of FATCA to an investment in our Shares will depend on:

• whether the foreign financial institutions through which you hold our Shares, including (name of depository) and any broker, have entered an FFI Agreement, which is outside of our control; and

• whether you verify your status under the FATCA rules to us or to the foreign financial institution through which you hold our Shares.”

Page 66: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited66

Treasury/IRS Guidance Needed

Statutory provisions are not self-implementing• Guidance is expected to be published in waves• IRS must draft an agreement for foreign financial institutions• Expect revisions to Form W-8 series

Preliminary guidance published 8/27/2010 in Notice 2010-60

Additional guidance published 04/09/2011 in Notice 2011-34

Further guidance published 07/14/2011 in Notice 2011-53

Proposed regulations published on 02/08/2012

Written or electronic comments sent by April 30, 2012.

Public hearing scheduled for May 15, 2012.

Final regulations need to be published

Any delay in Treasury/IRS guidance• puts pressure on the effective date and• narrows the window for building needed systems and procedures

Page 67: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited67

Agenda

What hope for tax reform in the US?

OECD developments: beneficial ownership, PE, intangibles

2011 Update to the UN Model Treaty and Commentary

FATCA – It’s getter closer. What taxpayers need to know

Recent international tax cases: the global top 10

Q & A

Page 68: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited68

#10 Ford (UK)

US

UK

UK Co 1

US Co

Profits

UK Co 2

Losses

Page 69: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited69

#9 George Anson (UK)

• Delaware LLC characterised as a company for UK tax purposes (lower tribunal had characterised it as a partnership)

• Property interest in LLC’s assets vs. non-discretionary entitlement to dividends

UK

US

Div.

LLC

George Anson

Profits

Page 70: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited70

#8 Li & Fung (Hong Kong)

• Customers contract with HK Co for the provision of “supply chain” and “logistics” services (eg. locating suppliers, placing orders with suppliers (on behalf of customers), quality control inspections, arranging for shipment, etc.) Fee = 6% of sales price.

• Many of the services are performed (outside HK) by foreign affiliates of HK Co. Fee = 4% of sales price.

• HK Co argued that its 6% fee income was sourced outside HK and thus is tax-exempt.

• Court of Appeal : HK Co wins• Follows ING Baring case (Court of Final

Appeal, 2007): in determining the source of profits, the focus should be on the important profit-producing activities, and not on any antecedent or incidental activities.

Service contract (A)

$

Customers

HK Co

Foreign Affiliates

Service contract (B)

$

HK

Offshore

Page 71: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited71

#7 Fabrikant / Columbia Sportswear (India)

• Art. 5(3)(d), India/US treaty: exception from PE status for “the maintenance of a fixed place of business solely for the purpose of purchasing goods or merchandise …..for the enterprise”

• Both US companies have a purchasing office in India, Columbia Sportswear to purchase sports clothes and Fabrikant to purchase diamonds

• Columbia Sportswear: PE. Fabrikant : No PE.

US

India

Sale

Suppliers

US Co

Office

Page 72: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited72

#6 Share buy-back case (India)

• India Co undertook share buy-back with Mauritius Co.

• Share buy-back is not subject to dividend distribution tax (DDT), but is subject to the tax on capital gains.

• Ruling sought that Mauritius Co is exempt under Art. 13, India / Mauritius treaty.

• AAR : This is a “colourable device” (ie. sham or tax avoidance transaction). Thus, its tax treatment should be based on substance, not form. In substance, this is a dividend payment, and thus India Co would be liable for DDT.

49%

US Co Mauritius Co Sing Co

India Co[publicly listed]

25%

2%

Share buy-back

India

Offshore

Page 73: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited73

#5 Total Return Swap case¹ (Switzerland)

• Danish Bank entered into several TRSs (involving shares in Swiss companies) with counterparties in the EU and the US.

• As a hedge, Danish Bank acquired the corresponding amount of the underlying Swiss shares.

• Swiss domestic tax law : 35% DWT• Switzerland / Denmark treaty (at the

relevant time), Art. 10:[ 0% DWT[ No “beneficial ownership”

condition

Div.

Bank Counter-parties

SwissCompanies

TRS

Third countries

Switzerland

Denmark

Total Return Swap (TRS)

• Short-term (3-6 months)

• Bank pays amount equivalent to:

[ Appreciation in share portfolio[ Dividends from share portfolio

• Counterparty pays amount equivalent to:

[ Depreciation in share portfolio[ LIBOR plus margin on principal ¹ Case A-6537 / 2010

Page 74: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited74

#5 Total Return Swap case (Switzerland) (cont’d)

• Argued by Swiss tax authorities : 0% DWT rate should not apply because

[ Danish Bank not “beneficial owner” of dividends (and “beneficial ownership” condition should be “read into” Art. 10)

[ Danish Bank is committing “treaty abuse”

Div.

Bank Counter-parties

SwissCompanies

TRS

Third countries

Switzerland

Denmark

Total Return Swap (TRS)

• Short-term (3-6 months)

• Bank pays amount equivalent to:

[ Appreciation in share portfolio[ Dividends from share portfolio

• Counterparty pays amount equivalent to:

[ Depreciation in share portfolio[ LIBOR plus margin on principal

Page 75: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited75

#5 Total Return Swap case (Switzerland) (cont’d)

Federal Administrative Tribunal:• “Beneficial ownership” condition might possibly

be “read into” Art. 10 – Tribunal did not have to decide this point, as it concluded that Danish Bank is the “beneficial owner” of the dividends

• Danish Bank satisfies the “beneficial ownership” condition, because :

- Lack of interdependence between the dividends paid by the Swiss companies and the Danish Bank’s obligations under the TRS:

1) The Danish Bank was not obligated to acquire the shares in the Swiss companies – it decided to do so in order to hedge its position

2) Regardless of whether the Danish Bank received the dividends from the Swiss companies, it was obligated to make the relevant payments under the TRS

Div.

Bank Counter-parties

SwissCompanies

TRS

Third countries

Switzerland

Denmark

Total Return Swap (TRS)

• Short-term (3-6 months)

• Bank pays amount equivalent to:

[ Appreciation in share portfolio[ Dividends from share portfolio

• Counterparty pays amount equivalent to:

[ Depreciation in share portfolio[ LIBOR plus margin on principal

Page 76: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited76

#5 Total Return Swap case (Switzerland) (cont’d)

Federal Administrative Tribunal:• Danish Bank does not commit “treaty abuse”,

because : [ If there is no explicit “treaty abuse”

provision in the treaty, then “treaty abuse” occurs only if the company engages in no genuine economic or commercial activity

[ The Danish Bank has premises, employees and a wide commercial activity, and thus there is no “treaty abuse”.

• Thus, 0% DWT rate applies

Div.

Bank Counter-parties

SwissCompanies

TRS

Third countries

Switzerland

Denmark

Total Return Swap (TRS)

• Short-term (3-6 months)

• Bank pays amount equivalent to:

[ Appreciation in share portfolio[ Dividends from share portfolio

• Counterparty pays amount equivalent to:

[ Depreciation in share portfolio[ LIBOR plus margin on principal

Page 77: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited77

#4 Rolls Royce (India)

Facts

• Rolls Royce Plc (Rolls Royce UK) was tax resident in the UK. It sold certain parts and equipment to customers in India

• Rolls Royce India Limited (Rolls Royce India), a wholly owned subsidiary of Rolls Royce UK, was also tax resident in the UK. It provided various services to Rolls Royce UK through its office in India for cost-plus remuneration

• Services provided by office of Rolls Royce India to Rolls Royce UK included marketing, negotiating, and facilitating the selling of products

Issues

• PE under Art. 5, UK/India treaty?

• Calculating profit attributable to PE

Offshore

India

100%

Se

rvic

es

Customers

Rolls Royce Plc., UK

Rolls Royce India Limited, UK

Sa

le o

f sp

are

s /

eq

uip

me

nt

Office

Page 78: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited78

#4 Rolls Royce (India) (cont’d)

High Court judgment

• Art. 5(1)

– Individuals who are formally employed by Rolls Royce India act as if they are employees of Rolls Royce UK. They should thus be treated as employees of Rolls Royce UK. Therefore, the office of Rolls Royce India (which is used every day by those individuals) is “at the disposal” of Rolls Royce UK

– Activities conducted by those individuals are not preparatory or auxiliary, but a core activity

Offshore

India

100%

Se

rvic

es

Customers

Rolls Royce Plc., UK

Rolls Royce India Limited, UK

Sa

le o

f sp

are

s /

eq

uip

me

nt

Office

Page 79: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited79

#3 Velcro (Canada)

Canada Co

X Co

Roys.Lic.Netherlands

Canada

Original Situation

Canada Co

X Co

Roys.Lic.

NetherlandsAntilles

Canada

Restructure

X Co

Y Co

Netherlands

X Co migrates tax residence from Netherlands to Netherlands Antilles

X Co assigns licence agreement to Y Co (subsidiary of X Co)

Canada Co

X Co

Roys.Lic.

Netherlands

Canada

Y Co

Post-Restructure Situation

NetherlandsAntilles

(Under Assignment Agreement)

(90% x A)

(Original Licence Agreement)

Sub-Lic. Roys. (A)

Page 80: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited80

#3 Velcro (Canada) (cont’d)

Canada Co

X Co

Roys.Lic.

Netherlands

Canada

Y Co

Post-Restructure Situation

NetherlandsAntilles

(Under Assignment Agreement)

(90% x A)

(Original Licence Agreement)

Sub-Lic. Roys. (A)

• Purpose of assignment was to transfer the management of licensing royalty streams to Y Co.

• Amaco Management Services BV, an arm’s length corporation, conducted in large part the management of Y Co.

• Y Co’s main activities:

[ holding shares in subsidiaries

[ providing loans to subsidiaries

[ managing royalty streams

• When Y Co receives royalties from Canada Co, these receipts were intermingled into Y Co’s other accounts and used for a variety of Y Co’s purposes, at Y Co’s sole discretion – for example:

[ making of loans

[ payment of operational expenses

[ payment of professional fees

• Y Co was contractually obliged to pay X Co its royalties (ie. 90% of the royalties received from Canada Co) 30 days after the receipt of the Canada Co royalties.

Page 81: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited81

#3 Velcro (Canada) (cont’d)

Canada Co

X Co

Roys.Lic.

Netherlands

Canada

Y Co

Post-Restructure Situation

NetherlandsAntilles

(Under Assignment Agreement)

(90% x A)

(Original Licence Agreement)

Sub-Lic. Roys. (A)

Court decision

• Applied the rule from Prevost case:

“When corporate entities are concerned, one does not pierce the corporate veil unless the corporation is a conduit for another person and has absolutely no discretion as to the use or application of funds put through it as conduit…” [emphasis added]

• From Prevost, there are four elements in considering beneficial ownership:

[ possession

[ use

[ risk

[ control

• Y Co has each of those four elements

• Although Y Co has limited discretion, it does have some discretion. It is not the case that, per Prevost, it has “absolutely no discretion”. Thus, Y Co is the beneficial owner of the royalties paid by Canada Co, for the purposes of the Canada / Netherlands treaty.

Page 82: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited82

#2 Vodafone (India)

Key

• Direction of shareholding or loan. Thus, A B means that A owns shares in B or A has lent to B

• Interposed entities omitted=

India

Offshore

HTI BVI(BVI)

Vodafone(Netherland

s)

Mauritius IHCs

Hutchison Essar Ltd

(HEL) (India)

Transfer of only share

52%

CGPInvestment

s (Holdings)

Ltd (Cayman)

3 GSPL (India)

Has the Option to acquire 15%

HTIL(Cayman)

Loans

Direct & indirect

= =

=

SPA

Supreme Court•“Look at” the structure or transaction on an holistic basis and in context – ie. do not apply a “dissecting approach”:

If genuine commercial business structure or transaction: legal form is respected in determining tax liability

If sham or tax avoidance scheme: Revenue can apply “substance over form” and /or “piercing of corporate veil” principles to determine tax liability

•Holding companies, including SPVs, are a common and acceptable structure in regard to company law, takeover code and income tax

•Azadi Bachao Andolan case (capital gains exemption under Art. 13 of India / Mauritius treaty) endorsed

Page 83: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited83

#1 Roche Vitamins Europe Ltd (Spain)

Spain / Switzerland treatyArt. 5(1) :

“For the purposes of this Convention, the term ‘permanent establishment’ means a fixed place of business in which the business of the enterprise is wholly or partly carried on.”

Art. 5(4) :

“A person acting in a Contracting State on behalf of an enterprise of the other Contracting State – other than an agent of an independent status to whom paragraph 5 applies – shall be deemed to be a permanent establishment in the first-mentioned State if he has, and habitually exercises in that State, an authority to conclude contracts in the name of the enterprise, unless his activities are limited to the purchase of goods or merchandise for the enterprise.”

Art. 5(5):

“An enterprise of a Contracting State shall not be deemed to have a permanent establishment in the other Contracting State merely because it carries on business in that other State through a broker, general commission agent or any other agent of an independent status, where such persons are acting in the ordinary course of their business.”

Spain

Swiss Co

Spain Co

Switzerland

Marketing contract

CM contract

CM contract:

• Spain Co manufactures & sells goods to Swiss Co

• Cost plus 3.3%

Marketing contract:

• Spain Co designated as Swiss Co’s agent to promote the sale of particular products and to “represent, protect and promote” the interests of Swiss Co. No authority to conclude contracts.

• Fee = 2% of sales

Page 84: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited84

#1 Roche Vitamins Europe Ltd (Spain) (cont’d)

Supreme Court• Swiss Co has a PE in Spain, under both Art. 5(1)

(fixed place of business : Spain Co’s premises) and Art. 5(4) (agency of Spain Co) of Spain / Switzerland treaty

• Key aspect of facts : All the activity of Spain Co was directed, organised and managed by Swiss Co

¹ Cited on earlier slide

Spain

Swiss Co

Spain Co

Switzerland

Marketing contract

CM contract

CM contract:

• Spain Co manufactures & sells goods to Swiss Co

• Cost plus 3.3%

Marketing contract:

• Spain Co designated as Swiss Co’s agent to promote the sale of particular products and to “represent, protect and promote” the interests of Swiss Co. No authority to conclude contracts.

• Fee = 2% of sales

Page 85: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited85

#1 Roche Vitamins Europe Ltd (Spain) (cont’d)

How can this decision be rationalised?

• Art. 5(1) : employees of Spain Co are de facto employees of Swiss Co?

• Art. 5(4) : “Sidney Roberts” view of agency PE¹?

• Application of “substance over form”?

• OECD Commentary on Art. 5, para 10:

“The business of an enterprise is carried on by the entrepreneur or persons who are in a paid-employment relationship with the enterprise (personnel). This personnel includes employees and other persons receiving instructions from the enterprise (eg. dependent agents). The powers of such personnel in its relationship with third parties are irrelevant. It makes no difference whether or not the dependent agent is authorised to conclude contracts if he works at the fixed place of business….”

¹ Cited on earlier slide

Spain

Swiss Co

Spain Co

Switzerland

Marketing contract

CM contract

CM contract:

• Spain Co manufactures & sells goods to Swiss Co

• Cost plus 3.3%

Marketing contract:

• Spain Co designated as Swiss Co’s agent to promote the sale of particular products and to “represent, protect and promote” the interests of Swiss Co. No authority to conclude contracts.

• Fee = 2% of sales

Page 86: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited86

Global top 10

#1 Roche Vitamins Europe Ltd (Spain) : PE

#2 Vodafone (India) : Anti-avoidance

#3 Velcro (Canada) : Beneficial ownership

#4 Rolls Royce (India) : PE

#5 Total Return Swap case (Switzerland) : Beneficial ownership

#6 Share buy-back case (India) : Anti-avoidance

#7 Fabrikant / Columbia Sportswear (India) : PE

#8 Li & Fung (Hong Kong) : Source

#9 George Anson (UK) : Entity characterisation

#10 Ford (UK) : Non-discrimination article

Page 87: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

87

Questions & Answers

Page 88: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited88

Biographies

Kristy P. Ton is Director of Tax, Asia for Corning with whom she has worked since August 2006. As Director of Tax, she is responsible for all tax matters relating to Corning’s businesses in Asia. Kristy began her career at PricewaterhouseCoopers and prior to joining Corning, she was tax counsel at ConocoPhillips. Her primary area of practice is US international and local country tax planning with a focus on cross-border structuring for financing, reorganizations, mergers and acquisitions, and derivative transactions. Kristy has extensive experience and knowledge of local country tax and tax audits in areas relating to withholding taxes, determination of permanent establishment and benefits under income tax treaties. Geographic areas in which she has had responsibility include North Asia (Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China), Southeast Asia (Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand), Australia, India, Western Europe (UK, Ireland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg), and Central Eastern Europe(Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary).  Kristy received a B.A. (cum laude) and a M.B.A. (cum laude) from the University of Dallas, a J.D. from Loyola University School of Law and a L.L.M. in Taxation from the University of Houston. She is a member of the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy and the Louisiana State Bar and a Board member of TEI – Asia Chapter.

Kristy P. Ton, CPA, JD, LLMDirector of Tax – Asia RegionCorning Inc.

Email : [email protected]

Page 89: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited89

Biographies

David WeisnerUS Tax Counsel for Asia PacificCitigroup

Email : [email protected]

David Weisner is based in Hong Kong and is US Tax Counsel for Asia Pacific for Citigroup. He handles the tax issues for variety of businesses throughout Asia Pacific. Prior to joining Citigroup in 2003, David worked at Fidelity Investments in Boston as international tax counsel.  Prior to Fidelity Investments, David worked for White & Case, a New York based law firm, and Deloitte & Touche, a big 4 accounting firm. David is a member of the Illinois Bar.

David is President of the Asia Chapter of the Tax Executive Institute (TEI), on the executive committee of the Capital Market Tax Committee (CMTC), on the tax committee for the Hong Kong chapter of Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA) and leads the FATCA subcommittee for the Hong Kong Association of Banks (HKAB).

Page 90: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited90

Biographies

Steve TowersAsia Pacific Leader – International TaxTel: +65 6216 3227Email: [email protected] Singapore

Steve Towers is the Asia Pacific leader of Deloitte’s international tax practice. He is a senior international tax partner with over 30 years of experience in international tax planning for multinational corporation (MNCs). Steve has worked in the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu offices in Sydney, Melbourne, London, New York, and Singapore. He has substantial experience in advising MNCs on corporate structuring and restructuring, real estate investment structuring, mergers and acquisitions, hybrid instruments, transfer pricing, use of double tax treaties, permanent establishment issues, and tax aspects of supply chain planning. A large part of his current practice involves the leadership of Asia Pacific regional tax projects.

Steve is a frequent public speaker on international tax issues affecting investment within Asia-Pacific. He has been listed (since 1998) in the current edition of “The World’s Leading Tax Advisors” (Euromoney).

Steve is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia. He is a former Chairman of the International Fiscal Association (Singapore Branch). He is a member of the board of directors of the Tax Academy of Singapore.

Steve has Bachelor of Economics and Bachelor of Laws degrees from the Australian National University, and a Master of Laws (first class honors) degree from the University of Sydney.

Page 91: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited91

About Deloitte

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.

Page 92: Steve Towers /David Weisner/Kristy Ton May 9 – 10, 2012

©2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited92