het young ifa network presenteert de mismatch voorbij ?

1. het young ifa networkpresenteertde mismatch voorbij? Amsterdam 9 november 2012

2. G20-Staaten wollen Steuersparmodellestoppenhandelsblatt Strijd tegen armoede begint in het belastingparadijsnrc Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwichcnn Tax EvadersExploitVarying Global Tax Ratesreuters Global Taxation: FiscalFrustrationfinancial times limitare l’uso di strumenti ibridiilsole 24 ore

3. de mismatch voorbij programma introductie presentaties discussie borrel (18.00)

4. carine stoffels oeso

5. annemiek kale danone

6. rinze van minnen kpmgmeijburguniversiteit van amsterdam

7. De mismatch voorbij? IFA seminar 9 november 2012 Perspectief adviespraktijk: Rinze van Minnen (KPMG Meijburg & Co)

8. Agenda

9. Agenda • Over welke mismatches gaat het? • Bekende voorbeelden • Ontwikkelingen in Nederland 2002 -2012 • Blik op de toekomst

10. Welke mismatches? Ofwel: ‘waar gáát het eigenlijk over?’

11. Welke mismatches? • Aanleiding • OECD • EU (EC, Ecofin, ‘As’ DLD-FR, ‘As’ DLD-UK) • G20 • NGOs • Country-by-countryreporting

12. Welke mismatches? • Terminologie varieert: • ‘mismatch-structuren’ • ‘hybride structuren’ • ‘cross-bordertax arbitrage’ • ‘double non-taxation’. • Samenspel van (i.c.) NL nationaal belastingrecht en andere nationale belastingstelsels. • Niet op de agenda • Belastingverdragen en EU-recht • BTW

13. Welke mismatches? • Mismatch: bij dezelfde feiten verschillende kwalificaties/interpretaties van: • Rechtsvormen / financiering / transacties (bijv. lease), • Vestigingsplaats / inwonerschap / bron van inkomen, of • Genietingtijdstip • Waardoor • positief inkomen nergens opkomt, • negatief inkomen dubbel opkomt, of • onbalans ontstaat vrijstelling/teruggaaf/credit enerzijds en heffingsrecht anderzijds

14. Voorbeeldenuit de NL praktijk

15. CV/BV Structuur • Essentie: hybride rechtsvorm + uitstel van heffing US1 US2 IP CV Licentie BV Sub-licenties Sub Sub

16. ‘SNC’-structuur • Essentie: hybride rechtsvorm + dubbele aftrek van rentelasten BV Lening SNC

17. Deelnemerschapslening • Essentie: hybride financiering: rentebateonbelast, rentelast aftrekbaar BV BNB 1998/208 Lening SUB

18. Ontwikkelingen in Nederland 2002 -2012

19. 2001 – Status: behandeling over de grens belangrijk • Art 10a lid 3 b Vpb compenserende heffing (als tegenbewijs!) • Art 13 Vpb: onderworpenheidseis, deelnemingskosten niet aftrekbaar • Per 1 april 2001 nieuwe APA/ATR praktijk (+ Besluit 30 maart 2001: geen zekerheid op structuren o.b.v. BNB 1998/208 • Art 12 Vpb omzetting afgewaardeerde leningen in kapitaal • Art 6 BBI • Art 32/39 BvdBonderworpenheidseis, switch-over • Art 36 lid 3 BvdB (3e limiet = 25% bronbelasting)

20. 2002 - behandeling over de grens nóg belangrijker • Art 2 lid 4 Uitzondering op woonplaatsfictie • Art 13 lid 3 Vpb  link naar hybride leningen, maar alleen indien geen aftrek bij schuldenaar • Art 8b/8c Vpb codificatie art. 9 OESO + nieuwe rulingbeleid • Art 10 lid 1 d / lid 2 / lid 4 de wettelijke hybride leningen (NB: 10 lid 4 is het huidige 10b Vpb) • Art 15ac lid 5 Sara Creek

21. 2003/2004 – de trend zet door… • 15ad Vpb: rentetemporisering overnameholdings • Invulling APA/ATR praktijk: duidelijkheid, eenheid, goede trouw jegens verdragspartners. • Art 15 Vpb: feitelijke vestigingseis • Art 10d Vpb • Art 13: (n.a.v. Bosal arrest 2003), deelnemingskosten aftrekbaar

22. 2007-2009 – trendbreuk? • “Werken aan winst”: Nederlandse belastinggrondslag staat voorop, gezonde belastingconcurrentie is terug (octrooibox komt, rentebox is lastig) • 10 (1) d Vpb: terug naar BNB 1998/208, art 13 geldt ook bij aftrek in buitenland • Einde primaire onderworpenheidseis in art 13 Vpb • Einde aan 15ad Vpb (maar: uitbreiding 10a Vpb…) • Vreemd genoeg voortzetting 10 lid 4 Vpb in 10b Vpb (verwijzing naar mismatch, maar alleen aan de passiefzijde van de balans) • Rulingpraktijk op stoom • Maar ook: lucratief-belangregeling in 2009

23. 2010-2012 – zet de trendbreuk door? • De objectvrijstelling! (maar ook: einde onderworpenheidseis…) • Innovatiebox: verbreed en naar 5% • Versoepeling deelnemingsvrijstelling • 15ad Vpb is terug (geen rol voor compenserende heffing) • Coöp-wetgeving, verwijst mede naar oogmerk ontgaan van buitenlandse belasting • NFV 2011

24. 2013 – Wat ís de trend nu? • Bosal reparatie (13l Vpb) • Afschaffing 10d Vpb

25. Rechtspraak: een apart spoor? • BNB 2002/184 (Japanse royalty), HR, 11-05-2007, nr 42385 (via Brz) • BNB 2012/37 c.s. (onzakelijkeleningen) • Hof Amsterdam, 07-06-2012, nr 11/00174 (redeemablepreferenceshares) (en: Hof 's-Gravenhage, 14-08-2012, nr BK-11/00969 – bankleningvermomdalscumpref?) • Kwalificatie buitenlandse samenwerkingsverbanden: NL rechtspraak (en beleid) consistent autonoom

26. Ontwikkelingen in Nederland 2002 -2012 ?????

27. Blik op de toekomst

28. Blik op de toekomst • Het adviseursvak verandert: • Adviseren over recht (grenzen opzoeken) én maatschappelijk effect (grenzen aangeven) ? • Reputatierisico vs. ethiek? • Legalisme vs. ‘fair share’-gedachte? • Het speelveld verandert • Overheidsbudgetten langjarig onder druk • Substance speelt een grotere rol • Meer internationale samenwerking overheden • Meer transparantie (bijv. per-countryreporting)

29. Blik op de toekomst • Bedrijven veranderen • Focus op MVO • Reputatie komt te voet, vertrekt via sociale media (voorheen te paard) • Risk management vs. belastingoptimalisatie • Horizontaal toezicht

30. Blik op de toekomst • Zullen mismatches verdwijnen door: • terughoudendheid van de praktijk? • door internationale samenwerking?

31. Dank voor uw aandacht!

32. Hybrid Mismatch ArrangementsTax Policy and Compliance Issues Carine Stoffels OECD, Centre for Tax Policy and Administration

33. Outline • Introduction • The OECD and tax • Report on Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements: Tax Policy and Compliance Issues (March 2012) 2

34. The OECD (1) • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1961; 20 member countries initially) • A forum where Governments work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation • Today, the OECD has • 34 member countries; Russia on the accession track • Enhanced engagement with: Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa • Co-operative relations with more than 100 jurisdictions • Work done through various committees comprised of delegates from member countries’ governments • Secretariat in Paris (≈ 2500 staff) 3

35. The OECD (2) Current OECD Member Countries Current OECD Member Countries 4

36. The Committee on Fiscal Affairs (CFA) • The OECD’s work in the area of tax is carried out by the CFA • The CFA is a forum where senior policy-makers and administrators can exchange views on tax policy and administrative issues • Its work is intended to enable OECD and non-OECD governments to improve the design and operation of their national tax systems, to promote co-operation and co-ordination among them in the area of taxation and to reduce tax barriers to international trade and investment • Its work programme is carried out by groups of national experts • The Centre for Tax Policy and Administration providestechnical expertise and support to the CFA 5

37. CFA STRUCTURE 6

38. The Aggressive Tax Planning Steering Group (ATP SG) • The ATP SG is currently composed of 22 countries and its main objective is to strengthen international cooperation on countering ATP amongst tax administrations • This objective is achieved through the following methods: • Improve intelligence gathering as to emerging ATP schemes and trends, and enhance the sharing of experiences and best practices on detection and response strategies; and • Act as a centre of expertise for the CFA and its subsidiary bodies on issues relating to ATP and liaise closely with the Forum on Tax Administration • The main output of the ATP SG’s work is the ATP Directory and reports on specific issues • The ATP SG meets twice a year and reports to WP10 7

39. Recent reports in the area of ATP 8

40. Further information • For more information on the OECD’swork in the area of tax, see: • http://www.oecd.org/tax/ • The OECD’sCurrentTax Agenda 2012: Availableat: http://www.oecd.org/ctp/1909369.pdf • For more information on the OECD’swork on aggressivetax planning, see: http://www.oecd.org/ctp/aggressivetaxplanning/atp.htm • For more information on the OECD’s ATP Directory, see: http://www.oecd.org/ctp/aggressivetaxplanning/oecdaggressivetaxplanningdirectory.htm 9

41. Report on Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements (2012) • Report prepared by WP10, with the assistance of its ATP SG • 20 countries participated in the focus group that drafted the report • Report builds on earlier OECD reports • Addressing Tax Risks involving Bank Losses, drafted jointly with the FTA (2010) • Tackling Aggressive Tax Planning through improved Transparency and Disclosure (2011) • Corporate Loss Utilisation through Aggressive Tax Planning (2011) 10

42. Scope of the Report • Unintended double non-taxation/long-term tax deferral (via Double Deduction, Deduction/No inclusion, Foreign tax credit (FTC) generators) • Due to the use of hybrid mismatch arrangements (HMAs), i.e. arrangements exploiting cross-border asymmetries in the tax treatment of financial instruments, entities and transfers • Tax treaty implications of HMAs are outside the scope of the report  WP No. 1 on Tax Conventions and Related Questions

43. Relevance of the Report • HMAs have been encountered in all focus group countries • Transactions often involve massive capital flows - Anecdotal evidence in the Report (e.g. amount of US tax at stake in 11 FTC generators was reported to be US$ 3.5b) • Policy issues: • Tax revenue • Economic efficiency • Competitiveness • Fairness • Transparency

44. Content of the Report • Description of the most common types of HMAs and the effects they aim to achieve • Summary of the tax policy issues raised by HMAs • Description of the policy options to address them, with a focus on domestic law rules which deny benefits in the case of HMAs and countries’ experiences regarding their application • Conclusions and recommendations for tax administrations and tax policy makers

45. Policy options for countries concerned with HMAs • Several domestic law options are available for countries concerned with HMAs: - Harmonisation of domestic laws - General anti-avoidance rules - Specific anti-avoidance rules - Rules specifically addressing HMAs

46. Rules specifically addressing HMAs • A number of countries have introduced rules which specifically deny benefits arising from certain HMAs by «linking» the domestic tax treatment of an entity, instrument or transfer involving a foreign country with the tax treatment in that foreign country • Examples • Rules addressing the multiple deduction of the same expense (DE, DK, NZ, UK, US) • Rules addressing the deduction of payments which are not included in the taxable income of the recipient (DK, UK) • Rules addressing the non-inclusion of income which is deductible at the level of the payer (AT, DE, DK, IT, NZ, UK) • Rules addressing abusive foreign tax credit transactions (IT, UK, US)

47. Country experiences with rules specifically addressing HMAs • Overall, positive experience: effective, positive impact on compliance behaviour (deterrent effect), eliminate uncertainty • Need for constant monitoring to prevent more elaborate schemes being put in place to circumvent rules • Need to refer to corresponding foreign tax treatment may in some cases create difficulties • Mode of application of rules differs across countries • A “tie-breaker” test may be required

48. Conclusions of the Report • HMAs resulting in unintended double non-taxation generate significant policy generate policy issues • The same concern that exists in relation to distortions caused by double taxation exists in relation to unintended double non-taxation • “Linking rules” hold significant potential to address certain HMAs and have recently been introduced by a number of countries • Countries’ experience in relation to “linking rules” is positive but their application needs to be constantly monitored to ensure they apply in appropriate circumstances and are not circumvented through use of even more complex arrangements

49. Recommendations of the Report • Based on these conclusions, and building on the work of the ATP SG, the CFA recommends countries to: • Consider introducing or revising specific and targeted rules denying benefits in the case of certain HMAs; • Continue sharing relevant intelligence on HMAs, the deterrence, detection and response strategies used, and monitor their effectiveness; • Meeting in Montreal on 8-10 May 2012 • Consider the introduction or the revision of disclosure initiatives targeted at certain HMAs

50. Q&A Thank you! Any questions?