International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Evolution of Russia's beneficial ownership concept understanding

Sponsored by


Dmitry Garaev and Anastasia Avdonina analyse the Russian Federal Tax Service's interpretation of the concept of beneficial ownership.

On April 28 2018 the Federal Tax Service (FTS) issued Letter Number SA-4-9/8285@ concerning the beneficial ownership concept. The letter is addressed to the subordinated tax offices. In its letter, the FTS set out its observations of arbitration court practice relating to the beneficial ownership concept and provided its view on what criteria should be met by a company in order to be regarded as a beneficial owner.

Aspects of the letter are quite disputable and trigger various new questions. Despite this, the letter is notable since it shows the evolution of the authorities' understanding of the beneficial ownership concept. The Russian tax authorities insisted for 25 years (up until April 9 2014 when the Finance Ministry issued Letter Number 03-00-R3/16236) that beneficial ownership in a treaty sense could be evidenced by a document giving the legal right to receive Russian-sourced income. After the issuance of the letter and subsequent amendments to the Tax Code, Russia adopted the more usual sense of the concept with an emphasis on a substance-over-form approach, implying that the recipient of the income is regarded as its beneficial owner if the recipient has the right independently to use and (or) dispose of that income.

In practice, when auditing, the authorities required recipients of Russian-sourced income to demonstrate not only that they had the right to use and dispose of the income independently, but also that they had a sufficient (in the authorities' view) level of substance. In the new letter of April 28, the authorities stated that the beneficial ownership concept is a universal tool which applies to any cross-border transactions in order to prevent tax base erosion and profit shifting. In the authorities' view, when reviewing the application of the concept, in addition to other factors, it is crucial to analyse the circumstances surrounding the incorporation of the foreign recipient and its financing and operating activity. If the recipient does not carry out entrepreneurial activity, this may indicate its artificial nature. The receipt of investments and the financing of related parties are not evidence enough that the recipient carries out independent entrepreneurial activity.

The FTS treats the analysis of the foreign recipient's activity as one of the key factors for the assessment of its beneficial owner status. In practice, following the higher authority's view provided in the letter, the lower tax offices – instead of analysing whether the recipient determines the economic fate of income received, its functions and risks – may focus on examining whether the recipient carries out entrepreneurial activities independently. If this is deemed not to be the case, the authorities may seek to deny the use of a treaty benefit. The 'independent carrying out of entrepreneurial activity' requirements sound very similar to the 'active conduct of a business' test envisaged by the Simplified Limitation of Benefits (S-LOB) provisions. Unlike the S-LOB provisions, which require the involved treaty countries' agreement, the use of the 'universal' limitations imposed by beneficial ownership does not require reaching such an agreement. The interpretation of beneficial owner status provided in the letter may allow the authorities to apply the concept to a wider range of transactions than one may expect.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Two months since EU political agreement on pillar two and few member states have made progress on new national laws, but the arrival of OECD technical guidance should quicken the pace. Ralph Cunningham reports.
It’s one of the great ironies of recent history that a populist Republican may have helped make international tax policy more progressive.
Lawmakers have up to 120 days to decide the future of Brazil’s unique transfer pricing rules, but many taxpayers are wary of radical change.
Shell reports profits of £32.2 billion, prompting calls for higher taxes on energy companies, while the IMF warns Australia to raise taxes to sustain public spending.
Governments now have the final OECD guidance on how to implement the 15% global minimum corporate tax rate.
The Indian company, which is contesting the bill, has a family connection to UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak – whose government has just been hit by a tax scandal.
Developments included calls for tax reform in Malaysia and the US, concerns about the level of the VAT threshold in the UK, Ukraine’s preparations for EU accession, and more.
A steady stream of countries has announced steps towards implementing pillar two, but Korea has got there first. Ralph Cunningham finds out what tax executives should do next.
The BEPS Monitoring Group has found a rare point of agreement with business bodies advocating an EU-wide one-stop-shop for compliance under BEFIT.
Former PwC partner Peter-John Collins has been banned from serving as a tax agent in Australia, while Brazil reports its best-ever year of tax collection on record.