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

Russia: Beneficial ownership concept in Russia: claiming treaty benefits becomes more complicated

Sponsored by

Communicating cross-border mechanisms for DAC6 purposes in a TP adjustment

In April 2018 the Federal Tax Service of Russia issued a letter (Letter No. CA-4-9/8285@) containing guidelines for lower tax authorities on how to use the beneficial ownership concept when applying treaty benefits in Russia.

In April 2018 the Federal Tax Service of Russia issued a letter (Letter No. CA-4-9/8285@) containing guidelines for lower tax authorities on how to use the beneficial ownership concept when applying treaty benefits in Russia. This is the second comprehensive set of guidelines prepared by the tax authorities on this subject (the last set was published in May last year).

The key difference between these two letters is that the prevailing version of the guidelines sets out far more stringent criteria for confirming the beneficial ownership status of foreign companies.

In particular, the Russian tax authorities are requiring that foreign companies that seek to claim treaty benefits in Russia receive active income abroad, and that this income should be used to create an economic profit centre in its country of residence. Activities such as holding assets, intra-group financing, or the provision of services to related parties are specifically marked as not qualifying under the new guidelines.

In addition to confirming the beneficial owner status of a foreign company, withholding tax (WHT) agents (Russian income-paying companies) are required to provide the business justification for why they involved any such foreign company in their structure (or in the transaction), providing evidence of the commercial drivers and risks in the transaction as a whole.

The guidelines re-affirm the trend of the tax authorities to actively combat the use of double taxation agreement (DTA) benefits by foreign companies and structures that do not have sufficient actual and economic presence abroad. This affects primarily those companies with assets and income connected with Russia (foreign holdings, intragroup financial (treasury) centres, etc.), but may also have some negative impact on foreign investors coming to Russia (e.g. through joint venture (JV) structures).

As such, given the recent position of the Russian tax authorities, Russian companies are advised to 'stress test' their income payment structures when foreign companies are involved. If necessary, it might be recommended that the group consider restructuring and strengthening the beneficial owner status of the foreign recipient of income, as well as investigating the possibility of applying the 'look-through approach' when paying income from Russia (i.e. claiming another person in the cash flow as a beneficial owner of the income).

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The Canadian proprietor of Canary Wharf and Manhattan West faces accusations of avoiding tax through subsidiaries in Bermuda and beyond.
The Department of Finance Canada has put forward a package of transfer pricing reforms to clarify existing provisions and address what it says is a disproportionate loss of tax revenue.
Developments included the end of Saudi Arabia’s tax amnesty, Poland’s VAT battle with the EU, the Indirect Tax Forum, India’s WTO complaint, and more.
Charlotte Sallabank and Christy Wilson of Katten UK look at the Premier League's use of 'dual representation' contracts for tax matters.
Shareholders are set to vote on whether the asset management firm will adopt public CbCR, amid claims of tax avoidance.
US lawmakers averted a default on debt by approving the Fiscal Responsibility Act, but this deal may consolidate the Biden tax reforms rather than undermine them.
In a letter to the Australian Senate, the firm has provided the names of all 67 staff who received confidential emails but has not released them publicly.
David Pickstone and Anastasia Nourescu of Stewarts review the facts and implications of Ørsted’s appeal at the Upper Tribunal.
The Internal Revenue Service will lose the funding as part of the US debt limit deal, while Amazon UK reaps the benefits of the 130% ‘super-deduction’.
The European Commission wanted to make an example of US companies like Apple, but its crusade against ‘sweetheart’ tax rulings may be derailed at the CJEU.