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

Why linking rules not harmonisation will tackle double non-taxation


If tax authorities are to combat double non-taxation then the application of targeted linking rules, and not harmonisation, is the only realistic option.

While harmonisation of tax rules offers a theoretical solution to the problem, it is unlikely to happen anytime soon, meaning tax officials must make linking or matching rules their primary focus in tackling unintended non-taxation.

Senior tax officials from OECD member countries met in Canada this month, to discuss the most effective methods of combating double non-taxation arising from hybrid mismatch arrangements.

In its Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements report, endorsed by all 34 member countries, the OECD recognises that harmonisation of domestic tax laws would eliminate the possibility for companies to exploit mismatches between tax regimes. However, the report also says that such an approach is nigh on impossible in practice.

The European Commission launched a consultation on double non-taxation in the EU in February, which closes next week.

The consultation is looking to find solutions to the problem of taxpayers exploiting differences between member states’ tax laws to avoid tax, though it seems the Commission remains convinced that the common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) would be the best solution.

In an interview with International Tax Review last month, Philip Kermode, Director for Direct Taxation in DG Taxation and Customs, said the most comprehensive way to tackle double non-taxation would be for member states to adopt CCCTB.

But CCCTB, which would be a big step towards harmonising member states’ tax systems, seems a remote possibility at present.

The UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, Poland, Romania, Malta, Bulgaria and Slovenia have all rejected the proposals on grounds of subsidiarity.

If the proposal were to be adopted under enhanced cooperation, it would create further mismatches in tax rules between the opposed member states and those operating under CCCTB. And CCCTB would do nothing to solve mismatches between countries outside the EU.

Harmonisation on a global level may never become a reality.

However, what the recent OECD meeting did show is that there is an emerging global consensus that double non-taxation due to hybrid mismatching is a policy issue which will require increased engagement between tax authorities to solve.

In wholly artificial cases of tax planning, countries are able to use general anti-avoidance rules to challenge them.

However, where taxpayers have arranged transactions with real substance, in such a way that they benefit from double non-taxation, countries must work together to address this.

And tax authorities are recognising that so-called linking rules are the most realistic and effective way to achieve this.

Linking rules fall short of harmonisation, but involve identifying categories of transactions which are using loopholes between two countries’ rules, and matching regulations to prevent it. This involves ensuring that dividends will no longer be tax exempt and interest will no longer be tax deductible in such instances.

Where this is happening it is becoming clear to taxpayers that some structures which take advantage of mismatches are no longer sustainable.

Disclosure initiatives, such as those introduced in the UK and US, are also enabling tax authorities to obtain information required for investigations far more quickly.

The OECD’s recommendations to tax authorities include greater focus on linking rules, continued sharing of intelligence on hybrid mismatch schemes and introduction of disclosure initiatives targeted at certain hybrid mismatch arrangements.

Kermode will develop a policy response on double non-taxation by the end of 2012, following the Commission’s consultation, and he may be well advised to share the OECD’s focus on this issue, rather than tie member states’ hopes to the uncertain future of the CCCTB.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

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.
The OECD has announced that a TP training programme is about to conclude in West Africa, a region that has been plagued by mispricing activities for a number of years.
Richard Murphy and Andrew Baker make the case for tax transparency as a public good and how key principles should lead to a better tax system.