All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

Netherlands: Guidance on MLI tie breaker rule to determine tax residency

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_piper.png
The dual residency measure in the MLI results in some uncertainty

Roderik Bouwman and Tim Mulder of DLA Piper Netherlands explain the Dutch implementation of the Multilateral Instrument and how this is being used to deal with existing dual residency situations.

As of January 1 2020, the Multilateral Instrument (MLI) applies to several bilateral tax treaties concluded by the Netherlands. At present, 22 tax treaties by the Netherlands are covered under the MLI.

The MLI helps to fight against base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) by implementing tax treaty related measures developed through the OECD BEPS project in existing bilateral tax treaties in a synchronised and efficient manner.



One of the measures in the MLI provides that where a person other than an individual that is a resident of both tax treaty states – a dual resident person, the competent authorities of the tax treaty states shall endeavor to determine by mutual agreement the tax treaty residency of that person. In the absence of such agreement, such a dual resident person shall not be entitled to treaty benefits.



Till the MLI became applicable, most tax treaties concluded by the Netherlands provided that the place of effective management of a company was decisive in determining a dual resident entity’s tax treaty residency, under the ‘corporate tie breaker rule’. In some tax treaties, the tax treaty residency of a dual resident person required mutual agreement between the competent authorities.



The dual residency measure in the MLI results in more uncertainty about the tax residency of dual resident persons and entitlement of treaty benefits. On December 20 2019, the Netherlands therefore published a decree setting procedures for a mutual agreement procedure (MAP) and how to deal with existing dual residency situations.



Procedures



Generally the relevant tax treaty provides the procedures for a MAP. In most cases, a request for a MAP should be filed by the taxpayer within three years following the moment it noticed not receiving treaty benefits due to its dual residency status. The request should be filed in the jurisdiction where the taxpayer is resident, meaning a dual resident person can file the request in both jurisdictions. 



In the Netherlands, a MAP should be filed with the International Fiscal Affairs department of the Dutch tax authorities. The Dutch competent authorities aim to finalise the MAP within six months after all relevant information is received although they are dependent on the collaboration from the foreign competent authorities as well. During the MAP, the dual resident person is not entitled to treaty benefits.



Part of the MAP outcome is to decide from which moment the dual resident person is entitled to treaty benefits. In this respect, Dutch competent authorities have a preference from the moment the dual residency arises.

Grandfathering existing situation



The Dutch decree provides that in the following two scenarios it is undesirable requiring a dual resident person to request a new MAP to determine its tax treaty residency.



First, if the tax treaty residency is determined based on the corporate tie breaker provision in the tax treaty whereby the place of effective management is decisive. If in this situation there has been no change in facts and circumstances, and the tax treaty residency of the dual resident person is implicitly approved by the competent authorities of both states, no new MAP under the MLI MAP tiebreaker has to be filed. Implicit approval includes situations where both competent authorities issue tax assessments for the dual resident person and accepting the same tax treaty residency.



Secondly, if the tax treaty residency is determined based on an existing MAP and both competent authorities already have reached to an agreement about the tax treaty residency, no new MAP under the MLI MAP tie breaker has to be filed.



Noted that the Dutch tax authorities can still require a new MAP and deny tax treaty benefits in case of treaty abuse. Furthermore, the decree only provides the position from the Netherlands and therefore foreign competent authorities still may require a new MAP.



Comments



The intention of the Netherlands to accept the tax treaty residency of dual resident persons in certain situations is very positive in light of the uncertainty arising from the MLI MAP provision and temporary denial of treaty benefits. However since the grandfathering of certain dual resident persons is only the position of the Netherlands, other competent authorities still may require a new MAP. Therefore, it is important to keep monitoring if a Dutch taxpayer is a dual resident person from the other competent authorities’ perspective and still needs to file a request for a MAP to be entitled to tax treaty benefits. 






Roderik Bouwman

T: +31 0 20 5419 894

E: roderik.bouwman@dlapiper.com



Tim Mulder

T: +31 0 20 5419 276

E: tim.mulder@dlapiper.com

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Corporations risk creating administrative obstacles if the pillar two rule is implemented too soon, sources say.
Important dates for the Women in Business Law Awards 2023
The Italian government published plans to levy capital gains tax on cryptocurrency transactions, while Brazil and the UK signed a new tax treaty.
Multinational companies fear the scrutiny of aggressive tax audits may be overstepping the mark on transfer pricing methodology.
Standardisation and outsourcing are two possible solutions amid increasing regulations and scrutiny on transfer pricing, say sources.
Inaugural awards announces winners
The UN’s decision to seek a leadership role in global tax policy could be a crucial turning point but won’t be the end of the OECD, say tax experts.
The UN may be set to assume a global role in tax policy that would rival the OECD, while automakers lobby the US to change its tax rules on Chinese materials.
Companies including Valentino and EveryMatrix say the early adoption of EU public CbCR rules could boost transparency of local and foreign MNEs, despite the short notice.
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2023 ITR Tax Awards in Asia-Pacific, Europe Middle East & Africa, and the Americas.