US Outbound: US issues proposed CbCR regulations

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

US Outbound: US issues proposed CbCR regulations

foley.jpg
Taheri

Sean Foley

Cameron Taheri

On December 21 2015, the US Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released proposed regulations that are designed to coordinate with the model country-by-country reporting (CbCR) template and instructions set forth in Action 13 of the OECD/G20 BEPS Project.

However, some aspects of the proposed regulations represent a more detailed or slightly different approach from the approach delineated in Action 13. The preamble notes that the proposed regulations, while generally consistent with international standards, are tailored to be consistent with the information reporting requirements applicable to US persons under the relevant Code sections pursuant to which they were issued (sections 6001, 6011, 6012, 6031, and 6038).

The proposed regulations provide that US persons that are the ultimate parent entity of a multinational enterprise (MNE) group with annual revenue of $850 million or more for the immediately preceding annual accounting period would be required to file a country-by-country (CbC) reporting form. The CbC reporting form will be based on the Action 13 model template CbC report. The proposed regulations contain the operative provision, relevant definitions, the reporting period, contents of the return, method for reporting financial amounts, time and manner for filing, maintenance of records, exceptions to furnishing information, and effective/applicability dates.

The regulations are proposed to be applicable to tax years of ultimate parent entities of MNE groups beginning on or after the date of publication of the final regulations. Given the late publication date for the proposed regulations, final regulations would not be expected until sometime during 2016, pushing the first reportable period for calendar year MNE groups to 2017. The CbC reporting form is expected to be filed with the ultimate parent entity's timely filed income tax return. This is one year later than the anticipated reporting period. It is important to note that as each local jurisdiction adopts CbCR and issues local legislation/regulations, US MNE groups may have CbCR obligations for 2016 under various local rules, even though there might be no such obligation under US law. This could present important challenges to US MNEs.

The preamble to the proposed regulations echoes language in the OECD's BEPS Action 13 regarding the goals and limitations of CbCR, indicating that while the reports will help the IRS to perform high-level transfer pricing risk identification and assessment, transfer pricing adjustments will not be based solely on a CbC report. The preamble also addresses US taxpayer concerns regarding the confidentiality of information provided on the CbC reports shared around the globe, indicating that for US purposes, information reported pursuant to the proposed regulations constitutes return information under section 6103, which imposes strict confidentiality requirements, and allows the IRS to exchange information only to the extent provided in, and subject to the terms and conditions of, an information exchange agreement.

The preamble notes that the IRS and Treasury enter into such agreements only when they are satisfied with respect to the legal safeguards, enforcement, and penalties provided by the counterparty to the agreement, and that the US competent authority will not enter into a reciprocal automatic exchange of information relationship with another jurisdiction unless it has reviewed that jurisdiction's policies and procedures. Moreover, the IRS and Treasury will pause the automatic exchange of CbC reports with tax jurisdictions that are not meeting their obligations under the applicable information exchange or competent authority agreement.

The information contained herein is of a general nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. Applicability of the information to specific situations should be determined through consultation with your tax adviser.

This article represents the views of the authors only, and does not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG LLP.

Sean Foley (sffoley@kpmg.com) and Cameron Taheri (ctaheri@kpmg.com), Washington, DC

KPMG

Tel: +1 202 533 5588

Fax: +1 202 533 3384

Website: www.us.kpmg.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Complex and constantly shifting rules on global mobility mean ‘the risk is too great’ for staff to work abroad on personal time, EY’s Maureen Flood tells ITR
While it’s great that the OECD is alive to multinationals’ fears of being caught in a compliance trap, the ‘common understanding’ illustrates a worrying lack of readiness
Rising demand for specialist expertise has fuelled the growth in tax partner headcounts, Cain Dwyer found; in other news, Switzerland has been urged to reconsider pillar two
An OECD report on the taxation of the digital economy is expected by the end of 2026, according to the group of nations
Trophy assets are evolving from personal indulgences to structured investments, prompting family offices to prioritise tax efficiency, governance discipline, and cross-border compliance
As demand for complex, cross-border private client counsel spikes, Patrick McCormick sees opportunity in starting from scratch
As part of an exclusive global alliance, KPMG will become one of Anthropic’s ‘preferred consultants’ for private equity
In the second part of this series, the focus shifts to how taxpayers can manage ongoing risks across the lifecycle of cross-border structures
Jurisdictions have moved to ensure that multinationals are not punished for late GIR filings due to a lack of available filing portals or exchange relationships
HMRC’s push for unified tax adviser registration won’t prevent every instance of improper conduct, but it is good for taxpayers and the UK’s reputation
Gift this article