Search results for

Bob van der Made With the fight against aggressive tax planning, tax fraud, tax avoidance and tax evasion having become a policy priority for the EU, the European Parliament is upping the ante in the heated debate on tax rulings and calls for more tax transparency. On February 12 2015, the European Parliament decided to set up a special committee on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect (TAXE) "to examine practice in the application of EU state aid and taxation law in relation to tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect issued by member states, if such practice appears to be the act of a member state or the Commission". The special committee's mandate is therefore to analyse and examine how EU state aid rules have been applied by the Commission to tax rulings in member states since January 1 1991 (this seems inspired by the Commission's ongoing state aid investigation into Apple; otherwise this date seems arbitrary), and member states' compliance with the EU's directives on mutual assistance (1977) and on administrative cooperation in tax matters (2011), in particular with regard to the spontaneous exchange of information on tax rulings. It should be noted, however, that member states are only effectively obliged to spontaneously exchange information on cross-border tax rulings under certain circumstances under the EU Directive on administrative cooperation in tax matters since 2013. According to the Commission's statistics, member states haven't actually really done this in practice, however.

Rajendra Nayak

Giuliano Foglia

Samantha Schmitz-Merle Pierre Gramegna, Luxembourg Finance Minister, announced on March 3 2015 that Luxembourg will amend its intellectual property (IP) exemption regime by 2016 to bring it in line with the so-called 'modified nexus approach', as approved by the G20 and the OECD in February 2015. The amendment of the existing rules will have no retroactive effect on existing IP structures: Luxembourg taxpayers with an IP structure in Luxembourg which benefit from the existing regime will be granted a transitory period ending on June 30 2021 during which they will still be able to benefit from the current regime (grandfathering rule). A draft law is expected to be released in the course of this year.

While Sweden may be seen as effectively preventing base erosion through limiting interest deductions, the effects on businesses and investments must be carefully scrutinised before being considered in other countries, argue Hussein Abdali and Tord Fredriksson of Grant Thornton.

May’s instalment of his column sees Keith Brockman, global tax director at Mars, lecturer and author of the Strategizing Multinational Tax Risks blog, look at the problems that may arise for taxpayers given the timing differences applicable for different documentation and reporting requirements, and what options are available for reconciling these.

The introduction of the UK's diverted profits tax (DPT) on April 1 2015 has dismayed tax practitioners and their multinational clients. Rushed through parliament (ahead of its dissolution before the general election) it seemed intended to appease public anger at multinationals failing to pay their 'fair share' of tax. It has been roundly criticised for its breadth and complexity, for the speed with which it has been introduced, for the lack of public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, and for pre-empting the multilateral response to tax avoidance of the G20/OECD BEPS Project. DLA Piper's Stephen Jones asks whether the DPT has created a cloud of uncertainty to cover the previous decade’s climate of reform favourable to global business.

A $6.4 billion bill has landed on taxpayers’ MATs A seemingly positive exemption on Indian minimum alternative tax (MAT) for foreign portfolio investors turned sour when Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced back-taxes of more than $6.4 billion on 100 foreign investors into India, with thousands more still at risk. The announcement has caused some investors to decry the government's promises of a taxpayer-friendly regime. In his Budget speech in February, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley announced that foreign investors would be MAT exempt from April 1 2015, though did not immediately make clear that investors would face tax bills on transactions before this date. Amid earlier concerns about tax liabilities, the Indian government assured foreign investors they would not be liable for the tax, which was introduced for the sole purpose of taxing domestic Indian companies. However, asset managers and other investors are now worried that tax demands from the Indian authorities will soon be landing on their desks.

Partho Shome’s 30-year career as a tax official and adviser to Indian governments and multilateral organisations may be at an end for now, but he will still take a keen interest in tax policy, as this exclusive interview with International Tax Review reveals.

Carrie Aiken