Latest Documents

  • 27-July-2017


    Neutralising the Effects of Branch Mismatch Arrangements, Action 2 - Inclusive Framework on BEPS

    This 2017 report sets out recommendations for branch mismatch rules that would bring the treatment of these structures into line with the treatment of hybrid mismatch arrangements as set out in the 2015 Report on Neutralising the Effects of Hybrids Mismatch Arrangements (Action 2 Report). Branch mismatches arise where the ordinary rules for allocating income and expenditure between the branch and head office result in a portion of the net income of the taxpayer escaping the charge to taxation in both the branch and residence jurisdiction. Unlike hybrid mismatches, which result from conflicts in the legal treatment of entities or instruments, branch mismatches are the result of differences in the way the branch and head office account for a payment made by or to the branch. The 2017 report identifies five basic types of branch mismatch arrangements that give rise to one of three types of mismatches: deduction / no inclusion (D/NI) outcomes, double deduction (DD) outcomes, and indirect deduction / no inclusion (indirect D/NI) outcomes. This report includes specific recommendations for improvements to domestic law intended to reduce the frequency of branch mismatches as well as targeted branch mismatch rules which adjust the tax consequences in either the residence or branch jurisdiction in order to neutralise the hybrid mismatch without disturbing any of the other tax, commercial or regulatory outcomes. The annexes of the report summarise the recommendations and set out a number of examples illustrating the intended operation of the recommended rules.
  • 22-December-2016


    Limiting Base Erosion Involving Interest Deductions and Other Financial Payments, Action 4 - 2016 Update - Inclusive Framework on BEPS

    The mobility and fungibility of money makes it possible for multinational groups to achieve favourable tax results by adjusting the amount of debt in a group entity. The 2015 Report established a common approach which directly links an entity’s net interest deductions to its level of economic activity, based on taxable earnings before interest income and expense, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA). This approach includes three elements: a fixed ratio rule based on a benchmark net interest/EBITDA ratio; a group ratio rule which allows an entity to deduct more interest expense based on the position of its worldwide group; and targeted rules to address specific risks. Further work on two aspects of the common approach was completed in 2016. The first addressed key elements of the design and operation of the group ratio rule, focusing on the calculation of net third party interest expense, the calculation of group-EBITDA and approaches to address the impact of entities with negative EBITDA. The second identifies features of the banking and insurance sectors which can constrain the ability of groups to engage in BEPS involving interest, together with limits on these constraints, and approaches to deal with risks posed by entities in these sectors where they remain.
  • 23-September-2016


    Public comments received on the discussion draft on branch mismatch structures under Action 2 of the BEPS Action Plan

    The OECD publishes the comments received on the discussion draft on branch mismatch structures under Action 2 of the BEPS Action Plan.

  • 5-May-2015


    Public comments received on discussion draft on Action 3 (Strengthening CFC Rules) of the BEPS Action Plan

    On 3 April 2015, interested parties were invited to comment on the discussion draft on Action 3 (Strengthening CFC Rules) of the BEPS Action Plan. The OECD is grateful to the commentators for their input and now publishes the comments received.

    Related Documents
  • 3-April-2015


  • 31-March-2015


  • 16-September-2014


    Neutralising the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements

    This report sets out recommendations for domestic rules to neutralise the effect of hybrid mismatch arrangements and includes changes to the OECD Model Tax Convention to address such arrangements. Once translated into domestic law, the recommendations in Part 1 of the report will neutralise the effect of cross-border hybrid mismatch arrangements that produce multiple deductions for a single expense or a deduction in one jurisdiction with no corresponding taxation in the other jurisdiction. Part 1 of the report will be supplemented by a commentary, which will explain the recommended rules and illustrate their application with practical examples. Part 2 of the report sets out proposed changes to the Model Convention that will ensure the benefits of tax treaties are only granted to hybrid entities (including dual resident entities) in appropriate cases. Part 2 also considers the interaction between the OECD Model Convention and the domestic law recommendations in Part 1.
  • 7-May-2014

    English, PDF, 13,441kb

    Comments action 2 Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements

    Comments on Action item 2 - Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements

    Related Documents
  • 13-March-2013


    Aggressive Tax Planning based on After-Tax Hedging

    While after-tax hedging is not, of itself, aggressive - being generally a straightforward risk management technique - the report recognises that it can also be used as a feature of aggressive tax planning (ATP) schemes. ATP schemes based on after-tax hedging pose a threat to countries’ revenue base.

    Related Documents
  • 5-March-2012


    Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements: Tax Policy and Compliance Issues

    Aggressive Tax Planning is an increasing source of concern for many governments. This report describes the most common types of hybrid mismatch arrangements (i.e. arrangements exploiting differences in the tax treatment of instruments, entities or transfers between two or more countries) and the effects they aim to achieve. It summarises the tax policy issues raised by these arrangements and describes the policy options to address.

  • 1 | 2 > >>