Weekly Tax Matters KPMG LLP (UK) 7 November 2014 contents TAX POLICY • • BEPS Action 7 Discussion Draft – Permanent Establishments BEPS Action 10 Discussion Draft – Low Value-Adding Intra-Group Services CORPORATE TAX • • Vocalspruce - Court of Appeal decision FTT decision on deemed loan transactions EMPLOYMENT TAX • • • Workers win key holiday pay appeal New HMRC guidance on online annual returns for employee share plans Has the RTI dream materialised? PERSONAL TAX • Personal tax summaries to be issued to taxpayers INTERNATIONAL STORIES • • Tax Journal – international round up for October International round up OTHER NEWS IN BRIEF © 2014 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership, is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. TAX POLICY BEPS ACTION 7 DISCUSSION DRAFT – PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENTS The OECD has set out a number of far-reaching proposals that would significantly widen the definition of a permanent establishment. Mario Petriccione +44 (0)20 7311 2747 [email protected] Robin Walduck On Friday 31 October, the OECD published a discussion draft in relation to BEPS Action 7: Artificial avoidance of Permanent Establishment (PE) status. This sets out 13 “Options” to change the definition of PE in the OECD Model, which have the potential to significantly widen the definition of PE, as well as leaving room for uncertainty and potential conflicting tax claims. The proposed changes include: Commissionaire arrangements and similar structures – definition of “dependent agent” Options include a much broader test by reference to whether the activities of the agent result in the conclusion of contracts in the name of the enterprise, or for the transfer of property owned by the enterprise, or for the provision of services by the enterprise. While the discussion draft, in line with earlier BEPS pronouncements, explicitly targets commissionaire structures, it would appear that “flash title” buy-sell structures could also be caught. Specific activity exemptions +44 (0)20 7311 1816 Options include removing the exemption for the storage of goods for delivery; this appears originally focussed on electronic trading, but could have much wider application. Other options would remove the exemption for purchasing activities. A further option would see the exemptions unchanged but would impose a requirement that the activities be of a preparatory or auxiliary character; this requirement may introduce a strong risk of tax authorities arguing that the storage of goods for delivery or the purchasing activities are a core part of the business and cannot therefore be auxiliary or preparatory. [email protected] Anti-fragmentation rules Options include aggregating activities of related parties (including local subsidiaries) in relation to testing the duration of a construction or installation project. The draft does not propose changes to the Commentary, meaning changes would apply from the earlier of a renegotiated treaty, or the proposed Multilateral Instrument pursuant to BEPS Action 15, coming into force. © 2014 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 1 BEPS ACTION 10 DISCUSSION DRAFT – LOW VALUE-ADDING INTRA-GROUP SERVICES The OECD has updated transfer pricing guidelines on intra-group services including simplifications for low value-adding intra-group services. Komal Dhall +44 (0)20 7694 4498 [email protected] Tim Sarson +44 (0)20 7694 4831 [email protected] On 3 November 2014, the OECD published a Discussion Draft titled BEPS Action 10: Proposed Modifications to Chapter VII of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines relating to Low Value-Adding Intra-Group Services. This draft proposes modest changes to the existing guidance on intra-group services and a new section on Low Value-Adding Intra-Group Services (LVS). Combined, these changes to Chapter VII should help taxpayers by challenging tax authorities to meet higher thresholds when contesting an LVS charge. The two main changes to the existing guidance are around shareholder services and what to do in the situation of a duplication of services between a service provider and recipient. The draft expands the list of shareholder services to include items such as parent company tax compliance and stock exchange listing. However, the wording has been softened so a company may be able to charge for services such as assisting with a related party listing whereas previously this would not have been possible. Where services between group companies had similar descriptions to in-house activities, i.e. were duplicated, achieving a deduction was often difficult. In the draft, the OECD proposes a requirement to look “in detail” at the services provided before concluding on whether a charge is appropriate. However, if these services are not “different, additional or complementary” to the recipient’s activities, a deduction for the recipient may still be denied. The proposed LVS regime is elective. LVS are services which are typically supportive, non-core to the group’s operations, do not require the use of/creation of valuable intangibles and do not assume or control significant risks. Examples of services which would fall within LVS are given including HR and administration. Other pragmatic proposals in the draft include: • • • • a three-step method for calculating the LVS charges; reduced documentation requirements; mark-up of 2 percent – 5 percent ; and clarification that annual invoices are appropriate. These proposals on shareholder services, duplication and LVS will be welcomed by many groups seeking clarity on these issues. © 2014 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 2 CORPORATE TAX VOCALSPRUCE - COURT OF APPEAL DECISION The taxpayer has lost at the Court of Appeal in the lead case for an intragroup financing arrangement. Rob Norris +44 (0)121 232 3367 The taxpayer has lost at the Court of Appeal in the lead case for an intra-group financing arrangement (Vocalspruce Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2014] EWCA Civ 1302). Whilst the outcome is the same as at the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT), the Court of Appeal had different reasons for its conclusions. In summary, loan notes (issued at a discount) were transferred intra-group in exchange for shares with a nominal value equal to the accounts carrying value of the loan notes at the time of the transfer. Subsequently, the discount income on the loan notes was initially taken to the profit and loss account and then transferred to the share premium account. The intended benefit was that the borrower would recognise a deduction for the finance charge but the lender would not bring into account taxable income. [email protected] Two arguments were advanced by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). First, it was argued that the profit was required to be taken to share premium account and so was not taxable (applying the legislation relevant at that time). This argument, which had been accepted at both the FTT and UT, was rejected by two of the three judges at the Court of Appeal. The second argument was that the special rule for intra-group transfers of loans, in the form applying at that time, meant that the loan transfer was to be disregarded except for certain limited purposes. It followed from this that there was deemed to be no issue of shares and so no transfer to share premium account. This argument, which had been rejected by the FTT and UT, was accepted by all three judges at the Court of Appeal. It is not yet known whether the taxpayer will appeal. © 2014 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 3 FTT DECISION ON DEEMED LOAN TRANSACTIONS The FTT decision in Biffa (Jersey) Ltd considers the treatment of interest on intra-group transactions. Rob Norris +44 (0)121 232 3367 [email protected] The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) has found for HMRC in a lead case relating to a disclosed scheme - Biffa (Jersey) Ltd. The intention was that the special rules on sale and repurchase of securities would apply to certain intra-group transactions, so as to achieve a deemed interest deduction with no corresponding taxable income. However, it was held that there was deemed interest income corresponding to the deemed interest expense. In case the Tribunal is wrong on this (such that there is a deduction with no corresponding income), consideration was also given to the application of the receipts case of the arbitrage rules because the scheme included a subscription for shares. It was held that these rules would not apply because the company entitled to the deduction did not make a contribution to the capital. As a result, the mismatch would not be countered by the arbitrage rules. Peter Scholes +44 (0)20 7311 8343 [email protected] However, if, contrary to the above, the company entitled to the deduction did make a qualifying contribution to capital, it was held that the other conditions for the receipts case of the arbitrage rules to apply would have been satisfied. It is not yet known whether the taxpayer will appeal. © 2014 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 4 EMPLOYMENT TAX WORKERS WIN KEY HOLIDAY PAY APPEAL The EAT has made a key decision in favour of workers regarding how holiday pay should be calculated. Steve Wade +44 (0)20 7311 2220 [email protected] Ian Goodwin The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has decided that non-guaranteed overtime payments should be included for the purposes of calculating how much holiday pay a worker should receive. The decision was made on the basis that although the employer was not obliged to offer the overtime, the overtime was regularly worked (and paid) and should be treated as normal pay. Whilst this case is good news for workers who work overtime, it will represent an additional cost and increase in administrative burden for some employers. However, it is not all bad news for employers. The EAT has decided how the value of retrospective claims should be limited as follows: • They have decided that the law should be interpreted so that if there is a period of more than 3 months during which the correct payments have been made, Employment Tribunals (ETs) will not have jurisdiction to hear claims. +44 (0)113 231 3227 • • [email protected] Therefore, practically, if employers: have recently amended how they pay holiday pay in anticipation of this decision, then it is unlikely that their employees will be able to claim (unless they have brought one already); and can evidence a period of 3 months during which an employee did not take holiday and therefore an incorrect deduction was not made, this will break the chain in the series of deductions. This will limit the period in respect of which a claim can be made (on an individual basis). In making this assessment, the EAT also decided that workers cannot retrospectively designate holiday as either EU (to which these rules apply) or UK (to which they don't). This is a highly technical argument, but it means that the necessary break in incorrect payments will be easier for employers to show. This aspect of the decision will be a huge relief to employers and bodies representing them. However, it comes with a health warning: it represents a huge departure from a well-established understanding of how unlawful deductions claims are assessed, making it susceptible to appeal. Read more on this story on KPMG’s Employers Club. © 2014 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 5 NEW HMRC GUIDANCE ON ONLINE ANNUAL RETURNS FOR EMPLOYEE SHARE PLANS Employment Related Securities Bulletin 18 contains further guidance on the move to online filing of employee share plan annual returns. Alison Hughes +44 (0)20 7311 2626 [email protected] HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) have published Employment Related Securities (ERS) Bulletin 18. With effect from the current 2014/15 tax year, the previous paper annual returns for employee share plans (Form 42 etc.) have been replaced with a requirement to file online. The first online returns are due by 6 July 2015. HMRC have previously released draft versions of the new online forms. The ERS bulletin sets out some proposed revisions to these forms (and indicates that updated forms will be available for download in the new year). If a company wishes to produce its own version of a form there is a technical guidance note available. The ERS bulletin also provides a link to draft screenshots illustrating the annual return online process and announces the release of a ‘checking service’ that a company can use to ensure that its annual return form is in the correct format. Most companies will want to use this checking service well in advance of the 6 July deadline to identify and rectify errors. The checking service can only be used once a share plan has been registered online (a new requirement to register all share plans, including unapproved and existing plans has been introduced as part of the move to online filing). It appears that the format of the new annual return forms is going to be rigid – for example if a column is expecting a date it does not appear to be possible to write ‘various’ or leave this blank. There also appears to be limited functionality to add subheadings, additional information etc. at this stage, although hopefully this will be addressed before final versions are published. Employers should, if they haven’t already done so, review their processes to ensure they can meet these new requirements. Leaving this to after the year end will probably be too late. © 2014 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 6 HAS THE RTI DREAM MATERIALISED? Steve Wade looks at how far the original objectives of RTI have been achieved. Steve Wade +44 (0)20 7311 2220 1 [email protected] Real Time Information (RTI) went live on 6 April 2013. By September 2014, “over 95 percent of PAYE schemes had joined the system, with 70 percent saying that it is easy to do” according to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). This is a major achievement and has meant significant cultural change for employers, agents and HMRC. In an article for Tax Journal 1, Steve Wade, Director in KPMG in the UK’s Global Mobility Services Practice, compares this success with that of the five original aims of the RTI consultation and suggests that there is still work to be done and further investment required before it can be considered a success for taxpayers. The article also examines the difficulties faced by the Debt Management and Banking team at HMRC as a result of erroneous PAYE debts generated by the RTI system, and considers how the system can be improved. First published in Tax Journal on 31 October 2014. Reproduced with permission. © 2014 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 7 PERSONAL TAX PERSONAL TAX SUMMARIES TO BE ISSUED TO TAXPAYERS The first personal tax summaries detailing income tax and NICs due in respect of the 2013-2014 tax year will be sent out from November. Steve Wade +44 (0)20 7311 2220 [email protected] From 3 November 2014 the Government will be sending out personal tax summaries (PTS) for the first time to around 80 percent of individual taxpayers, approximately 24 million people. Personal tax summaries were first announced at Budget 2012 with a view to increasing transparency around personal tax and helping people to understand how the tax and National Insurance Contributions (NICs) they had paid in the previous year had contributed to public expenditure. The summaries will show total income from employment and total taxable income before tax. If an employee has more than one employer only the combined total employment income will be shown. The PTS is not a tax bill and taxpayers do not have to take any action in response to receiving the PTS. However, taxpayers should be aware that in some instances the figures shown could be incorrect. There are a number of reasons for this, for example where duplicate Real Time Information (RTI) records may have been set up in error, or where amendments have not been processed. We recommend that employees should contact HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) if the employment income figure on their personal tax summary looks substantially different to that which they were expecting. They should not contact their payroll department. HM Treasury’s press release suggests that an employee may not receive a statement if HMRC are waiting for the details of a change of address from an employer. Unfortunately HMRC do not currently accept change of address details from the employer. It is the employee’s responsibility to notify HMRC of any change of address. © 2014 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 8 INTERNATIONAL STORIES TAX JOURNAL – INTERNATIONAL BRIEFING FOR OCTOBER Chris Morgan’s latest summary of international developments. Chris Morgan +44 (0)20 7694 1714 2 [email protected] In the latest of his regular articles for Tax Journal 2, Chris Morgan (Head of Tax Policy and of the EU tax group at KPMG in the UK) rounds up recent international developments. This month’s article looks at: • • • • • The Advocate General opinion on the UK’s cross border group relief rules (the M&S exception); Automatic exchange of information between EU and global tax authorities; Ireland’s 2015 Budget, including announcements on company residency and the proposed ‘knowledge development box’; Swiss corporation tax reform; and The final decision in the Indian Centrica tax case regarding seconded employees creating a permanent establishment. First published in Tax Journal on 31 October 2014. Reproduced with permission. © 2014 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 9 INTERNATIONAL ROUND UP This week: Canadian trust tax changes; BEPS implications for Latin America and Asia Pacific regions; new Vietnamese tax provisions; report on Irish company residency rules; limits proposed to German cross-border hybrid arrangements; and this month’s German Tax Monthly. Every week, KPMG member firms around the world publish updates on developments in their country. In Weekly Tax Matters we’ll highlight a selection that may be of interest to our readers. Americas Canada – Recent changes to the taxation of trusts may impact certain estate planning. Latin America – A report by KPMG International Tax sets out the base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) implications for taxation across the region. More TaxNewsFlash – Americas can be found here. Asia Pacific Asia Pacific – KPMG International have prepared a report on the BEPS impact in the Asia Pacific region. Vietnam – A number of new corporate income tax and VAT provisions have been implemented. More TaxNewsFlash – Asia Pacific can be found here. Europe Ireland – KPMG in Ireland have prepared a report on company residency rules, including the proposed changes. Germany – Legislation has been proposed to limit cross-border hybrid financing arrangements and amend the rules for intra-group transfers. Germany – “Add backs” for trade tax purposes and tax treaties are covered in this month’s German Tax Monthly, prepared by KPMG Germany. More TaxNewsFlash – Europe can be found here. © 2014 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 10 OTHER NEWS IN BRIEF OTHER NEWS IN BRIEF This week: two thirds of the UK’s biggest businesses under HMRC enquiry; David Gauke’s speech at HMRC’s autumn conference; online Gambling Tax Service open; Scottish Taxation breakfast briefing; Employers Club online briefing; latest edition of the consultation tracker; and a rise recorded in workers paid less than the Living Wage. Two thirds of the biggest businesses in the UK are currently under enquiry, according to a press release from HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). The press release emphasises that this highlights both the complexity of the UK tax system and HMRC’s need to scrutinise how companies deal with their tax affairs. David Gauke’s speech at HMRC’s 2014 autumn stakeholder conference sets out progress on “creating a modern and efficient tax system”. HMRC’s online Gambling Tax Service opened on 3 November 2014. Because of changes from 1 December 2014, those who will start to pay General Betting Duty, Pool Betting Duty or Remote Gaming Duty need to register. On 21 November 2014, KPMG in the UK is holding a Breakfast Briefing at our 15 Canada Square office to discuss the implications of prospective changes to the income tax treatment of ‘Scottish Taxpayers’. To register click here. As previously mentioned in Weekly Tax Matters, the Employers’ Club online briefing for November – focusing on salary sacrifice - will be held on 11 November 2014. To register click here. The latest edition of the Weekly Tax Matters consultation tracker can be found here. A modest rise in workers paid less than the Living Wage masks a more uncomfortable truth, according to new research published by KPMG in the UK. © 2014 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 11 www.kpmg.co.uk © 2014 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. The KPMG name, logo and "cutting through complexity" are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
© Copyright 2024