Tax Professional usually responds in minutes
Our tax advisers are all verified
Unlimited follow-up questions
The global wave of the two-pillar solution to address base erosion and profit shifting (which all the cool kids are calling BEPS 2.0) has reached Singapore.
Singapore will implement Pillar 2 of BEPS 2.0 in 2025, which will require multinational enterprises (MNEs) with local operations to top up their effective tax rate (ETR) in Singapore to 15%.
Many MNEs with Singapore operations currently benefit from tax incentives and enjoy an ETR lower than the upcoming 15%.
It is unclear whether existing incentives and exemptions will continue to apply, and whether Singapore’s territorial basis of taxation will change.
As the full effects of BEPS 2.0 are expected to be felt in 2025 or later, Singapore has chosen a cautious approach to delay implementation until then, giving itself time and a chance to learn from the experiences of other countries before determining the best way forward.
The implementation of Pillar 2 is crucial for Singapore, as it is an opportunity to increase revenue and fortify its fiscal position.
Under Pillar 1, Singapore is expected to lose revenue when profits are reallocated to the countries where markets are located. With a small domestic market, Singapore has to give up taxing rights to bigger markets and receives very little in return.
However, Pillar 2 presents a chance for Singapore to generate more corporate tax revenue, assuming that existing economic activities are retained.
The key to Singapore’s continued success is staying competitive in attracting and retaining investments.
The use of tax incentives may become obsolete or significantly compromised once the effects of BEPS 2.0 are felt.
Singapore has signaled that it will seek to reinvest and strengthen non-tax factors to remain competitive.
Whatever additional corporate tax revenue can be generated from BEPS 2.0 will be reinvested to maintain and enhance its competitiveness. Together with the intended implementation of Pillar 2, Singapore will also review and update its broader suite of industry development schemes.
The lack of details and the delayed implementation of Pillar 2 suggest that policymakers are looking for more information to guide their decisions. If there are additional delays internationally, it is likely that Singapore will adjust its implementation timeline.
Singapore has assured companies that it will continue to engage them and give them sufficient notice ahead of any changes to its tax rules or schemes.
MNEs that may be affected should actively participate in public consultation exercises before the implementation of Pillar 2 in 2025.
Those who currently benefit from an existing tax incentive should consider reaching out early to the relevant authorities if they are concerned about the implications of the new rules.
If you have any queries relating to the Singapore two pillar solution, or Singaporean tax matters more generally, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.
On February 24, 2023, the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission made a decision regarding Skechers’ licensing transaction with its subsidiary, Skechers USA Inc. II (SKII).
The Commission upheld the Department’s assessment that the transaction lacked a valid business purpose and economic substance.
Skechers entered into a license agreement with SKII upon the formation of the subsidiary, which resulted in significant royalty deductions claimed on Skechers’ Wisconsin tax returns. However, the Department disallowed the expense and assessed the intercompany transactions between Skechers and SKII as sham transactions.
The Commission agreed with the Department’s assessment, stating that Skechers failed to prove that the transactions had a valid business purpose other than tax avoidance. While there may have been some non-tax benefits related to intellectual property, Skechers did not consider these before forming SKII. The Commission also found that there was no economic substance to the royalty payments, as Skechers could not provide any evidence of a change in business practices, profitability or intellectual property before and after the creation of SKII and the transactions at issue.
In upholding the Department’s assessments, the Commission determined that Skechers failed to provide persuasive evidence or testimony that the licensing transaction with SKII had a valid business purpose and economic substance.
This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that intercompany transactions have a valid business purpose beyond tax avoidance and demonstrate economic substance. Failure to do so may result in the disallowance of claimed expenses and potential tax assessments.
The UK’s Digital Services Tax (DST), which imposes a 2% tax on the revenues of search engines, social media platforms and online marketplaces, is set to be withdrawn as part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) two-pillar plan to reform international corporate taxation.
The plan, announced on 1 July 2021, will see the UK commit to a 15% minimum level of global tax on large businesses under Pillar Two, in exchange for being able to tax a portion of the profits of the world’s largest businesses that are attributable to consumption in the UK under Pillar One.
The DST was introduced in 2020 as a temporary measure to address the challenges posed by the digital economy to international corporate taxation. The tax has been effective in raising £358m from large digital businesses in the 2020/21 tax year, 30% more than originally forecast.
However, the DST has faced significant international opposition, with the US arguing that digital services taxes unfairly target American firms and are discriminatory.
The compromise agreed with the US covers the interim period between January 2022 and either 31 December 2023 or the date Pillar One is implemented, whichever is earlier.
Under this compromise, the UK is able to keep its existing DSTs in place until the implementation of Pillar One, but US corporations subject to DSTs may receive tax credits against future tax liabilities.
As a compromise, the US has agreed to terminate proposed trade action and refrain from imposing any future trade actions against the UK.
The OECD’s two-pillar plan aims to reform international corporate taxation and make it fit for the digital age.
Pillar One will enable countries to tax a portion of the profits of the world’s largest businesses that are attributable to consumption in their jurisdictions, including the profits of the world’s largest digital businesses.
Pillar Two will introduce a global minimum tax rate of 15% on large businesses to prevent them from shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions.
The UK has committed to ending its DST by the deadline of 31 December 2023 in order to adopt the OECD’s Pillar One model rules from 2024.
The UK government anticipates that it will introduce a domestic minimum tax in the UK to complement Pillar Two, likely to come into effect from 1 April 2024 at the earliest.
The withdrawal of the DST will have implications for digital companies operating in the UK. Businesses that have not yet been found liable for DST but consider that they may be in scope should revisit their DST exposure analysis.
The UK government’s commitment to introducing a domestic minimum tax may also have an impact on the tax liabilities of digital companies operating in the UK.
If you have any queries relating to UK Withdraws Digital Services Tax or tax matters in the UK more generally, then please do not hesitate to get in touch with a UK specalist Native!
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.
The rise of e-commerce has caused tax authorities around the world to struggle with keeping up with the rapid changes in consumer behaviour.
As a result, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has proposed global measures to create a mechanism for the taxation of the digital economy.
This means that suppliers will have to consider their tax obligations in jurisdictions where they may have no physical presence. GCC legislators have made strides in creating a fluid framework to capture the digital economy as part of the taxing rules, which places the responsibility on suppliers to determine the place of supply of the respective electronic services based on the global principle of “use and enjoyment.”
In this article, we will delve deeper into the complexities that have arisen as a result of the change in consumer behavior for e-commerce providers and what it means for tax authorities in the GCC.
As a starter, for those unfiamiliar with GCC, it is worth quickly describing what this refers to. The Gulf Cooperation Council is a political and economic alliance of six Middle Eastern countries:
The article refers to the tax and e-commerce regulations within these countries.
When it comes to the sale of physical goods via e-commerce, tax authorities can track and enforce VAT compliance adequately, as the goods have to be physically imported into the final destination and delivered to the end consumer.
The close relationship between Customs and VAT means that physical goods will seldom result in a VAT revenue loss for tax authorities.
However, in the case of non-resident GCC suppliers selling physical goods to GCC resident customers, the transfer of ownership generally occurs before the goods are shipped to the customer, and VAT will be due upon importation.
In these scenarios, international courier companies are tasked with shipping and delivering goods and will also be responsible for paying any import VAT associated with the importation of the goods, which will later be recovered from the end consumer upon actual delivery.
In this way, the non-resident GCC supplier of goods avoids having to register for VAT in the GCC on the basis that there is someone in the GCC member state who is responsible for paying the import VAT.
However, when it comes to the supply of electronic services via online marketplaces, there are two distinct issues that e-commerce providers face: determining the place of supply of electronic services and the challenges of VAT compliance obligations and enforcement by tax authorities.
GCC tax authorities use the principle of “use and enjoyment” to determine the place of supply in respect of electronic services. When the customer uses and enjoys the electronic service in the GCC, the place of supply will be in the GCC member state, which in turn triggers a VAT obligation.
However, determining the place where the customer uses and enjoys a service is more complex where consumers are able to obtain services from anywhere in the world via online marketplaces.
The use of virtual private networks or other location-masking software makes pinpointing the most accurate location of the online consumer even more challenging.
GCC VAT legislation provides a variety of indicators that can be used as guidance, including:
However, obtaining sufficient evidence to prove the place of use and enjoyment is challenging and requires addressing concerns such as whether meeting one criterion is sufficient to prove the customer’s location, what to do if conflicting pieces of information are obtained, and how many checks are expected to be completed by the supplier.
It is generally supported that the type of evidence to support the place of use and enjoyment should be sufficient to enable an “objective reasonable person” to draw the same conclusion as the supplier.
In conclusion, the rise of e-commerce has caused tax authorities around the world to struggle with keeping up with the rapid changes in consumer behaviour.
GCC legislators have made strides in creating a fluid framework to capture the digital economy as part of the taxing rules, which places the responsibility on suppliers to determine the place
If you have any queries about E-Commerce and Taxation in the GCC or GCC tax matters more generally, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article
The Web 3.0 industry has been expanding in Japan in recent years.
However, uncertainty around the tax treatment of Web 3.0 transactions and cryptoassets in Japan have been problematic for the businesses in this nascent space.
Web 3.0 refers to the next generation of the World Wide Web, which is characterized by a more decentralized, interconnected, and user-centric internet.
It is also known as the decentralized web or the semantic web.
Unlike Web 2.0, which was mainly focused on user-generated content and social networking, Web 3.0 aims to create a more open and decentralized internet using blockchain technology and other distributed systems.
This would allow for more peer-to-peer transactions and communication, reducing the need for centralized intermediaries and creating more privacy and security for users.
Web 3.0 also seeks to provide a more intelligent and personalized web experience, by using artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other technologies to make sense of the vast amounts of data available online. This could lead to more intelligent search engines, personalized content recommendations, and more efficient data processing.
Overall, Web 3.0 represents a significant shift in how we use and interact with the internet, with a greater focus on user control, privacy, and decentralization, as well as more intelligent and personalized web experiences.
One example of the difficulties is for those businesses who would like to issue tokens in Japan.
An illustration of this is that several blockchain companies have avoided issuing tokens in Japan, due to the tax burden derived from the application of the Year-End Mark to Market (MTM) Rules under the Corporation Tax Act (CTA) in Japan.
According to the Payment Services Act, corporations that hold cryptocurrencies that are traded in “active markets” must adhere to certain rules.
These rules require the corporations to update the acquisition price/booked price of their cryptocurrencies to reflect their current fair market values, a practice commonly referred to as “Mark to market (MTM).”
Additionally, any gains or losses resulting from these price updates must be realized at the end of each business year.
Further, there is also uncertainty more generally over the tax treatment of Web 3.0 related transactions.
Starting in 2023, there will be some changes to the tax rules for cryptocurrencies. If a cryptocurrency has been issued but not yet distributed to third parties, it will not be subject to certain tax rules at the end of the year, as long as certain conditions are met. These conditions include technical restrictions on transfer or entrusting the cryptocurrencies to a trustee under specific conditions.
Additionally, if a corporation borrows cryptocurrencies from a third party and sells them but does not buy back the same amount by the end of the year, they will have to recognize any gains or losses as if they had bought back the same amount.
These tax reforms will apply to corporations whose business year starts on or after April 1st, 2023. The specific details of the requirements for the first condition mentioned above will be disclosed in April 2023 or later.
In addition, the NTA (National Tax Agency) in Japan has released the first official guidelines on how NFTs (non-fungible tokens) are taxed.
These guidelines cover:
The guidelines use examples of art NFTs, which are backed by copyrights for digital designs, that have been distributed.
For a foreign business operator distributing NFTs in Japan, the tax treatment will vary depending on the legal characteristics of the NFTs. Therefore, it is recommended to consult with tax experts to determine the tax treatment for each NFT.
Regarding individual income taxes and corporate taxes, the NFT FAQs explain that an person who is UK resident for tax purposes who creates digital art and sells art NFTs related to such digital art through a marketplace in Japan is not subject to Japanese income or corporate taxation.
This is because a person who is not a tax resident in Japan and has no permanent establishment in Japan is generally not subject to Japanese taxation on the income derived from the issuance (first-sale) of NFTs, unless the NFTs are backed by real assets which trigger Japan-sourced income separately.
With regard to consumption taxes (Japanese value added taxes), the NTA deems the issuance of art NFTs as “cross-border provisions of electronic services.”
Therefore, the consideration for the issuance of art NFTs is taxable if the buyer of the art NFTs is an individual located in Japan or a Japanese corporation. A foreign issuer of art NFTs would be subject to consumption taxes in Japan in respect of the primary sale of the issued art NFTs to Japanese purchasers.
For withholding obligations, payment of the consideration for the issuance of art NFTs would generally be subject to Japanese withholding tax levied on royalties.
However, withholding obligations would not be triggered if it is difficult for the purchaser of the art NFTs to distinguish the consideration for the grant of copyrights from the total amount of NFT sales.
Under Japanese tax laws, an individual recipient of assets located in Japan by way of an inheritance/gift from another individual would be subject to inheritance/gift taxes even if the recipient is located outside of Japan.
In the NFT FAQs, NFTs are included in the scope of taxable assets so long as they have an economic value.
Like most jurisdictions around the globe, relevant authorities have been playing catch up in ensuring regulation and tax rules are fit for purpose in the new world of Web 3.0.
If you have any queries about Taxation of cryptoassets and Web 3.0 in Japan or Japanese tax matters in general, then please do get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.
This article discusses a rather unexpected move by the Australian Treasury to tighten tax rules on multinational corporations operating in the country.
Specifically, the Treasury has proposed changes to the way that companies can deduct interest expenses incurred in capitalizing or buying foreign subsidiaries.
Under current rules, Australian companies can deduct interest on money borrowed onshore to invest in foreign subsidiaries or acquire shares in other companies.
However, the proposed changes would remove the ability to deduct interest expenses for investments that generate non-assessable, non-exempt (NANE) income.
This would effectively repeal a provision that has been in place for the past 20 years.
The proposed changes are part of a wider effort to combat profit-shifting by multinational corporations, and are designed to prevent excessive levels of debt being carried by Australian operations.
The changes were unexpected, as they were not part of previous policy proposals or announcements. They are likely to have significant implications for multinational corporations operating in Australia.
Overall, the article provides a comprehensive overview of the proposed changes and their potential impact on multinational corporations operating in Australia.
If you have any queries about this article, or Australian tax issues or tax matters in general, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.
The South Korean government passed a proposed bill in December 2022 that includes some changes to tax laws and enforcement decrees.
Here are the key changes that may affect foreign businesses and investors in South Korea.
Starting on January 1, 2023, the tax rate for each of the four corporate income tax brackets is cut by 1% to promote investment and job creation by businesses.
Starting on January 1, 2024, a parent company may consolidate its subsidiaries in Korea in its tax return if the parent directly and indirectly holds 90% of the issued and outstanding shares (excluding treasury shares). Before the amendment, the shareholding requirement was 100%.
Starting on January 1, 2023, a foreign worker may elect to apply the flat 19% rate (20.9% including local income tax) on his/her personal income tax for 20 years from the date he/she first started working in Korea.
Previously, it was limited to 5 years.
Starting on January 1, 2023, loss carry forward is increased to 80% of the net loss in a given fiscal year.
For small and medium-sized enterprises, it remains the same at 100%.
Starting on January 1, 2023, any dividends received by a company from another domestic company may be excluded from its taxable income according to the rates provided in a table.
In addition, any dividends received by a company from another foreign company may be excluded from its taxable income instead of getting a foreign tax credit if it meets certain criteria.
Starting on January 1, 2023, the five existing employment tax credits will consolidate into two employment tax credits.
For a new regular hire, a higher tax credit is given for hiring the young, the old, the disabled and career-interrupted women.
Foreign workers are excluded.
The timeline of the securities transaction tax reduction has been adjusted.
The imposition of 20% tax on income from transferring or lending digital assets has been postponed by two years and is scheduled to begin on January 1, 2025.
If you have any queries relating to the South Korea Budget, or Korean tax matters more generally, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.
In a recent court case, the Court of Justice in the European Union (EU) has ruled that it is legally acceptable for Italy to impose a withholding tax (WHT) and data-gathering obligations on non-resident online platforms that facilitate short-term property rentals like holiday lets.
However, the obligation to appoint an Italian tax representative liable to pay the WHT was prohibited by the EU law fundamental freedom to provide services.
The ruling has implications for other EU member states with similar rental markets, as they might also be tempted to bring in their own WHT regimes that could impact non-resident platforms.
The case began when Italy introduced three obligations on non-resident platforms in the short-term letting sector in 2017:
(1) collecting income-related data on Italian rentals,
(2) withholding tax on rental income, and
(3) appointing a local tax representative with responsibility for withholding the tax.
Airbnb challenged these rules, arguing that they were incompatible with the freedom to provide services.
The ruling is part of the EU’s ongoing attempts to regulate the economic models of online platforms in areas such as tax and data-protection.
The judgment concerns tax and data-collection and sharing obligations imposed on online platforms and the extent to which tax authorities can use platforms as a de facto compliance arm for the ‘gig’ economy.
The court held that the obligations to collect data and withhold tax at source did not constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services. However, the obligation to appoint a tax representative in Italy was deemed a breach of the freedom to provide services.
The ruling confirms that direct taxation is not an EU-competence yet, and in principle, each member state could introduce its own WHT regime applicable to online platforms.
One key part of the case is DAC 7, a council directive that requires most online platforms to conduct due diligence on their service-providing users and report the information to one or more EU tax authorities.
DAC 7 does not require platforms to act as tax collectors; only as information providers.
In the short-term, the case allows Italy to impose WHT obligations on non-resident platforms.
The long-term implication is that other EU member states might be tempted to introduce their WHT regimes, which could impact non-resident platforms in the medium term.
If you have any queries relating to the Airbnb WHT case or Italian tax matters more generally, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.
Monaco’s fiscal system is based on the principle of a total absence of direct taxation. There are two exceptions to this principal;
Monaco has signed no other bilateral fiscal agreements with other countries.
Monaco residents (except French nationals) are not required to pay taxes on income, betterment or capital gains. For French nationals, two categories exist:
The following rates of inheritance tax apply to assets located in Monaco:
There is no direct tax on companies. Besides the tax on profits mentioned in the previous cases above, companies are not required to pay directly for taxes.
Registration duties are collected from those registering real estate transfers or changes of ownership.
For official civil and judicial acts, fiscal stamps are required. Furthermore, all documents which could be used as evidence in court must be stamped to be valid. Stamp costs vary depending on the document’s format or value involved.
If you have any general queries about this article, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
On 30 June 2022, the Cyprus Parliament approved amendments to the Cyprus Income Tax Law and new Regulations to introduce Transfer Pricing (“TP”) documentation compliance obligations (Master File, Cyprus Local File, Summary Information Table).
The documentation requirements apply to Cypriot tax resident persons and Permanent Establishments (PE’s) of non-tax resident entities that engage in transactions with related parties. The aim of the new law and regulations is to ensure compliance of covered entities with the arm’s length principle.
In addition, the law has been amended to update the definition of related parties by introducing a minimum 25% relationship threshold relevant for companies.
The law amendments and Regulations are effective from the tax year 2022 onwards.
The new transfer pricing law and regulations cover all types of transactions between related parties in excess of €750.000 per category of transaction.
Different types of transactions include sale/purchase of goods, provision/receipt of services, financing transactions, receipt/payment of IP licences/royalties, others.
A relevant notification has been issued by the Cyprus Tax Department (“CTD”) providing (amongst others) the required detailed contents of the Master File and Cyprus Local File.
The Summary Information Table (SIT) must be prepared by all taxpayers that engage in Controlled Transactions on an annual basis, disclosing details regarding such transactions. There is no threshold for the SIT, and this must be submitted electronically together with the Income Tax return for the relevant tax year.
The following exemptions shall apply:
A person who holds a Practicing Certificate from the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Cyprus (ICPAC) or another approved by the Council of Ministers body of certified auditors
in Cyprus is expected to perform a Quality Review of the Cyprus Local File.
The TP Documentation File must be prepared on an annual basis, by the deadline of filing the Income Tax Return for the relevant tax year.
In case of late submission or non-submission of files, the law and regulations prescribe the following penalties:
| Non-submission of Table of Summarized Information within deadline | € 500 |
| Late filing of the Local &/or Master File: | |
| – within the 61st and 90th day from request | € 5,000 |
| – within the 91st and 120th day from request | € 10,000 |
| – after the 121st day from request or non-filing | € 20,000 |
If you have any queries about this Cyprus Transfer Pricing update, or Cyprus tax matters generally, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.