Trust Bloomberg Tax for the international news and analysis to navigate the complex tax treaty networks and global business regulations.
By James J. Tobin, Esq. Ernst & Young LLP New York, New York
So the European Union is at it again. There is a lot to keep up with these days what with all of the BEPS proposals and the November release of the promised Multilateral Treaty Instrument by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, varying progress on implementation steps for Base Erosion and Profit Shifting taking place at the country level, and the increased prospect of U.S. tax reform after the election of Donald Trump. But obviously the E.U. doesn't want to be forgotten either, so it has been active in proposing Directives inspired by the BEPS agenda — although not always completely in line with the OECD's BEPS recommendations. So far the E.U. has produced two versions of so-called Anti-Tax Avoidance Directives, a proposal for public disclosure of country-by-country reporting data and some nasty State Aid decisions likely with more to come. In November it added a re-proposal of Directives on the Common Corporate Tax Base (“CCTB”) and the Consolidated Common Corporate Tax Base (“CCCTB”), which was last proposed in 2011 as a single proposition. These are now being proposed in two phases — first the double C, which would establish a common approach to the computation of taxable income across the E.U.; and a second phase, the triple C, which would require consolidated filing in the E.U .and apportionment of income among all E.U. member states.
I critically commented on the original 2011 proposal as overly ambitious, impractical and less than fully thought through. Obviously, I was not the only critic; a number of E.U. countries were opposed and indeed the current re-proposal states that the original “CCCTB proposal, being a very ambitious project, would be unlikely to get adopted in its entirety….” So the conclusion of the E.U. was not to abandon the plan but instead to repackage it in the two parts described above. The expectation was that countries should be committed to both elements and thus that the full CCCTB should still be adopted across the E.U. in the “near” term. (And by the way, the new proposal would be mandatory — not optional.) It seems like I am not alone in thinking that a consolidated apportionment system is not a good idea for driving investment growth in the European Union. But it also seems like European Commission authorities with entrenched views are not listening. Perhaps the thinking was that with the E.U. exit of the United Kingdom, which had been critical of the original proposal, this was another opportunity to push it through.
I'll focus this commentary on the CCTB, and not on the triple C proposal on consolidation. While consolidation raises the most concern, I feel there is enough not to like about a mandated common tax base and hope that countries and commentators are vocal about that and do not wait until “round 2” to start expressing their concerns.
First of all, let me point out that as a directive, the adoption of the CCTB requires unanimous consent by all 28 countries that currently are members of the European Union. It is possible to adopt tax principles by way of “enhanced cooperation,” which could be done on a majority basis, but the principles would then apply only in countries that agree to it. In the case of the CCTB or CCCTB, it seems clear that the enhanced cooperation route will not be and is not appropriate to pursue, so adoption of the plan would be all or nothing. I'll point out some double C areas where I feel countries should object. But, historically, some larger E.U. countries — notably Germany, France and Italy — have been supportive of CCCTB. If they are on board, a veto by a smaller country is likely politically difficult. And while the United Kingdom will be at the table for the next few years as it negotiates its “Brexit,” it cannot realistically exercise a veto. On the whole the United Kingdom may not be bothered by some impractical E.U. rules if it will no longer be a part of that club going forward. In fact, the United Kingdom has been promoting itself as open for business and a good investment destination. I believe the way they implemented the Diverted Profits Tax and are proposing to implement the hybrid mismatch rules is very investor-unfriendly and go well beyond an arm's-length standard. But there are potential aspects of the CCTB which have similar features. If I were the United Kingdom and eager to attract business post-Brexit, I might be pleased to see a complex and potentially overreaching E.U. system implemented. Overall, I do think that the CCTB contains a lot to be concerned about. I'll give some examples in this commentary.
So what is the CCTB all about? The goal is to implement a common corporate tax base (but not a common tax rate) across all 28 E.U. countries. The Proposed Directive to accomplish this is 53 pages including explanations. For a U.S. tax guy used to the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code and Regulations, boiling down all aspects of a corporate tax system to 53 pages seems impossible. By definition, there must be lots of details which need to be left to the countries to implement or which must be further articulated by the E.U. technical staffs which could either create lots of inconsistences (which means not such a “common” corporate tax base) or be potentially scary if left to the European Commission to figure out.
Let's go through some of the details of the proposals to see how scared we should get.
As for deductions allowed in computing the CCTB, business costs would generally be deductible with some interesting points below:
Four seemingly favorable provisions are included:
The CCTB proposal does include the various anti-avoidance provisions included in the E.U. ATAD proposals.
So overall, it doesn't seem to me that a very common corporate tax base is anywhere near assured based on the high-level definitions and concepts provided. All the E.U. countries have working corporate systems of their own which are based on their overall policy objectives as well as how they have decided to set their tax rate. I admit that, as a U.S. practitioner, I am used to detailed rules. Maybe the idea here is more along the lines of a principles-based approach with high-level minimum standards for dealing with difficult or potentially tax-abusive areas. But it doesn't seem like that's the idea. The explanatory introduction to the proposed directive in relation to the anti-avoidance elements of the ATAD states that “the norms would need to be part of a common E.U. wide corporate tax system and lay down absolute rules, rather than minimum standards.” So these vague provisions with lots of open questions seem to be the E.U.’s idea of absolute rules. And if the high-level open questions are meant to be interpreted consistent with certain principles, I'm worried about the principles that various E.U. tax authorities who seem to be revenue focused and seem to have developed an entrenched view of many multinationals as unscrupulous tax avoiders have in mind. So in my view, this is not a very favorable proposal for companies. And I see little upside for E.U. countries to go through the complex, sovereignty ceding process of adopting the vague but complex system in anticipation of an even more complex consolidation and apportionment system, which will certainly produce distinct winners and losers among the E.U. member states.
Copyright © 2017 Tax Management Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)