BEPS has become a serious problem as gaps between tax systems in different countries are exploited by multinational enterprises to make profits ‘disappear’ or shift to low tax jurisdictions and tax havens. Tax planning has turned into core business for many companies and practices such as transfer pricing are catered to by an entire industry. Globalisation and digital economy exacerbate this problem and international tax rules designed to prevent double taxations have ended up facilitating double non-taxation as well. BEPS lead to annual national revenue losses from 4-10 per cent of global corporate income tax revenues, i.e., $100-240 billion annually, according to a research conducted by OECD since 2013.
These new measures intend taxing enterprises “where economic activities take place and where value is created.” Model provisions have been developed to prevent treaty abuse, including through treaty shopping for which a number of countries work like hubs. Transfer pricing rules have been reinforced, according to the OECD.
This set of 15 measures will be introduced for the renovation of international tax standards and will be presented to and are likely to be adopted by the G20 Finance Ministers on the October 8 in Lima. The instrument will be open for signature to all interested countries in 2016 for information exchange to start from 2017-18. According to OECD, there is large scale consensus for these treaties.
MNEs such as Amazon and Starbucks have announced tax policy shifts to fall in line with BEPS. It’s being hailed as “the most significant rewrite of the international tax rules in a century”. But critics say BEPS will fail to reach the stated objective of ensuring that multinational corporations pay their taxes ‘where economic activities take place and value is created’.
| BEPS AT A GLANCE |
|
“There will be some amount of strengthened cooperation and more information about what’s going on for tax administrations in OECD and G20 countries,” Tove Ryding of Eurodad, a network of 46 NGOs from 20 European countries, told Businesss Standard. "But this action plan doesn’t abolish patent boxes, in fact, it legitimises their use; there’s no agreement on the use of the profit-split method; transfer pricing guidelines are turning more and more complex and the outcome on country by country report is weak," said Ryding. He feels the lack of clarity in rules is likely lead to an increase in conflicts between tax administrations and multinational corporations. India had earlier said mandatory binding arbitration to resolve tax treaties disputes will impinge on its sovereign rights.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
)