Pillar One

Subscribe to Pillar One

On February 19, 2024, the OECD Inclusive Framework on BEPS published its long-awaited final report on Pillar One – Amount B.[i]  The report details guidance on the “simplified and streamlined approach” (formerly known as Amount B) for applying the arm’s length principle to certain “baseline marketing and distribution activities.”  While offering some potential benefits in terms of reducing the need for comparables analyses and avoiding some disputes about comparables selection and adjustments, it is nevertheless narrow in scope, complex in application, and will likely give rise to inconsistencies in implementation throughout the world and more controversy. Continue Reading Amount B: Some Benefits, More Burdens

A girl looks up at the ceiling, under the columns of the Athenian Academy

At a recent conference, individuals from the U.S. Treasury were very explicit in their desire to receive comments on the Progress Report on Amount A of Pillar One, which was released by the OECD on July 11, 2022.  Comments are due on August 19, 2022.  The next public consultation is September 12, 2022.

The Progress Report represents the current state of progress on Amount A.  While many issues have been agreed to and the debate has been narrowed for others, work remains to be done by the Inclusive Framework to reach a final agreement on how exactly Amount A will be effectuated. Continue Reading Report on the Progress Report on Amount A of Pillar One – Comments Very Much Wanted

On May 27, 2022, the OECD released two public consultation documents related to the tax certainty aspects of Amount A.  The first, entitled Pillar One – A Tax Certainty Framework for Amount A (the Amount A Draft), proposes new mechanisms for multinational enterprises (MNEs) to obtain certainty on different aspects of Amount A.  The second, entitled Pillar One – Tax certainty for issues related to Amount A (the Related Issues Draft), proposes a mandatory binding dispute resolution mechanism for issues related to Amount A, including transfer pricing and the attribution of profits to permanent establishments (PEs).  Given the potential for Amount A to result in uncertainty, disputes and double taxation, these proposed mechanisms will be of critical importance to in-scope and potentially in-scope MNEs.  Such MNEs should further note that both the Amount A Draft and the Related Issues Draft provide a short two-week public comment period that closes on June 10, 2022. Continue Reading OECD Releases Public Consultation Documents on Tax Certainty Aspects of Amount A: Comments Due June 10, 2022

The European Commission has repeatedly expressed its ambition to implement the Two-Pillar agreement in a coherent and consistent way across Member States. On December 22, 2021, a mere two days after the Inclusive Framework released its Pillar Two package, the EC proposed a Directive to implement Pillar Two for large multinational groups operating in the European Union. The Directive would implement the GloBe Model rules only, leaving Pillar One for another time.

The proposal sets out how the effective tax rate will be calculated per jurisdiction, and includes binding rules that will ensure large groups in the EU pay a 15% minimum rate in every jurisdiction in which they operate. The design elements of the Directive consist of the OECD Model rules and the -still to be released-Commentary and detailed implementation guidance. The Commission proposes that the Directive be finalized by the middle of 2022 and transposed into national law in Member States and effective on January 1 ,2023. The timetable envisaged by the Commission is ambitious and raises an issue with regard to the OECD process. Indeed the explanatory Commentary is not scheduled to be released by the OECD before January or February and the implementation guidance will not be available until then end of 2022 or even early 2023.

It remains to be seen whether the EU is overly ambitious particularly in light of the fact that the US legislation that would implement Pillar Two is delayed and uncertain.Continue Reading EU Sets Pillar Two In Motion

In ancient Rome, a college of “augurs” would predict the future by observing the flight patterns of birds, examining the entrails of animal sacrifices, or interpreting natural phenomena. While perhaps less colorful, our method of divination will hopefully be a little more precise. To develop this blog post, we have consulted our own augurs and have summarized all our predictions for transfer pricing developments in the coming year.
Continue Reading Looking Forward: Predictions for 2022

On October 13, 2021, the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors issued a Communiqué formally endorsing the political agreement reached by 136 countries of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (IF) on a two-pillar framework to dramatically change the taxation of multinational enterprises (MNEs). The  Communiqué calls on the IF…

As discussed in prior blog posts, Amount A will apply as an overlay to the existing profit allocation rules. As the profit of an MNE group is already allocated under the existing profit allocation rules, a mechanism to reconcile the new taxing right (calculated at the level of a group or segment) and the existing profit allocation rules (calculated at an entity basis) is necessary to prevent double taxation.  This is the purpose of the mechanism to eliminate double taxation from Amount A. To reconcile the two profit allocation systems, it identifies which entity or entities within an MNE group bears the Amount A tax liability, which effectively determines which jurisdiction or jurisdictions need to relieve the double taxation arising from Amount A. This mechanism is based on two components: (i) the identification of the paying entity or entities within an MNE group or segment; and (ii) the methods to eliminate double taxation.
Continue Reading OECD’s Pillar One Blueprint: Elimination of Double Taxation

Column Blue Sky

Amount B aims to standardize the remuneration of related party distributors that perform baseline marketing and distribution activities in a manner that is aligned with the arm’s length principle. Its purpose is two-fold: First, Amount B is intended to simplify the administration of transfer pricing rules for tax administrations and reduce compliance costs for taxpayers. Second, Amount B is intended to enhance tax certainty and reduce controversy between tax administrations and taxpayers.

Pillar One assumes that distribution and marketing activities would be identified as in-scope based on a narrow scope of activities, set by reference to a defined “positive list” and “negative list” of activities that should and should not be performed to be considered in scope. Quantitative indicators would then be applied to further support and validate the identification of in-scope distributors. It is anticipated that amount B could be based on return on sales, with potentially differentiated fixed returns to account for the different geographic locations and/or industries of the in-scope distributors. Given the narrow scope of Amount B, there is currently no provision for Amount B to increase with the functional intensity of the activities of in-scope distributors. Amount B would not supersede advance pricing agreements or mutual agreement proceeding settlements agreed before the implementation of Amount B.

Under one proposal, the implementation of Amount B would operate under a rebuttable presumption, namely, that an entity that acts as a buy/sell distributor and performs the defined baseline marketing and distribution activities qualifying for the Amount B return would render it in scope, but that it will be possible to rebut the application of Amount B by providing evidence that another transfer pricing method would be the most appropriate to use under the arm’s length principle. While one group of OECD members prefers a narrow approach, another group prefers a broader approach that would also provide standardized remuneration for commissionaires or sales agents, or for distribution entities whose profile differs from the baseline marketing and distribution activities discussed below.Continue Reading OECD’s Pillar One Blueprint: Amount B

Overview.  As discussed in prior blog posts, Amount A is a proposed new taxing right over a share of residual profit of MNE groups that fall within its defined scope.  The calculation and allocation of Amount A will be determined through a formula that is not based on the Arm’s Length Principle (ALP).  The formula will apply to the tax base of a group (or segment where relevant) and will involve three components:  Step 1:  a profitability threshold to isolate the residual profit potentially subject to reallocation;  Step 2: a reallocation percentage to identify an appropriate share of residual profit that can be allocated to market jurisdictions under Amount A (the “allocable tax base”); and Step 3: an allocation key to distribute the allocable tax base amongst the eligible market jurisdictions (i.e. where nexus is established for Amount A).  This three-step formula to determining the Amount A quantum could be delivered through two approaches:  a profit-based approach or a profit margin-based approach.  A profit-based approach would start the calculation with the Amount A tax base determined as a profit amount (e.g. an absolute profit of EUR 10 million) whereas a profit-margin approach would start the calculation with the Amount A tax base determined as a profit margin (e.g. a PBT to revenue of 15%).  Both approaches would apply the three steps of the allocation formula similarly, and hence would deliver the same quantum of Amount A taxable in each market jurisdiction.
Continue Reading OECD’s Pillar One Blueprint: Profit Allocation

South And North America - Flight Routes, Global Connections, Coronavirus - Focus On USA and Brazil

The Pillar One revenue sourcing rules determine the revenue that would be treated as deriving from a particular market jurisdiction. The rules would be relevant in applying the scope rules, the nexus rules and the Amount A formula. The sourcing rules are reflective of particularities of Automated Digital Services (ADS) and Consumer Facing Businesses (CFB) and more broadly were designed to balance the need for accuracy with the ability of in-scope MNEs to comply, without incurring disproportionate compliance costs. This is proposed to be achieved through the articulation of sourcing principles, supported by a range of specific indicators, subject to a defined hierarchy (likely to be of particular importance in connection with third party distribution). This approach of providing a range of possible indicators within the hierarchy recognizes the different ways MNEs currently collect information in the context of their business model, while still providing certainty to MNEs and tax administrations that the defined set of acceptable specified indicators can be relied upon to provide acceptable outcomes.

To source the relevant in-scope revenue to a market jurisdiction, a sourcing principle would be identified for each type of in-scope revenue, accompanied by a list of acceptable specific indicators an MNE will use to apply the principle and identify the jurisdiction of source. For example, for the direct sale of consumer goods, the principle would be to source the revenue based on the jurisdiction of final delivery of the goods to the consumer, and the acceptable indicator would be the jurisdiction of the retail store front where the consumer good is sold or shipping address.

The acceptable indicators would be organized in a hierarchy. The MNE should generally use the indicator that is first in the hierarchy, as this will be the most accurate. However, an MNE may use an alternative indicator that appears second in the hierarchy, if the first indicator was not reasonably available or if the MNE can justify that the first indicator was unreliable, and so on with the remaining indicators. This approach is intended to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to accommodate the different ways that MNEs collect information. Information would be considered unreliable if it is not within the MNE’s possession, and reasonable steps have been taken to obtain it but have been unsuccessful. Information would be considered unreliable if the MNE can justify that the indicator is not a true representation of the principle in the source rule.

The MNE would need to justify and document its approach and include it in the standardized documentation package to be developed as part of the broader work on tax certainty. It is expected that an in-scope MNE would need to retain documentation describing the functioning of its internal control framework related to revenue sourcing, containing aggregate and periodic information on results of applying the indicators for each type of revenue and in each jurisdiction, and explaining the indicator used and, if relevant, why a secondary indicator was applied instead (such as the steps taken to obtain information or why a primary indicator was considered unreliable).Continue Reading OECD’s Pillar One Blueprint: Revenue Sourcing Rules