Subtotal: R$0,00
The work on BEPS Action 14 continues with today’s publication of the first round of stage 2 peer review monitoring reports, which consists of monitoring the follow-up of any recommendations resulting from jurisdictions’ stage 1 peer review reports.
OECD – BEPS Action 14 on More Effective Dispute Resolution Mechanisms. PEER REVIEW DOCUMENTS. The Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS Action Plan”)1 identified 15 actions to address BEPS in a comprehensive manner. Recognising that the actions to counter BEPS must be complemented with actions that ensure certainty for taxpayers, Action 14 calls for effective dispute resolution mechanisms. In October 2015, the G20 Finance Ministers endorsed the BEPS package2 which includes the report on Action 14: Making Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective3 (“the 2015 Action 14 Report”). This report contains a commitment by countries to implement a minimum standard to ensure that they resolve treaty-related disputes in a timely, effective and efficient manner. All members of the inclusive framework on BEPS4 (“Members”) commit to the implementation of the Action 14 minimum standard and to have their implementation reviewed pursuant to the Terms of Reference and Assessment Methodology agreed by Members. This compilation contains four documents, namely (i) the Terms of Reference; (ii) the Assessment Methodology; (iii) the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) Statistics Reporting Framework; and (iv) the Guidance on Specific Information and Documentation Required to be Submitted with a Request for MAP Assistance. The Terms of Reference translate the Action 14 minimum standard into 21 elements. These elements are complemented by 12 best practices. The best practices are not part of the minimum standard and thus will not affect the assessment of Members. The Terms of Reference assess a Member’s legal and administrative framework, including the practical implementation of this framework to determine how its MAP regime performs relative to the 21 elements in the following four key areas – (A) preventing disputes; (B) availability and access to MAP; (C) resolution of MAP cases; and (D) implementation of MAP agreements. The Assessment Methodology establishes detailed procedures and guidelines for a two-stage approach to the peer review and monitoring process. Stage 1 involves the review of a Member’s implementation of the minimum standard based on its legal framework for MAP and the application of this framework in practice. Stage 2 involves the review of the measures taken by the Member to address any shortcomings identified in its Stage 1 Peer Review. The commitment by Members to implement the Action 14 minimum standard includes a commitment to provide timely and complete reporting of MAP statistics pursuant to an agreed reporting framework. The MAP Statistics Reporting Framework reflects a collaborative approach for the resolution of MAP cases through the adoption of common timeline for both competent authorities to resolve MAP cases. With effect from reporting period 2016, Members will report MAP statistics based on common definitions of terms, common rules on counting of MAP cases; and common reporting of MAP outcomes based on different categories of outcomes. The Action 14 minimum standard also requires Members to publish MAP guidance that identify the specific information and documentation that a taxpayer is required to submit with a request for MAP assistance. Members should not limit access to MAP based on the argument that insufficient information was provided if the taxpayer has provided the required information. The Guidance on Specific Information and Documentation Required to be Submitted with a Request for MAP Assistance could be used by Members in drawing up their own MAP guidance and could also provide guidance to taxpayers in their preparation of a MAP submission.
OECD – Taxing Wages 2019. The OECD’s Taxing Wages 2019 provides unique information for each of the 36 OECD countries on the income taxes paid by workers, their social security contributions, the transfers they receive in the form of cash benefits, as well as the social security contributions and payroll taxes paid by their employers. Results reported include the marginal and average tax burden for one- and two-earner households, and the implied total labour costs for employers. This brochure summarises the main results of this edition by: l presenting an analysis of the average tax wedge in OECD countries in 2018, the changes from the previous year and the trends between 2000 and 2018 for a selection of household types that are covered in Taxing Wages 2019. l presenting a brief analysis of the net personal average tax rate for a single average worker across OECD countries for 2018. Tax wedge for the average worker Table 1 shows that the tax wedge between total labour costs to the employer and the corresponding net take-home pay for single workers without children, at average earnings levels, varied widely across OECD countries in 2018 (see column 1). While in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary and Italy, the tax wedge is 45% or more, it is lower than 20% in Chile, Mexico and New Zealand. The highest tax wedge is observed in Belgium (52.7%) and the lowest in Chile (7.0%). Table 1 shows that the average tax wedge in OECD countries was 36.1% in 2018. The changes in tax wedge between 2017 and 2018 for the average worker without children are described in column 2 of Table 1. The OECD average decreased by 0.16 percentage points. Among OECD member countries, the tax wedge increased in 22 countries and fell in 14. Decreases of more than one percentage point were observed in Estonia (2.54 percentage points), the United States (2.19 percentage points), Hungary (1.11 percentage points) and Belgium (1.09 percentage points). There were no increases exceeding one percentage point and the largest increase was observed in Korea (0.49 percentage points).
Portugal – Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira. Prepare-se para o BREXIT – Para saber mais sobre as implicações em matéria aduaneira e tributária na saída do Reino Unido da UE, sem Acordo. No dia 29 de março de 2017 o Reino Unido da Grã-Bretanha e da Irlanda do Norte, adiante designado por Reino Unido, notificou o Conselho Europeu da sua intenção em se retirar da União Europeia (BREXIT). Para efeitos de regular as condições desta saída foram encetadas negociações entre a União Europeia e o Reino Unido com vista à celebração de um Acordo de Saída que estabelece um período de transição até 31 de dezembro de 2020 durante o qual, e em conformidade com o estabelecido no Acordo de Saída, o Reino Unido continuará a aplicar, e a estar sujeito, ao direito da União. Por força do disposto no artigo 50.º, n.º 2, do Tratado da União Europeia, os Tratados deixam de ser aplicáveis ao Reino Unido a partir da data de entrada em vigor do acordo de saída ou, na falta deste, dois anos após a referida notificação, a menos que o Conselho Europeu, com o acordo do Reino Unido, decida, por unanimidade, prorrogar esse prazo. Na sequência de pedido do Reino Unido, o Conselho Europeu decidiu prorrogar o prazo para permitir a ratificação do Acordo de Saída, nos seguintes termos [Decisão (EU) 2019/584]: Essa prorrogação deverá durar o tempo necessário e, em qualquer caso, nunca deverá ir além de 31 de outubro de 2019; A saída deverá ter lugar no primeiro dia do mês seguinte à conclusão dos procedimentos de ratificação ou em 1 de novembro de 2019, consoante a data que ocorrer primeiro. Informação mais detalhada sobre o BREXIT, nas diversas áreas aduaneiras e tributárias, na página oficial.
Portugal – Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira – INCENTIVOS FISCAIS AO INVESTIMENTO EM PORTUGAL. O presente documento pretende dar uma visão geral dos principais regimes de incentivos fiscais ao investimento aplicáveis em sede de impostos sobre o rendimento e sobre o património, nomeadamente: • Os Benefícios Contratuais ao Investimento Produtivo, o Regime Fiscal de Apoio ao Investimento (RFAI), a Dedução de Lucros Retidos e Reinvestidos (DLRR), o Sistema de Incentivos Fiscais à Investigação e Desenvolvimento (SIFIDE II) e os Benefícios fiscais relativos à Instalação de Empresas em Territórios do Interior, os quais se dirigem a pessoas coletivas; • O Programa Semente, a redução de tributação das mais-valias provenientes da alienação de participações sociais em micro e pequenas empresas e o Regime dos Residentes não Habituais, aplicáveis a pessoas singulares. Estes Benefícios Fiscais visam promover e apoiar o investimento em setores considerados estratégicos da economia, favorecendo o crescimento sustentável, a criação de emprego, o desenvolvimento regional; contribuir para o reforço da estrutura de capital das empresas; e atrair para Portugal pessoas singulares que exerçam atividades de elevado valor acrescentado ou obtenham rendimentos da propriedade intelectual, industrial ou know-how. Este documento eletrónico interativo possui caráter meramente informativo, tendo sido preparado com base na informação disponível na presente data. Face à complexidade dos assuntos abordados, o folheto é de orientação genérica e não dispensa a consulta da legislação e o aconselhamento com as entidades competentes.
Technological solutions offer a clear path for dramatically reducing tax evasion and tax fraud, which cost governments billions in lost revenue annually, according to a new OECD report.
Technology Tools to Tackle Tax Evasion and Tax Fraud demonstrates how technology is currently being used by tax administrations in countries worldwide to prevent, identify and tackle tax evasion and tax fraud. These solutions can offer a win-win: better detection of crime, higher revenue recovery, and synergies that can make tax compliance easier for business and tax administrations.
OECD – TAX DATABASE. UPDATE JUNE 2019. The average tax wedge for all four family types varied significantly between 2000 and 2018. Since 2000, all four family types experienced a continuous decrease in their tax wedge, reaching a temporary low during the financial crisis in 2009. In the three years following the crisis, the tax wedge rose again for all four family types. However, the tax wedge of all four family types is now lower than in 2000. The average tax wedge measures the effective tax rate on labour costs as the difference between the labour costs to the employer and the corresponding net take-home pay of the employee. It equals the sum of personal income tax, employee and employer social security contributions (SSCs) plus any payroll taxes, minus any cash benefits received by the employee, expressed as a percentage of labour costs (gross wages plus employer SSCs and payroll taxes). The tax wedge of the average worker is the highest throughout the observed period, now stabilising at 36%, which is close to but slightly below the level of 2000. A similar trend can be observed for the tax wedge of the two-earner married couple and the tax wedge of the one-earner married couple, which are now at 30.8% and 26.6% respectively. The average tax wedge of the single person with two children earning 67% of the average wage is the lowest of all four family types throughout the whole period. After experiencing a short increase between 2009 and 2013, it has now reached an all-time low of 16.0% of total labour costs.
OECD TRANSFER PRICING STANDARD AND BRAZILIAN APPROACH: THE WAY FORWARD. This one-day-long event will bring together senior officials from the Brazilian government, the OECD, representatives of MNEs operating in Brazil, and major trading and investment partners of Brazil. This event has been organised to highlight an important milestone reached in the joint transfer pricing project between OECD and Receita Federal do Brasil (RFB), which was supported by the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office and focussed on analysing the existing Brazilian transfer pricing rules and comparing them to the international standard represented by the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines. The differences identified were then further assessed from the perspective of meeting the primary objectives of transfer pricing rules as well as from the perspective of other tax policy objectives. Based on the results of this assessment, the project also explored the possibilities for alignment to address the divergences identified. In the relevant sessions, the results of the project between OECD and RFB will be presented and discussed. The event will also provide the opportunity to discuss the possible options for alignment and it will conclude with a roundtable, which should allow for an exchange of views among the panellists. Thursday, 11 July 2019, Brasília, Brazil.
OECD SECRETARY-GENERAL TAX REPORT TO G20 LEADERS. Osaka, Japan June 2019. Since I last reported to you in December 2018, substantial progress took place on all the deliverables in the G20 International Taxation agenda; namely, tax transparency, Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) implementation, addressing the tax challenges arising from the digitalisation of the economy, tax certainty and tax and development. Since its inception in 2008, the G20 has developed a very ambitious tax agenda to improve tax cooperation and transparency and ensure that companies pay their taxes where they carry on their activities. 10 years ago, bank secrecy and opaque structures were used and abused by too many taxpayers across the world to hide their assets and income from tax administrations. Thanks to the efforts of the G20, bank secrecy for tax purposes no longer exists and all financial centres are now engaged in the automatic exchange of financial information (through the OECD’s Common Reporting Standard – CRS). In 2008, only 40 exchange of information agreements between secretive jurisdictions and other countries had been put in place. Today, more than 4500 exchange of information agreements are in force with 90 jurisdictions implementing the CRS in 2018). As a result 47 million offshore accounts – with a total value of around 4.9 Trillion euros – have been exchanged for the first time. This level of transparency in tax matters is unprecedented and ensures that those assets will never escape detection. A small number of jurisdictions have yet to fulfil their commitments to exchange automatically by 2018 at the latest and they are urged to do so without further delay. Beyond these impressive numbers, our action has had a very concrete impact. First, you and other countries in the world have recovered taxes which had been defrauded for too long. For a few years now, I have reported to you the amounts collected from taxpayers coming forward and having disclosed formerly concealed assets and income through voluntary compliance mechanisms and other offshore investigations. The latest update brings the amount to over EUR 95 billion in additional revenue (tax, interest, penalties) from such initiatives, which is an addition EUR 2 billion since November 2018.
OECD – INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE FRAMEWORK FOR MANDATORY DISCLOSURE RULES ON CRS AVOIDANCE ARRANGEMENTS AND OPAQUE OFFSHORE STRUCTURES. 1. Following the approval of the Model Mandatory Disclosure Rules (MDRs) by the OECD’s Committee on Fiscal Affairs and their release on 8 March 2018, Working Party No. 10 has developed the legal and technical information exchange infrastructure that is needed for the exchange of the information collected by tax administrations under the MDRs. 2. This note therefore sets out the international framework that would govern these exchanges, both from a legal and an operational perspective. 3. Part I of this note contains a draft multilateral Competent Authority Agreement for the exchange of MDR reports that has been modelled on the CRS MCAA. 4. In drafting the MCAA, an automatic exchange approach has been adopted, following the approach used for the CRS and CbC exchanges. This has been done in order to ensure that exchanges will be operationalised on the clear and unambiguous legal basis of Article 6 of the Convention and to provide clarity about the scope and periodicity of the exchanged information. The approach in the draft MCAA with respect to the information flows is that exchanges in principle are on a reciprocal basis between two jurisdictions that have implemented MDRs. This has the advantage that only jurisdictions that are familiar with the MDR and thus have a better understanding of the information will be receiving the information. It also provides an incentive for jurisdictions to adopt MDR to benefit from the automatic exchange network.