Hybrid Entity Mismatches and the International Trend of Matching Tax Outcomes: A Critical Approach

Tax eJournal Pub Date : 2018-12-01 DOI:10.54648/taxi2018104
L. Parada
{"title":"Hybrid Entity Mismatches and the International Trend of Matching Tax Outcomes: A Critical Approach","authors":"L. Parada","doi":"10.54648/taxi2018104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The international tax debate as regards hybrid entities has certainly changed after the OECD BEPS Project. Since then, the trend has been focused exclusively on matching transactions involving hybrids and reverse hybrid entities and double non-taxation, however without questioning whether these two elements are necessarily interconnected or whether they should serve each other in the design of domestic anti-hybrid provisions. This is particularly evident as regards the notion of ‘hybrid (entity) mismatch arrangements’ the design of which is based on the assumption that income should be taxed somewhere – no matter where – and as regards the complex set of domestic solutions proposed (‘linking rules’) the true efficacy of which is nevertheless still unknown. In this vein, this article adopts a critical approach both as regards the diagnosis of the problems and as regards the solutions proposed. As to the diagnosis, the author argues that the artificial attempt to match transactions involving hybrid entities and double non-taxation not only disregards the fundamental issue as regards hybrid entity mismatches (i.e. the disparate tax characterization of the same entity by two different states), but also carries with it the risk of creating presumptions of abusive practices in all those cases in which a hybrid entity structure is simply not taxed at all. As to the remedies, the author argues against the complexity, excessive reliance on foreign laws and potential economic double taxation issues that the implementation of linking rules might cause from a tax policy perspective. From a practical perspective, the author questions the proper interaction between linking rules and other anti-base erosion provisions, such as interest limitations and CFC rules. This article ultimately concludes that a re-orientation in the international debate regarding hybrids and reverse hybrid entities is crucial in order to open the door for more fundamental – and perhaps also more coordinated – solutions.","PeriodicalId":22313,"journal":{"name":"Tax eJournal","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tax eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2018104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The international tax debate as regards hybrid entities has certainly changed after the OECD BEPS Project. Since then, the trend has been focused exclusively on matching transactions involving hybrids and reverse hybrid entities and double non-taxation, however without questioning whether these two elements are necessarily interconnected or whether they should serve each other in the design of domestic anti-hybrid provisions. This is particularly evident as regards the notion of ‘hybrid (entity) mismatch arrangements’ the design of which is based on the assumption that income should be taxed somewhere – no matter where – and as regards the complex set of domestic solutions proposed (‘linking rules’) the true efficacy of which is nevertheless still unknown. In this vein, this article adopts a critical approach both as regards the diagnosis of the problems and as regards the solutions proposed. As to the diagnosis, the author argues that the artificial attempt to match transactions involving hybrid entities and double non-taxation not only disregards the fundamental issue as regards hybrid entity mismatches (i.e. the disparate tax characterization of the same entity by two different states), but also carries with it the risk of creating presumptions of abusive practices in all those cases in which a hybrid entity structure is simply not taxed at all. As to the remedies, the author argues against the complexity, excessive reliance on foreign laws and potential economic double taxation issues that the implementation of linking rules might cause from a tax policy perspective. From a practical perspective, the author questions the proper interaction between linking rules and other anti-base erosion provisions, such as interest limitations and CFC rules. This article ultimately concludes that a re-orientation in the international debate regarding hybrids and reverse hybrid entities is crucial in order to open the door for more fundamental – and perhaps also more coordinated – solutions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
混合实体错配与税收结果匹配的国际趋势:一个关键方法
在经合组织BEPS项目之后,关于混合实体的国际税收辩论无疑发生了变化。从那时起,这种趋势一直只关注涉及混合和反向混合实体以及双重不征税的匹配交易,而没有质疑这两个要素是否必然相互关联,或者在设计国内反混合条款时它们是否应该相互服务。这在“混合(实体)错配安排”的概念上尤其明显,其设计是基于收入应该在某个地方征税的假设——无论在哪里——以及所提出的一套复杂的国内解决方案(“链接规则”),其真正功效仍然未知。在这方面,本文在诊断问题和提出解决方案方面采用了一种批判性的方法。至于诊断,作者认为,人为地试图匹配涉及混合实体和双重不征税的交易,不仅忽视了混合实体不匹配的基本问题(即两个不同国家对同一实体的不同税收特征),而且还带来了在混合实体结构根本不征税的所有情况下产生滥用行为假设的风险。在救济方面,笔者从税收政策的角度论述了衔接规则的实施可能造成的复杂性、对外国法律的过度依赖以及潜在的经济双重征税问题。从实践的角度来看,作者质疑链接规则与其他反基侵蚀规定(如利益限制和CFC规则)之间的适当互动。本文的最终结论是,国际上关于混合和反向混合实体的辩论的重新定位是至关重要的,以便为更根本的——也许也是更协调的——解决方案打开大门。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
New Puzzles in International Tax Agreements Analysts’ GAAP earnings forecast quality Workplace Transformation and Its Tax Compliance Implications Consumption Taxes and Multinational Tax Planning in the Digital Age - Evidence from the European Service Sector Tax Avoidance and Equity Pricing: The Importance of Countries’ Legal Institutions and Disclosure Regulations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1