The aim of this article is to assess the regulatory framework of Base Erosion Profit Shifting Project (BEPS) Action 5 in order to evaluate tax incentives in the form of preferential tax regimes... Show moreThe aim of this article is to assess the regulatory framework of Base Erosion Profit Shifting Project (BEPS) Action 5 in order to evaluate tax incentives in the form of preferential tax regimes that provide benefits to geographically mobile business income in developing countries. To conduct this assessment, this article first addresses the use of preferential tax regimes considering BEPS Action 5. Thereafter, and taking into account the concerns expressed by international organizations, regional tax organizations and scholars, the author contends that the evaluation of tax incentives in light of BEPS Action 5 results in additional burden for developing countries. Countries will need to assess their tax incentives considering the factors provided by the 1998 OECD report and BEPS Action 5. Since there are no terms of reference for the application of these factors, the country will have to assess its own tax incentives, which brings increased uncertainty and compliance burden for developing countries. In order to provide some guidance in this evaluation, the author provides a list of the factors used by the 1998 OECD report and BEPS Action 5 and their application to tax incentives. Subsequently, this article will assess the legitimacy of the application of BEPS Action 5 to developing countries and will demonstrate that its assessment framework is ambiguous and prevents developing countries from enacting legitimate tax incentives. Finally, this article will conclude and provide some recommendations for further research. Show less
The approach of the Netherlands to tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance has changed over the course of the years 2015 to 2018. These changes are to a great extent the result of the priority of... Show moreThe approach of the Netherlands to tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance has changed over the course of the years 2015 to 2018. These changes are to a great extent the result of the priority of the Dutch government to ensure that “the Netherlands’ image as a country that makes it easy for multinationals to avoid taxation”is overturned by appropriate measures. As a member of the OECD, the Netherlands has participated in the design of the content of the BEPS Actions and in the BEPS Inclusive Framework. In general, the Netherlands has adopted all BEPS Actions and it has committed to the BEPS Multilateral Instrument for almost all its tax treaty network and with very few reservations. More recently, in February 2018, the State Secretary of Finance published two Policy Letters, one to introduce the Tax Policy Agenda and the other to introduce measures to tackle tax avoidance and tax evasion. The Dutch government has proposed in the Tax Policy Agenda several measures to counteract tax avoidance including the adoption of the EU Anti-Avoidance Tax Directives (ATAD 1 and ATAD 2) with some stricter requirements. If the measure relating to ATAD 1 is approved by the Dutch Parliament, the result will be a stricter rule than the minimum standard of ATAD 1. In order to address the needs of investors, the Netherlands is also proposing favourable rules such as the elimination of the Dutch dividend withholding tax and reduction of the corporate income tax rate. As of July 2018, these measures are still under discussion. Show less
