Borrow it

The Resource Hybrid mismatch arrangements : a myth or a problem that still exists?

Hybrid mismatch arrangements : a myth or a problem that still exists?

Resource Information

The item Hybrid mismatch arrangements : a myth or a problem that still exists? represents a specific, individual, material embodiment of a distinct intellectual or artistic creation found in International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation.
This item is available to borrow from 1 library branch.

Summary: An analysis of the tax treatment of financial instruments in EU Member States, and the disclosure of actual political responses to aggressive tax planning by the OECD and the European Union. In recent months, a fierce discussion on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), in particular concerning the use of hybrid financial instruments, has been rumbling. In addition to the OECD Report released under Action 2, the European Commission has also made its contribution to the fight against "international tax arbitrage" by issuing Directive (2014/86/EU) amending the Parent-Subsidiary Directive. The authors investigate various tax classification criteria of financial instruments in each EU Member State, and indicate the causes of qualification conflicts leading to unintended double non-taxation. The article provides a detailed examination of the operation of the proposed "linking rules" at the OECD and EU level. In this context, the authors address the question whether the solutions published by the OECD and the EU are an effective tool in the prevention of qualification conflicts, and whether, in the absence of a tie-breaker rule, the interrelation of these approaches may lead to double taxation. Further, it will be examined whether the newly introduced standards are able to ensure international coherence in corporate income taxation

Work

Label: Hybrid mismatch arrangements : a myth or a problem that still exists?

Title: Hybrid mismatch arrangements : a myth or a problem that still exists?

Summary: An analysis of the tax treatment of financial instruments in EU Member States, and the disclosure of actual political responses to aggressive tax planning by the OECD and the European Union. In recent months, a fierce discussion on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), in particular concerning the use of hybrid financial instruments, has been rumbling. In addition to the OECD Report released under Action 2, the European Commission has also made its contribution to the fight against "international tax arbitrage" by issuing Directive (2014/86/EU) amending the Parent-Subsidiary Directive. The authors investigate various tax classification criteria of financial instruments in each EU Member State, and indicate the causes of qualification conflicts leading to unintended double non-taxation. The article provides a detailed examination of the operation of the proposed "linking rules" at the OECD and EU level. In this context, the authors address the question whether the solutions published by the OECD and the EU are an effective tool in the prevention of qualification conflicts, and whether, in the absence of a tie-breaker rule, the interrelation of these approaches may lead to double taxation. Further, it will be examined whether the newly introduced standards are able to ensure international coherence in corporate income taxation

http://library.link/vocab/creatorName

Geographic coverage

http://library.link/vocab/subjectName

Label: Hybrid mismatch arrangements : a myth or a problem that still exists?

Label: Hybrid mismatch arrangements : a myth or a problem that still exists?

Visit the Library

IBFD Library AmsterdamBorrow it

Rietlandpark 301, Amsterdam, 1019 DW, NL

52.3736660 4.9336932

Structured data from the Bibframe namespace is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License by International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation. Additional terms may apply to data associated with third party namespaces.