Kerangka Inklusif OECD/G20 tentang BEPS Action 5 terdiri dari 4 konten tindakan spesifik dan Kerangka Transparansi atau Kerangka untuk meningkatkan transparansi terkait dengan keputusan merupakan salah satu konten tindakan spesifik yang menjadi prioritas kedua setelah Rezim Pajak Preferensial. Kerangka Transparansi dirilis dalam bingkai meningkatkan transparansi, termasuk pertukaran informasi secara spontan yang bersifat wajib atau informasi yang sebelumnya tidak diminta tetapi mungkin relevan bagi pihak lain mengenai keputusan tertentu. Keputusan adalah setiap nasehat, informasi atau usaha yang diberikan oleh otoritas pajak kepada wajib pajak atau kelompok wajib pajak tertentu mengenai situasi perpajakannya.Kerangka Transparansi terutama didasarkan pada laporan bab 5 tahun 2015 dan setiap tahunnya dilakukan peer review mengenai Pertukaran Informasi Peraturan Perpajakan. Proses peer review dan pemantauan dilakukan oleh Forum Praktik Pajak Berbahaya (FHTP) sesuai dengan Kerangka Acuan dan Metodologi, dengan semua anggota berpartisipasi dengan kedudukan yang setara. Kerangka Acuan (KAK) dipecah menjadi aspek empat, yang mencakup elemen-elemen kunci dari kerangka transparansi yang tercantum di bawah ini, sedangkan rincian KAK terdapat di Bagian Lampiran:
- Proses pengumpulan informasi;
- Pertukaran informasi;
- Kerahasiaan informasi yang diterima;
- Statistik.
Untuk menerapkan kerangka transparansi, metodologi yang ditetapkan dengan mekanisme prosedur dimana memohon akan menyelesaikan observasi sejawat termasuk proses pengumpulan data yang relevan, persiapan dan persetujuan laporan, penerbitan observasi dan proses tindak lanjut. Metodologi ini bertujuan untuk mengumpulkan poin-poin data yang relevan dengan observasi sejawat dengan menggunakan kuesioner standar, yang dikirim ke mengirimkan yang ditinjau serta rekan-rekannya (yaitu, anggota lain dari Kerangka Kerja Inklusif BEPS). Oleh karena itu, FHTP memutuskan untuk meneruskan upaya peningkatan transparansi dalam tiga langkah:
- Langkah pertama fokus pada pengembangan kerangka pertukaran informasi spontan yang wajib sehubungan dengan keputusan yang berkaitan dengan preferensi rezim. Kerangka kerja ini ditanamkan dalam Kemajuan FHTP tahun 2014 yang memperjelas bahwa kerangka kerja ini bersifat dinamis dan fleksibel dan pekerjaan lebih lanjut akan dilakukan.
- Pada langkah kedua, FHTP telah mempertimbangkan apakah transparansi dapat ditingkatkan lebih lanjut dan mempertimbangkan rezim yang berkuasa di negara-negara anggota. Pekerjaan ini, yang meliputi kuesioner yang diisi oleh anggota negara-negara mengenai praktik-praktik pemerintahan yang ada, telah memberikan informasi bagi perkembangan lebih lanjut dari kerangka pertukaran informasi spontan yang bersifat wajib. Hal ini menghasilkan kesimpulan bahwa persyaratan untuk melakukan pertukaran informasi secara spontan harus mencakup semua kasus di mana tidak adanya pertukaran keputusan dapat menimbulkan kekhawatiran BEPS.
- Pada langkah ketiga, FHTP mengembangkan kerangka praktik umum terbaik untuk merancang dan menjalankan rezim yang berdaya.
Dengan menggabungkan langkah pertama dan kedua, OECD menyetujui kerangka kerja wajib pertukaran informasi secara spontan sehubungan dengan keputusan yang diambil. Hal ini mencakup enam kategori peraturan khusus wajib pajak yang jika tidak ada pertukaran informasi spontan yang bersifat wajib dapat menimbulkan kekhawatiran BEPS sehingga memerlukan kerangka kerja ini. Keenam kategori tersebut adalah:
(i) Keputusan-keputusan yang berkaitan dengan rezim preferensial: FHTP telah menyetujui mengenai pertukaran informasi wajib mengenai keputusan-keputusan yang berkaitan dengan rezim preferensial. Pendekatan filter digunakan untuk putusan-putusan tersebut sehingga terdapat kewajiban untuk secara spontan bertukar informasi mengenai putusan-putusan khusus wajib pajak lintas negara terkait dengan rezim yang (i) berada dalam lingkup kerja FHTP; (ii) bersifat preferensial; dan (iii) memenuhi faktor tarif pajak efektif yang rendah atau tidak ada sama sekali
(ii) Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) or other cross-border unilateral rulings in respect of transfer pricing: Unilateral APAs are APAs established between a tax administration of one country and a taxpayer in its country. Unilateral APAs and other unilateral tax rulings are in the scope of covered rulings because in the absence of transparency they can create distortions and may give rise to BEPS concerns and either directly or indirectly impact on the tax position in another country. In some countries, unilateral APAs can adjust profits both upwards and downwards from the starting position.
(iii) Cross-border rulings providing for a downward adjustment of taxable profits; Cross-border rulings providing for a unilateral downward adjustment to the taxpayer’s taxable profits that is not directly reflected in the taxpayer’s financial/commercial accounts. In such cases, effective exchange of information is particularly important in order to give other countries the opportunity to apply their transfer pricing rules. In many cases the affected country will not be able to determine if such adjustment has been made because the adjustment is made in a domestic tax computation without being reflected in an enterprise’s accounts or it is made retrospectively. Excess profits rulings, informal capital rulings and other similar rulings recognize the contribution of capital or an asset, generally by the parent company or another related party and provide an adjustment that reduces the taxable profits through a deemed interest deduction in the case of an interest free loan.
(iv) Permanent Establishment (PE) rulings: This covers rulings that explicitly determine or decide on the existence or absence of a PE (either inside or outside of the country) or any ruling that provides for how much profit will be attributed to a PE.
(v) Related party conduit rulings: This includes rulings that cover arrangements involving cross-border flows of funds or income through an entity in the country and whether those funds or income flow to another country directly or indirectly. Indirect conduit arrangements include arrangements whereby a lower tier domestic entity receives cross-border income payments from underlying operating companies. Then it pays as an interest payment on a loan to a higher tier domestic entity or entity that owns an interest in the company and leaving a small taxable margin in the lower tier entity. The higher tier entity is treated as a tax transparent entity under domestic law and only has non-resident partners thereby avoiding taxation. The effect of this is an interest deduction in the underlying operating companies with no corresponding income pick-up in domestic entities (except the small margin) or in the non-resident partners. Therefore, this framework intended to debunk such harmful tax practice by obligating member states to be transparent on such rulings and minimize the chance of interest deduction under related party conduit agreement.
(vi) Any other type of ruling agreed by the FHTP that in the absence of spontaneous information exchange gives rise to BEPS concerns.
The following best practices are intended to reinforce the transparency advancements made in the OECD framework for compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on rulings:
1. Process of granting a ruling
Official rules and administrative procedures for rulings should be identified in advance and published. Tax rulings should be issued only within the limits of the country’s relevant domestic tax law and administrative procedures. Tax rulings should respect applicable international obligations that are incorporated into domestic tax law.
2. Term of the ruling and subsequent audit/checking procedure
APAs should only be for a fixed period of time and should be subject to review before being extended. Taxpayers should notify the tax authority about any material changes in the facts or circumstances on which a taxpayer-specific ruling (including an APA) was based, as soon as possible. Effective administrative procedures should be in place to periodically verify that the factual information relied upon and assumptions made when granting taxpayer-specific rulings remain relevant throughout the period of validity of the ruling. Rulings should be subject to revision, revocation or cancellation
3. Publication and exchange of information
General rulings should be published and made easily accessible to other tax administrations and taxpayers. For taxpayer-specific rulings, where the ruling issued falls within the scope of the OECD framework for compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on rulings or other applicable commitment to exchange
Under BEPS Action 5, participating jurisdictions have agreed to regularly Exchange information on certain Tax Rulings (ETR). In doing so, a dedicated Extensible Markup Language (XML) Schema and User Guide have also been developed to provide structured feedback on received exchange of tax rulings (ETR) information. The current version of the ETR XML Schema and User Guide, as well as the related Status Message Schema and User Guide, is applicable for all exchanges until 31 March 2020, whereas the second, new version will be in use as from 1 April 2020. The ETR Status Message XML Schema will allow tax administrations to provide structured feedback to the sender on frequent errors encountered with a view to improving overall data quality and receiving corrected information.
The requirement field for each data element and its attribute indicates whether the element is validation or optional in the ETR Status Message XML Schema.:
- “Validation” elements MUST be present for ALL data records in a file and an automated validation check can be undertaken. The sender should do a technical check of the data file content using XML tools to make sure all validation elements are present.
- “Optional” elements are, while recommended, not required to be provided and may in certain instances represent a choice between one type or another, where one of them must be used.
- “Optional (Mandatory)” are Certain elements, such as the Original Message Ref ID element, indicating that the element is in principle mandatory, but is only required to be filled in certain cases (i.e. to the extent the Original Message Ref ID is available). The User Guide further details these situations and the criteria to be used.
In Indonesia, domestic regulations had been designed by the government to adopt 10 of the 15 BEPS action plans, namely. The BEPS 5 action plan, which contains harmful tax practices, is implemented through Regulation of the Director General of Taxes Number Per-24/Pj/2018 concerning Procedures for Spontaneous Exchange of Information in the Context of Implementing International Agreements.[1] Later, according to all of the review Indonesia has met all aspects of the terms of reference (ToR) for the calendar year 2017-2021 that can be met in the absence of rulings being issued and no recommendations are made. As no rulings issued no rulings within the scope of the transparency framework and no peer input was received in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from Indonesia. Therefore, Indonesia as a member of International Regime of OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework has been a good example of nation that oblige and harmonize itself to the international system in term of transparency framework to tackle harmful tax practice of action 5.
TBrights is a tax consultant in Indonesia which currently is an integrated business service in Indonesia providing comprehensive tax and business services
By Olina Rizki Arizal
Partner
ATTACHMENTS I
TERM OF REFERENCE (TOR) FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE PEER REVIEWS OF THE ACTION 5 TRANSPARENCY FRAMEWORK[2]
The terms of reference are broken down into four elements, which capture the key elements of the transparency framework:
- the information gathering process;
- the exchange of information;
- confidentiality of information received;
- statistics.
- The Information Gathering Process
Jurisdictions should collect information relating to the tax rulings that are in the scope of the transparency framework. In particular:
- Jurisdictions should identify tax rulings within the scope of the transparency framework. This requires:
- Identifying tax rulings that are (i) rulings related to a preferential regime; (ii) cross-border unilateral advance pricing agreements (APAs) and any other cross-border unilateral tax rulings (such as an advance tax ruling) covering transfer pricing or the application of transfer pricing principles; (iii) cross-border rulings providing for a unilateral downward adjustment to the taxpayer’s taxable profits that is not directly reflected in the taxpayer’s financial / commercial accounts;1 (iv) permanent establishment rulings; or (v) related party conduit rulings.
- Identifying for each of these categories of tax rulings those that are past rulings and future rulings
- For jurisdictions with IP regimes, identifying taxpayers benefitting from the third category of IP assets; new entrants benefitting from grandfathered IP regimes, regardless of whether a ruling is provided; and taxpayers making use of the option to treat the nexus ratio as a rebuttable presumption
- With respect to each tax ruling in scope, jurisdictions should identify all jurisdictions for which the tax ruling would be relevant. This requires:
- Identifying the following jurisdictions:
- Jurisdictions of residence of related parties with which the taxpayer enters into a transaction covered by the ruling, or which gives rise to income from related parties benefiting from a preferential treatment;
- The jurisdiction of residence of the immediate parent of the taxpayer;
- The jurisdiction of residence of the ultimate parent of the taxpayer;
- For PE rulings, the jurisdiction of the head office;
- For conduit rulings, the jurisdiction of residence of the ultimate beneficial owner of the payment.
- With respect to past rulings,6 if all jurisdictions for which the tax ruling would be relevant cannot be identified, jurisdictions should record and report instances of the use of the “best efforts approach.
- Jurisdictions should have in place a review and supervision mechanism to ensure that all relevant information is captured adequately, taking account of the separation of taxing powers between different levels of government.
- The Exchange of Information
Jurisdictions should undertake compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on the tax rulings within the scope of the transparency framework that requires:
- Having a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information and exchange of information on request;
- Having international exchange of information instruments that:
- Are in force and effect; and
- Permit spontaneous exchange of information on the relevant tax rulings and the subsequent exchange of the relevant tax rulings on request.
- Ensuring that each of the mandatory fields of information required in the template contained in Annex C of the Action 5 Report are present in the information exchanged
- Ensuring that the information is in the form of the template contained in Annex C of the Action 5 Report or the current OECD XML Schema and in accordance with the current OECD XML Schema User Guide.
- Putting in place appropriate systems to ensure that information on rulings is transmitted to their competent authority responsible for international exchange of information without undue delay.
- Ensuring the information to be exchanged is transmitted to the relevant jurisdictions in accordance with the following timelines:
- For past rulings, as soon as possible for those Inclusive Framework members that joined, and jurisdictions of relevance identified by 1 September 2017 as well as developing countries (non-financial center) that requested additional time for the implementation, that still have to complete the identification and exchange of information on past rulings and for which recommendations on these specific aspects of the terms of reference have been issued and not yet addressed.
- For future rulings, as soon as possible and no later than three months after the tax ruling becomes available to the competent authority.
- Ensuring that subsequent requests by another jurisdiction for a copy of a tax ruling made in connection with the transparency framework is responded to, or a status update is provided, within 90 days of the receipt of the request.
- Confidentiality
With respect to information on rulings received under the transparency framework, jurisdictions should ensure that the information received is kept confidential. This requires:
- Having international information exchange mechanisms which provide that any information received should be treated as confidential and, unless otherwise agreed by the jurisdictions concerned, may be disclosed only to persons or authorities (including courts and administrative bodies) concerned with the assessment or collection of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, or the determination of appeals in relation to, the taxes covered by the exchange of information clause:
- Having the necessary domestic law to give effect to the restrictions contained in the international exchange of information instrument:
- Having effective penalties for unauthorized disclosures of confidential information;
- Ensuring confidentiality in practice; and
- Respecting the terms of the international exchange of information instrument, including the limitation on use of information received for taxable periods covered by the agreement.
- Statistics
Jurisdictions should keep statistics on the exchange of information under the transparency framework. This requires:
- Reporting the total number of spontaneous exchanges sent under the framework.
- Reporting the number of spontaneous exchanges sent by category of ruling.
- Reporting, for each category of ruling exchange, a list identifying which jurisdictions information was exchanged with.
ATTACHMENTS II
TERM OF REFERENCE (TOR) FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE PEER REVIEWS OF THE ACTION 5 TRANSPARENCY FRAMEWORK[3]
The terms of reference are broken down into four elements, which capture the key elements of the transparency framework:
- the information gathering process;
- the exchange of information;
- confidentiality of information received;
- The Information Gathering Process
Jurisdictions should collect information relating to the tax rulings that are in the scope of the transparency framework. In particular:
- Jurisdictions should identify tax rulings within the scope of the transparency framework. This requires:
- Identifying tax rulings that are (i) rulings related to a preferential regime; (ii) cross-border unilateral advance pricing agreements (APAs) and any other cross-border unilateral tax rulings (such as an advance tax ruling) covering transfer pricing or the application of transfer pricing principles; (iii) cross-border rulings providing for a unilateral downward adjustment to the taxpayer’s taxable profits that is not directly reflected in the taxpayer’s financial / commercial accounts;1 (iv) permanent establishment rulings; or (v) related party conduit rulings.
- Identifying for each of these categories of tax rulings those that are past rulings and future rulings
- For jurisdictions with IP regimes, identifying taxpayers benefitting from the third category of IP assets; new entrants benefitting from grandfathered IP regimes, regardless of whether a ruling is provided; and taxpayers making use of the option to treat the nexus ratio as a rebuttable presumption
- With respect to each tax ruling in scope, jurisdictions should identify all jurisdictions for which the tax ruling would be relevant. This requires:
- Identifying the following jurisdictions:
- Jurisdictions of residence of related parties with which the taxpayer enters into a transaction covered by the ruling, or which gives rise to income from related parties benefiting from a preferential treatment;
- The jurisdiction of residence of the immediate parent of the taxpayer;
- The jurisdiction of residence of the ultimate parent of the taxpayer;
- For PE rulings, the jurisdiction of the head office;
- For conduit rulings, the jurisdiction of residence of the ultimate beneficial owner of the payment.
- With respect to past rulings,6 if all jurisdictions for which the tax ruling would be relevant cannot be identified, jurisdictions should record and report instances of the use of the “best efforts approach.
- Jurisdictions should have in place a review and supervision mechanism to ensure that all relevant information is captured adequately, taking account of the separation of taxing powers between different levels of government.
- The Exchange of Information
Jurisdictions should undertake compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on the tax rulings within the scope of the transparency framework that requires:
- Having a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information and exchange of information on request;
- Having international exchange of information instruments that:
- Are in force and effect; and
- Permit spontaneous exchange of information on the relevant tax rulings and the subsequent exchange of the relevant tax rulings on request.
- Ensuring that each of the mandatory fields of information required in the template contained in Annex C of the Action 5 Report are present in the information exchanged
- Ensuring that the information is in the form of the template contained in Annex C of the Action 5 Report or the current OECD XML Schema and in accordance with the current OECD XML Schema User Guide.
- Putting in place appropriate systems to ensure that information on rulings is transmitted to their competent authority responsible for international exchange of information without undue delay.
- Ensuring the information to be exchanged is transmitted to the relevant jurisdictions in accordance with the following timelines:
- For past rulings, as soon as possible for those Inclusive Framework members that joined, and jurisdictions of relevance identified by 1 September 2017 as well as developing countries (non-financial center) that requested additional time for the implementation, that still have to complete the identification and exchange of information on past rulings and for which recommendations on these specific aspects of the terms of reference have been issued and not yet addressed.
- For future rulings, as soon as possible and no later than three months after the tax ruling becomes available to the competent authority.
- Ensuring that subsequent requests by another jurisdiction for a copy of a tax ruling made in connection with the transparency framework is responded to, or a status update is provided, within 90 days of the receipt of the request.
- Confidentiality
With respect to information on rulings received under the transparency framework, jurisdictions should ensure that the information received is kept confidential. This requires:
- Having international information exchange mechanisms which provide that any information received should be treated as confidential and, unless otherwise agreed by the jurisdictions concerned, may be disclosed only to persons or authorities (including courts and administrative bodies) concerned with the assessment or collection of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, or the determination of appeals in relation to, the taxes covered by the exchange of information clause:
- Having the necessary domestic law to give effect to the restrictions contained in the international exchange of information instrument:
- Having effective penalties for unauthorized disclosures of confidential information;
- Ensuring confidentiality in practice; and
- Respecting the terms of the international exchange of information instrument, including the limitation on use of information received for taxable periods covered by the agreement.
- Statistics
Jurisdictions should keep statistics on the exchange of information under the transparency framework. This requires:
- Reporting the total number of spontaneous exchanges sent under the framework.
- Reporting the number of spontaneous exchanges sent by category of ruling.
- Reporting, for each category of ruling exchange, a list identifying which jurisdictions information was exchanged with.
[1] https://www.pajak.com/pajak/djp-indonesia-telah-mengadopsi-10-rencana-aksi-beps/2/
[2] OECD (2015), Melawan Praktik Pajak yang Berbahaya dengan Lebih Efektif, Memperhatikan Transparansi dan Substansi, Laporan Akhir Aksi 5 – 2015, Proyek Erosi Basis dan Pergeseran Laba OECD/G20, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx. doi.org/10.1787/9789264241190en.
[3] OECD (2015), Melawan Praktik Pajak yang Berbahaya dengan Lebih Efektif, Memperhatikan Transparansi dan Substansi, Laporan Akhir Aksi 5 – 2015, Proyek Erosi Basis dan Pergeseran Laba OECD/G20, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx. doi.org/10.1787/9789264241190en.
