Asia Tax

On July 10, 2024, TEI submitted comments to the Ministry of Finance of Singapore regarding its bill to implement a multinational enterprise top-up tax and a domestic top-up tax as part of Singapore's implementation of the OECD's Pillar Two project. TEI's comments primarily focused on the need for additional clarification of several aspects of the draft legislation, including the difference between income taxes reported on financial statements versus the actual cash tax paid in a particular year, among other things. TEI's comments were prepared under the aegis of its Asia Tax Committee.

On March 5, 2024, TEI filed comments with the Australian Treasury regarding the Australian government's revised Exposure Draft proposing to require certain multinational corporations with operations in Australia to make public country-by-country reporting information. TEI's comments addressed the inconsistency of the data Australia would require to be published with other country-by-country data, the need for flexibility in how companies prepare the data to be published, and the need to protect competitively sensitive data, among other things.

On March 1, 2024, TEI filed comments with the Australian Taxation Office regarding its new interpretation of the characterization of payments made for software and other intellectual property. TEI's commented on how this new interpretation was out of step with longstanding and internationally accepted tax rules, that the new interpretation was likely to lead to increases in tax disputes and incidences of double taxation, among other things. TEI's comments were developed under the aegis of its EMEA Direct and Asia Tax Committees. Benjamin R.

On July 21, 2023, TEI submitted a second set of comments to the Australian Senate Standing Committees on Economics regarding a proposal to require public disclosure of certain country-by-country ("CbC") report information. The Institute's comments included concern regarding the extraterritorial scope of the proposal, the inconsistency of the required disclosure with the CbC information reported under BEPS Action 13, and the lack of safeguards for commercially sensitive information. TEI's comments were prepared under the aegis of its EMEA Direct and Asia Tax Committees. Benjamin R.

On April 28, 2023, TEI submitted comments to the Australian Treasury regarding the Treasury's proposal to deny deductions for certain intangible payments to related entities. The Institute primarily focused on the inconsistency and prematurity of the proposal given the ongoing OECD negotiations regarding the global anti-base erosion model rules. TEI's comments were developed under the aegis of its European Direct and Asia Tax Committees. Benjamin R. Shreck, TEI tax counsel, coordinated the preparation of the Institute's comments.

On April 28, 2023, TEI submitted comments to the Australian Treasury regarding the Treasury's proposal to require certain companies to publicly disclose tax information on a country-by-country ("CbC") basis. TEI's comments focused on the differences between the Australian proposal and other initiatives to publicly report CbC data around the world, which could lead to confusion, among other things. TEI's comments were prepared under the aegis of its European Direct and Asia Tax Committees. Benjamin R. Shreck, TEI tax counsel, coordinated the development of TEI's comments.

On October 6, 2014,  TEI submitted comments to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore in response to an invitation for public comment on proposed rules governing transfer pricing documentation. Notable among its comments, TEI expressed concern that the proposed rules elevate Singapore’s transfer pricing documentation requirements to a higher level than those existing under the OECD transfer pricing guidelines ahead of final recommendations from the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project.

On August 1, 2014, TEI completed its first project of direct tax advocacy with China’s State Administration of Taxation (SAT), when it filed comments regarding draft administrative measures on the Chinese domestic law General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR). The comments focused on how the draft measures inappropriately expand the scope of the GAAR, unfairly subject taxpayers to two independent substance-based inquiries when special tax adjustment rules also apply, and contain overly expansive document production requirements.