The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) this week received comments—including a comment letter from KPMG (discussed in more detail below)—relating to a consultation document on Pillar Two of the BEPS Inclusive Framework and the tax challenges associated with the digitalization of the economy.
The OECD’s consultation document (released 8 November 2019) requested comments and input on certain features of Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) proposal. A public consultation will be held at OECD offices near Paris next week. Read the comment letters and other information on the Pillar Two proposals on the OECD website.
The GloBE proposal features four component rules:
The OECD consultation document does not address the interaction and ordering of these rules, which remain unclear, but instead requested comments on three areas:
Comments from KPMG
KPMG International earlier this week submitted comments in response to the OECD public consultation document on Pillar Two of the BEPS Inclusive Framework and the tax challenges associated with the digitalization of the economy.
Read KPMG’s comment letter [PDF 119 KB]
KPMG’s comments address each of the three areas (noted immediately above), and also provide input on the interaction of the GloBE rules, given that the optimal solutions to the three issues on which the OECD requested input will vary depending on how the overall proposal is designed. The authors of the KPMG comment letter:
GILTI does not use financial accounts as a starting point, and the authors of the KPMG comment letter therefore did not recommend that the use of financial accounts should be required, although financial accounts would provide a useful basis for the GloBE income inclusion rule. KPMG’s comment letter discusses the respective benefits of jurisdictional and worldwide blending, recognizing worldwide blending as more administrable. The authors of the KPMG comment letter also recommended that the Inclusive Framework adopt several carve-outs—including a carve-out for a return on tangible assets (which would be consistent with GILTI), as well as carve-outs for specific sectors, such as shipping, extractives, and highly regulated industries, as well as for the charity and not-for-profit sector.
Lastly, the KPMG comment letter recommends that any solution under Pillar Two include robust dispute resolution mechanisms, including mandatory binding arbitration. KPMG’s comments include recommendations for modifying existing arbitration procedures to deal with multilateral disputes and to address the concerns articulated by some developing countries.
The KPMG name and logo are trademarks used under license by the independent member firms of the KPMG global organization. KPMG International Limited is a private English company limited by guarantee and does not provide services to clients. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.