Addressing Base Erosion And Profit Shifting

This report presents studies and data available regarding the existence and magnitude of base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS), and contains an overview of global developments that have an impact on corporate tax matters.

This action plan, created in response to a request by the G20, identifies a set of domestic and international actions to address the problems of base erosion and profit sharing.

Addressing base erosion and profit shifting is a key priority of governments around the globe. This Explanatory Statement offers an overview of the BEPS Project and outcomes.

Addressing base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) is a key priority of governments. In 2013, OECD and G20 countries, working together on an equal footing, adopted a 15-point Action Plan to address BEPS. This publication is the final report for Action 3.

This report presents studies and data available regarding the existence and magnitude of base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS), and contains an overview of global developments that have an impact on corporate tax matters.

Addressing base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) is a key priority of governments. In 2013, OECD and G20 countries, working together on an equal footing, adopted a 15-point Action Plan to address BEPS. This publication is the final report for Action 12.

Addressing base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) is a key priority of governments. In 2013, OECD and G20 countries, working together on an equal footing, adopted a 15-point Action Plan to address BEPS. This publication is the final report for Action 4.

Preferential regimes continue to be a key pressure area. Current concerns are primarily about preferential regimes which can be used for artificial profit shifting and about a lack of transparency in connection with certain rulings. The report sets out an agreed methodology to assess whether there is substantial activity. In the context of IP regimes such as patent boxes, agreement was reached on the nexus approach which uses expenditures as a proxy for substantial activity and ensures that taxpayers can only benefit from IP regimes where they engaged in research and development and incurred actual expenditures on such activities. The same principle can also be applied to other preferential regimes so that such regimes are found to require substantial activity where the taxpayer undertook the core income generating activities. In the area of transparency, a framework has been agreed for the compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on rulings that could give rise to BEPS concerns in the absence of such exchange. The results of the application of the existing factors applied by the FHTP, and the elaborated substantial activity and transparency factors, to a number of preferential regimes are included in this report.