Rogier van Schalkwijk

🔍💥 𝗩𝗔𝗧 𝗺𝗲𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗳𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴: 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗱𝗿𝗮𝘄𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 For years, CFOs and tax directors have treated transfer pricing as a 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘹 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺. But the CJEU is now telling us loud and clear: 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗳𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗩𝗔𝗧. 📌 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁 (𝗔𝗚 𝗢𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝟯 𝗔𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗹 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱, 𝗖-𝟳𝟮𝟲/𝟮𝟯) The Advocate General advised that: 👉 Contractually agreed 𝗧𝗣 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 (e.g. year-end equalisation payments under TNMM) 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗲 𝗩𝗔𝗧𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮-𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀. 👉 Invoices alone aren’t enough: tax authorities may demand 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳 (activity reports, deliverables, etc.). ⚠️ Bottom line: TP year-end settlements may trigger VAT reporting, reverse charge, corrections — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗮𝗴𝗲 where VAT is non-recoverable. 📌 𝗛𝗼𝗴𝗸𝘂𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻 (𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝟯 𝗝𝘂𝗹𝘆 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱, 𝗖-𝟴𝟬𝟴/𝟮𝟯) The Court ruled that: 👉 A holding company charging 𝗼𝗻𝗲 “𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁-𝗽𝗹𝘂𝘀” 𝗳𝗲𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 (management, finance, real estate, IT, HR) 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗾𝘂𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲. 👉 Authorities must assess 𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝘀𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 and look first for 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲𝘀. 👉 Only if no comparable exists can they fall back on 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁. ❌ Blanket “total cost = open market value” approaches are off the table. 💡 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀? VAT and TP are converging. The “𝗮𝗿𝗺’𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵” and “𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲” concepts overlap but 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆. Result: multinationals face 𝗱𝗼𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 — TP files are no longer enough, you need 𝗩𝗔𝗧-𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗨𝗣 𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 too. ⏳ 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘄? • Map your intra-group service streams. • Evidence reality: contracts, reports, deliverables. • Test for comparables before defaulting to cost-plus. • Align TP adjustments with VAT invoicing (reverse charge, credit notes, return corrections). The VAT/TP debate is just heating up 🔥 — and the 𝗖𝗝𝗘𝗨 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮-𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲. #VAT #TransferPricing #CJEU #Arcomet #Högkullen #IndirectTax #TaxStrategy #MNEs #Compliance #TaxControversy Fieldfisher Belgium École Supérieure des Sciences Fiscales (ICHEC-ESSF)

221

3 commentaren

 📖PwC Global Tax Policy on "Global Minimum Tax and International Investment Treaties: Risks & Opportunities". Together with Maarten Maaskant and other colleagues from PwC, I have prepared the Tax Policy Alert which provides insights of relevance to strategically manage the interactions between global minimum tax (GMT) and international investment agreements (IIAs). The attached file can help to optimize investment outcome, investment attractiveness, risk profile, reputational exposure and compliance in face of enlarging number of states across the world with GMT in force. The interplay between the GMT and IIAs is of significant relevance for multinational groups and states for (i) legal (certainty and protection) and (ii) monetary reasons: (i) IIAs (international law) override the GMT (domestic law) in most jurisdictions. Even if constitutional law allows for treaty override, customary international law (CIL) generally provides that the domestic laws should respect these international obligations. Any conflict between the GMT and IIAs is open to cross border litigation or arbitration; (ii) Tensions between the GMT and IIAs may affect the investment climate of states, discourage investors and increase the price of contemplated projects. The most vulnerable are low-income developing countries insofar as the GMT directly affects the rationale of special economic zones (most often found in these countries) that provide tax holidays (0% of effective tax rate) for foreign investors. Such insights are currently very important, not least because of the US-G7 agreement to pursue a “side-by-side” approach between the GMT and the US tax rules, and the Belgian Constitutional Court decision of 17 July 2025 which refers the Undertaxed Profits Rule (UTPR) to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Both of these developments may have an impact on the extent to which the GMT influences (particularly US) multinationals ROI, and therefore the taxpayer’s legitimate expectations under the relevant IIA. Thank you so much to Will Morris, Edwin Visser, Patrick Brown, Chloe Fox, and Nangel Kwong for reviewing drafts of this contribution. This significantly increased its readability and precision.

112

This is what investment firms should know about the 2026 Dutch tax package (released today): ⬇️ 𝐓𝐚𝐱 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬 As per January 1, 2025, the Netherlands has new entity classification rules. Under these new rules, a Fund for Joint Account (𝐅𝐆𝐑) or foreign equivalent that previously qualified as transparent for Dutch tax purposes, may become non-transparent as per January 1, 2025. It is not always clear when an entity qualifies as an FGR under the new FGR definition. The legislator is aware of this and aims to amend the FGR definition in the near future (likely as part of the 2027 or 2028 tax package). Under this new definition, some entities that currently qualify as an FGR may no longer qualify as such. To prevent a short term tax liability (i.e. only for 2025 - 2027), an (additional) transitional provision is proposed. This provision allows partnerships to elect to qualify either as a (non transparent) FGR or remain transparent entity during the transitional period (i.e. for the years 2025 and 2026) if the following conditions are met. The entity:  1. Was transparent prior to 1 January 2025; and 2. Qualifies as an FGR (or as a comparable foreign fund) under the new rules; and 3. Obtained approval for the election from all its participants. If prior to January 1, 2025, the FGR already documented the intention to restructure to a transparent redemption fund, condition 3. is deemed to be met. If not, approval from all participants should be obtained before February 28, 2026. 𝐋𝐮𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐬 Proceeds from a lucrative interest are in principle taxed as employment income in box 1 (up to 49.5% in 2025). If the lucrative interest is held through a personal holding company, the income can however also be taxed as income from closely held stock in box 2 (up to 31% in 2025) provided certain conditions are met. It is proposed to limit the box 1 and box 2 rate differences for income from lucrative interests. This is done by introducing a multiplier in box 2 for income from lucrative interests. As a result of this multiplier, box 2 income deriving from a lucrative interest will become subject to an effective tax rate of 36% (ETR for income in the first bracket (up to EUR 68,843) will increase to 28.45%).   

58

The evolving EU tax agenda: Pillar Two, Unshell and decluttering Sasha Kerins, International Tax Partner at Grant Thornton Ireland, and Monique Pisters, Head of Tax at Grant Thornton Netherlands, discuss the shifting EU tax landscape. They explore the implications of recent G7 and US announcements on Pillar Two, the EU’s decision to pause the Unshell Directive (ATAD 3), and the momentum behind the decluttering agenda.   🎥 Watch the teaser below and catch the full video in the link: 👉https://bit.ly/3JDLqOl #EUTax #DirectTax #EU #G7 #DAC6 #ATAD3

81

📣We are pleased to announce that Ryan has expanded its reach and expertise in Europe with the acquisition of European VAT Desk, a Belgium-based tax consultancy firm. Key service areas will include: ✅ VAT compliance with end-to-end VAT management  ✅ In-depth VAT consulting, including complex case analysis, VAT audits, and more This acquisition complements Ryan’s current VAT services, adding a team of experts with more than two decades of experience in the industry.  Learn more: https://lnkd.in/ggu-NdzJ 

106