Comments on both discussion drafts are due by 5 September 2016.
The final report on BEPS Action 7 mandated follow-up work to develop additional guidance on the issue of attribution of profits to permanent establishments. This work was intended to provide guidance on how the rules of Article 7 would apply to permanent establishments resulting from the changes in the report on BEPS Action 7 as well as taking into account the results of the work on other parts of the BEPS project dealing with transfer pricing, in particular the work related to intangibles, risk, and capital.
The Action 7 discussion presents the two fact-patterns that would particularly benefit from additional guidance concerning attributions of profits to permanent establishments:
For each fact-pattern, and through the use of examples, a number of questions are identified on which comments are sought from commentators. This discussion draft also includes a final section exploring whether there are mechanisms that could allow for additional co-ordination of the application of Article 7 and Article 9 to determine the profits of a permanent establishment without providing opportunities for the re-emergence of BEPS risks that the changes under Actions 7 and 8-10 were designed to reduce.
An OECD release states that comments are not sought on the changes to the permanent establishment definitions that have been agreed under Action 7 and that were published in the 2015 final report; rather, the OECD urges commentators to concentrate solely on the application of Article 7 to determine the attribution of profits to permanent establishments.
The final report on Actions 8-10 of the BEPS project sets out the scope of the work mandated under Action 10 of the BEPS project in relation to the application of transfer pricing methods. The discussion draft aims at clarifying and strengthening the guidance on the transactional profits split method in the context of global value chains. In particular, it elaborates on two different approaches to splitting profits: (1) transactional profit splits of actual profits; and (2) transactional profit splits of anticipated profits. It also proposes further draft guidance on the appropriate application of transactional profit split methods.
The OECD release encourages comments in response to the questions included in the discussion draft, as well as the direction of the draft more generally. Examples of scenarios in which a transactional profit split is found to be the most appropriate transfer pricing method are also invited.
The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in 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.