Skattskyldighet för samriskföretag och deras dotterföretag

Regeringens proposition 2026/27:9

Skattskyldighet för samriskföretag och deras dotterföretag

Regeringen överlämnar denna proposition till riksdagen.

Stockholm den 22 oktober 2026

Ulf Kristersson

Elisabeth Svantesson

(Finansdepartementet)

Propositionens huvudsakliga innehåll

I denna proposition föreslås att ett samriskföretag ska vara skattskyldigt för svensk nationell tilläggsskatt för hela det tilläggsskattebelopp som beräknats och fördelats på företaget, om företaget hör hemma i Sverige och tillhör en koncern som bestämmelser om tilläggsskatt ska tillämpas på. Detsamma ska gälla för ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag. Detta förslag medför även ytterligare ändringar i lagen om tilläggsskatt. Bakgrunden till förslagen är att skattskyldigheten för nationell tilläggsskatt för tilläggsskattebelopp som avser samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag inte är placerad på företaget självt. Följden blir att svensk nationell tilläggsskatt inte omfattas av andra staters förenklingsregel för nationell tilläggsskatt för sådana företag, vilket kan medföra att huvud- och kompletteringsregeln för tilläggsskatt tillämpas. Det innebär att hela tilläggsskattebeloppet ska tas ut i Sverige samtidigt som en koncernenhet som hör hemma i en annan stat är skattskyldig för sin andel av tilläggsskattebeloppet enligt huvud- eller kompletteringsregeln där.

Även förfarandet för tilläggsskatt behöver kompletteras när skattskyldigheten ändras och det lämnas därför bl.a. förslag på att ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som är skattskyldigt för nationell tilläggsskatt ska lämna en tilläggsskattedeklaration.

Lagändringarna föreslås träda i kraft den 1 mars 2027 och tillämpas första gången för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 28 februari 2027. Det införs en möjlighet att tillämpa bestämmelserna retroaktivt för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023.

1¶Förslag till riksdagsbeslut

Regeringens förslag: 1. Riksdagen antar regeringens förslag till lag om ändring i

skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244). 2. Riksdagen antar regeringens förslag till lag om ändring i lagen

(2023:875) om tilläggsskatt.

2¶Lagförslag

Regeringen har följande förslag till lagtext.

2.1¶Förslag till lag om ändring i skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244)

Härigenom föreskrivs i fråga om skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244)

dels att 3 kap. 1 och 11 §§, 7 kap. 1 och 2 b §§, 32 a kap. 2, 3 och 7 §§, 37 kap. 7 c §, 51 kap. 5 § och 56 a kap. 2 § ska ha följande lydelse,

dels att det ska införas två nya paragrafer, 3 kap. 11 b och 11 c §§, och närmast före 3 kap. 11 b § en ny rubrik av följande lydelse.

3 kap.

1 §

I detta kapitel finns definitioner av vissa begrepp samt förklaringar till

hur vissa termer och uttryck används i lagen. Det finns definitioner och

Bestämmelser om betydelsen av följande begrepp, termer och uttryck

samt förklaringar finns i nedan angivna paragrafer:

arbetsgivardeklaration i 26 kap. 3 §

beslut om debitering av preliminär skatt i 55 kap. 2 §

beslut om preliminär A-skatt i 55 kap. 6 §

beslut om särskild inkomstskatteredovisning i 13 kap. 1 §

betaltjänstleverantör i 33 c kap. 3 §

europeiska ekonomiska intressegrupperingar (EEIG) i 6 §

europeiska grupperingar för territoriellt samarbete (EGTS) i 7 §

felaktigt debiterad mervärdesskatt i 12 §

fordonsserviceverksamhet i 39 kap. 2 §

förenklad arbetsgivardeklaration i 26 kap. 4 §

juridisk person i 11 § kassaregister i 39 kap. 2 § koncernenhet i 11 a § konsortier för europeisk forskningsinfrastruktur (Eric-konsortier) i 7 § kontrollremsa i 42 kap. 2 § kropps- och skönhetsvårdsverksamhet i 39 kap. 2 § livsmedels- och tobaksgrossistverksamhet i 39 kap. 2 § näringsverksamhet i 14 § partihandel i 39 kap. 2 § punktskatt i 15 § regelbunden ersättning i 11 kap. 2 § restaurangverksamhet i 39 kap. 2 §

samriskföretag i 11 b §

skönsbeskattning i 57 kap. 1 § slutlig skatt i 56 kap. 2–7 §§ särskilda avgifter i 17 § torg- och marknadshandel i 39 kap. 2 § tvätteriverksamhet i 39 kap. 2 § verksamhetslokal i 18 § överskjutande ingående mervärdesskatt i 13 § överskjutande punktskatt i 16 §.

11 § Med juridisk person avses också Med juridisk person avses i dödsbon, svenska handelsbolag, denna lag också dödsbon, svenska koncernenheter och i utlandet handelsbolag, koncernenheter, delägarbeskattade juridiska samriskföretag, dotterföretag till personer. ett samriskföretag och i utlandet

delägarbeskattade juridiska

personer.

Samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag

11 b § Med samriskföretag avses ett samriskföretag enligt 7 kap. 43 §

lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt.

11 c § Med dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag avses ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag enligt

7 kap. 44 § lagen (2023:875) om

tilläggsskatt.

2 Senaste lydelse 2023:880. 5

Lydelse enligt prop. 2025/26:282 Föreslagen lydelse

7 kap.

1 § Skatteverket ska registrera 1. den som är skyldig att göra skatteavdrag, 2. den som är skyldig att betala arbetsgivaravgifter,

3. den som är betalningsskyldig enligt mervärdesskattelagen (2023:200), med undantag för den som är betalningsskyldig bara på grund av

a) förvärv av sådana varor som anges i 3 kap. 2 eller 3 § den lagen, eller

b) felaktigt debiterad mervärdesskatt enligt 16 kap. 23 § samma lag, 4. den som i annat fall än som avses i 3 har rätt till

a) avdrag för ingående mervärdesskatt enligt 13 kap. 6, 9, 10 eller 11 § eller 21 kap. 10 eller 11 § mervärdesskattelagen, eller

b) återbetalning av ingående mervärdesskatt enligt 14 kap. 49 § samma lag,

5. den som gör sådant unionsinternt förvärv som är undantaget från skatteplikt enligt 10 kap. 50 § mervärdesskattelagen,

6. en beskattningsbar person som är etablerad i Sverige och tillhandahåller tjänster i ett annat EU-land som förvärvaren av tjänsten är betalningsskyldig för i det landet i enlighet med tillämpningen av artikel 196 i rådets direktiv 2006/112/EG av den 28 november 2006 om ett gemensamt system för mervärdesskatt,

7. den som är skyldig att justera ingående mervärdesskatt enligt 12 kap. 27–31 §§ eller 15 kap. mervärdesskattelagen,

8. den som är skyldig att använda kassaregister enligt 39 kap. 4–6 §§,

9. den som enligt 39 kap. 11 c § är skyldig att tillhandahålla utrustning så att en elektronisk personalliggare kan föras på en byggarbetsplats,

10. den som betalar ut ersättning som är underlag för statlig ålderspensionsavgift enligt lagen (1998:676) om statlig ålderspensionsavgift,

11. en koncernenhet som avses i 11. en koncernenhet som avses i 1 kap. 3 § lagen (2023:875) om 1 kap. 3 § lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt, och tilläggsskatt,

12. ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som är skattskyldigt för nationell tilläggsskatt enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt, och

12. den som är skyldig att betala 13. den som är skyldig att betala egenavgifter för avgiftspliktig egenavgifter för avgiftspliktig inkomst som avses i 3 kap. 6 § inkomst som avses i 3 kap. 6 § socialavgiftslagen (2000:980). socialavgiftslagen (2000:980).

Om den som ska registreras enligt första stycket har en företrädare enligt 5 kap., ska dock företrädaren registreras i stället.

Andra stycket gäller inte för en Andra stycket gäller inte för en koncernenhet. koncernenhet, ett samriskföretag

eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som är skattskyldigt

för nationell tilläggsskatt.

Nuvarande lydelse Föreslagen lydelse

2 b §

En koncernenhet som avses i En koncernenhet som avses i 1 kap. 3 § lagen (2023:875) om 1 kap. 3 § lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt ska anmäla sig för tilläggsskatt, ett samriskföretag registrering hos Skatteverket inom som är skattskyldigt för nationell 15 månader efter utgången av det tilläggsskatt eller ett dotterföretag beskattningsår då registrerings- till ett samriskföretag som är skattskyldigheten uppstod. skyldigt för nationell tilläggsskatt

ska anmäla sig för registrering hos

Skatteverket inom 15 månader efter

utgången av det beskattningsår då

registreringsskyldigheten uppstod.

32 a kap.

2 §

En koncernenhet ska lämna en tilläggsskattedeklaration, om koncernenheten är skattskyldig för

1. ett tilläggsskattebelopp enligt lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt, eller

2. kompletterande tilläggsskatt som fördelas till svenska koncernenheter enligt 6 kap. 12 § lagen om tilläggsskatt.

Ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som är skattskyldigt för nationell tilläggsskatt ska lämna en tilläggs-

skattedeklaration.

3 § En tilläggsskattedeklaration ska innehålla 1. nödvändiga identifikationsuppgifter, 2. uppgift om vilken enhet som lämnar tilläggsskatterapport,

3. uppgift om att enheten har 3. uppgift om att enheten har tagit tagit del av rapporten i 2, del av rapporten som avses i 2 eller,

när det gäller ett samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag, de uppgifter i rapporten som behövs för att fullgöra uppgiftsskyldigheten i tilläggs-

skattedeklarationen,

4. summan av tilläggsskattebelopp som den deklarationsskyldige är skattskyldig för enligt huvudregeln för tilläggsskatt,

5. summan av kompletterande tilläggsskatt som fördelas till svenska koncernenheter,

6. de uppgifter som behövs för att fördela kompletterande tilläggsskatt, och

3 Senaste lydelse 2023:880. 4 Senaste lydelse 2023:880. 5 Senaste lydelse 2026:303. 7

7. de uppgifter som behövs för beräkning och fördelning av nationell tilläggsskatt enligt lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt.

7 §

En koncernenhet som är Den som är deklarationsskyldig deklarationsskyldig enligt 2 § ska enligt 2 § ska lämna tilläggslämna tilläggsskattedeklaration skattedeklaration senast en månad senast en månad efter den dag då efter den dag då tilläggsskattetilläggsskatterapporten senast ska rapporten senast ska lämnas. lämnas.

En deklarationsskyldig som är ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag och hör till två sådana koncerner som är skyldiga att lämna tilläggsskatterapport, ska lämna tilläggsskattedeklaration senast en månad efter den dag som båda dessa koncerner senast ska lämna tilläggsskatte-

rapport.

En tilläggsskattedeklaration lämnas till Skatteverket eller till ett mottagningsställe som har godkänts av verket.

37 kap.

7 c §

Skatteverket får förelägga en Skatteverket får förelägga en koncernenhet att lämna uppgift koncernenhet, ett samriskföretag som behövs för att kontrollera en eller ett dotterföretag till ett uppgift som lämnats i en samriskföretag att lämna uppgift tilläggsskatterapport om det kan som behövs för att kontrollera en antas att uppgiften inte stämmer uppgift som lämnats i en tilläggsöverens med bestämmelserna i skatterapport om det kan antas att lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt. uppgiften inte stämmer överens

med bestämmelserna i lagen

(2023:875) om tilläggsskatt.

Första stycket gäller endast om Första stycket gäller endast om det kan antas att uppgiften som har det kan antas att uppgiften som har lämnats i en tilläggsskatterapport lämnats i en tilläggsskatterapport har betydelse för bedömningen av har betydelse för bedömningen av koncernenhetens skattskyldighet koncernenhetens, samriskenligt lagen om tilläggsskatt. företagets eller samriskföretagets

dotterföretags skattskyldighet

enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt.

6 Senaste lydelse 2026:303. 7 8 Senaste lydelse 2026:303.

51 kap.

5 §

Skattetillägg eller rapportavgift Skattetillägg eller rapportavgift ska inte tas ut om en koncernenhet ska inte tas ut om en koncernenhet, vidtagit skäliga åtgärder för att ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterredovisa korrekta beräkningar i företag till ett samriskföretag enlighet med 33 d kap. och korrekta vidtagit skäliga åtgärder för att bedömningar i fråga om redovisa korrekta beräkningar i bestämmelserna om tilläggsskatt. enlighet med 33 d kap. och

korrekta bedömningar i fråga om

bestämmelserna om tilläggsskatt.

Bestämmelsen gäller för räkenskapsår som börjar före den 1 januari 2027 och avslutas senast den 30 juni 2028.

56 a kap.

2 §

Skatteverket ska besluta om skatt enligt lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt på grundval av uppgifter som har lämnats i en tilläggsskatterapport eller tilläggsskattedeklaration och vad som i övrigt har kommit fram vid utredning och kontroll.

Skatteverket ska besluta om skatt Skatteverket ska besluta om skatt enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt om enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt, om koncernenheten har lämnat en koncernenheten, samriskföretaget tilläggsskattedeklaration eller det i eller dotterföretaget till ett samriskövrigt framkommit att enheten ska företag har lämnat en tilläggsbetala sådan skatt. skattedeklaration eller det i övrigt

framkommit att koncernenheten,

samriskföretaget eller dotter-

företaget till ett samriskföretag ska

betala sådan skatt.

1. Denna lag träder i kraft den 1 mars 2027.

2. Lagen tillämpas första gången för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 28 februari 2027.

3. Om den deklarationsskyldige, i enlighet med punkt 3 i ikraftträdandeoch övergångsbestämmelserna till lagen (2027:000) om ändring i lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt, väljer att tillämpa lagen om tilläggsskatt i den nya lydelsen på beskattningsår som börjar före den 1 mars 2027, ska dock bestämmelserna i denna lag tillämpas även på de beskattningsåren.

8 Senaste lydelse 2026:303. Senaste lydelse 2023:880. 9

2.2¶Förslag till lag om ändring i lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt

Härigenom föreskrivs att 1 kap. 3 §, 6 kap. 2 a, 16 a och 16 c §§ och 7 kap. 47 § lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt ska ha följande lydelse.

1 kap.

Lagen ska inte tillämpas på undantagna enheter. Intäkter för undantagna

enheter ska dock ingå i de intäkter som avses i första stycket.

Om ett eller flera av de fyra räkenskapsåren är längre eller kortare än

tolv månader, ska beloppsgränsen i första stycket justeras proportionellt

för vart och ett av dessa räkenskapsår.

6 kap.

till varje enhets andel av avses i 1 kap. 3 §, om dotter-

koncernens anställda och företaget hör hemma i Sverige.

materiella tillgångar i Sverige under det beskattningsår som

tilläggsskatten avser.

Om svenska koncernenheter i två olika koncerner är skattskyldiga enligt första stycket för tilläggsskattebelopp som beräknats och fördelats på ett och samma samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag, ska det tilläggsskattebelopp som belöper

sig på respektive koncern halveras.

16 a §

Tilläggsskatt som en svensk Den tilläggsskatt som ett

koncernenhet enligt 2 a § är samriskföretag eller ett dotterskattskyldig för avseende ett företag till ett samriskföretag är samriskföretag eller ett dotter- skattskyldigt för enligt 2 a § ska företag till ett samriskföretag ska sättas ned till noll under de första sättas ned till noll under de första fem åren av det som enligt 18 § fem åren av det som enligt 18 § utgör den inledande fasen av utgör koncernens inledande fas av internationell verksamhet för den internationell verksamhet. Detta koncern som företaget tillhör. Detta gäller dock inte till den del ett gäller dock inte om företaget tillhör samriskföretag eller ett dotter- två sådana koncerner som avses i företag till ett samriskföretag 1 kap. 3 § och endast en av dem är innehas av en koncernenhet som i sin inledande fas av internationell omfattas av en huvudregel för verksamhet enligt 18 §. Då ska i tilläggsskatt i en annan stat. stället så stor andel av tilläggs-

skatten som hör till den koncernen

sättas ned till noll.

Första stycket gäller inte till den del ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag direkt eller indirekt innehas av en koncernenhet som omfattas av en huvudregel för tilläggsskatt i en

annan stat.

Femårsperioden börjar löpa tidigast det räkenskapsår då koncernen först omfattas av denna lag.

16 c §

För en koncern i vilken samtliga För en koncern i vilken samtliga koncernenheter hör hemma i koncernenheter hör hemma i Sverige ska den tilläggsskatt som Sverige (en nationell koncern) ska

2 Senaste lydelse 2024:1248. 3 Senaste lydelse 2024:1248. 11

en svensk koncernenhet är den tilläggsskatt som en svensk skattskyldig för enligt 2, 2 a, 4 eller koncernenhet är skattskyldig för 5 § sättas ned till noll under de enligt 2, 4 eller 5 § sättas ned till första fem åren som koncernen noll under de första fem åren som omfattas av denna lag. koncernen omfattas av denna lag

(femårsperioden).

För ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag

som tillhör en nationell koncern,

ska den tilläggsskatt som företaget är skattskyldigt för enligt 2 a § sättas ned till noll under femårsperioden. Om företaget tillhör två koncerner som avses i 1 kap. 3 §

och dessa är nationella koncerner,

ska nedsättning till noll i stället ske vad avser så stor andel som hör till vardera koncernen under den

koncernens femårsperiod.

Om företaget tillhör två koncerner som avses i 1 kap. 3 § och bara en av dem är en nationell koncern, ska nedsättning till noll ske vad avser så stor andel som hör till den nationella koncernen under

den koncernens femårsperiod.

7 kap.

47 §

Det tilläggsskattebelopp som Det tilläggsskattebelopp som belöper på en samriskföretags- belöper på en samriskföretagskoncern ska minskas med varje koncern ska minskas med varje moderenhets andel av det tilläggs- moderenhets andel av det tilläggsskattebelopp som ska tas ut enligt skattebelopp som ska tas ut enligt 46 § och det tilläggsskattebelopp 46 § och det tilläggsskattebelopp som ska tas ut av en koncernenhet som ska tas ut av ett samriskföretag enligt 6 kap. 2 a §. Återstående eller ett dotterföretag till ett tilläggsskattebelopp ska läggas till samriskföretag enligt 6 kap. 2 a §. det totala tilläggsskattebeloppet Återstående tilläggsskattebelopp enligt bestämmelserna i 6 kap. ska läggas till det totala tilläggs- 11 §. skattebeloppet enligt bestäm-

melserna i 6 kap. 11 §.

1. Denna lag träder i kraft den 1 mars 2027.

2. Lagen tillämpas första gången för beskattningsår som börjar närmast efter den 28 februari 2027 eller, i fråga om svenska handelsbolag, räkenskapsår som börjar närmast efter den 28 februari 2027.

4 12 Senaste lydelse 2024:1248.

3. Ett samriskföretag, dotterföretagen till samriskföretaget och koncernenheterna i den koncern som företagen tillhör får välja att tillämpa lagen för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023 eller, i fråga om svenska handelsbolag, räkenskapsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023, om samtliga gör ett sådant val.

3¶Ärendet och dess beredning

Den 1 januari 2024 trädde lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt i kraft. Genom lagen genomfördes rådets direktiv (EU) 2022/2523 av den 14 december 2022 om säkerställande av en global minimiskattenivå för multinationella koncerner och storskaliga nationella koncerner i unionen, kallat minimibeskattningsdirektivet, i svensk rätt. Syftet med minimibeskattningsdirektivet är att genomföra de modellregler om en global minimibeskattning (Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules, hädanefter kallade modellreglerna) som arbetats fram inom ramen för OECD/G20:s Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), det inkluderande ramverket, hädanefter kallat IF.

Sedan modellreglerna antogs 2021 har arbetet inom IF fortsatt och det pågår fortfarande. Den 13 juli 2023 antog IF administrativa riktlinjer avseende modellreglerna. Riktlinjerna rör bl.a. nationell tilläggsskatt avseende samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag. Riktlinjerna finns i bilaga 1.

Inom Finansdepartementet har promemorian Skattskyldighet för samriskföretag och dess dotterföretag tagits fram. En sammanfattning av promemorian finns i bilaga 2. Promemorians lagförslag finns i bilaga 3.

Promemorian har remissbehandlats. En förteckning över remissinstanserna finns i bilaga 4. Remissyttrandena finns tillgängliga på regeringens webbplats (regeringen.se) och i Finansdepartementet (Fi2026/01196).

I denna proposition behandlas promemorians förslag.

Lagrådet

Regeringen beslutade den 3 september 2026 att inhämta Lagrådets yttrande över lagförslagen i bilaga 5. Lagrådets yttrande finns i bilaga 6. Regeringen följer Lagrådets förslag. Lagrådets synpunkter behandlas i avsnitt 7 och i författningskommentaren (avsnitt 9.1). I förhållande till lagrådsremissens lagförslag görs även vissa språkliga och redaktionella ändringar.

4¶Skattskyldighet för tilläggsskattebelopp

Regeringens förslag

Ett samriskföretag ska vara skattskyldigt för svensk nationell tilläggsskatt för hela det tilläggsskattebelopp som beräknats och fördelats på företaget, om företaget hör hemma i Sverige och tillhör en koncern som bestämmelser om tilläggsskatt ska tillämpas på. Detsamma ska gälla för ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag om dotterföretaget hör hemma i Sverige.

Bestämmelserna om undantag i fem år under en koncerns inledande fas av internationell verksamhet ska vara tillämpliga på svensk nationell tilläggsskatt som ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett

samriskföretag är skattskyldigt för. Bestämmelserna om undantag i fem år för koncerner med samtliga koncernenheter i Sverige under de första fem åren som koncernen omfattas av lagen om tilläggsskatt ska vara tillämpliga på svensk nationell tilläggsskatt som ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag är skattskyldigt för.

Vidare ska lagens tillämpningsområde utvidgas. Lagen ska även gälla ett samriskföretag som hör hemma i Sverige om företaget tillhör en koncern som har en årlig intäkt på minst 750 miljoner euro enligt moderföretagets koncernredovisning under minst två av de fyra räkenskapsår som föregår det aktuella räkenskapsåret. Lagen ska också gälla ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag om dotterföretaget tillhör en sådan koncern och hör hemma i Sverige.

Promemorians förslag

Förslaget i promemorian stämmer i huvudsak överens med regeringens. I promemorian föreslås även att en moderenhet, till den del tilläggsskattebeloppet för ett samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag inte tas ut i sin helhet genom svensk nationell tilläggsskatt, ska vara skattskyldig enligt huvudregeln för tilläggsskatt för sin andel av beloppet. Promemorians förslag har även en något annan språklig utformning.

Remissinstanserna

FAR, som i huvudsak tillstyrker att samriskföretag ska bli skattskyldiga för nationell tilläggsskatt, föreslår att definitionen av samriskföretag ändras för att undvika sammanblandning med redovisningsrättslig terminologi. Sveriges advokatsamfund anser att det är positivt att den svenska regleringen av nationell tilläggsskatt anpassas för att möjliggöra avsedd safe harbour-effekt i andra staters tilläggsskattesystem. Finansbolagens förening tillstyrker förslaget och framhåller att i förekommande fall kan nuvarande reglering leda till dubbelbeskattning vilket i sig är ett starkt skäl för att genomföra föreslagna ändringar som förhindrar detta. Skatteverket tillstyrker att förslagen genomförs. Skatteverket påpekar dock att klargöranden från IF behövs i fler avseenden ochlämnar följande synpunkter. Det bör införas tydliga lagregler om när ett samriskföretag och dess dotterföretag ska anses höra hemma i Sverige enligt 1 kap. 12 och 13 §§ lagen om tilläggsskatt. Det bör förtydligas vilken betydelse det har för skattskyldigheten, och för beräkningen av den skatt som ska fördelas på samriskföretaget om företaget endast under en del av beskattningsåret tillhör en koncern som omfattas av lagens tillämpningsområde. Det bör också klargöras om det är tillräckligt att ett samriskföretag under någon del av året tillhör en koncern för att skattskyldighet ska uppkomma för hela det tilläggsskattebelopp som beräknats och fördelats på företaget. Om avsikten är att prövningen av om ett samriskföretag tillhör en koncern ska göras vid en viss tidpunkt, t.ex. beskattningsårets utgång, bör detta framgå tydligt av lagtexten. Ett samriskföretag kan redovisas som ett samriskföretag (kapitalandelsmetoden) eller som en del av koncernen (klyvningsmetoden), vilket gör att samma företag i praktiken kan behandlas som ett samriskföretag i en koncern och som en koncernenhet i en annan. Reglerna bör därför anpassas för att ta hänsyn till att nationell tilläggsskatt kan

komma att tas ut i båda koncernerna med dubbelbeskattning som följd. Det saknas vidare i vissa bestämmelser regler för hur andelar av tilläggsskatten som kan hänföra sig till olika koncerner ska beräknas enligt 6 kap. 16 a och 16 c §§. Skatteverket efterfrågar också ett klargörande av vilket beskattningsår som ska gälla i de situationer där nuvarande bestämmelser pekar ut två beskattningsår för ett och samma samriskföretag respektive dotterföretag till samriskföretag. Näringslivets Skattedelegation (till vars yttrande Fastighetsägarna, Svensk Sjöfart och Svenskt Näringsliv ansluter sig), nedan NSD m.fl. och Stockholms universitet anser att innebörden av förslagen i 7 kap 46 och 47 §§ lagen om tilläggsskatt är oklar. De ifrågasätter – med hänvisning till artikel 8.2 i modellreglerna – om inte även svenska samriskföretag borde omfattas av ett undantag i Sverige motsvarande det undantag för utländska enheter som finns i 8 kap 18 § lagen om tilläggsskatt. Stockholms universitet efterlyser dessutom ett klargörande av hur den föreslagna skattskyldighetsregeln förhåller sig till den s.k. side-by-side safe harbourregeln som i propositionen Nya förenklingsregler och andra kompletteringar i lagen om tilläggsskatt (prop. 2026/27:4) föreslås införas i 8 kap. 18 a § lagen om tilläggsskatt. Uppsala universitet efterlyser närmare klargörande av innebörden av begreppet samriskföretag. Universitet anför att om samriskföretag i enlighet med prop. 2023/24:32 s. 328, kan bestå av avtalsbaserade samarbeten som inte utgör juridiska personer (t.ex. enkla bolag), kan det leda till praktiska problem i skatteförfarandet att de blir skattskyldiga för nationell tilläggsskatt. Det kan t.ex. vara oklart vem som är skyldig att lämna in en tilläggsskattedeklaration.

Skälen för regeringens förslag

Gällande rätt

I lagen om tilläggsskatt gäller särskilda bestämmelser i fråga om tilläggsskattebelopp som avser ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag. Vad som är ett samriskföretag framgår av 7 kap. 43 § lagen om tilläggsskatt och i 7 kap. 44 § samma lag anges vad som är ett dotterföretag till samriskföretag. Förenklat är ett samriskföretag en enhet vars finansiella resultat redovisas enligt kapitalandelsmetoden i moderföretagets koncernredovisning och i vilken moderföretaget direkt eller indirekt har minst 50 procent av ägarintresset. Kravet på minst 50 procent ägarintresse gör att en enhet kan vara ett samriskföretag i förhållande till maximalt två olika koncerner under samma tidsperiod. Tilläggsskattebeloppet för ett samriskföretag och dess dotterföretag (en samriskföretagskoncern) ska beräknas i enlighet med 3–8 kap. lagen om tilläggsskatt som om enheterna hade varit koncernenheter i en egen koncern med samriskföretaget som moderföretag (7 kap. 45 § lagen om tilläggsskatt). Beräkningen för ett samriskföretag och ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag sker alltså separat från beräkningen för den koncern som samriskföretaget och dotterföretaget tillhör.

När det gäller skattskyldighet för det tilläggsskattebelopp som beräknats och fördelats på ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag gäller olika bestämmelser för nationell tilläggsskatt i 6 kap. 2 a § lagen om tilläggsskatt respektive tilläggsskatt enligt huvud- eller kom- 16 pletteringsregeln för tilläggsskatt i 7 kap. 46 och 47 §§ samma lag. Enligt

7 kap. 46 § första stycket lagen om tilläggsskatt ska en moderenhet som har ett direkt eller indirekt ägarintresse i ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag tillämpa bestämmelserna i 6 kap. 3–8 §§ lagen om tilläggsskatt (huvudregeln för tilläggsskatt) med avseende på sin andel av tilläggsskattebeloppet för ett samriskföretag eller dotterföretaget till ett samriskföretag. Om ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag hör hemma i Sverige gäller i stället 6 kap. 2 a § lagen om tilläggsskatt som avser nationell tilläggsskatt (7 kap. 46 § andra stycket lagen om tilläggsskatt). Enligt 7 kap. 47 § lagen om tilläggsskatt ska tilläggsskattebelopp som belöper på en samriskföretagskoncern och som återstår efter minskning med tilläggsskattebelopp som ska tas ut enligt 7 kap. 46 § och 6 kap. 2 a § lagen om tilläggsskatt läggas till det totala tilläggsskattebeloppet enligt 6 kap. 11 § lagen om tilläggsskatt (kompletteringsregeln för tilläggsskatt). Bestämmelsen i 7 kap. 47 § lagen om tilläggsskatt gäller därmed tilläggsskattebelopp som belöper på en samriskföretagskoncerns enheter som hör hemma i en annan stat.

Av 6 kap. 2 a § lagen om tilläggsskatt följer att en svensk koncernenhet är skattskyldig för nationell tilläggsskatt för hela det tilläggsskattebelopp som beräknats och fördelats enligt 7 kap. 45 § samma lag på ett samriskföretag och ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag, om företaget hör hemma i Sverige och tillhör den koncern som den svenska koncernenheten ingår i. I 6 kap. 16 a och 16 c §§ lagen om tilläggsskatt finns bestämmelser om undantag från reglerna om tilläggsskatt i fem år under en koncerns inledande fas av internationell verksamhet respektive – för koncerner vars samtliga koncernenheter hör hemma i Sverige – under de första fem åren som koncernen omfattas av lagen om tilläggsskatt. Bestämmelserna innebär att nationell tilläggsskatt som en svensk koncernenhet är skattskyldig för enligt 6 kap. 2 a § lagen om tilläggsskatt ska sättas ned till noll under de första fem åren av det som enligt 6 kap. 18 § samma lag utgör koncernens inledande fas av internationell verksamhet eller, för en koncern vars samtliga koncernenheter hör hemma i Sverige, de första fem åren som koncernen omfattas av lagen om tilläggsskatt. Däremot ska nedsättning inte ske till den del ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag innehas av en koncernenhet som omfattas av en huvudregel för tilläggsskatt i en annan stat.

Regleringen i 6 kap. 2 a § lagen om tilläggsskatt avviker från den allmänna regleringen vad gäller skattskyldighet för nationell tilläggsskatt i 6 kap. 2 § samma lag, där det anges att en svensk koncernenhet som är lågbeskattad är skattskyldig för det tilläggsskattebelopp som beräknats och fördelats på den egna enheten. Bakgrunden till avvikelsen är att bestämmelserna om förfarandet för tilläggsskatt i skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244) utgår från definitionen av begreppet koncernenhet i 2 kap. 8 § lagen om tilläggsskatt, vilket sammanhänger med definitionen av koncern i 2 kap. 7 § samma lag. En koncernenhet är, med undantag för vad som gäller för fasta driftställen, en enhet som ingår i en koncern (2 kap. 8 § lagen om tilläggsskatt). Begreppet enhet avser i sin tur – med vissa undantag som gäller offentliga organ – en juridisk person eller en annan juridisk konstruktion som upprättar särskilda räkenskaper (2 kap 6 § lagen om tilläggsskatt). Med begreppet koncern avses, med undantag som avser fasta driftställen, enheter som är förenade genom ägande eller kontroll på så sätt att deras tillgångar, skulder, intäkter, kostnader och kassaflöden 17

ingår i moderföretagets koncernredovisning eller är undantagna från moderföretagets koncernredovisning endast på grund av sin ringa storlek eller väsentlighet eller på grund av att enheten innehas för försäljning (2 kap. 7 § lagen om tilläggsskatt). Det finansiella resultatet för ett samriskföretag och ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag redovisas enligt kapitalandelsmetoden i moderföretagets koncernredovisning. Detta får till följd att ett sådant företag inte motsvarar definitionen av koncernenhet, utan är endast en enhet.

Samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag ska vara

skattskyldiga för nationell tilläggsskatt

Av punkt 38 i avsnitt 3 i annex A i kommentaren till modellreglerna framgår att en stat som påför nationell tilläggsskatt på samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag kan placera skattskyldigheten på koncernenheter i den koncern till vilken samriskföretaget eller dotterföretaget till ett samriskföretag hör utan att regelverket diskvalificeras från förenklingsregeln för nationell tilläggsskatt. Om så sker utesluts däremot tillämpning av förenklingsregeln i andra stater vad avser koncernens samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag i den staten, s.k. switch-off (punkt 40 och 47 i avsnitt 3 i annex A i kommentaren till modellreglerna). Detta får till följd att huvud- och kompletteringsregeln gäller i fråga om tilläggsskattebelopp som beräknats och fördelats på ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag. Att samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag inte är skattskyldiga för nationell tilläggsskatt enligt 6 kap. 2 a § lagen om tilläggsskatt för tilläggsskattebelopp får till följd att svensk nationell tilläggsskatt inte omfattas av andra staters förenklingsregel för nationell tilläggsskatt såvitt avser samriskföretag och dotterföretaget till ett samriskföretag. Detta innebär att tillämpning av huvud- och kompletteringsregeln för tilläggsskatt kan komma i fråga. Det innebär att hela tilläggsskattebeloppet ska tas ut i Sverige samtidigt som en koncernenhet som hör hemma i en annan stat är skattskyldig för sin andel av tilläggsskattebeloppet enligt huvud- eller kompletteringsregeln där. För att förenklingsregeln för nationell tilläggsskatt ska kunna tillämpas i andra stater och denna situation inte ska uppstå föreslås att bestämmelsen om skattskyldighet för nationell tilläggsskatt i 6 kap. 2 a § lagen om tilläggsskatt ändras så att ett samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag är skattskyldigt för hela det tilläggsskattebelopp som beräknats och fördelats på företaget.

Lagens tillämpningsområde och var ett samriskföretag och ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag hör hemma

Förslaget föranleder ändringar i vissa andra bestämmelser i lagen om tilläggsskatt. I 1 kap. 3 § anges att lagen ska tillämpas när en svensk koncernenhet ingår i en koncern som har en årlig intäkt på minst 750 miljoner euro enligt moderföretagets koncernredovisning under minst två av de fyra räkenskapsår som föregår det aktuella räkenskapsåret. Med svensk koncernenhet avses enligt definitionen av begreppet i 2 kap. 9 § en koncernenhet som hör hemma i Sverige enligt bestämmelserna i 1 kap. 11–16 §§. Lagens bestämmelser om var en enhet hör hemma finns i 1 kap. 11–16 §§. Av 1 kap. 11 § tredje stycket framgår att bestämmelserna i 1 kap. 12 och

13 §§ ska tillämpas. Detta gäller trots att dessa bestämmelser enligt sin ordalydelse avser koncernenheter. Skatteverket efterlyser tydliga regler om när ett samriskföretag och dess dotterföretag hör hemma i Sverige enligt 1 kap. 12 och 13 §§ lagen om tilläggsskatt. Dessa bestämmelser följer motsvarande reglering i såväl modellreglerna som i minimibeskattningsdirektivet. Regeringen anser därför att detta är frågor som tills vidare får avgöras i rättstillämpningen eftersom det för närvarande saknas vägledning från IF i frågan.

Som framgår ovan är samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag inte koncernenheter. Tillämpningen av den föreslagna nya lydelsen i 6 kap. 2 a § lagen om tilläggsskatt förutsätter dock att samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag omfattas av bestämmelsen om lagens tillämpningsområde i 1 kap. 3 § lagen om tilläggsskatt. Den sistnämnda bestämmelsen föreslås därför kompletteras med att lagen ska tillämpas när ett samriskföretag hör hemma i Sverige och tillhör en koncern som uppfyller de förutsättningar som ställs upp i paragrafen. Bestämmelsen ska vidare kompletteras med att lagen ska tillämpas när ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag hör hemma i Sverige och tillhör en sådan koncern. Detta innebär att om det endast finns ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som hör hemma i Sverige ska lagen tillämpas om samriskföretaget tillhör en koncern som uppnår beloppsgränsen i 1 kap. 3 § lagen om tilläggsskatt.

Definition av samriskföretag

FAR föreslår att definitionen av samriskföretag i 7 kap. 43 § lagen om tilläggsskatt ändras för att undvika missförstånd i förhållande till den redovisningsrättsliga terminologin. Definitionen i den bestämmelsen motsvarar definitionen i såväl modellreglerna som i minimibeskattningsdirektivet. Regeringen anser därför att det inte är lämpligt att ändra bestämmelsen och föreslår därför inte en sådan ändring som FAR föreslår. Vad gäller de synpunkter som Skatteverket anför angående olika klassificering av samriskföretag konstaterar regeringen att detta är frågor som tills vidare får avgöras i rättstillämpningen eftersom det för närvarande saknas vägledning från IF rörande dessa frågor. Regeringen vill med anledning av vad Uppsala universitet anför erinra om att den redogörelse för samriskföretag i prop. 2023/24:32 s. 328 som Uppsala universitet hänvisar till inte avser definitionen av samriskföretag i modellreglerna och minimibeskattningsdirektivet, utan regleringen i BFNAR 2012:1 respektive IFRS 11.

Undantag från reglerna under fem år

Bestämmelserna i 6 kap. 16 a och 16 c §§ lagen om tilläggsskatt om undantag från reglerna om tilläggsskatt i fem år under en koncerns inledande fas av internationell verksamhet respektive – för koncerner med samtliga koncernenheter i Sverige – under de första fem åren som koncernen omfattas av lagen om tilläggsskatt föreslås ändras. Ändringen föranleds av förslaget att samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag blir skattskyldiga för nationell tilläggsskatt. Bestämmelsen i 6 kap. 16 a § lagen om tilläggsskatt om att femårsundantaget inte gäller till den del ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag innehas

av en koncernenhet som omfattas av en huvudregel för tilläggsskatt i en annan stat föreslås dessutom justeras så att det framgår att det kan vara fråga om både ett direkt och ett indirekt ägarintresse. Bestämmelserna om undantag i fem år föreslås samtidigt kompletteras vad gäller tillämpningen när ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag tillhör två koncerner. Om två koncerner direkt eller indirekt har ett ägarintresse i en enhet som innebär att enheten är ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag för respektive koncern ska prövningen av om förutsättningarna för nedsättning är uppfyllda göras utifrån förhållandena för respektive koncern och med beaktande av om en koncern är sådan att den omfattas av lagens tillämpningsområde till följd av att dess årliga intäkt överskrider beloppsgränsen 750 miljoner euro i 1 kap. 3 § lagen om tilläggsskatt. Skatteverket efterfrågar ett klargörande av hur beräkningen av den andel av tilläggsskatten som är hänförlig till en koncern ska göras. Regeringen anser att andelarnas storlek vid tillämpning av femårsundantaget ska motsvara det som gäller när 7 kap. 46 § första stycket lagen om tilläggsskatt ska tillämpas. Beräkningen av andel i den bestämmelsen följer vad som enligt 6 kap. 7 § lagen om tilläggsskatt gäller i fråga om beräkning av andel av det justerade resultat som tillhör andra ägarintressen.

Ägarförändringar

Skatteverket efterlyser klargöranden av vad som ska gälla om ett samriskföretag endast under en del av beskattningsåret tillhör en koncern som omfattas av lagens tillämpningsområde respektive om det är tillräckligt att ett samriskföretag under någon del av året tillhör en koncern för att skattskyldighet ska uppkomma för hela det tilläggsskattebelopp som beräknats och fördelats på företaget. Regeringen konstaterar att det för närvarande saknas vägledning från IF vad avser dessa frågor och att det därför tills vidare är frågor som får avgöras i rättstillämpningen.

Beskattningsår

Skatteverket anser att nuvarande bestämmelser skulle kunna innebära att två beskattningsår pekas ut för ett och samma samriskföretag respektive dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag och efterlyser ett klargörande av vilket beskattningsår som ska gälla i den situationen. Situationen skulle kunna uppkomma när ett samriskföretag respektive dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag tillhör två olika koncerner vars moderföretag har olika räkenskapsår. Av 7 kap. 45 § lagen om tilläggsskatt framgår att beräkningen av tilläggsskattebeloppet för ett samriskföretag och dess dotterföretag (en samriskföretagskoncern) ska göras i enlighet med 3–8 kap. lagen om tilläggsskatt som om enheterna hade varit koncernenheter i en egen koncern med samriskföretaget som moderföretag. Enligt 2 kap. 24 § lagen om tilläggsskatt är beskattningsåret det år som motsvarar moderföretagets räkenskapsår. Vid tillämpning av 7 kap. 45 § lagen om tilläggsskatt kommer därmed räkenskapsåret för samriskföretaget att styra, medan det för ett dotterföretag i en samriskföretagskoncern kommer att vara räkenskapsåret för moderföretaget i samriskföretagskoncernen som styr. Regeringen anser därför att det klargörande som Skatteverket efterfrågar inte är nödvändigt i fråga om lagen om tilläggsskatt. När det gäller skatteförfarandelagen föreslås vissa förtydliganden i fråga om när en tilläggs-

skattedeklaration ska lämnas i dessa fall (se under rubriken Tilläggsskattedeklaration i avsnitt 5).

Huvud- och kompletteringsregeln för tilläggsskatt

I promemorian föreslås att bestämmelsen i 7 kap. 46 § lagen om tilläggsskatt om tillämpning av huvudregeln för tilläggsskatt ändras så att en moderenhet är skattskyldig för tilläggsskattebelopp som inte tas ut i sin helhet av ett samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag. NSD m.fl. och Stockholms universitet anser att ett undantag ska införas så att tilläggsskatten blir noll enligt huvudregeln för tilläggsskatt då svensk nationell tilläggsskatt tas ut. Regeringen delar remissinstansernas synpunkt. Vad gäller svenska koncernenheter innebär uttag av svensk nationell tilläggsskatt att de inte anses vara lågbeskattade, vilket medför att tilläggsskatt enligt huvudregeln inte ska tas ut (se prop. 2023/24:32 s. 291). Regeringen anser att för samriskföretag och dess dotterföretag innebär uttag av svensk nationell tilläggsskatt att de inte ska anses vara lågbeskattade och att tilläggsskatt enligt huvudregeln inte ska tas ut. Regeringen föreslår därför att bestämmelsen i 7 kap. 46 § lagen om tilläggsskatt om tillämpning av huvudregeln för tilläggsskatt lämnas oförändrad. I bestämmelsen om tillämpning av kompletteringsregeln för tilläggsskatt i 7 kap. 47 § lagen om tilläggsskatt föreslås en följdändring för att bestämmelsen ska överensstämma med den föreslagna ändringen i 6 kap. 2 a §.

Förhållandet till förenklingsregeln när moderföretag hör hemma i en stat med ett parallellt minimibeskattningssystem (side-by-side safe harbour) Stockholms universitet efterlyser ett klargörande av hur den förslagna skattskyldighetsregeln förhåller sig till den s.k. side-by-side safe harbourregeln som i propositionen Nya förenklingsregler och andra kompletteringar i lagen om tilläggsskatt (prop. 2026/27:4) föreslås införas i 8 kap. 18 a § den lagen. Regeringen vill med anledning av detta peka på bestämmelsen i 7 kap. 45 § lagen om tilläggsskatt. Där anges att beräkningen av tilläggsskattebeloppet för ett samriskföretag och dess dotterföretag (en samriskföretagskoncern) ska göras i enlighet med 3– 8 kap. lagen om tilläggsskatt som om enheterna hade varit koncernenheter i en egen koncern med samriskföretaget som moderföretag. Förenklingsreglerna i 8 kap. lagen om tilläggsskatt, där side-by-side safe harbourregeln föreslås införas, omfattar därmed samriskföretag och dess dotterföretag. Vidare kan noteras att den föreslagna 8 kap. 18 a § samma lag ska gälla för samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag som tillhör en koncern vars moderföretag uppfyller villkoren i den bestämmelsen.

Lagförslag

Förslaget medför ändringar i 1 kap. 3 §, 6 kap. 2 a och 16 a och 16 c §§ samt 7 kap. 47 § lagen om tilläggsskatt.

5¶Förfarandet behöver kompletteras

Regeringens förslag

I skatteförfarandelagen ska det tas in definitioner av uttrycken samriskföretag respektive dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag. Definitionen av juridisk person ska utvidgas till att även avse samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag.

Skatteverket ska registrera samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som är skattskyldigt för nationell tilläggsskatt enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt. Ett sådant samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag ska anmäla sig för registrering hos Skatteverket inom 15 månader efter utgången av det beskattningsår då registreringsskyldigheten uppstod.

Ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som är skattskyldigt för nationell tilläggsskatt ska lämna en tilläggsskattedeklaration. En tilläggsskattedeklaration ska innehålla uppgift om att ett samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag tagit del av de uppgifter i tilläggsskatterapporten som behövs för att fullgöra uppgiftsskyldigheten i tilläggsskattedeklarationen. Den som är deklarationsskyldig ska lämna tilläggsskattedeklaration senast en månad efter den dag då tilläggsskatterapporten senast ska lämnas. En deklarationsskyldig som är ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag och hör till två sådana koncerner som är skyldiga att lämna tilläggsskatterapport, ska lämna tilläggsskattedeklaration senast en månad efter den dag som båda dessa koncerner senast ska lämna tilläggsskatterapport.

Skatteverket ska ha möjlighet att förelägga ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag att inkomma med uppgifter som behövs för att kontrollera en lämnad uppgift i en tilläggsskatterapport om det kan antas att uppgiften inte stämmer överens med lagen om tilläggsskatt. Detta ska endast gälla om uppgiften som har lämnats i en tilläggsskatterapport kan antas ha betydelse för bedömningen av skattskyldighet enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt.

Skattetillägg ska inte tas ut om ett samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag vidtagit skäliga åtgärder för att redovisa korrekta beräkningar i enlighet med 33 d kap. skatteförfarandelagen och korrekta bedömningar i fråga om bestämmelserna om tilläggsskatt.

Skatteverket ska besluta om skatt enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt om samriskföretaget eller dotterföretaget till ett samriskföretag har lämnat en tilläggsskattedeklaration eller det i övrigt framkommit att samriskföretaget eller dotterföretaget till ett samriskföretag ska betala sådan skatt.

Regeringens bedömning

Skatteförfarandelagens bestämmelser om tilläggsskatterapport behöver inte kompletteras. Sanktioner kan riktas mot samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som omfattas av lagen om tilläggsskatt.

Promemorians förslag och bedömning

Förslaget och bedömningen i promemorian stämmer i huvudsak överens med regeringens. I promemorian anges att en tilläggsskattedeklaration ska innehålla uppgift om att den deklarationsskyldige har tagit del av tilläggsskatterapporten. I promemorian lämnas inte något förslag när tilläggsskattedeklaration ska lämnas för ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som hör till två sådana koncerner som är skyldiga att lämna tilläggsskatterapport.

Remissinstanserna

Skatteverket lämnar följande synpunkter i denna del. Det behöver klargöras vilket beskattningsåret är för samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag när det finns mer än ett moderföretag och moderföretagens räkenskapsår inte korresponderar. En kompletterande bestämmelse som hanterar situationen bör införas. FAR framför att det vore önskvärt att det återspeglar sig i lagtexten att den deklarationsskyldige ska lämna uppgift om att denne endast tagit del av de delar i tilläggsskatterapporten som avser dess skattskyldighet till tilläggsskatt. Detta med anledning av att det normalt endast är uppgifter som är relevanta för respektive koncernenhet som delas från den sammanställda rapporten. Detta gäller i än högre grad hos samriskföretag då ägarna inte sällan är konkurrenter till varandra. Näringslivets skattedelegation (till vars yttrande Fastighetsägarna, Svensk Sjöfart och Svenskt näringsliv ansluter sig), nedan NSD m.fl., önskar förtydligande med avseende på vilken ägarenhet som det deklarationsskyldiga samriskföretaget eller dotterbolaget till samriskföretaget ska ange i tilläggsskattedeklarationen samt vilken tilläggsskatterapport som deklarationsskyldig ska hänvisa till i en situation då två tilläggsskatterapporter upprättats av två separata ägarenheter.

Skälen för regeringens förslag och bedömning

Gällande rätt

Skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244), förkortad SFL, gäller vid uttag av skatt enligt lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt. Vid införandet av tilläggsskatt för företag i stora koncerner kompletterades därför skatteförfarandelagen med bestämmelser om förfarandet vid beskattningen (se avsnitt 15 i prop. 2023/24:32 Tilläggsskatt för företag i stora koncerner). Bestämmelserna om skatteförfarandet utformades så att de passar väl in i det svenska skattesystemet och redan etablerade begrepp används i möjligaste mån. I skatteförfarandelagen infördes därför t.ex. regler om tilläggsskattedeklaration, tilläggsskatterapport, sanktioner och beslut om tilläggsskatt. Förfarandereglerna utformades efter att koncernenheter skulle bli skattskyldiga för nationell tilläggsskatt, tilläggsskatt enligt huvudregeln eller kompletterande tilläggsskatt.

Någon skyldighet att lämna tilläggsskatterapport för samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag finns inte i skatteförfarandelagen, eftersom en sådan enhet inte enligt nuvarande regelverk anses vara en koncernenhet. Den ska dock behandlas som en koncernenhet vid

beräkning av tilläggsskattebeloppet. Detsamma gäller för ett dotterbolag till ett samriskföretag (se kommentar till artikel 8.1.1 modellreglerna).

Det behövs vissa kompletteringar i skatteförfarandelagen

I avsnitt 4 föreslås att samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag ska bli skattskyldiga för svensk nationell tilläggsskatt. Eftersom samriskföretag föreslås bli skattskyldiga för svensk nationell tilläggsskatt behöver förfarandet för tilläggsskatt kompletteras genom nya bestämmelser och ändringar behöver göras i befintliga bestämmelser.

Det kan framhållas att ett samriskföretag inte är skyldigt att lämna tilläggsskatterapport eftersom det inte är en koncernenhet som ingår i en koncern även om den ingår vid beräkningen av tilläggsskattebeloppet. Detsamma gäller för ett dotterbolag till ett samriskföretag (se kommentar till artikel 8.1.1 modellreglerna). Koncernenheter som omfattas av lagen om tilläggsskatt ska som utgångspunkt lämna en tilläggsskatterapport. Innehållet i tilläggsskatterapporten ligger till grund för bedömning av om koncernen uppfyller kraven om minimibeskattning och i förekommande fall beräkning av tilläggsskattebelopp.

I artikel 44 i minimibeskattningsdirektivet regleras skyldigheten att lämna tilläggsskatterapport. I direktivet benämns dock tilläggsskatterapporten ”deklaration med information om tilläggsskatt”. Samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag omfattas inte av kretsen företag som ska lämna tilläggsskatterapport enligt modellreglerna och minimibeskattningsdirektivet.

De nationella reglerna om tilläggsskatterapport finns främst i 33 d kap. SFL. Där anges vilka svenska företag som är rapporteringsskyldiga i Sverige, vilka uppgifter de ska lämna i tilläggsskatterapporten och när rapporten ska lämnas. En koncernenhet som avses i 1 kap. 3 § lagen om tilläggsskatt ska lämna en tilläggsskatterapport till Skatteverket (se 33 d kap. 3 § SFL).

Informationen i tilläggsskatterapporten ska göra det möjligt för skatteförvaltningarna där koncernenheterna är belägna att bedöma riktigheten i en koncernenhets skyldighet att betala tilläggsskatt (jfr skäl 22 i minimibeskattningsdirektivet). Innehållet i tilläggsskatterapporten kommer därför att ligga till grund för bedömning av om koncernen uppfyller kraven om minimibeskattning och i förekommande fall beräknat tilläggsskattebelopp (prop. 2023/24:32 s. 378 och 56 a kap. 2 § SFL).

En tilläggsskatterapport ska enligt nuvarande regler bl.a. innehålla de uppgifter som är nödvändiga för att beräkna tilläggsskattebeloppet för varje medlem i en samriskföretagskoncern (se 33 d kap. 6 § SFL). Dessa uppgifter ska baseras på en tillämpning av modellreglerna och kommentaren till modellreglerna (se 33 d kap. 8 a § SFL).

Samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag har inte någon skyldighet att lämna tilläggsskatterapport. Bestämmelserna i 33 d kap. SFL om tilläggsskatterapport bedöms därför inte behöva kompletteras.

Definitioner och förklaringar

I 3 kap. SFL finns definitioner och förklaringar. De definitioner och förklaringar som har betydelse för tillämpningen av flera bestämmelser på olika ställen i skatteförfarandelagen finns i detta kapitel. Definitioner och

förklaringar som är hårdare knutna till ett visst kapitel placeras i stället i det kapitlet. För att det ska vara lätt att hitta även en sådan definition eller förklaring finns i 3 kap. 1 § SFL en lista som hänvisar till rätt paragraf (prop. 2010/11:165 s. 699).

Med anledning av att samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag föreslås bli skattskyldiga för svensk nationell tilläggsskatt behöver det införas definitioner av uttrycken samriskföretag och dotterföretag till dessa i skatteförfarandelagen. Samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag definieras i 7 kap. 43 och 44 §§ lagen om tilläggsskatt. Bestämmelsen i 3 kap. 1 § SFL behöver därför kompletteras och 3 kap. 11 b och 11 c §§ SFL införas.

Det finns flera bestämmelser i skatteförfarandelagen som bara gäller för juridiska personer, se t.ex. 4 kap. 2 §, 37 kap. 7, 9, 9 a och 11 §§, 40 kap. 3 § andra stycket, 59 kap. 12, 13 och 14 §§ samt 67 kap. 8 § 9 och 10. För att dessa ska bli tillämpliga på alla svenska enheter som är samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till sådana enligt definitionerna i 7 kap. 43 och 44 §§ lagen om tilläggsskatt bör det införas en bestämmelse som innebär att de ska betraktas som juridiska personer i skatteförfarandelagens mening. Detta ska dock inte påverka bedömningen av om de är juridiska personer i den mening som avses i lagen om tilläggsskatt. Endast samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag som definieras som sådana enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt kan vara sådana enligt skatteförfarandelagens mening. Om de faller in under definitionerna i lagen om tilläggsskatt bör det dock framgå av skatteförfarandelagen att de ska betraktas som juridiska personer vid tillämpningen av övriga bestämmelser i skatteförfarandelagen. Med anledning av detta bör det även klargöras i skatteförfarandelagen att definitionen av ”juridisk person” endast gäller vid tillämpningen av skatteförfarandelagen och inte i övrigt. Bestämmelsen i 3 kap. 11 §§ SFL behöver därför kompletteras.

Registrering av samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag I 7 kap. SFL finns bestämmelser om i vilka fall någon måste anmäla sig för registrering hos Skatteverket. Skatteverket ska bl.a. registrera den som är skattskyldig enligt någon av de lagar som räknas upp i bestämmelserna. Den som ska registreras är skyldig att anmäla sig för registrering hos Skatteverket. En koncernenhet som avses i 1 kap. 3 § lagen om tilläggsskatt ska bl.a. registreras. Om den som ska registreras har en företrädare enligt 5 kap. SFL, ska dock företrädaren registreras i stället. Detta gäller dock inte för en koncernenhet (7 kap. 1 § tredje stycket SFL). Registrering görs för att skatteadministrationen ska fungera (prop. 2010/11:165 s. 718).

Regeringen anser att motsvarande regler om registrering även ska gälla för samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som är skattskyldigt för nationell tilläggsskatt enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt. Ett sådant samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag ska, på samma sätt som gäller för koncernenheter, anmäla sig för registrering hos Skatteverket inom 15 månader efter utgången av det beskattningsår då registreringsskyldigheten uppstod. Eftersom ett samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag inte har en företrädare enligt 5 kap. SFL bör det även förtydligas att en företrädare inte ska registreras. Bestämmelserna i 7 kap. 1 och 2 b §§ SFL behöver därför kompletteras.

När ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag hör till två koncerner vars beskattningsår inte korresponderar kan företaget uppfattas ha flera beskattningsår samtidigt (se nedan under Tilläggsskattedeklaration). Utgångspunkten bör då vara att tidsfristen för anmälan om registrering tillämpas utifrån det moderföretags räkenskapsår som avslutas sist av moderföretagens räkenskapsår. Tidsfristen räknas från samriskföretagets eller dotterföretaget till ett samriskföretags räkenskapsårs utgång (jfr 3 kap. 4 § SFL). Detta behöver inte regleras särskilt i denna del.

Tilläggsskattedeklaration

En tilläggsskatterapport innehåller de uppgifter som behövs för att bedöma om det uppkommer ett tilläggsskattebelopp för koncernen samt beräkna och fördela tilläggsskattebeloppet. Enligt regeringens bedömning behöver det inte göras några ändringar i fråga om vem som ska lämna tilläggsskatterapport enligt skatteförfarandelagen, eftersom samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag inte ska lämna in en tilläggsskatterapport.

Rapporten innehåller dock inte samtliga uppgifter som krävs för att skatten ska kunna tas ut i Sverige. Mot denna bakgrund kompletteras rapporten av ett nationellt deklarationsförfarande i form av en tilläggsskattedeklaration. Syftet med deklarationen är att vara till ledning för bestämmande av underlag för att ta ut skatt enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt (32 a kap. 1 § SFL). En tilläggsskattedeklaration ska, enligt nuvarande reglering, lämnas om koncernenheten är skattskyldig för ett tilläggsskattebelopp enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt eller kompletterande tilläggsskatt som fördelas till svenska koncernenheter (32 a kap. 2 § SFL).

Närmare reglering av vad en tilläggsskattedeklaration ska innehålla finns i 32 a kap. 3 och 4 §§ SFL. En tilläggsskattedeklaration ska bl.a. innehålla uppgift om vilken enhet som lämnar tilläggsskatterapport samt uppgifter som behövs för beräkning och fördelning av nationell tilläggsskatt. Om koncernen tillämpar centralt uppgiftslämnande av tilläggsskatterapporten gäller att det är den koncernenheten som ska anges. För det fall koncernen tillämpar lokalt uppgiftslämnande av tilläggsskatterapporten räcker det med att ange den koncernenhet som hör hemma i Sverige och som har lämnat tilläggsskatterapporten. Den som är deklarationsskyldig ska också lämna de övriga uppgifter som behövs för att Skatteverket ska kunna fatta ett riktigt beslut om tilläggsskatt. En koncernenhet som är deklarationsskyldig enligt 32 a kap. 2 § SFL ska, enligt 32 a kap. 7 § SFL, lämna tilläggsskattedeklaration senast en månad efter den dag då tilläggsskatterapporten senast ska lämnas. Tidsfristen utgår alltså från när tilläggsskatterapporten för koncernen måste lämnas in.

I avsnitt 4 föreslås att samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag ska bli skattskyldiga för svensk nationell tilläggsskatt. Bestämmelserna om tilläggsskattedeklaration i 32 a kap. SFL, i dess nuvarande lydelse, utgår från att det är koncernenheter som ska lämna deklarationerna. Vissa av bestämmelserna i 32 a kap. SFL, t.ex. 32 a kap. 2 och 3 §§ SFL, behöver därför kompletteras, så att även samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag ska kunna inkluderas i det befintliga systemet med tilläggsskattedeklarationer.

FAR för fram att det är önskvärt att bestämmelsen i 32 a kap. 3 § SFL begränsas till att den deklarationsskyldige endast behöver ha tagit del av tilläggsskatterapporten i de delar som avser dess skattskyldighet till tilläggsskatt. Detta är särskilt viktigt vad gäller samriskföretag eftersom ägarna inte sällan är konkurrenter till varandra. Enligt regeringens bedömning finns det, med anledning av det som FAR för fram, fog för att göra en sådan begränsning avseende samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag. Enligt regeringens mening bör det därför anges i 32 a kap. 3 § SFL att en tilläggsskattedeklaration ska innehålla uppgift om att ett samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag har tagit del av de uppgifter i tilläggsskatterapporten som behövs för att denne ska kunna upprätta sin tilläggsskattedeklaration. Det finns inte behov för den deklarationsskyldige att ta del av all information i en koncerns tilläggsskatterapport.

Regeringen anser däremot att det inte finns något sådant behov, som NSD m.fl. för fram, av att ytterligare förtydliga vilken ägarenhet som ska anges i tilläggsskattedeklaration eller vilken tilläggsskatterapport som den deklarationsskyldige ska hänvisa till i en situation då två tilläggsskatterapporter upprättats av två separata ägarenheter. En tilläggsskatterapport kan lämnas in av en koncernenhet inom koncernen, antingen till Skatteverket av en svensk koncernenhet eller till en skattemyndighet i en annan stat med vilken Sverige har ett avtal om automatiskt utbyte av tilläggsskatterapporter med information om tilläggsskatt. Det kan således bli aktuellt att hänvisa till två olika tilläggsskatterapporter i tilläggsskattedeklarationen.

Avslutningsvis behöver bestämmelsen i 32 a kap. 7 § SFL, som reglerar när en tilläggsskattedeklaration ska lämnas, ändras på så sätt att den som är deklarationsskyldig ska lämna tilläggsskattedeklarationen senast en månad efter den dag då tilläggsskatterapporten senast ska lämnas. Med deklarationsskyldig avses, utöver koncernenheter, även samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag.

Skatteverket för fram att de befintliga bestämmelserna om beskattningsår i kombination med definitionen av samriskföretag respektive dotterföretag till samriskföretag kan uppfattas som att ett samriskföretag respektive dotterföretag till samriskföretag som ägs till hälften vardera av två moderföretag med olika räkenskapsår, har två beskattningsår samtidigt. Det finns därför, enligt Skatteverket, ett behov av klargörande av vilket beskattningsår som ska gälla. I avsnitt 4 har närmare redogjorts för frågan avseende samriskföretagets eller dess dotterföretags beskattningsår. Enligt 2 kap. 24 § lagen om tilläggsskatt är beskattningsåret det år som motsvarar moderföretagets räkenskapsår. Vid tillämpning av 7 kap. 45 § lagen om tilläggsskatt kommer därmed räkenskapsåret för samriskföretaget, eller i fråga om en samriskföretagskoncern, moderföretaget, att styra. Det innebär att detsamma gäller i fråga om skatteförfarandet (se 3 kap. 4 § SFL), dvs. att tilläggsskattedeklarationen ska avse samriskföretagets beskattningsår. I den av Skatteverket angivna situationen bör det enligt regeringens mening, och med anledning av den problematik som Skatteverket tar upp, tydliggöras när tilläggsskattedeklarationen ska lämnas av ett samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag för det fall samriskföretaget hör till två koncerner med olika räkenskapsår. I dessa fall ska två olika koncerners 27

tilläggsskatterapporter lämnas in vid olika tidpunkter. Bestämmelserna i 32 a kap. 7 § SFL bör därför kompletteras på så sätt att om en deklarationsskyldig som är ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag och hör till två sådana koncerner som är skyldiga att lämna tilläggsskatterapport, ska tilläggsskattedeklaration lämnas in senast en månad efter den dag som båda dessa koncerner senast ska lämna tilläggsskatterapport. På så sätt tydliggörs hanteringen av tilläggsskattedeklarationen i den situation som Skatteverket redogör för.

Möjlighet att förelägga ett samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett

samriskföretag

Skatteverket har möjlighet att förelägga en koncernenhet att inkomma med uppgifter som behövs för att kontrollera en lämnad uppgift i en tilläggsskatterapport om det kan antas att uppgiften inte stämmer överens med bestämmelserna i lagen om tilläggsskatt. Detta gäller endast om uppgiften som har lämnats i en tilläggsskatterapport kan antas ha betydelse för bedömningen av skattskyldighet enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt (37 kap. 7 c § SFL). Eftersom samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag föreslås bli skattskyldiga för svensk nationell tilläggsskatt bör det enligt regeringen finnas en möjlighet för Skatteverket att kunna inhämta sådana uppgifter även från sådana typer av företag. Även om samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag inte lämnar in tilläggsskatterapport så innehåller en tilläggsskatterapport bl.a. uppgifter som kan ha betydelse för bedömningen av skattskyldighet för ett samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt. Bestämmelsen i 37 kap. 7 c § SFL behöver därför kompletteras.

Sanktioner och befrielse från särskilda avgifter

En rapportavgift ska enligt 49 e kap. SFL tas ut av den som lämnar en tilläggsskatterapport om det visar sig att rapporten innehåller allvarliga brister. Bestämmelserna i 51 kap. SFL gällande särskilda avgifter i form av förseningsavgift och skattetillägg kan också tillämpas avseende skatt enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt. I 51 kap. 4 § andra stycket 2 SFL finns en särskild befrielsegrund som innebär att Skatteverket vid bedömningen av om det är oskäligt att ta ut skattetillägg på tilläggsskatt med fullt belopp bl.a. ska beakta att bestämmelserna i lagen om tilläggsskatt kan vara särskilt komplicerade och att uppgiftsskyldigheten är mycket omfattande. Den 1 maj 2026 infördes en tillfällig sanktionslättnad i 51 kap. 5 § SFL som innebär att skattetillägg eller rapportavgift inte ska tas ut om en koncernenhet vidtagit skäliga åtgärder för att redovisa korrekta beräkningar i enlighet med 33 d kap. SFL och korrekta bedömningar i fråga om bestämmelserna om tilläggsskatt.

Reglerna om sanktioner och befrielse från särskilda avgifter bör enligt regeringen även omfatta samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som är skattskyldiga för tilläggsskatt. Bestämmelsen i 51 kap. 5 § SFL behöver därför kompletteras.

Beslut om tilläggsskatt för samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett

samriskföretag

Skatteverket beslutar om tilläggsskatt utifrån uppgifter som har lämnats i en tilläggsskatterapport eller tilläggsskattedeklaration och vad som i övrigt har kommit fram vid utredning och kontroll (se 56 a kap. 2 § första stycket SFL). Skatteverket ska besluta om tilläggsskatt om en koncernenhet har lämnat en tilläggsskattedeklaration eller det i övrigt har framkommit att enheten ska betala sådan skatt (se 56 a kap. 2 § andra stycket SFL).

Alla svenska koncernenheter är inte skyldiga att lämna tilläggsskattedeklaration för varje beskattningsår. En koncernenhet är deklarationsskyldig om den är skattskyldig för ett tilläggsskattebelopp enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt eller kompletterande tilläggsskatt som fördelas till svenska koncernenheter (se 32 a kap. 2 § SFL). Skatteverket ska därför inte fatta beslut om tilläggsskatt för alla svenska koncernenheter varje beskattningsår. Skatteverket ska inte heller fatta beslut om tilläggsskatt för en koncernenhet som visserligen omfattas av lagen om tilläggsskatt, men som inte har deklarerat och där det inte i övrigt framkommit att enheten ska betala skatt enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt (se prop. 2023/24:32 s. 669). Skatteverket kan däremot besluta om tilläggsskatt för en koncernenhet som inte har lämnat en tilläggsskattedeklaration trots att enheten är deklarationsskyldig. I en sådan situation bör det finnas annat underlag, t.ex. en tilläggsskatterapport, som gör att skatten ändå kan bestämmas (se prop. 2023/24:32 s. 441).

Regeringen anser att reglerna om beslut om tilläggsskatt även ska gälla samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag. Bestämmelsen i 56 a kap. 2 § behöver därför kompletteras.

Förfarandet i övrigt

Att samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag blir uppgiftsskyldiga enligt skatteförfarandelagen innebär att den lagens bestämmelser kan tillämpas på motsvarande sätt som gäller för koncernenheter. Det innebär, utöver vad som framgår ovan, bl.a. att bestämmelserna om dokumentation, utredning och kontroll, tvångsåtgärder, ersättning för kostnader, beslut om skatter, betalning och återbetalning av skatter, omprövning, överklagande och ändring i beslut om skatt på grund av skatteavtal samt verkställighet kommer att bli tillämpliga på samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag.

När ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag har moderföretag vars räkenskapsår inte korresponderar är utgångspunkten att tidsfristerna i skatteförfarandelagen för samriskföretaget eller dotterföretaget till ett samriskföretag ska beräknas utifrån det moderföretags räkenskapsår som avslutas senast efter samriskföretagets eller dotterföretaget till samriskföretagets räkenskapsår.

Lagförslag

Förslaget medför ändringar i 3 kap. 1 och 11 §§, 7 kap. 1 och 2 b §§, 32 a kap. 2, 3 och 7 §§, 37 kap. 7 c §, 51 kap. 5 § och 56 a kap. 2 § skatteförfarandelagen, och det införs två nya bestämmelser, 3 kap. 11 b och 11 c §§, i samma lag.

6¶Personuppgiftsbehandling

Regeringens bedömning

Den behandling av personuppgifter som förslaget kan komma att ge upphov till är förenlig med EU:s dataskyddsförordning. Den befintliga regleringen som finns på personuppgiftsområdet är tillräcklig för den personuppgiftsbehandling som kan komma att ske vid Skatteverket.

Promemorians bedömning

Bedömningen i promemorian stämmer överens med regeringens.

Remissinstanserna

Ingen remissinstans har några synpunkter på bedömningen.

Skälen för regeringens bedömning

Förslagen i avsnitt 5 innebär att den skattskyldige (samriskföretaget eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag), till skillnad från vad som gäller enligt gällande bestämmelser, kan behöva lämna uppgifter i en tilläggsskattedeklaration eller på begäran av Skatteverket t.ex. vid en utredning. När det gäller uppgifter i en tilläggsskattedeklaration, kommer dessa i stort att avse juridiska personer. Det kan emellertid finnas uppgifter om fysiska personer som t.ex. är företrädare för ett samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag. De uppgifter som med anledning av förslagen kommer att behandlas hos Skatteverket kan därmed i vissa fall inkludera personuppgifter i form av t.ex. namn eller kontaktuppgifter.

Den personuppgiftsbehandling som förslaget kan ge upphov till hos Skatteverket omfattas av Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EU) 2016/679 av den 27 april 2016 om skydd för fysiska personer med avseende på behandling av personuppgifter och om det fria flödet av sådana uppgifter och om upphävande av direktiv 95/46/EG (allmän dataskyddsförordning), nedan kallad EU:s dataskyddsförordning. EU:s dataskyddsförordning är i alla delar bindande och direkt tillämplig i samtliga EU:s medlemsländer.

Den rättsliga grunden för personuppgiftsbehandlingen hos Skatteverket är i första hand att den är nödvändig för att utföra en uppgift av allmänt intresse eller som ett led i den personuppgiftsansvariges myndighetsutövning (artikel 6.1 e i EU:s dataskyddsförordning). Den aktuella grunden för behandlingen är vidare fastställd i den nationella rätten på det sätt som krävs enligt artikel 6.3 i EU:s dataskyddsförordning genom förordningen (2017:154) med instruktion för Skatteverket, skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244) och lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt.

Beskattningsdatalagen (2026:125) och beskattningsdataförordningen (2026:156), som kompletterar EU:s dataskyddsförordning, gäller vid Skatteverkets personuppgiftsbehandling i beskattningsverksamheten. Enligt beskattningsdatalagen får Skatteverket behandla personuppgifter om det är nödvändigt för att utföra verksamhet som ingår i beskattningsverksamheten. I beskattningsverksamheten ingår bl.a. fastställande av

underlag för samt bestämmande, redovisning, betalning och återbetalning av skatter och avgifter, samt revision och annan analys eller kontroll. Den personuppgiftsbehandling som förslagen i denna proposition ger upphov till kommer att omfattas av beskattningsdatalagen.

De uppgifter som kan komma att behandlas är t.ex. uppgifter om fysiska personer som är ägare i en företagsstruktur eller som är företrädare för ett samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag. Uppgifterna utgör inte sådana känsliga personuppgifter som avses i artikel 9.1 i EU:s dataskyddsförordning. Intrånget i de registrerades personliga integritet torde vara mycket litet. Vid en avvägning mellan ändamålet med behandlingen och det intrång i den personliga integriteten som behandlingen innebär bedöms personuppgiftsbehandlingen vara proportionerlig.

Sammanfattningsvis bedöms den personuppgiftsbehandling som förslaget ger upphov till vara förenlig med EU:s dataskyddsförordning. Den befintliga regleringen på personuppgiftsområdet bedöms vara tillräcklig för den personuppgiftsbehandling som kan komma att ske vid Skatteverket med anledning av förslaget.

7¶Ikraftträdande- och övergångsbestämmelser

Regeringens förslag

Lagändringarna ska träda i kraft den 1 mars 2027. Bestämmelserna i skatteförfarandelagen ska tillämpas första gången för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 28 februari 2027. Bestämmelserna i lagen om tilläggsskatt tillämpas första gången för beskattningsår som börjar närmast efter den 28 februari 2027 eller, i fråga om svenska handelsbolag, räkenskapsår som börjar närmast efter den 28 februari 2027.

Ett samriskföretag, dotterföretagen till samriskföretaget och koncernenheterna i den koncern som företagen tillhör får välja att tillämpa lagen för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023 eller, i fråga om svenska handelsbolag, räkenskapsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023, om samtliga gör ett sådant val.

Om den deklarationsskyldige, i enlighet med punkt 3 i ikraftträdandeoch övergångsbestämmelserna till lagen om ändring i lagen om tilläggsskatt, väljer att tillämpa lagen om tilläggsskatt i den nya lydelsen på beskattningsår som börjar före den 1 mars 2027, ska dock bestämmelserna i skatteförfarandelagen tillämpas även på de beskattningsåren.

Promemorians förslag

Förslaget i promemorian stämmer i huvudsak överens med regeringens. Förslaget i promemorian omfattar beskattningsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2024 eller, i fråga om svenska handelsbolag, räkenskapsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2024. Förslaget i promemorian har också en något annan utformning i fråga om hur val om retroaktiv tillämpning ska göras. I promemorians förslag i fråga om skatteförfarande-

lagen anges det att den deklarationsskyldige ska tillämpa bestämmelserna i skatteförfarandelagen på det beskattningsåret som börjar före den 1 mars 2027.

Remissinstanserna

Skatteverket anför att punkt 3 i övergångsbestämmelserna bör kompletteras så att de materiella förutsättningarna enligt den punkten också gäller vid en begäran om omprövning, dvs. att för att bevilja omprövning av beskattning krävs att samtliga inblandade enheter begär omprövning av den retroaktiva beskattningen så att inte endast en av enheterna beviljas omprövning. Näringslivets Skattedelegation (till vars yttrande Fastighetsägarna, Svensk Sjöfart och Svenskt näringsliv ansluter sig), nedan NSD m.fl., beklagar att möjligheten till retroaktiv tillämpning avseende beskattningsår som påbörjas efter 31 december 2023 (dvs. räkenskapsår 2024) inte längre är möjlig, vilket innebär en risk för dubbelbeskattning gällande beskattningsår 2024. NSD m.fl. föreslår därför att förslaget kompletteras så att sådan retroaktiv tillämpning blir möjlig. Sveriges advokatsamfund har förståelse för att den föreslagna retroaktiva tillämpningen har avgränsats till beskattningsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2024 men eftersom andra stater kan ha beaktat de riktlinjer som förslagen baseras på från en tidigare tidpunkt anser advokatsamfundet att det behövs ytterligare analys och förtydliganden i fråga om varför beskattningsåret 2024 inte ska omfattas av möjligheten till retroaktiv tillämpning, huruvida det bör ges möjlighet till alternativ hantering av risk för dubbelbeskattning, hur valet ska göras och dokumenteras samt hur övriga delägares intressen i ett samriskföretag ska beaktas och skyddas. Vad gäller registrering för retroaktiv tillämpning framför samfundet att Skatteverket i god tid behöver ge tydlig vägledning om valet, registrering och deklarationsskyldighet och därmed sammanhängande frågor.

Skälen för regeringens förslag

Det är angeläget att lagändringarna träder i kraft så snart som möjligt för att säkerställa att den svenska lagen stämmer överens med minimibeskattningsdirektivet och modellreglerna. Lagändringarna bör därför enligt regeringen träda i kraft den 1 mars 2027. Bestämmelserna ska tillämpas första gången för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 28 februari 2027, eller i fråga om svenska handelsbolag, räkenskapsår som börjar efter den 28 februari 2027.

I promemorian föreslås den rapporterande enheten, ett samriskföretag och ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag få välja att tillämpa ändringarna i lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt första gången för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2024 eller, i fråga om svenska handelsbolag, räkenskapsår som börjar närmast efter den 31 december 2024. Ett sådant val ska göras gemensamt av och gälla för den rapporterande enheten och samtliga samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som hör hemma i Sverige och avse samma beskattningsår eller räkenskapsår. NSD m.fl. och Sveriges advokatsamfund anser att möjlighet till retroaktiv tillämpning ska ges även i fråga om beskattningsåret 2024. Regeringen delar remissinstansernas bedömning att detta skulle vara lämpligt och

föreslår därför att valet att tillämpa de nya bestämmelserna – i fråga om de begränsade förslag som denna proposition avser – ska vara möjligt att göra för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023 eller, i fråga om svenska handelsbolag, räkenskapsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023.

Skatteverket föreslår att övergångsbestämmelserna kompletteras med omprövningsbestämmelser med motsvarande innehåll som anges ovan när det gäller möjligheten att få välja att tillämpa ändringarna i lagen om tilläggsskatt första gången för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2024 eller, i fråga om svenska handelsbolag, räkenskapsår som börjar närmast efter den 31 december 2024. Eftersom valet ska avse samtliga de enheter som anges i punkten gäller enligt regeringens mening detsamma även t.ex. vid en begäran om omprövning av ett val som samtliga enheter har gjort, varför det inte finns behov av att särskilt reglera denna situation. Det bör även föreskrivas att om den deklarationsskyldige, i enlighet med övergångsbestämmelserna till lagen om ändring i lagen om tilläggsskatt, väljer att tillämpa lagen om tilläggsskatt i den nya lydelsen på beskattningsår som börjar före den 1 mars 2027, ska den deklarationsskyldige dock även tillämpa bestämmelserna i skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244) på det beskattningsåret. Regeringen konstaterar att möjligheten att införa retroaktiv lagstiftning bör tillämpas mycket restriktivt. Den 1 januari 2025 infördes de administrativa riktlinjer som antagits av IF i februari, juli och december 2023 i lagen om tilläggsskatt. Den rapporterande enheten kunde i det fallet välja att tillämpa samtliga eller vissa av bestämmelserna första gången för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023 eller, i fråga om svenska handelsbolag, räkenskapsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023 (prop. 2024/25:7 s. 238–241). På motsvarande sätt infördes de administrativa riktlinjer som antagits av IF i maj 2024 i lagen om tilläggsskatt (prop. 2025/26:22). Motiveringen till att bestämmelserna skulle kunna tillämpas retroaktivt av de skattskyldiga var att det är av stor vikt att de svenska reglerna om tilläggsskatt kan tillämpas på samma sätt och samtidigt som de regler som övriga medlemsstater har infört i sina nationella rättsordningar vid genomförandet av minimibeskattningsdirektivet. Detsamma gäller regler som stater utanför EU har infört med anledning av modellreglerna.

De föreslagna lagändringarna baseras på administrativa riktlinjer som beslutades 2023. De administrativa riktlinjerna kan därför ha kommit att beaktas i andra medlemsstaters och staters lagstiftning redan från ett tidigare datum eftersom många stater kan införa lagstiftning som ger möjlighet till tidigare tillämpning eller genom en direkt hänvisning till modellreglerna och kommentaren. Det är därmed angeläget att även de svenska reglerna kan tillämpas så tidigt som möjligt i anslutning till det att riktlinjerna har antagits. För att inte stå i strid med retroaktivitetsförbudet föreslås att bestämmelsernas retroaktiva verkan görs frivillig för koncernenheter och företag. Det innebär att företagen vad avser beskattningsår som motsvarar kalenderåren 2024–2027 kan välja att tillämpa lagen om tilläggsskatt i enlighet med den lydelse lagen har före de ändringar som föreslås i denna proposition eller den föreslagna lydelsen. Det intresse retroaktivitetsförbudet i 2 kap 10 § regeringsformen är avsett att skydda bör därmed anses tillgodosett. Det bör inte ställas upp några särskilda krav avseende rapportering av vilka val som görs i detta hänseende. För svenska 33

handelsbolag gäller vad som sägs ovan för räkenskapsår som motsvarar kalenderåren 2024–2027. Det bedöms som ändamålsenligt om det är de koncernenheter som varit skattskyldiga för ett nationellt tilläggsskattebelopp enligt den tidigare lydelsen av 6 kap. 2 a § lagen om tilläggsskatt, samriskföretaget och dotterföretag till samriskföretaget, som får begära en retroaktiv tillämpning. Till skillnad från vad som föreslås i promemorian bör det alltså inte vara den rapporterande enheten som ska göra ett sådant val, eftersom det inte är säkert att den rapporterande enheten är en sådan koncernenhet som varit skattskyldig enligt den tidigare lydelsen av 6 kap. 2 a §. En begäran om retroaktiv tillämpning bör ske genom att ett samriskföretag, dotterföretagen till samriskföretaget och koncernenheterna i den koncern som företagen tillhör tillämpar lagen vid beräkningarna enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt. Det krävs att samtliga berörda koncernenheter i den koncern som ett samriskföretag tillhör, samriskföretaget och eventuella dotterföretag till samriskföretaget gör ett sådant val om retroaktiv tillämpning av lagen.

För företagen och koncernerna kan det vara till fördel att överlåta skattskyldigheten för tilläggsskatt på samriskföretag eller deras dotterföretag så tidigt som möjligt. Om så sker ska även tilläggsskattedeklaration lämnas av samriskföretaget eller dotterföretaget till samriskföretaget. Tilläggsskattedeklarationen avseende beskattningsår som motsvarar kalenderåret 2025 ska lämnas redan senast den 30 april 2027. Det är alltså nära inpå ikraftträdandet som är den 1 mars 2027.

För deklarationsskyldiga som väljer att vara skattskyldiga och deklarera för ett beskattningsår som motsvararar kalenderåret 2025, gäller att de ska anmäla sig för registrering senast den 31 mars 2027, vilket bara är en månad efter ikraftträdandet. Det är nära inpå ikraftträdandet, men det finns inga krav för ett samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag att deklarera för beskattningsår som motsvarar kalenderåret 2025. Om koncernen ändå anser att det är det bästa valet och därför väljer att ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag ska deklarera så blir det kort om tid för att registrera sig efter ikraftträdandet. Detta är endast en valmöjlighet som införs till fördel för företagen och koncernerna. Ett samriskföretag, dotterföretagen till samriskföretaget och koncernenheterna i den koncern som företagen tillhör kan välja att använda denna möjlighet eller att inte göra det. Ingenting som åläggs företagen måste ske före ikraftträdandet. Det bedöms därför inte behövas någon övergångsbestämmelse i detta avseende.

Om den deklarationsskyldige väljer att deklarera för beskattningsår som motsvarar kalenderåren 2026 eller 2027, och för det fall den deklarationsskyldige inte tidigare är registrerad, bör den befintliga tidsfristen om 15 månader gälla även här. För beskattningsår som motsvarar kalenderåret 2026 ska registrering göras senast den 31 mars 2028, och för beskattningsår som motsvarar kalenderåret 2027 ska registrering göras senast den 2 april 2029, med hänsyn tagen till 2 § lagen (1930:173) om beräkning av lagstadgad tid (eftersom den 31 mars 2029 är en lördag). Det bedöms inte behövas någon övergångsbestämmelse i detta avseende.

För beskattningsår som motsvarar kalenderåret 2024 var sista dag att lämna in tilläggsskatterapporten och tilläggsskattedeklarationen den 30 juni respektive den 31 juli 2026. Vad som anges ovan gäller därför i 34 tillämpliga delar vid begäran om omprövning med anledning av tillämp-

ning av den föreslagna ändringen i skatteförfarandelagen första gången för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023 eller, i fråga om svenska handelsbolag, räkenskapsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023. I ett sådant fall har t.ex. samriskföretaget eller dess dotterföretag inte haft möjlighet att registrera sig för beskattningsåret 2024 inom den tidsfrist som anges i 7 kap. 2 b § SFL. Skatteverket bör då, i samband med att omprövning avseende beskattningsår 2024 begärs för det företag som har varit skattskyldigt för samriskföretagets eller dotterföretaget till ett samriskföretags nationella tilläggsskatt, registrera det berörda samriskföretaget eller dotterföretaget till samriskföretag. Samriskföretaget eller dotterföretaget till samriskföretaget bör ge in tilläggsskattedeklarationen samtidigt som begäran om omprövning görs för det företag som tidigare varit skattskyldigt för samriskföretagets eller dotterföretaget till ett samriskföretags nationella tilläggsskatt. Skatteverket ska vidare fatta ett beslut om tilläggsskatt enligt bestämmelserna i 56 a kap. SFL avseende samriskföretaget eller dotterföretaget till ett samriskföretag.

En begäran om omprövning av ett beslut om tilläggsskatt avseende ett företag som varit skattskyldigt för ett samriskföretags eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretags nationella tilläggsskatt kan göras senast det sjätte året efter utgången av det kalenderår då beskattningsåret har gått ut (66 kap. 7 § första stycket SFL). Om tilläggsskattedeklarationen för samriskföretaget eller dotterföretaget till samriskföretaget kommer in till Skatteverket nära inpå eller efter tidsfristen för när ett besked om tilläggsskatt ska skickas enligt 56 a kap. 7 § SFL (inom tre år från utgången av det kalenderår då beskattningsåret har gått ut) är det inte givet att Skatteverket kan tillgodose tidsfristen. Skatteverket får då fatta beslut om tilläggsskatt och skicka beskedet om tilläggsskatt så snart det kan ske.

Lagrådet noterar att punkt 3 i ikraftträdande- och övergångsbestämmelserna till skatteförfarandelagen enligt sin ordalydelse endast omfattar vad den skattskyldige har att iaktta. Avsikten torde, enligt Lagrådets mening, vara att även Skatteverkets hantering ska träffas av bestämmelsen varför det sista ledet i bestämmelsen behöver justeras. Regeringen delar Lagrådets uppfattning och föreslår att bestämmelsen ändras i enlighet med Lagrådets förslag.

8¶Konsekvensanalys

I detta avsnitt redogörs för förslagens effekter i den omfattning som bedöms stå i proportion till det aktuella lagstiftningsärendet och med utgångspunkt i tillämpliga delar av 7 § förordningen (2024:183) om konsekvensutredningar.

Regelrådet bedömer att konsekvensutredningen inte uppfyller kraven i förordningen om konsekvensutredningar. Regelrådet saknar en redovisning av alternativa lösningar, särskild hänsyn till små och medelstora företag, påverkan på företagets intäkter, åtgärder för att begränsa kostnader och andra negativa effekter, samt hur och när förslaget kan utvärderas. Det hade enligt Regelrådet varit behövligt med en närmare redovisning för att

kunna bedöma förslagets effekter för företag, eller åtminstone en förklaring till varför det inte är möjligt att precisera närmare.

Regelrådet framför dock att redovisningen av påverkan på företagens kostnader är godtagbart redovisad med hänsyn till att förslaget huvudsakligen uppges innebära en omdisponering av kostnader inom koncerner och att de kostnader som förväntas uppkomma med anledning av förslaget beräknas vara små. Regeringen bedömer att förslagets effekter för företag i allmänhet är begränsade till de effekter för företagens kostnader som är beskrivna i konsekvensanalysen. Med hänsyn till förslagets begränsade omfattning vad gäller både antal berörda företag och effekternas beskaffenhet bedömer regeringen att en redovisning av särskild hänsyn till små och medelstora företag, påverkan på företagens intäkter samt åtgärder för att begränsa kostnader och andra negativa effekter saknar relevans.

Med tanke på förslagets syfte och begränsade omfattning bedöms det inte finnas några alternativa lösningar. Förslaget faller inom ramen för regelverket för global minimibeskattning och en utvärdering bör ske samlat för de åtgärderna inom detta område. Regeringen bedömer att en närmare precisering än så inte är möjlig att göra eftersom arbetet med regelverket om global minimibeskattning ännu inte är avslutat.

8.1¶Offentligfinansiella effekter

Förslagen innebär att ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag ska vara skattskyldigt för svensk nationell tilläggsskatt för hela det tilläggsskattebelopp som beräknats och fördelats på företaget, om det hör hemma i Sverige och tillhör en koncern som omfattas av lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt. Enligt gällande regler är det i stället en koncernenhet som är skattskyldig för det tilläggsskattebelopp som beräknats och fördelats på företaget om samriskföretaget tillhör den koncern som den svenska koncernenheten ingår i. Förslagen bedöms inte påverka de tilläggsskattebelopp som beräknas och fördelas på samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag. De offentligfinansiella effekterna beräknas enligt Finansdepartementets beräkningskonventioner och utgår ifrån ikraftträdandeårets priser och volymer. Förslagen bedöms inte ha någon offentligfinansiell effekt.

8.2¶Effekter för företag

Förslagen i propositionen påverkar de samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag som hör hemma i Sverige och som tillhör en koncern som omfattas av lagen om tilläggsskatt. Dessa åläggs skattskyldighet och deklarationsskyldighet samtidigt som dessa skyldigheter i sådana fall utgår för en koncernenhet i gruppen.

Det är behäftat med betydande svårigheter att avgöra hur många samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag som påverkas av förslaget. Lagen om tilläggsskatt trädde i kraft den 1 januari 2024. Det finns i dag ingen ny information om svenska multinationella koncerner

eller stora nationella koncerner och deras tilläggsskatterapporter som kan användas som underlag för denna proposition. Enligt uppgifter från Skatteverket kan det röra sig om mellan 20 och 40 samriskföretag som skulle kunna påverkas av förslaget. Eftersom det saknas tillgång till fler uppgifter om dessa företag är det inte möjligt att beskriva vilka branscher som berörs eller om det är företag i vissa storleksgrupper som påverkas av förslaget. Det finns inga särskilda skäl att anta att denna typ av företag är koncentrerade till vissa branscher.

Förslaget innebär att samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag, som i allmänhet torde vara mindre i förhållande till koncernen som företaget tillhör, får en ökad beskattning och administrativ börda. Det bör dock i detta sammanhang uppmärksammas att ett samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag kommer att ta över skattskyldigheten från en, eller i förekommande fall, flera koncernenheter i den koncern som företaget tillhör och som annars hade haft dessa skyldigheter. Förslaget minskar risken för dubbelbeskattning genom att det möjliggör för en utländsk koncern att nyttja en förenklingsregel för nationell tilläggsskatt med avseende på det samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till samriskföretag som hör hemma i Sverige.

Information om de nya bestämmelserna bör tillhandahållas inom ramen för övrig information om modellreglerna och lagen om tilläggsskatt. Skatteverket förutsätts uppdatera sina informationsmaterial och vidta lämpliga informationsinsatser.

FAR instämmer i bedömningen att förslaget normalt sett inte bör leda till ett ökat skatteuttag. Regelrådets uppfattning är att det hade varit behövligt med en närmare beskrivning för att tydliggöra vilka effekter förslaget faktiskt kommer att få för de företag som berörs.

Regeringen bedömer att effekten för företag är begränsat till den omdisponering av företagens administrativa kostnader och en omfördelning av skattskyldigheten inom koncerner på det sätt som är beskrivet i detta avsnitt. Förslaget bedöms alltså inte få effekter för sådana företag på andra sätt än vad som är beskrivet och bedöms inte heller påverka företag som inte är samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till samriskföretag i Sverige och tillhör en koncern som omfattas av lagen om tilläggsskatt.

Administrativa kostnader

De tillkommande administrativa kostnaderna för koncerner till följd av lagen om tilläggsskatt beräknades bli betydande, särskilt för koncerner med aktivitet i många stater och med många koncernenheter (prop. 2023/24:32). Förslaget i propositionen innebär att samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag får ökade administrativa kostnader på grund av den nya skattskyldigheten samtidigt som de administrativa kostnaderna för den koncern som företaget tillhör minskar. Det rör sig alltså främst om en omfördelning av den administrativa kostnaden inom koncerner. Trots att samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag inte är skattskyldiga enligt gällande regler, är de skyldiga att själva sammanställa och rapportera uppgifter för beräkning av tilläggsskatt till den koncern de tillhör. Förslaget innebär att samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag själva ska lämna en tilläggsskattedeklaration.

Dessa företag bedöms ofta vara mindre till storlek och med verksamhet i färre länder jämfört med de koncerner som företagen tillhör. Detta medför att de administrativa kostnader som bedöms uppstå för samriskföretagen och dotterföretagen till samriskföretagen till följd av förslagen är mindre jämfört med kostnaderna för de koncerner som företagen tillhör. Samtidigt kan det vara svårare för samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag att hantera skattskyldigheten om de saknar djupare kunskap om och erfarenhet av tilläggsskattereglerna. Företagen kan därför behöva anpassa sin interna hantering till de nya reglerna.

När det gäller påverkan på kostnaderna för företag, är en grov uppskattning att den totala, genomsnittliga tiden ett företag behöver lägga ned för att hantera skattskyldigheten uppgår till en timme. För det enskilda företaget kan tidsåtgången vara både kortare och längre än så. Bedömningen som sådan är mycket osäker och gäller endast den ökade administration som förslaget medför för samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag utifrån gällande regler där berörda företag i dagsläget måste sammanställa uppgifter kopplade till tilläggsskatt till berörda koncernenheter. Den ökade administrativa bördan bedöms främst bestå i att företaget nu ska hantera steget från sammanställning till deklaration själva. Samtidigt bedöms det inte innebära att några omfattande ytterligare uppgifter behöver tas fram jämfört med gällande regler. Den genomsnittliga timkostnaden beräknas i enlighet med Tillväxtverkets rekommendationer. Bedömningen är att en jurist eller kvalificerad ekonom utför de uppgifter som resulterar i de löpande kostnaderna. Den genomsnittliga månadslönen för en affärs- och företagsjurist uppgår enligt SCB:s statistik över genomsnittlig månadslön 2024 till 68 900 kronor. Enligt Tillväxtverket ska den genomsnittliga månadslönen multipliceras med schablonvärdet 1,84 som inkluderar semesterersättning, arbetsgivaravgifter och andra rörliga personalkostnader. Om det antas att den genomsnittliga tiden som företagen måste lägga ned för att hantera skattskyldigheten uppgår till en timme uppgår den genomsnittliga kostnaden till strax under 800 kronor ((68 900 * 1,84) / 160 ≈ 790) per samriskföretag. De administrativa kostnaderna för den koncern som företaget tillhör kan antas minska i motsvarande utsträckning.

Finansbolagens förening anser att förslaget innebär en större ökad administrativ tidsåtgång än en timma för berörda företag men lämnar ingen närmare information om vilken tidsåtgång de bedömer som mer rimlig eller om vilka moment som de bedömer att den ökade tidsåtgången skulle bestå av. Sveriges advokatsamfund framhåller att de faktiska administrativa, civilrättsliga och bolagsrättsliga kostnaderna i vissa fall kan komma att överstiga den schablonmässiga uppskattningen på 800 kronor och att den administrativa och civilrättsliga belastningen kan vara särskilt betydande vid retroaktiv tillämpning och när samriskföretaget har flera delägare. Advokatsamfundet konstaterar att förslaget kan kräva juridisk analys, samordning mellan delägare, översyn av aktieägaravtal, bolagsrättsliga beslut, informationsutbyte med rapporterande enheter, granskning av tilläggsskatterapporter, registrering, deklarationsarbete och kontakter med Skatteverket. Advokatsamfundet noterar dessutom att det inte är givet att förslaget i sig förenklar internationella investeringar genom samriskföretag. Kostnadsfördelningen mellan delägarna kan i praktiken 38 behöva regleras avtalsvis, särskilt i förhållande till investerare som inte

själva omfattas av Pelare II-regelverket. FAR bedömer å sin sida att förslaget främst medför att administrationen för företagen minskar genom att ett samriskföretag inte måste rapportera enligt huvudregeln för tilläggsskatt i en annan stat.

Regeringen kan konstatera att en exakt uppskattning av tidsåtgången innebära en grov förenkling och att den verkliga tidsåtgången kan skilja sig åt betydligt mellan företag beroende på hur administrationen kring tilläggsskatt hanteras i det enskilda fallet. Förslaget leder sannolikt till anpassningskostnader men kan samtidigt antas leda till en minskning av den administrativ kostnaden för den koncern som det berörda företaget tillhör. Förslaget bedöms även kunna leda till viss administrativ förenkling genom att tydliggöra skattskyldigheten och hanteringen av samriskföretag som hör till internationella koncerner genom att förenklingsregeln för tilläggsskatt blir tillämpbar på samriskföretag och dotterbolag till samriskföretag i Sverige som hör till en koncernenhet som omfattas av en huvudregel eller kompletteringsregel för tilläggsskatt i en annan stat.

Sammantaget bedöms förslaget alltså innebära en begränsad effekt för den administrativa kostnaden totalt sett inom de koncerner som berörs i förhållande till den totala administrativa bördan för att hantera reglerna för tilläggsskatt generellt. De största administrativa kostnaderna för företagen bedöms inte vara återkommande utan främst bestå i anpassningar av rutiner och analys av de föreslagna reglerna.

Effekter för konkurrensförhållanden mellan olika stater samt effekter på investeringar och sysselsättning

En koncernenhet som omfattas av en huvudregel eller kompletteringsregel för tilläggsskatt i en annan stat har i och med förslagen möjlighet att använda sig av förenklingsregeln för nationell tilläggsskatt kopplat till samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till samriskföretag i Sverige som hör till koncernenheten. Att samriskföretaget eller dotterföretaget till samriskföretaget själv är skattskyldigt för den tilläggsskatt som beräknats och fördelats på företaget innebär också att fördelningen av kostnaden för tilläggsskatten blir tydligare genom att den indirekt fördelas bland alla företagets ägare i förhållande till kapitalandelarna. Detta medför att den ekonomiska kostnaden inte längre i sin helhet läggs på en svensk koncernhet i den koncern samriskföretaget eller dotterföretaget hör till och som omfattas av reglerna för tilläggsskatt. Enligt rådande regler skulle detta kunna medföra krav från den svenska koncernenheten på att den ekonomiska kostnaden ska fördelas mellan ägare genom exempelvis ett avtal om ekonomisk kompensation. Förslaget bedöms därmed i denna del innebära en minskad administrativ börda kopplat till internationella samarbeten genom samriskföretag. Sammantaget bedöms detta på sikt kunna innebära en viss ökning av internationella investeringar genom skapandet av samriskföretag i Sverige.

Ökade internationella investeringar kan leda till en högre kapitalstock i Sverige och i förlängningen ökad BNP. När kapitalstocken ökar, ökar mängden kapital per anställd. Detta stärker arbetskraftens produktivitet och ökar företagens efterfrågan på arbetskraft. Efterfrågeeffekten är särskilt stor under den tid när kapitalstocken växer men när reallönerna

medellång sikt gynnar en högre kapitalstock både produktion (BNP) och sysselsättning. På längre sikt innebär en högre kapitalintensitet högre produktivitet för arbetskraft och ökade reallöner.

8.3¶Effekter för Skatteverket och de allmänna förvaltningsdomstolarna

Förslagen bedöms endast medföra marginella förändringar för Skatteverket och de allmänna förvaltningsdomstolarna då det endast är fråga om ett begränsat antal nya eller ändrade bestämmelser, avseende skattskyldigheten för samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag, som kompletterar de befintliga bestämmelserna i lagen om tilläggsskatt och skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244). Viss it-utveckling kan dock komma att krävas. Utgångspunkten är att eventuellt tillkommande kostnader för Skatteverket ska hanteras inom befintliga ekonomiska ramar. Eventuella kostnader för de allmänna förvaltningsdomstolarna till följd av förslaget ska hanteras inom befintliga ekonomiska ramar.

8.4¶Övriga effekter

Förslagen bedöms inte få några effekter för enskilda, den ekonomiska jämställdheten, den ekonomiska fördelningen eller miljön.

9¶Författningskommentar

9.1¶Förslag till lag om ändring i skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244)

3 kap. Definitioner och förklaringar

1 § I detta kapitel finns definitioner av vissa begrepp samt förklaringar till hur vissa termer och uttryck används i lagen. Det finns definitioner och förklaringar också i andra kapitel.

Bestämmelser om betydelsen av följande begrepp, termer och uttryck samt förklaringar finns i nedan angivna paragrafer:

arbetsgivaravgifter i 3 § arbetsgivardeklaration i 26 kap. 3 § beskattningsår i 4 och 5 §§ beslut om debitering av preliminär skatt i 55 kap. 2 § beslut om preliminär A-skatt i 55 kap. 6 § beslut om särskild inkomstskatteredovisning i 13 kap. 1 § betaltjänstleverantör i 33 c kap. 3 § byggarbetsplats i 39 kap. 2 § byggverksamhet i 39 kap. 2 § deklarationsombud i 6 kap. 4 §

dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag i 11 c §

40 europeiska ekonomiska intressegrupperingar (EEIG) i 6 §

europeiska grupperingar för territoriellt samarbete (EGTS) i 7 § europeiska politiska partier i 7 a § europeiska politiska stiftelser i 7 a § felaktigt debiterad mervärdesskatt i 12 § fordonsserviceverksamhet i 39 kap. 2 § förenklad arbetsgivardeklaration i 26 kap. 4 § granskningsledare i 8 § handling i 9 § hemortskommun i 10 § huvudinkomst i 11 kap. 3 § journalminne i 42 kap. 2 § juridisk person i 11 § kassaregister i 39 kap. 2 § koncernenhet i 11 a § konsortier för europeisk forskningsinfrastruktur (Eric-konsortier) i 7 § kontrollremsa i 42 kap. 2 § kropps- och skönhetsvårdsverksamhet i 39 kap. 2 § livsmedels- och tobaksgrossistverksamhet i 39 kap. 2 § näringsverksamhet i 14 § partihandel i 39 kap. 2 § punktskatt i 15 § regelbunden ersättning i 11 kap. 2 § restaurangverksamhet i 39 kap. 2 §

samriskföretag i 11 b §

skönsbeskattning i 57 kap. 1 § slutlig skatt i 56 kap. 2–7 §§ särskilda avgifter i 17 § torg- och marknadshandel i 39 kap. 2 § tvätteriverksamhet i 39 kap. 2 § verksamhetslokal i 18 § överskjutande ingående mervärdesskatt i 13 § överskjutande punktskatt i 16 §.

11 § Med juridisk person avses i denna lag också dödsbon, svenska handelsbolag, koncernenheter, samriskföretag, dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag och i utlandet delägarbeskattade juridiska personer.

Samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag

11 b § Med samriskföretag avses ett samriskföretag enligt 7 kap. 43 § lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt.

11 c § Med dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag avses ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag enligt 7 kap. 44 § lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt.

7 kap. Registrering

1 § Skatteverket ska registrera

1. den som är skyldig att göra skatteavdrag, 2. den som är skyldig att betala arbetsgivaravgifter,

3. den som är betalningsskyldig enligt mervärdesskattelagen (2023:200), med undantag för den som är betalningsskyldig bara på grund av

a) förvärv av sådana varor som anges i 3 kap. 2 eller 3 § den lagen, eller b) felaktigt debiterad mervärdesskatt enligt 16 kap. 23 § samma lag, 4. den som i annat fall än som avses i 3 har rätt till

a) avdrag för ingående mervärdesskatt enligt 13 kap. 6, 9, 10 eller 11 § eller 21 kap. 10 eller 11 § mervärdesskattelagen, eller

b) återbetalning av ingående mervärdesskatt enligt 14 kap. 49 § samma lag,

5. den som gör sådant unionsinternt förvärv som är undantaget från skatteplikt enligt 10 kap. 50 § mervärdesskattelagen,

6. en beskattningsbar person som är etablerad i Sverige och tillhanda-håller tjänster i ett annat EU-land som förvärvaren av tjänsten är betalningsskyldig för i det landet i enlighet med tillämpningen av artikel 196 i rådets direktiv 2006/112/EG av den 28 november 2006 om ett gemensamt system för mervärdesskatt,

7. den som är skyldig att justera ingående mervärdesskatt enligt 12 kap. 27– 31 §§ eller 15 kap. mervärdesskattelagen,

9. den som enligt 39 kap. 11 c § är skyldig att tillhandahålla utrustning så att en elektronisk personalliggare kan föras på en byggarbetsplats,

10. den som betalar ut ersättning som är underlag för statlig ålderspensionsavgift enligt lagen (1998:676) om statlig ålderspensionsavgift,

11. en koncernenhet som avses i 1 kap. 3 § lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt, 12. ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som är

skattskyldigt för nationell tilläggsskatt enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt, och

13. den som är skyldig att betala egenavgifter för avgiftspliktig inkomst som avses i 3kap. 6 § socialavgiftslagen (2000:980).

Om den som ska registreras enligt första stycket har en företrädare enligt 5 kap., ska dock företrädaren registreras i stället.

Andra stycket gäller inte för en koncernenhet, ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som är skattskyldigt för nationell tilläggsskatt.

2 b § En koncernenhet som avses i 1 kap. 3 § lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt, ett samriskföretag som är skattskyldigt för nationell tilläggsskatt eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som är skattskyldigt för nationell tilläggsskatt ska anmäla sig för registrering hos Skatteverket inom 15 månader efter utgången av det beskattningsår då registreringsskyldigheten uppstod.

32 a kap. Tilläggsskattedeklaration

2 § En koncernenhet ska lämna en tilläggsskattedeklaration, om koncernenheten är skattskyldig för

1. ett tilläggsskattebelopp enligt lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt, eller

2. kompletterande tilläggsskatt som fördelas till svenska koncernenheter enligt 6 kap. 12 § lagen om tilläggsskatt.

Ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som är skattskyldigt för nationell tilläggsskatt ska lämna en tilläggsskattedeklaration.

3 § En tilläggsskattedeklaration ska innehålla

1. nödvändiga identifikationsuppgifter, 2. uppgift om vilken enhet som lämnar tilläggsskatterapport,

3. uppgift om att enheten har tagit del av rapporten som avses i 2 eller, när det gäller ett samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag, de uppgifter i rapporten som behövs för att fullgöra uppgiftsskyldigheten i tilläggsskattedeklarationen,

4. summan av tilläggsskattebelopp som den deklarationsskyldige är skattskyldig för enligt huvudregeln för tilläggsskatt,

5. summan av kompletterande tilläggsskatt som fördelas till svenska koncernenheter,

6. de uppgifter som behövs för att fördela kompletterande tilläggsskatt, och

7. de uppgifter som behövs för beräkning och fördelning av nationell tilläggsskatt enligt lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt.

7 § Den som är deklarationsskyldig enligt 2 § ska lämna tilläggsskattedeklaration senast en månad efter den dag då tilläggsskatterapporten senast ska lämnas.

En deklarationsskyldig som är ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag och hör till två sådana koncerner som är skyldiga att lämna tilläggsskatterapport, ska lämna tilläggsskattedeklaration senast en månad efter den dag som båda dessa koncerner senast ska lämna tilläggsskatterapport.

En tilläggsskattedeklaration lämnas till Skatteverket eller till ett mottagningsställe som har godkänts av verket.

37 kap. Föreläggande

7 c § Skatteverket får förelägga en koncernenhet, ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag att lämna uppgift som behövs för att kontrollera en uppgift som lämnats i en tilläggsskatterapport om det kan antas att uppgiften inte stämmer överens med bestämmelserna i lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt.

Första stycket gäller endast om det kan antas att uppgiften som har lämnats i en tilläggsskatterapport har betydelse för bedömningen av koncernenhetens, samriskföretagets eller samriskföretagets dotterföretags skattskyldighet enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt.

51 kap. Befrielse från särskilda avgifter

5 § Skattetillägg eller rapportavgift ska inte tas ut om en koncernenhet, ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag vidtagit skäliga åtgärder för att redovisa korrekta beräkningar i enlighet med 33 d kap. och korrekta bedömningar i fråga om bestämmelserna om tilläggsskatt.

Bestämmelsen gäller för räkenskapsår som börjar före den 1 januari 2027 och avslutas senast den 30 juni 2028.

56 a kap. Beslut och besked om tilläggsskatt

2 § Skatteverket ska besluta om skatt enligt lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt på grundval av uppgifter som har lämnats i en tilläggsskatterapport eller tilläggsskattedeklaration och vad som i övrigt har kommit fram vid utredning och kontroll.

Skatteverket ska besluta om skatt enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt om koncernenheten, samriskföretaget eller dotterföretaget till ett samriskföretag har lämnat en tilläggsskattedeklaration eller det i övrigt framkommit att koncernenheten, samriskföretaget eller dotterföretaget till ett samriskföretag ska betala sådan skatt.

Ikraftträdande- och övergångsbestämmelser

1. Denna lag träder i kraft den 1 mars 2027.

2. Lagen tillämpas första gången för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 28februari 2027.

3. Om den deklarationsskyldige, i enlighet med punkt 3 i ikraftträdande- och övergångsbestämmelserna till lagen (2027:000) om ändring i lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt, väljer att tillämpa lagen om tilläggsskatt i den nya lydelsen på beskattningsår som börjar före den 1 mars 2027, ska dock bestämmelserna i denna lag tillämpas även på de beskattningsåren.

I punkt 1 anges att lagen träder i kraft den 1 mars 2027.

I punkt 2 anges att lagen tillämpas första gången för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 28 februari 2027. Det innebär att när det gäller beskattningsår som motsvarar ett kalenderår, är det uppgifter som avser beskattningsåret och kalenderåret 2028 som påverkas av lagstiftningen. Vid brutet räkenskapsår kan dock delar av kalenderåret 2027 också beröras.

I punkt 3, som utformas enligt Lagrådets förslag, anges att om den deklarationsskyldige, i enlighet med punkt 3 i ikraftträdande- och övergångsbestämmelserna till ändringen i lagen om tilläggsskatt, väljer att tillämpa lagen om tilläggsskatt i den nya lydelsen på beskattningsår som börjar före den 1 mars 2027, ska dock bestämmelserna i denna lag tillämpas även på de beskattningsåren.

Ett samriskföretag, dotterföretagen till samriskföretaget och koncernenheterna i den koncern som företagen tillhör får enligt punkt 3 i ikraftträdande- och övergångsbestämmelserna till förslaget till ändring i lagen om tilläggsskatt välja att tillämpa lagen för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023 eller, i fråga om svenska handelsbolag, räkenskapsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023. Detta val inkluderar alltså även att tillämpa dessa ändringar i skatteförfarandelagen. Ett sådant val ska göras gemensamt av de berörda företagen och gälla för koncernenheterna och samtliga samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som hör hemma i Sverige samt avse samma beskattnings- eller räkenskapsår.

Ett sådant val innebär t.ex. att ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag, som är skattskyldigt enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt ska lämna tilläggsskattedeklaration i stället för en annan enhet i koncernen om valet är att samriskföretaget eller dotterföretaget ska vara skattskyldigt, t.ex. avseende beskattningsår som motsvarar kalenderåret 2025 eller 2026. En tilläggsskattedeklaration ska lämnas senast 16 månader efter utgången av beskattningsåret. Det kan även bli 19 månader efter utgången av beskattningsåret, om det är fråga om första året som reglerna tillämpas (32 a kap. 7 § och 33 d kap. 13 § andra stycket). Om ett beskattningsår

som tilläggsskattedeklarationen avser motsvarar kalenderåret 2025 innebär det att tilläggsskattedeklarationen ska lämnas senast före utgången av april 2027. När en deklarationsskyldig enligt den ändrade lagstiftningen väljer att tillämpa den nya lagstiftningen behöver företaget anmäla sig för registrering hos Skatteverket senast den 31 mars 2027, dvs. en månad efter att lagen träder i kraft.

För beskattningsår som motsvarar kalenderår 2024 ska tilläggsskatterapporten och tilläggsskattedeklarationen lämnas in senast den 30 juni respektive den 31 juli 2026. Vad som anges ovan gäller därför i tillämpliga delar vid begäran om omprövning med anledning av tillämpning av lagen första gången för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023 eller, i fråga om svenska handelsbolag, räkenskapsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023. I ett sådant fall har t.ex. samriskföretaget eller dess dotterföretag inte haft möjlighet att registrera sig för beskattningsåret 2024 inom den tidsfrist som anges i 7 kap. 2 b § eller ge in tilläggsskattedeklarationen inom föreskriven tid. Skatteverket bör då, i samband med att omprövning avseende beskattningsår 2024 begärts, registrera det eller de berörda företagen.

Övervägandena finns i avsnitt 7.

9.2¶Förslag till lag om ändring i lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt

1 kap. Lagens innehåll och tillämpningsområde

3 § Denna lag ska tillämpas när en koncern har en årlig intäkt på minst 750 miljoner euro enligt moderföretagets koncernredovisning under minst två av de fyra räkenskapsår som föregår det aktuella räkenskapsåret om

– en svensk koncernenhet ingår i koncernen,

– ett samriskföretag tillhör koncernen och företaget hör hemma i Sverige, eller

– ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag tillhör koncernen och dotterföretaget hör hemma i Sverige.

Lagen ska inte tillämpas på undantagna enheter. Intäkter för undantagna enheter ska dock ingå i de intäkter som avses i första stycket.

Om ett eller flera av de fyra räkenskapsåren är längre eller kortare än tolv månader, ska beloppsgränsen i första stycket justeras proportionellt för vart och ett av dessa räkenskapsår.

6 kap. Skattskyldighet för tilläggsskatt

2 a § Ett samriskföretag som hör hemma i Sverige är skattskyldigt för hela det tilläggsskattebelopp som beräknats och fördelats på företaget enligt 7 kap. 45 §, om företaget tillhör en sådan koncern som avses i 1 kap. 3 §.

Det som sägs om samriskföretag i första stycket gäller även för ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som tillhör en sådan koncern som avses i 1 kap. 3 §, om dotterföretaget hör hemma i Sverige.

16a § Den tilläggsskatt som ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag är skattskyldigt för enligt 2 a § ska sättas ned till noll under de

verksamhet för den koncern som företaget tillhör. Detta gäller dock inte om företaget tillhör två sådana koncerner som avses i 1 kap. 3 § och endast en av dem är i sin inledande fas av internationell verksamhet enligt 18 §. Då ska i stället så stor andel av tilläggsskatten som hör till den koncernen sättas ned till noll.

Första stycket gäller inte till den del ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag direkt eller indirekt innehas av en koncernenhet som omfattas av en huvudregel för tilläggsskatt i en annan stat.

Femårsperioden börjar löpa tidigast det räkenskapsår då koncernen först omfattas av denna lag.

16c § För en koncern i vilken samtliga koncernenheter hör hemma i Sverige (en nationell koncern) ska den tilläggsskatt som en svensk koncernenhet är skattskyldig för enligt 2, 4 eller 5 § sättas ned till noll under de första fem åren som koncernen omfattas av denna lag (femårsperioden).

För ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som tillhör en nationell koncern, ska den tilläggsskatt som företaget är skattskyldigt för enligt 2 a § sättas ned till noll under femårsperioden. Om företaget tillhör två koncerner som avses i 1 kap. 3 § och dessa är nationella koncerner, ska nedsättning till noll i stället ske vad avser så stor andel som hör till vardera koncernen under den koncernens femårsperiod.

Om företaget tillhör två koncerner som avses i 1 kap. 3 § och bara en av dem är en nationell koncern, ska nedsättning till noll ske vad avser så stor andel som hör till den nationella koncernen under den koncernens femårsperiod.

7 kap. Särskilda enheter och transaktioner

47§ Det tilläggsskattebelopp som belöper på en samriskföretagskoncern ska minskas med varje moderenhets andel av det tilläggsskattebelopp som ska tas ut enligt 46 § och det tilläggsskattebelopp som ska tas ut av ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag enligt 6 kap. 2 a §. Återstående tilläggs-

i 6 kap. 11 §.

Ikraftträdande- och övergångsbestämmelser

1. Denna lag träder i kraft den 1 mars 2027.

2. Lagen tillämpas första gången för beskattningsår som börjar närmast efter den 28 februari 2027 eller, i fråga om svenska handelsbolag, räkenskapsår som börjar närmast efter den 28 februari 2027.

3. Ett samriskföretag, dotterföretagen till samriskföretaget och koncernenheterna i den koncern som företagen tillhör får välja att tillämpa lagen för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023 eller, i fråga om svenska handelsbolag, räkenskapsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023, om samtliga gör ett sådant val.

I punkt 1 anges att lagen träder i kraft den 1 mars 2027.

I punkt 2 anges att lagen ska tillämpas första gången för beskattningsår som börjar närmast efter den 28 februari 2027 eller, i fråga om svenska handelsbolag, räkenskapsår som börjar närmast efter den 28 februari 2027.

I enlighet med punkt 3 får samriskföretag, dotterföretagen till samriskföretaget och koncernenheterna i den koncern som företagen tillhör välja att tillämpa lagen för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023 eller, i fråga om svenska handelsbolag, räkenskapsår som börjar efter den 31 december 2023, om samtliga gör ett sådant val. Att valet ska göras av samtliga de enheter som anges i punkten innebär att lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt i den nya lydelsen inte kan tillämpas av t.ex. en koncernenhet som enligt den tidigare lydelsen är skattskyldig för tilläggsskattebelopp som avser ett samriskföretag, men inte av samriskföretaget i fråga om samma beskattningsår eller räkenskapsår. De koncernenheter som avses i punkten är de koncernenheter som enligt den tidigare lydelsen är skattskyldiga enligt 6 kap. 2 a §. Det ställs inte upp några särskilda krav avseende rapportering av vilka val som görs i detta hänseende.

Övervägandena finns i avsnitt 7.

Bilaga 1

|| 1 OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project

Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy – Administrative Guidance on the Global Anti- Base Erosion Model Rules (Pillar Two), July 2023

Inclusive Framework on BEPS

Bilaga 1

2 |

This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. This document was approved by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS on 13 July 2023 and prepared for publication by the OECD Secretariat.

Please cite as:

OECD (2023), Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy – Administrative Guidance on the Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules (Pillar Two), July 2023, OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/tax/beps/administrative-guidance-global-anti-base-erosionrules-pillar-two-july-2023.pdf.

© OECD 2023 The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 3

Table of Contents

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

4 |

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 5

Executive Summary

Background

1. In October 2021 members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (Inclusive Framework) agreed a two-pillar solution to reform the international tax framework in response to the challenges of digitalisation of the economy. As part of the October Statement, Inclusive Framework members agreed to a co-ordinated system of Global anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) rules that are designed to ensure large multinational enterprises pay a minimum level of tax on the income arising in each jurisdiction where they operate. In the October Statement, it was agreed that the Tax Challenges Arising from Digitalisation of the Economy – Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules (Pillar Two): Inclusive Framework on BEPS (the “GloBE Model Rules”) (OECD, 2021[1]) (agreed by the Inclusive Framework and published in December 2021) and the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy – Commentary to the Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules (Pillar Two), First Edition: Inclusive Framework on BEPS (the “Commentary”) (OECD, 2022[2]) (agreed by the Inclusive Framework and published in March 2022) would have the status of a common approach. Under this common approach, jurisdictions are not required to adopt the GloBE rules, but, if they choose to do so, they will implement and administer the rules in a way that is consistent with the agreed outcomes. The common approach also means that Inclusive Framework members accept the application of the GloBE rules applied by other members, including agreement as to rule order and the application of any agreed safe harbours. 2. The GloBE Rules were approved and released by the Inclusive Framework on 20 December 2021. The GloBE Rules consist of an interlocking and coordinated system of rules which are designed to be implemented into the domestic law of each jurisdiction and operate together to ensure large MNE Groups are subject to a minimum effective tax rate of 15% on any excess profits arising in each jurisdiction where they operate. Consistent with the intention of the Inclusive Framework, the GloBE Rules (including the IIR and UTPR) are designed so that the imposition of top-up tax in accordance with those rules will be compatible with the provisions of the United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries (the “UN Model Double Tax Convention”) (UN, 2021[3]) and the Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2017, (the “OECD Model Tax Convention”) (OECD, 2017[4]). 3. The Commentary to the GloBE Model Rules was approved and released by the Inclusive Framework on 14 March 2022, together with a set of detailed examples that illustrate the application of the rules to certain fact patterns. The Commentary clarifies the interpretation and operation of the provisions in the GloBE Model Rules and includes some examples illustrating how the rules apply to specific fact patterns. The Commentary is intended to promote a consistent and common interpretation of the GloBE Model Rules in order to provide certainty for MNE Groups and to facilitate coordinated outcomes under the rules. Although the Commentary is detailed and comprehensive, it does not provide guidance on every aspect of the GloBE Model Rules and, in certain cases, the Commentary specifically identifies issues that will require further consideration and development as part of the GloBE Implementation Framework.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

6 |

Agreed Administrative Guidance

4. Against this background, Inclusive Framework members have agreed, under Article 8.3 of the GloBE Rules, that an implementing jurisdiction will “apply the GloBE Rules consistent with Agreed Administrative Guidance, subject to any requirements of domestic law.” Agreed Administrative Guidance is defined in Article 10.1 as guidance issued by the Inclusive Framework on either “the interpretation or administration of the GloBE Rules”. Administrative Guidance is expected to play an important role in promoting certainty under the GloBE Rules by clarifying the interpretation of the GloBE Rules and by providing guidance to tax administrations on how to apply the GloBE Rules. Because Agreed Administrative Guidance will also reflect the Inclusive Framework’s common understanding of how the GloBE Rules should be interpreted and applied, such guidance will play an important role in ensuring coordinated outcomes under the GloBE Rules and providing a level playing field for MNE Groups and will be needed on an ongoing basis to address issues as they arise. 5. The definition of Agreed Administrative Guidance in Article 10.1 of the GloBE Rules envisions that the Inclusive Framework may issue guidance on both the interpretation and the operation of the rules. Interpretive guidance provides for consistent and common interpretation of the GloBE Rules that will provide certainty for MNE Groups and facilitate coordinated and transparent outcomes under the rules. It supplements or replaces paragraphs in the Commentary or explains how to apply the language of the rules to particular fact patterns. Operational guidance sets out administrative procedures tax administrations may use to apply the rules and may include guidance on the use of administrative simplifications that result in equivalent outcomes as those provided under the GloBE Rules while avoiding undue compliance and administration costs.

2023 Administrative Guidance

6. This document sets out the second set of Administrative Guidance items released by the Inclusive Framework, following the first set of Administrative Guidance items that were published in February 2023. This second set includes guidance on currency conversion rules when performing GloBE calculations, on tax credits, and on the application of the Substance-based Income Exclusion (SBIE). It also includes further guidance on the design of Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Taxes (QDMTT) as well as a QDMTT Safe Harbour. Finally, this document provides a Transitional UTPR Safe Harbour. 7. The Administrative Guidance will be incorporated into a revised version of the Commentary that will be released later this year (and replaces the original version of the Commentary issued in March 2022). The examples included in the Administrative Guidance will be incorporated into a revised set of detailed examples that will be released alongside the revised Commentary. The Inclusive Framework will continue to consider Administrative Guidance priorities on an ongoing basis, where more clarity is required, with the aim of releasing guidance throughout the year as soon as it is agreed so that the Inclusive Framework members can meet their implementation schedule.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 7

General Currency Conversion Rules

1

for the GloBE Rules

Introduction

1. Article 3.1.2 of the GloBE Rules specifies that “Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss is the net income or loss determined for a Constituent Entity (before any consolidation adjustments eliminating intragroup transactions) in preparing Consolidated Financial Statements of the Ultimate Parent Entity”. However, neither the GloBE Rules nor the Commentary provide specific guidance in relation to how the relevant GloBE items will be presented and calculated in accordance with the accounting standard used in the preparation of Consolidated Financial Statements of the Ultimate Parent Entity (or under Article 3.1.3, if applicable) including the relevant currency the amounts are required to be in for the purposes of GloBE calculations. 2. Further, in February 2023, “Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy – Administrative Guidance on the Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules (Pillar Two)” was released that included updated Commentary in relation to “Rebasing monetary thresholds in the GloBE Rules [AG22.04.T18]”. Under this guidance, jurisdictions are permitted to express GloBE thresholds in a locally denominated currency subject to certain requirements. 3. To ensure that the GloBE Rules work effectively, implementing jurisdictions must apply the rules consistently and coordinate their approach to calculations where foreign currency translations are required. This may avoid discrepancies caused by different currencies used in calculations within MNE Groups, which could lead to disputes over the application of the GloBE Rules. 4. Further guidance may be issued clarifying the interaction of this guidance with specific articles of the GloBE Rules and the Commentary. In addition, guidance on foreign currency translation rules for Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-Up Taxes will be provided separately, along with information on how it relates to this guidance. 5. This guidance also provides an update to the Commentary of the GloBE Rules as amended by the Administrative Guidance in relation to Rebasing monetary thresholds in the GloBE Rules [AG22.04.T18] to ensure that the rebasing rules also apply to Euro-denominated thresholds incorporated in the Commentary through Administrative Guidance.

Issues to be considered

6. There are four specific issues in relation to currency conversion rules for the purposes of MNE Groups undertaking the relevant calculations required under the GloBE Rules. These are:

a. In which currency should the GloBE calculations be made, including for disclosure

purposes in the GloBE Information Return?

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

8 |

b. Where amounts relevant to the GloBE calculations are not already translated into

the currency required under sub-paragraph (a) for purposes of preparing

Consolidated Financial Statements, how should these amounts be translated?

c. What currency translation rules should apply for the purposes of translating any

Top-Up Tax under the IIR or the UTPR Top-Up Tax Amount determined using the

currency required under sub-paragraph (a) into the currency in which the GloBE

tax liability is payable?

d. What currency translation rules apply for the purposes of determining whether a

monetary threshold has been met where the monetary threshold is expressed in

a currency different from the currency required under sub-paragraph (a)? 7. Co-ordinated foreign currency translation rules are required to ensure consistent application of the GloBE Rules across implementing jurisdictions. Any uniformity in foreign currency translation rules needs to balance consistency in application of implementing jurisdictions, with sufficient flexibility to allow MNE Groups to be able to comply with the GloBE Rules without having to undertake excess compliance requirements while minimising potential distortions caused by foreign exchange movements. For example, requiring the same currency translation logic for all transactions could provide consistency across jurisdictions but would not be consistent with how MNE Groups apply currency translation rules in their Consolidated Financial Statements and would require re-translations of many figures solely for GloBE purposes. Further any uniform foreign currency translation rules must be fit for purpose considering the relevant context to which the rule applies.

The currency in which the GloBE calculations should be made, including for disclosure purposes in the GloBE Information Return.

8. Paragraph 14 of the Introduction to the Commentary for the GloBE Rules notes the following:

The GloBE Rules are intended to be implemented as part of a common approach. A jurisdiction

that joins the common approach is not required to adopt the GloBE Rules but, if it chooses to do

so, it agrees to implement and administer them in a way that is consistent with the outcomes

provided under the GloBE Rules and this Commentary. Consistency in the implementation and

administration of the GloBE Rules is intended to result in a transparent and comprehensive system

of taxation that provides predictable outcomes for MNEs and avoids the risk of double or over-

taxation. 9. The intention of specific foreign currency translation rules for GloBE purpose is to provide a consistent basis of translation to avoid potential disputes and to avoid duplicate translation exercises. It is also intended to provide tax administrations with the ability to rely on the MNE Group’s current accounting processes in the preparation of the MNE Group’s audited Consolidated Financial Statements to determine the relevant amounts for the application of the GloBE Rules. 10. Article 3.1.2 states that the amounts relevant for determining the Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss of a Constituent Entity are those used in the preparation of the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Ultimate Parent Entity. Under financial accounting standards, MNE Groups are ultimately required to present their Consolidated Financial Statements in the presentation currency of the MNE Group. However, all Constituent Entities in an MNE Group may not be required to have separate financial statements and Constituent Entities within a jurisdiction do not always operate in the same accounting and/or tax functional currency. Frequently, Permanent Establishments will also not have separate financial statements and the financial accounts of the Main Entity will not be maintained in the currency of the jurisdiction in which the Permanent Establishment operates.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 9

11. Where controlled subsidiaries operate in an accounting functional currency different to the presentation currency of the MNE Group, the accounting standards prescribe specific rules for the foreign exchange translation of relevant amounts of a subsidiary into the presentation currency of the MNE Group. MNE Groups may undertake the accounting consolidation process and the foreign exchange translation of amounts not expressed in the presentation currency of the Consolidated Financial Statements in a variety of manners. However, the relevant processes and amounts are likely to be subject to scrutiny as part of an audit process, where one is required to be conducted. The reliance on such amounts and the relevant processes are a fundamental tenet of the GloBE Rules. 12. Given the GloBE Rules rely heavily on the amounts used in the preparation of the Consolidated Financial Statements of an MNE Group, the amounts most relevant to the GloBE calculations may have already been translated into the presentation currency of the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statements as part of the accounting consolidation process. Therefore, it is logical that GloBE calculations undertaken by an MNE Group should be undertaken in the presentation currency of the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statements. For most MNE Groups, these amounts have been subject to audit as part of the preparation of the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statements and therefore provide a consistent and reliable basis for the application of the GloBE calculations. 13. Given the GloBE calculations are ultimately aggregated at the MNE Group level, MNE Groups are required in practice to report the aggregated amounts in a single currency regardless of any foreign exchange translation rules applied. 14. Further, relying on amounts being in the presentation currency of the MNE Group for calculation and reporting purposes should ensure that the compliance burden on Covered Groups is not increased unnecessarily and does not require amounts to be retranslated again if they have already been translated into the presentation currency of the MNE Group. 15. MNE Groups will be required to undertake all the relevant calculations for the GloBE Rules and report the relevant amounts in the GloBE Information Return in the presentation currency of the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statements. That is, the presentation currency of the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statements will form the foundational basis for the GloBE calculations. Therefore, all relevant amounts will need to be translated to the presentation currency of the MNE Group. This should allow for a common basis and expression of amounts for determining the application of the GloBE Rules to an MNE Group.

Where amounts relevant to the GloBE calculations are not already translated into the presentation currency, how should these amounts be translated?

16. As described in paragraph 118.17 of the Commentary to Article 10.1, Authorised Financial Accounting Standards permit MNE Groups to employ either of two basic paradigms for converting transactions from the local functional accounting currency to the presentation currency of the Consolidated Financial Statements. Under the first, transactions conducted in a currency other than the presentation currency are contemporaneously translated and recorded in the financial accounts in the presentation currency. Under the second, transactions are recorded in the financial accounts in the functional currency of the Constituent Entity and translated to the Consolidated Financial Statements presentation currency in the consolidation process. Accounting systems used by MNE Groups may differ significantly in how much of the data needed for the GloBE calculations is reported in accordance with the Authorised Financial Accounting Standard and readily available in the necessary detail in the presentation currency of the Consolidated Financial Statements. 17. MNE Groups using the first paradigm are likely to have most of their data relevant for the calculations readily available in the presentation currency. MNE Groups using the second paradigm will often only have aggregated data available at the consolidated level in the presentation currency. As this

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

10 |

data is frequently not sufficiently detailed for many of the GloBE calculations and adjustments, these MNE Groups will have to rely on data available in the local accounting functional currency of a Constituent Entity (i.e. pre-consolidation amounts). Hence, not all of the relevant amounts for GloBE purposes will be readily available in the presentation currency the Consolidated Financial Statements of the MNE Group. However, whether the data is collected from the MNE Group’s accounting system post-translation (in the presentation currency of the Consolidated Financial Statements of the MNE Group) or pre-translation (in the local functional currency), it is fundamentally the same information reported according to the underlying Authorised Financial Accounting Standard of the MNE Group. 18. Therefore, where an MNE Group has amounts that have not been translated to the presentation currency as part of the accounting consolidation process but those amounts need to be translated for purposes of the GloBE calculations, MNE Groups will be required to translate such amounts in accordance with the applicable foreign currency translation rules in the Authorised Financial Accounting Standard used to compute the Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss of Constituent Entities in the jurisdiction. The applicable foreign currency translation rules include the equivalent of IAS 21 or ASC 830, as well as other parts of the Authorised Financial Accounting Standard that relate to specific currency translation issues, such as currency translation in a hyperinflationary environment. 19. Requiring the GloBE calculations to be undertaken in local currency of the jurisdiction where a Constituent Entity is located (but in accordance with the Authorised Financial Accounting Standard applicable to the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statement) and the use of a single foreign exchange rate to be uniformly applied to translate amounts of a Constituent Entity to the presentation currency of the Consolidated Financial Statements, may have some simplicity advantages over using the principles in the accounting standards. However, it is not considered appropriate because it lacks sufficient flexibility and may embed potential foreign exchange related distortions into the aggregated GloBE calculations for the MNE Group, especially in specific situations (i.e. hyperinflationary economies). 20. IAS 21 and ASC 830 (and their equivalents in other Authorised Financial Accounting Standards) provides principles for foreign currency translation of the amounts of a subsidiary, depending on classification of the relevant amount and the characteristics of the subsidiary. For purposes of determining the translation exchange rates to use for particular items relevant to the GloBE calculations, MNE Group’s will be able to utilise the flexibility in determining the relevant exchange rate afforded by the Authorised Financial Accounting Standard applicable to its Consolidated Financial Statements, subject to the principles set out in that standard. For example, IAS 21 centers around three main principles:

• Practicality: although IAS 21 defaults to the exchange rates at the closing or transaction dates

(i.e. spot rate), it stipulates that MNE Groups may use approximations such as average rates for

the relevant period for practical reasons (if it is not a currency of a hyperinflationary economy or

where the currency for other reasons fluctuates significantly).

• Consistency: although IAS 21 does not prescribe when and how a group might change the

translation logic (such as spot rate, monthly average, annual average), IAS 21 generally allows

changes to the currencies used (functional currencies or presentation currency) only if there is a

change to the underlying transactions, events, and conditions.

• Transparency: IAS 21 requires Groups to disclose the fact and the reason for any changes to the

functional currency.3 21. For example, IAS 21 prescribes that income and expense items be translated based on exchange rates at the dates of the transactions (i.e. spot rate). However, the use of average rates is permitted for

1 IAS 21, ¶ 40. IAS 21, ¶¶13 and 36). IAS 21, ¶54.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 11

practical reasons unless exchange rates are subject to significant fluctuation, most notably in hyperinflation economies. The frequency of measurement of the exchange rate (weekly, monthly, or yearly) will be dependent on the practicality of information available to the MNE Group and whether the frequency gives a reasonable approximation of the actual exchange rate. This may also differ depending on the relevant income or expense item. 22. MNE Groups will be required to adhere to the principles set out in the relevant accounting standards on currency translation when translating amounts for GloBE purposes, just as they would if the amounts were subject to these requirements under the relevant Authorised Financial Accounting Standard.

Foreign currency translation rules applicable for the purposes of translating any Top-Up Tax under the IIR or the UTPR Top-Up Tax Amount determined using the presentation currency into the currency in which the GloBE tax liability is payable.

23. Given the relevant calculations for GloBE purposes will be undertaken in the presentation currency of the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statements, the Top-Up Tax under the IIR or the UTPR Top- Up Tax Amount allocated to Constituent Entities in accordance with Chapter 2 of the GloBE Rules may need to be translated into local currency of the implementing jurisdiction for the purposes of assessment and/or payment. 24. However, uniformity in foreign exchange translation to local currency for these purposes is not necessary to ensure consistent application of the GloBE Rules because the relevant underlying GloBE calculations have been undertaken in the presentation currency of the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statements. Therefore, implementing jurisdictions are to determine their own foreign currency translation rules applicable to translate amounts from the presentation currency into local currency, provided the exchange rate is considered reasonable on the basis that it is determined by reference to exchanges rates during the Fiscal Year or payment date. Jurisdictions may choose to adopt any reasonable foreign currency translation basis, including (but not restricted to):

• The average foreign exchange rate for the Fiscal Year; • The foreign exchange rate on the last day of the Fiscal Year; or • The foreign exchange rate on the date payment is required.

25. While jurisdictions are free to choose any foreign exchange translation basis, it is recommended that specific rules are adopted in domestic legislation to give MNE Group’s certainty to comply with the GloBE Rules.

Foreign currency translation rules for determining whether a GloBE threshold expressed in a currency other than the presentation currency has been met

26. Under paragraphs 19.1 and 19.2 of the Introduction to the Commentary of the GloBE Rules, where the thresholds are expressed in domestic legislation in a non-EUR currency, the amounts will need to be rebased annually to ensure a coordinated application of the GloBE Rules as well as consistency in the thresholds used by different jurisdictions on an ongoing basis. 27. Under paragraphs 19.1 and 19.2, the relevant thresholds are rebased in domestic legislation based on the average foreign exchange rate for the December month of the previous Fiscal Year. The previous December monthly average exchange rate for rebasing amounts in non-EUR currency was chosen because the rate needed to be incorporated into domestic legislation prior to or before the end of the Fiscal Year to give certainty to MNE Groups. This applies to all monetary thresholds in the GloBE Rules and Commentary, including:

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

12 |

a. Articles 1.1, 1.2 and 6.1.1 – which refer to revenue included in the Consolidated

Financial Statements equal to or greater than EUR 750 million.

b. Article 3.1.3 – which refers to permanent differences in excess of EUR 1 million.

c. Articles 4.6.1 and 4.6.4 – which refer to an aggregate decrease of less (Article

4.6.1) or more (Article 4.6.4) than EUR 1 million in the Adjusted Covered Taxes.

d. Paragraphs 5.5.1(a) and (b) – which refer to Average GloBE Revenue of such

jurisdiction is less than EUR 10 million and Average GloBE Income or Loss of such

jurisdiction is a loss or is less than EUR 1 million.

e. Article 9.3.2 – which refers the sum of the Net Book Values of Tangible Assets of

all Constituent Entities located in all jurisdictions other than the Reference

Jurisdiction does not exceed EUR 50 million.

f. Article 10, ‘Material Competitive Distortion’ – which refers to the aggregate

variation greater than EUR 75 million in a Fiscal Year as compared to the amount

that would have been determined by applying the corresponding IFRS principle or

procedure.

g. Article 10, ‘Policy Disallowed Expenses’ – which refers to expenses accrued by

the Constituent Entity for fines and penalties that equal or exceed EUR 50 000. 28. Where the presentation currency of the MNE Group differs from the currency in which thresholds are expressed in the domestic law of an implementing jurisdiction, the amount calculated in the presentation currency will need to be translated to determine whether the relevant threshold is met. While the general foreign exchange translation rules above require foreign exchange translation to be undertaken in accordance with the accounting standards, relying on the accounting standards to translate the amount relevant to the monetary thresholds may not be possible as the accounting standards are based on translating amounts to the presentation currency of the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statements, not translating those amounts to another currency. Further, reliance on other metrics, such as the average rate for the Fiscal Year or the spot rate on the last day of the Fiscal Year to determine whether the relevant threshold is met may lead to inconsistent outcomes between jurisdictions where the threshold has been rebased in domestic legislation in a non-EUR currency. 29. Therefore, for the purposes of determining whether the relevant threshold has been met, the MNE Group will be required to translate the relevant amount from its presentation currency to the currency in which the relevant threshold is expressed in domestic law, based on the average foreign exchange rate for the December month of the previous Fiscal Year. This will ensure consistency in application of monetary thresholds across jurisdictions. This mirrors the requirement for the jurisdiction to rebase annually GloBE monetary thresholds expressed in local currency. 30. The average foreign exchange rate for the December month of the previous Fiscal Year will be determined by:

• If the domestic threshold is expressed in EUR - the foreign exchange rates as quoted by the

European Central Bank (ECB). Where the ECB does not provide a foreign exchange reference

rate for the local currency of a jurisdiction, the average foreign exchange rate will be determined

based on the rate quoted by the jurisdiction’s Central Bank.

• If the domestic threshold is expressed in a non-EUR currency - the average foreign exchange rate

will be determined based on the rate quoted by the jurisdiction’s Central Bank. 31. It is recognised that this may lead to counter-intuitive outcomes in some cases. For example, a Constituent Entity applying Article 3.1.3 may have permanent differences in its financial accounts expressed in GBP, the local currency, below the rebased GBP equivalent of EUR 1 million. However,

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 13

because the permanent differences are required to be translated to the MNE Group’s presentation currency (for example, USD) based on the average rate of the Fiscal Year and then translated from USD to GBP based on the December average of the previous Fiscal Year, it may be the case that due to foreign exchange effects, the permanent differences exceed or fall below the rebased GBP equivalent of EUR 1 million. However, without this rule, there is a significant risk that a monetary threshold may be met in one implementing jurisdiction but not in another due to foreign exchange rate effects, which would result in inconsistent and uncoordinated outcomes across jurisdictions. 32. However, the guidance above is limited to determining whether the relevant threshold has been exceeded. To the extent that the relevant threshold is exceeded, any resulting adjustment will be based on the amount translated in accordance with the general principles prescribed in paragraphs 16 to 22 above. That is, the amount of the adjustment may be different to amount for determining whether the relevant threshold has been met. 33. This guidance also provides an update to the Commentary of the GloBE Rules as amended by the Administrative Guidance in relation to Rebasing monetary thresholds in the GloBE Rules [AG22.04.T18] to ensure that the rebasing rules also apply to Euro-denominated thresholds incorporated in the Commentary through Administrative Guidance. This also applies to any future Euro-denominated thresholds incorporated in the Commentary of the GloBE Rules by Administrative Guidance. For example, the guidance applies to the De Minimis test (Total Revenue of less than EUR 10 million and Profit (Loss) before Income Tax of less than EUR 1 million) under the Transitional CbCR Safe Harbour.

Guidance

34. The following guidance will be inserted after paragraph 17 of the Introduction to the Commentary:

17.1 In addition, to ensure the co-ordination and consistency of an MNE Group’s GloBE

calculations in each jurisdiction, MNE Groups will be required to undertake their GloBE calculations

for each relevant jurisdiction in the presentation currency of their Consolidated Financial

Statements. The presentation currency of the MNE Group is the currency in which its Consolidated

Financial Statements are presented. This requirement applies regardless of the local currency of

the relevant jurisdiction.

17.2 Depending on the accounting and consolidation processes within a MNE Group, many of the

amounts needed for GloBE computations will have been translated to the presentation currency

based on the Authorised Financial Accounting Standard in connection with the preparation of the

Consolidated Financial Accounts. Other amounts that are relevant to the GloBE calculations will

not have been translated for purposes of the Consolidated Financial Statements, either because

those amounts do not exist in presentation currency or because the amounts are translated at the

aggregate level for GloBE computation purposes post accounting consolidation (i.e. not at the

Constituent Entity level). These amounts will need to be translated to the presentation currency

specifically for GloBE computation purposes. An MNE Group must translate amounts necessary

for the GloBE calculations to the presentation currency pursuant to the relevant currency

translation principles of the Authorised Financial Accounting Standard used to prepare its

Consolidated Financial Statements (for example, IAS 21 or ASC 830), regardless of whether such

translations are required for preparation of the Consolidated Financial Statements or for other

financial accounting purposes.

17.3 After the amount of Top-Up Tax allocable (or equivalent adjustment) to a Constituent Entity

in accordance with Chapter 2 of the GloBE Rules in the MNE Group's presentation currency has

been determined, jurisdictions are free to apply their own foreign currency translation rules to

convert the Top-up Tax liability due in their jurisdiction into local currency, as long as the exchange

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

14 |

rate used is reasonable and relevant to the Fiscal Year. Jurisdictions may choose to adopt any reasonable foreign exchange translation basis, including (but not restricted to):

a. The average foreign exchange rate for the Fiscal Year; b. The foreign exchange rate on the last day of the Fiscal Year; or c. The foreign exchange rate on the date payment is required.

While jurisdictions are free to choose any foreign exchange translation basis, it is recommended that specific rules are adopted in domestic legislation to give MNE Group’s certainty to comply with the GloBE Rules. 35. The following language will be inserted in subparagraph (h) in paragraph 19.1 of the Introduction to the Commentary: 19.1

h. Any Euro-denominated threshold incorporated into the Commentary of the GloBE Rules

through Administrative Guidance. 36. The following guidance will be inserted after paragraph 20 of the Introduction to the Commentary: 20.1 To minimise potential distortions and to ensure consistent application of the monetary thresholds in the GloBE Rules, the MNE Group must translate the relevant threshold amounts from its presentation currency to the currency used in the implementing jurisdiction's domestic law based on the same average foreign exchange rate for the December month of the calendar year prior to the commencement of the relevant Fiscal Year. The average foreign exchange rate for the December month of the previous Fiscal Year will be determined by:

• If the domestic threshold is expressed in EUR - the foreign exchange reference rates as

quoted by the European Central Bank (ECB). Where the ECB does not provide a foreign

exchange reference rate for the local currency of a jurisdiction, the average foreign

exchange rate will be determined by that quoted by the implementing jurisdiction’s Central

Bank.

• If the domestic threshold is expressed in a non-EUR currency - the average foreign

exchange rate will be determined by that quoted by the implementing jurisdiction’s Central

Bank. 20.2 Similar to the explanation provided in paragraph 19.2 above, where a threshold amount has been calculated in relation to the previous Fiscal Year, MNE Groups will not be required to recalculate and retranslate the amount based on the December average exchange rate applicable to the current Fiscal Year. That is, the amount of revenue of the MNE Group (for example, EUR 750 million) for the Fiscal Year commencing in 2023, translated into local currency based on the average foreign exchange rate for the month of December 2022 determined by the foreign exchange reference rates as quoted by the ECB, will remain the same for local currency purposes, for the purposes of calculations (for example, Article 1.1) for future Fiscal Years. 20.3 Where a jurisdiction does not rely on European Central Bank’s exchange rates, to assist taxpayers in undertaking the necessary foreign exchange translations, it is recommended that jurisdictions make the average rates calculated by reference to the jurisdiction’s Central Bank quoted rates for the month of December publicly available. 20.4 It is recognised that this translation requirement may lead to counter-intuitive outcomes for MNE Groups. For example, MNE Group members in a jurisdiction may have an accounting functional currency in local currency. Under Article 3.1.3, a Constituent Entity in its financial accounts (expressed in the local currency, for example GBP) may have permanent differences

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 15

below the rebased GBP equivalent of EUR 1 million. However, because the permanent differences are required to be translated to the MNE Group’s presentation currency (for example, USD) based on the average rate of the Period and then translated from USD to GBP based on the December average of the previous Fiscal Year, it may be the case that due to foreign exchange effects, the permanent differences exceed the rebased GBP equivalent of EUR 1 million. Similarly, the foreign exchange translation rules may also have the opposite effect. However, given the fundamental importance that the GloBE monetary thresholds apply consistently across implementing jurisdictions, such outcomes are considered acceptable to give certainty to MNE Groups and tax administrations in the application of the GloBE Rules to a Covered Group for a Fiscal Year. 37. The text in bold will be inserted in, and the text in strikethrough will be removed from, paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Introduction to the Commentary: 21. Where a jurisdiction implements GloBE Rules using monetary thresholds that are in a currency other than Euros this creates the potential for differences in the application of the GloBE Rules between that jurisdiction and other jurisdictions. For example, Country Y could use its local currency to set the monetary threshold for determining whether a fine or penalty falls within the definition of a Policy Disallowed Expense. While this threshold is originally set at the local currency equivalent of EUR 50 000, the value of Y$ may subsequently fall against the Euro such that, when the threshold is applied, the actual monetary threshold is set at the equivalent of EUR 35 000. In this case, the drop in the exchange rate effectively results in a potential increase in the measurement of the GloBE tax base under Country Y law for certain MNE Groups because it results in fines and penalties being added-back to the calculation of GloBE Income, thereby increasing the denominator of the ETR calculation. In the rare circumstances where there are

differences in the application of a threshold in one jurisdiction from other jurisdictions and

in the determination of the GloBE tax base, these differences could potentially, in turn, have adverse implications for co-ordination and rule order. Such differences could result in a jurisdiction applying the charging provisions under Chapter 2 in circumstances that were not contemplated by the GloBE Rules, thereby undermining the expected outcomes for another jurisdiction that has also adopted these rules. 22. Accordingly, jurisdictions that implement monetary thresholds in a currency other than Euros must create provision in their law to ensure that any such differences do not result in outcomes that are inconsistent with the common approach and the intended outcomes under the Model Rules and this Commentary. Such coordination mechanisms may be considered as part of the process for assessing whether the domestic rules meet the qualification standards for a Qualified IIR, Qualified UTPR or Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax. MNE Groups using a currency different to the local currency under domestic law. 38. Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Introduction to the Commentary of the GloBE Rules will be deleted. 39. The text in bold will be inserted in, and the language in strikethrough will be removed from, paragraph 13 of the Commentary to Article 1.1: 13. In cases where the revenue threshold in a jurisdiction’s domestic law is set in a currency other than the Euro and the revenue threshold is revised on a yearly basis, the applicable revenue threshold for the Fiscal Year is the last revenue threshold in effect as of the beginning of the Fiscal Year. As discussed in paragraphs 19.1 through 19.2, jurisdictions will be required

to re-base non-EUR denominated thresholds annually, based on the average exchange rate

of the December of the previous calendar year. For example, Country A rebases its revenue threshold in local currency in December January of each year based on the average rate of the December of the previous calendar year, effective for Fiscal Years beginning on or after 1 January. The MNE Group has a Fiscal Year that starts on 1 July 2024 and ends on 30 June 2025. The MNE Group applies the revenue threshold that is in effect on 1 July 2024.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

16 |

40. The following guidance will be inserted after paragraph 13 of the Commentary to Article 1.1: 13.1 At the end of the Fiscal Year commencing 1 July 2024, the MNE Group will need to determine whether it meets the relevant GloBE monetary thresholds in the jurisdiction. If the presentation currency of the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statements differs from the currency in which the GloBE monetary thresholds are expressed in the jurisdiction’s domestic law, the MNE Group will be required to translate the amount from the presentation currency to the currency prescribed in the jurisdiction’s domestic law based on the average exchange rate of the December month of the calendar year immediately preceding the start of the MNE Group’s Fiscal Year. Following the example in paragraph 13 above, for the Fiscal Year commencing 1 July 2024, the MNE Group would use the average exchange rate for December 2023 in translating its revenue to local currency to apply the relevant threshold. 41. The following guidance will be inserted after paragraphs 10 of the Commentary to Article 2: 10.1 As noted in paragraphs 17.1 and 17.2 of the Introduction to this Commentary, MNE Groups are required to undertake the GloBE calculations for all jurisdiction in the presentation currency of the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statements. Therefore, Top-Tax liability allocated to Constituent Entities (including any relevant reduction) under Article 2 will be calculated in the presentation currency of the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statements. Therefore, MNE Groups may be required to translate the Top-up Tax liability expressed in the presentation currency of its Consolidated Financial Statements to the local currency of the jurisdiction to which the amount is applicable. As jurisdictions may choose to adopt any reasonable foreign exchange translation basis for this, MNE Groups will need to make such translations based on the specific provisions contained in the domestic law of the relevant jurisdiction. 42. The following guidance will be inserted after paragraph 5 of the Commentary of the GloBE Rules for Article 3.1.2: 5.1 The GloBE Income or Loss of all Constituent Entities should be calculated in the presentation currency of the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Accounts. This means that the Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss of a Constituent Entity is the net income or loss determined for the Constituent Entity in preparing the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statements, that has been translated into the presentation currency of the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statements (before any consolidation adjustments eliminating intra-group transactions). In addition, all amounts relevant to determining the GloBE Income or Loss of a Constituent Entity will need to be translated into the presentation currency of the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Accounts in accordance with the relevant Authorised Financial Accounting Standard used in preparation of the Consolidated Financial Statements. This is regardless of whether the Financial Account Standard requires such amounts to be translated to the presentation currency of the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statements. 5.2 The Accounting Standards permit MNE Groups to employ either of two basic paradigms for converting transactions from the local functional currency to the presentation currency of the Consolidated Financial Statements of the MNE Group. Under the first, transactions conducted in the functional currency are contemporaneously translated and recorded in the financial accounts in the presentation currency. Under the second, transactions are recorded in the financial accounts in the functional currency and translated to the Consolidated Financial Statements presentation currency in the consolidation process. For this and other reasons, MNE Group’s accounting systems may differ significantly in how much of the data is translated so that it can be reported in the presentation currency. Consequently, some of the data that is needed for the GloBE calculations is readily available in the presentation currency of the Consolidated Financial Statements and some is not.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 17

5.3 MNEs using the first paradigm are likely to have most of their data relevant for determining a Constituent Entity’s GloBE Income or Loss readily available in the presentation currency of the Consolidated Financial Statements of the MNE Group. MNE Groups will not be required to retranslate amounts that have already been translated under the relevant accounting standard in the preparation of their Consolidated Financial Statement. 5.4 MNE Group’s using the second paradigm will often only have aggregated data available at consolidated level in the presentation. Hence, not all or even very few of the relevant amounts for GloBE purposes will be readily available in the presentation currency the Consolidated Financial Statements of the MNE Group. Where the GloBE Rules require calculations or adjustments based on more detailed data, these MNE Groups will have to rely on data, which is often only available in local functional currency of the Constituent Entity. Using such data as the starting point for the GloBE calculations should not create integrity risks because whether the data is collected from the MNE Group’s accounting system after consolidation (in the presentation currency) or preconsolidation (in the local functional currency), it is fundamentally the same information used to develop the Consolidated Financial Statements, provided the amounts are recorded in accordance with the accounting standard applicable to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the MNE Group (but not yet translated to the presentation currency). 5.5 Where this is the case, the relevant amounts required to determine a Constituent Entity’s GloBE Income or Loss will need to be translated to the presentation currency in accordance with the principles prescribed by the equivalent of IAS 21 and ASC 830 of the relevant Authorised Financial Accounting Standard used in preparation of the Consolidated Financial Statements. In addition, other parts of the relevant Authorised Financial Accounting Standard that deal with foreign exchange translations shall also be applicable, including the relevant guidance in relation to hyperinflation. 5.6 Accounting standards are not prescriptive in how MNE Groups should set their translation logic from functional currency to presentation currency. For example, the standards do not specify a translation logic, such as spot rate or annual average, for specific types of transactions. Instead, these standards are principle-based, providing a framework around how MNE Groups are to set an appropriate translation logic. This framework provides MNE Groups with some flexibility to choose an appropriate translation logic and the ability to choose different translation logics for different transactions and accounts. Therefore, MNE Groups using the second paradigm (as described in paragraph 5.4) will be afforded the same flexibility available under the relevant accounting standard. However, in determining the relevant translation logic, MNE Group’s will be required to meet the reasonable approximation requirements of the relevant Authorised Accounting Standard, as if the relevant amount were being translated directly as part of the accounting consolidation process. 43. The following guidance will be inserted after paragraph 16 of the Commentary to Article 3.1.3: 16.1 Similar to the requirement for Article 3.1.2, amounts determined in accordance with Article 3.1.3 must be translated into the presentation currency of the Consolidated Financial Statements for the purpose of determining a Constituent Entity’s GloBE Income or Loss in accordance with the guidance set out in paragraphs 5 to 5.6 of the Commentary to Article 3.1.2. This requirement applies regardless of the fact that such amounts may have been determined in accordance with another Authorised Financial Accounting Standard. Unless the foreign currency translation requirements of the Authorised Financial Accounting Standards used pursuant to Article 3.1.3 significantly diverge from those of the Authorised Financial Accounting Standard used to prepare the Consolidated Financial Statements, it is expected that the foreign currency translation logic applicable to any amounts required to be translated to the presentation currency would be the

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

18 |

same as if the amounts had been translated under the accounting standard used to prepare the Consolidated Financial Statements. 44. The text in bold will be inserted in, and the text in strikethrough will be removed from, paragraphs 66 through 74 of the Commentary to Article 3.2.1: Paragraph (f) - Asymmetric Foreign Currency Gains or Losses 66. Paragraph (f) adjusts for Asymmetric Foreign Currency Gain or Loss. These are generally foreign currency exchange gains or losses (FXGL) that arise due to differences between the Constituent Entity’s functional currency for accounting purposes and the one used for local tax purposes. 67. The GloBE Rules do not make any adjustments for FXGL when the accounting and tax functional currencies of the Constituent Entity are the same. In those circumstances, any FXGL reflected in the financial accounts are included in the GloBE Income or Loss computation, irrespective of whether the local tax rules impose tax on FXGL. If FXGL is exempt under local tax rules, there will be a permanent difference that does, and should, affect the ETR of the jurisdiction. 68. The GloBE Rules do, however, make adjustments to avoid distortions that could arise when the functional currencies used by a Constituent Entity for accounting and tax differ. The definition of Asymmetric Foreign Currency Gain or Loss in Article 10.1 includes four types of FXGL. The FXGL included in the definition are described based on the relationship between the tax functional currency of the Constituent Entity, the accounting functional currency and a third foreign currency. The tax functional currency is the functional currency used to determine the Constituent Entity’s taxable income or loss for a Covered Tax in the jurisdiction in which it is located. The accounting functional currency is the functional currency used to determine of the Constituent Entity for accounting purposes. A third foreign currency is a currency that is not the Constituent Entity’s tax functional currency or accounting functional currency. The adjustments required under Article 3.2.2(f) with respect to each type of Asymmetric Foreign Currency Gain or Loss are explained below. 69. Paragraph (a) of the definition applies to transactions in the accounting functional currency of a Constituent Entity that produce taxable gain or loss because the tax functional currency is different. It brings the tax FXGL into the Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss. Paragraph (a) requires a positive adjustment to Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss in the amount of the tax foreign currency exchange (FX) gain and a negative adjustment to Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss in the amount of the tax FX loss. 70. Paragraph (a) also applies where an asset or liability denominated in the accounting functional currency is retranslated in the tax functional currency so that a tax FXGL arises, despite no FXGL arising for accounting purposes. 71. Paragraph (b) of the definition applies to transactions in the tax functional currency of a Constituent Entity that produce an accounting gain or loss because the accounting functional currency of the Constituent Entity is different. It removes the accounting FXGL from the Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss. Thus, paragraph (b) requires a negative adjustment to Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss in the amount of the accounting FX gain and a positive adjustment to Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss in the amount of the accounting FX Loss. 72. Paragraph (b) also applies where an asset or liability denominated in the tax functional currency is retranslated in the accounting functional currency so that an accounting FXGL arises, but no FXGL arises for tax purposes. 73. Paragraph (c) of the definition is the exclusionary arm of the rule in respect of FXGL arising from transactions in a third foreign currency. These transactions may result in an FXGL vis-à-vis

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 19

both the accounting currency and tax functional currency of the Constituent Entity. However, paragraph (c) only applies to the FXGL in respect of the accounting functional currency. It excludes these gains and losses from the GloBE Income or Loss computation by requiring a negative adjustment to Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss in the amount of the accounting FX gain and a positive adjustment to Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss in the amount of the accounting FX Loss. 74. Paragraph (d) of the definition is the inclusionary arm of the rules for third foreign currency gains. It includes the gain or loss determined with respect to the tax functional currency by requiring a positive adjustment to Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss in the amount of the tax FX gain and a negative adjustment to Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss in the amount of the tax FX loss. This rule applies irrespective of whether the FXGL in the tax functional currency is includible in taxable income or subject to tax in the Constituent Entity’s location. For purposes of paragraph (d), if the FX gain or loss is not subject to tax under local law, the tax FX gain or loss is the amount that would have arisen for tax purposes if the Constituent Entity had been subject to tax on the gain or loss using the same method for determining FXGL as is used in the financial accounts.

74.1 While the adjustment for Asymmetric Foreign Currency Gains and Losses is determined by reference to the Constituent Entity’s tax functional currency and accounting function currency, the resulting amount of the required adjustment will need to be translated to the presentation currency of the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statements, for the purposes of determining the Constituent Entity’s GloBE Income or Loss. This translation to the presentation currency should be undertaken in accordance with Article 3.1.2 and Article 3.1.3 and the relevant commentary to those Articles.

45. The text in strikethrough will be removed from paragraphs 75of the Commentary to Article 3.2: Paragraph (g) - Policy Disallowed Expenses 75. Paragraph (g) adjusts for Policy Disallowed Expenses which are defined in Article 10.1 to mean expenses accrued by the Constituent Entity for illegal payments, including bribes and kickbacks, and expenses accrued by the Constituent Entity for fines and penalties. There is a materiality threshold that prevents the rule from applying in the case of de minimis fines and because the rule only applies to fines and penalties that equal or exceed EUR 50 000 (or an equivalent amount in the functional currency in which the Constituent Entity’s Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss was calculated). There is no such threshold for bribes and kickbacks which are always disallowed. 46. The text in bold will be inserted in, and the text in strikethrough will be removed from, paragraph 103 of the Commentary to Article 4.4.5: Paragraph (f) 103. Net gains on foreign currency exchange are taken into account in paragraph (f) of Article 4.4.5. Monetary items such as payables, receivables, and loans denominated in a foreign currency (i.e. different from the presentation functional currency of the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statements used for calculation the Constituent Entity’s GloBE Income or Loss) are translated at the closing rate for accounting purposes, which is the spot exchange rate at the reporting date. Any foreign exchange gains and losses are generally recognised in the financial accounting income of a Constituent Entity. Domestic tax laws, however, may not recognise these unrealised foreign exchange gains and losses until a realisation event occurs, such as a repayment of a loan. 47. The text in bold will be inserted in paragraph 83 of the Commentary to Article 5.5.1:

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

20 |

83. The two conditions provided in Article 5.5.1 are denominated in the Euro currency. Like the revenue threshold, this may require the MNE Group to convert its revenue and income into Euros and may require a jurisdiction that measures the de minimis conditions in local currency to re-base the de minimis threshold amounts on a yearly basis to align with the references provided in the GloBE Rules. Where the threshold

is determined in a currency different to the presentation currency of the Consolidated Financial Statements, MNE Groups should translate the relevant amounts based on the average exchange rate of December for the calendar year immediately preceding the commencement of the MNE Group’s Fiscal Year.

Examples

48. The following examples will be included in the GloBE Model Rules Examples.

Article 3.1.2

Example 1

1. An MNE Group’s UPE is A Co, located in jurisdiction A. The MNE Group’s Consolidated

Financial Statements are prepared using IFRS and the presentation currency is Euro.

2. A Co has two subsidiaries, B Co (located in jurisdiction B) and C Co (located in jurisdiction C).

Both B Co and C Co have subsidiaries also located in jurisdiction B and C respectively. The

non-consolidated accounts for B Co and its subsidiaries are prepared in accordance with

Japanese GAAP (J-GAAP). The functional accounting currency of B Co and its subsidiaries is

Japanese Yen. The non-consolidated accounts for C Co and its subsidiaries are prepared in

accordance with US GAAP. The functional accounting currency of C Co and its subsidiaries is

USD. None of the subsidiaries are located in a hyperinflationary economy.

3. The MNE Group’s accounting consolidation system is set up to contemporaneously translate

and record all entity level postings in local functional currency to the Consolidated Financial

Statements-currency (Euro). As a result, all of the detailed data relevant for the GloBE Income

and Loss of each Constituent Entity is readily available in the presentation currency of the

Consolidated Financial Statements (Euro). The MNE Group’s accounting consolidation system

uses spot rates at the date of transaction for income statement items and closing rates for

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 21

balance sheet items. This foreign exchange translation logic is consistent with the relevant principles of IFRS. 4. The principles of IFRS may also support other foreign exchange translation logics. However, the foreign exchange translation logic used in the MNE Group’s accounting consolidation system should be respected under the GloBE Rules because it is consistent with the relevant IFRS principles.

Example 2

1. An MNE Group’s UPE is A Co, located in jurisdiction A. The MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statements are prepared using IFRS and the presentation currency is Euro. 2. A Co has two subsidiaries, B Co (located in jurisdiction B) and C Co (located in jurisdiction C). Both B Co and C Co have various subsidiaries also located in jurisdiction B and C respectively. The non-consolidated accounts for B Co and its subsidiaries are prepared in accordance with J-GAAP. The functional accounting currency of B Co and its subsidiaries is Japanese Yen. The non-consolidated accounts for C Co and its subsidiaries are prepared in accordance with US GAAP. The functional accounting currency of C Co and its subsidiaries is USD. None of the subsidiaries are located in a hyperinflationary economy. 3. The MNE Group’s accounting consolidation system is set up to record the entity level data in the local accounting functional currency and translate to the Consolidated Financial Statements presentation currency (Euro) in accordance with IFRS during the monthly consolidation process. The consolidation of the local data is completed at an aggregate account balance level (i.e. not per posting or transaction) using the monthly average rate for income statement items and closing rate for balance sheet items. As a result, most of the detailed data required to calculate each Constituent Entity’s GloBE Income or Loss is only available in the local functional currency (i.e. JPY and USD). 4. The MNE Group’s accounting system cannot determine the portion of the annual amount the income or expense that was posted in each month and thus cannot apply monthly translation rates to different portions of the income or expense. For practical reasons, the MNE Group therefore uses yearly average rates when converting the relevant profit and loss GloBE data points from local currency to the presentation currency. Using a yearly average rate for these adjustment items is appropriate under the relevant principles of IFRS.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

22 |

5. As the foreign exchange translation logic used to determine each Constituent Entity’s GloBE Income or Loss is consistent with the relevant principles of IFRS, the conversion logic should be respected under the GloBE Rules.

Example 3

1. The MNE Group’s consolidated financial statements are prepared using IFRS and the Group’s presentation currency is Euro. The accounts for B Co and its subsidiaries are prepared in accordance with IFRS. The accounting functional currency of B Co and its subsidiaries is Japanese Yen. The accounts for C Co and its subsidiaries are prepared in accordance with IFRS. The accounting functional currency of C Co and its subsidiaries is US Dollars. None of the subsidiaries are located in a hyperinflationary economy. 2. The MNE Group’s consolidation system is set up to contemporaneously translate and record all entity level postings in local functional currency to the presentation-currency of the MNE Group (i.e. it uses the first conversion paradigm). Consequently, the detailed data relevant for calculating each Constituent Entity’s GloBE Income or Loss is readily available in the presentation-currency of the MNE Group (i.e. Euro). The MNE Group’s accounting consolidation system uses spot rates at the date of transaction for income statement items and closing rates for balance sheet items. 3. Due to a recent acquisition (New Cos), certain subsidiaries are not part of the consolidation system. For commercial reasons (e.g. system costs and the low materiality of these entities), it is decided not to incorporate these entities into the MNE Group’s accounting consolidation system. The entity level postings for these entities are therefore completed in the local accounting functional currency and then translated to the presentation currency on an aggregated basis in the monthly consolidation process. 4. For these Constituent Entities, the detailed data relevant for determining their GloBE Income or Loss is only available in local functional currency (i.e. USD). The MNE Group’s accounting system cannot determine the portion of the annual amount the income or expense that was posted in each month and thus cannot apply monthly translation rates to different portions of the income or expense. Therefore, the MNE Group uses a yearly average rate when converting from local currency to the presentation currency for these Constituent Entities. As the foreign currency translation logic is compliant with the accounting standard applicable to the Consolidated Financial Statements, the foreign currency translation logic should be respected for determining the GloBE Income or Loss for these Constituent Entities.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 23

Example 4

1. The A Co Group’s consolidated financial statements are prepared using IFRS and the Group’s presentation currency is Euro. The accounts for B Co and its subsidiaries are prepared in accordance with IFRS. The accounting functional currency of B Co and its subsidiaries is Japanese Yen. The accounts for C Co and its subsidiaries are prepared in accordance with IFRS. The accounting functional currency of C Co and its subsidiaries is US Dollars. None of the subsidiaries are located in a hyperinflationary economy. 2. The A Co Group’s accounting consolidation system is set up to record the entity level data in the local functional currency and translate to the presentation-currency during the monthly consolidation process. The consolidation of the local data has been done at an aggregate account balance level (i.e. not per posting or transaction) using monthly averages for Profit and Loss items and closing rate for Balance Sheet items. Consequently, the detailed data relevant for determining each Constituent Entity’s GloBE Income or Loss is only available in local functional currency (i.e. JPY and USD). As in Example 2, the MNE Group uses yearly average rates to convert from local currency to presentation-currency for GloBE calculation purposes. 3. Due to a recent acquisition, the A Co Group has become part of a larger MNE Group and the new UPE-entity for GloBE purposes is Acquisition Co. Acquisition Co Group uses IFRS and its presentation currency is the Euro. Acquisition Co Group’s consolidation system is set up to contemporaneously translate and record all entity level postings in local functional currency to the presentation currency. It has been decided to incorporate the A Co Group into Acquisition Co’s consolidation system, which is planned to take 3 years. During that period, Acquisition Co will continue to use the A Co Group’s foreign currency translation logic in parallel to the logic used by the Acquisition Co Group. That is, Acquisition Co will maintain its current foreign currency translation logic for Sub-Cos, while it will maintain A Co Group’s (and its subsidiary) different foreign currency translation logic during the 3-year period. These different logics will be applied even where the A Co Group and the Acquisition Co Group have subsidiaries located in the same jurisdiction. Upon incorporation of the A Co Group into Acquisition Co Group’s

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

24 |

consolidation system, it will use the same foreign currency translation logic (i.e.

contemporaneous translation) as the Acquisition Co Group.

4. Given the foreign currency translation logics used both before and after the system

implementation are in accordance with the accounting standard applicable to the Consolidated

Financial Statements of the MNE Group, the foreign currency translation logics should be

respected for the purposes of determining each Constituent Entity’s GloBE Income or Loss.

Example 5

1. The MNE Group’ s consolidated financial statements are prepared using IFRS and the Group’s

presentation currency is Euro. The accounts for B Co and its subsidiaries are prepared in

accordance with IFRS. The accounting functional currency of B Co and its subsidiaries is

Japanese Yen. The accounts for C Co and its subsidiaries are prepared in accordance with

IFRS. The accounting functional currency of C Co and its subsidiaries is Argentine Peso. The

C Co Group is located in a hyperinflationary economy.

2. The MNE Group’s consolidation system is set up to record the entity level data in the local

functional currency and translate to the presentation currency of the Consolidated Financial

Statements during the monthly consolidation process (i.e. it uses the second conversion

paradigm). The consolidation of the local data is completed at an aggregate account balance

level (i.e. not per posting or transaction) using monthly averages for income statement items

and closing rates for balance sheet items.

3. As a result, more granular data required to calculate each Constituent Entity’s GloBE Income

or Loss is only available in the local functional currency (i.e. JPY and ARS). A requirement to

use monthly averages to convert these more granular adjustments would be un-administrable

for the MNE Group, whose accounting consolidation processes are not designed to track the

time and applicable foreign exchange rate for each individual posting performed at an

unconsolidated entity level. For practical reasons, the MNE Group therefore uses yearly average rates when converting the relevant profit and loss GloBE data points from local currency to the presentation -currency. Whereas using a yearly average rate is an appropriate foreign currency translation logic under the accounting standards and should be respected under the GloBE rules for the B Co Group, this is not appropriate for the C Co Group. For the C Co Group, the foreign currency translation logic should follow a similar set of principles as those set out for hyperinflationary economies in the Group’s financial accounting standards (in this case, IFRS).

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 25

Guidance on Tax Credits

2

Introduction

Importance of Tax credit treatment for ETR purposes

1. The treatment of tax credits under the GloBE Rules is important because they can have a significant impact on the Jurisdictional ETR calculation depending upon whether they are treated as GloBE Income or a reduction to Covered Taxes. Tax credits will reduce the ETR under either treatment. However, if a tax credit is treated as GloBE Income, it will reduce the ETR by a smaller amount than if it is treated as a reduction in Covered Taxes.

IF agreement on refundable tax credits

2. Working Party 11 first began considering the treatment of government grants and tax credits in the spring of 2020. That consideration led to a lengthy discussion of government grants and tax credits in the Pillar Two Blueprint that ultimately formed the foundation of the GloBE Rules on the treatment of refundable tax credits. When the GloBE Rules were agreed, the IF considered refundable tax credits broadly equivalent to government grants and therefore treated them as GloBE income. The treatment of refundable tax credits under the GloBE Rules is largely consistent with the financial accounting treatment of refundable tax credits. However, the Model Rules required that tax credits be refundable within four years in order to receive this favourable treatment. The GloBE Rules depart from the financial accounting treatment of refundable tax credits where they do not meet the condition that they are refundable within four years, and provide specific rules for their treatment as a reduction to Covered Taxes. 3. The agreed treatment was grounded in the accounting principles applicable to tax credits, such as IAS 20 (government grant accounting) and IAS 12 (income tax accounting). However, the GloBE Rules provide a specific treatment (GloBE Income) for tax credits that are refundable within four years (Qualified Refundable Tax Credits or QRTCs) and a specific treatment (reduction of Covered Taxes) for tax credits that are refundable after four years (Non-Qualified Refundable Tax Credits or Non-QRTCs). The treatment of these tax credits under the GloBE Rules is mandatory, irrespective of how the tax credits are accounted for by the MNE Group. 4. The Commentary sets out a broad definition of the meaning of “refundable” in the context of the treatment of QRTCs under the GloBE Rules:

Refundable means that the amount of the credit that has not been used already to reduce Covered

Taxes is either payable as cash or cash equivalent. For this purpose, cash equivalent includes checks,

short-term government debt instruments, and anything else treated as a cash equivalent under the

financial accounting standard used in the Consolidated Financial Statements as well as the ability to

use the credit to discharge liabilities other than a Covered Tax liability. If the credit is only available to

reduce Covered Taxes, i.e. it cannot be refunded in cash or credited against another tax, it is not

refundable for this purpose.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

26 |

Special treatment for QFTBs

5. In February 2023, the Inclusive Framework released Administrative Guidance (February AG) that addressed the treatment of Qualified Flow-through Tax Benefits (QFTBs) that are derived through a Qualified Ownership Interest (QOI) in a Tax Transparent Entity. In the structures at issue, the investor that holds the QOI recovers its investment through receiving tax benefits that flow through the Tax Transparent Entity. The February AG allows the investor in the QOI to treat these tax benefits derived through the Tax Transparent Entity as taxes paid to the extent of the investment. Tax benefits exceeding the QOI investment are treated as tax reductions. This essentially puts the investor in the QOI in the same position as if it instead used the amount invested in the QOI to pay its taxes.

Additional guidance is needed

6. Although the Model Rules and Commentary prescribe specific treatment for refundable tax credits, they do not provide comprehensive rules for the treatment of all tax credits and some of the existing Commentary on the GloBE treatment of tax credits is unclear.

Transferable tax credits

7. At the time the GloBE Rules were agreed, the IF gave no consideration to the treatment of transferable tax credits. A transferable tax credit has similarities to a refundable tax credit from the perspective of both the originator of the credit and the government providing the credit. From the originator’s perspective, a transferable tax credit can either be used to pay its income taxes or sold to someone else and the proceeds used to pay its income taxes or other expenses. A transferable tax credit is not as valuable to the originator as a refundable tax credit when the originator lacks sufficient tax liability to absorb the tax credit because the originator will have to sell the tax credit at a discount rather than getting a full refund from the government. However, it still has a cash value to the originator to the extent that the credit is readily tradeable in an active market. From the government’s perspective, it will have to forego tax revenue equal to the face amount of transferable tax credits that trade in an active market in all cases because they will be used by the originator or a purchaser to reduce their tax liability. In fact, some governmental accounting standards require governments that grant transferable tax credits to treat them as government expenditures for accounting and budgeting purposes.

Unresolved issues related to QFTBs

8. The February AG on Qualified Flow-through Tax Benefits (QFTBs) left several questions unresolved. An issue in need of further guidance is the treatment of the developer of the project that originates the tax credits. The February AG indicated that further consideration would be given to the timing of the tax adjustments by the investor that holds a QOI. Under the February AG, the investor treats QFTBs as tax expense until the QOI investment is fully recovered and then as a tax reduction. For accounting purposes, however, investors in these structures often use the proportional amortization method to determine when and to what extent the income tax expense is adjusted. Under this method, the investor’s profit from the investment is spread over the investment period.

Timing of income from QRTC

9. The originator of a QRTC has the right to a refund of the amount of the tax credit within four years. The Commentary to the GloBE Rules states that “the full amount of a QRTC will be treated as GloBE Income of the recipient Constituent Entity in the year such entitlement accrues.” The Constituent Entity may not actually receive the refund or use all of the tax credit in the year that it satisfies the tax credit requirements. IAS 20 does not provide specific timing rules for refundable tax credits that are accounted for as government grants leaving MNE Groups with leeway in how they are accounted for. Some MNE

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 27

Groups may include refundable tax credits as income in full in the year the Constituent Entity becomes eligible for the tax credit or as income to the extent it is used or refunded each year. Alternatively, if the refundable tax credit arises in connection with an investment in an asset, the MNE Group may account for it as income over the productive life of the asset.

Clarification of treatment of non-refundable tax credits

10. The Pillar Two Blueprint sets out an analysis of the accounting treatment of non-refundable tax credits:

235. … An ITC that is determined or limited by reference to an entity’s income tax liability or

provided in the form of an income tax deduction is likely to be accounted for under IAS 12 (Income

Taxes) and recorded in the financial accounts as a reduction in current tax expense...

236. Therefore, it is expected that generally under IFRS and equivalent accounting standards any

“refundable” ITCs would be treated as income, whereas any non-refundable ITCs would be treated

as a reduction in a tax liability. 11. Article 4.1.1 of the Model Rules could be interpreted as providing that the treatment of nonrefundable credits under the GloBE Rules follows their financial accounting treatment. However, the GloBE Rules and Commentary do not provide clear and comprehensive guidance on the treatment of nonrefundable tax credits. Article 4.1.3(c) can be interpreted in a way that treats non-refundable credits as tax reductions. Article 4.1.3(c) provides that the reductions to Covered Taxes include:

any amount of Covered Taxes refunded or credited, except for any Qualified Refundable Tax

Credit, to a Constituent Entity that was not treated as an adjustment to current tax expense in the

financial accounts. The reference to QRTCs in Article 4.1.3(c) could be read as suggesting that all other tax credits are in scope of the rule. The Commentary, however, indicates that the provision is focused on refunds of Covered Taxes that were previously paid, with the reference to “credited” as a means of acknowledging that some tax refunds are credited against other liabilities of the taxpayer that is due the refund. 12. The Commentary on the treatment of QRTCs as GloBE Income also contains statements that may create uncertainty in implementing and interpreting the rules. Paragraph 113 of the Commentary to Article 3.2.4 provides:

a tax credit that does not meet the conditions for being a Qualified Refundable Tax Credit, i.e. a

Non-Qualified Refundable Tax Credit, but that was treated as income in the financial accounts,

must be deducted in full from the measure of net income in the financial statements, and there

must be a corresponding reduction of Adjusted Covered Taxes under Article 4.1.3(b). Without the phrase “i.e. a Non-Qualified Refundable Tax Credit”, this sentence would mean that any tax credit that is not a QRTC is treated as a tax reduction because all other credits would not meet the conditions for being a QRTC. That phrase, however, seems to limit the sentence to refundable tax credits that do not meet the conditions for being a QRTC. 13. Finally, paragraph 57.3 of the Commentary to Article 3.2.1(c), which was added by the February AG, states that both Non-QRTCs and non-refundable tax credits are treated as reductions to Adjusted Covered Taxes under the GloBE Rules. 14. Given the lack of clarity in the rules and commentary and the resulting uncertainty in the intended operation of the rules addressing the position of tax credits, this guidance seeks to stabilize and codify the treatment of tax credits based on their character in the hands of the Constituent Entity based on bright-line rules and economic criteria that reflects the way they are accounted for under existing accounting standards.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

28 |

Reference to accounting treatment where guidance is incomplete or unclear

15. The general principle embedded in Article 3.1 is that where GloBE Rules do not provide for specific provisions addressing the treatment of specific items or transactions, the starting point for applying the rules should be the relevant accounting standards used to determine the Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss for GloBE purposes. The GloBE Rules and Commentary do not address the treatment of transferable tax credits and are not clear on the treatment of other tax credits. Accordingly, in the absence of specific rules dealing with transferable and non-refundable tax credits, the corresponding GloBE treatment needs to be considered in light of the MNE Group’s accounting treatment pursuant to Article 3.1.

Income tax accounting – IAS 12 and ASC 740

16. IAS 12 and ASC 740 govern the accounting treatment of income tax expense under IFRS and US GAAP, respectively. Income tax credits are generally treated as reductions to income tax expense under IAS 12 and ASC 740 because they reduce the recipient’s income tax liability. However, neither IFRS nor US GAAP provides comprehensive, authoritative guidance on the accounting treatment of tax credits. 17. Investment tax credits (ITCs) are often accounted for differently from other types of tax credits. Under ASC 740, ITCs that are related to specific assets can be accounted for either as a reduction to income tax expense in the year the qualifying asset is placed in service or may be included in income ratably over the productive life of the qualifying asset. 18. IFRS does not have specific guidance on ITCs. In fact, ITCs are expressly excluded from the scope of IAS 12 and IAS 20. Accountants applying IFRS to ITCs, however, generally analogize to the treatment of other tax credits under IAS 12 and IAS 20 and determine which accounting treatment is more appropriate based on the features and requirements of the tax credit. An ITC that is determined or limited by reference to an entity’s income tax liability or provided in the form of an income tax deduction is likely to be accounted for under IAS 12 and recorded in the financial accounts as a reduction in current tax expense. Where IAS 20 accounting is appropriate, an ITC may be accounted for as income ratably over the productive life of the qualifying asset.

Government Grant Accounting – IAS 20

19. IAS 20 governs the accounting treatment of government grants under IFRS. US GAAP does not have specific guidance on the treatment of government grants. However, in applying US GAAP, accounting professionals apply the principles of IAS 20. 20. IAS 20 defines government grants as “assistance by government in the form of transfers of resources to an entity in return for past or future compliance with certain conditions relating to the operating activities of the entity”. Government grants often involve a direct payment or transfer of resources to an entity, but some are administered via the tax system for efficiency reasons. In those cases, the grant is credited against the entity’s tax liability and any amount exceeding the tax liability is refunded to the entity. A tax credit falls into the IAS 20 framework where it is a transfer of resources and the transfer is in return for past or future compliance with certain conditions and activities. 21. Under government grant accounting, the amount of the grant is included in the entity’s income. Where government grant accounting treatment is applicable to a tax credit, this accounting treatment applies notwithstanding the fact that the government grant is realized in the form of a credit against the entity’s income tax liability. In effect, the accounting treats the entity as receiving a government grant and using it to pay the income tax liability. 22. Accounting professionals uniformly consider refundable tax credits to be transfers of resources within the meaning of IAS 20 because the benefit is not conditioned on or limited by the recipient’s tax liability. If the tax credit exceeds the tax liability, the government will provide the difference in cash or cash

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 29

equivalents. Accordingly, refundable tax credits are treated as income of the recipient under IFRS and US GAAP. 23. Beyond refundable tax credits, the determination of whether a tax credit is treated as an income tax reduction or as income is based on the terms and characteristics of the tax credit. In respect of nonrefundable tax credits, the main features that are typically considered by accounting professionals as indicators that a tax credit can be treated as income are:

a. The ability to offset the tax credit against other taxes (e.g. VAT, stamp duty, payroll

tax); and

b. The ability to transfer the tax credit to another party in an active market. 24. Conversely, the circumstance that a tax credit can only be offset against income taxes and cannot be directly settled in cash when there is insufficient taxable profit is an indicator that the tax credit should be treated as an income tax reduction.

Application of the accounting standards to originators of transferable tax credits

25. Transferable tax credits have existed for some time. However, the size and scale of the transferable credits arising under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in the US created a need for more specific accounting guidance on transferable tax credits.4 The IRA transferable tax credits can be offset against income tax of the originator or transferred to another party and used to offset the income tax liability of the purchaser. However, an IRA transferable tax credit can be transferred only once and thus a purchaser cannot re-transfer it. 26. In recent consultations on the proper accounting treatment of IRA transferable tax credits under US GAAP, the Financial Accounting Standards Body (FASB) concluded that the most appropriate accounting treatment is income tax reduction. However, FASB also agreed that other treatments of the IRA transferable tax credits by the original recipient (the originator) were permissible. Specifically, it concluded that an originator could apply income treatment for these transferable tax credits or could apply an intent-based treatment, where the ones the originator intends to sell are treated as income and the ones the originator intends to use are treated as income tax reductions.

Application of the accounting standards to purchasers of transferable tax credits

27. The FASB concluded that a purchaser of an IRA transferable tax credit must treat the purchase price of the credit as income tax expense. The difference between the purchase price and face value of the tax credit (the discount) reduces the income tax expense. The purchase price represents the entity’s cost to satisfy its tax liability; thus, it cannot be treated as a reduction of income tax expense. This conclusion is consistent with the fact that the IRA transferable tax credits cannot be re-sold by the person that purchases them from the originator and can only be used to reduce a tax liability of the purchaser. 28. The accounting practice developed in Italy for IFRS adopters in relation to the purchase of certain non-refundable tax credits is to treat them as financial assets under IFRS 9 (Financial Instruments). The treatment as financial asset pursuant to IFRS 9 is indicated as the most appropriate accounting treatment in an official document released by the Italian regulatory authorities. The tax credits that are the subject of the IFRS guidance are different than transferable IRA tax credits because they can be offset against income taxes and other taxes (e.g. VAT, stamp duty, payroll cost) and can be transferred indefinitely in the market. Pursuant to the guidance, the purchaser accrues interest income equal to the discount as the

The IRA also established certain refundable credits. Those credits are accounted for as income under US GAAP. 5 Bank of Italy (bank regulatory authority), Consob (Financial markets regulatory authority) and IVASS (insurance supervisory authority).

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

30 |

credit matures. If the credit is used to satisfy a tax liability, the purchaser treats the face value of the credit as tax expense. Alternatively, if the purchaser re-sells the tax credit, it determines gain or loss based on the carrying value of the credit (generally, the original purchase price plus accrued income). This treatment is essentially the same as income treatment for a refundable tax credit but relies on IFRS 9 instead of IAS 20.

Summary

29. Neither IFRS nor US GAAP provides comprehensive, authoritative guidance on the accounting treatment of tax credits. Instead, the applicable accounting framework – income treatment or tax expense reduction treatment – is determined based on the specific features of the credits and any locally-developed accounting practice. Locally-developed accounting practices may not always reach the same conclusions about the substantive features of a tax credit in relation to determining the applicable accounting treatment. In addition, the accounting guidance that exists is often not mandatory such that different companies may adopt different accounting policies for the same tax credits. Consequently, it is possible that the accounting practice in different jurisdictions for certain types of tax credits might diverge so that tax credits having substantially equivalent features but established in different jurisdictions receive different accounting treatment. 30. Because the treatment of tax credits can have a significant effect on the ETR, the Inclusive Framework has determined that a uniform and mandatory treatment of tax credits is necessary to ensure that different financial accounting rules do not advantage or disadvantage some MNE Groups.

Guidance

31. The GloBE Rules contain explicit, mandatory treatment applicable to the Constituent Entity originating Qualified Refundable Tax Credits (QRTCs) and Non-Qualified Refundable Tax Credits (Non- QRTCs). This Administrative Guidance establishes the mandatory GloBE treatment applicable to the Constituent Entity originating Marketable Transferable Tax Credits (MTTCs), Non-Marketable Transferable Tax Credits (Non-MTTCs), and Other Tax Credits (OTCs) and the mandatory GloBE treatment applicable to the Constituent Entity purchasing QRTCs, MTTCs, Non-QRTCs and Non-MTTCs.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 31

32. The table below summarizes the GloBE treatment associated with each of the above categories. Income treatment, i.e. inclusion of the tax credit in the computation of GloBE Income or Loss, applies to both QRTCs and MTTCs. Tax reduction treatment, i.e. reduction to Covered Taxes, applies to non-QRTCs, non-MTTCs, and all OTCs.

33. For the purposes of determining the GloBE category of a tax credit, the refundability criteria should be tested primarily, and the transferability should be tested subordinately. Accordingly, if a tax credit meets the refundability criteria and qualifies as a QRTC, it will be defined as a QRTC regardless of whether it could be also transferable at a marketable price. If the tax credit rather does not meet the refundability criteria (i.e. it is either a non-refundable or a non-QRTC), then the transferability criteria shall be tested in order to determine whether the tax credit could be considered a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit.

Marketable Transferable Tax Credits

34. Marketable Transferrable Tax Credits have similarities to Qualified Refundable Tax Credits from the perspective of both the Entity originating the credit and the government providing the credit. In order to provide similar treatment to these tax credits, Marketable Transferable Tax Credits shall be treated as income and not as a tax reduction. The revisions to the Commentary set out below are intended to produce this result for both the originator and the purchaser. 35. The following guidance will be inserted before the heading for Qualified Refundable Tax Credits of the Commentary to Article 3.2.4:

109.1 The Commentary to Article 3.2.4 sets out the Inclusive Framework’s agreement on the

treatment of Qualified Refundable Tax Credits and Marketable Transferable Tax Credits under the

GloBE Rules. The treatment provided in Article 3.2.4 applies only to tax credits that are Qualified

Refundable Tax Credits or Marketable Transferable Tax Credits. Where a tax credit regime

provides for tax credits that are partially refundable or transferable (i.e. tradeable), such that only

a fixed percentage or portion of the credit is refundable or transferable, the credit shall be

bifurcated and the part that is refundable or transferable shall be tested to determine whether it is

a Qualified Refundable Tax Credit or Marketable Transferable Tax Credit. The Commentary under

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

32 |

Article 4.1.3(b) or (c) applies to any tax credit or any part of a tax credit that does not meet the definition of a Qualified Refundable Tax Credit or Marketable Transferable Tax Credit. 36. The text in bold will be added to paragraph 111 of the Commentary to Article 3.2.4. 111. The face value of a Qualified Refundable Tax Credit will be treated as GloBE Income of the recipient Constituent Entity in the year such entitlement accrues. However, if the Qualified

Refundable Tax Credit is related to the acquisition or construction of assets and the Constituent Entity that engages in the activities that generate the credit (the Originator) has an accounting policy of reducing the carrying value of its assets in respect of such tax credits, or recognising the credit as deferred income, such that the income from the tax credit is recognized over the productive life of the asset, the Originator shall follow this same accounting policy for Qualified Refundable Tax Credits to determine its GloBE

Income or Loss without changing the character of the credit. This reflects that these types of refundable tax credits share features of, and should be treated in the same way as, government grants that form part of income, given that they are in effect government support for a certain type of activity that can ultimately be received in cash or cash equivalent. See also the Commentary on the definition of Qualified Refundable Tax Credit. The Inclusive Framework will consider

providing further guidance to address transitional issues and deferred tax implications in respect of QRTCs and other tax credits, including for those QRTCs and other tax credits that are taxable income.

37. The following text will be added after paragraph 112 of the Commentary to Article 3.2.4:

Marketable Transferable Tax Credits

112.1 Marketable Transferable Tax Credit means a tax credit that can be used by the holder of the credit to reduce its liability for a Covered Tax in the jurisdiction that issued the tax credit and that meets the legal transferability standard and the marketability standard in the hands of holder.

(a) Legal transferability standard. The legal transferability standard is met for the

Originator of a tax credit if the tax credit regime is designed in a way that the Originator

can transfer the credit to an unrelated party in the Fiscal Year in which it satisfies the

eligibility criteria for the credit (Origination Year) or within 15 months of the end of the

Origination Year. The legal transferability standard is met for a purchaser of a tax credit if

the tax credit regime is designed in a way that the purchaser can transfer the credit to an

unrelated party in the Fiscal Year in which it purchased the tax credit. If under the legal

framework that applies to the credit, a purchaser of the tax credit cannot legally transfer

the tax credit to an unrelated party or is subject to more stringent legal restrictions on

transfer of the credit than the Originator, the tax credit does not meet the legal

transferability standard in the hands of the purchaser.

(b) Marketability standard. The marketability standard is met for the Originator of a

tax credit if it is transferred to an unrelated party within 15 months of the end of the

Origination Year (or, if not transferred or transferred between related parties, similar tax

credits trade between unrelated parties within 15 months of the end of the Origination

Year) at a price that equals or exceeds the Marketable Price Floor. The marketability

standard is met for a purchaser if that purchaser acquired the credit from an unrelated

party at a price that equals or exceeds the Marketable Price Floor. Marketable Price Floor

means 80% of the net present value (NPV) of the tax credit, where the NPV is determined

based on the yield to maturity on a debt instrument issued by the government that issued

the tax credit with equal or similar maturity (and up to 5-year maturity) issued in the same

Fiscal Year as the tax credit is transferred (or if not transferred, the Origination Year). For

this purpose, the tax credit is the face value of the credit or the remaining creditable

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 33

amount in relation to the tax credit. For this purpose, the cash flow projection to be factored

in the NPV calculation shall be based on the maximum amount that can be used each

year under the legal design of the credit. An Originator and purchaser are considered

related parties if one owns, directly or indirectly, at least 50% of the beneficial interest in

the other (or, in the case of a company, at least 50% of the aggregate vote and value of

the company’s shares) or another person owns, directly or indirectly, at least 50% of the

beneficial interest (or, in the case of a company, at least 50% of the aggregate vote and

value of the company’s shares) in each of the Originator and purchaser. In any case, an

Originator and purchaser are considered related parties if, based on all the relevant facts

and circumstances, one has control of the other or both are under the control of the same

person or persons. 112.2 The marketability standard can be illustrated with the following example. Assume that a Constituent Entity satisfies the eligibility criteria for a tax credit with face value equal to EUR 100 in Year 1 and that, according to the legal design of the tax credit, the Constituent Entity can either utilize it over the subsequent 5-year period in equal installments of EUR 20 per year or transfer it beginning in Year 1. The same government granting the tax credit issued in Year 1 five-year debt instruments with a yield to maturity equal to 4%. In that case, the NPV of the tax credit is equal to EUR 89.04, and the relevant Marketable Price Floor is equal to EUR 71.23. The marketability standard is met where the tax credit is transferred to an unrelated party at a price equal to or higher than EUR 71.23 or, if retained or transferred to related parties only, where similar tax credits trade between unrelated parties at a price equal to or higher than EUR 71.23. 112.3 It is recognized that tax credits generally are not traded on public exchanges with daily quoted prices but instead are privately negotiated in over-the-counter transactions. MNE Groups can establish the price at which tax credits trade for purposes of paragraph 112.5 based on evidence of similar transactions and in accordance with the applicable fair value accounting standards used in their Consolidated Financial Statements, for example IFRS 13 or ASC 820. 112.4 Generally, the Originator of a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit shall treat the face value of the tax credit as GloBE Income in the Origination Year. However, if the Marketable Transferable Tax Credit is related to the acquisition or construction of assets and the Originator has an accounting policy of reducing the carrying value of its assets in respect of such tax credits, or recognising the credit as deferred income, such that the income from the tax credit is recognized over the productive life of the asset, the Originator shall follow this same accounting policy for GloBE purposes. If all or part of a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit expires without use, the Originator treats the face value attributable to the expired portion of the credit as a loss (or increase to the carrying value of the asset) in the computation of GloBE Income or Loss in the Fiscal Year of the expiration. 112.5 An Originator that transfers a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit within 15 months of the end of the Origination Year shall include the transfer price (in lieu of the face value of the credit) in its GloBE Income in the Origination Year. If the Originator transfers a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit after this period, any difference between the face value of the tax credit transferred that was included in GloBE Income or Loss for the Origination Year and the transfer price shall be treated as a loss in computing the Originator’s GloBE Income or Loss in the Fiscal Year of the transfer. Where the Originator includes the tax credit as income ratably over the productive life of the asset, for both accounting and GloBE purposes, the difference between the transfer price and the face value of the tax credit shall be included in the GloBE Income or Loss ratably over the remaining productive life of the asset. For example, a Constituent Entity originates a tax credit with EUR 100 face value and includes it as income over a period of 5 years because it is related to an asset with 5-year productive life (either via contra-asset accounting or via deferred income accounting). In year 2, this tax credit is transferred at a price of 90. Assuming that the face value of the credit at

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

34 |

the date of transfer is still 100, the seller realizes a loss of 10 which is allocated ratably over the remaining four years of the productive life of the asset to match the income attributable to the reduction in the carrying value of the asset. 112.6 A purchaser of a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit that uses the tax credit to satisfy its liability for a Covered Tax includes the difference between the purchase price and the face value of the tax credit in its GloBE Income when and in proportion to the amount of the tax credit used by the purchaser to satisfy its liability for a Covered Tax. For example, if a purchaser acquires a tax credit with a face value of 100 for 90 and uses 70 of the credit in Year 1, it includes 7 (= 70/100 x (100-90)) in its GloBE Income in Year 1. A purchaser of a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit that sells the credit must include the gain or loss on the sale in its GloBE Income or Loss in the Fiscal Year of the sale. The gain or loss on sale is equal to the sale price minus the total of the purchase price and the gain recognized from use of the credit. If all or part of a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit expires without use, the purchaser treats the loss attributable to the expired portion of the credit as a loss in the computation of GloBE Income or Loss in the Fiscal Year of the expiration. The loss attributable to the expiration is equal to the excess of the purchase price and the gain recognized on use of the credit over the amount of the credit used. Thus, in the example, the loss would be 27 (= (90 + 7) – 70). This treatment of a purchased Marketable Transferable Tax Credit applies to a purchased tax credit that also qualifies as a Qualified Refundable Tax Credit. 38. The existing Commentary to Article 3.2.4, paragraph 114, is removed because the relevant content is reported in paragraph 109.1. The following new text will be included in the Commentary as paragraph 114: 114. The conditions for a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit draw on the treatment in financial accounting standards (both for government grants and for income taxes), and are designed to identify tax credits that are, as a matter of substance and not merely form, transferable in a market. In order to be treated as a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit under the GloBE Rules, there must be a market such that the legal right to transfer the credit has immediate practical and economic significance for those taxpayers that will be entitled to the credit. If there is no actual market for the transferable tax credits, then the transferability element will be of no practical significance to taxpayers and the GloBE Rules will not treat the tax credit as a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit. 114.1 The provisions of Article 8.3 on Administrative Guidance will apply to ensure consistency of outcomes in respect of the application of the marketability standard. If those jurisdictions that adopt the common approach identify risks associated with the treatment of Marketable Transferable Tax Credits that lead to unintended outcomes, the relevant jurisdictions could be asked to consider developing further conditions for a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit or, if necessary, explore alternative rules for the treatment of Marketable Transferable Tax Credits. This analysis would be based on empirical and historical data with respect to the tax credit regime and market as a whole, and not on a taxpayer-specific basis. 39. The text in bold will be inserted in, and the text in strikethrough will be removed from, paragraph 5 of the Commentary to Art. 4.1.2(d): d. Paragraph (d) adds any amount of refund or equivalent credit in respect of a Qualified Refundable Tax Credit or Marketable Transferable Tax Credit that has been recorded as a reduction to current tax expense. A Qualified Refundable Tax Credit is defined in Article 10.1 as a refundable tax credit designed in a way such that it becomesis refundable within 4 years from when a Constituent Entity satisfies the conditions for receiving the credit under domestic law of a jurisdiction in which the Constituent Entity is located. A Marketable Transferable Tax Credit is defined in paragraph 112.1 of the Commentary to Article 3.2.4. Qualified Refundable Tax

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 35

Credits and Marketable Transferable Tax Credits are treated as income items in the

computation of GloBE Income or Loss. Accordingly, when such credit or refund is granted, any

amount that has been recorded as a reduction to current tax expense in the Constituent Entity’s

financial accounts is reversed-out in the same Fiscal Year the current tax expense is recorded in

order to prevent the ETR for the jurisdiction being understated by such a reduction in Covered

Taxes. The GloBE Rules provide for a corresponding adjustment to the Financial Accounting Net

Income or Loss that treats the amount of Qualified Refundable Tax Credit and Marketable

Transferable Tax Credit as income in the year the entitlement to such credit accrues (see the

Commentary to Article 3.2.4).

Non-Marketable Transferable Tax Credits and Other Tax Credits

40. A Non-Marketable Transferable Tax Credit is a tax credit that, if held by the Originator, is transferable but is not a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit, and if held by a purchaser, is not a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit. Because their use is practically limited by the holder’s tax liability, Non-Marketable Transferable Tax Credits should be treated as a tax reduction for GloBE purposes. 41. Other Tax Credits are non-refundable and non-transferable tax credits that can only be used to offset a Covered Tax liability of the Originator. Because their use is limited by the Originator’s Covered Tax liability, they should be treated as a tax reduction for GloBE purposes. 42. The revisions to the Commentary set out below are intended to clarify that Non-Marketable Transferable Tax Credits and Other Tax Credits are treated as reductions to Covered Taxes under the GloBE rules, irrespective of how they are treated for financial accounting purposes. The revisions also provide guidance on the GloBE treatment of proceeds received from the transfer of a Non-Marketable Transferable Tax Credit and the timing and amount of the tax reduction when a purchaser uses a Non- Marketable Transferable Tax Credit to offset its tax liability. 43. The Commentary to Article 3.2.4, paragraph 113, is revised to read as follows:

113. A tax credit that does not meet the conditions for being a Qualified Refundable Tax Credit

or a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit, but that was treated as income in the financial accounts,

must be subtracted in full from the computation of GloBE Income or Loss. 44. The Commentary to Article 4.1.3(c), paragraphs 14 and 15 are revised to read as follows:

14. In general, paragraph (c) reduces Covered Taxes by the amount of tax credits (other than

Qualified Refundable Tax Credits and Marketable Transferable Tax Credits) that reduce the

Constituent Entity’s liability for Covered Taxes as well as any amount of previously-claimed

Covered Taxes that are refunded (including a refund that is applied as a credit against another

Covered Tax liability) to a Constituent Entity to the extent that the tax credit or refund has not

already been treated as an adjustment to current tax expense in the financial accounts.

Tax credits

14.1 Except as provided in paragraphs 14.2 and 14.3, a tax credit (other than a Qualified

Refundable Tax Credit and a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit) shall be treated as a reduction

to Covered Taxes to the extent it is used to reduce a Constituent Entity’s liability for a Covered

Tax for a taxable period that ends during the Fiscal Year. 14.2 A Non-Marketable Transferable Tax Credit is a tax credit that:

(a) if held by the Originator, is transferable but is not a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit;

and (b) if held by a purchaser, is not a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

36 |

14.3 In the case of a Non-Marketable Transferable Tax Credit:

(a) the Originator shall reduce its Covered Taxes for a Fiscal Year to the extent the tax

credit is used to satisfy its liability for a Covered Tax for a taxable period that ends during

such Fiscal Year and to the extent of any amount received in exchange for the credit

during such Fiscal Year;

(b) a purchaser shall reduce its Covered Taxes for a Fiscal Year by any excess of the face

value of the tax credit over its purchase price in proportion to the amount of the credit used

to satisfy its liability for a Covered Tax for a taxable period that ends during such Fiscal

Year; and

(c) a purchaser shall reduce its Covered Taxes by the amount of any gain on the transfer

as a reduction to Covered Taxes in the event that it transfers the tax credit during the

Fiscal Year and include any loss on the transfer in the computation of its GloBE Income

or Loss for such Fiscal Year. 14.4 For the purposes of determining the GloBE category of a tax credit, the refundability criteria should be tested primarily, and the transferability should be tested subordinately. Accordingly, if a tax credit meets the refundability criteria and qualifies as a QRTC, it will be defined as a QRTC regardless of whether it could be also transferable at a marketable price. If the tax credit rather does not meet the refundability criteria (i.e. it is either a non-refundable or a non- QRTC), then the transferability criteria shall be tested in order to determine whether the tax credit could be considered a Marketable Transferable Tax Credit.

Refunds (and credits) of previously claimed Covered Taxes

14.5 Paragraph (c) also ensures that to the extent a Constituent Entity receives a refund of previously claimed Covered Taxes, including a refund that is applied as a credit (i.e. credited) against another Covered Tax liability, the amount of the refund (or credit) is treated as a reduction to Adjusted Covered Taxes. This is the case even where the Constituent Entity’s accounting principles or policy did not treat that amount as an adjustment to the current tax expense for a Covered Tax. 14.6 Under paragraph (c), the Adjusted Covered Taxes are reduced for the Fiscal Year in which the tax refund (or credit) is accrued in the financial accounts. In the case of a refund or credit of previously claimed Covered Taxes, the application of paragraph (c) to refunds (or credits) will be limited, because Article 4.6.1 governs adjustments to the Adjusted Covered Taxes in the case of a tax refund and requires an adjustment to the Adjusted Covered Taxes for a previous Fiscal Year where the refund is EUR 1 million or more. Paragraph (c) will apply only when such a refund (or credit) is not an adjustment to a Constituent Entity’s liability for Covered Taxes for a previous Fiscal Year under Article 4.6.1. 15. Paragraph (c) would also apply, for example, if a jurisdiction provided a refund (or credit) for previously claimed Covered Taxes on corporate equity where the tax and the corresponding refund (or credit) was taken into account as an ordinary expense or income for financial reporting purposes in the year of the refund (or credit). This paragraph also applies to refunds (and credits) in respect of Covered Taxes when the refund (or credit) is made to a different Constituent Entity than the entity that originally incurred the tax expense. Paragraph (c) may apply to refunds (and credits) in respect of Covered Taxes paid or accrued in a current or previous Fiscal Year (subject to the overriding operation of Article 4.6).

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 37

QFTB – timing rule under proportional amortization accounting

45. Section 2.9 of the February AG sets out the treatment of Qualified Flow Through Tax Benefits (QFTB) by the investor in a Qualified Ownership Interest (QOI). As per paragraph 57.7 of the Commentary to Article 3.2.1(c), QFTBs are first treated as a reduction to the QOI investment until it is reduced to zero, and then as a reduction to the investor’s Adjusted Covered Taxes. 46. This guidance provides an alternative timing rule to the one indicated under paragraph 57.7. As an administrative simplification, an MNE Group that uses the proportional amortization method of accounting for a QOI shall apply the same methodology for purposes of determining whether and to what extent benefits flowing through a QOI are treated as a reduction to the investment or a reduction to Adjusted Covered Taxes. An MNE Group that does not use the proportional amortization method of accounting for a QOI may elect to apply this methodology for GloBE purposes. 47. Under the proportional amortization method as applied for accounting purposes, the investor adjusts its tax expense by the net benefit that flows through the QOI each year. The net benefit is determined based on the excess of the tax benefits that flow through during the year over the proportional amount of the investment. The proportional amount of the investment is determined based on the total investment multiplied by the ratio of the tax benefits that flow through the QOI during the year to the total tax benefits expected to flow through the QOI over the term of the investment. 48. Under the proportional amortization method as applied under the GloBE Rules, the QFTBs that flow through the QOI shall be treated as a reduction to the investment in proportion to the total QFTBs that are expected to flow through the QOI over the term of the investment (i.e. until the investment is completely liquidated under the agreement or until the flip-point is reached). The amount of QFTBs or income that flows through the partnership in excess of the proportional reduction to the investment shall be treated as a reduction to the Adjusted Covered Taxes. 49. Paragraphs 57.7.1 to 57.7.3 are added after paragraph 57.7 to read as follows:

57.7.1 However, an investor in a Qualified Ownership Interest that uses the proportional

amortization method of accounting for the interest for financial accounting purposes must apply

the proportional amortization method of determining the amount of the investment that is recovered

each year. An investor in a Qualified Ownership Interest that does not use the proportional

amortization method of accounting for the interest for financial accounting purposes may

irrevocably elect to use this methodology for determining the amount of the investment that is

recovered each year, in line with paragraph 57.7.2. The election must be made by the Filing

Constituent Entity for a Qualified Ownership Interest in the first Fiscal Year in which the investor

acquires the interest or is subject to the GloBE Rules.

57.7.2. Under the proportional amortization method as applied under the GloBE Rules, any of the

items described in paragraphs 57.6(a) through (d) that flow through or are received in respect of

the Qualified Ownership Interest shall be treated as a reduction to the investment in proportion to

the Expected Tax Benefits Ratio. The Expected Tax Benefits Ratio is the ratio of the items

described in paragraphs 57.6(a) and (b) that flowed through or are received in the Fiscal Year to

the total of such items that are expected to flow through or be received in respect of the Qualified

Ownership Interest over the term of the investment. The amount of the items described in

paragraphs 57.6(a) through (d) that flow through or are received in respect of the Qualified

Ownership Interest in excess of the reduction to the investment shall not be included as a positive

amount in the investor’s Adjusted Covered Taxes.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

38 |

57.7.3 The proportional amortization method can be illustrated with the following example.

Assume that the investor is subject to tax at a 20% rate and expects to receive 100 of tax benefits

over a five-year period from the investment and invests 90 in a Qualified Ownership Interest.

Assume further that the investor’s current income tax expense with respect to the investment for

financial accounting purposes each year is determined by netting the proportional amortization of

the investment against the amount of the tax benefit from the investment. Assume also that the

Expected Tax Benefit and the actual tax benefits are equal and the proportional amortization of

the investment determined for financial accounting purposes is equal to the proportional

amortization amount determined under paragraph 57.7.2. The chart below shows the proportional

amortization computations for each year based on the amount of tax benefits that flow through the

Qualified Ownership Interest each year.

In determining the investor’s Adjusted Covered Tax expense each year, no adjustment is

necessary to the investor’s current tax expense for financial accounting purposes because it used

the same proportional amortization amount in determining current tax expense as the amount

allowed under paragraph 57.7.2.

Qualified Ownership Interests of investors that apply IFRS

50. The financial accounting treatment of interests in Flow-through Entities with Qualified Ownership Interests (tax equity partnerships) by the developer and the investor varies depending upon the financial accounting standards used by the MNE Group. US GAAP generally treats both the developer and investor as owning an equity interest in a partnership. However, IFRS generally treats the developer as owning 100% of the tax equity partnership and the investor’s interest as a loan from the investor to the partnership. IFRS treats the loan as being cancelled as the tax benefits flow through and the investor’s interest in the tax equity partnership declines. The investor is treated as making a loan to the entity, rather than holding an ownership interest. The tax benefits that flow through to the investor are treated as payments of principal and interest on the loan. 51. The definition of Qualified Ownership Interest in the February AG required that the investor’s interest was an Ownership Interest under the GloBE Rules. The definition of an Ownership Interest in turn requires that the interest be treated as an equity interest under the financial accounting standards used by the investor in the Consolidated Financial Statements. This definition of Qualified Ownership Interest would mean that an investor that uses US GAAP could apply the guidance but an investor that uses IFRS would not be able to apply the guidance. In order to ensure the same treatment applies to the investor with a Qualified Ownership Interest irrespective of its accounting treatment of the interest, the text in bold will be inserted in, and the text in strikethrough will be removed from, paragraph 57.8:

57.8 A Qualified Ownership Interest is an Ownership Interest:

(a) an investment in a Tax Transparent Entity:

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 39

(i) that is treated as an equity interest for local tax purposes;

(ii) would be treated as an equity interest under an Authorised Financial Accounting Standard in the jurisdiction in which the Tax Transparent Entity

operates; and

where the assets, liabilities, income, expenses, and cash flows of the Tax

Transparent Entity are not consolidated on a line-by-line basis in the Consolidated

Financial Statements of the MNE Group; and

(b) the total return with respect to that investment (including distributions and benefits of

tax losses and Qualified Refundable Tax Credits derived through the Tax Transparent

Entity, but excluding tax credits other than Qualified Refundable Tax Credits) is expected

to be less than the total amount invested by the investor in the investment such that a

portion of the investment will be returned in the form of tax credits other than Qualified

Refundable Tax Credits (regardless of whether such tax credits are expected to be

transferred or used to reduce the investor’s Covered Tax liability). The determination of the expected total return is made at the time the investment is entered into and is based on facts and circumstances, including the terms of the investment. An interest will

not be considered a Qualified Ownership Interest unless the investor has a bona fide economic interest in the Flow-Through Entity and is not protected from loss of its investment. Also, an interest will not be considered a Qualified Ownership Interest where a jurisdiction only permits the benefits of tax credits to be transferred through such interests when the developer or investor is subject to the GloBE Rules.

52. To ensure consistency of outcomes between the different types of tax credits and tax credits accessed through Qualified Ownership Interests, the following paragraph will be added after paragraph 57.8: 57.9 The provisions of Article 8.3 on Administrative Guidance will apply to ensure consistency of outcomes in respect of the application of the rules related to Flow-through Entities with Qualified Ownership Interests. If those jurisdictions that adopt the common approach identify risks associated with the treatment of interests in Flow-through Entities as Qualified Ownership Interests that lead to unintended outcomes, the relevant jurisdictions could be asked to consider developing further conditions for the Flow-through Entities or Qualified Ownership Interests or, if necessary, explore alternative rules for the treatment of such interests. In this regard, the Inclusive Framework will monitor the features and availability of Flow-through Entities in jurisdictions for projects that produce tax credits. This analysis would be based on empirical and historical data with respect to the tax credit regime as a whole, and not on a taxpayer specific basis.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

40 |

Substance-based Income Exclusion

3

Interjurisdictional Assets and Employees

Introduction

1. This section provides guidance on determining the Substance-based Income Exclusion referable to Eligible Employees and Eligible Tangible Assets which are used outside the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity which employs the employee or owns the asset. 2. The Substance-based Income Exclusion for each jurisdiction is the sum of the payroll carve-out and tangible asset carve-out for each Constituent Entity (except Constituent Entities that are Investment Entities) in that jurisdiction (Article 5.3.2). 3. Article 5.3.3 states:

The payroll carve-out for a Constituent Entity located in a jurisdiction is equal to 5% of its Eligible

Payroll Costs of Eligible Employees that perform activities for the MNE Group in such jurisdiction,

except Eligible Payroll costs that are…

4. Similarly, Article 5.3.4 states:

The tangible asset carve-out for a Constituent Entity located in a jurisdiction is equal to 5% of the

carrying value of Eligible Tangible Assets located in such jurisdiction. 5. Paragraphs 33 and 38 of the Commentary to Article 5.3 respectively recognised that there may be cases where employees may perform work outside the employer’s jurisdiction and that tangible assets may be located outside the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity that owns or leases that asset. In both cases, the Commentary stated that consideration would be given to providing further guidance on addressing these cases. 6. Paragraph 25 of the Commentary to Article 5 also provides a brief description of the policy rationale behind the Substance-based Income Exclusion. It states:

The policy rationale behind a formulaic, substance-based carve-out, based on payroll and tangible

assets is to exclude a fixed return for substantive activities within a jurisdiction from the application

of the GloBE Rules. The use of Payroll and Tangible Assets as indicators of substantive activities

is justified because these factors are generally expected to be less mobile and less likely to lead

to tax-induced distortions. Conceptually, excluding a fixed return from substantive activities

focuses GloBE on “excess income”, such as intangible-related income, which is most susceptible

to BEPS risks. 7. The term Eligible Employees is defined in Article 10.1 to mean:

…employees, including part-time employees, of a Constituent Entity that is a member of the MNE

Group and independent contractors participating in the ordinary operating activities of the MNE

Group under the direction and control of the MNE Group.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 41

8. The term Eligible Tangible Assets is defined in Article 5.3.4 (subject to further clarifications) to mean:

a. property, plant, and equipment located in that jurisdiction; b. natural resources located in that jurisdiction; c. a lessee’s right of use of tangible assets located in that jurisdiction; and

d. a licence or similar arrangement from the government for the use of immovable

property or exploitation of natural resources that entails significant investment in

tangible assets.

Issues to be considered

9. Administrative Guidance is required with respect to the application of Article 5.3.3 and Article 5.3.4 to Eligible Employees and Eligible Tangible Assets which are located (at least some of the time) outside the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity employer or owner during the relevant period.

Circumstances

10. There are a variety of circumstances where an Eligible Employee would perform work activities outside the jurisdiction of their Constituent Entity employer, including where an employee:

a. works remotely part-time (or full-time) from a jurisdiction other than that of the

Constituent Entity employer – for example, an employee could ‘work from

home’ two days per week in a different jurisdiction to their employer;

b. is required to work outside of the jurisdiction of their Constituent Entity

employer for business purposes – for example, seeing customers or suppliers

in other jurisdictions, or visiting facilities in a different jurisdiction of another

Constituent Entity in the same MNE Group;

c. is seconded to another entity or organisation (either to another Constituent

Entity in the MNE Group or to an entity outside of the MNE Group) in another

jurisdiction;

d. engages in interjurisdictional travel as the central component of the business

– for example, an employee working in an international transportation

industry; or

e. works outside of the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity employer without

entering another jurisdiction – for example, the employee may work in

international waters or in space. 11. There are also a variety of circumstances where Eligible Tangible Assets would be located outside of the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity owner, including where the asset:

a. is used internationally as a central component of the business function – for

example, an asset used in the international transportation industry such as an

airplane or ship;

b. is used outside the jurisdiction of Constituent Entity owner without entering

another jurisdiction – for example, a satellite launched from the jurisdiction of

the Constituent Entity owner;

c. is located across multiple jurisdictions (and partially outside any jurisdiction)

– for example, a submarine cable through international waters; or

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

42 |

d. is moved between different jurisdictions for a non-transportation reason – for

example, a piece of farming equipment which is used in neighbouring states.

Structure of Article 5.3.

12. The structure of Article 5.3 calculates the payroll carve-out and tangible asset carve-out with respect to each Constituent Entity separately. The total Substance-based Income Exclusion for the jurisdiction is the aggregated sum of these amounts for each Constituent Entity in the jurisdiction. Article 5.3 requires that the Eligible Employees and Eligible Tangible Assets of each Constituent Entity are determined. 13. The definition of Eligible Employees does not itself contain any limitation based upon the location of the employee. However, Article 5.3.3 only grants payroll carve-out with respect to Eligible Employees that perform activities for the MNE Group in the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity employer. The provision does not allow any carve-out to be provided for an Eligible Employee who does not perform their work activities in the jurisdiction of the employer. 14. The definition of Eligible Tangible Assets contains limiting language to include only assets which are located in the jurisdiction (with the exception of ‘a licence or similar arrangement from the government for the use of immovable property or exploitation of natural resources that entails significant investment in tangible assets’). In addition to this limitation in the definition, Article 5.3.4 mirrors Article 5.3.3 in only granting tangible asset carve-out for Eligible Tangible Assets located in the jurisdiction. 15. Neither Article 5.3.3 nor Article 5.3.4 create an ability to allocate payroll carve-out or tangible asset carve-out to another Constituent Entity. Accordingly, any Eligible Payroll Costs of a Constituent Entity for its Eligible Employees which do not result in payroll carve-out for that Constituent Entity do not produce any Substance-based Income Exclusion for the MNE Group. Similarly, to the extent that the carrying value of Eligible Tangible Assets of a Constituent Entity does not result in tangible asset carve-out for that Constituent Entity, it does not produce any Substance-based Income Exclusion for the MNE Group.

Allocation

16. The remaining question is how to calculate the payroll carve-out and tangible asset carve-out for Eligible Employees and Eligible Tangible Assets which are sometimes located in the jurisdiction and sometimes located outside of the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity employer/owner. 17. There would be an integrity risk to the rules if any presence within the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity employer/owner was sufficient to allow for a full allocation of the relevant payroll carve-out or tangible asset carve-out. As articulated in the Commentary, the purpose of the rule using Eligible Employees and Eligible Tangible Assets in a jurisdiction was to capture the substantive activities occurring in that jurisdiction. This purpose would be undermined if employees could be allocated to a jurisdiction simply by being formally employed by a Constituent Entity in another jurisdiction and working in that jurisdiction for a single day in the year. 18. In considering an allocation rule, the most natural contender is the amount of working time spent within the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity employer/owner during the Financial Year. However, substantial compliance costs would be imposed if the allocation mechanism required businesses to track the location of each Eligible Employee (and in some cases Eligible Tangible Asset) every day. Accordingly, there are substantial benefits in adopting an allocation rule which is simple whilst remaining consistent with the principle behind the Substance-based Income Exclusion – that the rule must act as a reasonable proxy for substantial activity occurring in the jurisdiction. 19. In order to prevent disproportionate compliance costs for businesses with employees that may work remotely some of the time or who may travel for business purposes upon occasion, a threshold test

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 43

above which the full payroll carve-out can be allocated to a jurisdiction is considered appropriate. For instance, if an Eligible Employee spends more than 50% of their working time within the jurisdiction of their Constituent Entity employer, the Constituent Entity employer will be entitled to claim the full payroll carveout with respect to that Eligible Employee. 20. If an Eligible Employee spends less than 50% of their working time in the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity employer, the Constituent Entity would still be entitled to proportionately claim the payroll carve-out with respect to the working time spent within the jurisdiction. For example, if the Eligible Employee spent 30% of their working time in the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity, then the MNE Group would be able to claim 30% of the payroll carve-out with respect to that Eligible Employee. 21. It is expected that with suitable company policies (which are appropriately enforced), employers would be able to determine whether this test was satisfied with respect to the majority of their employees without the burden of tracking the location of every employee every day. For example, a business could have a policy which allowed employees to work from home two days per week. If these employees were otherwise required to work in the office of the Constituent Entity employer (located in that jurisdiction) and the policy was suitably enforced, then the Constituent Entity would be entitled to claim the full payroll carveout with respect to its employees regardless of whether some worked remotely from a different jurisdiction. Similarly, the employer would not need to track the location of employees that travel for business on an occasional basis. 22. If a Constituent Entity employer could not establish that its Eligible Employees met the threshold requirement in this way, then it would need to keep an auditable record of the days in which the relevant employees were located in the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity employer in order to establish either that the employee met the 50% threshold or to claim the proportionate payroll carve-out below the 50% threshold. The MNE Group retains the option not to claim any payroll carve-out with respect to such employees and therefore is not required to track and trace this information. 23. The Inclusive Framework will give further consideration to a simplified allocation mechanism with respect to industries with a substantial portion of their employees and assets located outside of the jurisdiction for a substantial portion of the Fiscal Year.

Permanent Establishments

24. Where an Eligible Employee or an Eligible Tangible Asset is employed or owned by a Main Entity which has a Permanent Establishment, it will be first necessary to allocate that employee or asset to the relevant Constituent Entity. In these cases, the legal entity which employs the person or owns the asset will consist of multiple Constituent Entities – the Main Entity and the Permanent Establishment(s). The Eligible Payroll Costs of Eligible Employees and carrying value of Eligible Tangible Assets must be allocated between the Main Entity and the Permanent Establishment(s) in accordance with Article 5.3.6 prior to considering whether the relevant Constituent Entity is able to claim the full payroll carve-out or tangible asset carve-out with respect to that employee or asset.

Guidance

25. A Constituent Entity’s payroll carve-out is intended, in principle, to be reduced to the extent that the relevant Eligible Employees perform their activities for the MNE Group outside of the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity. Similarly, a Constituent Entity’s tangible asset carve-out is intended, in principle, to be reduced to the extent that the asset is located outside of the jurisdiction of that Constituent Entity. This is consistent with the purpose of the Substance-based Income Exclusion as outlined in paragraph 25 of the Commentary to Article 5.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

44 |

26. Despite this overall approach, a simplification can be adopted by the MNE Group in performing the relevant allocation such that all of the payroll carve-out or tangible asset carve-out can be retained by the Constituent Entity where:

a. an Eligible Employee is located within the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity

employer more than 50% of their working time; and

b. an Eligible Tangible Asset is located within the jurisdiction of the Constituent

Entity owner more than 50% of the time. 27. In circumstances where the Eligible Employee or Eligible Tangible Asset is located in the jurisdiction 50% or less of the time, the Constituent Entity will only be entitled to claim the proportionate share of the payroll carve-out and tangible asset carve-out for that Eligible Employee or Eligible Tangible Asset. Further consideration will be given to a simplified allocation mechanism with respect to industries with a substantial portion of their employees and assets located outside of the jurisdiction for a substantial portion of the Fiscal Year. 28. To clarify, paragraph 33 of the Commentary to Article 5.3.3 will be revised as follows:

33. The payroll carve-out is computed on a jurisdictional basis and is based on the Eligible Payroll

Costs of Eligible Employees that perform activities in the jurisdiction where the Constituent Entity

employer is located. Employees will generally perform their activity in the jurisdiction where the

Constituent Entity employer is located (employer’s jurisdiction). However, in certain cases the

employee may also perform work for their employer outside the employer’s jurisdiction.

Consideration will be given to the development of Agreed Administrative Guidance as part of the

GloBE Implementation Framework to address those cases where the employee performs part of

its activities in another jurisdiction and for those employees that perform their activity in multiple

jurisdictions. 29. Paragraph 33.1 will be inserted to the Commentary to Article 5.3.3:

33.1. Where the employee undertakes more than 50% of their activities for the MNE Group during

the relevant period within the jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity employer, the Constituent Entity

will be entitled to the full payroll carve-out with respect to that employee. Where the employee

undertakes 50% or less of their activities for the MNE Group during the relevant period within the

jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity employer, the Constituent Entity will only be entitled to the

proportion of the payroll carve-out attributable to the employee’s working time spent within the

jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity employer. For example, if the Eligible Employee spends only

30% of its working time in the jurisdiction of its Constituent Entity employer, then the Constituent

Entity is only able to claim 30% of the payroll carve-out with respect to that Eligible Employee. 30. Paragraph 38 of the Commentary to Article 5.3.4 will be revised as follows:

38. The tangible asset carve-out requires that the tangible assets are located in the same

jurisdiction as the Constituent Entity that owns them or, in the situation where the tangible asset

falls into categories (c) or (d), in the same jurisdiction as the Constituent Entity that holds the right-

of-use of the asset. It is expected that, in most cases, the tangible asset will be located in the same

jurisdiction as the Constituent Entity that owns or leases the asset. However, under specific

circumstances, the nature of the asset and the way it is used may be such that it is not located in

any jurisdiction or is located in multiple jurisdictions (e.g. an aircraft of an international airline) at

different times during the Fiscal Year. Consideration will be given to the development of Agreed

Administrative Guidance as part of the GloBE Implementation Framework to address those cases. 31. Paragraph 38.1 will be inserted to the Commentary to Article 5.3.4:

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 45

38.1. Where the tangible asset is located within the jurisdiction of its Constituent Entity owner (or

lessee, if applicable) more than 50% of the time during the relevant period, the Constituent Entity

will be entitled to the full tangible asset carve-out with respect to that asset. Where the tangible

asset is located within the jurisdiction of its Constituent Entity owner (or lessee, if applicable) 50%

or less of the time during the relevant period, the Constituent Entity will only be entitled to the

tangible asset carve-out in proportion to the time the asset was located within the jurisdiction of

the Constituent Entity owner (or lessee, if applicable).

Simplification

Introduction

32. The Substance-based Income Exclusion is an exclusion from the GloBE Income of a formulaic return on the Eligible Payroll Costs and Eligible Tangible Assets within a jurisdiction for the purposes of calculating the MNE Group’s Excess Profit in that jurisdiction. Under Article 5.3.1, a Filing Constituent Entity may make an Annual Election not to apply the Substance-based Income Exclusion. Accordingly, it is, in effect, an optional amount. An amount of Substance-based Income Exclusion can only reduce the top-up tax paid with respect to a jurisdiction under the GloBE Rules. The Substance-based Income Exclusion is a function of the Eligible Payroll Costs and Eligible Tangible Assets in the jurisdiction. 33. A question arises as to whether the MNE is required to calculate the full amount of Eligible Payroll Costs and Eligible Tangible Assets in order to make any claim whatsoever, or whether the MNE is able to limit its claim for Substance-based Income Exclusion to a subset of the total amount. 34. For example, an MNE Group may easily be able to access the Eligible Payroll Costs of its regular employees but would need to engage in substantial compliance work to determine the full Eligible Payroll Costs with respect to the relatively limited number of independent contractors it engaged that met the definition of Eligible Employees. If, for example, the cost of documenting and substantiating the full Eligible Payroll Costs with respect to these independent contractors was disproportionate to the benefit of the related amount of Substance-based Income Exclusion, the MNE may prefer not to include these amounts in its Eligible Payroll Costs. Nevertheless, the MNE would want to claim the Substance-based Income Exclusion with respect to the Eligible Payroll Costs for its regular employees (for which this documentation was not a substantial administrative burden).

Issues to be considered

35. Stakeholders have asked for clarification that an MNE Group is not required to calculate the full amount of Eligible Payroll Costs and Eligible Tangible Assets in order to make any claim for Substancebased Income Exclusion whatsoever. In other words, stakeholders have sought confirmation that the MNE is able to make a claim for some, but not all, of its Eligible Payroll Costs and Eligible Tangible Assets for the jurisdiction.

Guidance

36. The intention is that MNEs could choose only to claim those Eligible Payroll Costs and Eligible Tangible Assets for which it was willing to undertake the relevant compliance work. To clarify this intention, the following paragraph is added after paragraph 29 of the Commentary to Article 5.3.1.

29.1 An MNE Group is allowed to claim only a subset of its total Eligible Payroll Costs and Eligible

Tangible Assets when calculating its Substance-based Income Exclusion. The MNE Group is not

required to calculate the maximum allowable amount of Eligible Payroll Costs and Eligible Tangible

Assets in order to make any claim for Substance-based Income Exclusion whatsoever.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

46 |

Stock-based compensation

Introduction

37. This section provides guidance on the definition of ‘Eligible Payroll Costs’ with respect to stockbased compensation. The Eligible Payroll Costs with respect to Eligible Employees are relevant in determining the size of the Substance-based Income Exclusion for a jurisdiction under Article 5.3. 38. Article 10.1 states that:

Eligible Payroll Costs means employee compensation expenditures (including salaries, wages,

and other expenditures that provide a direct and separate personal benefit to the employee, such

as health insurance and pension contributions), payroll and employment taxes, and employer

social security contributions. 39. Paragraph 34 of the Commentary to Article 5.3.3 clarifies that this definition includes stock-based compensation. Paragraph 35 then states that ‘the payroll carve-out is based on the total amount of the payroll expenditures accrued in the financial accounts for the Fiscal Year,’ except for payroll expenses capitalized into the carrying value of certain assets. These paragraphs clarify the meaning of Eligible Payroll Costs in the context of the Substance-based Income Exclusion. 40. Stock-based compensation is also addressed by the Model Rules in a different context – the allocation of GloBE Income or Loss under Article 3.2. Under Article 3.2.2, the Model Rules allow for a Filing Constituent Entity to make an election to:

…substitute the amount allowed as a deduction in the computation of its taxable income in its

location for the amount expensed in its financial accounts for a cost or expense of such Constituent

Entity that was paid with stock-based compensation. 41. As noted in the Commentary, this election was included to address a common disparity between tax and accounting with respect to stock-based compensation. Many Inclusive Framework jurisdictions allow for a deduction for stock-based compensation based on the market value of the stock when the option is exercised. However, for accounting purposes companies generally account for stock-based compensation based on the present value of the stock option at the time of issuance and amortise that amount over the exercise period. 42. This disparity in treatment could depress the GloBE ETR. The election in Article 3.2.2 allows a Constituent Entity to substitute the amount allowed as a deduction in the computation of its taxable income in its location for the amount expensed in its financial accounts for a cost or expense of such Constituent Entity that was paid with stock-based compensation. This rule operates to allow an alignment between the GloBE tax base and a domestic tax rule which exists in many Inclusive Framework jurisdictions.

Issues to be considered

43. Stakeholders have asked for clarification as to whether the amount of stock-based compensation taken into account under the definition of Eligible Payroll Costs is:

a. the amount of stock-based compensation included in the financial accounts;

or

b. the amount included as an expense in the Constituent Entity’s Financial

Accounting Net Income or Loss under Article 3 (and therefore would be

impacted by an election made under Article 3.2.2).

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 47

Guidance

44. The amount of Eligible Payroll Cost included with respect to stock-based compensation is intended to be the amount included in the financial accounts used to determine the Constituent Entity’s Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss. It is not intended to be modified by an election made under Article 3.2.2. 45. To clarify, the text in bold will be inserted in paragraph 34 of the Commentary to Article 5.3.3:

34. The payroll carve-out takes a broad approach to determining Eligible Payroll Costs based

on a general test of whether the expenditure of the employer gives rise to a direct and separate

personal benefit to the employee. Article 10.1 defines a Constituent Entity’s Eligible Payroll Costs

to include expenditures for salaries and wages as well as for other employee benefits or

remuneration such as medical insurance, payments to a Pension Fund or other retirement benefits,

bonuses and allowances payable to Eligible Employees, and stock-based compensation. The

amount of Eligible Payroll Cost for stock-based compensation is that included in the relevant financial accounts used to determine the Constituent Entity’s payroll carve-out and

is not impacted by an election under Article 3.2.2. Eligible Payroll Costs also includes payroll

taxes (or other employee expense-related taxes such as fringe benefits taxes), as well as employer

social security contributions.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

48 |

Lease

Introduction

46. This section provides guidance on the computational rules in Article 5.3.4 for determining the tangible asset carve-out attributable to Eligible Tangible Assets for a jurisdiction. Article 5.3.4 provides that Eligible Tangible Assets include “a lessee’s right of use of tangible assets located in that jurisdiction” and “the tangible asset carve-out computation shall not include the carrying value of property (including land or buildings) that is held for sale, lease or investment”. 47. The Commentary clarifies that in a lease agreement, a lessee recognises a “right-of-use” asset on its balance sheet and will be treated as the owner of the tangible asset for purposes of the Substancebased Income Exclusion. The lessor of an asset is not allowed a carve-out with respect to the carrying value of the leased asset. 48. For financial accounting purposes, a lessor classifies each of its leases as either an operating lease or a finance lease. In general, a finance lease means a lease under which the lessor transfers substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to ownership of an underlying asset, while an operating lease means a lease under which the lessor does not transfer substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to ownership of an underlying asset. 49. Under a finance lease, a lessor recognizes a receivable on its balance sheet at an amount equal to the net investment in the lease, and the leased assets are not reflected in its balance sheet. However, under an operating lease, the leased assets are still present in the balance sheet of the lessor, and the lessor recognizes lease payments as income on either a straight-line basis or another systematic basis and recognizes costs, including depreciation, incurred in earning the lease income as an expense.

Issues to be considered

50. Stakeholders have asked whether a lessor is allowed a carve-out in respect of the carrying value of the leased asset subject to an operating lease. 51. If the lessee in an inter-company lease does not recognizes a “right-of-use” asset on its balance sheet, stakeholders have asked whether the lessee is allowed a carve-out with respect to that asset. 52. Where a lessor leases a substantial part of an Eligible Tangible Asset to a lessee and retains the residual part of the asset for its own use, stakeholders have asked whether the carrying value of the asset should be allocated between the uses.

Guidance

53. The text below will replace paragraph 43 of the Commentary to Article 5.3.4:

Property held for lease

43. Financial accounting distinguishes between finance leases and operating leases. Under a

finance lease the lessor is treated, in effect, as transferring the underlying assets, which may be

tangible assets, to the lessee in exchange for a receivable, which is not a tangible asset. In such

cases, the lessor no longer has the carrying value of tangible assets in its financial accounts. The

lessee will in most cases create a “right-of-use” asset in its financial accounts, which reflects its

right to use the tangible property during the term of the lease. The GloBE Rules treat a “right-of-

use” asset as tangible asset if the underlying asset itself is tangible. Thus, the lessee will be

permitted to include the accounting carrying value of its right-of-use asset in calculating its SBIE.

In a finance lease, the right-of-use asset will be substantially similar in amount to what the carrying

value of the asset would have been if the asset had been purchased instead of leased.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 49

43.1.1 Under an operating lease, the lessor may have a receivable in respect of the lease but continues to account for the underlying assets in its financial accounts and on its balance sheet. Depending upon the term of the lease, the lessee may still account for its interest in the leased asset as a “right-of-use” asset, which may be included in the lessee’s Eligible Tangible Assets if the underlying property is a tangible asset and located in the same jurisdiction as the lessee. Thus, for GloBE purposes, the financial accounts of both the lessor and lessee recognise an asset that could qualify as an Eligible Tangible Asset but for the rule that excludes assets held for lease from the scope of Eligible Tangible Assets. If a lessee (including a lessee that is a Constituent Entity of the same MNE Group as the lessor) does not recognise a right-of-use asset with respect to a leased asset in its financial accounts, the lessee cannot create a fictional or hypothetical right-ofuse asset for purposes of the GloBE Rules. This may happen where the lease is a short-term lease (a term of 12 months or less) or the value of the lease is not material. 43.1.2 As applied to a finance lease, this rule reflects the fact that the lessor is not actively using the underlying asset to earn income, but instead is providing financing in respect of the asset. It is therefore not a reliable measure of substantive activities of the lessor in a jurisdiction. 43.1.3 In an operating lease, however, the lease or rental period is often substantially less than the productive life of the asset. It is less clear that assets subject to consecutive operating leases over their productive life are not actively used in a business. In some cases, the assets may be used in a business that could be considered primarily a service, such as a hotel or short-term automobile rental. 43.1.4 The exclusion of property held for lease prevents two separate MNE Groups or two Constituent Entities of the same MNE Group from claiming SBIE in respect of the same item of tangible property. In a finance lease, the lessee can take the full value of the property into account based on its right-of-use asset. However, in the case of an operating lease, the lessee’s right of use asset will often be far less than the lessor’s carrying value of the asset, meaning that there would typically not be a complete duplication under an operating lease. 43.1.5 The Inclusive Framework has determined that in the case of an operating lease, the lessor will be allowed to take a portion of the carrying value of an asset subject to an operating lease into account in determining its Eligible Tangible Asset if the asset is located in the same jurisdiction as the lessor. The amount allowed is equal to the excess, if any, of the lessor’s average carrying value of the asset determined at the beginning and end of the Fiscal Year over the average amount of the lessee’s right of use asset determined at the beginning and end of the Fiscal Year. By allowing only the excess of the carrying value over the right-of-use asset, the lessor is prevented from also claiming SBIE in respect of the same asset value that is included in the lessee’s SBIE computation. If the lessee is not a Constituent Entity, the lessee’s right-of-use asset for this purpose shall be equal to the un-discounted amount of payments remaining due under the lease, including any extensions that would be taken into account in determining a right-of-use asset under the financial accounting standard used to determine the Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss of the lessor. In the case of a short-term rental asset, for example a hotel room or rental car, the lessee’s rightof-use asset shall be deemed to be nil. A short-term rental asset is an asset that is regularly leased several times to different lessees during the Fiscal Year and the average lease period, including any renewals and extensions, with respect to each lessee is 30 days or less. 43.1.6 The carrying value of Eligible Tangible Assets is determined after taking into account elimination entries for intercompany sales. The carrying value of Eligible Tangible Assets that are subject to a finance lease or an operating lease between two Constituent Entities located in the same jurisdiction is determined after taking into account elimination entries in consolidation for the intercompany lease. Consequently, the lessee in an intercompany operating lease will not have a

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

50 |

right-of-use asset and the lessor’s carrying values for purposes of preparing the Consolidated Financial Statements are used to compute its carveout. Dual use assets 43.1.7. When a lessor leases a substantial part of an Eligible Tangible Asset to a lessee and retains the residual part of the asset for its own use, e.g. leasing some floors or the parking lot of a headquarters building, the carrying value of the asset must be allocated between the different uses of the property. For the lessor, the carrying value of an Eligible Tangible Asset shall be allocated between the leased part and the residual part based on a reasonable allocation key in respect of the assets (e.g. surface area of the building). The lessor shall take into account the carrying value of the Eligible Tangible Assets allocated to the residual part and may apply the guidance on the treatment of property subject to an operating lease in respect of the carrying value allocated to the leased part.

Example

54. The following examples will be included in the GloBE Model Rules Examples.

Example 5.3.4-1

1. A Co is a Constituent Entity of MNE Group A located in jurisdiction X that is subject to the GloBE Rules. B Co is a Constituent Entity of MNE Group B located in jurisdiction X that is subject to the GloBE Rules. A Co leased a machine to B Co. The machine is used by B Co in Jurisdiction X. According to the lease contract, the commencement date is on January 1, 2024, the lease term is 3 years, and the lease payment is €100,000 annually. The lessee’s incremental borrowing rate is 5%. Pursuant to its financial accounting standard, A Co classifies this lease as an operating lease. At the beginning of the 2024, the carrying value of the machine is €1,200,000 and the useful life of the machine is 15 years. 2. Pursuant to its financial accounting standard, B Co classifies the lease as a right-of-use asset. On January 1, 2024, B Co measures the lease liability at the present value of the lease payments that are not paid at that date, using its incremental borrowing rate of 5%. After the commencement date, B Co measures the right-of-use asset applying a cost model. The amortization schedule of B Co at the commencement date of the lease is as follows:

Period Lease Interest Liability Liability Depreciation Net Asset

3. The carrying value of the leased machine for purpose of carve-out for B Co is computed as follows:

a. In 2024, the carrying value for purposes of carve-out is 226,912.5 (=(272,325+181,500)/2). b. In 2025, the carrying value for purposes of carve-out is 136,137.5 (=(181,500+90,775)/2). c. In 2026, the carrying value for purposes of carve-out is 45,387.5 (=(90,775+0)/2).

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 51

4. Under an operating lease, A Co recognises lease payments as income and the depreciation policy

for the underlying assets is consistent with the lessor’s normal depreciation policy for similar

assets. The depreciation schedule of A Co is as follows:

5. The carrying value of the leased machine for purpose of carve-out for A Co is computed as follows: a. In 2024, the carrying value for purposes of carve-out is 910,000 (=(1,200,000+1,120,000)/2-

250,000). b. In 2025, the carrying value for purposes of carve-out is 930,000 (=(1,120,000+1,040,000)/2-

150,000). c. In 2026, the carrying value for purposes of carve-out is 950,000 (=(1,040,000+960,000)/2-

50,000).

Example 5.3.4-2

1. The facts are the same as in Example 5.4.3-1, except that A Co is located in Jurisdiction Y. Because the machine is used by B Co in Jurisdiction X, it is not an Eligible Tangible Asset for A Co.

Example 5.3.4-3

1. The facts are the same as in Example 5.4.3-1, except that both A Co and B Co are Constituent Entities of MNE Group A. 2. The carrying value of Eligible Tangible Assets is determined after taking into account elimination entries for intercompany sales and, where the lessor and the lessee are located in the same jurisdiction, intercompany leases. Accordingly, A Co is allowed a carve-out and the carrying value of Eligible Tangible Assets for purposes of the carve-out for jurisdiction A is computed as follows: a. In 2024, the carrying value for purposes of carve-out is 1,160,000 (=1,200,000+1,120,000)/2) b. In 2025, the carrying value for purposes of carve-out is 1,080,000 (=1,120,000+1,040,000)/2) c. In 2026, the carrying value for purposes of carve-out is 1,000,000 (=1,040,000+960,000)/2)

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

52 |

Impairment Losses

Introduction

55. This section provides guidance on determining the carrying value of Eligible Tangible Assets in the context of an impairment loss. The carrying value of Eligible Tangible Assets is relevant in determining the size of the Substance-based Income Exclusion for a jurisdiction under Article 5.3. 56. Article 5.3.5 states:

The computation of carrying value of Eligible Tangible Assets for purposes of Article 5.3.4 shall be

based on the average of the carrying value (net of accumulated depreciation, amortisation, or

depletion and including any amount attributable to capitalisation of payroll expense) at the

beginning and ending of the Reporting Fiscal Year as recorded for the purposes of preparing the

Consolidated Financial Statements of the Ultimate Parent Entity. 57. Paragraph 49 of the Commentary to Article 5.3.5 makes clear that the carrying value for the purposes of the carve-out is in conformity with the carrying value of the asset recorded for the purposes of preparing the Consolidated Financial Statements. Specifically with respect to impairment losses, the Commentary to Article 5.3.5 states at paragraph 50:

After initial recognition as an asset, an item of property, plant and equipment is carried on the

balance sheet at its cost less any accumulated depreciation and any accumulated impairment

losses (referred to as the “cost model”). Depreciation refers to the systematic allocation of the cost

of an asset, less its residual or “salvage” value, over its useful life. An impairment loss is the amount

by which the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its recoverable amount.

Issues to be considered

58. Stakeholders have asked for clarification on:

a. whether the amount of impairment losses should be taken into account in

computing the carrying value of the Eligible Tangible Assets; and

b. whether the reversal of an impairment charge with respect to an Eligible

Tangible Asset should be taken into account in computing the carrying value

of the Eligible Tangible Assets.

Guidance

59. The carrying value of Eligible Tangible Assets is intended to include adjustments for impairment losses. Accordingly, where an impairment loss has been recognised with respect to an Eligible Tangible Asset under the applicable financial accounting standards, the amount of the impairment loss will be taken into account in determining the carrying value of the asset at the end of the Reporting Fiscal Year. 60. If there is a reversal of the impairment charge under the applicable accounting standards, the amount of the reversal shall be taken into account in determining the carrying value of the Eligible Tangible Asset at the end of the Reporting Fiscal Year. However, an impairment charge can only be reversed to the extent that the total carrying value of the Eligible Tangible Asset does not exceed the carrying value that would have been determined (net of amortisation or depreciation) had no impairment loss been recognised for the asset. 61. To clarify, the following paragraph will be added after paragraph 50 of the Commentary to Article 5.3.5:

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 53

50.1. Where an impairment loss is recognised under the financial accounting standard used to prepare the Consolidated Financial Statements with respect to an Eligible Tangible Asset, the carrying value of that asset will be reduced at the end of the Reporting Fiscal Year to reflect that impairment loss. If a reversal of that impairment loss is recognised under that financial accounting standard, the carrying value of the Eligible Tangible Asset will be increased at the end of the Reporting Fiscal Year to reflect that reversal, but the reversal cannot increase the carrying value of the asset above the amount which would have been determined had there been no impairment loss recognised in prior years. Ordinarily, the adjustments described in this paragraph will be reflected in the carrying value of the relevant asset in the Constituent Entity’s financial accounts used to determine the Constituent Entity’s tangible asset carve-out. If they are not reflected in these financial accounts, the adjustments must be made to the carrying value of the relevant assets for purposes of determining the Substance-based Income Exclusion.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

54 |

Reduction due to Article 7.2

Introduction

62. This section provides guidance on how Eligible Payroll Costs and Eligible Tangible Assets are allocated with respect to an Ultimate Parent Entity (UPE) which is subject to a Deductible Dividend Regime. 63. Eligible Payroll Costs and Eligible Tangible Assets are used to determine the Substance-based Income Exclusion for a jurisdiction. The Substance-based Income Exclusion is designed to exclude a formulaic return on the substance in the jurisdiction from the amount of GloBE Income which is subject to top-up tax. 64. The usual application of this rule is predicated on the assumption that all of the MNE’s GloBE Income in the jurisdiction is counted towards that jurisdiction for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction’s GloBE Income and Excess Profit. However, there are special circumstances in which the GloBE Income derived by a Constituent Entity is excluded from the GloBE Income of that entity due to a special rule. In these cases, an adjustment to the amount of Substance-based Income Exclusion is appropriate. 65. The GloBE Rules reflect this design with respect to cases where the UPE of the MNE Group is a Flow-Through Entity. Under Article 7.1.1, the GloBE Income of that UPE is reduced by the amount of income attributable to each Ownership Interest which meets certain criteria. Where the GloBE Income of the UPE is reduced as a result of this provision, there is a corresponding adjustment to the amount of Substance-based Income Exclusion for the jurisdiction. Under Article 5.3.7(b), Eligible Payroll Costs and Eligible Tangible Assets located in the jurisdiction of the UPE are allocated to the UPE and reduced in proportion to the income which is excluded under Article 7.1.1. 66. Under Article 7.2., where a UPE is subject to a Deductible Dividend Regime and distributes a Deductible Dividend, that entity reduces (but not below zero) its GloBE Income by the amount of the dividend (if certain criteria are met). While not operating through a Flow-Through Entity, this treatment is similar to the reduction in GloBE Income which arises under Article 7.1.1.

Issues to be considered

67. Stakeholders have asked for clarification as to whether there is also a proportionate reduction in the Eligible Payroll Costs and Eligible Tangible Assets where there has been a Deductible Dividend distributed by the UPE which reduces GloBE Income as a result of Article 7.2.1.

Guidance

68. The intention is that where income has been excluded from the GloBE Income of a UPE as a result of a Deductible Dividend Regime, there should be a corresponding adjustment to the amounts of Eligible Payroll Cost and Eligible Tangible Assets. If there were no adjustment to these amounts, then the Substance-based Income Exclusion will be disproportionately large compared to the amount of GloBE Income in the jurisdiction under the GloBE Rules. 69. In order to give effect to this intention, there are three additions to the Commentary. 70. The following paragraph will be added after paragraph 36 of the Commentary to Article 5.3.3:

36.1 The payroll carve-out computation shall not include an amount of Eligible Payroll Cost

attributable to the income excluded from the GloBE Income of the UPE under Article 7.2.1. Where

the UPE of an MNE Group makes a distribution which is subject to a Deductible Dividend Regime

(and other conditions are met), an amount of GloBE Income can be excluded from the GloBE

Income of that UPE under Article 7.2.1. To the extent such an exclusion occurs, there will be a

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 55

proportionate reduction in the Eligible Payroll Costs of the UPE. The reduction will be equal to the

total Eligible Payroll Costs of the UPE multiplied by the ratio of the GloBE Income excluded under

Article 7.2.1 to the total GloBE Income determined for the UPE (before the Article 7.2.1 exclusion).

This adjustment will be equivalent to that made under Article 5.3.7(b). Further, the Eligible Payroll

Costs of any other Constituent Entity located in the jurisdiction that is subject to the Deductible

Dividend Regime shall be reduced in proportion to its GloBE Income that is excluded under Article

7.2.3 compared to its total GloBE Income. 71. The following paragraph will be added after paragraph 48 of the Commentary to Article 5.3.4:

48.1 The tangible asset carve-out computation shall not include the carrying value of Eligible

Tangible Assets proportionately attributable to the income excluded from the GloBE Income of the

UPE under Article 7.2.1. Where the UPE of an MNE Group makes a distribution which is subject

to a Deductible Dividend Regime (and other conditions are met), an amount of GloBE Income can

be excluded from the GloBE Income of that UPE under Article 7.2.1. To the extent this occurs,

there will be a proportionate reduction in the carrying value of the Eligible Tangible Assets of the

UPE. The reduction will be equal to the total carrying value of Eligible Tangible Assets of the UPE

multiplied by the ratio of the GloBE Income excluded under Article 7.2.1 to the total GloBE Income

determined for the UPE (before the Article 7.2.1 exclusion). This adjustment will be equivalent to

that made under Article 5.3.7(b). Further, the Eligible Payroll Costs of any other Constituent Entity

located in the jurisdiction that is subject to the Deductible Dividend Regime shall be reduced in

proportion to its GloBE Income that is excluded under Article 7.2.3 compared to its total GloBE

Income. 72. The text in bold will be inserted in, and the text in strikethrough will be removed from, paragraph 63 of the Commentary to Article 5.3.7: 63. The second scenario is where the Flow-through Entity is the UPE of the MNE Group. In this case, the Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss of the UPE is allocated to such Entity in accordance with Article 3.5.1(c). However, Article 7.1.1 excludes such income or loss provided that certain conditions are met. In this case, paragraph (b) allocates the Eligible Payroll Costs and Eligible Tangible Assets included in the UPE’s financial statements to the extent that they are not excluded from the GloBE income or loss in accordance with Article 7.1.1. In effect, there will be a proportionate reduction in the Eligible Payroll

Costs and carrying value of the Eligible Tangible Assets of the UPE. The reduction will be equal to the total Eligible Payroll Costs and carrying value of Eligible Tangible Assets of the UPE (including any Eligible Payroll Costs and carrying value of Eligible Tangible Assets allocated to the UPE pursuant to Article 5.3.7(a)) multiplied by the ratio of the GloBE Income excluded under Article 7.1.1

to the total GloBE Income determined for the UPE (before the Article 7.1.1 exclusion). Stated differently, the amount of Eligible Payroll Costs and Eligible Tangible Assets associated with the income excluded under Article 7.1.1 is not allocated to the UPE and is excluded from the Substance-based Income Exclusion computations in accordance with the next paragraph.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

56 |

Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up

4

Tax

Introduction

1. The Administrative Guidance published in February 2023 (the “February AG”) provided some guidelines on aspects of the design and operation of a QDMTT to be used for an assessment of whether a minimum tax meets the requirements for qualified status. It set out two guiding principles for evaluating QDMTTs: (a) the minimum tax must be consistent with the design of the GloBE Rules; and (b) the minimum tax must provide for outcomes that are consistent with the GloBE Rules and Commentary (together, functional equivalence). 2. The February AG, however, did not cover certain aspects and implications of a QDMTT and anticipated some further guidance to be produced by the Inclusive Framework at a later stage. In light of the principles above, this note supplements the February AG and addresses the specific issues identified therein as well as some other aspects of a QDMTT that required tailored solutions or additional clarifications.

Joint Ventures, JV Subsidiaries and MOCEs

Issue to be considered

3. According to paragraph 118.10 of the Commentary to Article 10.1, the Jurisdictional Top-up Tax that is subject to the QDMTT is based on the whole amount of the Jurisdictional Top-up Tax computed under Article 5.2.3 of the GloBE Rules, irrespective of the Ownership Interests held in the Constituent Entities located in the QDMTT jurisdiction by any Parent Entity of the MNE Group. Jurisdictions that are concerned about the possibility that the QDMTT will result in a greater tax charge than the tax charge that would arise for a Parent Entity under the GloBE Rules may design their QDMTT legislation to apply only where all the domestic Constituent Entities in the jurisdiction are 100% owned by the UPE or a POPE for the entire Fiscal Year. 4. Joint Ventures and Minority-Owned Constituent Entities are subject to separate ETR and Top-up Tax computations under the GloBE Rules even when they are located in the same jurisdiction as ordinary Constituent Entities of the MNE Group. Paragraph 118.10 is silent on the computation of Top-up Tax for Joint Ventures and Minority-Owned Constituent Entities. However, Paragraph 118.10 provides that the Jurisdictional Top-up Tax that is subject to the QDMTT is based on the whole amount computed under Article 5.2.3 of the GloBE Rules, irrespective of the Ownership Interests held in the Constituent Entities located in the QDMTT jurisdiction by any Parent Entity of the MNE Group. The same principle that applies to Constituent Entities shall apply to Joint Ventures and Minority-Owned Constituent Entities. Thus, the Top-up Tax under a QDMTT in respect of Joint Ventures and Minority-Owned Constituent Entities is the whole amount irrespective of the fact that the UPE would only be subject to tax on its share of the Top-up

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 57

Tax arising from Joint Ventures, JV subsidiaries, MOCEs. A jurisdiction seeking to ensure that the other owners of the Joint Ventures and Minority-Owned Constituent Entities bear their share of the QDMTT tax liability must impose the tax liability on the Joint Venture, JV Subsidiary or Minority-Owned Constituent Entity, itself. 5. To illustrate, assume that UPE owns 50% of JV 1 (LTCE) and JV 1 has a Top-up Tax of 100. Under Art. 6.4.1 (b) of the GloBE Rules, the UPE’s Allocable Share of the Top-up Tax of JV 1 is 50 (100*50%). If the UPE were subject to an IIR, the MNE Group’s Top-up Tax liability in respect of JV 1 would be only 50, similar to a partially-owned Constituent Entity. However, the Top-up Tax under a QDMTT is based on the whole amount computed for the jurisdiction. Thus, the QDMTT Top-up Tax attributable to JV 1 would be 100 and the UPE would indirectly bear 50 of that tax if it is imposed on the JV.

Guidance

6. The text in bold will be inserted in, and the text in strikethrough will be removed from, paragraph 118.8 of the Commentary to Article 10.1.

118.8 The GloBE Rules do not impose Top-up Tax on Joint Ventures and JV Subsidiaries but

rather require the MNE Group to allocate such Top-up Tax to a Constituent Entity of the MNE

Group under the IIR or the UTPR. As illustrated in paragraph 118.10, jurisdictions could

design their QDMTT so that it only applies to MNE Groups where all the Constituent Entities located in the jurisdictions are wholly-owned by the UPE or a POPE for the entire Fiscal

Year. In that case, the QDMTT will not apply to Joint Ventures and JV subsidiaries located

in the jurisdiction. Similarly, jurisdictions that have introduced a QDMTT could choose not to

impose the QDMTT tax liability on Joint Ventures and JV Subsidiaries located in the jurisdiction

(and any Top-up Tax computed in respect of such Joint Ventures and JV Subsidiaries will be

subject to the GloBE Rules). Alternatively, a jurisdiction could impose the QDMTT tax liability

computed with respect to Joint Ventures and JV Subsidiaries on another Constituent Entity of the

MNE Group located in the jurisdiction. 7. The text in bold will be added to paragraph 118.10 of the Commentary to Article 10.1.

118.10 The Jurisdictional Top-up Tax that is subject to the QDMTT is based on the whole

amount of the Jurisdictional Top-up Tax computed under Article 5.2.3 of the GloBE Rules,

irrespective of the Ownership Interests held in the Constituent Entities located in the QDMTT

jurisdiction by any Parent Entity of the MNE Group. The same principle applies where the

QDMTT is computed with respect to Minority-Owned Constituent Entities, Joint Ventures, and JV Subsidiaries, irrespective of the fact that those Entities are subject to separate ETR

and Top-up Tax computations under the GloBE Rules and the QDMTT. In some situations,

imposing the whole amount of the Jurisdictional Top-up Tax under a QDMTT will result in a greater

tax charge than the tax charge that would otherwise have been imposed under the GloBE Rules.

This could arise, for example in the situation where the MNE Group is subject to a QIIR in respect

of the Constituent Entities located in the QDMTT jurisdiction and the Parent Entity imposing the

IIR does not own 100% of the Ownership Interests in those Constituent Entities. Jurisdictions may

choose to implement rules that apply their QDMTT only to Groups where all of the Constituent

Entities located in that jurisdiction are 100% owned by the UPE or a POPE for the entire Fiscal

Year. Jurisdictions that limit the application of their QDMTT to MNE Groups where all the

Constituent Entities located in the jurisdiction are 100% owned by the UPE or POPE for the entire Fiscal Year shall similarly not apply their QDMTT to Joint Ventures, JV Subsidiaries and Minority-Owned Constituent Entities located in the jurisdiction.

8. The text in bold will be added to paragraph 118.11 of the Commentary to Article 10.1.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

58 |

118.11 This guidance does not require the QDMTT tax liability arising from Low-Taxed

Constituent Entities to be allocated to or among those Constituent Entities in any particular

manner, so long as all the tax liability is allocated to one or more Constituent Entities that are

subject to tax in the jurisdiction. Tax arising under the QDMTT reduces (or eliminates) the GloBE

Top-up Tax for the jurisdiction as a whole. When the QDMTT applies to a member of the JV

Group or Minority-owned Subgroup (which includes a standalone JV and Minority-owned Constituent Entity) the tax liability could be allocated directly to any member of the JV Group or Minority-owned Subgroup, or to a Constituent Entity located in the same jurisdiction. In the case of a tax liability arising from JV Groups, QDMTT jurisdictions that allocate the tax liability to Constituent Entities of the main Group should have a mechanism to avoid double taxation in cases where both joint venturers are MNE Groups subject to the

GloBE Rules or a QDMTT. If there is GloBE Top-up Tax remaining after subtracting the QDMTT,

the remainder is allocated among Constituent Entities under the GloBE Rules, including Articles

5.2.4 and 5.2.5. Thus, it is not necessary to allocate both the IIR Top-up Tax and the QDMTT tax

Entity-by-Entity and then subtract the QDMTT tax allocated to an Entity from the IIR Top-up Tax

allocated to the Entity.

Blending of income and taxes

Issue to be considered

9. Under the jurisdictional blending rules of Chapter 5 of the GloBE Rules, the ETR is computed by reference to all the Constituent Entities of the MNE Group located in the same jurisdiction. Calculating a group-wide average ETR for the jurisdiction means that: (i) an Entity might qualify as Low-Taxed Constituent Entity even if its ETR on a stand-alone basis would equal or exceed the Minimum Rate; and (ii) an Entity might not qualify as a Low-Taxed Constituent Entity even if its ETR on a stand-alone basis would fall below the Minimum Rate. 10. In certain cases, however, domestic rules of QDMTT jurisdictions might not permit jurisdictional blending. To address these cases, the guidance set out below allows jurisdictions to blend income and taxes at a sub-national level or on a Constituent Entity-by-Constituent Entity basis.

Guidance

11. The following text will be included after paragraph 118.33 of the Commentary to Article 10.1.

118.33.1 Where domestic rules of a jurisdiction do not provide for taxation of MNE Groups

at the national level and instead Covered Taxes and a QDMTT are imposed under the law of a

sub-national governmental authority, such as a regional or provincial government, the sub-national

governmental authority in the jurisdiction may apply the QDMTT, including the ETR and Top-up

Tax computational rules, exclusively to Constituent Entities located in the sub-national jurisdiction

(e.g. region or province). This will mean that the tax liability under the QDMTT will be determined

based on sub-national jurisdictional blending. Similarly, a jurisdiction, or sub-national jurisdiction,

may require the QDMTT to be applied on the basis of a taxable unit as determined under its

domestic law (e.g. a single Constituent Entity). This will mean that the tax liability under the QDMTT

will be determined based on a taxable unit blending (e.g. Constituent Entity-by-Constituent Entity

blending if the taxable unit is a single Constituent Entity). Determining the ETR on a Constituent

Entity-by-Constituent Entity basis will not prevent the QDMTT from being considered functionally

equivalent to the GloBE Rules.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 59

Allocation of QDMTT tax liability among Constituent Entities

Issue to be considered

12. Any tax payable pursuant to a QDMTT is taken into account under Article 5.2.3 of the GloBE Rules to offset the Top-up Tax that would have been computed for the Fiscal Year absent the QDMTT. The Jurisdictional Top-up Tax (if any) remaining after subtracting the QDMTT is allocated among Constituent Entities in the jurisdiction under Articles 5.2.4, 5.2.5 or 5.4.3. In such cases, the QDMTT is implicitly allocated for purposes of the GloBE Rules in the same manner as the remaining Jurisdictional Top-up Tax. For example, assume the Top-up Tax for a jurisdiction is 100 and 70 is allocated to CE1 and 30 to CE2. If instead there were only 10 of Top-up Tax to allocate because the MNE Group paid 90 of QDMTT, 7 of the remaining 10 would be allocated to CE1 and 3 would be allocated to CE2. The allocation of Top-up Tax among Constituent Entities is for purposes of assessing the tax liability under the QDMTT or the GloBE Rules. It is not binding on another jurisdiction for purposes of that jurisdiction’s local tax rules, including CFC Tax Regimes. 13. Whilst Top-up Tax needs to be allocated under Article 5.2 of the GloBE Rules for IIR purposes, it is not generally necessary to allocate the QDMTT liability among Constituent Entities in any particular manner. The guidance below, however, provides some possible design options that QDMTT jurisdictions might want to consider to allocate the QDMTT liability on a basis that complies with their legal framework. These illustrative examples are only meant to support jurisdictions with the design of their QDMTT legislation and are not intended to limit the ability for jurisdictions to allocate the QDMTT liability in any manner that they deem appropriate.

Guidance

14. The text in bold will be inserted in, and the text in strikethrough will be removed from paragraph 118.12 of the Commentary to Article 10.1.

118.12 In designing the charging provisions of a QDMTT, jurisdictions must ensure that

the legal liability for the tax is allocated on a basis that complies with their legal framework and

enforceable against at least one Constituent Entity. For example, a jurisdiction could impose joint

and several liability for QDMTT tax on all the domestic Constituent Entities and collect it from any

of the Constituent Entities without affecting the outcome under the GloBE Rules. In the case of a

QDMTT that applies on a Constituent Entity-by-Constituent Entity basis, the QDMTT jurisdiction could allocate the QDMTT tax charge only to Constituent Entities that have an ETR lower than the Minimum Rate. If jurisdictional blending applies, on the other hand, the QDMTT tax charge could be allocated pursuant to the formula in Article 5.2.4 of the GloBE Rules or based on the ratio of the Excess Profits of the Constituent Entity to the Excess Profit of all Constituent Entities located in the jurisdiction. To avoid that minority investors bear the QDMTT tax charge, jurisdictions could also decide to allocate it exclusively to wholly-owned Constituent Entities. These examples are only intended to provide possible design options and do not limit the ability for jurisdictions to allocate the QDMTT tax charge in any manner they deem appropriate. Moreover, the allocation of the QDMTT tax charge among Constituent Entities is not binding on another jurisdiction for purposes of applying

its local tax rules, including CFC Tax Regimes. The Inclusive Framework will consider providing

further guidance in relation to the allocation of tax liability under a QDMTT among Constituent

Entities where this is necessary for the proper functioning of the GloBE Rules

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

60 |

Treatment of Stateless Constituent Entities

Issue to be considered

15. For GloBE purposes, Stateless Constituent Entities are Constituent Entities that are not located in a jurisdiction pursuant to the location rules in Article 10.3. They are either a Flow-through Entity identified in Art. 10.3.2(b) or a Permanent Establishment identified in paragraph (d) of the definition in Art. 10.1. Lowtaxed income of Stateless Constituent Entities is subject to the GloBE Rules. Stateless Constituent Entities are treated as being the only Constituent Entity in a jurisdiction and therefore they are subject to standalone ETR and Top-up Tax computations. 16. The question arises as to whether jurisdictions could impose a QDMTT on Stateless Constituent Entities and, if this is the case, how these Entities should be treated for GloBE purposes. The guidance set out below permits the application of a QDMTT to Flow-through Entities that are Stateless Constituent Entities as long as they are created under the domestic law of the QDMTT jurisdiction and Stateless Permanent Establishment in the jurisdiction where the place of business (or deemed place of business) is located.

Guidance

17. The following text will be included after paragraph 118.8 of the Commentary to Article 10.1.

Stateless Flow-through Entities and PEs

118.8.1 Stateless Constituent Entities are subject to a stand-alone ETR and Top-up Tax

computation for GloBE purposes. A QDMTT does not need to apply to Stateless Constituent

Entities to be functionally equivalent to the GloBE Rules. In the case of Flow-through Entities that

are Stateless Constituent Entities, however, jurisdictions are free to impose the QDMTT on these

Entities when they are created under the domestic law of the jurisdiction. In the case of Permanent

Establishments that are Stateless Constituent Entities, jurisdictions are free to impose the QDMTT

on these Entities provided that the place of business (or deemed place of business) is located

therein and either there is no tax treaty applicable or there is an applicable tax treaty and the

jurisdiction where the place of business (or deemed place of business) is located has the right to

tax in accordance with such treaty. In both cases, these Entities shall be subject to separate ETR

and Top-up Tax calculations and shall still be treated as Stateless Constituent Entities for GloBE

and QDMTT purposes, regardless of whether they are subject to a QDMTT charge.

Treatment of Flow-through UPEs

Issue to be considered

18. Article 10.3.2 of the GloBE Rules states that a Flow-through Entity that is the UPE of the MNE Group is located in the jurisdiction where it is created. The GloBE Income or Loss of that UPE is included in the jurisdictional calculations where it was created, except to the extent of any reduction under Article 7.1. Therefore, the QDMTT calculations of the UPE jurisdiction also must include the GloBE Income or Loss and Covered Taxes of the UPE, except to the extent of any reduction under Article 7.1. Where other Constituent Entities are located in the jurisdiction, the QDMTT jurisdiction will be able to collect any Topup Tax that arises with respect to the Flow-through UPE by allocating it to another Constituent Entity. However, where the UPE is the only Constituent Entity located in the jurisdiction, the only way to collect the Top-up Tax is by imposing the QDMTT liability directly on the Flow-through UPE or a similar mechanism, such as requiring the owners of the Flow-through UPE to pay the QDMTT liability.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 61

19. The guidance set out below states that jurisdictions are free to determine whether to impose QDMTT tax charge directly on a Flow-through UPEs or to introduce a similar mechanism to ensure that the Top-up Tax is collected, such as requiring the owners (e.g. partners) to pay the QDMTT tax charge. Jurisdictions can also decide not to impose a QDMTT tax charge directly on the Flow-through UPE or its owners. However, in this last case, if the UPE’s GloBE Income is not reduced to zero pursuant to Article 7.1 and no other Constituent Entity is located in the jurisdiction, then a UTPR may apply with respect to the UPE’s GloBE Income because the tax will not be collected under a QDMTT.

Guidance

20. The following text will be included after paragraph 118.8.1 of the Commentary to Article 10.1.

118.8.2 A Flow-through Entity that is the UPE of the MNE Group is located in the

jurisdiction where it is created in accordance with Article 10.3.2(a). Jurisdictions imposing a

QDMTT must take into account the GloBE Income or Loss and Covered Taxes of these Entities in

the jurisdictional computations to the extent that they are not reduced in accordance with Article

7.1. QDMTT jurisdictions do not need to impose a QDMTT charge on these Entities to be

functionally equivalent to the GloBE Rules if these Entities are not tax residents in that jurisdiction.

The QDMTT charge can be allocated to other Constituent Entities located in the jurisdiction.

Alternatively, a jurisdiction can decide to impose the QDMTT charge on the Flow-through UPE or

introduce a different mechanism to ensure that the tax liability that arises with respect to the UPE

is enforceable. If a jurisdiction does not charge the QDMTT in cases where the Flow-through UPE

is the only Constituent Entity located in the jurisdiction (to the extent Article 7.1 does not reduce

its GloBE Income to zero), the Top-up Tax determined for the jurisdiction may be subject to the

UTPR.

Treatment of Flow-through Entities required to apply the IIR

Issue to be considered

21. Article 10.3.2 of the GloBE Rules states that a Flow-through Entity that is required to apply the IIR is located in the jurisdiction where it is created. This means that the Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss allocated to those Entities under Article 3.5 and Covered Taxes allocated to such Entities in accordance with Chapter 4, shall be blended in the jurisdiction where they are located. 22. In the QDMTT context, Constituent Entities required to apply an IIR are also considered to be located in the jurisdiction where they are created. If those Entities were created in the QDMTT jurisdiction, then they will be located in that jurisdiction for QDMTT purposes. This means that any amount of the Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss allocated to those Entities under Article 3.5 and Covered Taxes allocated to such Entities in accordance with Chapter 4, shall be blended in the QDMTT jurisdiction. Accordingly, a jurisdiction can decide to impose or not to impose liability for a QDMTT charge on a Flowthrough Entity where the Entity is created in the jurisdiction. 23. The guidance below also clarifies that a Flow-through Entity required to apply the IIR is treated as any other Flow-through Entity.

Guidance

24. The following text will be included after paragraph 118.8.3 of the Commentary to Article 10.1.

118.8.3 A Flow-through Entity that is required to apply the IIR is located in the jurisdiction

where it is created for purposes of applying the IIR in accordance with Article 10.3.2(a). If a

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

62 |

jurisdiction is imposing a liability under the IIR on these Entities (i.e. treating it as a taxpayer only

for GloBE purposes), it may do the same with respect to the QDMTT. For purposes of a QDMTT,

Entities required to apply an IIR should also be considered to be located in the QDMTT jurisdiction

if they are created in such jurisdiction. This means that if the Financial Accounting Net Income or

Loss has been allocated to those Entities under Article 3.5 and Covered Taxes have been allocated

to such Entities in accordance with Chapter 4, such income or loss, and taxes shall be blended in

the QDMTT jurisdiction. However, QDMTT jurisdictions do not need to impose a QDMTT charge

on these Entities to be functionally equivalent to the GloBE Rules if these Entities are not tax

residents in that jurisdiction. The QDMTT charge can be allocated to other Constituent Entities

located in the jurisdiction. Alternatively, a jurisdiction can decide to impose the QDMTT charge on

the Flow-through Entity or introduce a different mechanism to ensure that the tax liability that arises

with respect to the Entity is enforceable.

UPE that is a Flow-Through Entity and UPE subject to Deductible Dividend Regime

Issue to be considered

25. Article 7.1 generally permits a UPE that is a Flow-through Entity to reduce its GloBE Income in respect of each Ownership Interest held by: (i) UPE owners that meet certain criteria and are subject to current tax at a rate that is equal to or above the Minimum Rate; or (ii) natural persons or Excluded Entities that are resident in the UPE jurisdiction and hold 5% or less of the profits and assets of the UPE. Article 7.2 provides similar rules for a UPE that is subject to a Deductible Dividend Regime. 26. The question arises as to whether QDMTT jurisdictions shall include provisions similar to Article 7.1 and 7.2 in their QDMTT legislation.

Guidance

27. The following text will be included after paragraph 118.40 of the Commentary to Article 10.1.

Chapter 7. Tax Neutrality and Distribution Regimes

UPE that is a Flow-Through Entity and UPE subject to Deductible Dividend Regime

118.40.1 To produce outcomes that are consistent with the GloBE Rules, a QDMTT shall

include provisions similar to Articles 7.1 and 7.2 of the GloBE Rules. Consequently, income

attributable to the UPE cannot be subject to a QDMTT to the extent Articles 7.1 or 7.2 applies. In

the case of Article 7.1, jurisdictions with Flow-through Entities need this provision otherwise it can

alter the GloBE calculations. Similarly, jurisdictions that do not have Flow-through Entities should

have this provision because Article 7.1.4 applies to a Permanent Establishment that could be

located in those jurisdictions. In the case of Article 7.2, however, if a jurisdiction does not have a

Deductible Dividend Regime, it is not required to include the corresponding provision in its QDMTT.

Eligible Distribution Tax System

Issue to be considered

28. A Filing Constituent Entity may make an annual election to apply Article 7.3 to Constituent Entities that are subject to an Eligible Distribution Tax System. In general, Article 7.3 computes the ETR for the

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 63

jurisdiction each year based on deemed taxes paid and then re-computes the ETR at the end of a fouryear period based on the actual taxes paid. 29. The question arises as to whether QDMTT jurisdictions shall include a provision that mirrors Art. 7.3 of the GloBE Rules in their QDMTT legislation.

Guidance

30. The following text will be included after paragraph 118.40.1 of the Commentary to Article 10.1.

Eligible Distribution Tax System

118.40.2 A Filing Constituent Entity may make an annual election to apply Article 7.3 to

Constituent Entities that are subject to an Eligible Distribution Tax System. In general, Article 7.3

computes the ETR for the jurisdiction each year based on deemed taxes paid and then re-

computes the ETR at the end of a four-year period based on the actual taxes paid. A jurisdiction

that has an Eligible Distribution Tax System shall include a provision that mirrors Article 7.3 in its

QDMTT legislation. A jurisdiction that does not have an Eligible Distribution Tax System (i.e. a

distribution tax system in force on or before 1 July 2021) is not required to have Article 7.3 in its

QDMTT legislation because it will not have any effect.

ETR Computation for Investment Entities

Issue to be considered

31. The mechanism in Article 7.4.5 of the GloBE Rules is intended to preserve the tax neutrality of Investment Entities and Insurance Investment Entities by ensuring that Top-up Tax is determined based on Covered Taxes, including Covered Taxes allocated pursuant to Article 4.3.2, and Substance-based Income Exclusion (SBIE) attributable to the MNE Group’s Ownership Interest in Investment Entities or Insurance Investment Entities. First, the Top-up Tax Percentage for the Investment Entity or Insurance Investment Entity is computed based on the MNE Group’s share of the Entity’s Income and the Covered Taxes attributable to that income. Then, the MNE Group’s share of the Entity’s SBIE is deducted from the MNE Group’s share of the Investment Entity’s or Insurance Investment Entity’s GloBE income. Lastly, the excess of the MNE Group’s share of the Entity’s GloBE income over its share of the SBIE is multiplied by the Top-up Tax Percentage to determine the Top-up Tax. 32. In applying Article 2.2 of the GloBE Rules, Parent Entities must adjust the computation of their Inclusion Ratio for the Entity to account for the fact that the Top-up Tax computed for the Entity was already reduced by the amount attributable to non-Group Entities (i.e. the Inclusion Ratio of the UPE is 100% even if some Ownership Interests in the LTCE are held by non-Group Entities). 33. The result of these computations is that the UPE is subject to Top-up Tax on its share of the Investment Entity’s or Insurance Investment Entity’s low-taxed income without imposing a Top-up Tax on the minority investor’s share of the income. In order to preserve this same tax neutrality under a QDMTT for investors that are not Constituent Entities of the MNE Group, the same computations must be made for QDMTT purposes. While jurisdictions are free to allocate the QDMTT liability in any manner that they deem appropriate, to preserve the tax neutrality of Investment Entities and Insurance Investment Entities, the liability for the Top-up Tax under the QDMTT should generally be imposed on a Constituent Entity-owner of the Investment Entity or Insurance Investment Entity that is located in the jurisdiction rather than on the Investment Entity or Insurance Investment Entity itself.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

64 |

Guidance

34. The text in bold will be added to the end of paragraph 85 of the Commentary to Article 7.4.5. 85. The rules of Article 7.4.5 generally follow the jurisdictional Top-up Tax computational rules in Article 5.2. First, the Top-up Tax Percentage for the Investment Entity or Insurance Investment Entity is computed by subtracting the ETR computed under Article 7.4.2 from the Minimum Rate. Then, the Investment Entity’s or Insurance Investment Entity’s Substancebased Income Exclusion (computed pursuant to Article 7.4.6) is deducted from the MNE Group’s Allocable Share of the Investment Entity’s or Insurance Investment Entity’s GloBE income under Article 7.4.4. The excess of the MNE Group’s Allocable Share of the Investment Entity’s or Insurance Investment Entity’s GloBE income over its Substance-based Income Exclusion is then multiplied by the Top-up Tax Percentage to determine the Top-up Tax. If there is more than one Investment Entity or Insurance Investment Entity located in the jurisdiction, their attributes determined under Articles 7.4.2 to 7.4.4 are combined to determine the Top-up Tax for all such Entities. The Top-up Tax of Investment Entities and Insurance Investment Entities located

in a jurisdiction shall be reduced by the amount of Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax paid in respect of such Entities.

35. The text in bold will be added to paragraph 118.11 of the Commentary to Article 10.1: 118.11 This guidance does not require the QDMTT tax liability to be allocated to or among Constituent Entities in any particular manner, so long as all the tax liability is allocated to one or more Constituent Entities that are subject to tax in the jurisdiction. Tax arising under the QDMTT reduces (or eliminates) the GloBE Top-up Tax for the jurisdiction as a whole. If there is GloBE Top-up Tax remaining after subtracting the QDMTT, the remainder is allocated among Constituent Entities under the GloBE Rules, including Articles 5.2.4 and 5.2.5. Thus, it is not necessary to allocate both the IIR Top-up Tax and the QDMTT tax Entity-by-Entity and then subtract the QDMTT tax allocated to an Entity from the IIR Top-up Tax allocated to that Entity. 36. The following text will be included after paragraph 118.40.2 of the Commentary to Article 10.1:

ETR computation for Investment Entities

118.40.3 Article 7.4 of the GloBE Rules ensures that Top-up Tax only arises with respect to the MNE Group’s Interest in the Investment Entity or Insurance Investment Entity. It does so by computing the ETR and Top-up Tax of such Entities based only on income and taxes that are attributable to the MNE Group. As their Top-up Tax was already reduced by the amount attributable to non-Group Entities, a Parent Entity’s Inclusion Ratio in Investment Entities and Insurance Investment Entities is then deemed to be 100%, irrespective of the actual interest of the Parent Entity in their income. 118.40.4 Investment Entities and Insurance Investment Entities are often tax neutral and their income is subject to a single level of taxation in the hands of their shareholders. A QDMTT may exclude Investment Entities or Insurance Investment Entities from its scope (i.e. it could be limited to other Constituent Entities located in the jurisdiction). In this case, the income of such Investment Entities and Insurance Investment Entities would remain subject to Top-up Tax under the IIR or UTPR if their ETR is below the Minimum Rate. 118.40.5 A QDMTT that applies to Investment Entities and Insurance Investment Entities must compute the ETR and Top-up Tax pursuant to Article 7.4 in the same manner as the GloBE rules, except taxes that would be allocated to the Entity pursuant to Article 4.3.2(c) and (d) are not taken into account in the ETR computation. Liability for the QDMTT tax charge can be allocated to any Constituent Entity pursuant to paragraph 118.12. The liability for any QDMTT Top-up Tax determined under Article 7.4 should generally be allocated to another Constituent Entity (if any)

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 65

that is located in the jurisdiction to preserve the tax neutrality of Investment Entities or Insurance

Investment Entities.

Investment Entity Tax Transparency Election

Issue to be considered

37. Article 7.5 of the GloBE Rules provides a Five-Year Election to treat an Investment Entity or Insurance Investment Entity as a Tax Transparent Entity. The election is available to Constituent Entityowners that are subject to a mark-to-market or a similar tax regime on their investment in such Entities at a rate that equals or exceeds the Minimum Rate. It is intended to match the timing and location of the income under the GloBE Rules and the local rules of the jurisdiction where the Constituent Entity-owners are located. 38. If a jurisdiction’s QDMTT does not treat the Investment Entities and Insurance Investment Entities located in the jurisdiction as Tax Transparent Entities in cases where the Entity is subject to an election under Article 7.5, the Entity’s income could be subject to Top-up Tax again in the hands of the Constituent Entity-owner because the QDMTT paid by the Entity is not a Covered Tax and thus would not be credited in the Constituent Entity-owner’s GloBE Top-up Tax computations. To reduce complexity, avoid coordination issues and provide outcomes that are consistent with the GloBE Rules, the QDMTT shall therefore treat the Investment Entity or Insurance Investment Entity as a Tax Transparent Entity when an Election under Article 7.5 was made by the MNE Group.

Guidance

39. The following text will be included after paragraph 118.40.5 of the Commentary to Article 10.1:

Investment Entity Tax Transparency Election

118.40.6 Article 7.5 of the GloBE Rules provides a Five-Year Election to treat an Investment

Entity or Insurance Investment Entity as a Tax Transparent Entity. The election is available to

Constituent Entity-owners that are subject to a mark-to-market or a similar tax regime on their

investment in such Entities at a rate that equals or exceeds the Minimum Rate. It is intended to

match the timing and location of the income under the GloBE Rules and the local rules of the

jurisdiction where the Constituent Entity-owners are located.

118.40.7 As provided in paragraph 118.53, a QDMTT must include all elections permitted

under the GloBE Rules and require the MNE Group to make the same elections for both QDMTT

and GloBE purposes. To provide outcomes that are consistent with the GloBE Rules, the QDMTT

must treat an Investment Entity or Insurance Investment Entity as a Tax Transparent Entity to the

extent that an election under Article 7.5 was made with respect to a Constituent Entity-owner’s

Ownership Interest in the Entity. The QDMTT must treat the Constituent Entity-owner’s share of

the income and taxes of any Investment Entity or Insurance Investment Entity that is subject to an

election under Article 7.5 as the income and taxes of the Constituent Entity-owner. This means

that if all the Ownership Interests of an Investment Entity or Insurance Investment Entity are subject

to an election under Article 7.5, then all the GloBE Income or Loss will be allocated to the

Constituent Entity-owners and the Entity will not have any GloBE Income or Loss subject to the

QDMTT. On the other hand, to the extent that none of the Ownership Interests in the Investment

Entity or Insurance Investment Entity is subject to an election under Article 7.5, the whole income

of the Investment Entity or Insurance Investment Entity is subject to Article 7.4 or, if an election

was made, Article 7.6.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

66 |

Taxable Distribution Method Election

Issue to be considered

40. Art. 7.6 of the GloBE Rules provides a Five-Year Election to apply the Taxable Distribution Method. The election reduces the exposure to Top-up Tax to the extent that the Investment Entity makes distributions of its income within a four-year period that are taxable in the hands of the recipients at or above the Minimum Rate. It is only available to Constituent Entity-owners that are not Investment Entities or Insurance Investment Entities and can reasonably expected to be subject to tax on distributions from the Investment Entity or Insurance Investment Entity at a rate that equals or exceeds the Minimum Rate. 41. To produce outcomes that are consistent with the GloBE Rules, a QDMTT must have a provision similar to Article 7.6. Under this provision, the QDMTT will take into account the distributions of the Investment Entity or Insurance Investment Entity to compute the GloBE Income or Loss of Constituent Entity-owners located in the jurisdiction and impose a Top-up Tax on the Investment Entity or Insurance Investment Entity in respect of any Undistributed Net Income.

Guidance

42. The following text will be included after paragraph 118.40.7 of the Commentary to Article 10.1:

Taxable Distribution Method Election

118.40.8 Article 7.6 of the GloBE Rules provides a Five-Year Election to apply the Taxable

Distribution Method. The election reduces the exposure to Top-up Tax to the extent that the

Investment Entity makes distributions of its income within a four-year period. It is only available

where the Constituent Entity-owners are not Investment Entities or Insurance Investment Entities,

and it is reasonably expected that such owners are subject to tax on the distributions from the

Investment Entity or Insurance Investment Entity at a rate that equals or exceeds the Minimum

Rate.

118.40.9 To produce outcomes that are consistent with the GloBE Rules, a QDMTT shall

include a provision similar to Article 7.6. Under this provision, the QDMTT will take into account

the distributions of the Investment Entity or Insurance Investment Entity to compute the GloBE

Income or Loss of Constituent Entity-owners located in the jurisdiction and impose a Top-up Tax

on the Investment Entity or Insurance Investment Entity in respect of any Undistributed Net

Income.

Taxes allocable to Hybrid Entities or Distributing Constituent Entities

Issue to be considered

43. The February AG clarified that the QDMTT shall exclude taxes paid or incurred by Constituent Entity-owners under CFC Regimes that are allocable to Constituent Entities under Art. 4.3.2 (c) of the GloBE Rules, as well as taxes paid or incurred by Main Entities and allocable to Permanent Establishments located in the jurisdiction under Art. 4.3.2 (a). The policy rationale for the guidance is that a jurisdiction should have the first right to tax income of Entities located within its territory and therefore cannot be required to give credit in its QDMTT for taxes imposed on the income of such Entities by the jurisdiction of a Constituent Entity-owner. The February AG, however, did not specifically address the treatment of taxes paid by a Constituent Entity-owners on the income of Hybrid Entities or distributions from distributing Constituent Entities, which under Article 4.3.2(d) and (e) are allocated to the Hybrid Entity and distributing Constituent Entity. Taxes paid by a foreign Constituent Entity-owner on the income of a Hybrid Entity fall

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 67

squarely within the policy rationale of the February AG. Some taxes on distributions also fall within the policy rationale of the February AG. Specifically, taxes imposed by the jurisdiction of a foreign Constituent Entity-owner on distributions from another Constituent Entity must not be included in the ETR computation of the Constituent Entity under a QDMTT. However, withholding taxes imposed by the jurisdiction of the distributing Constituent Entity can be taken into account in computing the ETR under that jurisdiction's QDMTT.

Guidance

44. The text in bold will be inserted in, and the text in strikethrough will be removed from paragraph 118.30 of the Commentary to Article 10.1.

Cross-border taxes allocable to CFC or Permanent Establishments

118.30 For purposes of computing the ETR, a QDMTT shall exclude Covered Tax

expense of: (i) a Constituent Entity-owner under a CFC Tax Regime that is allocable to a domestic

Constituent Entity under Article 4.3.2(c) of the GloBE Rules; (ii) a Main Entity that is allocable

under Article 4.3.2(a) to a Permanent Establishment located in the jurisdiction; (iii) a Constituent

Entity-owner on income of a Hybrid Entity that is allocable to a Hybrid Entity located in the jurisdiction under Article 4.3.2(d); and (iv) a Constituent Entity-owner (e.g. net basis taxes), other than a withholding tax imposed by the QDMTT jurisdiction, that is allocable to a

distributing Constituent Entity located in the jurisdiction under Article 4.3.2 (e). Withholding

taxes that are described in Article 4.3.2(e) imposed by the QDMTT jurisdiction itself on distributions from a Constituent Entity located in the QDMTT jurisdiction are allocated to

the distributing Constituent Entity under the QDMTT. Excluding such CFC and PE taxes allows

the QDMTT to operate as a simple calculation and does not require the complex calculations

required in some cases to allocate CFC taxes under Article 4.3.2(c) to be reported to a jurisdiction

that implements a QDMTT. Further, a specific ordering rule is aimed at attributing primary taxing

rights to the jurisdiction applying the QDMTT in relation to its Constituent Entities. If the ordering

rule were the opposite, so that the cross-border CFC taxes above or PE taxes were credited

under a QDMTT, additional computations would have been required in order to avoid the QDMTT

resulting in taxation that is below the Minimum Rate. Specifically, if a QDMTT is creditable against

either a CFC tax charge or a PE tax charge imposed by the parent or main entity jurisdiction, or a

tax charge imposed by the jurisdiction of the Hybrid Entity or the distributing Constituent

Entity, any crediting of those taxes CFC tax or PE tax against a QDMTT would make the

calculation of the correct amount of QDMTT problematic, due to the interaction of the two crediting

mechanisms. Excluding such taxes credits for CFC or PE taxes from QDMTT calculations will

ensure that this practical problem does not arise. The Inclusive Framework will monitor the

interaction between the QDMTT and CFC Tax Regimes and taxable branch regimes to ensure this

interaction results in the intended outcomes under the GloBE Rules and may, in the future,

consider solutions to address issues if they arise.

Transition Years

Issue to be considered

45. Art. 9.1.1 of the GloBE Rules sets out the deferred tax accounting attributes of a Constituent Entity that may be utilized in calculating the ETR in a jurisdiction in the Transition Year and subsequent years. Art. 9.1.3 provides a limitation on intragroup asset transfers occurring after 30 November 2021 and before the commencement of a Transition Year by requiring the transferred assets to be recorded at their historic carrying value for GloBE purposes. To provide outcomes that are consistent with the GloBE Rules,

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

68 |

paragraphs 118.48 and 118.49 of the Commentary to Article 10.1 require a QDMTT to include Artt. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 9.1.3. 46. As per the definition in Art. 10.1, a Transition Year is the first Fiscal Year that the MNE Group comes within the scope of the GloBE Rules in respect of that jurisdiction. This means that a Transition Year is the first Fiscal Year for which the MNE Group has to undertake the calculations of a jurisdiction in accordance with the GloBE Rules (i.e. the IIR or the UTPR can apply with respect to a Constituent Entity of the MNE Group in the jurisdiction). The Fiscal Year for which the MNE Group is first subject to the GloBE Rules can be different for different Constituent Entities for various reasons, including the fact that Constituent Entities located in different jurisdictions may become subject to the GloBE Rules in different years due to the applicability of the Transitional CbCR Safe Harbour. In addition, the Fiscal Year for which the MNE Group is first subject to the GloBE Rules can be different from the Fiscal Year for which the MNE Group is first subject to a QDMTT and, for purposes of Article 9.1.3, the Fiscal Year that the disposing Constituent Entity comes within the scope of the GloBE Rules and/or the QDMTT can also be different from the Fiscal Year that the acquiring Constituent Entity comes within the scope of the GloBE Rules and/or the QDMTT. It is necessary to ensure some co-ordination in the application of the GloBE Rules and the QDMTT in cases where the first Fiscal Year in which each set of rules applies is different. Without such coordination, the tax attributes under each system will be different, which will produce different outcomes in many cases. 47. Article 9.1.1 and Article 9.1.2 can be coordinated with either a first-in-time rule or a refreshing rule. Under a first-in-time rule, the Transition Year would be determined based on the first set of rules (GloBE Rules or QDMTT) that the MNE Group becomes subject to in the jurisdiction. Under a refreshing rule, on the other hand, the QDMTT could provide for a new Transition Year when the GloBE Rules come into effect for the jurisdiction in a subsequent year. Another approach could be to refresh the Transition Year irrespective of which set of rules comes into effect last, but refreshing the Transition Year for the application of the GloBE Rules when the QDMTT comes into effect would be more disruptive because the GloBE Rules themselves do not contemplate multiple Transition Years for the same Constituent Entities. 48. A rule that refreshes the Transition Year for purposes of the QDMTT when the GloBE Rules come into effect after the QDMTT is the better approach for Articles 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 for several reasons. First, there is more flexibility under a QDMTT to coordinate the transition rules when the GloBE Rules come into effect before or after the QDMTT. Second, the QDMTT is meant to apply consistently with the GloBE Rules such that the MNE Group is no worse off for being subject to a QDMTT. Article 9.1.1 generally allows MNE Groups to bring tax attributes into the GloBE Rules that would not be taken into account if the GloBE Rules had applied in a previous year (e.g. deferred tax assets attributable to tax credits). Any such attributes that arose after the QDMTT came into effect would be lost if the first-in-time rule were applied to determine the Transition Year. Other deferred tax attributes arising between the effective dates should largely be unaffected because they will have already been recast at 15% under the QDMTT, meaning that they will not need to be recast again under Article 9.1.1 and Article 9.1.2. Finally, there is little effect on Article 9.1.3 because it applies to the same set of transactions prior to the effective date of the QDMTT and any transactions that fall within the scope of the Article after the effective date of the QDMTT will be accounted for consistent with Article 9.1.3 under the QDMTT. 49. When a new Transition Year is required because the GloBE Rules come into effect for Constituent Entities in the jurisdiction, certain tax attributes that arose under the QDMTT will need to be eliminated or re-stated to ensure coordination in and after the transition year, including:

a. DTL Recapture. The Constituent Entities will not be required to recapture any

deferred tax liabilities that were taken into account in the ETR computations prior

to the new Transition Year. The rules of Article 4.4.4 will apply only to deferred tax

liabilities that arise after the beginning of the new Transition Year.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 69

b. GloBE Loss Election. Any GloBE Loss Deferred Tax Asset that arose in a year

preceding the Transition Year must be eliminated. The Filing Constituent Entity

may make a new GloBE Loss election in the new Transition Year.

c. Excess Negative Tax Expense Carry-forward. Any Excess Negative Tax Expense

Carry-forward amount under Article 4.1.5 or Article 5.2.1 shall be eliminated at the

beginning of the new Transition Year. Article 9.1.2 shall apply to transactions

occurring after 30 November 2021 and before the beginning of the new Transition

Year. The Inclusive Framework will consider providing further guidance with illustrative examples to clarify the adjustments that are needed when there is a new Transition Year. 50. Article 9.1.3 applies to an acquiring Constituent Entity. However, the conditions relevant to the application of Article 9.1.3 are generally determined by reference to the disposing Constituent Entity. The Commentary to Article 9.1.3 generally precludes an MNE Group from increasing the carrying value of assets transferred among Constituent Entities where the disposing Entity was not subject to the GloBE Rules or otherwise subject to tax at a 15% rate (at least) on the transfer. Where the disposing Constituent Entity was subject to the GloBE Rules or otherwise subject to tax at a 15% rate, the concern addressed by Article 9.1.3 (i.e. an increased carrying value due to an under-taxed intra-group transfer) does not arise. Similarly, this concern does not arise where the disposing Constituent Entity was subject to a QDMTT. This is true under both the GloBE Rules and a QDMTT. Accordingly, a QDMTT must have a provision similar to Article 9.1.3 that applies to the acquiring Constituent Entity where the disposing Constituent Entity was neither subject to the GloBE Rules nor a QDMTT.

Guidance

51. The following text will be added after paragraph 118.49 of the Commentary to Article 10.1.

118.49.1 Under Article 10.1 of the GloBE Rules, a Transition Year is the first Fiscal Year

that the MNE Group comes within the scope of the IIR and/or UTPR with respect to the jurisdiction.

The application of the provisions in Articles 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 requires some coordination in cases

where the first Fiscal Year that a QDMTT applies to domestic Constituent Entities located in the

jurisdiction is before or after the first Fiscal Year in which the GloBE Rules apply to those

Constituent Entities. For purposes of Article 9.1.3, coordination is also needed for cases where the

Fiscal Year that the disposing Constituent Entity comes within the scope of the GloBE Rules and/or

the QDMTT is different from the Fiscal Year that the acquiring Constituent Entity comes within the

scope of the GloBE Rules and/or the QDMTT.

118.49.2 A QDMTT must have a transition rule similar to Articles 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 that

applies where the QDMTT becomes applicable to Constituent Entities in the jurisdiction in a Fiscal

Year that begins on or before the Fiscal Year that the GloBE Rules first become applicable to those

Constituent Entities. In order to ensure coordinated outcomes where the GloBE Rules come into

effect for such Constituent Entities after the QDMTT, the QDMTT also must have a supplemental

rule that treats the Fiscal Year that the GloBE Rules come into effect for such Constituent Entities

as a new Transition Year and re-sets the following attributes of those Constituent Entities:

(a) Article 4.1.5 and Article 5.2.1. Any Excess Negative Tax Expense Carry-forward under

Article 4.1.5 or Article 5.2.1 shall be eliminated at the beginning of the new Transition Year.

(b) Article 4.4.4. The DTL recapture rule in Article 4.4.4 shall not apply to any deferred tax

liability that was taken into account in computing the ETR under the QDMTT and that was not

recaptured prior to the new Transition Year. Article 4.4.4 shall apply to deferred tax liabilities that

are taken into account in and after the new Transition Year.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

70 |

(c) Article 4.5. Any GloBE Loss Deferred Tax Asset that arose in a year preceding the new Transition Year must be eliminated. The Filing Constituent Entity may make a new GloBE Loss election in the new Transition Year.

(d) Article 9.1.1. The deferred tax items previously determined shall be eliminated and Article 9.1.1 shall be applied at the beginning of the new Transition Year.

(e) Article 9.1.2. Article 9.1.2 shall apply to transactions occurring after 30 November 2021 and before the beginning of the new Transition Year. However, if QDMTT was payable due to the application of Article 4.1.5 in respect of a deferred tax asset attributable to a tax loss, such deferred tax asset shall not be treated as arising from items excluded from the computation of GloBE Income or Loss under Chapter 3. 52. The following text will be added after paragraph 4 of the Commentary to Article 9.1. 4.1 Coordination rules for the application of Article 9.1 of the GloBE Rules and the corresponding article of a Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax are set out in paragraphs 118.49.1 and 118.49.2 of the Commentary to Article 10.1. 53. The text in bold will be added to the end of paragraph 10.2 of the Commentary to Article 9.1.3 and paragraph 10.2.1 will be added after paragraph 10.2. 10.2 As explained above, the policy intention of Article 9.1.3 is to disallow the normal accounting treatment of asset transactions after 30 November 2021 and before the commencement of a Transition Year (hereinafter referred to as the Pre-GloBE Period) where the income is taxed below the minimum rate and the corresponding deductions shield future income from potential Top-up Tax. Allowing the normal accounting treatment of such transactions would undermine the integrity of the GloBE Rules, and Article 9.1.3 addresses this integrity concern by requiring the acquiring Entity to use the disposing Entity’s carrying value at the time of the asset transfer as the asset’s carrying value or precluding the acquiring Entity from utilizing a deferred tax asset arising in connection with the transaction that has the same effect for GloBE purposes as an increased carrying value. However, the integrity concern is not present where the

disposing Constituent Entity is subject to the GloBE Rules or a QDMTT in the Fiscal Year in which the transaction occurs.

10.2.1 For purposes of Article 9.1.3, the relevant Transition Year is the Transition Year of the disposing Constituent Entity and the Transition Year of the disposing Constituent Entity is the first year in which its Low-Taxed Income becomes subject to charge under the GloBE Rules or it becomes subject to a Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax irrespective of when other Constituent Entities in the jurisdiction are subject to the GloBE Rules. The Article applies to any transfer of assets between Constituent Entities after 30 November 2021, including transfers after the acquiring Constituent Entity becomes subject to the GloBE Rules, where the disposing Constituent Entity’s Low-Taxed Income was not subject to charge under the GloBE Rules or a Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax either because it was not within the scope of the GloBE Rules or because it applied a safe harbour. 54. Paragraph 33.d. of the Transitional CbCR Safe Harbour guidance is revised to read as follows: d. the Transition Year referred to in Article 9.1.3 for a disposing Constituent Entity does not include a Fiscal Year in which the Transitional CbCR Safe Harbour applies to the disposing Constituent Entity; and

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 71

Exclusion from UTPR of MNE Groups in the initial phase of their international activity

Issue to be considered

55. Article 9.3 of the GloBE Rules provides a transitional exclusion under the UTPR by reducing the Total UTPR Top-up Tax Amount to zero for MNE Groups that are in the initial phase of their international activity. The exclusion only applies for a period of five years after the MNE Group has come within the scope of the GloBE Rules and covers MNE Groups that: (i) have Constituent Entities located in no more than six jurisdictions for a Fiscal Year; and (ii) only have a limited amount of tangible assets outside the Reference Jurisdiction. 56. Article 9.3 is a charging provision of the UTPR that does not impact the application of the IIR. This means that MNE Groups in the initial phase of their international activity will still be subject to the GloBE Rules if there is an IIR applicable in a parent jurisdiction. 57. Paragraph 118.51 of the Administrative Guidance states that a jurisdiction is not required to adopt Article 9.3 under its QDMTT because it solely applies with respect to the UTPR. This leaves the option to the QDMTT jurisdiction to decide on whether it wants to adopt Article 9.3. However, if a jurisdiction decides to adopt Article 9.3 under its QDMTT, the provision shall be carefully designed to produce outcomes that are consistent with the GloBE Rules. 58. Further guidance is therefore needed to clarify how Article 9.3 applies in the context of a QDMTT, considering that the IIR could apply irrespective of the application of this provision. 59. The guidance provides jurisdictions with three options regarding Article 9.3 in relation to their QDMTT legislation. Option one allows the jurisdiction not to adopt Article 9.3. Option two allows the jurisdiction to adopt Article 9.3 but limited to cases where no Parent Entity is required to apply a Qualified Income Inclusion Rule with respect to Constituent Entities of an MNE Group located in the QDMTT jurisdiction. Option three allows the jurisdiction to adopt Article 9.3 without the limitations in option two.

Guidance

60. The following text will replace paragraph 118.51 of the Commentary to Article 10.1:

118.51 Article 9.3 reduces the UTPR Top-up Tax Amount to zero where an MNE Group

is in its initial phase of international activity. While this provision effectively turns off the UTPR, the

IIR can still apply to MNE Groups in the initial phase of their international activity if a Parent Entity

is located in a jurisdiction that introduced the IIR. Jurisdictions have three options with respect to

Article 9.3 in relation to their QDMTT legislation. Option one allows the jurisdiction not to adopt

Article 9.3 in their QDMTT legislation. Option two allows the jurisdiction to introduce Article 9.3 in

their QDMTT legislation but limited to the cases where none of the Ownership Interests in the

Constituent Entities located in the QDMTT jurisdiction are held by a Parent Entity subject to a QIIR.

Option three allows the jurisdiction to adopt Article 9.3 in their QDMTT legislation without the

limitations in option two. The status of the QDMTT will not be affected where the jurisdiction adopts

any of these three options.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

72 |

Currency for QDMTT computations

Issue to be considered

61. In cases where the Consolidated Financial Statements of an MNE Group are prepared in a currency that is different from the one required by the QDMTT legislation, it would be necessary to translate the results of the Consolidated Financial Statements into local currency to determine whether the MNE Group is subject to a QDMTT and, if so, to make the relevant QDMTT computations. 62. MNE Groups will have a currency translation system that they use for purposes of preparing Consolidated Financial Statements. This system will translate the functional currencies of various Constituent Entities into the MNE Group’s presentation currency. Where the QDMTT leverages on the accounting standards used to compute the FANIL under the GloBE Rules, i.e. Articles 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, the currency translation rules applicable under the GloBE Rules should apply for purposes of the QDMTT computations as well. That is, the QDMTT computations should be undertaken in the presentation currency of the MNE Group’s Consolidated Financial Statements and, if required, any resulting liability converted from that presentation currency to local currency under the rules of the relevant jurisdiction. 63. In cases where the QDMTT requires a Local Financial Accounting Standard and all the Constituent Entities in the jurisdiction use the local currency as their functional currency, the QDMTT should require the relevant computations in the local currency. 64. However, in circumstances where not all Constituent Entities in the jurisdiction use the local currency as their functional currency, the QDMTT computations must be made in a single currency. Therefore, local Constituent Entities would need to apply the currency translation rules of the financial accounting standards used for purposes of the QDMTT computations. In such cases, the Filing Constituent Entity may make a Five-Year Election to undertake the QDMTT computations for all Constituent Entities in the jurisdiction either:

a. in the presentation currency of the Consolidated Financial Statements; or b. in the local currency.

If the QDMTT liability is determined in the presentation currency, it can then be translated into the local currency for purposes of payment.

Guidance

65. The following text will be included after paragraph 118.53 of the Commentary to Article 10.1

Currency

118.54 Where the QDMTT is computed based on the financial accounting standards

determined in accordance with Article 3.1.2 or Article 3.1.3, the QDMTT shall require Constituent

Entities to make the QDMTT computations using the presentation currency of the Consolidated

Financial Statements in accordance with the Commentary to Article 3.1.2 and 3.1.3. Where the

QDMTT legislation requires the computations to be made using the Local Financial Accounting

Standard and all Constituent Entities in a jurisdiction use the local currency as their functional

currency, the QDMTT shall require these computations in the local currency. However, where the

QDMTT legislation requires the computations to be made using the local accounting standard and

one or more of the Constituent Entities in a jurisdiction use a currency other than the local currency

as their functional currency, the QDMTT shall provide a Five-Year election under which the

Constituent Entities may undertake the QDMTT computations using the presentation currency of

the Consolidated Financial Statements or the local currency. The Constituent Entities that use a

different functional currency must apply the currency translation rules under the financial

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 73

accounting standards used for purposes of the QDMTT computations. These rules apply without

regard to the jurisdiction’s rules for converting the QDMTT liability to local currency for purposes

of payment.

Multi-Parented MNE Groups

Issue to be considered

66. A Multi-Parented MNE Group may have Constituent Entities located in a QDMTT jurisdiction. The question therefore arises as to whether QDMTT jurisdictions shall include a provision similar to Article 6.5 in their QDMTT legislation.

Guidance

67. The text in bold will be inserted in, and the text in strikethrough will be removed from, paragraph 118.40 of the Commentary to Article 10.1.

118.40 Chapter 6 provides rules related to corporate reorganisations. These rules are

intended to harmonize the GloBE Rules with common tax reorganisation rules. To be functionally

equivalent, a QDMTT needs to include rules akin to those in Chapter 6 to the extent necessary to

conform to the tax reorganization rules in the jurisdiction. For example, if the jurisdiction does not

have tax-deferred reorganization rules in its ordinary CIT, the jurisdiction does not need the rules

applicable to GloBE Reorganisations. Similarly, if the jurisdiction does not have a rule that would

allow for an election under Article 6.3.4 or does not allow for multi-parented MNE Groups, the

jurisdiction need not adopt rules that correspond to Articles 6.3.4 or 6.5. On the other hand, the

jurisdiction will need a rule similar to Article 6.2.1 that requires GloBE income of the target be

determined using historical carrying value of assets and liabilities. Further, the jurisdiction will need

a rule similar to Article 6.3.1 that requires gain or loss to be recognized upon transfer of assets

among Constituent Entities in the jurisdiction. Finally, the jurisdiction will need a rule similar to

Articles 6.5.1(a) through (d) to ensure that same ETR and Top-up Tax computational rules apply to Constituent Entities of Multi-Parented MNE Groups located in the jurisdiction as they apply under the GloBE Rules.

Filing obligations

Issue to be considered

68. The GloBE Information Return (GIR) to be released does not require QDMTT jurisdictions to use the GIR for purposes of QDMTT information collection. The Commentary agreed in the February AG indicated that the Inclusive Framework would consider further guidance on the filing obligations under a QDMTT. The guidance set out below provides an update and clarifies the fact that QDMTT information return may follow a different format from the GloBE Information Return.

Guidance

69. The text in bold will be inserted in, and the text in strikethrough will be removed from, paragraph 118.42 of the Commentary to Article 10.1.

118.42 As previously discussed, a QDMTT must deliver outcomes similar to those

achieved under the GloBE Rules, but it is not required to follow the GloBE Rules verbatim to

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

74 |

achieve this result. Nevertheless, to ensure coordination and preserve transparency, the design of

the QDMTT needs to be functionally equivalent to the GloBE Rules such that the QDMTT

computations can be made with the data points that are required to compute the GloBE tax liability.

Using equivalent data points for purposes of the QDMTT and the GloBE Rules will facilitate

compliance for MNE Groups, as well as coordination and mutual trust between jurisdictions. The

information return collected by the QDMTT jurisdiction may follow a different format from the GloBE Information Return. However, as the QDMTT would use equivalent datapoints to those provided in the GloBE Information Return, the QDMTT jurisdiction could choose to

use the GIR or rely on the information included on the GIR. The Inclusive Framework will

consider providing further guidance on the information collection and reporting requirements under

the QDMTT in the context of the development of the GloBE Information Return.

Definitions

Issue to be considered

70. Chapter 10 contains the defined terms that are used in the GloBE Rules, as well as the provisions that shall be applied to determine the location of an Entity or a PE for GloBE purposes. Allowing QDMTT jurisdictions to rely on domestic rules for the definition of terms that are defined under the GloBE Rules and to depart from the provisions in Chapter 10 for determining the location of an Entity or a PE might give rise to unintended outcomes in the interaction between the QDMTT and the GloBE Rules. 71. To avoid coordination issues and provide outcomes that are consistent with the GloBE Rules, jurisdictions shall include in their QDMTT legislation all the definitions and the location rules in Chapter 10 of the GloBE Rules, except as modified by the Commentary and Administrative Guidance on the QDMTT.

Guidance

72. The following text will be included after paragraph 118.52 of the Commentary to Article 10.1.

Chapter 10. Definitions

118.52.1 To avoid coordination issues and provide outcomes that are consistent with the

GloBE Rules, except as modified or provided otherwise in the Commentary to Article 10.1 on the

definition of a QDMTT, a jurisdiction shall make sure that its QDMTT legislation incorporates the

outcomes provided by all the definitions and the rules determining the location of an Entity or

Permanent Establishment in Chapter 10 of the GloBE Rules.

QDMTT payable

Issue to be considered

73. There may be cases where a QDMTT jurisdiction is prevented or restricted from applying the QDMTT to a Constituent Entity located in the jurisdiction due to constitutional provisions or tax stabilization agreements (or similar agreements between the QDMTT jurisdiction and the MNE Group). This will generally mean that the Top-up Tax payable under the QDMTT will not reduce the GloBE Top-up Tax to zero and thus will be collected by another jurisdiction under the GloBE Rules, either the IIR or the UTPR. 74. In cases where the jurisdiction disputes an MNE Group’s claim to a constitutional or other limitation on the application of its QDMTT, the MNE Group’s financial accounts may include an expense for the QDMTT, notwithstanding that the MNE Group is challenging the applicability of the QDMTT. In those

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 75

cases, the MNE Group would not have any Top-up Tax under the GloBE Rules if the QDMTT is considered payable under Article 5.2.3. This could create an integrity risk under the GloBE Rules because the dispute in the QDMTT jurisdiction may not be resolved before the period of limitations runs in the relevant GloBE jurisdiction. If the MNE Group’s claim prevails in the QDMTT jurisdiction after the Top-up Tax is no longer assessable or collectible in other GloBE jurisdictions, the MNE Group will have avoided application of both the QDMTT and the GloBE Rules. 75. In order to mitigate this integrity risk, any amount of QDMTT that the MNE Group directly or indirectly challenges in a judicial or administrative proceeding shall not be treated as QDMTT payable under Article 5.2.3 where the challenge is based on constitutional or other legal grounds or a specific agreement with the government of the QDMTT jurisdiction limiting its tax liability, such as a tax stabilization agreement, investment agreement, or similar agreement. This rule also applies where a taxpayer indirectly challenges its liability for the QDMTT by simply claiming that it is not liable for any tax in the jurisdiction or that it is entitled to compensation or reimbursement for any tax paid in the jurisdiction. 76. This rule applies only where the MNE Group claims that it is not liable for QDMTT in whole or in part based on a legal grounds outside the QDMTT or the GloBE Rules, such as a constitutional challenge. It does not apply to interpretive or factual issues arising under the QDMTT, such as where the MNE Group claims that they meet an exception to the scope of the QDMTT, a particular provision of the QDMTT does not apply based on their facts, or a rule should be interpreted in its favour. For example, this rule does not apply where an Entity claims that it meets the definition of an Excluded Entity under the GloBE Rules or that certain shareholdings are not Portfolio Shareholdings. 77. If the MNE Group challenges the QDMTT before filing its GloBE Information Return (GIR), it should apply the credit mechanism in Article 5.2.3 on its original GIR. The QDMTT payable should not exceed the amount, if any, of the QDMTT that is not subject to the challenge. For example, if the MNE Group computes a QDMTT top-up tax of EUR 120x for the jurisdiction, but claims that under its stabilization agreement its Top-up tax liability cannot exceed EUR 100x and therefore it is not liable for EUR 20x of Top-up Tax under the QDMTT. The 20x is not considered QDMTT payable under Article 5.2.3. 78. As explained in the QDMTT Safe Harbour rules, where the QDMTT is not payable, the Safe Harbour will not apply. Accordingly, an MNE Group that contests the validity or applicability of a QDMTT based on a constitutional grounds or a tax stabilization agreement will not be able to claim the QDMTT Safe Harbour, but instead will be subject to the credit mechanism in Article 5.2.3 and the rules in paragraph 20.1 below will apply to that MNE Group. 79. In some circumstances, the tax authority of the jurisdiction may determine that it is unable to assess or collect QDMTT from certain taxpayers based on constitutional restrictions or tax stabilization agreements. In such cases, the QDMTT will not be payable under Article 5.2.3. Although this does not affect the ability of the jurisdiction’s QDMTT to satisfy the Consistency Standard under the QDMTT Safe Harbour, the jurisdiction should provide notification of these circumstances in the peer review process. 80. There are other circumstances in which the QDMTT should not be considered payable for purposes of Article 5.2.3. In those cases, a mechanism that requires a re-computation of the Top-up Tax for the relevant Fiscal Year in accordance with Article 5.4 may be appropriate. The Inclusive Framework will consider further Administrative Guidance to address other cases where the QDMTT is not considered payable under the GloBE Rules and a mechanism of recomputing top-up tax with the purpose of avoiding double taxation and double non-taxation under the GloBE Rules. Article 11, paragraph 3 of the European Council Directive on Ensuring a Global Minimum Level of Taxation for Multinational Enterprise Groups and Large-scale Domestic Groups provides:

“Where the amount of qualified domestic top-up tax for a fiscal year has not been paid within the

four fiscal years following the fiscal year in which it was due, the amount of qualified domestic top-

up tax that was not paid shall be added to the jurisdictional top-up tax computed in accordance

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

76 |

with Article 27(3) and shall not be collected by the Member State which made the election pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article.” The Inclusive Framework will provide further Administrative Guidance in relation to the interaction between this provision and the GloBE Rules in order to provide for consistent and coordinated outcomes.

Guidance

81. The following guidance will be added after paragraph 20 of the Commentary to Article 5.2.3. 20.1 For purposes of Article 5.2.3, the amount of the “Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax payable” shall be equal to the amount accrued by the Constituent Entities in the jurisdiction in respect of the QDMTT for the Fiscal Year, except that such amount shall not include any amount of QDMTT that:

(a) the MNE Group directly or indirectly challenges in a judicial or administrative

proceeding; or

(b) the tax authority of the jurisdiction has determined is not assessable or collectible

based on constitutional grounds or other superior law or based on a specific agreement

with the government of the QDMTT jurisdiction limiting the MNE Group’s tax liability, such

as a tax stabilization agreement, investment agreement, or similar agreement. Any QDMTT that was not included in QDMTT payable pursuant to this paragraph shall be included in QDMTT payable for the Fiscal Year to which it relates when such amount is paid and no longer contested by the MNE Group. 20.2 For example, if the MNE Group computes a QDMTT of EUR 120x for the jurisdiction, but claims that under its stabilization agreement with the government of the jurisdiction its total tax liability in the jurisdiction cannot exceed EUR 100x and therefore it is not liable for EUR 20x of Top-up Tax under the QDMTT. The 20x is not considered QDMTT payable under Article 5.2.3 because that is the amount challenged based on the stabilization agreement. If instead, the MNE Group challenges the full EUR 120x liability based on its stabilization agreement, the amount of QDMTT payable is zero under Article 5.2.3. 20.3 The Inclusive Framework will consider further Administrative Guidance to clarify the meaning of paid or payable in the context of this guidance and to address cases where the QDMTT is not paid within four Fiscal Years or not payable under the GloBE Rules and develop a mechanism of re-computation with the purpose of providing guidance that minimizes the potential for double taxation and double non-taxation under the GloBE Rules.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 77

Safe Harbours

5

5.1¶QDMTT Safe Harbour

Introduction

1. A Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax (QDMTT) is a domestic minimum tax imposed by a jurisdiction on those Constituent Entities of an MNE Group that are resident, or constitute a permanent establishment in, that jurisdiction. The QDMTT operates as a Top-up Tax that is calculated in line with the jurisdictional ETR calculation under Chapter 5 of the GloBE Rules. Although some features of the QDMTT may vary from those provided for under the Model Rules the overall design and outcomes under the QDMTT must be consistent with those provided for under the GloBE rules. 2. The possibility of variations between the QDMTT and the GloBE Rules (such as the ability to apply a local financial accounting standard under a QDMTT) means that there may be particular fact patterns where the Top-up Tax imposed under the QDMTT is less than the amount that would have been due under the GloBE Rules. This possibility of an MNE Group paying less Top-up Tax under a QDMTT than it would have incurred under the GloBE Rules, does not, however, give rise to any integrity risks because the credit mechanism in Article 5.2 ensures that any shortfall in domestic Top-up Tax payable under the QDMTT will simply result in additional tax being payable under the GloBE Rules. 3. The application of the credit mechanism does require, however, at least two separate Top-up Tax calculations in respect of the same jurisdiction: the first calculation, based on the QDMTT legislation in the jurisdiction and further calculations based on the GloBE Rules (e.g. under the legislation of the UPE Jurisdiction). Inclusive Framework members have observed that the requirement to undertake separate Top-up Tax calculations in respect of the same Constituent Entities under parallel rules will result in increased compliance costs for MNE Groups and administrative burdens for tax authorities. 4. The QDMTT Safe Harbour is intended to provide a practical solution to address this issue. Where an MNE Group qualifies for a QDMTT Safe Harbour, Article 8.2 excludes the application of the GloBE Rules in other jurisdictions by deeming the Top-up Tax payable under the GloBE Rules to be zero. A QDMTT Safe Harbour will therefore allow the MNE Group to undertake one computation under the QDMTT and then rely on Article 8.2 of the Model Rules to automatically reduce the Top-up Tax to zero in a jurisdiction applying the GloBE Rules, thereby avoiding the need to undertake a further calculation under those rules. However, the fact that an MNE Group is not required to make the second calculation under the safe harbour may give rise to integrity risks because any potential shortfall in the domestic Top-up Tax payable under the QDMTT will not result in additional tax being payable under the GloBE Rules. 5. To address this risk, a QDMTT must meet an additional set of standards to qualify for the safe harbour. In particular, and given the ability of a QDMTT to depart from the design of the GloBE Rules, a QDMTT that qualifies for a safe harbour must meet following three standards:

a. the QDMTT Accounting Standard which requires a QDMTT to be computed

based on the UPE’s Financial Accounting Standard or a Local Financial

Accounting Standard subject to certain conditions;

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

78 |

b. the Consistency Standard which requires the QDMTT computations to be the

same as the computations required under the GloBE Rules except where the

Commentary to the QDMTT definition in Article 10.1 as modified by the

Administrative Guidance (hereafter the QDMTT Commentary) explicitly requires a

QDMTT to depart from the GloBE Rules or where the Inclusive Framework

decides that an optional variation that departs from the GloBE Rules still meets

the standard; and

c. the Administration Standard which requires the QDMTT jurisdiction to meet the

requirements of an on-going monitoring process similar to the one applicable to

jurisdictions implementing the GloBE Rules. 6. The Inclusive Framework will rely on the peer review process to determine whether a QDMTT meets these additional standards and thereby qualifies for the safe harbour. Qualification for the safe harbour may be determined at the same time the Inclusive Framework undertakes a review of the rules’ “qualified” status. These standards will be tested based on the jurisdiction’s QDMTT legislation and how it administers the QDMTT and not based on how the QDMTT legislation may apply to particular Groups. This ensures that the QDMTT Safe Harbour is simple to apply and maximizes taxpayer certainty. 7. These standards applicable to the safe harbour should not be confused with the requirements for qualified status for a QDMTT. The requirements for a minimum tax to be considered a QDMTT are set out in the QDMTT Commentary developed by the Inclusive Framework. The standards set out in this note are based on the premise that the minimum tax is already considered a QDMTT. Thus, the minimum tax has to be considered first a QDMTT and then tested under these standards to qualify for the safe harbour. For example, a minimum tax that takes into account the allocation of cross-border taxes, such that it is not in accordance with paragraphs 118.28 to 118.30 of the QDMTT Commentary is not considered a QDMTT, and therefore, cannot benefit from the QDMTT Safe Harbour. The standards set out in this note, however, do not prejudge whether particular elements of such standards should be required to obtain a QDMTT status. Where the Inclusive Framework determines that the same standard should be required for a minimum tax to be considered a QDMTT, then this would be reviewed as part of the first stage of the QDMTT peer review process that deals with the general QDMTT status rather than the second stage that determines whether such QDMTT obtains a safe harbour status.

Operation of the QDMTT Safe Harbour

8. Article 8.2.1 of the GloBE Rules states that, at the election of the Filing Constituent Entity, the Topup Tax for a jurisdiction shall be deemed to be zero where the Constituent Entities located in this jurisdiction, or otherwise subject to that jurisdiction’s QDMTT, are eligible for a GloBE Safe Harbour. The Inclusive Framework has agreed to provide for a GloBE Safe Harbour with respect to jurisdictions that have implemented a QDMTT that meets the standards described in paragraphs 1 to 5 in the box below. Whether a QDMTT meets these standards would be determined by the Inclusive Framework as part of the peer review process of the QDMTT. 9. Jurisdictions implementing the GloBE Rules (i.e. GloBE jurisdictions) shall include mechanisms in their law that reduces another jurisdiction’s Top-up Tax to zero where the QDMTT of that jurisdiction (i.e. QDMTT jurisdiction) meets the standards described in the box below. The way in which the QDMTT Safe Harbour is legislated or introduced in the GloBE jurisdiction depends on the legal structure of the GloBE jurisdiction. GloBE jurisdictions must recognize the decision taken by the Inclusive Framework, as part of the peer review process, on whether a QDMTT meets the requirements of the QDMTT Safe Harbour. 10. The QDMTT Safe Harbour operates by allowing an MNE Group to make an election to apply the QDMTT Safe Harbour for each subgroup or standalone Entity subject to a separate QDMTT calculation. For example, three Constituent Entities of the main group, two members of the same JV Group, and one

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 79

Investment Entity subject to Article 7.4 of the GloBE Rules are located in a jurisdiction with a QDMTT that meets the standards of the safe harbour. In this case, the Filing Constituent Entity would need to make a separate election for the three Constituent Entities, the two members of the JV Group, and for the Investment Entity. 11. A Filing Constituent Entity can only elect to apply the QDMTT Safe Harbour where the Top-up Tax computed under the QDMTT would be treated as “Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax payable” under Article 5.2.3 if the safe harbour did not apply. Therefore, an MNE Group cannot elect to apply the safe harbour if its liability under a QDMTT is subject to a challenge or deemed not assessable as described in paragraph 20.1 of the Commentary to Article 5.2.3. Such an MNE Group cannot elect to apply the QDMTT Safe Harbour for that jurisdiction irrespective of whether such QDMTT meets the standards set out below. 12. Paragraph 20.1 of the Commentary to Article 5.2.3 provides guidance on the meaning of the term “Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax payable” and identifies cases in which an amount of the QDMTT is not payable. If an amount of QDMTT is not payable because it is subject to a challenge or deemed not assessable in accordance with paragraph 20.1, then the MNE Group cannot apply the QDMTT Safe Harbour for that jurisdiction. For instance, a QDMTT jurisdiction may be prevented or restricted from imposing some or all of the Top-up Tax computed under the QDMTT in the circumstances described in paragraph 20.1. Although this does not affect the ability of the jurisdiction’s QDMTT to satisfy the Consistency Standard, in these cases, the QDMTT Safe Harbour election that relates to such Entities is not available for the MNE Group because the QDMTT is not a “Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax payable” with respect to such Entities. 13. In some cases, the QDMTT of a jurisdiction will meet the standards set out below but the MNE Group will not be able to apply the safe harbour with respect to the QDMTT of that jurisdiction because such QDMTT might be subject to the Switch-off Rule. The section of this document on Consistency Standards explains in detail the operation of the Switch-off Rule.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

80 |

Standards for a QDMTT Safe Harbour

Standards for a QDMTT Safe Harbour

1. A QDMTT complies with the requirements of the QDMTT Safe Harbour if it meets the QDMTT Accounting Standard, the ConsistencyStandard, and the Administration Standard. 2. A QDMTT meets the QDMTT Accounting Standard if the QDMTT legislation adopts one of the following:

(a) provisions that are equivalent to Articles 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of the GloBE Model Rules; or (b) the Local Financial Accounting Standard Rule.

3. Under the Local Financial Accounting Standard Rule:

(a) the QDMTT shall be computed based on the Local Financial Accounting Standard of the

QDMTT jurisdiction where all of the Constituent Entities located in that jurisdiction have financial

accounts based on that standard and:

i. are required to keep or use such accounts under a domestic corporate or tax law; or

ii. such financial accounts are subject to an external financial audit;

(b) the Local Financial Accounting Standard is a financial accounting standard permitted or

required in the QDMTT jurisdiction by the Authorised Accounting Body or pursuant to the

relevant domestic legislation that is an:

i. Acceptable Financial Accounting Standard; or

ii. Authorised Financial Accounting Standard adjusted to prevent Material Competitive

Distortions; and

(c) in case where not all Constituent Entities located in the jurisdiction meet the requirements of

subparagraph (a) or the Fiscal Year of such accounts is different to the Fiscal Year of the

Consolidated Financial Statements of the MNE Group, the QDMTT shall be computed based

on the provisions that are equivalent to Articles 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of the GloBE Model Rules. 4. A QDMTT meets the Consistency Standard if the computations under the QDMTT are the same as the computations required under the GloBE Rules, except where the QDMTT Commentary explicitly requires the QDMTT to depart from the GloBE Rules. The Consistency Standard is met notwithstanding that the QDMTT:

(a) does not include or has a more limited Substance-based Income Exclusion; (b) does not include or has a more limited De Minimis Exclusion; or

(c) has a minimum tax rate above 15% for purposes of applying the Top-up Tax Percentage to the

Profits or Excess Profits for the jurisdiction. 5. A QDMTT meets the Administration Standard if it meets the requirements provided under the ongoing monitoring process applicable to the GloBE Rules.

The QDMTT Accounting Standard

14. The GloBE Rules generally require the MNE Group to base its GloBE calculations on the accounts used for preparing the Consolidated Financial Statements of the UPE for purposes of computing the GloBE

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 81

Income or Loss of each Constituent Entity (UPE’s Financial Accounting Standard). The definition of a QDMTT under the Model Rules expressly permits, however, that the calculations may be based on a Local Financial Accounting Standard. While recognizing that the option of using a Local Financial Accounting Standard is available for purposes of the QDMTT, Inclusive Framework members have noted that this creates an additional administrative burden for MNE Groups if they were required to apply the QDMTT based on the local standard in cases in which they do not prepare accounts based on such standards. 15. In these cases, requiring the use of a local accounting standard has the potential to undermine the main objective of the QDMTT Safe Harbour which is to reduce the administrative burden of MNE Groups. It also creates an integrity risk because if the accounts are prepared solely for purposes of computing the income or loss under the QDMTT, such accounts may not be consistent with the accounting standards applied by the MNE Group as a whole and may not be subject to an external audit. 16. To address this concern, the QDMTT Accounting Standard limits the application of the Local Financial Accounting Standard by replicating the requirement of Articles 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of the GloBE Rules. This means that the QDMTT calculations would need to be based on the accounts and the financial accounting standard used for purposes of the Consolidated Financial Statements of the UPE, except where it is not reasonably practicable to use such accounts. 17. However, the QDMTT Accounting Standard allows for a variation for jurisdictions that want to introduce a QDMTT computed in accordance with a Local Financial Accounting Standard. In accordance with paragraph 2(b) of the box above, a QDMTT jurisdiction can substitute Articles 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 for a special provision referred as the Local Financial Accounting Standard Rule. 18. The Local Financial Accounting Standard Rule is described in paragraph 3 of the box above. This rule requires the QDMTT computations to be based on the Local Financial Accounting Standard of the QDMTT jurisdiction where all the Constituent Entities located in that QDMTT jurisdiction are already preparing financial accounts based on the local standard. This condition is also met by a Constituent Entity if that Constituent Entity’s financial accounting net income or loss is included in a consolidated financial statement based on the local standard and has been prepared by another entity in the MNE Group. This prevents a QDMTT jurisdiction from requiring the use of the Local Financial Accounting Standard where the MNE Group does not prepare financial accounts based on that standard. The objective of this restriction is to avoid increasing the compliance costs of MNE Groups by requiring them to create local accounts solely for purposes of the QDMTT. Therefore, the QDMTT jurisdiction must require the QDMTT to be computed based on the financial accounting standards required under provisions equivalent to Articles 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of the GloBE Rules where the Constituent Entities do not prepare financial accounts based on the Local Financial Accounting Standard. 19. The QDMTT jurisdiction’s legislation must only allow the use of the Local Financial Accounting Standard where all the Constituent Entities in the MNE Group located in the QDMTT Jurisdiction meet the requirements of paragraph 3(a). This requirement is applied separately for JV Groups (which includes a standalone Joint Venture). Accordingly, the JV Group can itself satisfy the requirements of paragraph 3(a) and therefore be subject to the Local Financial Accounting Standard. For example, if all the Constituent Entities of an MNE Group located in the jurisdiction meet the requirements of paragraph 3(a) but the MNE Group holds an interest in a JV Group in the same jurisdiction which is subject to a different accounting standard, the Local Financial Accounting Standard can be used to calculate the QDMTT for the Constituent Entities of the MNE Group but equivalent provisions to Articles 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 will apply to the JV Group. Where the conditions of paragraph 3(a) are not met with respect to all the Constituent Entities of the MNE Group, or the members of the JV Group, the legislation must require the QDMTT to be computed based on provisions equivalent to Articles 3.1.2 and 3.1.3. 20. In the case of Constituent Entities that are Permanent Establishments, a QDMTT jurisdiction can apply the Local Financial Accounting Standard Rule only where the nonresident prepares separate financial accounts based on the local standard for a Permanent Establishment located in that jurisdiction.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

82 |

This condition is still met where the nonresident produces the relevant financial accounting information based on the local standard for local tax purposes and not a complete set of separate financial accounting statements, provided that the information needed for GloBE is available. This is consistent with paragraphs 186 and 189 of the Commentary to Article 3.4 that states that the starting point to compute the Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss of a Permanent Establishment is its financial accounts (if they exist) prepared for tax or management purposes. As part of the future work on the allocation of Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss between Main Entities and Permanent Establishments, the Inclusive Framework will consider the case where the source jurisdiction has a QDMTT that applies the Local Financial Accounting Standard Rule in order to determine whether a special allocation rule is needed. 21. In some cases, the Fiscal Year of the local accounts can be different to the one of the Consolidated Financial Statements which could create a mismatch between the QDMTT computations and the computations that would have been required under GloBE. In these situations, the QDMTT jurisdiction must require the use of the UPE’s Financial Accounting Standard to ensure consistency between the GloBE Rules and the QDMTT. 22. Where a QDMTT jurisdiction adopts the Local Financial Accounting Standard Rule, it shall require the MNE to apply the standard consistently which means that it must require the use of the Local Financial Accounting Standard where the conditions are met. The QDMTT legislation must not give the option to MNE Groups to choose which standard to use. This addresses the risk of tax planning where an MNE Group can choose which Financial Accounting Standard provides a better outcome under the QDMTT. 23. In order to meet the requirements of the Safe Harbour, the Local Financial Accounting Standard must be either an Acceptable Financial Accounting Standard or an Authorised Financial Accounting Standard as defined by the GloBE Rules. In the case of local accounts based on an Authorised Financial Accounting Standard, these must be adjusted to prevent Material Competitive Distortions in accordance with Agreed Administrative Guidance to be developed by the Inclusive Framework. 24. The definition of Local Financial Accounting Standard of paragraph 3(b) above includes any financial accounting standard that meets the terms of that paragraph. Therefore, a QDMTT jurisdiction can have more than one Local Financial Accounting Standard where it is permitted or required in the QDMTT jurisdiction by the Authorised Accounting Body or pursuant to the relevant domestic legislation. For example, the domestic law of a QDMTT jurisdiction may require Entities to prepare separate financial statements based on local GAAP and have accounts used in the preparation of Consolidated Financial Statements in accordance with IFRS for Entities of large MNE Groups or MNE Groups whose ownership interests are traded in a stock exchange. In this situation, in addition to local GAAP, IFRS is considered as a Local Financial Accounting Standard in accordance with paragraph 3(b) of the box above. Where an Entity is required to keep or use such accounts under a domestic corporate or tax law but has the choice between multiple Local Financial Accounting Standards, paragraph 3(a)(i) will be satisfied. 25. Where the Constituent Entities located in the jurisdiction prepare financial accounts using more than one financial accounting standard, the QDMTT jurisdiction should determine in its QDMTT legislation which accounts and financial accounting standards should be used for purposes of the QDMTT computations without giving the optionality to the MNE Group (that is, the QDMTT jurisdiction must provide a tie-breaker rule to determine which financial accounting standard must be used for the purposes of applying the QDMTT). 26. While this guidance does not include any adjustments for differences between the Constituent Entities’ Financial Accounting Net Income or Loss as determined under the Local Financial Accounting Standard and as calculated under the UPE’s Financial Accounting Standard, the Inclusive Framework will consider providing further guidance on asymmetrical treatment of items of income, expense or transactions between different accounting standards and tax rules including those used with respect to the transitional and permanent GloBE Safe Harbours.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 83

Consistency Standard

27. In accordance with the QDMTT Commentary a domestic minimum top-up tax is considered as a QDMTT when it is computed in accordance with the Model Rules and Commentary and produces the same outcomes as those under the GloBE Rules. However, the Commentary goes on to allow or require some degree of customization to the QDMTT provided that any variation between QDMTT and the GloBE Rules produces equivalent or greater tax liabilities, or does not produce lower tax liabilities on a systematic basis. This ability of a jurisdiction to customize a QDMTT means that a QDMTT might not be fully aligned with the GloBE Rules. 28. The objective of the Consistency Standard is to ensure QDMTTs are only eligible for the safe harbour when they are aligned with the GloBE Rules, except as explicitly allowed under the safe harbour. This ensures that the QDMTT Safe Harbour does not undermine the objective of the GloBE Rules to require a minimum level of taxation in each jurisdiction by reference to a common measure. 29. As a general principle, in order for a QDMTT to be eligible for the safe harbour, it must first meet the conditions to be a QDMTT and must comply with the elements of the QDMTT Commentary which require the QDMTT to adhere to the Model Rules and Commentary for the IIR and UTPR. The fact that a QDMTT is subject to a challenge or deemed not assessable as described in paragraph 20.1 of the Commentary to Article 5.2.3 does not affect the Consistency Standard. However, in some cases, the QDMTT Commentary either requires or allows for certain variations from the GloBE Rules. As described in the following paragraphs, these variations can be classified into Mandatory variations and Optional variations, and their treatment under the Consistency Standard depends on the type of variation.

Mandatory variations

30. In some cases, the QDMTT Commentary explicitly requires the QDMTT to depart from the GloBE Rules and requires a different rule (e.g. different computations). These variations need to be included in the design of the domestic minimum top-up tax to be considered a QDMTT in the general peer review process. 31. The QDMTT Commentary currently identifies two mandatory variations. The first variation is included in paragraphs 118.28 to 118.30 of the QDMTT Commentary and requires the QDMTT not to take into account the allocation of cross-border taxes, such as CFC taxes incurred by a Parent Entity or taxes incurred by the Main Entity with respect to profits attributable to a PE. The second variation is included in paragraph 118.54 of the QDMTT Commentary and requires the QDMTT to be computed using local currency where the QDMTT is based on financial statements prepared in accordance with the Local Financial Accounting Standard and the local financial statements of all Constituent Entities in that jurisdiction are using the local currency. 32. Given that these variations are a pre-requisite for a domestic minimum top-up tax to be considered a QDMTT, the Consistency Standard equally requires such variations as part of the general design of the QDMTT. A domestic minimum top-up tax without these variations would not be considered a QDMTT and thus, would not meet the minimum requirements of the QDMTT Safe Harbour.

6 The application of the QDMTT Safe Harbour to a QDMTT that uses a Financial Accounting Standard other than the one required under the Model Rules and Commentary for the IIR and UTPR is addressed in the QDMTT Accounting Standard and not in the Consistency Standard.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

84 |

Optional variations

33. The QDMTT Commentary allows a QDMTT to depart from the GloBE Rules where the variation produces functionally equivalent or greater tax liabilities, or does not produce lower tax liabilities on a systematic basis. These variations have to be analysed on a case-by-case basis, however the QDMTT Commentary also identifies a number of specific cases where the QDMTT jurisdiction has the option to depart from the GloBE Rules. 34. In the case of optional variations, the general principle is that the Consistency Standard will only be met where the QDMTT jurisdiction chooses the option that aligns with the outcomes provided for under the Model Rules and Commentary for the IIR and UTPR. If the QDMTT jurisdiction chooses an option that departs from the Model Rules and Commentary for the IIR and UTPR, the QDMTT will not meet the Consistency Standard, unless the Inclusive Framework has agreed that this variation is acceptable and that the variation will not prevent the QDMTT from qualifying for the safe harbour. 35. The Inclusive Framework has agreed that the following list of optional variations that depart from the GloBE Rules are acceptable because they will always produce equivalent or greater outcomes:

a. no, or a more limited, Substance-based Income Exclusion; b. no, or a more limited, De Minimis Exclusion; and

c. a minimum tax rate above 15% for purposes of computing the Top-up Tax

Percentage for the jurisdiction. 36. The Inclusive Framework will monitor whether other variations that depart from the GloBE Rules can be included in the future on the list above as part of the Consistency Standard. A variation will only be considered where it will produce equivalent or greater liabilities in all circumstances, or where an omitted rule is not relevant in the jurisdiction implementing the QDMTT and therefore cannot alter the outcomes. For example, if the implementing jurisdiction designs a QDMTT that computes its ETR and Top-up Tax on an Entity-by-Entity basis and it can demonstrate that this design ensures that such a QDMTT will always produce equivalent or greater tax outcomes on a jurisdictional basis then the Inclusive Framework could agree to include the design of the QDMTT in the list above. A QDMTT that met these design requirements would qualify for the safe harbour provided it met the other requirements set out in this guidance.

Switch-off Rule

37. The QDMTT legislation and administrative practice of the QDMTT jurisdiction will be evaluated in the peer review process based on the three standards set out in this document. Thus, whether a QDMTT meets the requirements of the safe harbour is a jurisdictional evaluation that takes place in the peer review process and is not specific to any MNE Group. However, it is recognized that, in some cases, a QDMTT jurisdiction could be subject to certain restrictions on imposing the QDMTT with respect to a particular Constituent Entity or corporate structure. These limitations could affect the QDMTT jurisdiction’s ability to satisfy the Consistency Standard which seems disproportionate because they impact on a small number of Entities or particular corporate structures. 38. To strike the right balance between having a QDMTT Safe Harbour that applies on a jurisdictional basis and avoiding that particular restrictions affect the ability of a QDMTT to meet the Consistency Standard, the Inclusive Framework agreed that the following cases should not affect a QDMTT from meeting the Consistency Standard:

a. A QDMTT jurisdiction decides not to impose a QDMTT on Flow-through Entities

created in its jurisdiction.

b. A QDMTT jurisdiction decides not to impose a QDMTT on Investment Entities

subject to Articles 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 of the GloBE Rules.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 85

c. A QDMTT jurisdiction decides to adopt Article 9.3 in a QDMTT legislation with no

limitation (i.e. option three of paragraph 118.51 of the QDMTT Commentary).

d. A QDMTT jurisdiction includes members of a JV Group (which includes Joint

Ventures) within the scope of the QDMTT but imposes the liability on Constituent

Entities of the main group instead of directly on the members of the JV Group as

permitted under paragraph 118.11 of the QDMTT Commentary. 39. Where a QDMTT jurisdiction adopts one of the approaches above, it will need to notify the Inclusive Framework of the restriction during the peer review process and any such restrictions would be determined as part of the agreement that a QDMTT meets the standards of the safe harbour. 40. In these specific scenarios, the MNE Group will be subject to a Switch-off Rule which prevents the MNE Group from applying the safe harbour in relation to either all or, as in examples 5 and 7, a subset of Constituent Entities located or created in the QDMTT jurisdiction and requires the MNE Group to switch to the credit method for QDMTT provided under Article 5.2.3 of the GloBE Rules. The following examples provide further guidance on the application of the Consistency Standard and the Switch-off Rule.

Example 1 – Stateless Flow-through Entities

41. Certain QDMTT jurisdictions may not bring Flow-through Entities within the scope of a QDMTT because they are not tax residents in accordance with their Corporate Income Tax Law. Such Entities are Stateless Entities under the GloBE Rules unless they are the UPE of the MNE Group or required to apply an IIR in accordance with Article 2.1. However, paragraph 118.8.1 of the QDMTT Commentary provides QDMTT jurisdictions with the option of imposing a QDMTT, computed on a standalone basis, on these Stateless Entities provided that they are created in the QDMTT jurisdiction. Thus, while the general rule is that QDMTT jurisdictions are not required to impose a QDMTT on Flow-through Entities that are Stateless Entities, the Consistency Standard will remain unaffected regardless of whether a QDMTT jurisdiction imposes a QDMTT on such Flow-through Entities. Where the QDMTT does not apply to such Stateless Flow-through Entities, the MNE Group will apply the GloBE Rules with respect to all of those Flow-through Entities created in a QDMTT jurisdiction.

Example 2 – Flow through UPEs

42. As discussed in Example 1, many QDMTT jurisdictions might not impose a QDMTT on Flowthrough Entities because they are not tax residents in accordance with their Corporate Income Tax Law. However, in the case of the GloBE Rules, a Flow-through UPE is considered to be located in the jurisdiction where it is created and paragraph 118.8.2 of the QDMTT Commentary states that the QDMTT must take into account these Entities in the jurisdictional computations even if the QDMTT jurisdiction decides not to impose a QDMTT charge directly on these Entities. A QDMTT will meet the Consistency Standard irrespective of whether the QDMTT jurisdiction decides to impose the QDMTT charge on these Entities as long as these Entities are included in the jurisdictional computations of the QDMTT. In this case, the MNE Group will apply the Switch-off Rule with respect to a QDMTT jurisdiction where the UPE Flow-through Entity is located if such jurisdiction does not impose a QDMTT charge on these Flow-through Entities. Where the QDMTT jurisdiction does not impose a QDMTT charge on Flow-through UPEs, the Switch-off Rule must be applied with respect to the jurisdiction where the UPE is located notwithstanding that the QDMTT jurisdiction reallocates the Top-up Tax attributable to the Flow-through UPE to other Constituent Entities located in the jurisdiction.

Example 3 – Flow Through Entities that apply the IIR

43. A Flow-through Entity that is required to apply the IIR is located in the jurisdiction where it is created for purposes of Articles 2.1 to 2.3 and related provisions. Following the same rationale as in Example 2, paragraph 118.8.3 of the QDMTT Commentary allows a QDMTT jurisdiction to elect whether to impose a QDMTT charge on such Entities. The Consistency Standard will remain unaffected irrespective of whether

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

86 |

a QDMTT jurisdiction decides to impose a QDMTT charge on these Entities as long as these Entities are included in the jurisdictional computations of the QDMTT, in the jurisdiction where they are created. In this case, the MNE Group will apply the Switch-off Rule with respect to the QDMTT jurisdiction where the Flowthrough Entity is located if that jurisdiction does not impose a QDMTT charge on these Flow-through Entities. Where the QDMTT jurisdiction does not impose a QDMTT charge on Flow-through Entities required to apply the IIR, the Switch-off Rule must be applied with respect to the jurisdiction where such Flow-through Entity is located notwithstanding that the QDMTT jurisdiction allocates the Top-up Tax attributable to these Flow-through Entities to other Constituent Entities located in the jurisdiction.

Example 4 – MNE Groups in the initial phase of their international activity 44. Article 9.3 provides a transitional exclusion under the UTPR where MNE Groups are in their initial phase of their international activity. This provision is part of the UTPR and does not affect the operation of the IIR. Paragraph 118.51 of the QDMTT Commentary provides three options to jurisdictions in relation to the adoption of Article 9.3 in their QDMTT legislation. Option one allows the jurisdiction not to adopt Article 9.3 in their QDMTT legislation. Option two allows the jurisdiction to adopt Article 9.3 limited to cases where a Qualified IIR does not apply. Option three allows the jurisdiction to adopt Article 9.3 without the limitations in Option two. The Consistency Standard will be met regardless of which of these three options the QDMTT jurisdiction chooses. In this case, the MNE Group that applies Article 9.3 to a QDMTT will apply the Switchoff Rule with respect to all of its Constituent Entities located in a QDMTT jurisdiction where that jurisdiction has adopted option three. However, the Switch-off Rule will not apply if the QDMTT jurisdiction has adopted options one or two.

Example 5 – Investment Entities

45. A QDMTT jurisdiction may decide not to impose a QDMTT on Investment Entities subject to Article 7.4, 7.5 or 7.6 located in their jurisdiction because its tax system is designed to preserve the tax neutrality of these Entities. In these cases, the QDMTT will still meet the Consistency Standard notwithstanding it is not imposed on these Investment Entities. The MNE Group will apply the Switch-off Rule with respect to these Investment Entities because the QDMTT does not apply to these Investment Entities.

Example 6 – Constituent Entities that are not wholly owned

46. Paragraph 118.10 of the QDMTT Commentary states that a QDMTT should be imposed on 100% of the Jurisdictional Top-up, Tax which will allow that jurisdiction’s Top-up Tax to be reduced to zero under the GloBE Rules. Alternatively, paragraph 118.10 gives the option to QDMTT jurisdictions to turn off their QDMTT where not all the Constituent Entities of the jurisdiction are 100% owned by the UPE or a POPE for the entire Fiscal Year. In this case, a QDMTT will meet the Consistency Standard only where the QDMTT is imposed on 100% of the Jurisdictional Top-up Tax notwithstanding the UPE or POPE’s ownership interests in the Constituent Entities. In other words, jurisdictions that take advantage of the option to exclude partially-owned Entities from their QDMTT will not meet the Consistency Standard and will therefore not qualify for the Safe Harbour. In this last case, the Switch-off Rule is not relevant because the QDMTT did not qualify for the Safe Harbour.

Example 7 – Joint Ventures

47. Paragraphs 118.8 and 118.10 of the QDMTT Commentary state that a QDMTT jurisdiction has the option not to apply the QDMTT to MNE Groups that have a member of a JV Group (which includes a Joint Venture) located in the jurisdiction. The Consistency Standard will only be met in cases where the QDMTT jurisdiction decides to apply the QDMTT to MNE Groups that have a member of a JV Group located in such jurisdiction. The Consistency Standard will remain unaffected regardless of whether the liability for the QDMTT charge is imposed on the members of a JV Group or a Constituent Entity of the main group located in the same jurisdiction as permitted by paragraph 118.11 of the QDMTT Commentary. However, the MNE Group is subject to the Switch-off Rule with respect to the members of the JV Group where a QDMTT jurisdiction includes members of a JV Group within the scope of the QDMTT but imposes the

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 87

liability on Constituent Entities of the main group instead of directly on the members of the JV Group. Note that the Switch-off Rule is not relevant where a QDMTT jurisdiction decides not to include Joint Ventures and JV Subsidiaries within the scope of the QDMTT because the QDMTT will not meet the Consistency Standard and therefore will not qualify for the safe harbour.

Example 8 – Adjustments to GloBE Income

48. Paragraph 118.21 of the QDMTT Commentary states that jurisdictions have the option not to include all the adjustments in Chapter 3 where those adjustments are not relevant for their domestic tax system. As an example, this paragraph says that a QDMTT jurisdiction that follows the accounting treatment of stock-based compensation has the option not to include in its QDMTT the adjustment required by Article 3.2.2 of the Model Rules. A QDMTT will not meet the Consistency Standard where the QDMTT legislation does not include all the adjustments required in Chapter 3. However, many of these adjustments could be included in the list in paragraph 35 above in the future if the Inclusive Framework determines that they produce equivalent or greater outcomes. In the case where the Consistency Standard is not met and the QDMTT does not qualify for the Safe Harbour, the Switch-off Rule is not relevant.

Example 9 - Eligible Distribution Tax Systems

49. Eligible Distribution Tax Systems are subject to special rules in accordance with Article 7.3 of the GloBE Rules. These tax systems are those that were in force on or before 1 July 2021. Paragraph 118.40.2 of the QDMTT Commentary says that a jurisdiction with an Eligible Distribution Tax System shall include Article 7.3 in their QDMTT legislation. It further states that a QDMTT jurisdiction that does not have an Eligible Distribution Tax System by 1 July 2021 is not required to have this provision in their QDMTT legislation because it will not have any effect. In the case of a jurisdiction without an Eligible Distribution Tax System, the Consistency Standard will remain unaffected regardless of whether a QDMTT jurisdiction incorporates this provision into their QDMTT legislation. The Switch-off Rule is not applicable in this case because it is not included in the list of cases where such rule applies.

The Administration Standard

50. The QDMTT Safe Harbour eliminates the need to make the calculations in the GloBE jurisdiction and the GloBE jurisdiction will instead rely on the calculations in the QDMTT jurisdiction to ensure that the MNE Group is subject to the minimum level of taxation in the QDMTT jurisdiction. In this context, the Administration Standard ensures that the administration of the QDMTT is the same as the one that would have applied under qualified GloBE Rules of another jurisdiction. 51. The Administration Standard requires a QDMTT jurisdiction that benefits from a Safe Harbour to be subject to the same ongoing monitoring process as the GloBE Rules. This is because all implementing jurisdictions will be reducing the QDMTT jurisdiction’s Top-up Tax to zero and therefore, relying on the effective application of the rules in the QDMTT jurisdiction. The ongoing monitoring process will include a review of the information collection and reporting requirements under the QDMTT to ensure that they are consistent with the equivalent requirements under the GloBE Rules and the approach set out in the GloBE Information Return. As an exception, a jurisdiction that has introduced a QDMTT which qualifies for the QDMTT Safe Harbour may choose not to apply the simplified jurisdictional reporting framework provided in the GloBE Information Return:

a. when Top-up Tax arises under the QDMTT (even if that Top-up Tax does not need

to be allocated among Constituent Entities); or

b. where the financial information used for the purposes of the QDMTT Safe Harbour

is already reported at the Constituent Entity level and the compliance rules in the

jurisdiction require taxable entities to file information returns or tax returns for each

entity for local tax purposes.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

88 |

In this case the jurisdiction applying the QDMTT may require the MNE Group to report adjustments to GloBE Income or Loss and Adjusted Covered Taxes for each local Constituent Entity on a separate entity basis (including separate reporting of the additions and reductions for each adjustment) in accordance with the accounting standard used under the QDMTT.

Peer Review Process for a QDMTT Safe Harbour

52. A Peer Review Process will determine whether a minimum tax can be considered a QDMTT. The Peer Review Process is still to be developed under the GloBE Implementation Framework. However, this Peer Review Process will also incorporate a transitional and permanent review processes to determine whether a QDMTT meets the standards of the QDMTT Safe Harbour. 53. The first question to be answered by the Peer Review Process is whether a minimum tax meets the criteria to be considered a QDMTT. This determination would be based on the Agreed Administrative Guidance on the QDMTT published in February 2023 and further guidance to be developed by the Inclusive Framework. 54. If the minimum tax meets the criteria of the QDMTT, then the next step in the Peer Review Process would be to determine whether such QDMTT meets the standards of the QDMTT Safe Harbour. This analysis would be based on the criteria set out by this document. Thus, a QDMTT would need to meet the Accounting Standard, the Consistency Standard, and the Administration Standard in order to benefit from the safe harbour. 55. Finally, the QDMTT should meet the general requirements of the QDMTT and the standards of the QDMTT Safe Harbour where a jurisdiction computes its QDMTT in accordance with the legislation applicable to its Qualified IIR or Qualified UTPR subject to the mandatory variations identified in paragraph 31 above. This will reduce the complexity and length of the legislation which will also facilitate the peer review process. Further guidance on how this review will be undertaken would be provided by the Inclusive Framework as part of the work on the peer review process.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 89

5.2¶Transitional UTPR Safe Harbour

Transitional UTPR Safe Harbour

1. The UTPR Top-up Tax Amount calculated for the UPE Jurisdiction shall be deemed to be zero for each Fiscal Year during the Transition Period if the UPE Jurisdiction has a corporate income tax that applies at a rate of at least 20%.

2. Transition Period means the Fiscal Years which run no longer than 12 months that begin on or before 31 December 2025 and end before 31 December 2026.

1. The UTPR is designed to operate as a backstop to the IIR by encouraging jurisdictions to adopt the GloBE rules and MNEs to structure their group holdings in a way that brings their operations within the charge of the IIR. However, the operation of the rule order under GloBE rules means that the UTPR effectively operates as the primary mechanism for imposing top-up tax in the UPE jurisdiction where that jurisdiction has not introduced a Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax (QDMTT). MNE Groups that are exposed to the potential application of the UTPR in the UPE jurisdiction have limited ability to change their ownership structure to bring the UPE’s profits within the scope of an IIR. The UTPR can also be expected to apply with more frequency in the first years of operation of the GloBE Rules as jurisdictions complete the process of introducing qualified rules, including QDMTTs. 2. Applying the UTPR to the UPE Jurisdiction before jurisdictions have sufficient time to get their QDMTT in place is undesirable for several reasons. First, the Top-up Tax allocated to jurisdictions under the UTPR will often be disproportionate to the profit arising in those jurisdictions. Many MNE Groups will have a significant portion of their operations and profits in the UPE Jurisdiction and smaller operations in other jurisdictions. Second, there are more possibilities for disputes to arise under the UTPR because it relies on more information and a higher degree of co-ordination than the IIR. Implementation and coordination of the UTPR will benefit from a proven dispute prevention and resolution mechanism and possibly an advance certainty mechanism. 3. An MNE Group can avoid application of the UTPR in jurisdictions other than the UPE Jurisdiction by transferring ownership of those operations into a foreign holding company that is subject to a qualified IIR. However, as a practical matter, many MNEs will not be able to invert their holding structure to avoid application of the UTPR in the UPE Jurisdiction. The inability of the UPE to structure out of the UTPR means that low-taxed profits in the UPE Jurisdiction will be subject to the UTPR unless the UPE Jurisdiction makes changes to its existing corporate income tax or adopts a Domestic IIR or a QDMTT. This Transitional UTPR Safe Harbour therefore provides additional time for jurisdictions to assess the impact of the GloBE rules and reform their existing corporate income tax so that it will routinely produce GloBE ETRs at or above the Minimum Rate or to adopt a qualified domestic minimum tax such as a Domestic IIR or a QDMTT. 4. This Transitional UTPR Safe Harbour is designed to provide transitional relief in the UPE Jurisdiction during the first two years in which the GloBE rules come into effect. Under the Transitional UTPR Safe Harbour, the UTPR Top-up Tax Amount calculated for the UPE Jurisdiction shall be deemed to be zero for Fiscal Years which run no longer than 12 months that begin on or before 31 December 2025 and end before 31 December 2026. 5. The corporate income tax rate for each jurisdiction is the nominal statutory tax rate generally imposed on in-scope MNE Groups on a comprehensive measure of income. This rate may take into account sub-national taxes provided that such taxes are structured so that in the case of all sub-national jurisdictions, the combined rate generally applicable to in-scope MNE Groups will be equal to or greater

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

90 |

than 20%. The nominal 20% rate test ensures that only MNE Groups whose UPEs are located in a jurisdiction with a corporate income tax system and sufficiently high corporate income tax rate benefit from this safe harbour. Each implementing jurisdiction may take into account the OECD’s Statutory Corporate Income Tax Rates table for the relevant Fiscal Year in making its determination as to which jurisdictions are eligible for the Transitional UTPR Safe Harbour. The Inclusive Framework shall provide, upon request, further Administrative Guidance identifying whether a jurisdiction has met the 20% rate test for the relevant Fiscal Year. 6. The short transition period is designed to ensure that the safe harbour does not serve as a disincentive for jurisdictions to adopt the GloBE Rules or as an incentive for MNE Groups to invert into a jurisdiction that has not yet adopted a QDMTT or to shift profits into UPE jurisdictions that have lower effective tax rates. Accordingly, the transition period cannot be extended. 7. An MNE Group that qualifies for more than one transitional safe harbour may choose which safe harbour to apply for that jurisdiction. When an MNE qualifies for both a transitional CbCR and UTPR safe harbour in a jurisdiction in a Fiscal Year, the MNE may elect to apply the Transitional CbCR Safe Harbour, rather than the UTPR safe harbour, in order to avoid losing the benefit of the Transitional CbCR Safe Harbour in a subsequent Fiscal Year under the “once out, always out” approach.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE, JULY 2023 © OECD 2023

Bilaga 1

|| 91

References

OECD (2022), Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy – Commentary to [2]

the Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules (Pillar Two), First Edition: Inclusive Framework on BEPS, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1e0e9cd8-en.

OECD (2021), Tax Challenges Arising from Digitalisation of the Economy – Global Anti-Base [1]

Erosion Model Rules (Pillar Two): Inclusive Framework on BEPS, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/782bac33-en.

OECD (2017), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2017, [4]

OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/mtc_cond-2017-en. UN (2021), “UN Model Double Tax Convention”, United Nations Model Double Taxation, United [3]

Nations, https://www.un.org/development/desa/financing/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.financin g/files/2022-03/UN%20Model_2021.pdf.

TAX CHALLENGES ARISING FROM THE DIGITALISATION OF THE ECONOMY, JULY 2023 – AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE © OECD 2023

Sammanfattning av promemorian

Bilaga 2

Skattskyldighet för samriskföretag och dess dotterföretag

I denna promemoria lämnas förslag på att ett samriskföretag ska vara skattskyldigt för svensk nationell tilläggsskatt för hela det tilläggsskattebelopp som beräknats och fördelats på företaget, om det hör hemma i Sverige och tillhör en koncern som bestämmelser om tilläggsskatt ska tillämpas på. Detsamma ska gälla för ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag. Bestämmelserna om undantag i fem år under en koncerns inledande fas av internationell verksamhet respektive – för koncerner med samtliga koncernenheter i Sverige – under de första fem åren som koncernen omfattas av lagen om tilläggsskatt föreslås också vara tillämpliga på svensk nationell tilläggsskatt som ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag är skattskyldigt för. Det föreslås vidare att till den del tilläggsskattebeloppet för ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag inte tas ut i sin helhet genom svensk nationell tilläggsskatt ska en moderenhet vara skattskyldig enligt huvudregeln för tilläggsskatt för sin andel av beloppet.

Även förfarandet för tilläggsskatt behöver kompletteras när skattskyldigheten ändras och det lämnas därför bl.a. förslag på att ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som är skattskyldigt för nationell tilläggsskatt ska lämna en tilläggsskattedeklaration.

Bakgrunden till förslagen om förändrad skattskyldighet är att skattskyldigheten för nationell tilläggsskatt för tilläggsskattebelopp avseende samriskföretag och dotterföretag till samriskföretag inte är placerad på företaget självt, vilket får till följd att svensk nationell tilläggsskatt inte omfattas av andra staters förenklingsregel för nationell tilläggsskatt såvitt avser samriskföretaget och dotterföretaget och att tillämpning av huvudoch kompletteringsregeln för tilläggsskatt därmed kan komma i fråga. Det innebär att hela tilläggsskattebeloppet ska tas ut i Sverige samtidigt som en koncernenhet som hör hemma i en annan stat är skattskyldig för sin andel av tilläggsskattebeloppet enligt huvud- eller kompletteringsregeln där.

Lagändringarna föreslås träda i kraft den 1 mars 2027 och tillämpas första gången för beskattningsår som börjar närmast efter den 28 februari 2027. Det införs en möjlighet för den rapporterande enheten, ett samriskföretag och ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag att tillämpa bestämmelserna retroaktivt för beskattningsår som börjar närmast efter den 31 december 2024.

Promemorians lagförslag

Bilaga 3

Förslag till lag om ändring i skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244)

Härigenom föreskrivs i fråga om skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244)

dels att 3 kap. 1 och 11 §§, 7 kap. 1 och 2 b §§, 32 a kap. 2, 3 och 7 §§, 37 kap. 7 c §, 51 kap. 5 § och 56 a kap. 2 § ska ha följande lydelse,

dels att det ska införas två nya paragrafer, 3 kap. 11 b och 11 c §§, och närmast före 3 kap. 11 b § en ny rubrik av följande lydelse.

3 kap.

dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag i 11 c §

1 Senaste lydelse 2023:881. 145

samriskföretag i 11 b §

11 § Med juridisk person avses också Med juridisk person avses i dödsbon, svenska handelsbolag, denna lag också dödsbon, svenska koncernenheter och i utlandet handelsbolag, koncernenheter, delägarbeskattade juridiska samriskföretag, dotterföretag till personer. ett samriskföretag och i utlandet

delägarbeskattade juridiska

personer.

Samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag

11 b § Med samriskföretag avses ett samriskföretag enligt 7 kap. 43 §

lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt.

11 c § Med dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag avses ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag enligt

7 kap. 44 § lagen (2023:875) om

tilläggsskatt.

2 146 Senaste lydelse 2023:880.

Lydelse enligt lagrådsremissen Föreslagen lydelse

Effektivare kontrollmöjligheter i Bilaga 3

systemen för rot, rut, grön teknik och personalliggare

7 kap.

1 § Skatteverket ska registrera 1. den som är skyldig att göra skatteavdrag, 2. den som är skyldig att betala arbetsgivaravgifter, 3. den som är betalningsskyldig enligt mervärdesskattelagen

(2023:200), med undantag för den som är betalningsskyldig bara på grund av

a) förvärv av sådana varor som anges i 3 kap. 2 eller 3 § den lagen, eller b) felaktigt debiterad mervärdesskatt enligt 16 kap. 23 § samma lag, 4. den som i annat fall än som avses i 3 har rätt till a) avdrag för ingående mervärdesskatt enligt 13 kap. 6, 9, 10 eller 11 §

eller 21 kap. 10 eller 11 § mervärdesskattelagen, eller

b) återbetalning av ingående mervärdesskatt enligt 14 kap. 49 § samma lag,

5. den som gör sådant unionsinternt förvärv som är undantaget från skatteplikt enligt 10 kap. 50 § mervärdesskattelagen,

6. en beskattningsbar person som är etablerad i Sverige och tillhandahåller tjänster i ett annat EU-land som förvärvaren av tjänsten är betalningsskyldig för i det landet i enlighet med tillämpningen av artikel 196 i rådets direktiv 2006/112/EG av den 28 november 2006 om ett gemensamt system för mervärdesskatt,

7. den som är skyldig att justera ingående mervärdesskatt enligt 12 kap. 27–31 §§ eller 15 kap. mervärdesskattelagen,

8. den som är skyldig att använda kassaregister enligt 39 kap. 4–6 §§, 9. den som enligt 39 kap. 11 c § är skyldig att tillhandahålla utrustning

så att en elektronisk personalliggare kan föras på en byggarbetsplats,

10. den som betalar ut ersättning som är underlag för statlig ålderspensionsavgift enligt lagen (1998:676) om statlig ålderspensionsavgift,

11. en koncernenhet som avses i 11. en koncernenhet som avses i 1 kap. 3 § lagen (2023:875) om 1 kap. 3 § lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt, och tilläggsskatt,

12. ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som är skattskyldigt för nationell tilläggsskatt enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt, och

12. den som är skyldig att betala 13. den som är skyldig att betala

egenavgifter för avgiftspliktig egenavgifter för avgiftspliktig inkomst som avses i 3 kap. 6 § inkomst som avses i 3 kap. 6 § socialavgiftslagen (2000:980). socialavgiftslagen (2000:980).

Om den som ska registreras enligt första stycket har en företrädare enligt 5 kap., ska dock företrädaren registreras i stället.

Andra stycket gäller inte för en Andra stycket gäller inte för en koncernenhet. koncernenhet, ett samriskföretag

eller ett dotterföretag till ett 147

samriskföretag som är skattskyldigt

Bilaga 3 för nationell tilläggsskatt.

2 b §

Senaste lydelse 2023:880.

Senaste lydelse 2023:880. 148 Senaste lydelse 2026:303.

37 kap.

51 kap.

6 Senaste lydelse 2026:303. 7 Senaste lydelse 2026:303. 8 Senaste lydelse 2026:303. 149

56 a kap.

Bilaga 3 2 §

Skatteverket ska besluta om skatt enligt lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt på grundval av uppgifter som har lämnats i en tilläggsskatterapport eller tilläggsskattedeklaration och vad som i övrigt har kommit fram vid utredning och kontroll.

Skatteverket ska besluta om skatt Skatteverket ska besluta om skatt enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt om enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt om koncernenheten har lämnat en koncernenheten, samriskföretaget tilläggsskattedeklaration eller det i eller dotterföretaget till ett övrigt framkommit att enheten ska samriskföretag har lämnat en betala sådan skatt. tilläggsskattedeklaration eller det i

övrigt framkommit att koncern-

enheten, samriskföretaget eller dotterföretaget till ett samrisk-

företag ska betala sådan skatt.

1. Denna lag träder i kraft den 1 mars 2027.

2. Lagen tillämpas första gången för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 28 februari 2027.

3. Om den deklarationsskyldige, i enlighet med punkt 3 i ikraftträdandeoch övergångsbestämmelserna till lagen (2027:000) om ändring i lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt, väljer att tillämpa lagen om tilläggsskatt i den nya lydelsen på beskattningsår som börjar före den 28 februari 2027, ska den deklarationsskyldige dock även tillämpa bestämmelserna i denna lag på det beskattningsåret.

9 150 Senaste lydelse 2023:880.

Förslag till lag om ändring i lagen (2023:875) om

Bilaga 3

tilläggsskatt

Härigenom föreskrivs att 1 kap. 3 §, 6 kap. 2 a, 16 a och 16 c §§ och 7 kap. 46 och 47 §§ lagen om tilläggsskatt (2023:875) ska ha följande lydelse.

1 kap.

Lagen ska inte tillämpas på undantagna enheter. Intäkter för undantagna enheter ska dock ingå i de intäkter som avses i första stycket.

Om ett eller flera av de fyra räkenskapsåren är längre eller kortare än tolv månader, ska beloppsgränsen i första stycket justeras proportionellt för vart och ett av dessa räkenskapsår.

6 kap.

proportion till varje enhets andel avses i 1 kap. 3 §, om dotter- Bilaga 3 av koncernens anställda och företaget hör hemma i Sverige.

materiella tillgångar i Sverige under det beskattningsår som

tilläggsskatten avser.

Om svenska koncernenheter i två olika koncerner är skattskyldiga enligt första stycket för tilläggsskattebelopp som beräknats och fördelats på ett och samma samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag, ska det tilläggsskattebelopp som belöper

sig på respektive koncern halveras.

16 a §

Tilläggsskatt som en svensk Den tilläggsskatt som ett

koncernenhet enligt 2 a § är samriskföretag eller ett dotterskattskyldig för avseende ett företag till ett samriskföretag är samriskföretag eller ett dotter- skattskyldigt för enligt 2 a § ska företag till ett samriskföretag ska sättas ned till noll under de första sättas ned till noll under de första fem åren av det som enligt 18 § fem åren av det som enligt 18 § utgör den inledande fasen av utgör koncernens inledande fas av internationell verksamhet för den internationell verksamhet. Detta koncern som företaget tillhör. Detta gäller dock inte till den del ett gäller dock inte om företaget tillhör samriskföretag eller ett dotter- två sådana koncerner som avses i företag till ett samriskföretag 1 kap. 3 § och endast en av dem är innehas av en koncernenhet som i sin inledande fas av internationell omfattas av en huvudregel för verksamhet enligt 18 §. Då ska i

tilläggsskatt i en annan stat. stället så stor andel av tilläggsskatten som hänför sig till

den koncernen sättas ned till noll.

Första stycket gäller inte till den del ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag direkt eller indirekt innehas av en koncernenhet som omfattas av en huvudregel för tilläggsskatt i en

annan stat.

Femårsperioden börjar löpa tidigast det räkenskapsår då koncernen först omfattas av denna lag.

2 Senaste lydelse 2024:1248. Ändringen innebär bl.a. att tredje stycket tas bort. 3 152 Senaste lydelse 2024:1248.

7 kap.

46 § En moderenhet som har ett direkt eller indirekt ägarintresse i ett

samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag ska med avseende på sin andel av tilläggsskattebeloppet för samriskföretaget eller för dotterföretaget tillämpa bestämmelserna i 6 kap. 3–8 §§.

Om ett samriskföretag eller ett Om ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag hör hemma i Sverige ska i stället hör hemma i Sverige gäller första för vad som sägs i första stycket stycket bara om 6 kap. 2 a § inte bestämmelserna i 6 kap. 2 a § leder till att tilläggsskattebeloppet tillämpas. för företaget eller dotterföretaget

tas ut i sin helhet.

4 Senaste lydelse 2024:1248. 5 Senaste lydelse 2024:1248. 153

Förslag till lag om ändring i skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244)

Härigenom föreskrivs i fråga om skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244)

dels att 3 kap. 1 och 11 §§, 7 kap. 1 och 2 b §§, 32 a kap. 2, 3 och 7 §§, 37 kap. 7 c §, 51 kap. 5 § och 56 a kap. 2 § ska ha följande lydelse,

dels att det ska införas två nya paragrafer, 3 kap. 11 b och 11 c §§, och närmast före 3 kap. 11 b § en ny rubrik av följande lydelse.

3 kap.

samriskföretag i 11 b §

11 § Med juridisk person avses också Med juridisk person avses i dödsbon, svenska handelsbolag, denna lag också dödsbon, svenska koncernenheter och i utlandet handelsbolag, koncernenheter, delägarbeskattade juridiska samriskföretag, dotterföretag till personer. ett samriskföretag och i utlandet

delägarbeskattade juridiska

personer.

Samriskföretag och dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag

11 b § Med samriskföretag avses ett samriskföretag enligt 7 kap. 43 §

lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt.

11 c § Med dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag avses ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag enligt

7 kap. 44 § lagen (2023:875) om

tilläggsskatt.

2 Senaste lydelse 2023:880. 157

Lydelse enligt prop. 2025/26:282 Föreslagen lydelse

Bilaga 5

7 kap.

1 § Skatteverket ska registrera 1. den som är skyldig att göra skatteavdrag, 2. den som är skyldig att betala arbetsgivaravgifter,

3. den som är betalningsskyldig enligt mervärdesskattelagen (2023:200), med undantag för den som är betalningsskyldig bara på grund av

a) förvärv av sådana varor som anges i 3 kap. 2 eller 3 § den lagen, eller

b) felaktigt debiterad mervärdesskatt enligt 16 kap. 23 § samma lag, 4. den som i annat fall än som avses i 3 har rätt till

a) avdrag för ingående mervärdesskatt enligt 13 kap. 6, 9, 10 eller 11 § eller 21 kap. 10 eller 11 § mervärdesskattelagen, eller

b) återbetalning av ingående mervärdesskatt enligt 14 kap. 49 § samma lag,

5. den som gör sådant unionsinternt förvärv som är undantaget från skatteplikt enligt 10 kap. 50 § mervärdesskattelagen,

6. en beskattningsbar person som är etablerad i Sverige och tillhandahåller tjänster i ett annat EU-land som förvärvaren av tjänsten är betalningsskyldig för i det landet i enlighet med tillämpningen av artikel 196 i rådets direktiv 2006/112/EG av den 28 november 2006 om ett gemensamt system för mervärdesskatt,

7. den som är skyldig att justera ingående mervärdesskatt enligt 12 kap. 27–31 §§ eller 15 kap. mervärdesskattelagen,

8. den som är skyldig att använda kassaregister enligt 39 kap. 4–6 §§,

9. den som enligt 39 kap. 11 c § är skyldig att tillhandahålla utrustning så att en elektronisk personalliggare kan föras på en byggarbetsplats,

10. den som betalar ut ersättning som är underlag för statlig ålderspensionsavgift enligt lagen (1998:676) om statlig ålderspensionsavgift,

11. en koncernenhet som avses i 11. en koncernenhet som avses i 1 kap. 3 § lagen (2023:875) om 1 kap. 3 § lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt, och tilläggsskatt,

12. ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som är skattskyldigt för nationell tilläggsskatt enligt lagen om tilläggsskatt, och

12. den som är skyldig att betala 13. den som är skyldig att betala egenavgifter för avgiftspliktig egenavgifter för avgiftspliktig inkomst som avses i 3 kap. 6 § inkomst som avses i 3 kap. 6 § socialavgiftslagen (2000:980). socialavgiftslagen (2000:980).

Om den som ska registreras enligt första stycket har en företrädare enligt 5 kap., ska dock företrädaren registreras i stället.

Andra stycket gäller inte för en Andra stycket gäller inte för en koncernenhet. koncernenhet, ett samriskföretag

eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag som är skattskyldigt

för nationell tilläggsskatt.

Nuvarande lydelse Föreslagen lydelse

Bilaga 5

32 a kap.

3 § En tilläggsskattedeklaration ska innehålla 1. nödvändiga identifikationsuppgifter, 2. uppgift om vilken enhet som lämnar tilläggsskatterapport,

3. uppgift om att enheten har 3. uppgift om att enheten har tagit tagit del av rapporten i 2, del av rapporten som avses i 2 eller,

när det gäller ett samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag, de uppgifter i rapporten som behövs för att fullgöra uppgiftsskyldigheten i tilläggs-

skattedeklarationen,

4. summan av tilläggsskattebelopp som den deklarationsskyldige är skattskyldig för enligt huvudregeln för tilläggsskatt,

5. summan av kompletterande tilläggsskatt som fördelas till svenska koncernenheter,

6. de uppgifter som behövs för att fördela kompletterande tilläggsskatt, och

3 Senaste lydelse 2023:880. 4 Senaste lydelse 2023:880. 5 Senaste lydelse 2026:303. 159

7. de uppgifter som behövs för beräkning och fördelning av nationell Bilaga 5 tilläggsskatt enligt lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt.

37 kap.

6 Senaste lydelse 2026:303. 7 160 Senaste lydelse 2026:303.

51 kap.

5 § Bilaga 5

Skattetillägg eller rapportavgift Skattetillägg eller rapportavgift ska inte tas ut om en koncernenhet ska inte tas ut om en koncernenhet, vidtagit skäliga åtgärder för att ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterredovisa korrekta beräkningar i företag till ett samriskföretag enlighet med 33 d kap. och korrekta vidtagit skäliga åtgärder för att bedömningar i fråga om redovisa korrekta beräkningar i bestämmelserna om tilläggsskatt. enlighet med 33 d kap. och

korrekta bedömningar i fråga om

bestämmelserna om tilläggsskatt.

56 a kap.

samriskföretaget eller dotter-

företaget till ett samriskföretag ska

betala sådan skatt.

1. Denna lag träder i kraft den 1 mars 2027.

2. Lagen tillämpas första gången för beskattningsår som börjar efter den 28 februari 2027.

3. Om den deklarationsskyldige, i enlighet med punkt 3 i ikraftträdandeoch övergångsbestämmelserna till lagen (2027:000) om ändring i lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt, väljer att tillämpa lagen om tilläggsskatt i den nya lydelsen på beskattningsår som börjar före den 1 mars 2027, ska den deklarationsskyldige dock även tillämpa bestämmelserna i denna lag på det beskattningsåret.

8 Senaste lydelse 2026:303. 9 Senaste lydelse 2023:880. 161

Förslag till lag om ändring i lagen (2023:875) om

Bilaga 5

tilläggsskatt

Härigenom föreskrivs att 1 kap. 3 §, 6 kap. 2 a, 16 a och 16 c §§ och 7 kap.

47 § lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt ska ha följande lydelse.

1 kap.

Lagen ska inte tillämpas på undantagna enheter. Intäkter för undantagna

enheter ska dock ingå i de intäkter som avses i första stycket.

Om ett eller flera av de fyra räkenskapsåren är längre eller kortare än

tolv månader, ska beloppsgränsen i första stycket justeras proportionellt

för vart och ett av dessa räkenskapsår.

6 kap.

till varje enhets andel av avses i 1 kap. 3 §, om dotter-

koncernens anställda och företaget hör hemma i Sverige. Bilaga 5

materiella tillgångar i Sverige under det beskattningsår som

tilläggsskatten avser.

Om svenska koncernenheter i två olika koncerner är skattskyldiga enligt första stycket för tilläggsskattebelopp som beräknats och fördelats på ett och samma samriskföretag eller dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag, ska det tilläggsskattebelopp som belöper

sig på respektive koncern halveras.

16 a §

Tilläggsskatt som en svensk Den tilläggsskatt som ett

koncernenhet enligt 2 a § är samriskföretag eller ett dotterskattskyldig för avseende ett företag till ett samriskföretag är samriskföretag eller ett dotter- skattskyldigt för enligt 2 a § ska företag till ett samriskföretag ska sättas ned till noll under de första sättas ned till noll under de första fem åren av det som enligt 18 § fem åren av det som enligt 18 § utgör den inledande fasen av utgör koncernens inledande fas av internationell verksamhet för den internationell verksamhet. Detta koncern som företaget tillhör. Detta gäller dock inte till den del ett gäller dock inte om företaget tillhör samriskföretag eller ett dotter- två sådana koncerner som avses i företag till ett samriskföretag 1 kap. 3 § och endast en av dem är innehas av en koncernenhet som i sin inledande fas av internationell omfattas av en huvudregel för verksamhet enligt 18 §. Då ska i tilläggsskatt i en annan stat. stället så stor andel av tilläggs-

skatten som hänför sig till den

koncernen sättas ned till noll.

Första stycket gäller inte till den del ett samriskföretag eller ett dotterföretag till ett samriskföretag direkt eller indirekt innehas av en koncernenhet som omfattas av en huvudregel för tilläggsskatt i en

annan stat. Femårsperioden börjar löpa tidigast det räkenskapsår då koncernen först

omfattas av denna lag.

2 Senaste lydelse 2024:1248. 3 Senaste lydelse 2024:1248. 163

4 164 Senaste lydelse 2024:1248.

Utdrag ur protokoll vid sammanträde 2026-10-01

Närvarande: F.d. justitierådet Dag Mattsson samt justitieråden Magnus Medin och Martin Nilsson

Skattskyldighet för samriskföretag och deras dotterföretag

Enligt en lagrådsremiss den 3 september 2026 har regeringen (Finansdepartementet) beslutat inhämta Lagrådets yttrande över förslag till 1. lag om ändring i skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244), 2. lag om ändring i lagen (2023:875) om tilläggsskatt.

Förslagen har inför Lagrådet föredragits av ämnesrådet Christina Svanhagen samt kansliråden Gabriel Cleverdahl och Marcus Sjögren. Vid föredragningen har även departementssekreteraren Veronica Montell närvarat.

Förslagen föranleder följande yttrande.

Förslaget till lag om ändring i skatteförfarandelagen

Övergångsbestämmelsen i punkten 3 omfattar enligt sin ordalydelse endast vad den skattskyldige har att iaktta. Avsikten torde vara att även Skatteverkets hantering ska träffas av bestämmelsen. Det sista ledet i bestämmelsen behöver därför justeras, förslagsvis på följande sätt.

”…2027, ska dock bestämmelserna i denna lag tillämpas även på de

beskattningsåren.”

Övrigt lagförslag

Lagrådet lämnar förslaget utan erinran.

Finansdepartementet

Utdrag ur protokoll vid regeringssammanträde den 22 oktober 2026 Närvarande: statsminister Kristersson, ordförande, och statsråden Svantesson, Edholm, Jonson, Strömmer, Forssmed, Tenje, Forssell, Slottner, Wykman, Malmer Stenergard, Kullgren, Liljestrand, Pourmokhtari, Dousa, Larsson, Britz, Mohamsson, Lann Föredragande: statsrådet Svantesson

Regeringen beslutar proposition Skattskyldighet för samriskföretag och deras dotterföretag

Tryck: Elanders Sverige AB, Vällingby 2026