Hybrid Mismatch Arrangement: Does it endanger tax base?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/bqvsh861Keywords:
hybrid mismatch arrangement, Indonesia state-owned enterpriseAbstract
Base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) action plans issued by OECD and supported by G-20 have been partially adopted by Indonesia Tax Authority (ITA). So far, Indonesia has established regulation which addressed the Action Plans. There are various ways to avoid the tax. One of the common practice is hybrid mismatch arrangement. A group of companies can obtain benefits from this transaction by making use of tax regulation in different countries. The objective of this study is to elaborate how hybrid mismatch arrangement applied and why the tax authority concern about it. This study use case-study method. We analyze a state-owned enterprises case that applied hybrid mismatch arrangement. Thus, we found several decisive results. First, Company used hybrid mismatch arrangement scheme to shift profit abroad which implied to less tax payment in Indonesia. Second, the dispute is brought to the tax court and transfer pricing became the settlement of the scheme. This is happened because Indonesia faced legal basis to treat the scheme as a hybrid mismatch arrangement. These findings may give recommendation to Indonesia Tax Authority to establish the relevant rules.
Downloads
References
) Alvarez-Martínez, María T. et al. (2018) : How Large is the Corporate Tax Base Erosion and Profit Shifting? A General Equlibrium Approach, CESifo Working Paper, No. 6870, Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute (CESifo), Munich.
[2) Beuselinck, C., & Deloof, M. (2014). Earnings Management in Business Groups: Tax Incentives or Expropriation Concealment? The International Journal of Accounting, 49(1), 27–52. doi:10.1016/j.intacc.2014.01.008.
[3) Bartelsman, E. J., & Beetsma, R. M. W. J. (2003). Why pay more? Corporate tax avoidance through transfer pricing in OECD countries. Journal of Public Economics, 87(9-10), 2225–2252. doi:10.1016/s0047- 2727(02)00018-x
[4] Brauner, Y. (2014). What the BEPS. Fla. Tax Rev., 16, 55.
[5] Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2010). Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67. doi:10.1177/0149206310388419.
[6] Dietsch, P., & Rixen, T. (2014). Tax competition and global background justice. Journal of political philosophy, 22(2), 150-177.
[7] Halim, A. Z., How, J., & Verhoeven, P. (2017). Agency costs and corporate sukuk issuance. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 42, 83–95. doi:10.1016/j.pacfin.2016.05.014
[8] Hoopes, J. L., Mescall, D., & Pittman, J. A. (2012). Do IRS Audits Deter Corporate Tax Avoidance? The Accounting Review, 87(5), 1603–1639. doi:10.2308/accr-50187
[9] Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. doi:10.1016/0304-405x(76)90026-x
[10] Lanis, R., Richardson, G., Liu, C., & McClure, R. (2018). The Impact of Corporate Tax Avoidance on Board of Directors and CEO Reputation. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3949-4.
[11] Rita Barrera & Jessica Bustamante (2017): The Rotten Apple: Tax Avoidance in Ireland, The International Trade Journal, DOI: 10.1080/08853908.2017.1356250
[12] Ross, S. A. (1973). The economic theory of agency: The principal's problem. The American Economic Review, 63(2), 134-139.
[13] Ross, L. (1977). The Intuitive Psychologist And His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process1. In
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173-220). Academic Press.
[14] Scott, J. H. (1976). A Theory of Optimal Capital Structure. The Bell Journal of Economics, 7(1), 33. doi:10.2307/3003189
[15] Spence, M. (1973). Job Market Signaling," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87 (3), 355-74.(1977). Consumer Misperceptions, Product Failure and Producer Liability,” Review ofEconomic Studies, 44(3).
[16] Tambunan, Anggi P.I. 2016. BEPS Action 2: Menetralisasi Hybrid Mismatch Arrangement. Inside Tax Magazine edisi 38: 26-30. https://www.globalpolicy.org/globalization/defining-globalization.html retrieved
July 4th 2019.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
