2018年-德勤全球_The_future_of_tax_in_mining_40页_828kb

报告摘要

2017 Global Mining Tax Trends Summary

Core Content

The document outlines the key tax trends that multinational mining companies are likely to face in 2017, emphasizing the evolving and increasingly complex global tax environment. It highlights the impact of the OECD's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPs) project, the rise in tax transparency requirements, and the challenges associated with managing stakeholder relationships, particularly with tax authorities. The report also touches on the importance of group structure management, the role of innovation in the mining industry, and the changing dynamics of jurisdictional competitiveness for capital investment.

Main Trends and Key Points

1. Addressing BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting)

Objective: Combat tax avoidance strategies, especially those involving profit shifting to low-tax jurisdictions.
BEPS Actions: 15 actions were developed, including:
- Action 1: Addressing the tax challenges of the digital economy.
- Action 4: Limiting base erosion via interest deductions and other financial payments.
- Action 6: Preventing treaty abuse by embedding anti-abuse provisions like the Limitation of Benefits (LOB) test and Principal Purpose Test (PPT).
- Action 15: Developing a multilateral instrument to streamline treaty amendments.
Impact: Mining groups must restructure their operations and tax strategies to comply with these rules, which may lead to significant changes in how they manage their tax profiles and cross-border transactions.

2. Tax Transparency and Reporting Requirements

EITI (Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative): Has long been a standard for public disclosure of government revenues from the extractive sector.
EU Accounting Directive 2013/34/EU: Introduced mandatory transparency rules for mining and extractives sectors, requiring disclosure of payments to governments.
CbCR (Country-by-Country Reporting): Part of BEPS Action 13, it requires large multinational groups to report financial data by jurisdiction, including revenue, profits, taxes paid, and employee numbers.
Key Differences: Mandatory reporting is narrower than voluntary disclosures, leading to a "gap" in the data companies report. This necessitates proactive communication and independent assurance to clarify figures.

3. Navigating Stakeholder Relationships

Focus on Tax Authorities: The relationship between mining companies and tax authorities is becoming more complex and scrutinized.
Impact of Information Leaks: The Panama and Bahamas Papers highlighted the need for greater transparency and led to increased tax authority monitoring of corporate structures.
Strategic Engagement: Mining companies are advised to engage proactively with tax authorities, especially before significant intra-company transactions, to avoid potential disputes and ensure alignment with local tax expectations.

4. Group Structure Management

Shift from Independent Agents: Traditional use of independent agents to facilitate sales is being challenged by new BEPS rules, particularly Action 7.
Restructuring Needs: Mining groups may need to restructure their corporate frameworks to avoid treaty abuse and align with new tax rules.
Country Examples:
- South Africa: Renegotiated tax treaties to secure taxing rights over indirect disposals.
- Russia: Introduced de-offshorization laws to tighten offshore reporting and repatriate profits.
- Chile: Implemented a major tax reform in 2014, impacting foreign-parented mining groups with significant changes to corporate tax rates and anti-avoidance measures.

5. Innovation in the Mining Industry

Disruptive Technology: Mining companies are increasingly adopting innovation, including data analytics, digital tools, and blockchain, to respond to market and operational disruptions.
Tax Function Impact: The tax function is affected by both the broader use of technology and the specific changes in tax practices.
Strategic Flexibility: Companies that adapt early to these innovations may gain a competitive advantage in managing their tax affairs in a fast-moving digital world.

6. Jurisdictional Competitiveness for Capital Investment

Volatility in Mining Sector: Commodity prices have fluctuated significantly, with 2016 marking a recovery.
Investment Considerations: Jurisdictions are adjusting their tax regimes to remain competitive in attracting capital investment.
Implications for Mining Groups: Companies must assess the tax implications of their investments and transactions in different jurisdictions, considering both the regulatory landscape and the economic environment.

Conclusion

The global mining industry is navigating a complex and rapidly evolving tax landscape, driven by the OECD's BEPS project, increased transparency requirements, and shifting stakeholder dynamics. Mining companies must adapt their tax strategies and operational structures to align with new international standards and local regulations. The year 2017 presents a critical opportunity for mining groups to re-evaluate and restructure their tax frameworks to mitigate risks and enhance competitiveness.