Poland – One of Europe’s Most Dynamic Economy

Get to know about Poland and upcoming changes


23.11.2015, Zurich

Is your business growing fast? Do you want to expand into new markets? Are you already in Poland? Are you prepared for upcoming changes and country by country reporting?

Stable political and economic situation (EU and NATO)
GDP growth rate higher than in euro zone
High ratio of people enrolled in higher education
Shared Service Centers
Developing R&D Centers
Poland offers you this and much more.

During our meeting we will discuss:

    • Geopolitical situation of Poland after parliamentary elections
    • Poland as a place for setting up a Business
    • Swiss-Polish study case during experience panel discussion
    • Incentives for Investors
    • Legal and tax Environment
    • Polish tax changes 2016

We will be ready to answer your questions and look forward to meeting you in person.

Online Registration

pdf invoices are treated in the same way as paper invoices

Practitioners are frequently confronted with the question whether pdf invoices are permitted for input tax deduction. Businesses have answered the question for themselves in different ways. While some have adjusted their internal procedures, even gone as far as printing out the invoices and adding a receipt stamp, others have completely refused pdf invoices and forced the suppliers to issue a paper invoice. Up to now we have been unable to answer our clients’ question with a yes, although in practice we are not aware of any cases, in which the Federal Tax Administration (FTA) has rejected the input tax deduction because of a pdf invoice.

Art. 70 MWSTG on accounting and retention and Art. 81 Para. 3 MWSTG on the free consideration of evidence are at odds with one another. As a result Art. 122 MWSTV is also important; it recognises the equal evidential value of electronic data and information, if the following requirements are fulfilled:

  • Evidence of origin
  • Evidence of integrity
  • Non-repudiation of despatch

This has the consequence that the data must be unalterable (alternative: duty to record if data are changed). In addition at any time the origin of the electronic invoice must be clear (Where the invoice come from? Who provided the service?). It is easiest to evidence this by “advanced electronic signature” with a certificate of a certified provider. With the principle of free consideration of evidence it is not possible to solve every question of interpretation on accounting and retention.

But now, also in the FTA, there has been some movement on the issue and pdf invoices are treated in the same way as paper invoices if a detailed description of the procedure is available, which outlines the internal processes and controls in order to guarantee the integrity and authenticity of the incoming electronic invoices.

The following conclusion can be inferred:

If the incoming invoices have “advanced electronic signatures”, there is no risk in audits by the FTA. Without such signatures, the procedure for controlling the integrity and authenticity of the electronic documents must be on record in a detailed description of the process.

Process Intelligence: Your processes, transparent

What is the state of your business processes?

There is often a gap between how business processes are intended to be and what they are in reality. There are many reasons for this: the complexity of business and system landscapes; changes that have occurred over time; exceptions to process blueprints for operational reasons; users with too much freedom within the IT systems; and finally, people who often only see some of the processes whilst missing the complete picture.


Understanding the real flow of your business processes is paramount when you want to improve process effectiveness or efficiency, ensure quality or compliance, standardise, or detect anomalies or fraud.

The traditional approach to understanding processes is through interviews, workshops, observations and document analyses, possibly accompanied by sample analysis. This method requires a lot of resources and time, and does not guarantee that the model which emerges reflects reality, as information may not be fully objective on the one hand, and incomplete on the other.

PwC’s Process Intelligence offering analyses the data from your IT systems as used by your people from day to day, and unveils what really happens in your business processes. The advantages of such a data-integrated approach are manifold:

  1. It is based on objective information – data doesn’t lie.
  2. It is based on the complete data set describing all transactions performed by the parties involved.
  3. It allows you to look at the process from different perspective (e.g., by process, by product, by person, by area, by company code, by team, etc.).
  4. The results are obtained quickly.
  5. The analyses deep-dive into every process detail.

PwC’s Process Intelligence

Our approach and tools empower us to analyse any process in any industry, as long as the system bookkeeps a “history” of steps carried out during the process execution.

Our approach to discover and analyse processes starts with a workshop to jointly analyse the extent of process automation and the expected level of standardisation within your business processes. This facilitates the identification of key focus areas, which will be further examined during the next phase. In an audit context, in general, we focus on areas where a high level of standardisation is assumed, as these could provide most audit efficiencies going forward.

In the next phase we analyse the selected processes in detail. This phase includes one or more iterations to be able to achieve the right level of process detail thus enabling us to distinguish between planned and unplanned process deviations. We utilise process mining techniques such as those described here:

  • Process discovery establishes how business processes are actually executed by your staff in your system. It enables you to evaluate the level of process standardisation, looking at frequent as well as exceptional activities in the process.
  • Process compliance and benchmarking techniques allow us to measure conformance to organisational rules or regulations and process blueprints, to compare how different entities execute the process, and identify factors causing deviations from the process blueprint.
  • Good practice identification searches for effective paths of process execution, identifies key people and potential training needs as well as success factors. By measuring performance characteristics, such as execution and lead times, and by spotting duplicate or unplanned activities, areas for improvement can be identified.
  • Organisational analyses show how people and teams collaborate, how they comply with segregation of duties, and assigned roles and responsibilities.

How does this work?

Based on the selected processes and the underlying system, we provide you with a set of tables and fields that you need to download for a specific time period. This includes master data, transactional data as well as change tables. If you use SAP, we have a proprietary, open-source download tool that will be made available to you to ensure smooth and efficient extraction of data.

We analyse your data with our Process Intelligence tool, which is paired with our proprietary SAP process and data dictionary knowledge to translate your data into actual business process flows. The output of this analysis is then discussed with the process owners and specialists and refined accordingly. This ensures that we adequately consider all business specifics.

After we arrive at a detailed understanding of your processes, we will share the results with you in a workshop and discuss the real process flows, any potential deviations and related implications for the audit as well as for your business.

For widely-used ERP systems, such as SAP ECC, Microsoft AX and Oracle, we have off-the-shelf scripts to analyse your main processes, e.g., procurement, sales and master data management processes. Further scripts can be developed depending on your needs.

What you get out of it?

The results of our analysis will be made available to you. Our Process Intelligence reports include:

  • Process transparency depicting the processes from various relevant angles.
  • A process health-check dashboard consisting of the top-ten most common or seldom used process paths, the value they generate, the most or least active users, and the most “expensive” paths, for example.
  • Transactional-level process indicators, such as “retrospective purchase orders”, “journals parked over 30 days”, “inventory movements” and “three-way-match configuration”.

For more information on the topic discussed above please contact me or visit our website.

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has published the written motivations to the two Swiss withholding tax refund lead cases with Danish Banks

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court published the written reasons for judgement for the two Swiss withholding tax refund lead cases concerning Danish banks involved in derivative transactions over dividend ex-dates with Swiss equities on 28 October 2015. The two cases were previously discussed in a public hearing at the beginning of May. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the Federal Tax Authority (FTA) in both cases and has overruled the previous decisions taken by the Federal Administrative Court.

The cases under scrutiny

In the first case, a Danish bank entered into several total return swap transactions with counterparties in the EU and the US relating to Swiss equites. To hedge the exposure from the total return swaps, the Danish bank bought the necessary Swiss equities from various parties. Upon the maturity of the total return swaps, the shares were sold to parties other than those from whom the bank had previously sourced the shares. Under the swaps the Danish bank had to pay an amount equivalent to the dividend received to the counterparty.

The second case relates to a Danish subsidiary of a Swedish bank that entered into derivative transactions by selling (OTC) SMI futures through EUREX and a broker, and who had hedged this short position by buying the SMI components from a different platform/broker. Both legs of the transactions were executed on 19 February 2007. Upon the maturity of the SMI futures on 15 March 2007, the derivative position was rolled into further SMI future contracts with an expiry of 15 June 2007. Upon expiry in June, the SMI futures position was closed and the long position in SMI components was also sold.

In both cases, dividends received during the maturity of the trade were subject to 35% Swiss withholding tax for which a full refund was claimed under the former Danish-Swiss double tax treaty (the current amended treaty only provides for a partial refund on portfolio holdings). For both cases, the FTA had denied the refund of Swiss withholding tax and was then overruled in the Federal Administrative Court.

Reasons for judgement of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court analysed whether the notion of beneficial ownership was a requirement for Swiss withholding tax refund under the Danish-Swiss double tax treaty as the Federal Administrative Court did not analyse this notion in its appealed decisions. In application of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s practice, the interpretation of double tax treaties has to be based on international law and its inherent practice, in particular on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the principle of good faith. In its analysis, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has ruled that the requirement of beneficial ownership is implicitly demanded for the refund of Swiss withholding tax even if such a definition is not explicitly contained in the wording of the relevant treaty, which is aligned with the domestic interpretation of the two treaty countries in the case at hand.

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court defines beneficial owner as a person who has the power of disposition over the dividend income. This is the case, if and when a person having the beneficial use can utilise the dividend without any legal, contractual or factual obligation leading to a limitation of this right to use. According to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, an actual limitation of beneficial ownership is a given if the following two conditions are met cumulatively: (i) the achievement of the income is dependent on an obligation to forward such income, and (ii) the obligation to forward the income must depend upon the achievement of that income. The Swiss Federal Supreme court states that such an obligation to forward income may be based on a (direct) legal obligation or on the basis of all the facts and circumstance of the case, i.e. by applying a substance over form approach.

In the swap case and by applying the above definition of beneficial ownership and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Federal Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the Danish bank had given up its beneficial ownership of the dividend payment when entering into the swap transaction. The main arguments used were:

  • The hedging with Swiss equities was carried out immediately after entering into the derivative liability with a full hedge (of dividends and positive price changes of the underlying components)
  • By entering into the swap transaction the Danish bank was able to fund the transaction with debt
  • The Danish bank did not bear any (meaningful) risks from the transaction and generated only a risk free return amounting to the interest on the swap transaction as the dividends were transferred under the swap agreement to the counterparties.

Against this background the Federal Supreme Court decided that there was a clear interdependence between the purchase of the underlying equities and the derivative, which led to a giving up of beneficial ownership. This ownership was given up at the moment in time where the funds received as dividends were paid out to the counterparty of the swap agreement as there was, in the view of the Swiss Supreme Court, an on-payment obligation under the total return swap agreements entered into by the Danish bank. Further to this obligation, the bank was no longer in a position to freely dispose of the dividend proceeds received and, in addition, entering into the total return swap put the bank in the position of being fully relieved from any risk associated to the underlying long position in Swiss equities.

In the SMI futures case the Federal Supreme Court also argued that beneficial ownership was lacking by relying on the interdependency principle laid out above. However, as the facts and circumstances of the SMI case were clarified in less detail by the FTA, in some instances due to a lack of cooperation from the taxpayer, the judges based their decision on factual indicia as well. Beneficial ownership was denied with the following arguments:

  • The large volume of the single transaction (3.7 billion CHF) being substantially more than the ordinary average daily trading volume at the stock exchanges involved, the use of brokers and the limited number of parties involved and the short term of the transaction were used as indicia that the transaction must have been agreed amongst known counterparties and that hence the transaction must have been of a circular nature
  • Only a small portion of the dividend income (between 0.04% and 0.06% of the overall transactional volume, respectively between 6.6% and 9% of the dividend income) was retained by the Danish bank. The fact that a portion of the dividend income was retained is not sufficient to prove that no harmful transfer on of dividend income occurred in the case at hand.
  • The Swiss Federal Supreme Court challenged the Danish bank’s ability to act independently as the Swedish parent company had fully debt funded the transaction; the court was of the opinion that the interest paid on the funding led to a partial transfer of dividend income to the Swedish parent, which would have benefitted from a less attractive double tax treaty if the latter had held the Swiss equities
  • A harmful transfer of dividends occurred via the purchase and sales price of the underlying SMI components where the relevant prices were bilaterally agreed with the broker involved acting as a principal for the Danish bank. As the purchase and sales prices were not set in standardised and anonymous transactions, but rather in a specific, tailor-made single transaction, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court assumed, on the basis of the indicia of the case, that prices were set in order to transfer the dividend income to the broker. The court also concluded that similar agreements must have been in place between the broker and its counterparties originally providing the SMI components to the broker.
  • The Danish bank’s refusal to disclose the counterparties of the broker was interpreted by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court as a violation of its information-sharing and cooperation duty even if the foreign country’s legal system does prohibit such a sharing of information. Although the court acknowledged that the Danish bank cannot be requested to infringe foreign law, it must face the legal consequence of such a missed disclosure of useful and reasonable information in the specific case. This because the Swiss Federal Tax Administration had various valid reasons to believe that the transaction was structured as a circular-like transaction between related parties. Because of this specific transaction structure, the Danish bank has an increased duty of disclosure and cannot just rely on the professional secrecy of the broker. The Supreme Court also concluded that the only reason for routing the transactions through a broker and for incurring the additional costs was to avoid the disclosure of the identity of the counterparty.

The majority of the judges of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the bank had given up the beneficial ownership and had to forward the dividend proceeds, which were partially up-front priced in the sold OTC SMI futures.

Appraisal of the decisions

The Swiss Supreme Court has now issued two guiding decisions with regard to the question of beneficial ownership, which will have an important impact on the numerous other cases which are pending with the Swiss courts and the FTA. Both decisions were based on the notion of beneficial ownership in a double tax treaty environment and the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has clarified its view on how beneficial ownership in the double tax treaty with Denmark shall be defined from a Swiss perspective. Whereas the swap decision is substantially based on this beneficial ownership notion, the SMI futures decision does not seem to follow this notion totally as the Swiss Federal Supreme Court based its decision on conclusive indicia that were not fully evidenced by the FTA and that were not rebutted by the Danish bank.
In particular the following points were not addressed in the two decisions and may lead to a different assessment of an individual case:

  • How do “imperfect” hedges, i.e. non delta one, impact the question regarding beneficial ownership?
  • If the party holding Swiss equities as a long position is not the beneficial owner of the dividend, who is entitled to a refund (e.g. the counterpart of the derivative)?
  • If the long position in Swiss equities is not acquired before the dividend ex-date and is not sold after the dividend season, but hedged as a long term investment, would the court come to a different decision?

The two published decisions made it clear, that each case should still be analysed on the basis of its individual facts and circumstances and that the outcome may vary depending on the basis of the underlying facts and circumstances. The currently defined notion of beneficial ownership in a treaty context needs to be considered for those double tax treaties that do not embed a separate definition of beneficial ownership. Pending claims, as well as new derivative transactions that may give rise to a Swiss withholding tax refund claim, should be carefully evaluated on the basis of the recent decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

Martin Büeler
Partner, Tax & Legal
+41 58 792 43 92
Luca Poggioli
Director, Tax & Legal
+41 58 792 44 51
Victor Meyer
Partner, Tax & Legal
+41 58 792 43 40
Dieter Wirth
Partner, Tax & Legal
+41 58 792 44 88


Impact of the Double Tax Treaty between Switzerland and Argentina


With the conclusion of the ratification procedure, the Double Tax Treaty (DTT) between Switzerland and Argentina for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and on capital, completed in Bern on 20 March 2014, will enter into force on 27 November 2015. The convention will replace the provisional convention of 1997 that has been terminated by Argentina on 16 January 2012, and therefore ends the contract-free period. The rules under the treaty will be applicable starting from 01 January 2016, with the exception of source taxation for which relief can be claimed retroactive for 2015.[1]

Brief summary of the new convention

The convention primarily provides legal certainty and aims to avoid double taxation with respect to taxes on income and capital between Switzerland and Argentina. The new rules are comparable to the original convention from 1997, with a slight deterioration in favor of Argentina. The essential aspects of the treaty in particular with respect to the source taxation of dividends, interest and royalties are outlined below.


The provisions referring to dividend payments is in accordance with the one from the double tax convention of 1997. Article 10 paragraph 2 of the new treaty provides a limitation of the withholding tax to 10 per cent if the beneficial owner is a corporation (other than a partnership) which holds directly at least 25 per cent of the capital. In all other cases, the withholding tax is 15 per cent of the gross amount of the dividend payment, if the payment does not exceed the cumulated taxable profits of the company paying the dividends.[2] In the latter case, figure 9 letter b of the protocol provides a definitive tax of 35 per cent (so-called “Equalization Tax“) for which no relief is provided under the new convention.


Article 11 paragraph 2 of the convention provides a limitation of the withholding tax to 12 per cent of the gross amount of the interest paid (exceptions apply under paragraph 3). Switzerland generally does not levy a withholding tax on interests paid on commercial loans. Under Argentinean law however, interest payments to a foreign resident are subject to withholding tax of 15.05 to 35 per cent, depending on their nature.[3]


Under Argentinean law, royalties paid to a foreign resident are subject to a withholding tax of on different rates, depending on their nature. According to Article 12 paragraph 2, the convention provides a limitation of the withholding tax to 3 to 15 per cent, in particular:[4]

  • (a) 3 per cent of the gross amount paid for the use of, or the right to use, news;
  • (b) 5 per cent of the gross amount paid for the use of, or the right to use, copyright of literary, dramatic, musical or other artistic work (but not including royalties in respect of motion picture films and works on film or videotape or other means of reproduction for use in connection with television);
  • (c) 10 per cent of the gross amount paid for the use of, or the right to use, industrial, commercial or scientific equipment or any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, computer software or for information concerning industrial or scientific experience including payments for the rendering of technical assistance; and
  • (d) 15 per cent of the gross amount of the royalties in all other cases.

As Switzerland does not levy any withholding tax on royalties, the provisions under paragraph 2 apply to royalty payments from Argentina to a Swiss resident only.

Capital gains

Article 13 paragraph 5 (considering the exception provided in paragraph 4) provides a limitation of the withholding tax on capital gains derived from the alienation of shares to 10 per cent if the beneficial owner directly holds at least 25 per cent of the capital and to 15 percent in all other cases (same as for dividend taxation).[5]

Further amendments

A major change compared to the previous convention of 1997, is the inclusion of article 25 with respect to the information exchange. In line with the current international standard on information exchange, the new treaty facilitates the exchange of information upon request.

Impact on Swiss corporations

Even though the new DTT does not vary significantly from the previous version of 1997, it primarily provides legal certainty for Swiss corporations with investments in Argentina. While the previous version has never been ratified and has been terminated in 2012, the newly signed treaty introduces a new legal base. From a pure cash tax perspective, the DTT does not provide better WHT rates on dividends as set forth by Argentine internal law.

However, the limitation to 10% taxation in the DTT with Switzerland concerning capital gains (M&A transaction relevant cash tax outflows which are usually burdensome as transferred from sellers to buyers or requiring the acquisition of complex intermediary structures), could open planning opportunities as Argentine internal law stipulates a taxation at 13.5% on gross sales proceed or 15% on actual capital gain.

For more information on the topic discussed above, including what it means in practice or for other tax questions, contact your local PwC engagement team or me.

[1] Staatssekretariat für internationale Finanzfragen (29.10.2015), Grünes Licht für das Inkrafttreten des DBA zwischen der Schweiz und Argentinien (https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-59271.html).
[2] Abkommen zwischen der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft und der Republik Argentinien zur Vermeidung der Doppelbesteuerung auf dem Gebiet der Steuern vom Einkommen und vom Vermögen (DBA-AR), S. 26 (http://www.news.admin.ch/NSBSubscriber/message/attachments/36896.pdf).
[3] PwC, Worldwide Tax Summaries – Corporate Taxes 2015/16, S. 58-59, Botschaft zu einem neuen Doppelbesteuerungsabkommen zwischen der Schweiz und Argentinien, S. 8601 (https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/federal-gazette/2014/8593.pdf).
[4] DBA-AR, S. 29; http://www.news.admin.ch/NSBSubscriber/message/attachments/34166.pdf, S. 11-12.
[5] DBA-AR, S. 30-31.
Daniel Gremaud
Leader Tax & Legal Services Romandie (Western Switzerland)
Avenue C.-F. -Ramuz 45
1001 Lausanne
Tel. +41 58 792 81 23
Matthias Marbach
Director Tax & Legal Services
Birchstrasse 160
8050 Zürich
Tel. +41 58 792 44 76

Safe Harbor: stormy seas in Europe − impending storm in Switzerland?

On 6 October this year the European Court of Justice declared that the European Commission’s ‘Safe Harbor’ decision (2000/520) of 2000 which found that the United States afforded an adequate level of protection of personal data was invalid.

Safe Harbor Framework

This Safe Harbor Framework was one of a number of legal bases allowing the transmission of personal data from the EU to the United States to the 5,500 or so US entities self-certified under the Safe Harbor scheme. With this legal basis no longer valid, data transfer now has to be put on another basis, as stipulated in Article 26 of EU Directive 95/46/EC.

Declaration of invalidity

One of the reasons for the European Court of Justice’s declaration of invalidity is that personal data are not afforded adequate protection because the Safe Harbor Framework does not sufficiently limit the US government’s ability to infringe on the fundamental rights of individuals for reasons of national security and the public interest, and that it even gives these aims precedence over the safe harbor principles. There are thus not adequate safeguards in place to ensure that personal data will only be accessed if this – in terms of the European interpretation – is necessary and proportionate. As evidence of disproportionate use of personal data by government authorities it points to the PRISM programme exposed by Edward Snowden.

Implications for Switzerland

This European Court of Justice decision does not have any direct consequences for Switzerland for the time being. Switzerland and the United States have their own Safe Harbor arrangement – albeit virtually identical to the US/EU agreement – that currently affords an adequate level of data protection for around 3,900 self-certified US entities. However, it seems likely that the turmoil in Europe will also spill over into Swiss data protection, and that the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (FDPIC) will also conclude that the Swiss Safe Harbor Framework no longer meets the requirements of Swiss data privacy law. In its initial opinion, the FDPIC indeed expressed the view that the European Court of Justice’s decision also calls the agreement between Switzerland and the United States into question, and that as far as Switzerland is concerned, in the event of renegotiation only an internationally coordinated approach that includes the EU would be appropriate.


On 22 October the FDPIC found that the Safe Harbor Framework between Switzerland and the United States no longer constitutes an adequate legal basis for data transfer to the United States. Swiss companies that transfer data to the United States on the basis of the Safe Harbor Framework must contractually agree guarantees assuring adequate levels of data protection with the US entity by the end of January 2016. While this will not solve the problem of disproportionate interference by the authorities, it will enable the level of data protection to be improved somewhat. In addition, persons affected must be given clear and comprehensive information, especially regarding the possibility that the data could be accessed by the authorities

If you’d like to talk about Safe Harbor, contact our experts:

Release of BEPS deliverable: Making Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective

On 5 October 2015, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released its deliverable on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action 14: 2015 Final Report, Making Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective (the “Report”).

According to the Report, countries will commit to develop a minimum standard in the context of treaty-related disputes and will ensure effective and efficient implementation of this standard through the establishment of a peer-based monitoring process.

This minimum standard, which is complemented by a number of recommended best practices, is designed to meet the following objectives:

  • Ensuring that treaty obligations relating to the mutual agreement procedure (MAP) are fully implemented in good faith and that MAP cases are resolved in a timely manner;
  • Ensuring the implementation of administrative processes that promote the prevention and timely resolution of treaty-related disputes; and
  • Ensuring that taxpayers can access MAP when eligible.

Read more.

For more information on the topic discussed above, including what it means in practice or for other tax questions, contact your local PwC engagement team or me.


Aligning transfer pricing outcomes with value creation – revised Chapters I, II, VI, and VII of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines

On 5 October 2015, the OECD presented its final package of measures for a comprehensive, coherent, and co-ordinated reform of the international tax rules.  The package was endorsed by the G20 Finance Ministers at their meeting on 8 October 2015, in Lima, Peru.  This final package (referred to below as the “Final Report”) includes the work undertaken by the OECD in relation to Aligning Transfer Pricing Outcomes with Value Creation, Actions 8 to 10 of its Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan, which focuses on ensuring that transfer pricing outcomes are aligned with value creation.

The OECD work in the context of Actions 8 to 10 of the Final Report includes guidance on several key transfer pricing areas.  These include: (1) the accurate delineation of intercompany transactions; (2) future work to be completed on the transactional profit split method; (3) transactions involving intangibles; (4) commodity transactions; (5) “low-value adding intra-group services” transactions; and (6) cost contribution arrangements (CCAs).

Read more.

For more information on the topic discussed above, including what it means in practice or for other tax questions, contact your local PwC engagement team or me.

German business becomes simpler for Swiss banks

The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) and Germany’s Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) recently agreed to a ‘simplified exemption procedure’ and the corresponding measures. This accord makes it easier for Swiss banks to gain entry to the German market.

Get some details and find out more in our attached summary.

German business becomes simpler for Swiss banks