– DAGTVA truth table –
DAGTVA® – Distribution of MNE profits
|No.||Problems exposed, requests, constraints and subjects||Origin||Pg||Li||Doc|
|74||Ap – presumed residual profit of an MNE at group or branch level.||Pillar 1||13||21||RBAbp|
Quote : Appendix – Detailed proposal on profit allocation
Amount A (RBAag)
51. The first type of profit, Amount A, would reallocate a portion of the deemed residual profit of a multinational business (on a group or business line basis) (RBAbp) to market jurisdictions irrespective of the location and/or residence of that business, consistent with the creation of a new nexus unconstrained by physical presence requirements.
As stated in the RBMap section , “first of all, as a preamble, we must consider that obtain tax legal certainty by wanting to retrocede profits, of any kinds, is neither the problem nor the business of an MNE, but that of a State which perceived the benefits through the taxation. It is for its to properly taxing enterprises carrying on its territory in order to repay, if it is justified, all or a part of these perceived benefits (because now it is its property), toward a market State. » It is precisely what it is explained in the DAGTVA transfer pricing calculation, how to share the equal taxation in front of an economic activity distributed in a cross-border transation.
It is not the role of an MNE to return a taxation in another jurisdiction. How and by what right would it do it?
Therefore, applying the restitution of a fraction of residual profit should not concern MNEs but States, whether at the level of a group or a branch of activity.
If we repeat what was said in the RBMaf section , with the DAGTVA transfer pricing calculation . As it is said in many sections including RBPpi of this proposal, no fraction of the profits will be attributed to a market jurisdiction until they have been able to be quantified and if, once quantified, there will remain a valid reason for tax them. It is a better distribution of these benefits among the States that will normally provide for this. There is therefore nothing to modify on direct taxation, nothing to negotiate in this area as can be read in the RBMap section :
« Regarding the distribution of profits:
As clarified on the RBSju page , the DAGTVA transfer pricing calculation takes into account in the «Amount A» mechanism, not only residual profits, but also profits: standard, routine and intangible, from the moment when they are invoiced, except that these résidual profits will not be returned to the market jurisdiction. They are treated fiscally during the same time of the transaction, this is the advantage of the DAGTVA transactional system where the totality of the taxation is definitively affected for the respective shares in each State where the commercial activity takes place.
And we speak here about the direct taxation which can be levied, as today, without modifying existing local taxation laws.
There is therefore nothing to renegotiate in this area which is the responsibility of each sovereign State, there is no new right to impose the modification of the direct taxation, with the ease of having a majority international agreement accepted in this area and with the probable consent of United States, which has already legislated internally in this domain.«