– DAGTVA truth table –
DAGTVA® – Distribution of MNE profits
|No.||Problems exposed, requests, constraints and subjects||Origin||Pg||Li||Doc|
|96||Ap – Amount C – Generalities||Pillar 1||16||7||RBAcg|
Quote : Appendix – Detailed proposal on profit allocation
Amount C – Generalities (RBAcg)
64. Taxpayers and tax administrations would retain the ability to argue that the marketing and distribution activities taking place in the market jurisdiction (RBMco) go beyond the baseline level of functionality and therefore warrant a profit in excess of the fixed return contemplated under Amount B, or that the MNE group or company perform other business activities in the jurisdiction unrelated to marketing and distribution. In either case an additional profit – Amount C – would be due where this is supported by the application of the arm’s length principle, though this would require robust measures to resolve disputes (RBMcr) and prevent double taxation (RBPpi – RBNdi – RBQdd – RBQme – RBQrd – RBAbr – RBMcd). In this context (as well as in relation to any element of the proposal where a tax dispute arises in the market jurisdiction), it would be essential to consider existing and possible new approaches to dispute prevention and resolution, including mandatory and effective dispute prevention and resolution mechanisms to ensure the elimination of protracted disputes and double taxation (RBMcm – RBMcp – RBMcr – RBPpi).
Subject covered in all the linked pages above.