The Treatment of Tax Transparent Entities Under Pillar Two

Contents

What is the Issue?

Tax transparency is a feature of many domestic tax regimes as a means of applying a single layer of taxation. Tax transparent entities are also used by MNEs for a variety of tax (and non-tax) reasons, not least the ability to maximize double tax relief. 

A key feature of the GloBE rules is to try and reflect key features of domestic tax regimes, particularly in the calculation of GloBE income. As such, in many cases, a tax transparent entity would be treated for Pillar Two purposes in the same way as it is for domestic tax purposes, subject to some specific GloBE adjustments (eg to reflect income of non-group members or permanent establishments).

However, where the tax transparent entity is itself the Ultimate Parent Entity (UPE) of the group, this poses some problems in the application of the GloBE Rules.

Income can’t be allocated to the owners, as they would not be within the scope of the Pillar Two GloBE rules. In addition, tax paid by the UPE may be minimal given tax is payable on the income by its owners. This could lead to very low effective tax rates for a tax transparent UPE and substantial top-up tax obligations.  

Therefore, the Model Rules include a number of special rules to deal with these situations. 

What is a Tax Transparent Entity Under Pillar Two?

Under the Model GloBE Rules, a flow-through entity is either a tax transparent entity or a reverse hybrid entity. 

 The starting point is therefore whether an entity is a flow-through entity or not. If it isn’t it won’t be a tax transparent entity. Under Article 10.2.1 of the Model Rules, in order to be a flow-through entity it must be fiscally transparent in the jurisdiction where it was created unless it is tax resident and subject to a covered tax on its income or profit in another jurisdiction.
 
A tax transparent entity is further defined in Article 10.2.1(a) of the Model Rules as an entity that is fiscally transparent in the jurisdiction where its owner is located. 
 
Therefore, just because a jurisdiction treats an entity as transparent for tax purposes does not mean that it would necessarily be treated as fiscally transparent for GloBE purposes. In particular if it was not treated as fiscally transparent in another jurisdiction where it was tax resident and was taxed on its income it wouldn’t be a flow-through entity (and therefore not a tax transparent entity) for Pillar Two purposes. 
 
A good example would be a US LLC. This may be treated as tax transparent for US tax purposes but would be treated as opaque for UK tax purposes. It would therefore simply be another constituent entity for Pillar Two purposes and would be subject to the jurisdictional effective tax rate (ETR) and top-up tax calculation just as for other constituent entities. 
 
Once it’s determined that an entity is a flow through entity, in order to be a tax transparent entity, it would need to be treated as tax transparent in the jurisdiction of its owners. For instance, a Cayman Islands Limited Partnership with UK resident partners would be treated as a tax transparent entity as the UK treats a Cayman Islands Limited Partnership as tax transparent

GloBE Treatment of Tax Transparent Entities

The key difference between tax transparent entities and other constituent entities for Pillar Two purposes relates to the allocation of GloBE income and covered taxes
For domestic tax purposes, the income of transparent entities is taxed on the underlying owners. However, for accounting purposes, these entities would generally have their own financial accounts.
 
Given the Pillar Two GloBE rules rely on financial accounting information, specific additional rules are provided in Article 3.5 of the OECD Model Rules to correctly allocate the income of transparent entities in a way that reflects most domestic tax treatment.
 
The GloBE income of the tax transparent entity is reduced by any amounts due to non-group members and permanent establishments under Article 3.5.1 of the Model Rules. The remainder is then allocated to the owners of the tax transparent entity in proportion to their ownership interests unless the tax transparent entity is the Ultimate Parent Entity (UPE) of the group (in which case the GloBE income is allocated to the UPE). 

Example – Tax Transparent Entity Allocation

Consider this example:
Group structure - tax transparent
Sub1 is a tax transparent entity and has GloBE income of 10 million, with 5 million attributable to the PE. Firstly, Sub1’s GloBE income is reduced by amounts due to minority holders (10M * 40% = 4 million). The remaining 6 million is then allocated, firstly the PE (3 million) then the UPE (3 million), as Sub1 is a tax transparent entity. 
 
As such, providing the tax transparent entity isn’t the UPE the GloBE income simply passes up to the ownership chain in the group in line with most domestic tax treatment.
 
Similarly, Article 4.3.2(b) of the Model Rules also provides that covered taxes included in the financial accounts are also allocated to the owners to match the income with the associated tax. 
 
This treatment flows up the chain. Therefore, if a tax transparent entity was held by another tax transparent entity, the allocation of GloBE income and covered tax would flow up the chain. If all entities were tax transparent the end result would be that GloBE income would be allocated to the UPE. 

UPE as Tax Transparent

There are special rules to UPEs that are tax transparent, as the UPE owners are not constituent entities of the MNE Group and would not be required to apply the GloBE Rules.
 
As such, the GloBE income of a tax transparent UPE is allocated to it. 
 
However, the ETR of the UPE may be very low or even nil if it is a tax transparent entity given tax on the income would be incurred by the owners of the UPE and not the UPE itself. Therefore, without further provisions this would lead to a substantial top-up tax obligation for tax transparent UPEs even though the income maybe subject to significant tax in the hands of the owners. 
 
The difficulty here is identifying the tax that the owners incur. Simply allocating taxes to the UPE on the UPE income that was accrued by the owners that are outside an MNE Group would be extremely difficult to apply. 
 
As for the standard allocation rules for tax transparent entities, the amount allocated to the UPE is reduced by any amount attributable to a PE or to non-group interests. 
 
However, Article 7.1 of the Model Rules then provides for a number of reductions in the GloBE income of the UPE. The broad intention is that if the owners of the UPE pay tax at or above the 15% minimum rate, the UPEs GloBE income should also be reduced. 
 
The GloBE income of the UPE is reduced in three situations:
  • the holder is subject to tax on its share of the GloBE income at a nominal rate that is at least 15% or if the UPE can demonstrates that it is reasonable to expect that its income will be subject to tax at a rate of at least 15%;
  • the holder is a natural person that is a tax resident in the UPE jurisdiction and holds ownership interests that, in the aggregate, are less than 5% of the UPE; or
  • the holder is a Governmental Entity, an International Organisation, a Non-profit Organisation, or a Pension Fund and holds ownership interests that, in the aggregate, that are less than 5% of the UPE.

These three carve outs can be useful for UPEs.

The GloBE income reduction for natural persons, for instance, recognises that whilst identifying the tax position of minority owners may be difficult for a UPE, individuals are generally not subject to special tax regimes for income from a tax transparent entity.

As such, it is reasonable not to require the UPE to determine the tax position of a natural person that holds an ownership interest of less than 5% of the profits or assets of the UPE. This means that a UPE would be required to identify the tax position of no more than 19 individuals. 

Article 7.1.3 of the Model Rules also requires the UPE to reduce its covered taxes, pro-rata to the GloBE income reduction calculated above (eg a 50% reduction in GloBE income would result in a 50% reduction in covered taxes). It may be that there are no or at least minimal covered taxes anyway if the entity was tax transparent for domestic tax purposes. 

Example – Individuals and a Tax Transparent Entity

Group structure tax transparent partners
Assume the Australian LP has GloBE income of 100 million. 60 million is attributable to the Australian partners and 40 million to the UK partners. 
 
If the Australian partners are all individuals that hold less than 5% of the profits/assets of the UPE and are tax resident in Australia, the 60 million attributable to them is deducted from the UPEs GloBE income under Article 7.1.1(b) of the Model Rules. 
 
If the UK partners are taxed at a rate of 15% or above (as would be expected) the 40 million attributable to them would also be deducted from the UPEs GloBE income under Article 7.1.1(a) of the Model Rules. 
 
As such the GloBE income of the UPE would be nil. 
 
Determining GloBE status when a Flow-through Entity is held directly by another Flow-through Entity
 
The GloBE rules determine whether a Flow-through Entity is classified as a Tax Transparent Entity or a Reverse Hybrid Entity based on whether the Flow-through Entity is treated as fiscally transparent in the “jurisdiction in which the owner is located”.
 
The question then arises if there is a chain of ownership through other flow-through entities in different jurisdictions, which entity is treated as the owner for determining the GloBE status of the entity?
 
The June 2024 OECD Administrative Guidance confirms that the status of a Flow-through Entity as a Tax Transparent Entity or Reverse Hybrid Entity should generally be determined by reference to the tax law of the Constituent Entity-owner closest to the Entity in the ownership chain that is not itself a Flow-through Entity (other than a Flow-through UPE).
 
Application of Article 3.5.3
 
Article 3.5.3 of the GloBE rules reduces the FANIL of a Flow-through Entity by the amount allocable to its owners that are not Group Entities and that hold their Ownership Interest in the Flow-through Entity directly or through a Tax Transparent Structure. The OECD guidance addresses two issues that arise from this.
 
Partially owned Flow-through Entity
 
Article 3.5.4 states that Article 3.5.3 does not apply:
 
(a) where the UPE of the MNE Group is a Flow-through Entity; and
 
(b) where a Flow-through UPE owns the Flow-through Entity directly or indirectly through a Tax Transparent Structure
 
If this provision wasn’t included Article 3.5.3 could have resulted in the FANIL of a Flow-through UPE being reduced to zero because the owners of the Flow-through UPE are all non-Group Entities.
 
The question arises as to whether Article 3.5.4 disapplies Article 3.5.3 fully when there is a non-group owner or whether it applies to the extent of the Ownership Interests owned by the UPE?
 
The June 2024 OECD Administrative Guidance confirms that Article 3.5.4(b) applies when the Ownership Interests in the Flow-through Entity are owned by the UPE directly or indirectly through a Tax Transparent Structure and applies to the extent of the Ownership Interests owned by the UPE.
 
Minority Owners with Indirect Ownership
 
The other issue relating to Article 3.5.3 considered by the June 2024 OECD Administrative Guidance is whether the reference to Tax Transparent Structure in Article 3.5.3 only refers to Ownership Interests of Constituent Entities of the MNE Group or whether it also covers the Ownership Interests owned by the minority investors.
 
If reference to Tax Transparent Structure included the treatment of the Entities through which the minority owners own their Ownership Interests in the tested Entity under the laws of the minority owners’ jurisdiction(s), then the flow-through entity’s FANIL would only be reduced to the extent that the tax laws of the minority owners’ jurisdiction(s) treated the indirect holding entity as a fiscally transparent entity. This would therefore require a determination of the tax treatment in the jurisdiction of a third party.
 
The OECD confirms that this is not the case and Article 3.5.3 requires the FANIL to be reduced when the minority owners’ Ownership Interests in the tested Entity are held directly or are indirectly owned through a Constituent Entity-owner which is a Flow-through Entity and is closer in the ownership chain to the tested Entity than the Reference Entity (i.e. is between the tested Entity and the Reference Entity).
 
Taxes allocated to a flow through entity
 
Article 3.5.1(b) provides that the FANIL of a Tax Transparent Entity that is not the UPE is allocated to its Constituent Entity-owners in accordance with their Ownership Interests (subject to any allocation to a PE or a reduction for non-group owners).
 
In order to match jurisdictional income with related taxes, Article 4.3.2(b) provides that any Covered Taxes accrued by the Tax Transparent Entity with respect to this income should also be allocated to the Constituent Entity-owner.
 
However, Article 4.3.2(b) refers only to Covered Taxes that are accrued in the Tax Transparent Entity’s financial accounts that are used to compute its FANIL. It does not expressly apply to any Covered Taxes that are reallocated from another Constituent Entity to the Tax Transparent Entity under another provision in Article 4.3, for example the CFC pushdown.
 
The June 2024 OECD Administrative Guidance confirms hat taxes allocated to a Tax Transparent Entity under Article 4.3.2 should be allocated under Article 4.3.2(b) in the same way as Covered Taxes accrued by the Tax Transparent Entity. As such the tax will follow the allocation of the income.
 
This means that Covered Taxes should first be allocated to the Tax Transparent Entity under the relevant sub-paragraph of Article 4.3.2 (eg under a CFC or Hybrid pushdown). Article 4.3.2(b) then allocates both Covered Taxes accrued by the Tax Transparent Entity and any Covered Taxes that are allocated to it, to the constituent-entity owner.
 
Hybrid Entities
 
Article 4.3.2(d) of the OECD Model Rules allocates Covered Taxes that are included in the financial accounts of a Constituent Entity-owner of a Hybrid Entity to the Hybrid Entity. This is again based on the matching principle that taxes should be included in the same jurisdictional ETR computation as the profits to which they relate.
 
A Hybrid Entity is defined in Article 10.2.5 as a separate taxable person for income tax purposes in the jurisdiction where it is located but fiscally transparent in the jurisdiction where its ‘owner’ is located.
 
Does ‘owner’ include indirect owners?
 
In order to prevent double taxation and ensure the consistent application of the matching principle the latest OECD guidance confirms that “owner” refers to both the direct and indirect Constituent Entity-owners of the entity.
 
Therefore, covered taxes reflected in the financial accounts of the direct and indirect Constituent Entity-owners that relates to the income of the Hybrid Entity and are imposed because the Entity is fiscally transparent under the tax law applicable to the direct and indirect Constituent Entity-owners will be allocated to the Hybrid Entity (subject to the passive income limitation).
 
Entities located in jurisdictions without a Corporate Income Tax
 
Under Article 10.2.5 of the OECD Model Rules, an Entity can only be considered a Hybrid Entity if it is treated as a separate taxable person for income tax purposes in the jurisdiction where it is located. As such, the Hybrid Entity definition in Article 10.2.5 does not apply when a Constituent Entity is located in a jurisdiction without a CIT because the Entity will not be treated as a separate taxable person in that jurisdiction.
 
This would lead to a breakdown in the matching principle because the tax of the Constituent Entity[1]owner will not be included in the same jurisdictional ETR computation as the profit to which it relates. There is also no clear policy justification for only allocating taxes to a Constituent Entity when it is located in a jurisdiction with a CIT. Article 4.3.2(d) only applies when the Constituent Entity is a Hybrid Entity or a Reverse Hybrid Entity.
 
The June 2024 OECD Administrative Guidance confirms that the Hybrid Entity definition will also apply to an Entity that is not treated as fiscally transparent under Article 10.2.4 and is located in a jurisdiction under Article 10.3.1(b).
 
Matching of taxes and income where an owner is subject to tax with respect to a Reverse Hybrid Entity’s income
 
As noted above, this OECD guidance confirms that the tax law of the Reference Entity’s jurisdiction determines whether a Flow-through Entity is treated as a Tax Transparent Entity or a Reverse Hybrid Entity.
 
However, this rule may not always match the Flow-through Entity’s profit and the MNE Group’s tax on that profit in the same jurisdictional ETR computation if the Entity is owned through a chain of Entities.
 
This is because the jurisdictions where the owners are located could take different views on the transparency of an Entity, with some treating an entity as fiscally transparent and some as opaque.
 
In order to ensure the tax is matched with the income the June 2024 OECD Administrative Guidance extends the hybrid pushdown to reverse hybrid entities. As such Covered Taxes paid by a direct or indirect Constituent Entity-owner with respect to the profits of a Reverse Hybrid Entity are allocated to the Reverse Hybrid Entity under Article 4.3.2(d). This also means that the passive income limitation in Article 4.3.3 will also apply.
 
This will also have a QDMTT impact as the OECD Guidance also confirms that the relevant Commentary on the determination of a QDMTT will also be amended.
 
The existing guidance requires a domestic minimum tax to exclude the Covered Tax expense of:
 
-a Constituent Entity-owner under a CFC Tax Regime that is allocable to a domestic Constituent Entity under Article 4.3.2(c) of the GloBE Rules;
 
-a Main Entity that is allocable under Article 4.3.2(a) to a Permanent Establishment located in the jurisdiction;
 
-a Constituent Entity-owner on income of a Hybrid Entity that is allocable under Article 4.3.2(d) to a Hybrid Entity that is either located in the jurisdiction or is included in the scope of the QDMTT because the QDMTT applies to stateless Flow-through Entities created in the QDMTT jurisdiction;
 
-Constituent Entity-owner (e.g. net basis taxes), other than a withholding tax imposed by the QDMTT jurisdiction, that is allocable to a distributing Constituent Entity located in the jurisdiction under Article 4.3.2 (e).
 
The June 2024 OECD Administrative Guidance extends the prohibition of taxes being pushed doe to hybrid entities so that it also includes reverse hybrid entities.

Latest Articles

Pension Fund

Pension Funds & Pillar Two

Pension funds are subject to a number of specific provisions under the Pillar Two rules. In this article we look at some of the key aspects of Pillar Two that impact on Pension Funds.

Read More »