reviewing the OECD's and the EU’s assessment of Singapore's development and expansion incentive

This paper analyses and describes which norms can be derived from the OECD’s and the EU’s work on preventing harmful taxation that influence how Singapore should design and administer its Development and Expansion Incentive (‘DEI’). This analysis is relief upon in reviewing the Forum on Harmful Tax...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: BOULOGNE, Frederik
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2019
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soa_research/1847
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soa_research/article/2878/viewcontent/SSRN_id3349404.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
id sg-smu-ink.soa_research-2878
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.soa_research-28782020-05-27T14:50:00Z reviewing the OECD's and the EU’s assessment of Singapore's development and expansion incentive BOULOGNE, Frederik This paper analyses and describes which norms can be derived from the OECD’s and the EU’s work on preventing harmful taxation that influence how Singapore should design and administer its Development and Expansion Incentive (‘DEI’). This analysis is relief upon in reviewing the Forum on Harmful Tax Practice’s conclusion that the DEI is not harmful and the decision not to place Singapore on the EU’s list of non-cooperative jurisdictions; a decision that suggests that the Council of the European Union considers Singapore to have adequately implemented the minimum anti-BEPS standards, of which BEPS Action 5 is one. These verdicts are, in the present author’s view, perfectly defensible, but they are nonetheless hard to justify on the basis of the criteria that were supposedly applied by the FHTP and the Council of the European Union. Particularly on the standards of ‘transparency’ and the ‘substantial activity requirement’ it seems difficult to conclude on the basis of the relevant legal provisions in, for instance, the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86) or Singapore’s Income Tax Act, that the DEI is really sufficiently transparent and that the right substantial activities are required for the DEI. The present author, therefore, recommends the FHTP and the Council of the European Union to give much more insight as to why, and on which basis, the verdicts in the 2017 Progress Report were ultimately made and why the list of non-cooperative jurisdictions was drawn up as it was. 2019-03-01T08:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soa_research/1847 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soa_research/article/2878/viewcontent/SSRN_id3349404.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection School Of Accountancy eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Accounting Asian Studies International and Area Studies
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic Accounting
Asian Studies
International and Area Studies
spellingShingle Accounting
Asian Studies
International and Area Studies
BOULOGNE, Frederik
reviewing the OECD's and the EU’s assessment of Singapore's development and expansion incentive
description This paper analyses and describes which norms can be derived from the OECD’s and the EU’s work on preventing harmful taxation that influence how Singapore should design and administer its Development and Expansion Incentive (‘DEI’). This analysis is relief upon in reviewing the Forum on Harmful Tax Practice’s conclusion that the DEI is not harmful and the decision not to place Singapore on the EU’s list of non-cooperative jurisdictions; a decision that suggests that the Council of the European Union considers Singapore to have adequately implemented the minimum anti-BEPS standards, of which BEPS Action 5 is one. These verdicts are, in the present author’s view, perfectly defensible, but they are nonetheless hard to justify on the basis of the criteria that were supposedly applied by the FHTP and the Council of the European Union. Particularly on the standards of ‘transparency’ and the ‘substantial activity requirement’ it seems difficult to conclude on the basis of the relevant legal provisions in, for instance, the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86) or Singapore’s Income Tax Act, that the DEI is really sufficiently transparent and that the right substantial activities are required for the DEI. The present author, therefore, recommends the FHTP and the Council of the European Union to give much more insight as to why, and on which basis, the verdicts in the 2017 Progress Report were ultimately made and why the list of non-cooperative jurisdictions was drawn up as it was.
format text
author BOULOGNE, Frederik
author_facet BOULOGNE, Frederik
author_sort BOULOGNE, Frederik
title reviewing the OECD's and the EU’s assessment of Singapore's development and expansion incentive
title_short reviewing the OECD's and the EU’s assessment of Singapore's development and expansion incentive
title_full reviewing the OECD's and the EU’s assessment of Singapore's development and expansion incentive
title_fullStr reviewing the OECD's and the EU’s assessment of Singapore's development and expansion incentive
title_full_unstemmed reviewing the OECD's and the EU’s assessment of Singapore's development and expansion incentive
title_sort reviewing the oecd's and the eu’s assessment of singapore's development and expansion incentive
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2019
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soa_research/1847
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soa_research/article/2878/viewcontent/SSRN_id3349404.pdf
_version_ 1770575259628470272