The Netherlands’ state secretary for finance Eric Wiebes sent a letter to the Dutch parliament outlining the government’s view on the OECD’s final BEPS package, noting that future international developments resulting from the BEPS project may require the Netherlands to change its domestic laws. ‘The new [BEPS] standards are aligned with the principles which underpin the Dutch system,’ Wiebes wrote. ‘Inevitably, [BEPS] will also have to amend certain national rules so that, for example, [the Dutch] tax system is better aligned with those of other countries. This may meet with resistance, but resistance alone will place us in an unsustainable, isolated position, and this could unnecessarily damage the Netherlands’ reputation’. He went on to say that foreign markets ‘are vitally important for businesses from a small country’ and that to achieve similar economy of scale as multinationals in larger countries, ‘it is especially important for Dutch companies to do business across borders’ and that the tax system should continue to reflect that.
‘If the Netherlands unilaterally implements a number of BEPS outcomes that increase the tax burden, the Netherlands could become less attractive than other countries in the future,’ he added. ‘Where the introduction of BEPS measures gives rise to undesirable or unintended increases in the tax burden, I will, taking into account the BEPS revenue target, seek to identify compensatory measures. This could mean lowering the headline rate of corporation tax, changing the corporation tax rate structure, a separate box within the corporate income tax regime, changes to dividend withholding tax or a combination of these measures.’
For Wiebes' full letter to the Dutch parliament (English version), see www.bit.ly/1hSqH6z.
The Netherlands’ state secretary for finance Eric Wiebes sent a letter to the Dutch parliament outlining the government’s view on the OECD’s final BEPS package, noting that future international developments resulting from the BEPS project may require the Netherlands to change its domestic laws. ‘The new [BEPS] standards are aligned with the principles which underpin the Dutch system,’ Wiebes wrote. ‘Inevitably, [BEPS] will also have to amend certain national rules so that, for example, [the Dutch] tax system is better aligned with those of other countries. This may meet with resistance, but resistance alone will place us in an unsustainable, isolated position, and this could unnecessarily damage the Netherlands’ reputation’. He went on to say that foreign markets ‘are vitally important for businesses from a small country’ and that to achieve similar economy of scale as multinationals in larger countries, ‘it is especially important for Dutch companies to do business across borders’ and that the tax system should continue to reflect that.
‘If the Netherlands unilaterally implements a number of BEPS outcomes that increase the tax burden, the Netherlands could become less attractive than other countries in the future,’ he added. ‘Where the introduction of BEPS measures gives rise to undesirable or unintended increases in the tax burden, I will, taking into account the BEPS revenue target, seek to identify compensatory measures. This could mean lowering the headline rate of corporation tax, changing the corporation tax rate structure, a separate box within the corporate income tax regime, changes to dividend withholding tax or a combination of these measures.’
For Wiebes' full letter to the Dutch parliament (English version), see www.bit.ly/1hSqH6z.
