The hybrid financial instruments the effects of the OECD BEPS Action 2 Report and the ATAD Bart Peeters & Lars Vanneste
By: Peeters, Bart
.
Contributor(s): Vanneste, Lars
.
Material type: 









Item type | Current location | Home library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Artículos | IEF | IEF | OP 2141/2020/1-3 (Browse shelf) | Available | OP 2141/2020/1-3 |
Browsing IEF Shelves Close shelf browser
No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
OP 2141/2020/12-5 The benefits of differentiated transparency | OP 2141/2020/12-6 Implementation of BEPS recommendations in Indonesia’s new APA and transfer pricing rules | OP 2141/2020/12-7 International trade, a never-ending trend | OP 2141/2020/1-3 The hybrid financial instruments | OP 2141/2020/1-4 The troubled story of the Hungarian advertisement tax | OP 2141/2020/1-5 Advance pricing arrangements | OP 2141/2020/1-6 Challenges of applying the comparability analysis in curtailing transfer pricing |
Resumen.
This contribution provides a critical comprehensive analysis of the complex hybrid mismatches rules concerning financial instruments. Challenging the compatibility of ATAD with the OECD initiative, the authors illuminate the differences between both approaches and identify risks of conflicting domestic implementations caused by remaining uncertainties of this hybrid financial instrument rule. As EU-Member States had to transpose the provisions of the hybrid financial instrument rule by 31 December 2019 and apply them per 1 January 2020, 2019 was the year that domestic legislators had to confront existing domestic rules with these requirements.
There are no comments for this item.