Making dispute resolution more effective - MAP peer review report, Hungary : (stage 1) : inclusive framework on BEPS: action 14.

Description

Foreword Abbreviations and Acronyms Executive summary Introduction Available mechanisms in Hungary to resolve tax treaty-related disputes Recent developments in Hungary Basis for the peer review process Overview of MAP caseload in Hungary General outline of the peer review report Notes Part A. Preventing disputes [A.1] Include Article 25(3), first sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention in tax treaties Current situation of Hungary tax treaties Anticipated modifications Multilateral Instrument Bilateral modifications Peer input Conclusion [A.2] Provide roll-back of bilateral APAs in appropriate cases Hungary’s APA programme Roll-back of bilateral APAs Practical application of roll-back of bilateral APAs Anticipated modifications Conclusion Notes References Part B. Availability and access to MAP [B.1] Include Article 25(1) of the OECD Model Tax Convention in tax treaties Current situation of Hungary’s tax treaties Inclusion of Article 25(1), first sentence of the OECD Model Tax Convention Inclusion of Article 25(1), second sentence of the OECD Model Tax Convention Practical application Article 25(1), first sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention Anticipated modifications Multilateral Instrument Article 25(1), first sentence of the OECD Model Tax Convention Article 25(1), second sentence of the OECD Model Tax Convention Bilateral modifications Peer input Conclusion [B.2] Allow submission of MAP requests to the competent authority of either treaty partner, or, alternatively, introduce a bilateral consultation or notification process Domestic bilateral consultation or notification process in place Practical application Anticipated modifications Conclusion [B.3] Provide access to MAP in transfer pricing cases Legal and administrative framework Application of legal and administrative framework in practice Anticipated modifications Conclusion [B.4] Provide access to MAP in relation to the application of anti-abuse provisions Legal and administrative framework Practical application Anticipated modifications Conclusion [B.5] Provide access to MAP in cases of audit settlements Legal and administrative framework Audit settlements Administrative or statutory dispute settlement/resolution process Practical application Anticipated modifications Conclusion [B.6] Provide access to MAP if required information is submitted Legal framework on access to MAP and information to be submitted Practical application Anticipated modifications Conclusion [B.7] Include Article 25(3), second sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention in tax treaties Current situation of Hungary’s tax treaties Anticipated modifications Multilateral Instrument Bilateral modifications Peer input Conclusion [B.8] Publish clear and comprehensive MAP guidance Hungary’s MAP guidance Information and documentation to be included in a MAP request Anticipated modifications Conclusion [B.9] Make MAP guidance available and easily accessible and publish MAP profile Rules, guidelines and procedures on access to and use of the MAP MAP profile Anticipated modifications Conclusion [B.10] Clarify in MAP guidance that audit settlements do not preclude access to MAP MAP and audit settlements in the MAP guidance MAP and other administrative or statutory dispute settlement/resolution processes in available guidance Notification of treaty partners of existing administrative or statutory dispute settlement/resolution processes Anticipated modifications Conclusion Notes References Part C. Resolution of MAP cases [C.1] Include Article 25(2), first sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention in tax treaties Current situation of Hungary’s tax treaties Anticipated modifications Multilateral Instrument Bilateral modifications Peer input Conclusion [C.2] Seek to resolve MAP cases within a 24-month average timeframe Reporting of MAP statistics Monitoring of MAP statistics Analysis of Hungary’s MAP caseload Global overview Pre-2016 cases Post-2015 cases Overview of cases closed during the Statistics Reporting Period Reported outcomes Reported outcomes for attribution / allocation cases Reported outcomes for other cases Average timeframe needed to resolve MAP cases All cases closed during the Statistics Reporting Period Pre-2016 cases Post-2015 cases Peer input Anticipated modifications Conclusion [C.3] Provide adequate resources to the MAP function Description of Hungary’s competent authority Monitoring mechanism Practical application MAP statistics Peer input General Resolving MAP cases Anticipated modifications Conclusion [C.4] Ensure staff in charge of MAP has the authority to resolve cases in accordance with the applicable tax treaty Functioning of staff in charge of MAP Practical application Anticipated modifications Conclusion [C.5] Use appropriate performance indicators for the MAP function Performance indicators used by Hungary Practical application Anticipated modifications Conclusion [C.6] Provide transparency with respect to the position on MAP arbitration Position on MAP arbitration Practical application Anticipated modifications Conclusion Notes References Part D. Implementation of MAP agreements [D.1] Implement all MAP agreements Legal framework to implement MAP agreements Practical application Anticipated modifications Conclusion Practical application Anticipated modifications Conclusion [D.3] Include Article 25(2), second sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention in tax treaties or alternative provisions in Article 9(1) and Article 7(2) Legal framework and current situation of the Hungary’s tax treaties Anticipated modifications Multilateral Instrument Bilateral modifications Peer input Conclusion Notes References Summary Annex A. Tax treaty network of Hungary Annex B. MAP Statistics Reporting for the 2016 and 2017 Reporting Periods (1 January 2016 to 31 December 2017) for Pre-2016 Cases Annex C. MAP Statistics Reporting for the 2016 and 2017 Reporting Periods (1 January 2016 to 31 December 2017) for Post-2015 Cases Glossary