Base Erosion and Profit Shifting

Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) represents a comprehensive phenomenon within international tax law wherein multinational enterprises exploit legal gaps, asymmetries, and inconsistencies among disparate tax systems to artificially transfer profits to low-tax or no-tax jurisdictions where substantive economic activity often remains absent. This phenomenon, identified and denominated by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in the early twenty-first century, has emerged as among the most formidable challenges confronting contemporary fiscal policy, generating estimated global revenue losses between $100-240 billion annually according to OECD calculations.

The magnitude of these revenue losses, while substantial in absolute terms, represents merely one dimension of BEPS’s pernicious effects. Perhaps more significantly, these practices fundamentally distort competitive dynamics, undermine public confidence in tax system integrity, and compromise fiscal sovereignty—particularly affecting developing economies whose revenue structures depend heavily upon corporate income taxation (check: tax advisory). The phenomenon’s complexity derives not from simple tax evasion, which violates existing law, but rather from sophisticated exploitation of legal (check: legal advice) structures and regulatory arbitrage opportunities inherent in a fragmented international tax framework premised upon bilateral treaties and uncoordinated national systems developed for a fundamentally different economic era.

Taxonomic Analysis: Principal BEPS Mechanisms

A. Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements

Mechanisms deployed within BEPS strategies rely upon sophisticated financial and legal engineering (check: strategic consulting) exploiting fundamental differences in how various tax systems characterize particular transactions. Hybrid instruments exemplify this approach—structured to qualify as debt generating deductible interest expense in one jurisdiction while simultaneously treated as equity producing non-taxable dividends in another. Similarly, hybrid entity structures generate double non-taxation scenarios when an entity receives transparent treatment in one state but opaque classification in another, enabling income to escape taxation in both jurisdictions.

The economic substance underlying these arrangements frequently proves negligible or nonexistent. Rather than reflecting genuine business determinations regarding optimal capital structure or entity form, hybrid mismatches represent pure tax arbitrage—engineered specifically to exploit classificatory inconsistencies between tax systems. The fact that sophisticated financial institutions and advisory firms market these structures as standardized products underscores their artificiality and tax-motivated character.

B. Transfer Pricing Manipulation

Transfer pricing constitutes another critical domain for BEPS practices, wherein manipulation of intercompany transaction pricing achieves artificial profit shifting. Multinational enterprises frequently locate valuable intangible assets—patents, trademarks, proprietary know-how—in entities registered within preferential tax jurisdictions, subsequently extracting substantial royalty payments from operating subsidiaries functioning in higher-tax countries. This mechanism, denominated transfer pricing manipulation, produces situations where profits generated through substantive economic activity systematically migrate toward locations offering favorable tax treatment.

The intellectual property migration strategy proves particularly pernicious, as intangible assets’ inherently subjective valuation permits substantial pricing latitude beyond what comparable uncontrolled transaction analysis can effectively constrain. Multinational groups engineer “cost contribution arrangements” purportedly compensating low-tax affiliates for research and development activities, then allocate disproportionate residual profit returns to these entities despite operational activities occurring predominantly elsewhere. The disconnect between value creation locus and profit taxation location fundamentally contravenes the arm’s length principle supposedly governing intercompany pricing.

C. Intragroup Debt Financing Strategies

Intragroup debt financing represents the third pillar of BEPS strategies, exploiting asymmetric treatment of financing costs. Operating companies in high-tax jurisdictions receive excessive debt funding from related-party lenders in low-tax jurisdictions, enabling tax base reduction through interest deductions while simultaneously transferring profits through interest payments. This practice, termed thin capitalization or earnings stripping, prompted numerous states to implement limitations on debt financing cost deductibility.

The artificiality of these arrangements becomes evident when examining actual capital deployment patterns. Frequently, multinational groups demonstrate high consolidated equity ratios, indicating substantial overall capitalization, while simultaneously maintaining extreme debt leverage in high-tax operating jurisdictions. This pattern reveals that capital structure decisions reflect tax optimization rather than business risk management or genuine financing constraints. Moreover, related-party loans often feature terms—interest rates, maturity schedules, subordination provisions—that would prove unacceptable to arm’s length commercial lenders, further demonstrating their tax-motivated character.

The OECD/G20 BEPS Project: Multilateral Reform Initiative

International community response to the escalating BEPS challenge manifested through an unprecedented initiative launched in 2013 by the OECD collaborating with the G20, denominated the BEPS Project. This initiative, initially encompassing fifteen comprehensive Actions, targeted fundamental reform of international tax frameworks, enhanced domestic rule coherence, and increased multinational corporation transparency. The Action Plan incorporated both minimum standards mandating implementation by all participating jurisdictions and best practice recommendations for particular domains.

The BEPS Project’s political momentum derived substantially from confluence of several factors: the 2008 global financial crisis’s fiscal pressures intensifying revenue concerns; journalistic exposés revealing aggressive tax planning by prominent multinationals; and civil society mobilization demanding greater tax justice. This convergence created unprecedented political will for multilateral tax reform, overcoming traditional obstacles including sovereignty concerns, coordination difficulties, and resistance from jurisdictions benefiting from tax competition.

A. Key BEPS Actions: Structural Components

Among critical BEPS Project Actions, several warrant particular attention for their structural significance. Action 2 addresses hybrid mismatch arrangement neutralization, recommending domestic law provisions denying deductions or requiring income inclusions to eliminate double non-taxation outcomes. Action 4 targets base erosion through interest and financial payment deductions, proposing limitations based upon fixed ratios or earnings-based tests to constrain artificial leverage.

Action 5 combats harmful tax practices with particular emphasis upon transparency and substance requirements, establishing frameworks for evaluating preferential regimes and mandating spontaneous exchange of advance tax ruling information. Action 6 prevents tax treaty abuse, introducing principal purpose tests and limitation-on-benefits provisions constraining treaty shopping arrangements. Action 13 revolutionizes transfer pricing documentation and country-by-country reporting, implementing three-tiered documentation comprising master files describing global business operations, local files detailing specific jurisdiction activities, and country-by-country reports allocating income, taxes paid, and economic activity indicators across jurisdictions.

European Union Implementation: The ATAD Framework

BEPS recommendation implementation across jurisdictions proceeded heterogeneously, reflecting local legal and economic contexts. Within the European Union, this process accelerated significantly through adoption of Anti-Tax Avoidance Directives (ATAD and ATAD 2), which bindingly imposed upon member states obligations to implement key BEPS package elements. These directives introduced *inter alia* general anti-avoidance rules, interest deductibility limitations, controlled foreign company taxation, and exit tax provisions (check – how to changing tax residency).

The ATAD framework represents noteworthy evolution in EU tax policy, marking departure from traditional reliance upon soft coordination mechanisms toward binding harmonization in corporate taxation domains previously reserved largely to member state competence. This shift reflects both BEPS challenge urgency and recognition that voluntary coordination proves insufficient when substantial revenue and competitive interests diverge across member states. Nevertheless, ATAD implementation has generated tensions, as member states with historically permissive tax regimes resist provisions constraining their competitive positioning.

Polish Implementation: Multilateral and Autonomous Measures

Polish BEPS standard implementation proceeded through multiple channels, encompassing both EU directive transposition and autonomous legislative initiatives. Comprehensive transfer pricing regulations emerged, substantially expanding documentation obligations and introducing local country-by-country reporting versions for the largest capital groups. Debt financing cost limitation received regulatory treatment through thin capitalization provisions, subsequently supplanted by more restrictive EBITDA-based regulations. Poland also implemented CFC rules, exit taxation provisions, and elaborate mandatory disclosure requirements concerning tax schemes (MDR).

The Polish implementation experience illustrates broader challenges confronting jurisdictions implementing BEPS standards. Balancing effective base protection against maintaining competitive attractiveness for foreign investment generates persistent tensions. Poland’s substantial reliance upon foreign direct investment, particularly in manufacturing and business services sectors, creates incentives for measured implementation avoiding excessive compliance burdens or competitive disadvantage relative to neighboring jurisdictions. Simultaneously, revenue protection imperatives and European Commission scrutiny constrain overly permissive approaches.

The Inclusive Framework: Global Expansion

The Inclusive Framework on BEPS, established in 2016, extended the initiative beyond the original OECD and G20 constituency, currently encompassing over 140 jurisdictions. Participation obligates implementing four minimum standards: combating harmful tax practices, preventing tax treaty abuse, introducing country-by-country reporting, and improving tax dispute resolution mechanisms. Implementation monitoring occurs through peer review processes, ensuring consistent and effective agreed standard adoption.

The Inclusive Framework’s formation represents significant departure from traditional international tax governance, where OECD-developed standards flowed outward to non-member states with limited input opportunities. Developing country participation in standard-setting processes, while imperfect, marks meaningful progress toward more inclusive global tax governance. Nevertheless, power asymmetries persist, as technical capacity constraints limit many developing countries’ ability to participate effectively in complex negotiations, and implementation costs prove disproportionately burdensome for jurisdictions with limited administrative resources.

Economic Consequences: Beyond Direct Revenue Loss

BEPS phenomenon economic consequences extend well beyond direct budgetary revenue losses. These practices distort competition among enterprises, privileging multinational corporations possessing resources enabling complex optimization structure implementation over local businesses paying taxes at nominal rates. For developing countries, where corporate income taxation often constitutes significant budgetary revenue shares, BEPS effects prove particularly severe, constraining infrastructure development and public service financing capacity.

The competitive distortion dimension merits particular emphasis. BEPS practices effectively create two-tier taxation systems: one applicable to sophisticated multinational enterprises capable of implementing aggressive tax planning, another applicable to domestic businesses lacking comparable opportunities. This bifurcation undermines horizontal equity—the principle that similarly situated taxpayers should bear comparable tax burdens—while simultaneously creating efficiency distortions, as business decisions reflect tax considerations rather than genuine economic advantages.

A. Distributional Implications

BEPS distributional consequences prove especially concerning. Revenue losses from corporate tax avoidance ultimately necessitate either reduced public expenditure, alternative revenue source increases, or enhanced public debt. Each alternative generates regressive distributional effects, as reduced public services disproportionately affect lower-income populations, consumption tax increases prove inherently regressive, and debt service crowds out productive public investment. Thus, while BEPS appears as technical corporate taxation matter, its ultimate incidence falls substantially upon individuals lacking responsibility for or benefit from the tax planning strategies generating revenue losses.

Social and Political Dimensions: Public Trust and Tax Justice

BEPS social dimensions fully emerged following the 2008 global financial crisis, when publicized instances of aggressive tax optimization by prominent corporations generated public outrage and demands for enhanced tax fairness. Public opinion pressure and civil society organization advocacy significantly contributed to political mobilization surrounding international tax system reform, driving unprecedented BEPS Project work pace.

Media investigations—including revelations from data leaks such as LuxLeaks, Panama Papers, and Paradise Papers—proved instrumental in generating public awareness and political momentum. These exposés demonstrated that aggressive tax planning extended far beyond legal technical matters, raising fundamental questions regarding corporate social responsibility, tax system legitimacy, and the social contract between corporations and societies hosting their operations.

BEPS 2.0: Continuing Evolution

A. The Two-Pillar Solution

The BEPS initiative continues evolving through what practitioners term “BEPS 2.0″—addressing digital economy taxation challenges and implementing global minimum taxation. This phase rests upon two pillars designed to ensure more equitable distribution of taxing rights and prevent continued base erosion through low-tax jurisdiction profit shifting.

Pillar One reallocates taxing rights over automated digital services and consumer-facing businesses, enabling market jurisdictions to tax portions of multinational enterprise profits regardless of physical presence. This represents fundamental departure from traditional permanent establishment requirements, acknowledging that value creation in digital economies occurs differently than in physical goods production and distribution.

Pillar Two establishes a global minimum tax, currently set at fifteen percent, ensuring that multinational enterprises pay minimum effective taxation regardless of where they locate profits. This approach addresses BEPS through direct limitation on tax competition, establishing a floor below which effective rates cannot fall. Implementation occurs through income inclusion rules requiring parent companies to pay top-up taxes when subsidiaries face sub-minimum taxation, and undertaxed payments rules denying deductions for payments to low-taxed related parties.

B. Implications for Poland and Technology Enterprises

For Poland, BEPS 2.0 presents particular challenges given numerous technology enterprises achieving effective tax rates below fifteen percent through various incentive programs, including intellectual property box regimes and research and development credits. The global minimum tax will directly impact tax policy formulation, potentially requiring recalibration of incentive structures to maintain competitiveness while ensuring minimum taxation compliance.

Polish policymakers confront difficult choices: maintaining incentive generosity risks rendering them ineffective as minimum taxes capture intended benefits, while eliminating incentives may reduce competitiveness for mobile investment. The optimal path likely involves refocusing incentives toward non-tax dimensions—infrastructure quality, skilled workforce availability, regulatory efficiency—that generate genuine competitive advantages beyond pure tax savings.

Conclusion: Toward a More Resilient International Tax Framework

The BEPS initiative represents the most comprehensive international tax reform undertaking in nearly a century, fundamentally restructuring the framework governing multinational enterprise taxation. While significant progress has occurred—enhanced transparency, reduced aggressive planning opportunities, improved administrative cooperation—the effort remains incomplete. Successful implementation demands sustained political commitment, adequate administrative capacity, and continued multilateral cooperation transcending narrow national interests.

The ultimate measure of BEPS success lies not merely in technical rule adoption but in restored public confidence that tax systems operate fairly, that multinational enterprises contribute appropriately to financing public goods, and that tax competition occurs within reasonable bounds rather than racing toward the bottom. Achieving these objectives requires ongoing vigilance, adaptive responses to emerging avoidance techniques, and willingness to continue refining international tax architecture as economic structures evolve.

—

Skarbiec Law Firm: Strategic BEPS Compliance Advisory. Our firm provides comprehensive guidance ensuring tax planning strategies incorporate Base Erosion and Profit Shifting regulatory requirements, balancing compliance obligations with legitimate tax efficiency objectives.

—

Selected Publications from Skarbiec Law Firm

BEPS 2.0: Impact of New Regulations on Polish Taxpayers

Robert Nogacki, May 30, 2023 — In 2013, tax system reforms commenced through BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) package implementation. This OECD and G20 project currently advances into a subsequent phase, colloquially termed BEPS 2.0. This stage’s objective involves more effective taxation of the largest firms through two pillars designed to ensure more equitable distribution among states of aggregate taxes paid by corporations operating within their territories.

BEPS 2.0’s principal assumption addresses base erosion prevention when operating in jurisdictions where effective tax rates fall below fifteen percent. Notably, given numerous tax incentives in Poland, many technology enterprises maintain effective tax rates below fifteen percent, rendering proposed changes directly influential upon Polish tax policy formulation in coming years.

The fifteen percent minimum rate threshold creates particular challenges for jurisdictions, including Poland, that have deployed preferential regimes attracting high-value investment. These regimes—encompassing intellectual property boxes, innovation incentives, and special economic zones—frequently generate effective rates substantially below the global minimum. BEPS 2.0 implementation will necessitate either regime restructuring or acceptance that incentive benefits will flow to foreign treasuries through top-up taxation rather than benefiting intended recipients.

Moreover, Polish enterprises forming parts of multinational groups face increased compliance burdens and potential additional taxation. Groups must calculate jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction effective tax rates, determine top-up tax obligations, and navigate complex allocation rules distributing additional taxation among group members. The administrative complexity proves substantial, particularly for mid-sized enterprises lacking sophisticated tax departments or resources for specialized advisory services.

The transition period provides limited time for adjustment. Polish businesses and policymakers must rapidly assess implications, restructure arrangements proving vulnerable under new rules, and develop strategies maintaining competitiveness within constrained parameters. Those acting proactively to understand and adapt to BEPS 2.0 requirements will prove better positioned than entities awaiting regulatory compulsion before addressing necessary changes.

Robert Nogacki

Founder and Managing Partner of Skarbiec Law Firm, recognized by Dziennik Gazeta Prawna as one of the best tax advisory firms in Poland (2023, 2024). Legal advisor with 19 years of experience, serving Forbes-listed entrepreneurs and innovative start-ups. One of the most frequently quoted experts on commercial and tax law in the Polish media, regularly publishing in Rzeczpospolita, Gazeta Wyborcza, and Dziennik Gazeta Prawna. Author of the publication “AI Decoding Satoshi Nakamoto. Artificial Intelligence on the Trail of Bitcoin’s Creator” and co-author of the award-winning book “Bezpieczeństwo współczesnej firmy” (Security of a Modern Company). LinkedIn profile: 18 500 followers, 4 million views per year. Awards: 4-time winner of the European Medal, Golden Statuette of the Polish Business Leader, title of “International Tax Planning Law Firm of the Year in Poland.” He specializes in strategic legal consulting, tax planning, and crisis management for business.