International Tax Board Agnieszka Talasiewicz Partner, Law / Tax Controversy at Ernst & Young
Ernst & Young provides Tax Controversy
services for
companies. Can you discuss how you would do this?
Tax Controversy services has been an important part of our offering for quite a long time.
Historically, majority of cases meant our involvement in the disputes with the tax authorities. This is still an important part of our work. The number of disputes we have been handling, with a considerable proportion of them ending in a favourable outcome, has positioned us well to develop a set of rules applied to any case:
Agnieszka Talasiewicz - Partner, Law / Tax Controversy at Ernst & Young
• We take individualised approaches to client cases.
• We invariably begin with a review of documents – we rely on facts, not information gathered by communication.
• Before we get involved in a dispute, we give the client a fair assessment of his chances of success and do not recommend initiating a case if a victory is remote and alternatives to a dispute are available.
• At the start of a dispute, we always seek to develop a strategy for further stages.
• Throughout the dispute proceeding we stay in contact with the client and tax authorities alike.
• We build our relations with tax authorities on trust and do not employ any contrivances that might damage the client’s good reputation with the authorities.
• If a case offers potential for success, we succeed (and always seek to ensure the same result in any “no-chance-of- success” cases).
Michal Goj - Senior Manager / Tax Controversy at Ernst & Young
Once the market becomes more mature and global, our tax controversy is often focused on actually avoiding the disputes and ensuring the clients have proper understating of risks. We are involved in the procedures for alternative dispute
Q
Michal Senior Manager,
Tax Controversy Services - Poland Q
resolutions, such as obtaining advance tax rulings, engaging into discussions with the tax authorities before any dispute arises, and so forth. Tax controversy support is also a valuable add-in to any tax planning ideas, where you have to assess the likelihood of the transaction being successfully challenged under tools and mechanisms available to the tax authorities.
Multinational corporations are facing
a challenging tax
environment: a convergence of global forces has resulted in an increase in the number and size of tax audits, assessments, and disputes with revenue authorities worldwide. Can you explain more about State and Local Tax Controversy, and what they mean for businesses?
In Poland, most of the tax controversy issues concentrate at the State level. However, there are still a number of differences between interpretation and application of tax law between various parts of Poland. Like everywhere else, the Polish government makes all effort to increase effectiveness of tax enforcement. The Polish tax authorities do not opt for increase in number of tax audits, which is more or less the same each year or even decreases, but concentrate on diligence, intensity and most of all targeting the taxpayers. For businesses, it means that they need to understand what the risk of the tax audit in their particular situation is. In case an audit is likely, they would need to allocate significant resources to serve the audit, unless they do the homework first to get prepared. The current approach of the tax authorities means that it is now more likely than few years ago that they would challenge even those tax set-ups, which were not controversial so far.
enactment of a GAAR (General Anti Avoidance Rule). Does Poland use this rule? If not, why? Is there an equivalent rule in use in Poland?
Q
Enactment of GAAR is one of the hot topics for the tax policy makers globally. A new Ernst &
According to PwC, countries such as UK and India are considering the
86
www.finance-monthly.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112