Tax Controversy Leaders · Wilkinson, Martin Morgan, David Pritchard, Bashar AL-Rehany, Andrew...

Tax ControversyLeadersThe comprehensive guide to the world’s leadingtax controversy advisers

www.internationaltaxreview.com/taxdisputes

FIFTHEDITION

1 | www.internationaltaxreview.com TAX CONTROVERSY LEADERS

8 Bouverie Street, London EC4Y 8AX, UKTel: +44 20 7779 8308Fax: +44 20 7779 8500Managing editor Ralph [email protected] Matthew [email protected] Joe [email protected] editor, TPWeek.com Sophie [email protected], TPWeek.com Joelle [email protected] editor João [email protected] Oliver [email protected] publisher Andrew [email protected] associate publisher Megan [email protected] Marketing manager Kendred [email protected] Marketing executive Sophie [email protected] Subscriptions manager Nick [email protected] manager James [email protected] director Greg KilminsterSUBSCRIPTIONS AND CUSTOMER SERVICESCustomer services:+44 20 7779 8610UK subscription hotline:+44 20 7779 8999US subscription hotline:+1 800 437 9997© Euromoney Trading Limited, 2015. The copyright of alleditorial matter appearing in this Review is reserved by thepublisher. No matter contained herein may be reproduced, duplicatedor copied by any means without the prior consent of theholder of the copyright, requests for which should beaddressed to the publisher. Although Euromoney TradingLimited has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of thispublication, neither it nor any contributor can accept anylegal responsibility whatsoever for consequences that mayarise from errors or omissions, or any opinions or advicegiven. This publication is not a substitute for professionaladvice on specific transactions.Chairman Richard EnsorDirectors Sir Patrick Sergeant, The Viscount Rothermere,Christopher Fordham (managing director), Neil Osborn, DanCohen, John Botts, Colin Jones, Diane Alfano, JaneWilkinson, Martin Morgan, David Pritchard, Bashar AL-Rehany, Andrew Ballingal, Tristan HillgarthInternational Tax Review is published 10 times a year byEuromoney Trading Limited.This publication is not included in the CLA license.Copying without permission of the publisher is prohibitedISSN 0958-7594

Contents

TAX CONTROVERSY LEADERS www.internationaltaxreview.com | 1

2 Introductionandmethodology

3 GlobalGlobal chaos:Tax disputeresolution undermountingpressure

10 Argentina

12 Australia

27 Austria

32 Belgium

43 Brazil

57 CanadaCanadaRevenue Agencyexpands anti-abuse arsenal

75 Chile

79 China

97 Colombia

100 Croatia

100 Denmark

101 Finland

104 France

113 Germany

124 Greece

126 GulfCooperationCouncil

128 Hong Kong

132 Hungary

134 IndiaHow to resolvedisputes in India

151 Indonesia

158 Ireland

160 Italy

169 Japan

174 Luxembourg

175 Malaysia

178 Mexico

187 Netherlands

195 New Zealand

198 Norway

202 Peru

202 Philippines

203 Poland

205 Portugal

208 Romania

210 Russia

218 Singapore

225 South Africa

227 South Korea

232 Spain

242 Sweden

254 Switzerland

260 Taiwan

264 Thailand

265 Turkey

269 Ukraine

271 UK

292 USUS authoritiesevolve approachto litigation

344 Venezuela

345 Vietnam

349 Index of firms


IntroductionTax litigation experts are increasingly in demand asauthorities around the world get more and moreaggressive in their use of anti-avoidance measures atnational level.Global trends, of course, centre on develop-

ments coming out of the Paris-based OECD as itsproject on base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS)approaches its resolution. A great deal of uncertain-ty still hangs over the project, but stakeholdersagree on one thing: whatever form the final recom-mendations take, the most immediate tangibleimpact will be a surge in the number of disputesthat arise as taxpayers and authorities adjust to newstandards and mechanisms.In Europe, state aid investigations show that

even structures that were agreed upon with nation-al authorities are coming under retrospective scruti-ny from higher powers, again raising the impor-tance of quality advice that will stand up to investi-gation for years to come.In the US, in the face of declining resources, the

IRS is attempting to re-engineer the way it choosestaxpayers for examination, as well as the way in which it conducts audits, with taxpayers andadvisers reporting new challenges which disrupt certainty.With all of this in mind, it is clear that taxpayers need access to lawyers and advisers with

experience in all stages of tax controversy. Far from being confined to the courtroom walls,the remit of tax controversy advisers now extends further than it has ever done. Taxpayers areseeking advisers with expertise that encompasses tax dispute prevention techniques; tax auditmanagement practices; global strategic planning of tax audits and disputes; tax risk manage-ment, analysis and disclosure; and alternative tax dispute resolution.We hope that this fifth edition of the Tax Controversy Leaders guide will provide you with

the confidence to obtain sound advice in each of the areas highlighted above, in each of the50 jurisdictions covered.

Matthew Gilleard, Editor, International Tax Review

Methodology

Tax Controversy Leaders is a guideto the leading tax dispute resolutionlawyers and advisers in the world. Inaddition to highlighting tax profes-sionals, the guide also includes liti-gators and barristers who may notpractise tax on a day-to-day basis. Inclusion in this guide is based

on a minimum number of nomina-tions received. Besides the requirednumber of nominations, entrantsmust also possess evidence of out-standing success in the past year andconsistently positive feedback frompeers and clients. Firms and individ-uals cannot pay to be recommendedin Tax Controversy Leaders.



“The nature of today’s global tax environment is creat-ing…numerous emerging megatrends in tax controversy….Now, more than ever, it is necessary to keep an eye on thesemegatrends, paying particular attention to how theimpending BEPS guidance will affect those trends – oreven create new megatrends confronting the internationalbusiness community…. In this unstable environment, thedevelopment and use of alternative dispute resolutionoptions is critical and is gaining increasing popularity.”

David Swenson, ‘Emerging megatrends in global taxcontroversy,’ International Tax Review, September 3 2014

Converging megatrends are creating a turbulentenvironment Emerging megatrends have slowly developed over the pastdecade in the tax controversy area and have now converged toshape today’s chaotic and turbulent global tax environment.The number and the size of audits, exams and inquiries has dra-matically increased worldwide, reaching record levels. Influenced by the ongoing Organisation for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD) base erosion and prof-it shifting (BEPS) project and the related tax planning debate,it has become the norm for countries to engage in aggressiveenforcement actions and to adopt unilateral measures. In thisenvironment, fewer disputes are being successfully resolved in atimely and efficient manner. In turn, dispute resolution optionsare under mounting pressure and the threat of double taxationis becoming even more pervasive.Indeed, empirical evidence confirms that the number of con-

tentious and protracted tax disputes is increasing dramatically, asis the risk of double taxation. Recent mutual agreement proce-

Global

David SwensonPwC

Global chaos: Tax disputeresolution under mountingpressureDavid Swenson, global leader of PwC’s tax controversy and dispute resolution network, looksback at how megatrends in global tax controversy have developed over the past year, and aheadto the trends set to emerge in a post-BEPS environment.



Global

dure (MAP) statistics released by the OECD show the highest pending inventory of MAPcases in history – and a 94% increase since 2006. These statistics are dramatic evidence of thesurge in tax audits and cross-border disputes among OECD member countries over the lasteight years. This troubling trend is compounded by the concern that some areas of theOECD BEPS Action Plan will recommend the introduction of new controversial rules (somebased on subjective criteria), which may significantly alter the international tax system andcould lead to an even greater increase in audits and disputes, placing further pressure ondomestic and international dispute resolution alternatives.This environment places a premium on tax audit and dispute prevention techniques

because multinational companies (MNCs) are under constant competitive pressure from manydirections, including the pressure to structure practical, effective, and efficient worldwide busi-ness operations. MNCs need to develop coordinated approaches to audits and disputes aroundthe globe, adopt preventative measures, such as obtaining advance pricing agreements (APAs)and other appropriate pre-filing rulings, and leverage historic and new alternative dispute res-olution techniques to achieve optimal results. The development and use of alternative disputeresolution options is gaining popularity in resolving tax disputes in an efficient and coopera-tive manner – but, traditional processes are under strain and in need of immediate attentionand material improvement to constitute effective means for resolving tax disputes.

Forces driving the megatrends in tax controversy In the current global tax environment, a number of major forces have influenced a range ofactivities, processes, and the perceptions of stakeholders. The OECD’s BEPS Action Plan andthe related tax planning debate have stirred a number of countries to action. Many countrieshave not waited for the OECD to take action, and instead have unilaterally adopted interimmeasures to protect their respective tax bases. Added to this is the fact that new forces on thehorizon in the post-BEPS world will inevitably lead to further uncertainty, risks, and chaos inthe global tax environment.Businesses increasingly operate globally and the digital economy is altering the global value

chain, yet existing international tax rules were developed in an era when cross-border transactionswere not as numerous and complex. Fuelled by inflammatory populist rhetoric and other factors,several countries believe today’s tax rules leave gaps that allow multinational corporations toengage in tax planning that is completely legal, but, in their view, may inappropriately reduce taxrevenues through the shifting of profits to locations with more favourable tax treatment. It hasbecome politically acceptable to single out multinational corporations for intense scrutiny − evento the extent they have become ‘targets’ of a crackdown on ‘aggressive tax planning’ and per-ceived deficiencies in the historical architecture supporting the international corporate tax system. The OECD continues to lead the way in addressing base erosion and profit shifting in a

systematic manner. Its comprehensive Action Plan and specific two-year timeline are expect-ed to result in recommendations for sweeping changes to the international tax regime. Todate, the OECD has issued a number of deliverables, either in draft or final form, and a finalBEPS package is expected to be approved by the G20 finance ministers within the comingmonths. At the outset, the Action Plan cautioned that inaction on base erosion and profitshifting may have the deleterious effect of prompting unilateral actions by individual nations,resulting in global chaos and double taxation.



This fear is now a reality. Several countries have not waited for the OECD to reconstructthe international tax system, preferring to use the attention created by the OECD’s efforts toadopt interim measures to protect their individual financial interests. This includes unilateralactions ranging from the promulgation of new legislation or policies and procedures, toengaging in intensified audit activity and other measures intended to address base erosion andprofit shifting. At the same time, countries are aiming to raise more revenue to fill gaps inbudgets and to address austerity concerns. The adoption of unilateral measures in reaction to the tax planning debate and BEPS is

problematic. There is no consistent view about the positions adopted as a result of the uni-lateral measures, which leads to a lack of consensus, increased risks, a proliferation of cross-border disputes, and the resultant threat of double taxation. For multinational corporations,the process of tracking and managing global audits and disputes is a key compliance function,and the unilateral actions of individual countries and international organisations has made thismore difficult and problematic. Further, it remains to be seen if and when individual countries will adopt the revised

OECD guidelines. While the BEPS project has the political backing of the G20, the OECDitself has no binding authority to legislate. The BEPS package will recommend minimumstandards that member countries are expected to adopt, but many countries may neverthe-less implement their own domestic laws as they deem fit. Certain areas of the Action Plan arecomplex and there will likely be a lack of consensus on new controversial rules, which in turnmay lead to inconsistent implementation and resultant double taxation. It is also largelyuncertain whether non-OECD member countries will follow the guidance of the OECD –emerging countries are not immune to BEPS and many nations may implement their ownrules, potentially diverging from historical and new international norms. Hence, unilateralactions are likely to continue, further exacerbating the growing number of audits and dis-putes in a post-BEPS world and creating additional strain on dispute resolution systems.

New megatrends on the horizonThe BEPS Action Plan is expected to recommend the introduction of new rules that willchange the paradigm of the international tax system. There is concern, however, that theOECD proposals to date lack clear definitions and consensus, and in some cases are contra-dictory. It is yet to be seen whether the final BEPS package will add more clarity, but itincreasingly appears that further work by the OECD will be necessary to build consensus onthe proposals and ensure widespread and consistent implementation. In any event, theOECD work will likely generate controversial rules resulting in new emerging megatrends inthe tax controversy area.For many decades, there has been general congruence among OECD countries over the

meaning of the historical international tax rules, such as the arm’s-length standard and thedefinition of permanent establishments. The potential abandonment of the arm’s-lengthstandard is of great concern to many taxpayers and other stakeholders. The OECD finalisedits first major action item through the release of ‘Action 13: County-by-CountryImplementation Package’ for the reporting template that requires multinational corporationsto provide information on their global allocation of income, economic activity, and taxes paidin accordance with a global template and on a country-by-country basis.

Global



Global

This type of reporting is intended to serve as a “risk assessment tool for tax authorities,” asopposed to an enforcement mechanism, but many observers believe the practical effect couldlead to a demise of the arm’s-length standard in favour of formulary apportionment and dra-matically increased audit activity. The Action Plan further provides that it may be appropriateto go “beyond the arm’s-length principle” and employ “special measures” where the arm’s-length principle does not create results that address BEPS. Some believe these developmentsmay signal the OECD’s support of the arm’s-length principle is waning, and implementationof country-by-country reporting may lead to the use of formulas to allocate profits globally. Further, the OECD’s deliverable ‘BEPS Actions 8, 9, and 10: Discussion Draft on

Revisions to Chapter I of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines (Including risk, recharacterisation,and special measures)’ received substantial critical commentary from the business communi-ty, particularly with respect to the guidance on the non-recognition (that is, recharacterisa-tion) of related party transactions and the concern that tax authorities would be empoweredto easily disregard legitimate business transactions. The working party is now revising the dis-cussion draft and it is expected that a revised draft will take into consideration the concernsraised by the business community and provide more specificity around the ‘real deal,’ includ-ing the commercial and financial relations between the related parties. Nevertheless, the proposed guidance for the non-recognition of transactions (that is, recharac-

terisation) seems designed to enable tax administrations to more readily disregard contractual allo-cations of risk and recharacterise legitimate business transactions. Many domestic tax regimes haverobust anti-abuse rules and the capacity to recharacterise transactions where economic substanceis lacking or where the substance differs from the form of the transaction. The proposed revisions,to date, set forth a new test that would embolden tax administrations to look behind the four cor-ners of the contract and disregard transactions as structured by taxpayers on a potentially subjec-tive and arbitrary basis, allowing tax authorities to judge what is ‘commercially reasonable’ in theopinion of the tax administration, and to substitute the government’s ‘business judgment’ for theexperience and business acumen of the multinational corporation. This approach will inevitablylead to a proliferation of tax disputes, the risk of double taxation, and a dramatic increase in com-petent authority and mutual agreement procedures – dispute resolution mechanisms that are cur-rently ill-equipped to handle a massive surge in disputes on recharacterisation issues. It is difficult to guess how these BEPS Actions Plans and corresponding deliverables will con-

tribute to the global tax controversy environment. Nevertheless, it appears that divergent opin-ions on the interpretation of historical standards, as well as new controversial rules, are significantconcerns that will continue to trigger more difficult and complex tax disputes. Both today – andin the post-BEPS world – it will be critically important that dispute resolution mechanisms workefficiently and effectively to bring relief in a time of intense turmoil.

The need for improved dispute resolution mechanisms In today’s global tax audit and controversy environment, stakeholders are frustrated with asystem that, in many cases, provides no definitive or conclusive way of resolving cross-bordertax disputes in a timely and efficient manner. Such conditions inevitably lead to prolongedcontroversies and inequitable results. Taxpayers, tax administrations and other stakeholdersneed a system that offers a definitive mechanism for resolving disputes in an effective andpractical manner, and within a reasonable timeframe.



The business community commended the OECD, in its ‘Public Discussion Draft on Action14: Making Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective’ for taking on its preliminary (butconsiderable) effort to identify obstacles that preclude resolution of disputes through mutualagreement procedures and for developing potential options to address those obstacles. Manystakeholders, however, expressed concern in a number of areas, primarily that global consen-sus had not been reached on mandatory and binding arbitration – a mechanism that hasproven successful in certain countries for resolving treaty-related disputes, which is arguably aneffective approach to ensure certainty and predictability for businesses and other stakeholders. Recently, the G7 endorsed mandatory and binding arbitration as a means to resolve tax dis-

putes, but there is no indication that the forthcoming revised discussion draft will includemandatory and binding arbitration as a ‘minimum standard’. The revised draft, which isexpected to be released in September 2015, will reportedly include two ‘building blocks’. Thefirst will focus on a set of minimum standards for improving the MAP process, with an accom-panying monitoring process. The second is expected to provide a system for mandatory andbinding arbitration. Many countries are expected to adopt a form of mandatory and bindingarbitration, albeit at a slow pace. Thus far, 20 states have committed, but many developed andemerging economies remain uncommitted. Accordingly, additional effort remains ahead toensure that dispute resolution procedures work efficiently and effectively around the globe. The Action 14 discussion draft’s ‘complementary solutions’ are intended to have a “prac-

tical, measurable impact” to improve overall dispute resolution procedures. This willinevitably require widespread adoption and actual implementation of specific measures byindividual countries. Hence, it will be important for the OECD’s “specific measures” to infact constitute the ‘minimum standards’ for participating countries – and to be not onlyobligatory, but also practical, so that member countries can easily adopt and build on thosestandards. In this context, the OECD has been advised to emphasise the need for policy offi-cials at the highest levels of tax administrations to collectively adopt the contemplated specif-ic measures and to be accountable for the results. In addition, it is important that individualnations also develop and improve domestic dispute mechanisms for resolving tax disputes.

Domestic dispute resolution options as a first resortCountries should be encouraged to develop and improve domestic dispute resolution mech-anisms for resolving tax controversies (such as cooperative compliance, APAs and otherappropriate pre-filing agreements, administrative appeals, domestic mediation, and domesticarbitration). Equally important, tax administrations should ensure that increased resourcesare devoted to alternative dispute resolution programmes in response to the rising inventoryof audits and disputes. The availability of effective and efficient domestic law remedies willhelp eliminate assessments that are not well grounded in fact, law, or economics, and will helpto resolve many cross-border disputes even before the need to proceed to MAP. The discussion draft embraced the implementation of bilateral APA programmes as an

important alternative dispute resolution option to increase certainty, decrease double taxa-tion, and proactively prevent transfer pricing audits and disputes. However, many observersbelieve that domestic barriers to access APA programmes may increase, and the negotiationof bilateral APAs may become more difficult, thereby resulting in a further increase in cross-border disputes. Indeed, APA programmes in many countries are under considerable strain,

Global



Global

resulting in prolonged negotiations and, in some cases, even withdrawn or cancelled APArequests. The OECD should therefore continue to emphasise the benefits of APAs and theneed for all participating countries to implement bilateral APA programmes that operateeffectively and efficiently, including the use of dedicated resources. In resolving cross-border disputes, the discussion draft suggested that it may be preferable

to pursue MAP as the first option (with suspension of domestic law remedies) as MAP wouldprovide a comprehensive resolution of the case. This approach is concerning for two reasons.Firstly, it would significantly increase the competent authority caseload and inventory becauseevery treaty-related dispute (including positions that may not be meritorious) would need toinvolve the competent authority function. In fact, in certain countries, many potential cross-border disputes never need to reach the competent authority level because the assessmentsare withdrawn due to a lack of merit (or other justifiable reasons). Secondly, and more impor-tantly, the taxpayer should have the option to proceed with either domestic law remedies orMAP (or pursue both simultaneously). The taxpayer should have the fundamental right topursue domestic law remedies as a first option, and to the extent the threat of double taxa-tion remains after pursing those options, the taxpayer should be allowed to pursue the com-petent authority route as a means to eliminate double taxation. Accordingly, governments should modify local procedural rules and encourage resolution

of cross-border disputes, in appropriate cases, at the administrative level before proceeding toMAP, including as necessary early involvement of the competent authority function in thedomestic process to eliminate audit assessments that are not supported by the facts of thecase, or by applicable legal principles and economic analysis.

Improving international dispute resolution procedures Bilateral income tax treaties are fundamentally based on the promotion of international tradeand investments. Multinational corporations need to be confident that when they choose tooperate in a particular jurisdiction, they will be treated fairly and will not suffer from exces-sive or double taxation. The operative rules in a tax treaty are intended to further this goal,but such rules work imperfectly when dispute resolution procedures are ineffective or ineffi-cient. Unfortunately, the existing platform for resolving treaty-related tax disputes is strug-gling under tremendous strain and immediate reforms are required to ensure MAPs are moreeffective and practical. The current global tax controversy environment requires improve-ments to dispute resolution procedures that will, in practice, resolve tax disputes quickly andefficiently and will prevent double taxation. The use of mandatory and binding arbitration appears to be one of a very limited num-

ber of available treaty-based dispute resolution options that could provide a definitive mech-anism for resolving MAP cases that are in deadlock – the number of which is likely to increaseas the BEPS reforms unfold in the months and years ahead. Accordingly, in addition to themany options for improving MAP referenced in the discussion draft, the business communi-ty urged the OECD to make mandatory and binding arbitration a minimum standard.

Mandatory and binding arbitration to lessen the pressureFollowing the inclusion of mandatory arbitration in paragraph 5 to article 25 of the OECDModel Treaty in 2008, a number of countries included mandatory arbitration in their bilat-



eral income tax treaties. The provision in the OECD Model Treaty, however, does notrequire the adoption of mandatory and binding arbitration. That said, the US, along withsome other jurisdictions, has included a mandatory and binding arbitration provision in itsbilateral income tax treaties, which has been recognised as an important tool to incentiviseresolution of MAP cases in certain countries. Indeed, there is support for the proposition thatthe mere existence of an arbitration requirement has made traditional MAP processes moreefficient and effective where the mechanism exists. Accordingly, the business community hasurged the OECD to recommend, as a minimum, the adoption of mandatory and bindingarbitration to set the appropriate foundation for broader acceptance. The most significant obstacle to such adoption, as recognised by the draft, is that some

countries believe mandatory and binding arbitration would result in national sovereigntybeing relinquished. This obstacle increasingly may become less of a roadblock. Recent stateaid cases make it clear that countries in the European Union (EU) have already ceded a sub-stantial amount of sovereignty regarding tax rules in the EU. Furthermore, participatingcountries have also agreed to a form of mandatory arbitration (albeit not the ‘baseball’approach) as part of their membership in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), or in freetrade agreements. Thus, the concept of mandatory and binding arbitration does not appearto be objectionable, per se, to many nations. The use of mandatory and binding arbitration could be an effective approach to resolve dis-

putes for competent authorities that are unable to reach agreement because it compels a processthat is binding on both governments, and ensures a resolution of the dispute by mutual agree-ment under the treaty. The US (among other countries) has executed income tax treaties withmandatory and binding arbitration that employs the baseball type of formal decision making(otherwise known as the final offer approach). The draft also references the ‘independent opin-ion’ type of formal decision making in arbitration. The business community strongly advocatesthe use of the baseball type of arbitration as it incentivises competent authorities to abandonpositions that an arbitrator would be unlikely to uphold, which, in turn, has the effect ofencouraging settlement during competent authority negotiations before the case even needs tobe presented to an arbitration panel. That is, many cases may never reach arbitration becausethe competent authorities are encouraged to resolve the dispute before taking that ultimate stepof moving into the arbitration process. This is a powerful incentive that could have a dramaticimpact in reversing the record high levels of pending MAP cases that we witness today.

The bottom lineThe existing megatrends in the tax controversy area have converged to create turmoil in theglobal tax environment. With new megatrends inevitably emerging in the post-BEPS world,it is now more important than ever to improve dispute resolution options and, in the contextof cross-border disputes, to gain wider acceptance of mandatory and binding arbitration.Improved dispute resolution mechanisms that work effectively and efficiently are a necessityin improving cooperation, obtaining faster resolution of disputes, and reducing the threat ofdouble taxation – all worthy goals for multiple stakeholders. Now is the time to build glob-al consensus on improving dispute resolution procedures – both on the domestic and inter-national front – to ease the strain on our existing system for resolving cross-border disputesand reduce the chaos many MNCs are facing.

Global



Eduardo is lawyer graduated from Universidad de Buenos Aires(1996) and a public accountant graduated from Universidad deBelgrano (1992). He joined the firm in 1993. In 2008 he wasappointed as partner in charge of the tax and legal departmentof PricewaterhouseCoopers.He has taken postgraduate courses in both Argentina

(Universidad de Buenos Aires, magister in law and economics)and Spain (Instituto de Estudios Fiscales, Madrid, tax criminallaw).In the academic field, he is head professor of Universidad de

Ciencias Empresariales y Sociales (UCES) as well as inUniversidad de Belgrano.He is a member of the Argentine Association of Tax Studies.He has written several articles on tax issues in both local and

international media.He is a permanent lecturer in the ‘Training Sessions on Tax

Professional Practice’, organised by the Professional Council inEconomic Sciences and in courses organised byPricewaterhouseCoopers.He has led the tax litigation practice of PwC Argentina since

2008.Eduardo has a broad experience in the design and management of legal strategies for high-

ly-complex tax cases and has acted in many leading cases the decisions of which were ren-dered by the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice and the Tax Court. The cases resolved bythe Supreme Court include: tax deductions of tax assessments (Scania Argentina), deduc-tions of bad debts (BBVA Banco Francés), VAT on interest on the purchase of shares (Chryse),tax exemptions for welfare organisations (Fundación Perez Companc), and tax-free reorgani-sations (International Engines). The cases resolved by the Tax Court include: deduction ofinterest on loan (Swift), transfer pricing relating to financial transactions (Ericsson), transferpricing relating to exports (Laboratorios Bago, Nobleza Piccardo and Toyota), among manyothers.

Argentina

Eduardo Gil Roca

PwC

Bouchard 557C1106ABG – City of Buenos AiresArgentina

Tel: +54 11 4850-6728Email:[email protected]:pwc.com/taxcontroversy



Argentina

Mariano BalloneTeijeiro & Ballone

Martin BarreiroBaker & McKenzie

Enrique Guillermo Bulit GoniBulit Goni & Tarsitano

Valeria CardinaleKPMG

Marcelo CastilloKPMG

Horacio Garcia PrietoMarval, O’Farrell and Mairal

Gloria GurbistaTeijeiro & Ballone

Jorge Hector DamarcoBruchou, Fernandez Madero & Lombardi - Taxand Argentina

Liban KusaBruchou, Fernandez Madero & Lombardi - Taxand Argentina

Alvaro Luna RequenaLuna Requena & Fernández Borzese Abogados

Ruben MalvitanoEY

Santiago MontezantiEstudio Beccar Varela

Susana Camila NavarrineAsorey & Navarrine

Luis Marcelo NunezPerez Alati, Grondona, Benites, Arntsen & Martinez de Hoz

Juan Manuel Soria AcunaRosso Alba, Francia & asociados

Alberto TarsitanoBulit Goni & Tarsitano

Miguel TesonEstudio O’Farrell

Guillermo TeijeiroTeijeiro & Ballone



Michael Bersten has been a senior partner within the PwCAustralia tax controversy practice (tax litigation and tax audits)since founding the practice in 2004. The practice now compris-es 30 professionals and eight partners.Michael leads the PwC global tax controversy and dispute

resolution practice in the Asia Pacific region. He also leadsPwC’s global general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR) team and ischairman of the PwC Australia tax policy panel. Michael is amember of the firm’s global tax policy core group and is activein the BEPS debate.As a Big 4 partner since 2001, Michael has acted in many of

the major tax controversies in Australia, predominantly in thepublicly listed and global business sectors. His work ranges fromlegal services in relation to reviews, audits, disputes and litiga-tion to strategic advice on tax risk management and legal adviceon major transactions, especially on Part IVA.Michael has extensive experience assisting clients in the

assessment and management of their tax controversies (audits,disputes and litigation) and tax risk in Australia. He consultsglobally, particularly in Asia.As the former Australian Tax Office (ATO) deputy chief tax counsel and deputy Australian

government solicitor, Michael has a strong understanding of ATO policy and practice, andexperience at assisting clients achieve the best possible outcomes in negotiations with theATO.

Australia

Michael Bersten

PwC

201 Sussex StreetSydney NSW 2000Australia

Tel: +61 2 8266 6858Email:[email protected]:www.pwc.com.au



Fiona Craig, Deloitte Australia, has 20 years of experience withDeloitte UK and Deloitte Australia, including 15 years special-ising in transfer pricing. Fiona’s primary focus is in the globallydynamic area of transfer pricing controversy, providing strategicand practical advice to taxpayers engaging with revenue author-ities on both audit defence and advance pricing agreement(APA) matters.Her impressive track record in achieving successful transfer

pricing outcomes includes experience in implementing and pric-ing tax efficient structures for large listed and privately ownedmultinational organisations and obtaining subsequent fiscalagreement.Fiona advises clients in a variety of sectors with particular

focus on the energy and resources, technology and pharmaceu-tical sectors.

Australia

Fiona Craig

Deloitte Australia

Grosvenor Place225 George StreetSydney NSW 2000Australia

Tel: +61 2 9322 7770Mobile: +61 410 045 300Email: [email protected]: www.deloitte.com



Aldrin De Zilva, Deloitte Australia, is a senior partner, memberof the Australian Taxation Executive and the leader of theAustralian Deloitte Lawyers and Tax Controversy practice, anentity practice which specialises in taxation litigation, alternatedispute resolution and the provision of legal taxation advice todomestic and multinational public companies. Aldrin has been involved in taxation litigation since the late

1990s and is now involved in several taxation matters that arebefore the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Federal Court, FullFederal Court and High Court of Australia. In addition, Aldrinis the lead taxation adviser on several multi-billion dollar trans-actions.

Australia

Aldrin De Zilva

Deloitte Australia

550 Bourke StreetMelbourne, VIC 3000Australia

Tel: +61 3 9671 7541Mobile: +61 448 877 085Email: [email protected] Website: www.deloitte.com



Greg Janes is a senior corporate tax partner of DeloitteAustralia, with more than 35 years of experience in income tax.Greg has achieved national prominence as an adviser in relationto complex tax controversy matters. He is recognised by theLondon-based International Tax Review as one of Australia’sleading practitioners in tax controversy matters. He has spe-cialised in tax controversy for more than 10 years at Deloittewhere he has successfully acted for a range of high profile clientsin respect of Australian Taxation Office (ATO) audit activityand formal taxation disputes.Before joining Deloitte, Greg held numerous key leadership

roles within the Australian Taxation Office, including: assistantcommissioner, Large Business and International segment, a rolewhich he held for seven years; senior tax counsel, group head –Appeals and Review Programme; and leader of the ATO’sComplex Audit Programme in Victoria.

Australia

Greg Janes

Deloitte Australia

550 Bourke Melbourne 3000Australia

Direct: +61 (03) 9671 7508Mobile +61 0414 942 589Fax : +61 (03) 9691 8175Email: [email protected]



Mark Kenny, Deloitte Australia, has 31 years’ experience in pro-viding taxation services, specialising in international tax andtransfer pricing. His experience includes implementing and pric-ing tax efficient structures for large listed and privately ownedmultinational companies.Mark has managed both transfer pricing reviews and audits

(including a joint audit involving two tax jurisdictions), as wellas the negotiation of advance pricing agreements (APAs). Mark advises clients in a variety of sectors with a particular

focus on manufacturing, engineering, technology, pharmaceuti-cals, and retail including luxury goods.

Australia

Mark Kenny

Deloitte Australia

Grosvenor Place225 George StreetSydney NSW 2000Australia

Tel: +61 2 9322 7578Mobile: +61 419 205 001Email: [email protected] Website: www.deloitte.com



Ashley is a tax controversy partner with PwC and has 30 years’tax experience, including 20 years with the Australian TaxationOffice. Ashley has achieved national prominence and is regular-ly called upon by the media and the tax profession for his viewson tax controversy matters in Australia. Ashley was one of theyoungest tax officers to have been promoted to the position ofassistant commissioner in the ATO in 2001, and was seniorassistant commissioner (Large Business & International divi-sion) when he left the ATO to join PwC in 2007. Ashley specialises in advising clients in different industries on

the strategic management of ATO reviews, audits and disputes,including negotiating settlements and advising on tax auditdefence. Ashley has a deep knowledge of ATO policies and deci-sions impacting tax controversy – including settlements, rulings,audits, access visits, information and assessment powers and thegeneral anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) – and has deep relation-ships across the ATO. Ashley brings unique insight to tax issuesand has acted as witness and expert witness in numerous taxmatters, for both the ATO and clients.By combining his extensive ATO experience and insight,

Ashley has been instrumental in negotiating numerous large taxaudit settlements in the banking, investment, mining, oil and gas industries, including dis-putes in relation to cross-border finance, investment structures, transfer pricing and anti-avoidance provisions. He has also successfully assisted many clients in obtaining positive ATOrulings.Ashley graduated from the University of New South Wales with a master’s degree in tax

law and from the University of Canberra with bachelor’s degrees in commerce and account-ing. Ashley is a registered tax agent and chartered tax adviser, and represents the Australia andNew Zealand Chartered Accountants on the ATO’s dispute resolution committee. Ashley isalso a member of the Australian Tax Institute’s legal and dispute resolution committee.

Australia

Ashley King

PwC

Freshwater Place2 Southbank BoulevardSouthbank VIC 3006Australia

Office: +61 3 8603 0363 Mobile: +61 4 0199 4371Email: [email protected]:pwc.com/taxcontroversy



Paul McCartin is a partner in PwC Australia’s tax controversyteam, specialising in pre-litigation tax dispute resolution acrossa range of matters and various tax topics.Paul joined PwC after 12 years working at senior levels of the

Australian Taxation Office and uses this experience and signifi-cant networks to achieve favourable outcomes for his clients.While at the ATO, Paul performed a variety of senior compli-ance and technical roles including working as an assistant com-missioner in the Public Groups and International and theAggressive Tax Planning business lines. Paul was also the ATO’sdelegate on the Joint International Tax Shelter InformationCentre (JITSIC) based in Washington DC from 2009 – 2010. Paul’s ATO and international tax administration experience

is recognised and highly sought after by clients to assist them toresolve a range of complex disputes, particularly in an increasingenvironment of international tax disputes.Paul uses his ATO technical and compliance experience, cou-

pled with his understanding of the ATO and international taxadministration ‘mindset’, to specialise in assisting clients tostrategically and effectively manage risk reviews, audits andobjections.Paul has particular expertise in managing disputes with the

ATO having resolved a number of significant and complex matters for listed public compa-nies, private groups and high net wealth individuals.

Australia

Paul McCartin

PwC

Freshwater Place2 Southbank BoulevardSouthbank Vic 3006Australia

Tel: +61 3 8603 5609; +61 412861 551Email:[email protected]:pwc.com/taxcontroversy



Eddy is a practising tax lawyer with more than 16 years’ experi-ence in providing legal advice on taxation matters such asfinancing, international and domestic restructuring and mergerand acquisition transactions.Eddy is a partner in the PwC tax controversy team. He pro-

vides legal advice to mainly multinational clients on taxationmatters (including anti-avoidance), and supports clients inresolving disputes with the Australian Taxation Office. Thiswork involves assisting clients under audit or investigation.Eddy also leads alternative dispute resolution processes, briefscounsel and provides anti-avoidance opinions.Eddy has also advised a number of multinational organisa-

tions on international tax issues including cash repatriation,investment structuring, withholding tax and treaty issues.Eddy also has an interest in the taxation of intellectual prop-

erty in Australia and has written papers on the topic.Eddy is on the NSW State Council of the Tax Institute of

Australia and the NSW Professional Development Committeeof the Tax Institute of Australia and has published papers ontaxation anti-avoidance.Eddy holds bachelor degrees in business and law, as well as a

master’s degree in taxation. He is a solicitor of the SupremeCourt of NSW, a practitioner of the Federal and High Court of Australia, a registered taxagent in Australia and CTA of the Tax Institute of Australia.

Australia

Eddy Moussa

PwC

Darling Park201 Sussex StreetSydney NSW 2000Australia

Direct: +612 8266 9156Mobile: +61413 111 161Email:[email protected]:pwc.com/taxcontroversy



Simon Rooke is a legal partner in PwC’s Melbourne tax contro-versy practice.Simon specialises in working with clients to resolve complex

and sometimes intense disputes with the Australian TaxationOffice.Simon has 20 years of taxation experience, including 12 years

in international tax and M&A tax, which have led to several sig-nificant ATO investigations, up to and including litigation.Simon has been recognised in 2009 and 2011 as one ofAustralia’s leading tax advisers in International Tax Review’sGuide to the World’s Leading Tax Firms.Over the past eight years he has developed extensive experi-

ence in assisting clients manage ATO disputes, including ATOrisk reviews, ATO audits, settlement negotiations, alternativedispute resolution and litigation. Simon’s approach is to take arespectful and educative approach to ATO investigations, whilerigorously protecting a client’s rights (both at law and underATO practice and policy).Simon’s experience has also ranged from navigating through

the increasingly aggressive ATO approach to information gath-ering, to seeking private binding rulings on contentious taxmatters, to assisting companies with ‘ATO readiness’ during initial public offerings, to litiga-tion against the ATO when other avenues of dispute resolution are exhausted.Simon holds bachelor’s degrees in commerce and law. He is a chartered accountant in

Australia and New Zealand, a chartered tax adviser, holds a graduate diploma in appliedfinance and a graduate diploma in legal practice. Simon is also a member of the Law Instituteof Victoria and a member of the Law Council of Australia’s Business Law Section.

Australia

Simon Rooke

PwC

2 Southbank BoulevardSouthbankMelbourne 3006Australia

Tel: +61 3 8603 4133 /+61 422 004038

Email: [email protected]:pwc.com/taxcontroversy



Judy Sullivan is a legal partner – tax controversy – and thenational leader for tax litigation and alternative dispute resolu-tion (ADR) at PwC.Judy holds a BEc/LLB from the Australian National

University and LLM from Sydney University. She is a memberof the advisory panel to the Board of Taxation and a member ofthe Australian Tax Office (ATO) Dispute Resolution WorkingGroup. She is also a chartered tax adviser (The TaxationInstitute) and on the roll of High Court Legal Practitioners.Judy is a leading tax lawyer and litigator in Australia. She

joined PwC in 2013, and was formerly the tax partner headingup the Sydney tax disputes practice at top tier law firm King &Wood Mallesons.For 25 years, Judy has guided multinationals, major corpo-

rates and high wealth individual clients through tax reviews,audits, negotiations and litigation across all areas of federal andstate taxes. She has run or worked on seminal Australian taxcases in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Federal Court andHigh Court, as well as the NSW Supreme Court. She instructsand works with the leaders of Australia’s tax bar.With the ATO’s shift to ‘real time’ engagement with taxpayers, Judy focuses on opportu-

nities to work closely to bring the ATO and taxpayers together to achieve early engagementand resolution of disputes through ADR processes including settlement discussions, media-tion and early neutral evaluation. She regularly co-presents with the most senior ATO offi-cers in relation to ADR.As cross-border transactions are under intense ATO scrutiny, multinationals must prepare

to defend potential disputes relating to tax issues, particularly in light of Australia’s recentchanges to transfer pricing rules (affecting debt financing, international marketing arrange-ments and intellectual property), international investments, and anti-avoidance rules. Judyhas extensive expertise across these topics and other important areas such as resources andprivate equity.

Australia

Judy Sullivan

PwC

201 Sussex StreetSydney NSW 2000Australia

Tel: +61 2 8266 0197Email: [email protected]: www.pwc.com.au



Jacques van Rhyn is an international tax and transfer pricingpartner and leader of the national transfer pricing practice ofDeloitte Australia. He is a qualified attorney and has been prac-tising for more than 20 years, several of which were spent lead-ing national and regional transfer pricing teams in Big 4accounting firms. Before relocating to Australia in 2009, Jacques was the

Africa regional transfer pricing leader for another Big 4 firm. Hehas gained extensive experience serving clients across Africa,Australia and Asia Pacific in various industries including energyand resources, mining and oil field services, automotive andpharmaceuticals. Jacques has managed several multi-jurisdic-tional international tax and transfer pricing projects for multina-tional groups, ranging from global business reorganisations,global documentation, intellectual property (IP) tax planningand dispute resolution. He provides service across multiple countries leveraging his

strong global networks, knowledge of the OECD guidelines,double tax treaties and in-country transfer pricing rules, andawareness of revenue authorities’ enforcement of these rules in various jurisdictions includ-ing South Africa, Australia, China, UK and other African countries. Jacques has led a num-ber of significant transfer pricing cases and audits, and negotiated favourable advance pricingagreements (APAs) in several jurisdictions. Jacques has been listed in Euromoney’s Guide to the World’s Leading Transfer Pricing

Advisers in both South Africa and Australia. He is a regular presenter at various internation-al tax and transfer pricing conferences and forums, and is a contributor to various tax andindustry publications.

Australia

Jacques van Rhyn

Deloitte Australia

Woodside PlazaLevel 14, 240 St Georges TerracePerth, WA 6000Australia

Tel: +61 8 9365 7122Email: [email protected]: www.deloitte.com



Angela is a partner with KPMG in Australia’s legal and tax serv-ices team and is the Asia Pacific leader within KPMGInternational’s Global Tax Dispute Resolution & ControversyServices network. With more than 18 years’ experience of tax lit-igation and dispute resolution, Angela focuses on efficient andearly resolution of disputes, and has acted on disputes concern-ing validity of tax assessments and tax recovery issues for largecorporate and high wealth individual taxpayers from a wide vari-ety of sectors, including insurance, energy, retail and automotive. Angela also has extensive experience working with the

Australian Tax Office (ATO) in relation to its most significantand complex tax litigation and audits. Angela manages andresolves complex disputes between taxpayers and the ATO, andadvises on all aspects of tax disputes for a range of clients,including ASX Top 100 corporates, private groups and high networth individuals.Before joining KPMG in Australia, Angela was a partner with

Maddocks Lawyers, where she conducted significant tax litiga-tion matters in the Federal Court of Australia on behalf of theATO. While at Maddocks, Angela also successfully managed riskreviews and audits on behalf of taxpayers to avoid formal disputes.

Australia

Angela Wood

KPMG in Australia

147 Collins StreetMelbourne, Vic 3000Australia

Tel: +61 3 9288 6408Email:[email protected] Website: www.kpmg.com/au



Australia

Howard AdamsEY

Gerry BeanDLA Piper

David BlakeBDO

David Bloom QCSeven Wentworth Chambers

Gary ChiertCorrs Chambers Westgarth - Taxand

Michael CloughKing & Wood Mallesons

Greg Davies, QCChancery Chambers

John de Wijn, QCOwen Dixon Chambers West

Chris DouglasMinter Ellison

David DrummondKPMG

Tony FrostGreenwoods & Herbert Smith Freehills

Jeremy GealeKPMG

Richard GelskiJohnson Winter & Slattery

Adam GibbsKPMG

Tony GorgasKPMG

Stewart GrieveJohnson Winter & Slattery

Cameron HansonGreenwoods & Herbert Smith Freehills

Andrew HirstGreenwoods & Herbert Smith Freehills

James HmelnitskySixth Floor Chambers



Australia

Prashanth KainthajeJohnson Winter & Slattery

Chris KinsellaMinter Ellison

Toby KnightAllens

Peter Le HurayPwC

Jonathon LeekFrancis Burt Chambers

Maria LuiKPMG

Nicholas MavrakisClayton Utz

Geoff McClellanGreenwoods & Herbert Smith Freehills

Carmen McElwainMinter Ellison

Amrit McIntyreBaker & McKenzie

Craig MilnerCorrs Chambers Westgarth - Taxand

Peter MurrayKPMG

Frank O’LoughlinOwen Dixon Chambers West

Trevor PascallKPMG

Hugh PaynterGreenwoods & Herbert Smith Freehills

Michael PerezKing & Wood Mallesons

Mark PooleKPMG

Peter PoulosMinter Ellison

Damian PreshawKPMG



Australia

Frank PutrinoKPMG

Mark RichmondEleven Wentworth Chambers

Cameron RiderPwC

Anthony SeveKPMG

Tim ShermanKing & Wood Mallesons

Tony Slater, QCGround Floor Wentworth Chambers

Andrew SpaldingNorton Rose Fulbright

Simon StewardAickin Chambers

Brendan SullivanTenth Floor, Selborne/Wentworth Chambers

Niv TadmoreClayton Utz

Reynah TangJohnson Winter & Slattery

William ThompsonMinter Ellison

Jerome TseKing & Wood Mallesons

John WalkerBaker & McKenzie

Paul WenkGreenwoods & Herbert Smith Freehills



Herbert Greinecker is a partner and head of the Austrian trans-fer pricing team. He joined the firm in 1985 and has more than30 years of professional experience in advising domestic andmultinational companies in national and international legal andtax matters.Herbert has been involved in a number of transfer pricing

projects covering tax planning, transfer of functions (value chaintransformation) and transfer pricing documentation aspects. Heserves a large number of subsidiaries of international corpora-tions in Austria as well as Austrian based multinational clients.He has intense tax audit experience, mostly on transfer pricingmatters. Herbert has worked on projects focusing on documen-tation as well as allocation of income to permanent establish-ments in the financial services industry. Further, Herbert is afrequent speaker on conferences and seminars on transfer pric-ing related matters as well as an author in the field of transferpricing.Herbert holds an MBA from the Vienna University of

Economics and a doctorate from the University of Vienna.Herbert is a member of the Austrian Chamber of Accountantsas a certified public accountant and tax adviser, member of the Tax Experts Board of theAustrian Chamber of Accountants and several working groups thereof, and member of theAustrian Branch of the International Fiscal Association.

Austria

Herbert Greinecker

PwC

Erdbergstrasse 2001030 ViennaAustria

Tel: +43 1 50188 3300Email:[email protected]: www.pwc.com/at



Bernhard Groehs is the managing partner of Deloitte Austria.His practice includes mergers, acquisitions, structured invest-ments and strategic consulting in public sector projects. Histeam includes more than 15 specialised litigation experts.Bernhard has specialised in tax and criminal tax law for morethan five years, and has been a court-certified expert since May2014.Bernhard has written more than 100 pieces published in all

leading Austrian legal magazines and publications. He has beena teaching assistant at the Law University of Economics,Vienna, and a member of the University of Vienna law faculty.Bernhard is a member of the Austrian Institute of Certified

Public Accountants, the International Association of Boalt HallAlumnis (IABA), the International Fiscal Association, Rotary,and the Board of CFO Club Austria. He is also a member of theAustrian Government�s tax reform commission.

Austria

Bernhard Groehs

Deloitte Austria / DeloitteWirtschaftsprüfungs GmbH

Renngasse 1/Freyung1013 ViennaAustria

Tel: +43 1 53700 5500;+43 1 53700 99 5500;+43 664 80537 5500

Email: [email protected]



Alexander Lang joined Deloitte Austria in 2003 and leads thetax litigation and fiscal penal law team. The team supportsclients in all types of national and international disputes with taxauthorities. In fiscal penal law matters the team defends clients’tax positions in tax audits and before Austria’s tax court ofappeal and the administrative supreme court (VwGH). Alexander is a certified public accountant (CPA) and a certi-

fied tax consultant. He is a certified fiscal penal law expert andlectures on tax litigation and criminal tax law at the law facultyof the University of Vienna. He studied law and business admin-istration at the University of Vienna and the University ofEconomics. Alexander has published various articles in all lead-ing Austrian legal magazines and publications.

Austria

Alexander Lang

Deloitte Austria


Tel: + 43 1 53700 6650 Fax: + 43 1 53700 99 6650 Mobile: + 43 664 80537 6650 Email: [email protected]



Robert Rzeszut has been with Deloitte Austria since 2007 andas a tax adviser he is specialised in procedural tax law. He worksin the tax litigation team assisting international corporations,medium size businesses, and private clients. He also defendsclients in fiscal criminal law procedures and prepares self-disclo-sures to help clients become retroactively compliant. Robert gained experience by defending his clients’ tax posi-

tion in tax audits and subsequently before Austria’s Tax Courtof Appeal and the Administrative Supreme Court (VwGH).Furthermore, Robert managed mutual agreement procedures(MAPs) involving several jurisdictions to avoid double taxationin close cooperation with other Deloitte member firms. Robert Rzeszut studied business and law at Vienna

University of Economics and at Wake Forest University, NorthCarolina, USA. He also holds a procedural law degree from theAustrian chamber of tax advisers.

Austria

Robert Rzeszut

Deloitte Austria


Tel: +43 1 53700 6620Email: [email protected]



Austria

Franz AlthuberDLA Piper

Matthias BaritschDLA Piper

Sabine BerneggerKPMG

Imke GerdesBaker & McKenzie

Susanne JetschgoDLA Piper

Johannes KautzDLA Piper

Michael KotschniggKotschnigg

Roman LeitnerLeitnerLeitner

Barbara PolsterKPMG

Orlin RadinskyBKP

Niklas SchmidtWolf Theiss

Claus StaringerFreshfields Bruckhaus Deringer

Andreas StefanerEY

Barbara TanayKPMG

Benjamin TwardoszWolf Theiss



Patrick is a partner and the leader of the Belgian transfer pricinggroup and representative in the PwC global transfer pricing net-work. Besides tax planning, Patrick also assisted clients indefence work. Patrick is a central cluster co-leader of the PwCtax controversy and dispute resolution worldwide network.He’s the European tax lead for major Japanese, European andAmerican accounts. He’s specialised in global core documenta-tion and the financial services industry, as well as in tax contro-versy and dispute resolution.Patrick joined PwC in 1994. He has obtained relevant expe-

rience in corporate structuring and restructuring from a domes-tic and international perspective. From 1997 till 1998, he wasacting as interim manager for a major Belgian multinationalactive in the fast moving consumables business. In 1999 and2000, Patrick worked in PwC London’s transfer pricing groupand gained additional experience with respect to transfer pricingand value chain transformation projects in a wide range of sec-tors. He was also involved in competent authority and APAnegotiations on a European level.Patrick teaches transfer pricing in the academic world

(Vlekho UAMS), is a regular speaker at seminars and conferences and runs transfer pricingsessions during international training courses within PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Belgium

Patrick Boone

PwC

Woluwe Garden – Woluwedal 181932 Sint-Stevens-WoluweBelgium

Tel: +32 (0)2 710 43 66Email:[email protected]:pwc.com/taxcontroversy



Véronique is counsel at Law Square and her practice focuses ondispute resolution and litigation related to all types of taxes. Sheis an attorney admitted to the Brussels bar since 1996.Over a period of 18 years, Véronique has built up an experi-

ence in advising both Belgian and international clients on pro-cedural matters and in handling both administrative and courtproceedings (such as complex transfer pricing disputes).As a specialist in Belgian and international tax law, she assists

clients in tax audits and negotiates settlements with the admin-istrative authorities. She assists clients in developing a litigationstrategy on the basis of national legislation, EU law and the caselaw of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of theHuman Rights Court.Véronique also carries out risk analyses (for example, penal-

ties, criminal prosecution, liability of managers and so on) andhelps clients with voluntary disclosures. Véronique has expertise in litigation aftercare and assists

clients in the execution of settlements or court decisions andfiles requests for waiver of interest and penalties.She regularly lectures at seminars with respect to tax matters. Véronique is fluent in Dutch, English and French.

Belgium

Véronique De Brabanter

Law Square (theindependent law firm inBelgium for members ofthe PwC global network)

Woluwedal 201932 Sint-Stevens-WoluweBelgium

Tel: +32 2 710 78 17Email: [email protected]: www.lawsquare.be



Luc De Broe, Laga, joined the tax controversy solutions depart-ment in 2010. Before joining, he was partner and senior coun-sel with Stibbe. Luc has been a member of the Brussels Bar since 1982. He

is also a professor of tax law at the Katholieke UniversiteitLeuven (KUL). Since 2007, he has been a member of the exec-utive committee of the International Fiscal Association (IFA). Luc is the author of numerous articles on Belgian, interna-

tional and European tax law. In 1988, he was awarded the IFA’sMitchell B Carroll Prize for his manual on cross-border leasingbetween Belgium and the United States. In 2008 he publishedthe book, ‘Tax Planning and the Prevention of Tax Avoidance’.Luc graduated from the KUL and earned a master of laws

degree from the Northwestern University School of Law(Chicago, 1986). Luc also earned a degree in tax law from theEcole Supérieure des Sciences Fiscales Bruxelles (1987) and earneda doctorate from the KUL in 2007.

Belgium

Luc De Broe

Laga

Berkenlaan 8a1831 Brussels / DiegemBelgium

Tel: + 32 2 800 70 10Fax: + 32 2 800 70 01Email: [email protected]



Ine Lejeune leads the tax policy, tax dispute resolution and taxlitigation practice at Law Square, an independent law firm witha privileged cooperation with the PwC network. She is an attor-ney at the Brussels Bar.Her team provides support related to all sorts of taxes by:

developing local or globally coordinated dispute resolution andlitigation strategies; developing a defence strategy for clientsusing national legislation, EU law and the jurisprudence of theCourt of Justice of the European Union (ECJ); assisting withboth regulatory and voluntary disclosure; acting on behalf ofclients during audits, (fraud) investigations and raids; assistingwith administrative appeals and settlement negotiations withauthorities, policymakers and mediation and arbitration proce-dures; defending clients’ interests in the courts in Belgium, theEU and the ECJ; and filing complaints with the EuropeanCommission (EC).Before joining Law Square as a partner, Ine held multiple

leadership positions within PwC, which she joined in 1984,including global indirect tax network leader, global indirect taxpolicy leader and partner-in-charge of PwC’s services to the EUinstitutions.Ine assists clients with tax disputes and procedures before national courts in Belgium, and

other European countries, as well as before the ECJ. Ine has filed complaints with the ECresulting in infraction procedures and changes in national legislations resolving litigations.Ine has been responsible for 36 studies delivered to DG TAXUD (EC), has provided pol-

icy services to Belgium (VAT grouping), other EU member states and non-EU countries(UAE, GCC, China and India).She is a member of the European Commission’s VAT expert group, the OECD’s techni-

cal advisory group (TAG) for consumption taxes. Ine was elected Belgian Taxman in 2009 (an annual award recognising an outstanding

contribution to tax), lectures at the University of Vienna (WU) in the LLM programme ininternational tax law and has lectured at other universities in Europe and China. She has published several books and articles on EU, global and Belgian VAT. She has a

master’s degree in law and a postgraduate degree in tax studies.Ine is fluent in Dutch, English and French.

Belgium

Ine Lejeune

Law Square (theindependent law firm inBelgium for members ofthe PwC global network)

Woluwedal 201932 Sint-Stevens-WoluweBelgium

Tel: +32 2 710 78 05Email: [email protected]: www.lawsquare.be



Astrid Pieron has more than 30 years of tax experience, whichincludes 25-plus years of focus on international taxation. Herpractice covers counseling on the transactional aspects of trans-fer pricing, tax optimisation of mergers and acquisitions, struc-turing of investment funds and general assistance to privateequity deals.Astrid is heading the Mayer Brown European transfer pric-

ing centre that coordinates transfer pricing strategies and con-troversies in Europe. She served as a non-governmental mem-ber to the EU joint transfer pricing forum advising the EUcommission on transfer pricing matters.Before joining Mayer Brown’s Brussels office in 2007, Astrid

practised in Brussels and Luxembourg with two of the world’sleading tax and accounting firms: Deloitte (2002 to 2006) andArthur Andersen (1981 to 2002). Reflecting her multinationalpractice, she is fluent in French, Dutch and English.

Belgium

Astrid Pieron

Mayer Brown

Avenue des Arts 521000 BrusselsBelgium

Tel: +32 2 551 5968Fax: +32 2 502 5421Email:[email protected]: www.mayerbrown.com



Johan Speecke is a founding partner of the Laga tax law serviceline, created in 1997. Before this, he was a partner at theTournicourt & Vanistendael law office.As a senior partner of the tax team at Laga, Johan specialis-

es in tax litigation, advising companies and individuals duringthe administrative process (advice on tax challenges leading tofinal assessments, negotiations with both local and central taxadministration, individual rulings, claims against assessments,notices, among others) as well as before the tax and criminalcourts both in Belgium (Court of First Instance, Court ofAppeal, Supreme Court) and elsewhere in Europe.Johan is a professor at the Fiscale Hogeschool Brussels and a

permanent member of the editorial staff of the Tijdschrift voorFiscaal recht. He holds a degree in law from the KatholiekeUniversiteit Leuven (KUL) and a degree in economics fromEHSAL.

Belgium

Johan Speecke

Laga

President Kennedylaan 8a/00018500 KortrijkBelgium

Tel: +32 56 59 43 00Fax: +32 56 59 43 01Email: [email protected]: www.laga.be



Danny Stas is a VAT expert and managing partner of Laga. Danny has 20 years of experience as an adviser/lawyer in VAT. He started his career as a VAT consultant with Arthur

Andersen, later working as a managing partner at a tax bou-tique. He joined Laga in January 2012. He is a tax lawyer spe-cialised in VAT, in particular with respect to real estate andfinancial transactions, as well as eco taxes and contributions. In the real estate industry, Danny focuses on VAT consulting

for clients in the private sector (for example real estate develop-ers, REITs, hospitals, senior housing) and public sector, and thebroad corporate market at national and international levels. Inaddition to specific VAT topics (for example reduced VAT rates,VAT exemptions), he also has good knowledge of alternativefinancing of real estate and transfer duties. Danny earned a degree in law from KUL, Leuven (1994)

and a degree in tax and accounting from Vlerick, RUG (1995).He has authored several books and articles discussing VAT relat-ed matters. He is also a regular speaker at internal and externalseminars and is regularly consulted by professional federationsin Belgium on legislative initiatives.

Belgium

Danny Stas

Laga


Tel: +32 2 800 70 11Email: [email protected]: www.laga.be



Jonas is a transfer pricing director based in Belgium.He has been advising multinational companies on a variety of

transfer pricing matters for 10 years at PwC in Brussels and inAthens, Greece. Jonas is taking a leading role in developing bestpractice approaches to assist multinational companies to effec-tively deal with the OECD developments on base erosion andprofit shifting (BEPS).Jonas’ main focus is on value chain transformation, business

restructurings, transfer pricing risk management and disputeavoidance (via both unilateral and multilateral APAs) and dis-pute resolution work (via the mutual agreement procedure(MAP) and EU Arbitration Convention as well as actively assist-ing clients through in-depth transfer pricing audits). Jonas actively contributes to PwC thought leadership initia-

tives and actively writes transfer pricing policy insights for thePwC network on global transfer pricing developments. Jonas holds a master’s degree in commercial and financial

economics, major in taxation and has obtained the classificationof recognised tax consultant under Belgian law.

Belgium

Jonas Van de Gucht

PwC

Woluwe GardenWoluwedal 18B-1932 Sint-Stevens-Woluwe(Brussels)Belgium

Office: +32 9 268 83 36Mobile: +32 478 79 39 77Email:[email protected]



Annick Visschers joined the tax controversy solutions team atLaga in 2010. Before this, Annick practised at Stibbe until1999. A member of the Brussels Bar since 1996, Annick specialises

in Belgian and international tax law and focuses on tax risk man-agement (preventing disputes and resolving business issues), taxlitigation (defending clients before Belgian tax courts, theSupreme Court and the European Court of Justice), tax recov-ery and criminal tax matters.Annick is a member of the editorial staff of the journal Révue

Générale du Contentieux Fiscal and CFO-magazine and of thechief editorship (doctrine) of the Tijdschrift voor Fiscaal Recht.She is also the author of numerous articles on tax risk manage-ment and the investigative powers of the tax authorities. Annick graduated from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in

1995 and studied tax law at the Université Libre de Bruxelles.

Belgium

Annick Visschers

Laga


Tel: +32 2 800 70 80Fax: +32 2 800 70 01Email: [email protected]



Belgium

Thierry AfschriftAfschrift

Alexander BaertLaga

Thierry CharonLoyens & Loeff

Victor DauginetDauginet

Patrick De SmetAllen & Overy

Caroline DoccloLoyens & Loeff

Daniel GarabedianLiederkerke

Svjatoslav GnedasjLinklaters

Axel HaeltermanFreshfields Bruckhaus Deringer

Alain HuygheBaker & McKenzie

Ivo OnkelinxLinklaters

Philippe RenierHolland Van Gijzen

Stefan SablonDumon, Sablon, Vanheeswijck

Veronique SlachmuyldersKPMG

Patrick SmetAllen & Overy

Kristof SpagnoliEubelius

Dirk van StappenKPMG

Xavier Van VlemPwC

Frank VanbiervlietLaga



Belgium

Henk VanhulleLinklaters

Isabel VerlindenPwC



Gileno Barreto is a partner at Loeser e Portela Advogados, thecorrespondent law firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal inBrazil, and he is the leader of PwC Brazil’s tax controversy anddispute resolution network.Gileno has more than 10 years’ experience in tax litigation

and controversy resolution in the administrative and judicialcourts related to federal, state and city taxes at all levels, andmore than 20 years acting in tax consulting activities in Brazil,as well as five years in accounting audit.He gained broad experience of the legislative procedures at

the National Congress including advising on the drafting ofBills of Law, the national budget, internal commissions, budgetexecution and national accounting procedures among other taxpolicy issues and legislative activities. During his career as a tax adviser/lawyer he has coordinated

several projects related to the review of procedures adopted bynational and multinational companies in compliance withBrazilian tax laws and regulations. He also has provided taxadvice in structuring and restructuring projects carried out bynational and multinational companies. His clients include com-panies in the construction, financials, insurance, chemical, forestand paper, energy and utilities, mining and oil, and education sectors. Gileno is also respon-sible for restructurings and M&A projects on behalf of both public and private companies.Appointed as counselor of the Brazilian Federal Tax Administrative Council (CARF) in

2006, to its 3rd Section, Gileno served until January 2015 as vice-president of his collegiate. Gileno is also a specialist in corporate restructuring transactions for clients in a variety of

business areas; mergers and acquisitions, spin-off and mergers processes; legal due diligenceprocesses; experience in agribusiness including tax litigation to several ethanol companies andconsultancy regarding land property acquisition.He is an adviser to several Brazilian agencies and public-owned companies; electric ener-

gy companies (Eletrobras) and to the Brazilian Energy Agency (ANEEL), the TransportationAgency (ANTT) and public-owned banks like Banco do Brasil and Caixa Economica Federal.Gileno is the project technical coordinator of the Brazilian customs modernisation plan(PMAB) rendered to the Brazilian Federal Revenue Services (RFB). He also now acts as aEuropean Commission consultant.Gileno graduated from the law school of UNICEUB in Brasilia-DF, and holds an MBA

from the Fundação Getúlio Vargas – FGV and is post-graduating in international tax law(IBDT). He is a member of the Brazilian Bar Association, chapters of Federal District, SãoPaulo, Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais, Bahia and Sergipe.

Brazil

Gileno Barreto

PwC

Av Francisco Matarazzo, 1400Torre Milano, 15th FloorSão Paulo, SP 05001-903Brazil

Tel: +55 11 3879 2800Email:[email protected]:pwc.com/taxcontroversy



Jose is an international business tax and corporate consultingpartner in Deloitte Brazil, with 24 years’ experience in corpo-rate tax.Jose joined Deloitte as a tax partner in 1997 from another

Big 4 firm. He specialises in corporate income tax, foreign capital legis-

lation, corporate law, corporate reorganisations and internation-al tax planning structures, as well as direct taxes and tax contro-versy.Jose leads the legal practice of Deloitte Brazil and is also the

Brazilian tax controversy team leader. He is the lead tax partnerfor the Japanese Services Group (JSG) for Brazil. Jose has beeninvolved in several international tax engagements, working withcolleagues from other Deloitte member firms around the world.Jose has bachelors degrees in accounting (1982), economics

(1984) and law (1989), and is registered with the RegionalAccounting Council (CRC), Regional Economics Council (CRE), and in the Brazilian BarAssociation (OAB).

Brazil

José de Carvalho Jr

Deloitte Brazil

Tel: +55 (11) 5186 1011Email: [email protected]: www.deloitte.com.br



Gilberto de Castro Moreira Jr is a partner and the head of thetax department of Lautenschlager, Romeiro e Iwamizu. He isbased in São Paulo.Gilberto has been practising law in São Paulo since 1990. He

holds a JD degree from the University of São Paulo and a PhDdegree in economic and financial law from the University of SãoPaulo. Gilberto’s practice is focused on tax law (litigation, advi-sory and planning). He is an arbitrator of the EUROCHAMBERS’ Mediation

and Arbitration Chamber (CAE), a member of the Tax Law andTax Litigation Committees of the São Paulo Bar Association, ofthe Brazilian Institute of Tax Law (IBDT), of the ScientificCouncil of the Tax Law Association of São Paulo (APET), ofthe International Association of Tax Judges (IATJ) and a sittingmember of the Lawyers’ Institute of São Paulo (IASP). Formercouncilor of the 3rd Section of the Administrative Court of TaxAppeals (CARF), former tax law professor of the MackenziePresbyterian University and former member of the Ethics Courtof São Paulo Bar Association. He is the author of the book‘Bitributação Internacional e Elementos de Conexão’(International Double Taxation and Connection Elements);coordinator and co-author of the books ‘Direito TributárioInternacional’ (International Tax Law) and ‘PIS e COFINS à luz da jurisprudência doCARF’ (volumes 1, 2 and 3) (PIS and COFINS taxes under the CARF precedents). In total,he has co-authored 17 books and authored several articles addressing tax matters.

Brazil

Gilberto de Castro Moreira Jr

Lautenschlager, Romeiro eIwamizu Advogados

Av. Paulista, 1.842 - 22º andar -Torre NorteSão Paulo - SP 01310-200 Brazil

Tel: +55 11 2126 4600Fax: +55 11 2126 4601Email: [email protected]: www.lrilaw.com.br



His experience as a former judge of the administrative tax courtsand international arbitrator, combined with a strong academicbackground and extensive professional experience as a lawyerand consultant of national and international companies andfinancial institutions are what help to set the Brazilian lawyerMarcelo Ricardo Escobar apart.He is a former judge of the Administrative Tax Court of the

State of Sao Paulo and a former member of the Tax Council ofthe City of Sao Paulo.As an international arbitrator, Marcelo acts as an arbitrator

and counsel in national and international procedures. Marcelo isa fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb), andwas included in the roster of arbitrators of the Hong KongInternational Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) and the Arbitrationand Mediation Chamber of the Federation of Industries of theState of Paraná (FIEP-CAM). He is also a member of theLondon Court of International Arbitration (LCIA),International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), InternationalCouncil for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA), Club Español delArbitraje (CEA); Arbitration and Public Law Commission ofthe Centre for Arbitration and Mediation of the Chamber of Commerce Brazil-Canada(CAM-CCBC).In the academic area, Marcelo is taking a PhD in tax law, holds a master’s degree in tax

law and a specialisation in corporate law. He is also a member of the Third SectorCommission of Brazilian Bar Association – Section of Sao Paulo.Marcelo is a visiting lecturer at the post-graduate programme of Mackenzie University, and

a lecturer in several course and seminars related to arbitration, taxation and the third sector.He is also the author of the book ‘Tax incidence in the third sector: The perspective of

the Brazilian Constitutional Court’, and of several articles and publications dealing with tax-ation and international arbitration. He is fluent in English and Spanish.

Brazil

Marcelo Ricardo Escobar

Escobar Advogados

Av Paulista, 2001, 19th floor,cj 1908São Paulo/SP – 01311-300Brazil

Tel: + 55 11 3253 5442Email: [email protected]:www.escobaradvogados.com.br



Fernando Loeser is a partner at Loeser e Portela Advogados, thecorrespondent law firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal inBrazil.Fernando joined PwC in 1987, when he started working

with tax consultancy and corporate law. He joined Loeser &Portela Advogados (formerly Castro, Campos & Associados –Advogados) in 1989 as senior lawyer and became a manager in1992 before being admitted as a partner five years later, in1997. Member of the São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Brasília, Bahiaand Minas Gerais chapters of the Brazilian Bar Association(OAB), and also member of several chambers of commerce inBrazil. Fernando holds a bachelor’s degree in law from the LawSchool of the Pontificia Universidade Catolica de São Paulo –PUC/SP (1991).Fernando has more than 24 years’ experience in tax litigation

and controversy resolution in the administrative and judicialcourts related to federal, state and city taxes at all levels as wellas tax consultancy services. Fernando is also experienced in cor-porate law, M&A and antitrust law.During his career he has provided legal advice in several

M&A, spin-offs; due diligence and structuring and restructur-ing processes, as well as in the incorporation of subsidiary com-panies in Brazil; drafting of articles of association, c

Tax Controversy Leaders · Wilkinson, Martin Morgan, David Pritchard, Bashar AL-Rehany, Andrew...

Documents

Transcript of Tax Controversy Leaders · Wilkinson, Martin Morgan, David Pritchard, Bashar AL-Rehany, Andrew...