Pillar Two draft law—Phase three: Diving into the effective tax rate computation
28 September 2023
At a glance
On 4 August 2023, the Luxembourg government submitted to the Luxembourg parliament the draft law (“the draft”) for the implementation of Council Directive (EU) 2022/2523 of 14 December 2022 on ensuring a global minimum level of taxation (15%) for multinational enterprise (MNE) groups and large-scale domestic groups (DGs) within the EU (“Pillar Two directive”). The draft still needs to complete the legislative process but must be implemented by 31 December 2023 to comply with the EU deadline.
According to the draft, when an MNE group or DG is within the scope of the Pillar Two rules (as discussed in our phase one article), an additional amount of tax (top-up tax) would have to be paid in relation to each jurisdiction in which the effective tax rate (ETR) is below the agreed 15% minimum level of taxation.
The amount of top-up tax determined would be levied through the application of what the draft presents as three new taxes. These new taxes relate to the income inclusion rule (IIR), the undertaxed profits rule (UTPR), and the qualified domestic top-up tax (referred to as the QDMTT based on the acronym used by the OECD).
Special rules have been included in the draft to potentially delay the application of the Pillar Two rules to some in-scope MNE groups and DGs. These rules would provide certain exclusions from the application of the Pillar Two rules, based either on the group being in its first phase of international expansion, or on a specific parameter (e.g., revenue or profit).
A closer look
Our first article, issued on 7 September 2023, “Pillar Two draft law—Phase one: To be or not to be in scope of Pillar Two, ” summarizes the main principles driving the determination of the scope of application of the Pillar Two rules and provides a practical approach that may be followed to assess the Pillar Two Luxembourg perimeter.
Our second article, issued on 19 September 2023 , “Pillar Two draft law—Phase two: Demystification of the top-up tax,” addresses the complex set of rules to be applied to compute the potential amount of top-up tax due and to determine how, to which jurisdictions, and to which entity the tax should be allocated.
This article explains the primary factors (numerator and denominator) behind the computation of the ETR, given its pivotal role in assessing whether an amount of top-up tax has to be allocated at the level of the respective constituent entities.
Practical approach
To ascertain the jurisdictional ETR, it is necessary to calculate the adjusted covered taxes and the net qualifying income or loss for each constituent entity. The following sections provide an exhaustive breakdown of the various steps to be undertaken to calculate these two factors.
Diving deeper into the net qualifying income or loss component
Determining the net qualifying income or loss for each constituent entity of an in-scope MNE group or DG requires three primary steps, as described below.
Step 1: Identification of the financial accounting net income or loss
The initial step in determining the net qualifying income or loss involves the utilization of the financial accounting net income or loss (FANIL) of the constituent entity. For Pillar Two purposes, the FANIL generally should be based on the accounting standard used by the ultimate parent entity (UPE) for the preparation of the group’s consolidated financial statements, without taking into consideration consolidation adjustments aimed at eliminating intragroup transactions. Other accounting standards could also be used in very limited situations. For the potential use of different financial accounting standards, please refer to our phase two article (including the QDMTT safe harbor comments).
Step 2: FANIL adjustments
Once the FANIL has been identified, various adjustments (“income adjustments”) would have to be made.
These adjustments aim to eliminate a few book-to-tax differences considered common in various jurisdictions. Generally, a book-to-tax adjustment involves increasing or decreasing the net result of the financial accounts so as to align the result to domestic tax rules.
Therefore, book-to-tax adjustments for Pillar Two purposes foreseen by the draft would align the FANIL to what the OECD considers an acceptable tax basis on which the 15% minimum tax would be computed to reach a minimum level of taxation.
Book-to-tax differences may give rise to either permanent differences that will not reverse in a future period or temporary differences that will instead reverse in the future. The first type would be dealt with in the computation of qualifying income or loss, and the second would be addressed in the computation of adjusted covered taxes. The income adjustments could have the effect of either increasing (positive adjustments) or decreasing (negative adjustments) the qualifying income or loss of the constituent entities.
These adjustments, although numerous, constitute the very core of the Pillar Two rules. In fact, they could cause a constituent entity that is taxed at a nominal rate exceeding 15% to be considered a low-tax constituent entity subject to a top-up tax amount.
The table below provides a list of the main adjustments that would have to be applied to the FANIL. Some adjustments would only increase the FANIL (+), while others would only decrease it (-). However, most of them could modify the FANIL in both directions (+/-). The adjustments are divided into mandatory and optional adjustments and include a + or – sign next to them to indicate the effect that they could have on the FANIL.
At the end of the article, you will find a table containing our comments on these adjustments.
Mandatory adjustments |
Optional adjustments |
a) Net tax expenses (+/-) |
q) Debt waiver (-) |
Step 3: Allocation of qualifying income or loss
The draft law foresees special rules for the allocation of qualifying income or loss in the case of permanent establishments (PEs) and flow-through entities.
Qualifying income or loss of a PE
Even though specific rules are provided for various situations in which the draft would recognize the existence of a PE for Pillar Two purposes, the general rule is that the qualifying income or loss that is related to the activities performed by the PE would have to be allocated to the PE and would be relevant for the computation of the blended qualifying income or loss in the jurisdiction of the PE (an exception would apply for stateless PEs).
Qualifying income or loss of flow-through entities
The draft makes the distinction between two types of flow-through entities:
- Tax transparent entities, which are defined as entities that are treated as fiscally transparent both in the jurisdiction where they are constituted and in the jurisdiction of their owner(s); and
- Reverse hybrid entities, which are defined as entities that are treated as fiscally transparent in the jurisdiction where they are constituted but tax opaque in the jurisdiction of their owner(s).
The allocation of the qualifying income or loss of flow-through entities would follow a priority-based approach, as outlined below:
- First, any qualifying income or loss that is allocable to owners that are not group entities would have to be excluded (unless the transparent entity is a UPE or is held directly or through a chain of transparent entities by the UPE);
- Second, if the business of the flow-through entity is carried out through a PE, any qualifying income or loss of the flow-through entity attributable to the PE would be allocated to the PE; and
- Third, the remaining qualifying income or loss would be allocated to the owners of a tax transparent entity or to the entity itself in case of a tax transparent entity that is the UPE of the group or a reverse hybrid entity.
Diving deeper into adjusted covered taxes
After establishing the net qualifying income or loss for all constituent entities (which serves as the denominator of the ETR formula), the calculation of the adjusted covered taxes must be carried out.
The computation of the adjusted covered taxes of each constituent entity of an MNE group or DG would follow a specific set of rules aimed at determining the amount of taxes to be considered associated with the qualifying income or loss (as defined above). Only the amount obtained after the application of this set of rules could be used as the numerator of the ETR calculation formula described in our phase two article.
Step 1: Determination of covered taxes
The starting point to compute the amount of covered taxes of a constituent entity would be the current tax expense accrued in the FANIL, adjusted to reflect certain timing differences through deferred tax accounting.
The draft includes both a positive and a negative list for the evaluation of covered taxes, as further detailed below. The covered tax concept would have to be considered broadly to capture all the taxes accrued in the financial statements of a constituent entity related to its income and profits, as well as substitutive taxes.
The positive list of covered taxes includes:
- Taxes recorded in the financial accounts of a constituent entity with respect to its income or profits, or its share of the income or profits of a constituent entity in which it owns an ownership interest;
- Taxes on distributed profits, deemed profit distributions, and non-business expenses imposed under an eligible distributions tax system;
- Taxes imposed in lieu of a generally applicable corporate income tax; and
- Taxes levied by reference to retained earnings and corporate equity, including on multiple components based on income and equity.
While the draft law does not indicate which Luxembourg taxes should be treated as covered taxes, the commentary to the draft clarifies that the corporate income tax (CIT), municipal business tax (MBT), and the net wealth tax (NWT) would be considered covered taxes.
It is reasonable to assume that the solidarity surcharge, which is computed as a percentage of the CIT charge, would also be considered a covered tax.
Withholding taxes levied on dividend distributions out of a Luxembourg constituent entity should also constitute a covered tax.
The draft is silent on whether the subscription tax would be considered a covered tax. However, since it is computed in a similar way as the NWT, it may be part of covered taxes. Clarification during the legislative process is anticipated.
The negative list, on the other hand, excludes from covered taxes the top-up taxes computed under the qualified IIR, UTPR, and QDMTT. The commentary to the draft clarifies further that penalties, interest on late tax payment, or similar levies would not be considered covered taxes.
Unsurprisingly, the commentary to the draft, in line with the commentary to the OECD model rules, clarifies that indirect taxes, taxes on salaries, and land taxes would not be covered taxes. Any tax that is not a covered tax would remain deductible from the qualifying income or loss computed for Pillar Two purposes.
Step 2: Adjustments to current covered taxes
After identifying which taxes are considered covered taxes, several adjustments would have to be made to obtain the adjusted covered taxes. The amount of adjusted covered taxes obtained would serve as the numerator for the computation of the Pillar Two ETR.
The adjustments needed could be grouped in the following three categories:
a) Additions and reductions to current covered taxes;
b) Increase or decrease in covered taxes recorded in equity or other comprehensive income (OCI); and
c) Total deferred tax adjustment amount.
Further details for each adjustment category are provided in the subsequent sections.
a) Additions and reductions to current covered taxes
The draft confirms that any covered tax that would be booked as an expense (i.e., above the tax line) would have to be added to the covered taxes.
Furthermore, an amount of current tax expense that would relate to an uncertain tax position would not be included in covered taxes until it is actually paid. An uncertain tax position is a tax accounting concept that generally applies where there is uncertainty about whether a tax authority will accept the tax treatment under local tax law (i.e., the OECD describes it as not more likely than not to be sustained upon examination). Therefore, an amount accrued in relation to an uncertain tax position would have to be removed from the adjusted covered taxes due to its uncertainty (reduction), while any amount paid in relation to an uncertain tax position would have to be added to the adjusted covered taxes (addition).
As detailed in the table summarizing the adjustments required to determine the net qualifying income or loss, a qualified refundable tax credit would be considered income for Pillar Two purposes. Therefore, if the tax credit decreased the amount of covered taxes in the financial statements, it would have to be added back to the covered taxes and added to qualifying income (addition). Alternatively, any tax credit that that is not considered a qualified tax credit would have to reduce the covered taxes (reduction). If already booked as a reduction in tax expense, no adjustment would be required.
Any amount of covered taxes that relates to excluded income in the computation of qualifying income or loss also would have to be removed from the covered taxes (reduction). Without such adjustment, the covered taxes would be artificially inflated while the qualifying income or loss would be decreased, increasing the ETR.
Additionally, any portion of covered taxes that was reimbursed or credited to a constituent entity but was not reflected as a reduction of tax expense in the financial statements would have to be deducted from the amount of covered taxes, unless it qualifies as a refundable tax credit.
Finally, any covered tax due that is not expected to be paid within three years would have to be removed from the adjusted covered taxes (reduction). The commentaries to the draft specify that the filing of the corporate tax return of a constituent entity and the issuance of a preliminary tax assessment under section 100a of the General Tax Law (AO) by the Luxembourg tax authorities would, in normal circumstances, be considered as creating an expectation of payment of the taxes within three years.
b) Increase or decrease in covered taxes recorded in equity or OCI
Any increase or decrease in covered taxes that would be recorded directly in equity or in any other elements of income, e.g., in OCI, rather than being booked in the profit and loss (P&L) account, would also result in an increase or decrease of the adjusted covered taxes, provided that such taxes pertain to amounts included in the calculation of the net qualifying income or loss.
c) Total deferred tax adjustment amount
General rule
The third category of adjustments to be considered for the computation of adjusted covered taxes is deferred taxes.
The draft adopts deferred tax accounting to address timing differences when calculating covered taxes. The rules were drafted this way to prevent an MNE from having to pay top-up tax in a year due to a low ETR, while the income or expense may simply be taxed or deductible in a different period. As for current covered taxes, the starting point for the computation of the total deferred tax adjustment amount would be the deferred tax expense (or income) accrued in the financial statements. Also in this case, several adjustments would be required. The most relevant ones would be as follows.
Similarly to current taxes, the total deferred tax adjustment amount would not include the amount of deferred tax expense in relation to items excluded from the qualifying income or loss computation.
A deferred tax that could be seen as speculative in nature would have to be removed from the total deferred tax adjustment amount. That would be the case for accrued deferred taxes that relate to an uncertain tax position (as for current taxes, as discussed above). Furthermore, any deferred tax that relates to potential future distributions of profit from a subsidiary to the constituent entity that has booked a deferred tax (liability) also would have to be removed, as it is assumed that, in most cases, an MNE group or DG decides the timing of such distributions. These taxes would be included later upon their actual payment.
There is also an important rule stating that the impact of a valuation allowance or accounting recognition adjustment for deferred tax assets would have to be disregarded. In other words, a deferred tax asset would need to be considered for the total deferred tax adjustment amount, even if it is not recognized and booked on the balance sheet of an entity. However, it would be advisable to have the unrecognized deferred tax asset mentioned in the notes to the accounts to facilitate its inclusion in the total deferred tax adjustment amount. To remain neutral, any release of valuation allowance would need to be deducted from the total deferred tax adjustment amount.
Deferred tax expenses arising from the creation and use of tax credits would be ignored for the purpose of calculating covered taxes.
The draft contains specific recapture provisions for situations where deferred tax liabilities are not reversed and paid within the five subsequent fiscal years.
After applying the above adjustments, any Luxembourg adjusted deferred tax asset or liability computed at the domestic tax rate above 15% (e.g., at the combined CIT and MBT rate applicable to the Luxembourg entity) would have to be recast at 15%. Conversely, when the adjusted deferred tax asset or liability is computed at a rate lower than 15% minimum tax, no recast would be needed.
It should be noted that any remeasurement of deferred tax due to changes to the statutory tax rates would have to be disregarded since the deferred tax would have been recast at 15%.
Election to opt out of deferred tax accounting
The Pillar Two rules do not contain a general loss carryforward regime but rely instead on the deferred tax mechanism used in the financial statements.
Under certain accounting standards, and under certain conditions, in the presence of tax losses computed under the tax rules of a given jurisdiction, a corresponding deferred tax asset could be booked in the financial statements. The amount of the deferred tax asset (DTA) can be computed by multiplying the amount of tax losses by the domestic tax rate.
However, in certain jurisdictions, the nominal tax rates could be lower than the minimum tax rate of 15%. In such cases, any reversal of the deferred tax asset (upon the use of the tax losses), computed at such rate lower than 15%, could lead to an immediate top-up tax.
To alleviate this situation, the draft provides for an election that would allow constituent entities generating tax losses to dispense with the use of full deferred tax accounting and to compute instead a deferred tax asset that would equal 15% of the Pillar Two loss. When such an option is revoked, the deferred tax asset would be reduced to zero. While this election is initially intended to cover the situation described above, it could potentially apply to mitigate the effect of an additional top-up tax arising in relation to an excessive loss position.
Step 3: Allocation of certain adjusted covered taxes
In certain cases, some taxes incurred and booked by a constituent entity would have to be allocated to another constituent entity, thus affecting the computation of the jurisdictional ETR. The following cases are included in the draft:
- Covered taxes booked in the financial statements of a constituent entity with respect to the income of a PE of that constituent entity would be allocated to the PE.
- Covered taxes booked by a transparent entity would be allocated to its owner(s).
- Covered taxes in relation with a controlled foreign company (CFC) incurred by a constituent entity generally would be allocated to the jurisdiction where the CFC is located.
- Covered taxes booked by a constituent entity that is the owner of a hybrid entity would be allocated to the hybrid entity.
- Covered taxes booked by the beneficiary constituent entity of a dividend payment (typically withholding taxes on dividends) would be allocated to the distributing constituent entity.
- Specific principles for the allocation of covered taxes would apply for the determination of the QDMTT.
Conclusion
Although the draft is only expected to be final by the end of 2023 and clarifications of the wording provided in the Pillar Two directive and the OECD guidance may still be provided in response to feedback from diverse public and private stakeholders, it is imperative that any group falling within the scope of Pillar Two acquires a comprehensive understanding of the methodology for calculating the two fundamental components necessary to evaluate the ETR. This will help them in assessing properly whether a top-up tax allocation is necessary at the level of the respective constituent entities.
Should you have any questions or need assistance in this respect, you may contact our tax professionals.
Detailed qualifying income or loss adjustments
Mandatory adjustments |
Description |
|
a |
Net tax expenses (+/-) |
Tax expenses generally would be added back to the accounting result in order to start from profit before taxes. The scope of the term is broad, encompassing various taxes, such as covered taxes, deferred tax assets, any QDMTT, IIR, and UTPR top-up taxes, and disqualified refundable imputation taxes. |
b |
Excluded dividends (-) |
Dividends received from participations that carry voting rights or rights to the profits, capital, or reserves generally would be excluded from the qualifying income or loss of a Luxembourg shareholder, except for dividends received from participations in which the Luxembourg shareholder has economically held less than 10% (portfolio shareholding) for less than 12 months. This treatment could create a mismatch with the Luxembourg participation exemption regime, which expands the scope of the exemption to cases where there is a commitment by the Luxembourg shareholder to hold the participation during an uninterrupted period of at least 12 months. In addition, contrary to Luxembourg law, under the Pillar Two rules, the 12-month holding period would have to be computed on a share-by-share basis. Such discrepancies could give rise to permanent differences between the Luxembourg tax law and the rules for determining qualifying income or loss. On the other hand, the Pillar Two rules do not impose a specific taxation condition on the distributing entity. |
c |
Excluded equity gains (-) or losses (+) |
Any (i) net gain/loss related to changes in the fair value of an ownership interest (as defined in the draft), except portfolio shareholding, (ii) profit/loss included in the FANIL under the equity accounting method, and (iii) gain/loss from the disposal of ownership interests, except portfolio shareholding, generally would be excluded from the qualifying income or loss computation. Consequently, in case of portfolio shareholding, no matter the holding period, net gain/loss related to changes in fair value or from the disposal of ownership interests would be considered included in the qualifying income or loss (i.e., no adjustment would be required on the FANIL). |
d |
Included revaluation method gains (+) or losses (-) |
Gains or losses resulting from the revaluation of property, plant, and equipment to their fair value that are recorded as OCI on the balance sheet of the constituent entity without being subsequently reported in the P&L would be taken into account for the determination of the qualifying income or loss. |
e |
Gains (-) or losses (+) from the disposition of assets and liabilities excluded in neutral reorganization |
An adjustment would be required in case of gains (-) or losses (+) booked in the financial accounts in relation to tax neutral reorganizations. This rule would preserve the policy objective of such reorganization. |
f |
Asymmetric foreign currency gains (+/-) or losses (+/-) |
Adjustments would be needed in relation to foreign currency exchange gains or losses that arise due to differences between the currency used for accounting purposes and the currency used for tax purposes. Different asymmetric foreign currency gains or losses can arise (as described in the draft) based on the relationship between tax functional currency, accounting functional currency, and a third foreign currency. In this respect, the goal of the adjustment would be to give relevance to the tax functional currency used, amending the FANIL to align the result shown using the accounting functional currency to that shown using the tax functional currency. |
g |
Policy-disallowed expenses (+) |
Any expenses that are considered policy-disallowed expenses (illegal payments, including bribes and kickbacks, and fines and penalties) generally would be added back for the determination of the qualifiyingincome or loss. A materiality threshold of EUR 50,000 would apply in the case of fines and penalties. |
h |
Prior period errors and changes in accounting principles (+/-) |
Adjustments would take into account (i) a material correction of an error in the determination of the FANIL of a prior year modifying the income or expense that could be included in the current year, and (ii) a change in accounting principles or policy that affected the income or expenses included in the computation of the qualifying income or loss, both resulting in a change to the opening equity of a constituent entity at the beginning of a fiscal year. |
i |
Accrued pension expenses (+/-) |
This adjustment would correspond to the difference between the amount of expense included in the FANIL and the amount paid to a pension fund for the fiscal year. |
j |
Transfer pricing adjustments (+/-) |
All intragroup transactions entered into by constituent entities located in different jurisdictions would have to be recorded, for Pillar Two purposes, in the same amount in the financial statements of the constituent entities and in line with the arm’s length principle. An arm’s length result also should be achieved in a domestic context in relation to a transfer of assets giving rise to a loss included in the computation of the qualifying income or loss.
In the three scenarios above, the transfer price used would be presumed to be in line with the arm’s length principle and, consequently, the counterparty generally would have to adjust the computation of the qualifying income or loss accordingly to prevent double taxation or double non-taxation. Specific exceptions to this rule should be considered according to the OECD model rules commentary.
|
k |
Qualified refundable tax credits (+) |
The qualified refundable tax credits would be considered income for Pillar Two purposes. As such, if booked as a reduction of covered taxes, they would have to be added back to compute the qualifying income. No adjustment would be required if the credits are booked already as revenue in the financial statements. To be considered qualified, a tax credit would have to be designed in such a way that it is to be paid as a cash payment or cash equivalent to a constituent entity within four years from the date the constituent entity is entitled to receive it under the laws of the jurisdiction granting the credit. In case no Luxembourg tax credit can be considered to fall within this category, it would have to be treated as a reduction of the tax expense and removed from the FANIL (if originally booked as income). |
l |
Specifically targeted intragroup financing arrangements (+/-) |
Expenses linked to intragroup financing arrangements would be excluded from the computation of the qualifying income or loss of a constituent entity when the entity is located in a low-tax jurisdiction and the counterparty is located in a high-tax jurisdiction and it can reasonably be expected that the intragroup financing arrangement would reduce the qualifying income of the low-tax constituent entity without increasing the taxable income of the high-tax counterparty, over the duration of the arrangement. |
m |
Exclusion of certain insurance company income (+/-) |
An insurance company shall exclude from the computation of its qualifying income or loss any amount charged to policyholders for taxes paid by the insurance company in respect of returns to the policyholders. An insurance company shall include in the computation of its qualifying income or loss any returns to policyholders that are not reflected in its financial accounting net income or loss to the extent that the corresponding increase or decrease in liability to the policyholders is reflected in its financial accounting net income or loss. |
n |
Additional tier one capital (+/-) |
Any increase or decrease to the equity of a constituent entity attributable to distributions in respect of additional tier one capital would be treated as income or expense, respectively, in the computation of its qualifying income or loss. |
o |
Restructurings, holding structures, tax neutrality and distribution regimes |
A constituent entity’s financial accounting net income or loss must be adjusted as necessary to reflect the requirements of the relevant provisions in relation to corporate restructurings and holding structures and in relation to tax neutrality and distribution regimes. |
p |
International shipping income (+/-) |
Certain income from international shipping and ancillary activities (mainly income in relation to the transportation of passengers or cargo in international traffic) would be excluded from qualifying income or loss. |
Optional adjusments |
Description |
|
q |
Debt waiver (-) |
An annual option would allow the full or partial exclusion of the amount of debt waiver in cases mainly related to insolvency situations, as detailed below: a. The debt release is undertaken under statutorily provided insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings that are supervised by a court or other judicial body in the relevant jurisdiction or where an independent insolvency administrator is appointed; b. The debt release exists in relation to a third-party debt and it is reasonable to conclude that the debtor would be insolvent within 12 months in case of no debt release. In such a case, both third-party and related-party debts released as part of the same arrangement would be excluded from the computation of qualifying income or loss; or c. When the above situations do not exist, the debt release could still be excluded when the debtor’s liabilities are in excess of the fair market value of its assets determined immediately before the debt release. In such a case, only amounts with respect to debts owed to a creditor that is a person not connected to the debtor would be excluded but only to the extent of the lesser of (i) the excess of the debtor’s liabilities over the fair market value of its assets determined immediately before the debt release, or (ii) the reduction in the debtor’s attributes under the tax laws of the debtor’s jurisdiction resulting from the debt release. |
r |
Stock-based compensation (+/-) |
A five-year election would allow a deduction for stock-based compensation expenditures based on the fair market value of the stock when the option is exercised, which may be different from the value of the stock at the time of the issuance, which is generally taken into account for financial accounting purposes. |
s |
Realization method in lieu of fair value accounting (+/-) |
A five-year election would allow the use of the realization principle to determine gains or losses arising from assets and liabilities that are subject to fair value or impairment accounting. Under this election, gain or loss associated with an asset or liability would arise when the asset is disposed of rather than as its value changes according to market value or impairment. |
t |
Spread of real estate capital gains over five years (+/-) |
An annual election would allow the spread of gains or losses from the sale to third parties of immovable property located in the same jurisdiction as the constituent entity over a period of up to five years. The purpose of this election would be to better allocate the gain or loss from the sale of tangible assets located in the same jurisdiction to the previous years during which the gain or loss took place so that this is reflected also in the ETR of the jurisdiction. |
u |
Consolidated transactions within fiscal unity in same jurisdiction (+/-) |
A five-year election would allow a group to apply its consolidated accounting treatment to transactions between constituent entities of the same MNE group or DG located in the same jurisdiction and that are included in a tax consolidation group. This option would not be available for cross-border intragroup transactions. |
