BEPS - Base Erosion and Profit Shifting - is the international tax policy framework developed by the OECD and G20 to address strategies used by multinational enterprises to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions and erode the tax base of higher-tax countries. The framework consists of 15 Action Plans covering transfer pricing, treaty abuse, digital economy taxation, country-by-country reporting and dispute resolution. For any business operating across borders, BEPS compliance has become a baseline legal obligation rather than an optional consideration. This guide explains the legal definition of BEPS, its core components, how it applies in practice, and what multinational groups must do to remain compliant.
BEPS is a term used to describe both the problem and the solution. As a problem, it refers to tax planning strategies that exploit gaps and mismatches in national tax rules to make profits disappear or shift to locations where little or no real economic activity occurs. As a framework, it refers to the OECD/G20 BEPS Project, launched formally in response to growing concern among governments that existing international tax rules - many dating back to the early twentieth century - were no longer fit for purpose in a globalised, digitised economy.
The OECD published its 15-point Action Plan in two phases, with final reports released in 2015. These reports were not binding treaties in themselves, but they formed the basis for coordinated domestic law changes across more than 140 member jurisdictions of the OECD Inclusive Framework on BEPS. Countries that joined the Inclusive Framework committed to implementing the four minimum standards: Action 5 on harmful tax practices, Action 6 on treaty abuse, Action 13 on country-by-country reporting, and Action 14 on dispute resolution.
The legal significance of BEPS for businesses lies in its translation into domestic legislation. When a country enacts controlled foreign company rules, introduces transfer pricing documentation requirements, or ratifies the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent BEPS (the MLI), it is giving domestic legal force to BEPS recommendations. Businesses are therefore bound not by the OECD reports themselves, but by the national laws and tax treaties that implement them.
The 15 Action Plans address distinct but interconnected aspects of international tax avoidance. Understanding their scope helps businesses identify which obligations apply to their structure.
In practice, the actions most frequently encountered by multinational groups are those relating to transfer pricing documentation (Action 13), treaty abuse and the principal purpose test (Action 6), and the Two-Pillar Solution developed after the original 15 actions - particularly Pillar Two, which introduces a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15 percent for large multinational groups.
The Two-Pillar Solution represents the most significant development in international tax law since the original BEPS project. It was agreed by the OECD Inclusive Framework in recent years and addresses two separate but related problems.
Pillar One reallocates a portion of the taxing rights over the largest and most profitable multinationals - those with global revenues above a specified threshold - to market jurisdictions where their customers are located, regardless of physical presence. This is particularly relevant for digital businesses that generate significant revenue in countries where they have no taxable establishment under traditional rules.
Pillar Two introduces the Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) rules, which establish a minimum effective tax rate of 15 percent for multinational enterprise groups with annual revenues of EUR 750 million or more. Where a constituent entity of such a group is taxed below the minimum rate in a given jurisdiction, a top-up tax is collected - either by the parent jurisdiction under the Income Inclusion Rule (IIR) or by other group members under the Undertaxed Profits Rule (UTPR). Many jurisdictions have already enacted domestic legislation implementing the GloBE rules, making Pillar Two a live compliance obligation for qualifying groups.
A common mistake among businesses is assuming that Pillar Two applies only to the largest global corporations. In practice, the EUR 750 million threshold is measured at the consolidated group level, meaning that subsidiaries of large foreign parents - even relatively small local entities - may fall within scope and face new reporting and tax obligations.
Transfer pricing is the area of tax law most directly affected by BEPS. It governs the prices charged between related parties in a multinational group for goods, services, intellectual property and financing. The arm';s length principle - the requirement that intercompany transactions be priced as if they were conducted between independent parties - is the cornerstone of international transfer pricing rules and is embedded in Article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention.
BEPS Actions 8 to 10 significantly strengthened the arm';s length principle by requiring that transfer pricing outcomes reflect actual value creation. Before these reforms, groups could shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions by placing intellectual property in a holding company that contributed little beyond legal ownership. The revised OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, which incorporate the BEPS changes, require that profits follow the functions performed, assets used and risks assumed by group entities - not merely contractual arrangements.
Action 13 introduced a three-tiered documentation framework. Large multinationals must prepare a Master File describing the group';s global business, a Local File documenting specific intercompany transactions in each jurisdiction, and a Country-by-Country Report (CbCR) providing a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction breakdown of revenues, profits, taxes paid, employees and assets. The CbCR is filed with the tax authority of the ultimate parent and exchanged automatically with other jurisdictions under the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement.
In practice, founders and finance directors of growing international groups often underestimate the documentation burden. Transfer pricing documentation must generally be prepared contemporaneously - that is, before the filing of the tax return for the year in question - and must be updated annually. Failure to maintain adequate documentation exposes the group to penalties, transfer pricing adjustments and reputational risk during audits.
If your group is expanding internationally and you need to assess your transfer pricing exposure, contact info@vlolawfirm.com. We can help structure the setup correctly the first time.
Tax treaties are bilateral agreements between countries that allocate taxing rights and prevent double taxation. BEPS identified treaty abuse - using treaty networks to achieve double non-taxation - as a central problem. Action 6 introduced minimum standards to prevent treaty shopping, the practice of routing income through a third country solely to access a favourable treaty.
The principal mechanism for implementing Action 6 is the inclusion of a Principal Purpose Test (PPT) in tax treaties. Under the PPT, treaty benefits are denied if one of the principal purposes of an arrangement was to obtain those benefits, unless granting them would be consistent with the object and purpose of the treaty. The PPT is a broad, subjective standard that gives tax authorities significant discretion to challenge structures that lack genuine commercial substance.
The Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent BEPS - the MLI - is the legal instrument through which BEPS treaty-related measures are incorporated into existing bilateral tax treaties without requiring renegotiation of each treaty individually. Countries that sign and ratify the MLI can modify their treaty network at scale. The MLI has been signed by over 100 jurisdictions and has entered into force for a large number of covered tax agreements.
Action 7 addressed the artificial avoidance of permanent establishment status. A permanent establishment (PE) is a taxable presence in a country, typically a fixed place of business or a dependent agent. Before BEPS, groups could structure their operations to avoid PE status even where they had significant economic activity in a country - for example, by characterising a local subsidiary as a commissionnaire rather than a full-risk distributor. The revised PE rules make it harder to avoid a taxable presence through such arrangements.
A non-obvious requirement for businesses operating through agents or limited-risk structures is that the post-BEPS PE rules may create taxable presences in jurisdictions where the group previously had none. This can trigger registration obligations, local tax filings and retrospective assessments if not identified and addressed proactively.
BEPS compliance is now a standard component of international business structuring. Two practical scenarios illustrate how the framework applies.
Consider a technology company headquartered in a high-tax jurisdiction that licenses intellectual property to a subsidiary in a low-tax jurisdiction, which then sub-licenses to operating companies worldwide. Under pre-BEPS rules, this structure could shift a large proportion of group profits to the low-tax entity. Under the revised transfer pricing guidelines and the GloBE rules, the arrangement must reflect genuine value creation, and if the effective tax rate in the low-tax jurisdiction falls below 15 percent, a top-up tax will be levied elsewhere in the group.
Consider also a manufacturing group that sells into a country through a local agent who habitually concludes contracts on the group';s behalf. Under the revised PE rules introduced by BEPS Action 7 and implemented through the MLI, this arrangement may now constitute a permanent establishment in the market country, requiring the group to register, file tax returns and pay corporate tax there - even if the agent is a legally separate entity.
For businesses that have not reviewed their structures since the BEPS reforms were implemented domestically, the risk of non-compliance is real. Tax authorities in OECD member countries have significantly increased their audit activity in areas covered by BEPS, and the automatic exchange of CbCR data means that inconsistencies between jurisdictions are more visible than ever.
Businesses should also be aware of the interaction between BEPS and domestic anti-avoidance rules. Many countries have enacted general anti-avoidance provisions that operate alongside BEPS-specific measures, giving tax authorities multiple legal bases to challenge aggressive structures.
What is the legal definition of BEPS and who does it apply to?
BEPS stands for Base Erosion and Profit Shifting and refers both to the tax planning strategies used by multinational enterprises to reduce their overall tax burden and to the OECD/G20 framework designed to counter those strategies. The framework applies, in principle, to any multinational enterprise operating across jurisdictions that have implemented BEPS measures into domestic law. In practice, the most significant obligations - such as country-by-country reporting and the Pillar Two global minimum tax - apply to groups meeting specific revenue thresholds, typically EUR 750 million in annual consolidated revenue. Smaller groups are not exempt from all BEPS-related obligations, however, as transfer pricing rules and treaty-related measures apply regardless of size. The key question for any business is which domestic laws in each of its operating jurisdictions have been enacted in response to BEPS recommendations.
How long does it take to become BEPS-compliant, and what does it cost?
The timeline and cost of achieving BEPS compliance depend heavily on the complexity of the group';s structure, the number of jurisdictions involved and the state of existing documentation. For a mid-sized multinational with operations in five to ten countries, preparing a Master File, Local Files and a country-by-country report for the first time typically requires several months of work by tax advisers and internal finance teams. Professional fees for this exercise generally start from the low thousands of EUR for simpler structures and can reach significantly higher amounts for complex groups with intercompany financing, intellectual property arrangements or multiple service flows. Ongoing annual compliance costs are lower once the framework is in place, but documentation must be updated each year. Businesses that delay compliance risk penalties, which in many jurisdictions are calculated as a percentage of the underpaid tax or as fixed amounts per filing failure.
Can a business restructure to reduce its BEPS exposure, and what are the risks?
Restructuring to reduce BEPS exposure is legitimate and widely practised, provided the restructuring reflects genuine changes in substance rather than purely paper arrangements. Moving functions, assets and risks to a different jurisdiction can alter the transfer pricing outcome and reduce top-up tax exposure under Pillar Two, but only if the restructuring is accompanied by real economic activity - employees, decision-making, physical presence. A common mistake is to implement a restructuring on paper without ensuring that the operational reality follows. Tax authorities are increasingly focused on substance requirements, and a restructuring that lacks genuine commercial rationale will be vulnerable to challenge under the Principal Purpose Test, domestic anti-avoidance rules or the revised transfer pricing guidelines. Any restructuring should be supported by a contemporaneous business case and documented thoroughly before implementation.
BEPS has fundamentally reshaped international tax law. For multinational businesses, it is no longer possible to rely on structures that exploit gaps between national tax systems without facing significant legal and financial risk. Transfer pricing documentation, treaty compliance, permanent establishment analysis and - for larger groups - Pillar Two obligations are now standard elements of cross-border business management.
VLO Law Firms advises international clients on BEPS compliance and international tax structuring. We can assist with transfer pricing documentation, treaty analysis, permanent establishment assessments and Pillar Two readiness reviews. To request a consultation, contact: info@vlolawfirm.com