14.9.2015

IFA Annual Congress: Practical Protection of Tax Payers’ Rights and BEPS in Focus

There are often a few major issues on everyone’s lips in the international community of tax lawyers. This was the case also at The International Fiscal Association’s (IFA) 69th Congress in Basel, Switzerland. One of the main subjects in the congress was how tax payers’ rights can be most efficiently protected in practice.

A general report prepared for the IFA drew conclusions from data provided by the branch reports from each jurisdiction. The idea was to identify minimal standards and best practices for the timely and effective protection of fundamental tax payers’ rights.

Twelve separate aspects were identified, which were then discussed in the panel. An interesting observation was that Finland was mentioned only three times among the best practices rated in the charts presented. It seems the protection of tax payers’ rights deserves to be in focus in the Finnish tax field, as well.

Seeking Greater Transparency in Taxation

As expected, hardly any seminars at the IFA congress were held without mentioning BEPS (base erosion and profit shifting). BEPS is a project of the OECD and the G-20 aimed at getting rid of tax planning strategies that exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules to shift profits to locations where they are lightly taxed so that little or no overall corporate tax is paid.

Within that project, the OECD has created an action plan that sets out fifteen key areas of international tax rules. These should be addressed by 2015.

The panelists representing tax advisors and business life at the IFA/OECD seminar took a somewhat cautious viewpoint when they evaluated what aspect of BEPS would have the biggest impact. For example, Krister Andersson, Chairman of the Tax Policy Group BUSINESSEUROPE, noted that there is a risk that countries may have different views or interpretations of the steps presented by the OECD in the action plan.

The panelists felt that it is crucial that all countries implement the BEPS actions consistently. Double taxation disputes could arise if countries unilaterally attempt to address these issues without consensus-based principles. It was underlined in the seminar that the OECD must take a strong role in the finalisation and implementation procedure, as BEPS may cause some uncertainty between the countries.

Ron Durand, Partner at Stikeman Elliott, took the view that governments have to make the system work, and national tax administrations need to be well educated. In addition, most of the panelists noted that effective dispute resolution mechanisms are an essential part of the BEPS project.

In sum, it seems to be up to countries how BEPS is implemented in their jurisdictions.

A Step in the Right Direction

Marlies De Ruiter from the OECD agreed that BEPS may not be ideal, but it is a good first step. A package related to the action plan will be delivered to the G20 Finance Ministers in October 2015, together with a plan for follow-up work and a timetable for its implementation.

During the next stage, implementation measures will be stated at the level of domestic legislation and international coordination.

Adapting to a New Environment without Forgetting Tax Payers’ Rights

The practical protection of tax payers’ rights will continue to be a topic for some time to come. This is due to the focus of current international discussions and projects, such as BEPS, being on increasing tax payers’ liability to deliver information to the tax administrations. This will cause extra compliance and administrative costs and increase of reporting requirements.

More disputes between businesses and tax authorities are expected to arise as the rules are amended, especially where they lead to arrangements or structures previously accepted by tax authorities becoming forbidden. Tax payers may not have a well-protected position in this situation, and tax assessments result in lengthy appeal procedures.

Taking into account the increasing exchange of information between the countries, it will be worth paying attention to confidentiality and the proper use of tax payers’ commercially sensitive or tax-related information.

Latest references

We acted as legal advisor to eQ Fund Management Company Ltd in a structural arrangement in which Special Investment Fund eQ Residential Fund and Special Investment Fund eQ Residential Fund II transferred their assets to the newly launched Special Investment Fund eQ Residential Fund III. In connection with the arrangement, eQ Residential Fund III raised 37 million euros in new capital, and its fundraising will continue throughout 2025.  The portfolio of eQ Residential Fund III consists of 19 residential properties completed between 2021 and 2024, comprising nearly 1,400 apartments located in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Turku, and Tampere.
Case published 21.5.2025
We assisted eQ Community Properties Fund in the sale of two healthcare properties to a fund managed by Northern Horizon. The properties have a total floor area of approximately 3,500 square meters. The two properties are located in Espoo and Lahti. The Espoo asset was completed in 2018 and the Lahti asset was completed in 2023. Both assets are operated by Attendo, the leading care provider in the Nordic region.
Case published 9.5.2025
We successfully represented BMW in an exceptionally long dispute over whether the spare rims sold by the defendant and the hub caps included in them infringed BMW’s trademark and design rights. The Market Court found that the sign used by the defendant caused a likelihood of confusion with BMW’s trademarks. The defendant had used the sign on the hub caps and in the marketing of the hub caps and rims, leading the Market Court to find that the defendant had infringed BMW’s trademark rights. The defendant admitted to infringing BMW’s Community design but denied the related injunction claim. However, the Market Court found that there was no particular reason to refrain from issuing an injunction. The Market Court prohibited the defendant from continuing to infringe BMW’s trademarks and Community design and ordered the defendant to alter or destroy the products and marketing materials that infringed BMW’s rights. Furthermore, the Market Court ordered the defendant to pay BMW EUR 70,000 in reasonable compensation and EUR 80,000 in damages for the trademark infringements, as well as EUR 7,000 in reasonable compensation and EUR 8,000 in damages for the design right infringement. The amounts can be considered exceptionally high in Finland. Additionally, the Market Court ordered the defendant to pay a significant portion of BMW’s legal costs with interest on late payment. In its decision of 11 March 2025, the Supreme Court of Finland did not grant the defendant leave to appeal, and also decided that there was no need to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Thus, the Market Court’s judgements (MAO:494/18 and 517/2023) are final. In addition to the main dispute, BMW demanded in a separate proceeding that one of the defendant’s trademark registrations be revoked. A total of three separate legal proceedings were conducted in the Market Court regarding the revocation. The defendant’s trademark registration was ultimately revoked.
Case published 9.5.2025
We are advising DNA Plc in brand protection and intellectual property enforcement matters globally. Our intellectual property team manages DNA’s global trademark portfolio, including registration, prosecution, opposition and enforcement. We also advise DNA in questions concerning consumer and marketing law, unfair competition, social media, domain names and cybersquatting. DNA Plc is one of Finland’s leading telecommunication companies. DNA offers connections, services and devices for homes and workplaces, contributing to the digitalisation of society. The company has approximately 3.7 million subscriptions in its fixed and mobile communications networks. In 2024, DNA’s total revenue was EUR 1,100 million, and the company employs about 1,600 people around Finland. DNA is part of Telenor Group.
Case published 7.5.2025