Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements – Recommendations for Domestic Law

  • Montserrat Hermosin Àlvarez


The globalisation process we are currently immersed in has brought about many advantages. In terms of international taxation, however, globalisation has uncovered significant shortcomings that have contributed to the erosion of national tax bases. We have recently bared witness to low or non-existent taxation of international operations based on hybrid mechanisms. A series of fiscal practices are indeed proliferating.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aujean, M. (2013): Fighting Tax Fraud and Evasion: In Search of a Tax Strategy?, EC Tax Review, nº. 2, p. 64.Google Scholar
  2. Ault, Hugh J. (2013): Some reflections on the OECD and the Sources of International Tax Principles, Tax Notes International, v. 70, num. 12, p. 1195.Google Scholar
  3. Avi-Yonah, R. S./Alabi, O. (2014): A Model Treatry for the Age of BEPS, University of Michigan Public Law Research Paper, nº. 411.Google Scholar
  4. Avi-Yonah, R.S. (2000): Commentary on Rosenbloom, International Tax Arbitrage and the International Tax System, Tax Law Review, Vol. 53, p. 167.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, Philip (2015): The BEPS Project: Disclosure of AggresiveTax Planning Schemes, Intertax. V. 43. p. 85.Google Scholar
  6. Bärsch, Sven-Eric/Spengel, Christoph (2013): Hybrid mismatch Arrangements: OECD Recommendations and German Practice, Bulletin for International Taxation, Vol. 10, p. 520.Google Scholar
  7. Boidman, N./Kandev, M. (2014): BEPS Action Plan on Hybrid Mismatches: A Canadian Perspective, 74 Tax Notes Int’l 1233.Google Scholar
  8. Brauner, Yariv (2014): What the BEPS?, Florida Tax Review, Vol. 16, p. 55.Google Scholar
  9. De Boer, Reinout/Marres, Otto (2015): BEPS Action 2: Neutralizing the Effects on Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements, Intertax, Vol. 43, Issue I, p. 14.Google Scholar
  10. Dourado, A.P. (2015): Aggressive Tax Planning in EU Law and in the Light of BEPS: The EC Recommendation on Aggressive Tax Planning and BEPS Actions 2 and 6, Intertax, Vol. 43, Issue I.Google Scholar
  11. Duncan, J.A. (2000): Tax treatment of hybrid financial instruments in crossborder transactions, IFA Cahiers de droit fiscal international, Vol. LXXXVa, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  12. Edge, S. (2014): Base Erosion and Profit Shifting: A Roadmap for Reform – Tax Arbitrage with Hybrid Instruments, Bull. Int´l Tax, p. 318.Google Scholar
  13. Edge, Stephen (2014): Base Erosion & Profit Shifting: A Roadmap for Reform – Tax Arbitrage with Hybrid Instruments, Bulletin for International Taxation, vol. 68, nº 6/7, p. 7.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission (2012a): An Action Plan to strengthen the fight against fraud and tax evasion, COM (2012), 722 final,
  15. European Commission (2012b): Recomendación sobre la planificación fiscal agresiva, C, 8806, final,
  16. European Commission (2014): LCEur.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission (2015a): Communication from the Commission to the EU Parliament and the Council on tax transparency to fight tax evasion and avoidance, COM 136 final, Brussels, 18.3.2015.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission (2015b): Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic Exchange of information in the field of taxation, COM 135 final, Brussels, 18.3.2015.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission (2015c): Combatting corporate tax avoidance: Commission presents tax transparency, Brussels, 18 March 2015.Google Scholar
  20. Finnerty, Chris J./Merks, Paulus/Petriccione, Mario/Russo, Raffaele (2007): Fundamentals of International Tax Planning, IBFD, p. 134.Google Scholar
  21. Harris, Peter (2014): Neutralizing Effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements, Papers on Selected Topics in Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries, Workshop on Tax Base Protection for Developing Countries, United Nations, Paris.Google Scholar
  22. Jiménez Blanco, J. I. (2015): El uso de los instrumentos financieros híbridos en la planificación fiscal internacional, Fiscalidad Internacional, Tomo II, 6ª edición, CEF, p. 1.761.Google Scholar
  23. Maisto, G. (2014): Controlled Foreign Company Legislation, Corporate Residence and Anti-Hybrid, Bulletin for International Taxation, No. 6/7, p. 328Google Scholar
  24. Malherbe, J./Tello, C.P./Grau Ruiz, A. (2014): La Revolución Fiscal de 2014, FATCA, BEPS, OUDP, Instituto Colombiano de Derecho Tributario.Google Scholar
  25. OECD (2010): Addressing Tax Risks Involving Bank Losses, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
  26. OECD (2011): Corporate Loss Utilisation Through Aggressive Tax Planning, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
  27. OECD (2012): Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements: Tax Policy and Compliance Issues, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
  28. OECD (2013a): Addressing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
  29. OECD (2013b): Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
  30. OECD (2014): Neutralising the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
  31. OECD (2015): Neutralising the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements, Action 2- 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
  32. Popa, O. (2014): Hybrid Entity Payments – Extinct Species after the BEPS action Plan, Eur. Tax, p. 408.Google Scholar
  33. Rosembloom, H.D. (2000): The David R. Tillinghast Lecture «International Tax Aribitrage and the International Tax System, Tax Law Review, Vol. 53. p. 137.Google Scholar
  34. Rust, Alexander (2017): BEPS Action 2: 2014 Deliverable Neutralising the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements and its compatibility with the non-discrimination provisions in tax treaties and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”, British Tax Review (3), p. 19.Google Scholar
  35. Tatarová, M. (2012): Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements: The OECD Report and the Canadian Perspective. In Alty, D.G./Carr, B.R./Smith, M. R./Steeves, C.J. (ed.): Canadian Tax Journal, p. 701.Google Scholar
  36. Van den Hurk, H. (2014): Proposed Amended Parent-Subsidiary Directive Reveals the European Commission’s Lack of Vision, Bulletin for International Taxation, September, p. 493.Google Scholar
  37. Zaman, Jeanette (2016): Hybrid mismatch arrangements: the UK´s take on Action 2, Slaughter and May, February 2016, p. 5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Pablo OlavideSevillaSpanien

Personalised recommendations