A Tax Control Framework should not operate in silo, but has to be aligned to the company's business control framework (BCF) and should cover more from a tax risk management perspective than only compliance and financial risks. There are various BCF models developed and therefore differences exist between companies.
That same principle applies when we 'wish' for example to copy paste a 'Best practice tax technology framework' from one multinational to another multinational. The devil is often in the 'implementation' / 'configuration' detail as most of the time it is not 'Plug & Play'. For example the legacy systems, business models and/or the structure of the tax function could be different.
When we talk about tax control framework do we focus nowadays not too much on compliance and financial risks?
What has been designed from a tax planning is not always properly implemented or has changed after implementation due to new business initiatives that are an unknown to the tax function due to lack of visibility or disconnect. That could result in material tax risks. Take for example strategic tax risks such as the management of non-routine transactions:
- Open 'Converting the sales middleman function from Commissionaire to LRD' for an example
Technology might be an enabler to manage such change management process better, but the people element ('the interaction') - especially if many work streams are involved - are the key drivers that together can realise 'being in control' at go-live and beyond.
Anticipating in time on tax developments and take action 'see the 4 questions I raised and the answer I gave above' is an other example that highlights why managing change is important from a tax control framework as it impacts all the risk categories including reputational, strategic and operational risks.
No comments:
Post a Comment