1. This Directive applies to all taxpayers that are subject to corporate tax in one or more Member States, including permanent establishments in one or more Member States of entities resident for tax purposes in a third country.

2. Article 9a also applies to all entities that are treated as transparent for tax purposes by a Member State.’;

Article 2 is amended as follows:

in point (4), the last subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘For the purposes of Articles 9 and 9a:

Where the mismatch outcome arises under points (b), (c), (d), (e) or (g) of the first subparagraph of point (9) of this Article or where an adjustment is required under Article 9(3) or Article 9a, the definition of associated enterprise is modified so that the 25 per cent requirement is replaced by a 50 per cent requirement;

a person who acts together with another person in respect of the voting rights or capital ownership of an entity shall be treated as holding a participation in all of the voting rights or capital ownership of that entity that are held by the other person;

an associated enterprise also means an entity that is part of the same consolidated group for financial accounting purposes as the taxpayer, an enterprise in which the taxpayer has a significant influence in the management or an enterprise that has a significant influence in the management of the taxpayer.’;

point (9) is replaced by the following:

a payment under a financial instrument gives rise to a deduction without inclusion outcome and:

such payment is not included within a reasonable period of time; and

the mismatch outcome is attributable to differences in the characterisation of the instrument or the payment made under it.

For the purposes of the first subparagraph, a payment under a financial instrument shall be treated as included in income within a reasonable period of time where:

the payment is included by the jurisdiction of the payee in a tax period that commences within 12 months of the end of the payer's tax period; or

it is reasonable to expect that the payment will be included by the jurisdiction of the payee in a future tax period and the terms of payment are those that would be expected to be agreed between independent enterprises;

a payment to a hybrid entity gives rise to a deduction without inclusion and that mismatch outcome is the result of differences in the allocation of payments made to the hybrid entity under the laws of the jurisdiction where the hybrid entity is established or registered and the jurisdiction of any person with a participation in that hybrid entity;

a payment to an entity with one or more permanent establishments gives rise to a deduction without inclusion and that mismatch outcome is the result of differences in the allocation of payments between the head office and permanent establishment or between two or more permanent establishments of the same entity under the laws of the jurisdictions where the entity operates;

a payment gives rise to a deduction without inclusion as a result of a payment to a disregarded permanent establishment;

a payment by a hybrid entity gives rise to a deduction without inclusion and that mismatch is the result of the fact that the payment is disregarded under the laws of the payee jurisdiction;

a deemed payment between the head office and permanent establishment or between two or more permanent establishments gives rise to a deduction without inclusion and that mismatch is the result of the fact that the payment is disregarded under the laws of the payee jurisdiction; or

a double deduction outcome occurs.

For the purposes of this point (9):

a payment representing the underlying return on a transferred financial instrument shall not give rise to a hybrid mismatch under point (a) of the first subparagraph where the payment is made by a financial trader under an on-market hybrid transfer provided the payer jurisdiction requires the financial trader to include as income all amounts received in relation to the transferred financial instrument;

a hybrid mismatch shall only arise under points (e), (f) or (g) of the first subparagraph to the extent that the payer jurisdiction allows the deduction to be set off against an amount that is not dual-inclusion income;

a mismatch outcome shall not be treated as a hybrid mismatch unless it arises between associated enterprises, between a taxpayer and an associated enterprise, between the head office and permanent establishment, between two or more permanent establishments of the same entity or under a structured arrangement.

For the purposes of this point (9) and Articles 9, 9a and 9b:

“mismatch outcome” means a double deduction or a deduction without inclusion;

“double deduction” means a deduction of the same payment, expenses or losses in the jurisdiction in which the payment has its source, the expenses are incurred or the losses are suffered (payer jurisdiction) and in another jurisdiction (investor jurisdiction). In the case of a payment by a hybrid entity or permanent establishment the payer jurisdiction is the jurisdiction where the hybrid entity or permanent establishment is established or situated;

“deduction without inclusion” means the deduction of a payment or deemed payment between the head office and permanent establishment or between two or more permanent establishments in any jurisdiction in which that payment or deemed payment is treated as made (payer jurisdiction) without a corresponding inclusion for tax purposes of that payment or deemed payment in the payee jurisdiction. The payee jurisdiction is any jurisdiction where that payment or deemed payment is received, or is treated as being received under the laws of any other jurisdiction;

“deduction” means the amount that is treated as deductible from the taxable income under the laws of the payer or investor jurisdiction. The term “deductible” shall be construed accordingly;

“inclusion” means the amount that is taken into account in the taxable income under the laws of the payee jurisdiction. A payment under a financial instrument shall not be treated as included to the extent that the payment qualifies for any tax relief solely due to the way that payment is characterised under the laws of the payee jurisdiction. The term “included” shall be construed accordingly;

“tax relief” means a tax exemption, reduction in the tax rate or any tax credit or refund (other than a credit for taxes withheld at source);

“dual inclusion income” means any item of income that is included under the laws of both jurisdictions where the mismatch outcome has arisen;

“person” means an individual or entity;

“hybrid entity” means any entity or arrangement that is regarded as a taxable entity under the laws of one jurisdiction and whose income or expenditure is treated as income or expenditure of one or more other persons under the laws of another jurisdiction;

“financial instrument” means any instrument to the extent that it gives rise to a financing or equity return that is taxed under the rules for taxing debt, equity or derivatives under the laws of either the payee or payer jurisdictions and includes a hybrid transfer;

“financial trader” is a person or entity engaged in the business of regularly buying and selling financial instruments on its own account for the purposes of making a profit;

“hybrid transfer” means any arrangement to transfer a financial instrument where the underlying return on the transferred financial instrument is treated for tax purposes as derived simultaneously by more than one of the parties to that arrangement;

“on-market hybrid transfer” means any hybrid transfer that is entered into by a financial trader in the ordinary course of business, and not as part of a structured arrangement;

“disregarded permanent establishment” means any arrangement that is treated as giving rise to a permanent establishment under the laws of the head office jurisdiction and is not treated as giving rise to a permanent establishment under the laws of the other jurisdiction.’;

the following points are added:

“consolidated group for financial accounting purposes” means a group consisting of all entities which are fully included in consolidated financial statements drawn up in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards or the national financial reporting system of a Member State;

“structured arrangement” means an arrangement involving a hybrid mismatch where the mismatch outcome is priced into the terms of the arrangement or an arrangement that has been designed to produce a hybrid mismatch outcome, unless the taxpayer or an associated enterprise could not reasonably have been expected to be aware of the hybrid mismatch and did not share in the value of the tax benefit resulting from the hybrid mismatch.’;

Article 4 is amended as follows:

in point (a) of paragraph 5, point (ii) is replaced by the following:

paragraph 8 is replaced by the following:

‘8. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 to 7, the taxpayer may be given the right to use consolidated financial statements prepared under accounting standards other than the International Financial Reporting Standards or the national financial reporting system of a Member State.’;

Article 9 is replaced by the following:

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE (EU) 2017/952 of 29 May 2017 amending Directive (EU) 2016/1164 as regards hybrid mismatches with third countries