The terms and conditions of government assistance programmes related to COVID-19 need to be considered when determining the potential impact of these programmes on controlled transactions and when comparing their effects with those of other pre-existing assistance programmes. For instance, a number of COVID-19 assistance programmes are designed as temporary support to preserve businesses as a going concern and their impact in the transfer pricing analysis may differ from the impact of ongoing assistance programmes (linked or not to COVID-19 assistance), the duration of which may cover several years.
In addition, there may be challenges in establishing the nature of government assistance received by potential comparables, given the different types of COVID-19 government assistance programmes, the practical difficulties to obtain detailed and reliable information and the delay in data availability. In this context, the analysis required on the specific characteristics of the government assistance should take into account the economic impact of the assistance on the accurately delineated transaction. Therefore, an exhaustive analysis of the specific characteristics of government assistance would not be required in circumstances where the receipt of government assistance is unlikely to have a material impact on the accurately delineated controlled transaction. (See section C of Chapter III of the OECD TPG)
Economically relevant characteristics that pertain to a controlled transaction should be evaluated:
(i) when accurately delineating the controlled transaction; and
(ii) to facilitate the comparison between the accurately delineated controlled transaction and comparable uncontrolled transactions, in order to price the controlled transaction.38
38 Paragraph 1.33 of Chapter I of the OECD TPG.
The extent to which the receipt of government assistance is an economically relevant characteristic may vary. An example of where government assistance may be more economically relevant is the provision of a wage subsidy, a government debt guarantee or short-term liquidity support. In such circumstances, the receipt of government assistance may have a direct impact on the controlled transaction and comparable transactions between independent parties, including their prices. In other situations the receipt of government assistance may be less economically relevant. For example, the provision of local infrastructure by a government might be only indirectly linked to the controlled transaction and the compensation thereof. Additionally, there may be other situations where the parties to a controlled transaction do not receive government assistance, but another party does, and this may influence the economically relevant characteristics of the transaction.
The determination of the economic relevance of government support will inform its effect, if any, on accurately delineating the controlled transaction and performing the comparability analysis. If the government assistance is an economically relevant characteristic, this information should be included as a part of the documentation to support the transfer pricing analysis.
Section D.4 of Chapter I of the OECD TPG elaborates on the effect of government policies noting that, as a general rule, government interventions should be treated as conditions of the market in the particular country. Therefore, the receipt of government assistance may be part of the economic circumstances of the parties and a feature of the market in which the parties operate. In this regard, the provisions in section D.6.2 of Chapter I of the OECD TPG on other local market features may provide guidance relevant to the transfer pricing implications of government assistance either directly or by analogy.
In particular, by analogy to section D.6.2 of Chapter I of the OECD TPG, the analysis of the implications of the receipt of government assistance would need to consider the following factors (not only to identify reliable market comparables when they exist, but also in cases where such comparables cannot be identified):
The analysis of the receipt of government assistance as a local market feature may help to inform an analysis of whether its receipt affects the price of a controlled transaction. It may also be relevant when conducting a comparability analysis. However, the particular nature of the government assistance should always be reviewed in the transfer pricing analysis, as under certain circumstances it may not be a general feature of the market, and/or it may not generate benefits for either party.
The potential effect of the receipt of government assistance on the pricing of a controlled transaction will depend on the economically relevant characteristics of the transaction, following an accurate delineation of the controlled transaction and the performance of a comparability analysis. Therefore, it would be contrary to the arm’s length principle to assume that the mere receipt of government assistance would affect the price of the accurately delineated controlled transaction, without performing a careful comparability analysis (including an analysis of how the receipt of government assistance would affect the price of uncontrolled transactions, if at all, and the perspectives of both parties to the transaction).
The economically relevant characteristics of the accurately delineated controlled transaction will help in determining the potential effect of the receipt of government assistance on the pricing of the controlled transaction, if any. For instance, some of the aspects to consider in analysing the impact, if any, of the receipt of government assistance on the price of a controlled transaction include the availability, purpose, duration and other conditions imposed by the government in granting the assistance; the allocation of the economically significant risks; and the level of competition and demand within the relevant markets. In addition, as indicated in paragraph 1.34 of the OECD TPG, the identification of these economically relevant characteristics would require a broad evaluation of how the MNE group responds to the receipt of government assistance.
Government assistance programmes may be subject to a number of legal conditions that could limit or even prevent the capacity of the party receiving the assistance from modifying the pricing of its transactions with other parties across the value chain and that should be taken into account in performing a comparability analysis, along with the other comparability factors described in paragraph 74. Similarly, government assistance programmes could be, for example, contingent upon eligibility criteria that could require the recipients to demonstrate a significant downturn in revenue or could be intended to preserve the viability of businesses during the pandemic. In addition, some government assistance programmes may be subject to uncertainty around the amounts involved. These aspects could limit the effect of government assistance on the price of the goods or services offered by the entity receiving the assistance and should be considered as part of the comparability analysis.
The economic circumstances of the market in which the party receiving government assistance operates could also influence the pricing of the accurately delineated controlled transaction. Subject to the specific facts and circumstances, aspects such as the level of competition, the elasticity of the demand or the availability of the benefits to competitors in the market, which may not be known or disclosed, could be relevant factors in determining whether the receipt of government assistance would be translated into an entity’s pricing strategy. In addition, the economic circumstances of the market in which the MNE group sells its products to third party customers would also be relevant to determine, for instance, whether the receipt of government assistance has led the MNE group to change its pricing strategies towards unrelated customers, either to retain the assistance within the MNE group or to pass it on to third parties.
The analysis of the effect of government assistance on the price of a controlled transaction will take into account the allocation of the economically significant risks under the accurate delineation of the controlled transaction, the impact of the pandemic on the outcome of the economically significant risks, and the linkage between the type of government assistance and those risks. Based on the facts and circumstances, the impact of government assistance on the price of a controlled transaction, if any, would depend, among other things, on which party assumes the economically significant risks affected by the pandemic in the context of an analysis of the accurately delineated controlled transaction. In order to reach a conclusion, consideration also should be given to all the other comparability factors described in paragraph 74.
Under the guidance in Chapter II of the OECD TPG, when establishing arm’s length prices using one-sided methods, particular care must be taken to avoid adopting without further analysis a particular mechanical approach (such as offsetting cost savings achieved through government assistance against the relevant cost base for the transaction; recognising government assistance as revenue; or recognising government assistance as extraordinary income) since this could lead to non-arm’s length prices in transactions among associated parties.
In the absence of reliable comparables or other reliable information (such as a robust analysis of the economically relevant characteristics described in paragraph 74) regarding how independent parties would allocate government assistance, caution should be exercised in assessing whether a purported sharing of government assistance represents an arm’s length outcome.
The receipt of government assistance may reduce the quantitative negative impact of a risk. For instance, a party assuming credit risk could expect to incur losses from a transaction due to financial difficulties of its counterparty. However, the counterparty may in fact be able to meet its obligations by benefitting from government assistance. This aspect (i.e. the reduction in the negative impact of risk) must be distinguished from the allocation of risk under the guidance in section D.1.2.1 of Chapter I of the OECD TPG.
Under the guidance of Chapter I of the OECD TPG, the provision of government assistance to an associated party will not change the allocation of risk in a controlled transaction for transfer pricing purposes. For instance, assume Company W is a distributor that purchases goods from a related party manufacturer and sells those goods to third party customers in the jurisdiction where it is resident (Country W). Under the accurate delineation of the transaction, the marketplace risk is assumed by Company W. This implies that, under normal economic circumstances, including economic cycles, Company W bears the consequences of the playing out of the marketplace risk (e.g. a decrease in demand due to new competitors entering the market). Assume further that demand for Company W’s products declines significantly due to the measures adopted by the government in Country W in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Company W receives government assistance in the form of a cash grant to help the entity to support its fixed and operating costs during the period where the measures remain in place. Under the guidance in paragraphs 1.66 and 1.67 of Chapter I of the OECD TPG, the receipt of government assistance does not alter Company W’s contractual arrangements and does not alter Company W’s capability and actual performance of decision-making functions relating to the marketplace risk. Despite the government intervention, Company W would retain the competence and experience regarding the marketplace risk and would continue to possess an understanding of the impact of its decisions related to that risk on the business. Therefore, under the prevailing facts and circumstances, the government assistance to support Company W in tackling the financial distress derived from the COVID-19 pandemic does not modify the allocation of the marketplace risk to Company W. The same conclusion would apply to other risks that had been equally allocated to the distributor, e.g. inventory risk or credit risk.
The comparability of open market transactions or enterprises may be influenced by the receipt of government assistance, affecting both how the parties establish their commercial or financial relations and how they price their transactions. Therefore, when performing a comparability analysis, it may be necessary to take into account the receipt of government assistance when reviewing potential comparables.
For example, as government assistance and the specific circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic may vary across different markets, it may affect the comparables and the arm’s length prices of uncontrolled transactions in different ways.39 For instance, assume Company D, a member of an MNE group, provides manufacturing services and receives a domestic wage subsidy under a job retention programme offered by the government of Country D. Assume further that third party manufacturer Company E in Country E receives a domestic short-time work programme where the hours not worked by employees are directly subsidised. The services provided by Company D and Company E may be similar but the general availability and receipt of government assistance to Company D and Company E may result in a material difference in the arm’s length conditions of the transactions for the period over which the short-time work programme is in place and may not be sufficient to ensure a reliable comparison. In that case, the services provided by Company E would not be comparable for purposes of evaluating and determining the arm’s length price for Company D’s services based on the principles of Chapters II and III of the OECD TPG unless comparability adjustments to take such differences into account can reliably be made, based on an analysis of all of the relevant facts and circumstances of the Other characteristics of the government assistance that might affect comparability, depending on the circumstances, could include, for example, the duration of an assistance program and the relation between the assistance provided and the pandemic-related costs or the lost revenue.
39 Paragraph 1.112 of Chapter I of the OECD TPG on the relevance of differences across markets.
The most reliable approach in identifying reliable comparables will be to refer, where possible, to data regarding comparable uncontrolled transactions in the same or comparable geographic market between independent enterprises performing similar functions, assuming similar risks, and using similar assets.
The materiality of the change in economically relevant circumstances created by the impact of government assistance available in a market may impose additional challenges to the comparability analysis. It may for example render it more difficult to apply the comparability analysis through the utilisation and/or the application of a particular transfer pricing method and search for comparable transactions, on the basis that comparability differences may be exacerbated due to variations in government assistance between comparables or between jurisdictions.40 For example, an uncontrolled transaction that might otherwise have been considered comparable to a particular controlled transaction might be considered not comparable by virtue of the fact that one of the transactions is subject to government assistance while the other is not. A revised strategy, and potentially the use of a corroborating transfer pricing methodology,41 may need to be applied in such cases to take account of the differences in comparability. See Chapter II of this guidance.
40 As the guidance in paragraph 2.143 of the OECD TPG indicates, the lack of comparables alone is insufficient to warrant the use of a transactional profit split.
41 In considering the use of more than one method, the guidance in paragraph 2.12 of the OECD TPG should be followed in any case.
Finally, when applying a one-sided method such as the resale price method, the cost plus method, or the TNMM, the accounting treatment of the government assistance in both the tested party and any comparable may need to be specifically identified, especially when the tested party and the comparables apply different accounting standards. For example, the government assistance may be deducted from the costs under the relevant accounting standard, or it may be presented separately. In addition, the accounting treatment of government subsidies under different accounting standards may impact different levels of profitability (e.g. gross profit, operating profit, net profit, etc.) or might even be accounted for in the “other comprehensive income” statement, only being recycled into the “profit or loss statement” of the entity over time. Where accounting treatments of the same type of assistance differ between the tested party and the comparable, a comparability adjustment may be required. In addition, divergences in the accounting treatment of government assistance could point to a difference in the type of government support provided – e.g. the accounting treatment of a conditional loan differs from that of an outright grant. Such a difference could affect comparability and might be more difficult to adjust for than a simple accounting difference.
COVID-19 has led to material changes in economic conditions that were not anticipated when many APAs covering FY2020 and potentially future financial years affected by COVID-19 were agreed. Given this situation, it is important to determine to what extent, if any, the change in economic conditions affects the application of existing APAs. Taxpayers and tax administrations negotiating APAs that apply to FY2020 may also face questions about how the economic conditions arising from COVID-19 should be taken into account. For this reason, this guidance explains the possible impact of COVID-19 on existing unilateral, bilateral and multilateral APAs and APAs under negotiation.
One of the primary benefits of an APA is that it provides tax certainty to taxpayers and tax administrations by ensuring predictability in the treatment of international transactions for tax purposes. It is important to underline, however, that taxpayers and tax authorities are encouraged to take constructive and collaborative approaches in the APA process, which are conducive to the long-run success of an APA programme.
Some taxpayers may face challenges applying existing APAs under the economic conditions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. In those instances, taxpayers are encouraged to adopt a collaborative and transparent approach by raising these issues with the relevant tax administrations in a timely manner. Taxpayers should not seek to resolve them unilaterally without consulting with the relevant tax administrations.
Yes, existing APAs and their terms should be respected, maintained and upheld, unless a condition leading to the cancellation or revision of the APA (e.g. breach of critical assumptions) has occurred. Taxpayers and tax administrations cannot automatically disregard or alter the terms of existing APAs due to the change in economic circumstances.
42 In considering how to respond to the impact of COVID-19 on existing APAs, the guidance provided, in Annex II to Chapter IV of the OECD TPG: Guidelines for Conducting Advance Pricing Arrangements under the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP APAs) is relevant.
Generally, the APA itself will explicitly describe what constitutes a situation of non-compliance or failure to meet a critical assumption, as well as the consequences arising from it. Also, domestic law or procedural provisions may also impose consequences or obligations on the taxpayer and affected tax administrations. All this should be considered by taxpayers and tax administrations in determining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on existing APAs.
Most APAs include critical assumptions about the operational and economic conditions that will affect the transactions covered by the APA. The COVID-19 pandemic and the response of governments have dramatically affected the economic and market conditions and are likely to qualify as a breach of the critical assumptions (para. 44 b) and c) of Annex II to Chapter IV of the OECD TPG). A mere change in business results during the period affected by the COVID-19 pandemic would not, however, result in a breach of a critical assumption (unless the particular APA had a critical assumption regarding changes in business results).
Whether there has been a breach in a critical assumption should be analysed on a case-by-case basis, and it should take into account the individual circumstances of the taxpayer and commercial environment. The COVID-19 pandemic has not had the same impact on all enterprises. While many industries and business have experienced a drop in demand and revenues because of forced lockdowns, others have expanded their consumer-base or benefitted from new business opportunities. Whether a breach has occurred may also depend on the duration of the disruption. If a breach has occurred, in determining an appropriate response, a tax administration should carefully consider the extent of the divergence between the agreed parameters in the APA and the new parameters under the COVID-19 economic circumstances43; and, the ability of the agreed transfer pricing methodology to reliably reflect arm’s length pricing of a controlled transaction under the new situation.44
43 Paragraph 45 of Annex II to Chapter IV of the OECD TPG.
44 Paragraph 43 of Annex II to Chapter IV of the OECD TPG.
Where tax administrations establish that the critical assumptions of an APA have not been breached, the existing APA, as agreed, must continue to be respected, maintained and upheld. If a taxpayer believes that the terms of the APA are no longer appropriate, it should not seek unilaterally to breach critical assumptions deliberately or fail to comply with the terms or conditions of the APA, and it should avoid making unreliable price adjustments or taking other actions that are not consistent with (or otherwise fail to comply with) the terms of the APA that it may view as not appropriate. Instead, where taxpayers have concerns, they should approach the relevant tax administration in a transparent way to discuss their concerns.
When considering the consequences of the failure to meet critical assumptions, tax administrations and taxpayers should consider the (i) terms of the APA; (ii) any agreement between relevant tax administrations as to how to deal with the failure; and (iii) any applicable domestic law or procedural provisions.45 This section follows the guidance in Chapter IV, Section F and Annex II to Chapter IV of the OECD TPG.
45 Paragraph 74 of Annex II to Chapter IV of the OECD TPG.
In some situations, the APA agreement, domestic law or procedural provisions may prescribe procedures to follow, or describe the consequences that will arise, in situations where there is a failure to fulfil critical In these situations, tax administrations should follow the prescribed procedures.46 In other situations, tax administrations may have some discretion over their response.47 Also in the event that the effect of the breach is not material, (Paragraph 75 of the Annex II to Chapter IV of the OECD TPG), the taxpayer and tax administration may agree to continue to apply the APA In the case of bilateral or multilateral APAs, a common and helpful practice is for the tax administrations to consult before imposing any unilateral changes,48 and such consultation is mandated in some APAs.49 In the absence of other rules and procedures prescribed by domestic law, when the guidance in Chapter IV of the OECD TPG apply , a breach of critical assumption with the APA could have three potential outcomes as provided in section E.3 Annex II to Chapter IV of OECD TPG:50
46 Paragraph 74 of Annex II to Chapter IV of the OECD TPG.
47Paragraph 66 of Annex II to Chapter IV of the OECD TPG, item e) (breach of critical assumption would “trigger renegotiation of the agreement”).
48 Paragraph 75 of Annex II to Chapter IV of the OECD TPG (considering what “the tax administrations determine”).
49 Paragraph 66 of Annex II to Chapter IV of the OECD TPG, item e) (breach of critical assumption would “trigger renegotiation of the agreement”).
50 Paragraph 76 of Annex II to Chapter IV of the OECD TPG.
Revision would be the appropriate response where there has been a material change in conditions noted in a critical assumption in the APA and the tax administration and the taxpayer agree on how to revise the APA.51 The revision of an existing APA would have the effect of changing the previously agreed terms of an APA. Under this approach, it is likely that the original terms of the APA would remain in force for the period up to FY2020, with revised terms applying for FY2020 and any subsequent year(s) subject to the economic circumstances derived from the COVID-19 pandemic.
51 Paragraphs 83 and 85 of Annex II to Chapter IV of the OECD TPG.
In some circumstances, it may be possible to retain some of the terms set out in an APA, but revise specific provisions for which the breach in the critical assumptions is relevant. For example, an APA may cover a series of controlled transactions for which the agreed methodology for only one specific transaction required revision.
In other circumstances, more general revisions may be required, depending on the specific facts and circumstances of a case, where allowed by domestic law. For example, tax administrations could consider evaluating the results of the transfer pricing methodology specified by the APA over the period of the APA, rather than on an annual basis, i.e. a “term test”. This approach would aggregate the financial results of FY2020, which may be exceptional, with the more normal results of prior and future years. In combination with this, tax administrations could also consider extending the period covered by an APA. Tax administrations could consider segregating the terms of the APA between financial years affected and unaffected by COVID-19, or cancelling an existing APA for FY2020 and then renewing the APA in a future period, potentially on revised terms. Alternatively, tax administration could also consider aggregating the financial results from a series of covered transactions covered separately under an APA and assessing whether on aggregate they deliver an outcome consistent with the terms of the APA.
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are two situations which may lead to cancelling an APA when it is established that: in FY2020
(i) there is a material breach in an APA’s critical assumption as a result of a change in economic circumstances; or,
(ii) the taxpayer failed to materially comply with any term or condition of the APA.
Cancellation would not, however, be automatic and the tax administration may waive cancellation under certain circumstances.52 Cancellation would have the effect of ending an APA on an agreed date or from a particular tax year or accounting period (e.g. after FY2019).
52 Paragraph 81 Annex II to Chapter IV of the OECD TPG.
Revocation may be considered where:
(i) there is a misrepresentation, mistake or omission that was attributable to the neglect, carelessness, or wilful default of a taxpayer when filing an APA request and submission, the annual reports, or other supporting documentation or in supplying any related information; or
(ii) the participating taxpayer (or taxpayers) fails to materially comply with a fundamental term or condition of the APA.
The pandemic has not altered that standard. Accordingly, revocations of APAs whose terms extend into the period of the COVID-19 pandemic should be limited (just like arising in any other circumstances) to situations where the actions, as provided above53, that meet the standard for revocation regardless of whether such actions arose because of the pandemic.
53 Paragraph 77 Annex II to Chapter IV of the OECD TPG.
The timing for addressing the terms of APAs impacted by COVID-19 is important. Where material changes in economic conditions lead to the breach of one or more of the critical assumptions, taxpayers should notify the relevant tax administrations as soon as practicable after the change occurs, or the taxpayer becomes aware of the change. Early notification is encouraged in order to give the affected parties more time to try to reach agreement on revising the APA, thereby reducing the likelihood of cancellation.
As economic conditions will remain uncertain until at least the end of 2020, where taxpayers notify tax administrations of the failure to meet critical assumptions, tax administration may want to consider waiting for a reasonable period until data and information on the magnitude and longevity of the economic impact of COVID-19 are available before determining how to respond to a breach. By deferring their response, until more data and information is available tax administrations may find it easier to revise, rather than cancel, an APA.
Where the critical assumptions of an APA are breached, it is important that taxpayers collect and provide tax administrations with relevant supporting documentation. Depending on the particular critical assumption and other facts and circumstances, this could include, but may not be limited to:
When engaging with tax administrations, it is important that taxpayers are transparent and disclose all relevant information in a timely manner. In so doing, they will help to maintain the non-adversarial spirit and environment that is vital to the success of APA negotiations.
When considering the consequences of non-compliance with terms and conditions of an existing APA, tax administrations should adopt a similar approach to situations where there is a failure to meet critical assumptions. For example, when determining their response, tax administrations should consider
(i) the terms of the APA;
(ii) any agreement between relevant tax administrations as to how to deal with non-compliance; and
(iii) any applicable domestic law or procedural provisions.54
54 Paragraph 74 of Annex II to Chapter IV of the OECD TPG.
However, tax administrations are likely to respond differently to the failure to comply with the terms and conditions of an existing APA, than to the failure to meet critical assumptions.55 This may reflect differences in the procedures prescribed by an APA agreement, domestic law or procedural provision. For example, it may be the case that where there is a breach in the critical assumption the terms of the APA prescribe that it should be cancelled unless otherwise agreed, whereas, the consequence of non- compliance may be that a tax administration can choose to cancel, revoke, revise or enforce an APA.
55 Section E.3 of Annex II to Chapter IV of the OECD TPG.
In the current environment, taxpayers may be reluctant about continuing or initiating new APA applications. This is understandable given the significant level of economic uncertainty that many businesses face, uncertainty that for some taxpayers may mean it is not feasible to reach agreements on future APAs today. However, it is important to acknowledge the role of APAs in securing tax certainty for taxpayers and tax administrations, and in preventing future tax disputes.
Where taxpayers and tax administrations are negotiating APAs that are intended to cover FY2020, all parties are encouraged to adopt a flexible and collaborative approach to determine how to take into account the current economic conditions, and the various options discussed above in relation to the revision of existing APAs will be relevant. For example, consideration could be given to agreeing a short period APA covering the period affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and a separate APA covering the post-COVID period. Another solution could be to conclude the APA for the whole period (e.g. APA period of 2020-2024) with a condition that the relevant impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic will be analysed and reported annually once they are known, and retrospective amendments to the APA made accordingly, when appropriate. Another solution could be to extend the period of the APA to mitigate the short term effect of the pandemic, depending on the magnitude and the length of such effect. Additionally, the use of a cumulative or term test throughout the APA period could be given consideration. In this context, it is important that taxpayers be transparent and disclose all relevant information concerning the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the covered transactions in a timely manner. The supporting documentation as mentioned in paragraph 104 of this guidance may serve as reference in this regard.
The COVID-19 pandemic also presents practical difficulties for tax administrations and taxpayers currently negotiating APAs. Potential challenges may arise for a number of reasons including restrictions on domestic and international travel; enforced or voluntary working from home; or additional resource pressures as a result of efforts to manage responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Despite these potential challenges, the value of achieving advanced certainty and effective dispute prevention through APAs remains compelling. A number of tax administrations and taxpayers have identified a variety of ways to adapt working practices in order to overcome any practical impediments to working APAs. Tax administrations and tax payers should recognise that rigid adherence to pre COVID- 19 working practises may unduly lead to significant delays in APA negotiations. Instead, innovative and flexible approaches to ensure collaborative working in order to minimise delays in concluding APAs under negotiation should be encouraged.
A range of technological solutions are available to replace and/or complement, traditional methods of communication, such as face-to-face meetings and the exchange of physical documentation, while maintaining confidentiality and security requirements. There may be situations where flexible approaches are not readily identifiable or appropriate, however, tax administrations and taxpayers should be encouraged to assess alternative approaches to maintaining progress in APA discussions on a case-by- case basis rather than defaulting to historic working methods or one-size fits all solutions. Effective use of tax administration and taxpayer resources is crucial during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic and practical experience suggests that the following have been utilised with success in certain cases: