I OVERVIEW

As an internationally recognised business centre, Cyprus is a jurisdiction largely compliant with Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) standards, as recognised in the latest OECD progress report,2 and as such follows many of the OECD principles and practices, including the 'separate legal entity' approach, which is broadly accepted internationally (see the OECD definition of the international arm's-length principle).3

Cyprus generally applies the above-mentioned international arm's-length principle, which essentially requires that conditions and circumstances attached to a 'controlled transaction' are consistent with comparable transactions concluded in the open market.

The OECD has, over the years, produced the Transfer Pricing Guidelines4 and several reports refining their application and broadening their scope. The most recent and comprehensive reports comprise the Final Reports on BEPS Actions 8–10,5 which largely revise the previous Transfer Pricing Guidelines with the stated aim of taxing profits where economic activities take place and value is created, giving particular weight to the party undertaking and managing economically significant risks.

The OECD's work in this area (i.e., the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and reports) underpins the arm's-length principle incorporated in the OECD Model Tax Convention6 and forms the basis of an extensive network of bilateral double-tax treaties; therefore, several jurisdictions are already applying this principle and the underlying transfer pricing methodology to either domestic or cross-border transactions.

The OECD Model Tax Convention contains the arm's-length principle under the heading 'Associated Enterprises' (Article 9),7 which states:

Where

a. an enterprise of a Contracting State participates directly or indirectly in the management, control or capital of an enterprise of the other Contracting State, or

b. the same persons participate directly or indirectly in the management, control or capital of an enterprise of a Contracting State and an enterprise of the other Contracting State,

and in either case conditions are made or imposed between the two enterprises in their commercial or financial relations which differ from those which would be made between independent enterprises, then any profits which would, but for those conditions, have accrued to one of the enterprises, but, by reason of those conditions, have not so accrued, may be included in the profits of that enterprise and taxed accordingly.

The relevant Cyprus legal framework giving effect to this arm's-length principle is replicated below.

In particular, the Income Tax Law8 provides the following:

(a) a business in the Republic participates directly or indirectly in the management, control or capital of a business of another person; or

(b) the same persons participate directly or indirectly in the management, control or capital of two or more business;

And in either case conditions are made or imposed between the two businesses in their commercial or financial relations which differ from those which would be made between independent businesses, then any profits which would, but for those conditions, have accrued to one of the business, but, by reason of those conditions, have not so accrued, may be included in the profits of that business and taxed accordingly.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) apply also in connection with any transaction between connected persons.

The above arm's-length principle as enshrined by the Law covers both physical persons and companies (the definition of which is set out below but note that this definition includes what are described as 'corporations' in other jurisdictions).

Companies, pursuant to the Law, are defined to include under Article 2:9

any body with or without legal personality, or public corporate body, as well as every company, fraternity or society of persons, with or without legal personality, including any comparable company incorporated or registered outside the Republic and a company listed in the First schedule [comprising a list of several companies registered in other EU Member States]; but it does not include a partnership.

Additionally, the Income Tax Law and relevant regulations also explicitly stipulate that certain transactions should abide by comparable open-market terms. These transactions include, inter alia, 'where the amount of new capital is introduced in the form of assets in kind, the amount of such capital . . . cannot exceed the market value of these assets on the date of their import'.10

The Cyprus arm's-length principle is in line with the international arm's-length principle that governs controlled transactions and facilitates potential compensating adjustments in the context of investigations into the tax affairs of taxpayers. It should be noted that the arm's-length principle governs a wide range of trading and business transactions but generally does not apply to transactions involving 'uncontrolled relations' or of a capital gains nature involving immovable property located in Cyprus.

In 2017, Cyprus issued detailed transfer pricing regulations governing financial back-to-back (BtB) controlled transactions (the BtB Regulations)11 (see below). Aside from these regulations, Cyprus has yet to issue detailed transfer pricing guidelines concerning controlled transactions, although in practice the principles underlying the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines are commonly cited to support the set transfer price in controlled transactions, in tax examinations; or to potentially initiate a conventional advance ruling application process (although a sophisticated advance pricing arrangement does not exist).

Touching briefly on empirical tax audit cases involving conditions underlying controlled transactions that deviate from open-market terms, the tax authorities do not hesitate in making upward adjustments to the taxable income of a Cyprus company in the absence of satisfactory evidence or an economic and commercial rationale underpinning concluded controlled transactions.

As will be illustrated in this chapter, the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines are generally accepted and widely used in either of the cases mentioned above, with the aim of demonstrating that the selected controlled transaction reflects arm's-length conditions. However, in the process of assessing a controlled transaction, the tax authorities weigh the case for a detailed and comprehensive transfer pricing methodology against the intention not to interfere with the economic development and growth or undue burdening of the taxpayer, and currently tend towards the latter.

During the process of a tax audit, it is generally essential for the contemplated controlled transaction to be underpinned by sound commercial and economic reasoning and the defined transfer price generally to fall within a reasonable range of expected prices after considering relevant economic circumstances, functions performed, assets used and risks assumed.

It is expected that Cyprus's transfer pricing regulations will be expanded to cover a broad range of items and transactions. This will be achieved either through the enactment of new legislation incorporating transfer pricing regulations or by the Tax Department's Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner) issuing a revised transfer pricing decree. The guidance is expected to be aligned with the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines12 (even if in a simplified form). In the interim, the discussion in this chapter is based on the arm's-length principle found in Cyprus law and how transfer pricing applies in practice, and on the BtB Regulations.

ii FILING REQUIREMENTS

At present, not least owing to the absence of detailed regulations or legislative provisions requiring specific transfer pricing methodology and documentation, there are no specific filing requirements with regard to documenting or detailing the reasoning or methodology underpinning the set transfer price that applies to a selected controlled transaction, or completing and having in place the related 'master file' or 'local file' (except with reference to the country-by-country reporting requirement that Cyprus adopted and applies).13

In an exception to the above, and as already noted, financial BtB controlled transactions are explicitly governed by the BtB Regulations and the taxpayer should prepare a transfer pricing study supporting any such transactions. Currently, a transfer pricing study should only be submitted if requested by the tax authorities14 in the context of a future tax audit or if the taxpayer seeks to commence an advance ruling application process.

However, the general rule applies, namely that the taxpayer has a general obligation under the law15 to maintain evidence, documentation, books and all necessary information (collectively evidentiary documentation) that supports all transactions and financial data in the audited financial statements of the taxpayer. These legislative compliance provisions are broadly worded therefore implicitly also cover also evidentiary documentation underpinning the transfer pricing applied in controlled transactions.

The evidentiary documentation should be maintained for a period of seven years16 (including the current year) at the premises of the taxpayer and should be available for any tax audit initiated by the tax authorities.

iii PRESENTING THE CASE

Pricing methods

Currently, Cyprus law does not provide guidance on transfer pricing or the methodology to be used in determining the transfer price in a particular controlled transaction. However, the use of or reliance upon the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (albeit in a more simplistic form) by the taxpayer will generally be accepted by the tax authorities.

Thus, at present, and until transfer pricing regulations are issued, taxpayers should expect the traditional transaction methods17 generally to apply to transfer pricing cases; this methodology consists of the comparable uncontrolled price method using comparables or near comparables, the resale price method, and the cost-plus method. Occasionally it may suffice for the controlled transaction to have implicit or explicit underlying economic and business reasoning within the context of the contemplated controlled transactions.

In this respect, empirical experience of the treatment by the Tax Department of arm's-length transactions suggests the following approach or methodology, depending on the subject matter of the transaction.

Financing arrangements (provision of loans to related parties)

Financing arrangements such as the provision of loans to related parties mainly make use of the comparable uncontrolled pricing methodology, as comparables are generally available by reference to their economically relevant characteristics. This pricing methodology may be used in conjunction with the business or commercial sense underpinning a particular financing arrangement.

In this respect, in using comparables or near comparables, one considers, inter alia, functions performed by the lender such as cash-flow monitoring and assessment of the creditworthiness of the potential borrower, the amount of the principal loan, the maturity of the loan, the currency of the loan and the profile of the borrower. Additionally, the risks assumed by the taxpayer such as credit, currency and cash-flow risk are integral to the process of using a comparable and one would be well advised to demonstrate that the specific financing arrangement has a business and commercial rationale.

BtB controlled transactions

As of July 2017, a company in Cyprus that uses borrowed funds to provide loans to related parties should perform a transfer pricing study. The following analyses lie at the core of this study:

  1. a functionality analysis, in terms of the functions, assets and risks that the Cyprus company undertakes to perform its financial business; and
  2. a comparability analysis, by which the conditions and circumstances of the BtB arrangement should be consistent with the comparable conditions of a BtB transaction in an uncontrolled transaction.

Simplification measures also apply, whereby pure intermediary financing vehicles may opt in to these measures and be released from the requirement to perform a comparability analysis. Notwithstanding this, the intermediary financing company should still perform a functionality analysis demonstrating that it undertakes related functions, assets and risks.

Companies following the simplification route should have a minimum return on the BtB transaction of 2 per cent (after tax), calculated on the face value of the principal loan.

Simplification measures also apply to companies having a profile or outlook similar to financial institutions, as described in EU Regulation No. 575/2013. These companies would be required to produce at least 10 per cent (after tax) return on their equity.

Buying or selling of goods or services

Transactions involving the buying or selling of goods or services predominantly use a cost-plus or similar method,18 whereby one applies a reasonable (near arm's-length) gross profit margin or, occasionally, if these services constitute low value-added services, a thin margin earned on the cost incurred for performing this service may suffice.

If the transaction involves finished or semi-finished products and the profile of the 'manufacturer' is that of a limited-risk manufacturer, determined by reference to: its functions performed (comprising storing, making minor changes or additions to the end product); undertaking minor business risks relative to the overall creation of value of the group); and minor assets used, the common approach is to apply a reasonable gross profit margin that reflects the average gross profit margin used in the industry or a gross profit margin of nearing comparable.

Similarly, if the company is a limited distributor, determined by reference to its limited functions, and risks assumed as well as assets used (not creating or owning any intangible), the common approach is to apply a reasonable gross profit margin. Occasionally, a similar to resale price methodology may apply instead.

Regarding services, the cost-plus methodology usually applies. Cost-plus comparables are generally acceptable in these types of transactions, and taxpayers generally use average gross profit margins that apply in the specific service industry or in the broader service industry.

Transactions involving non-business assets that produce exempt income in Cyprus

The business and commercial rationale underlying a transaction is very important in relation to the tax impact (and treatment) that may result from any potential 'secondary adjustment' (see below), but not regarding the tax treatment of the transaction itself, which is exempt.

In this respect, it is advisable that transactions involving non-business assets that produce exempt income in Cyprus, such as foreign dividend income19 or capital gains on sale of corporate titles,20 are underpinned by a sound business and commercial rationale relative to the overall context in which they occur. It may be advisable for the taxpayer to obtain an advance tax ruling: an application that sets out the specific facts and circumstances underlying the transaction and seeks the opinion of the tax authorities.

iv INTANGIBLE ASSETS

In the absence of transfer pricing guidelines, Cyprus companies that hold intangible assets (trademarks, industrial designs) should, for the purposes of determining the transfer price on the contemplated income streams, expect to employ a variety of commonly used valuation techniques, such as discounted valuations. Such valuation techniques are used in particular for hard-to-value intangibles for which comparable transactions do not exist. It should be noted that discounted valuation techniques should be based on reasonable forecasts and assumptions.

Notwithstanding this, it is advisable also to test whether available comparables, or near comparables, exist that would allow the taxpayer to use the aforementioned traditional transaction methods. Thus, a taxpayer should be in a position to demonstrate that the anticipated 'compensation', allowing the use of the intangibles, reflects the functions the taxpayer performs (in relation to the protection and exploitation of the intangibles) and related operating expenses (such as promotional expenses to enhance the value of the intangibles) and risks assumed (exploitation risk in terms of the uncertainty in the production of income streams). In this respect, taxpayers are expected to set out the income stream prospects along with functions performed and related costs to demonstrate that the overall 'pricing' is justified economically and commercially.

The tax authorities tend to accept the pricing on the controlled transaction if the taxpayer demonstrates the reasonableness of the pricing. In the absence of transfer pricing guidelines, it also follows that there is no specific oversight on the basis of DEMPE21 principles and general principles apply. It is expected that transfer pricing regulations will be issued by the tax authorities, which will potentially mark a change in the current approach of both the tax authorities and potentially the taxpayers in controlled transactions. In fact, the tax authorities recently issued a circular22 stating that for the determination of 'embedded income'23 arising from qualifying intellectual property, the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines should be followed.

v SETTLEMENTS

In view of the current absence of regulations or legislative provisions explicitly mandating transfer pricing guidance or methodology, any settlements reached in response to a controlled transaction would be effected in the broader context of settlements with the tax authorities following an examination of the financial (tax) returns of the taxpayer. In this respect, the settlement would involve an agreement on, inter alia, the historical treatment of the taxpayer's affairs (including any transfer pricing issues that may arise). Thus, any settlement reached on a transfer pricing issue would generally be of an ex post nature (applying to historical transactions) and not ex ante.

In practice, however, unless a tax ruling can be obtained on the issue (see below), historical settlements may be taken as constituting a precedent and be followed in subsequent years, assuming no substantial change in the applicable facts and circumstances. However, nothing prevents the tax authorities from revisiting, and disregarding, the position taken in prior years.

Currently, no advance pricing arrangement (APA) mechanism exists and the conventional advance tax ruling process is not designed to cover detailed transfer pricing cases. However, it is anticipated that transfer pricing cases will be covered either by the introduction of an APA mechanism or by broadening the scope of the conventional advance tax ruling process. If so, it would be advisable to seek such a ruling or an APA to secure certainty of tax treatment.

As it stands, the tax authorities24 will abide by their rulings if the circumstances and parameters on which the conventional ruling is based remain substantially the same. It is expected that the tax authorities will soon extend the scope of the conventional tax ruling process to include transfer pricing studies for financial BtB transactions.

vi INVESTIGATIONS

The law generally grants the right to the tax authorities to assess a taxpayer's tax return after the applicable submission deadline25 and to issue a notice of assessment to the taxpayer stating the tax authorities' agreement or disagreement with the tax return submitted.26

Likewise, the law provides the taxpayer with the right to dispute an assessment, in which case the objection should be filed by end of the next month, specifying the reason for the objection.27 Following submission of an objection, the tax authorities and the taxpayer usually exchange views (at meetings or by correspondence), which invariably involves the taxpayer providing additional documentation to support the taxpayer's case.

In the absence of detailed or specific provisions governing transfer pricing investigations, the general provisions of the law also apply to those disputes regarding a set 'transfer price' in which the tax authorities, upon issuing an assessment, potentially challenge the underlying terms of a controlled transaction; the taxpayer should be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the tax authorities that the controlled transaction reflects the fair market terms.

In this respect, and as already mentioned above, the taxpayer should have satisfactory evidentiary documentation in place underpinning the method of determination of the price and the economic and commercial rationale underlying the controlled transactions, and should furnish the tax authorities with these. The tax authorities generally review the documentary evidence provided by the taxpayer detailing the determined transfer price, and they will accept it if it is reasonable and justifiable in light of the specific economic circumstances or in accordance with the OECD reports and Transfer Pricing Guidelines. The tax authorities generally accept near comparables that illustrate that the determined transfer price is within a reasonable range.

It should also be noted that the tax authorities, on examining the evidentiary documentation, will either cancel their original assessments and issued revised or final ones or a final assessment would be issued without the agreement of the taxpayer, in which case the taxpayer may seek recourse to the Tax Tribunal or to the Supreme Court (see below).

Finally, as of July 2017, the taxpayer should have a transfer pricing study in place supporting financial BtB transactions, and similarly, if opting for the simplification measures, the taxpayer should have a functionality analysis prepared.

vii LITIGATION

In the event that a taxpayer wishes to challenge the findings, position or tax assessment of the tax authorities on a specific matter, he or she may apply to the Tax Tribunal28 or the Supreme Court,29 or both.

In this respect, the taxpayer, on receiving the final notice of assessment as issued by the Commissioner without reaching an agreement, should file his or her application to the Tax Tribunal within 45 days of the date of notification of the disagreement with the tax authorities (from the issue of the final notice of assessment).

The Tax Tribunal will examine the application of the claimant and request a report from the tax authorities documenting the facts of the case and their position. At a later stage, the Tax Tribunal will set a hearing with the two sides and decide on the case. The burden of proof falls on the taxpayer.

Should any of the parties disagree with the decision of the Tax Tribunal, they may seek recourse to the Supreme Court. If the taxpayer disagrees with the decision, the taxpayer must pursue this action within 75 days of either final notification of the assessment or the issue of the Tax Tribunal decision. The burden of the proof should lie with the taxpayer. Recourse to the Supreme Court is brought under Article 146 of the Cyprus Constitution. The Supreme Court will assess the validity of the Commissioner's decision, but if this is found to be reasonable, the Court will not quash the decision.

The following is taken from a relevant ruling of the Supreme Court on its power to quash the Commissioner's decision under Article 146:

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the taxation and substitute, where necessary, its own decision. The power of the Supreme Court is limited, as indicated, to the scrutiny of the legality of the action, and to ascertain whether the administration has exceeded the outer limits of its powers. Provided they confine their action within the ambit of their power, an organ of public administration remains the arbiter of the decision necessary to give effect to the law; and so long as they make a correct assessment of the factual background and act in accordance with the notions of sound administration, their decision will not be faulted. In the end, the courts must sustain their decision if it was reasonably open to them . . . The approach of the court to the validity of a taxing decision is no different from its approach in respect of any other administrative decision liable to review under Article 146.30

Transfer pricing matters are also governed by the above rules; therefore, if the taxpayer and the tax authorities cannot reach an agreement on a controlled transaction, the taxpayer may find recourse to either the Tax Tribunal or the courts, or both.

VIII SECONDARY ADJUSTMENTS

Currently, the Cyprus arm's-length principle does not explicitly provide for secondary adjustments, although in the absence of wording to forbid these, the tax authorities may apply such adjustments. Such secondary adjustments may take the form of a deemed dividend distribution (if it involves Cyprus tax-resident and domiciled physical persons); a deemed receivable equal to the difference between the actual transfer price and the fair market price on which the market interest rate will be imputed; or deemed operating income.

Secondary adjustments may be invoked in response to primary transactions involving tax-exempt assets and could take any of the forms mentioned above. In the event of such a secondary adjustment, a primary controlled transaction that should not have any Cyprus direct tax implications may ultimately be subject to taxation, especially if it lacks a commercial or business rationale.

ix BROADER TAXATION ISSUES

i Diverted profits tax

The arm's-length principle in Cyprus law does not apply to transactions where no controlled relation exists between the parties or to certain transactions that constitute capital transactions.

Although there is no specific diverted profit tax provision, the law enshrines the following general anti-avoidance tax provisions (from the Assessment and Collection of Taxes Law and the Capital Gains Tax Law respectively), which govern applicable situations and complement the arm's-length principle.

Where the Director is of the opinion that in respect of any year of assessment the object of the tax of any person is reduced by any transaction which in his opinion was artificial or fictitious, he may disregard any such transaction and assess the persons concerned on the proper object of the tax.31
in case of a disposal between related persons, as such term is interpreted by the Income Tax Law in force, where the disposal proceeds declared is an amount which is less than the market value of the property, there shall be deemed as disposal proceeds the amount of the market value of the property at the date of its disposal, as this is ascertained by the Director.32

In addition, the new EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (effective from 1 January 2019) may be employed to deny a tax benefit or recharacterise transactions in the event that 'an arrangement or a series of arrangements' is intended, exclusively or mainly, to exploit tax incentives.33

ii Double taxation

Cyprus has a very broad tax treaty network and generally applies the mutual agreement procedure (MAP) in response to its obligations under its bilateral double-tax treaties (which are mainly based on the OECD Model Convention – therefore giving effect to the specific OECD MAP Article 25, where applicable) or the EU Arbitration Convention34 pursuing the elimination of double taxation.

Prima facie, the MAP procedure may also be invoked in the context of primary adjustments under transfer pricing for the corresponding adjustment to apply, thereby eliminating or mitigating the possibility of double taxation.

Currently, there is limited practical experience of invoking an MAP for transfer pricing. In addition, the Income Tax Law35 provides that if the tax authorities make an upward adjustment to a taxpayer's tax calculation during their audit, a corresponding downward adjustment should also be made in the books of a connected controlled party. The resulting corresponding adjustment may be allowed as a deduction for the purposes of determining the connected controlled party's tax calculation if, under the normal rules, the subject matter of the corresponding adjustment would have qualified for deduction.

In providing for such a corresponding downward adjustment to be made, the law provides a framework for mitigating cases of double taxation, at least within Cyprus.

x OUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONS

Notably, the arm's-length principle in Cyprus law is in line with the international arm's-length principle as envisaged in the relevant OECD Model Convention and Transfer Pricing Guidelines, and it governs controlled transactions in Cyprus; indeed, in practice, the tax authorities accept transfer pricing studies indicating that the set transfer price is not affected by the connection between the parties in a controlled transaction.

However, in the absence of a formal requirement on detailed transfer pricing documentation (except for BtB financial controlled transactions) and specific guidance on the governing methodology, the tax authorities' approach is pragmatic, reflecting a balancing exercise in fostering international business while at the same time not allowing unreasonable controlled transactions lacking a business or commercial rationale to take place.

As a result, the process is relatively less cumbersome from the perspective both of the taxpayer (with regard to preparing and furnishing adequate evidentiary documentation underpinning a set controlled price) and of the tax authorities (with regard to using their limited resources to rigorously examine a particular controlled price), especially where transactions occur primarily within the context of small or medium-sized businesses.

The anticipated issuance of Cyprus regulations stipulating the nature of transfer pricing documentation and methodology to be followed will mark a shift in the tax authorities' current approach, as these will require per se specific documentation to be in place and a certain methodology to be applied with regard to controlled transactions.


Footnotes

1 Kyriacos Scordis is the managing partner and Costas Michail is a director at Scordis, Papapetrou & Co LLC.

2 Cyprus was rated Largely Compliant in the Phase 2 Peer Review Report of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes.

3 OECD Model Tax Convention, Article 9.

4 OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (1995–2016).

5 OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project: Aligning Transfer Pricing Outcomes with Value Creation: Actions 8–10: 2015 Final Reports.

6 OECD Model Tax Convention, Article 9.

7 See footnotes 3 and 4.

8 Article 33, Income Tax Law of 2002, 118(I)/2002, as amended, CTR Publications Ltd.

9 Article 2, Income Tax law of 2002, 118(I)/2002, as amended, CTR Publications Ltd.

10 Article 9B, Income Tax Law of 2002, 118(I)/2002, as amended, CTR Publications Ltd.

11 Cyprus Tax Department Circular EE 3.

12 OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (July 2017 ed.).

13 Decree on Country-by-Country Reporting, 401/2016.

14 Cyprus Tax Department Procedural Circular 5, dated 2 January 2019.

15 Article 30, Assessment and Collection of Taxes Law of 1978, 4/78, as amended.

16 Article 30(3), Assessment and Collection Law.

17 OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2016, Part II: Traditional transaction methods.

18 OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2016, Part II: Traditional transaction methods.

19 Article 3, Special Contribution for the Defence of the Republic Law of 2002, 117(I)/02, as amended (easily met participation exemption) and Article 8(20), Income Tax Law of 2002, 118(I)/2002, as amended.

20 Article 8(22), Income Tax Law of 2002, 118(I)/2002, as amended.

21 Development, enhancement, maintenance, protection and exploitation of intangibles.

22 Tax Department Circular 2017/4.

23 Article 9(1)(e), Income Tax Law of 2002, 118(I)/2002, as amended.

24 Tax Department Circular 2015/13.

25 Article 13(1), Assessment and Collection of Taxes Law of 1978, 4/78, as amended.

26 Article 19, Assessment and Collection of Taxes Law of 1978, 4/78, as amended.

27 Article 20(3), Assessment and Collection of Taxes Law of 1978, 4/78, as amended.

28 Article 20A, Assessment and Collection of Taxes Law of 1978, 4/78, as amended.

29 Article 21, Assessment and Collection of Taxes Law of 1978, 4/78, as amended.

30 Costas M Pikis v. The Republic (1965) 3 C.L.R. 131, at 149.

31 Article 33, Assessment and Collection of Taxes Law of 1978, 4/78, as amended, CTR Publications Ltd.

32 Article 9(4), Capital Gains Tax Law, CTR Publications Ltd.

33 Article 6, EU Directive, 2016/1164.

34 Convention 90/436/EEC; CRS decree 161/2016 implemented the automatic exchange of financial account information for Cyprus financial institutions.

35 Article 33(5), Article 9(1)(e), Income Tax Law of 2002, 118(I)/2002, as amended.