scholarly journals BEPS principal purpose test and customary international law

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 745-766
Author(s):  
Irma Johanna Mosquera Valderrama

AbstractThe overall aim of this article is to analyse the principal purpose test as an emerging rule of customary international tax law. By means of the principal purpose test, the tax administration can deny the tax treaty benefit if one of the principal purposes of the action undertaken by the taxpayer was to obtain a benefit. This principal purpose test has been developed by the OECD with the political support of the G20 as one of the actions to tackle Base Erosion and Profit Shifting by multinationals (BEPS Project). At the time of writing, 137 jurisdictions including non-OECD, non-G-20 countries have committed to the implementation of the principal purpose test in their current and future tax treaties. Based on the analysis of the objective element (state practice) and subjective element (accepted as law), there are indications that this principal purpose test can emerge as a principle of customary international law. In the past, international tax law scholars addressed the customary international law regarding the OECD/UN tax treaty Models, the OECD Harmful Tax Practices, and the arm’s length principle. However, current international tax developments, including the BEPS Project, call for an analysis of the main elements of customary international law in respect of the principal purpose test, a general anti-avoidance rule that by its own nature, is often general, vague, and imprecise. Therefore, the findings of this article can be useful for generating new areas of research by international public law, international law, and international tax law experts.

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-103
Author(s):  
Dirk Broekhuijsen ◽  
Irma Mosquera Valderrama

Abstract Customary international tax law has traditionally not received a lot of acclaim in international tax law literature. However, the infrastructure of international tax law is becoming increasingly multilateral. The recent adoption of the Multilateral Instrument and the creation of the Inclusive Framework, two initiatives related to the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, have accelerated the width of cooperation on international tax matters. For that reason, the authors (re)consider the existence of customary international law in the area of international tax law. They conclude that, perhaps contrary to the intuition of tax lawyers, the evidence in favour of customary international tax law is building up. The question whether customary law exists within the area of international taxation is therefore not misplaced.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 747-769
Author(s):  
Céline Braumann

ABSTRACT Scholars of public international law have not paid attention to international tax law in the past. This article seeks to fill this vacuum and to foster cross-field research by studying customary international law in international tax law. It assesses the value of international tax law’s most prominent feature for the identification of custom: the dense network of almost identical, bilateral double tax treaties. The primacy of source-based taxation for business profits serves as a test case for this purpose. The International Law Commission’s conclusions on the identification of customary international law constitute the theoretical reference point that informs the empirical analysis. Thus, this article simultaneously serves as a treadmill test to appraise whether the International Law Commission’s conclusions actually offer practical guidance. The analysis culminates in the conclusion that tax treaties have only little value for the identification of customary international law. First, tax treaties alone do not entail representative state practice. Second, tax treaties give rise to the pitfalls of the Baxter paradox. Third, the tax treaty network yields no evidence that any state practice originates from opinio juris. Judging by the evidence brought into play so far, states likely display uniform treaty practice in international taxation because they believe it is in their best interest, not due to any legal conviction.


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-76
Author(s):  
Marco Longobardo

Abstract This article explores the role of counsel before the International Court of Justice, taking into account their tasks under the Statute of the Court and the legal value of their pleadings in international law. Pleadings of counsel constitute State practice for the formation of customary international law and treaty interpretation, and they are attributable to the litigating State under the law on State responsibility. Accordingly, in principle, counsel present the views of the litigating State, which in practice approves in advance the pleadings. This consideration is relevant in discussing the role of counsel assisting States in politically sensitive cases, where there is no necessary correspondence between the views of the States and those of their counsel. Especially when less powerful States are parties to the relevant disputes, the availability of competent counsel in politically sensitive cases should not be discouraged since it advances the legitimacy of the international judicial function.


2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-38
Author(s):  
Brian Sang YK

Despite criticism of targeted killing of suspected terrorists, states continue to justify extensive bases for lethal-force responses to terrorism by arguing that rigid adherence to prescriptive law cannot always be observed in the context of clear and present danger. But, while seemingly cogent, this view wrongly presumes the mutual exclusivity of security considerations and the imperatives of law. It risks exceeding the limits of permissible use of lethal force prescribed in conventional and customary international law. A contrary and more balanced view is advanced in this article. It argues that current international law protecting individuals against intentional killing offers sufficient and practicable guidance for states confronting terrorism. Systematic legal criteria are thus expounded to clarify the legality and admissible limits of targeted killing of suspected terrorists in three contexts: law enforcement, self-defence and armed conflict. With reference to treaties, policy documents and state practice, the article critically examines the preconditions for lawful state-sanctioned killings in counter-terrorist operations. It also identifies the legal challenges and policy implications of resorting to targeted killing. Using comparative case law and operational practice, a legal basis is offered on which Kenya and other nations can effectively tackle the spectre of terrorism within the fair strictures of the law. Every struggle of the state – against terrorism or any other enemy – is conducted according to rules and law. There is always law which the state must comply with.


2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-193
Author(s):  
Marcin Jamroży ◽  
Magdalena Janiszewska

Abstract The paper aims to identify the significant tax barriers to foreign direct investment (FDI) in Poland, in particular in the form of a permanent establishment (PE), in the context of new developments in international tax law. Due to the recommendations of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, launched by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to prevent international tax avoidance, the understanding of PE has changed, which could lead to changes in business models. The purpose of the research is also to identify the significant tax barriers to economic activity in Poland, in particular in the form of PE, against the international tax law context. The study conducted by the authors relies on the most current tax rulings and judgments of administrative courts issued between 2017 and 2020. It is concluded that not so much the effective tax burdens but the regulatory ambiguity surrounding the tax obligations may contribute to the reduction of Poland's attractiveness as a location for FDI.


Author(s):  
Duško Glodić

This article explores the role and importance accorded to customary international law in contemporary international law. First of all, the author has explored a number of issues related to this topic. Particluarly, the manner in which norms of customary international law are being established through the relevant State practice and the formation of opinio juris, as well as how the changes in contemporary international relations generated some chages in custromary international law were examined from both theretical and practical point of view. Than, the article elaborated, in a more concrete manner, different ways of impact of changes in international relations and subjects of international law to the formation of customary international rules. It has also paid attention to the evolution in international law and its reflection to the creation of international legal norms, including customary rules. The article concluded that, despite an ever increasing number of treaties, customary rules are still present in international law and are important for regulation of international relations, thus ensuring that dynamics and developments within the international community are followed by the development of legal framework.


2009 ◽  
pp. 565-590
Author(s):  
Raffaella Nigro

- In the well-known Lozano case, an Italian intelligence agent, Mr Nicola Calipari, remained killed in 2005 by an American soldier, Mr Mario Luis Lozano, while entering a US checkpoint on the way to the Baghdad airport soon after securing the release of an Italian journalist from Iraqi kidnappers. In the ensuing case, Italian courts addressed a number of sensitive questions, including that of jurisdiction over national troops involved, directly or indirectly, in so-called "humanitarian missions" abroad. Italian courts did have jurisdiction over the killing under Italian domestic law. Indeed, the murder of Mr Calipari can be regarded as a "political crime" under Article 8 of the Italian penal code. On such a premise, the question is whether Article 8 was superseded by a customary international law rule under Article 10 of the Italian Constitution aimed at excluding jurisdiction over Mr Lozano. State practice suggests that neither a customary rule on the exclusive jurisdiction of the sending State (as claimed by the Court of Assise of Rome in 2007) nor a customary rule on Mr Lozano's functional immunity (as claimed by the Court of Cassation in 2008) are established in customary international law. Rather, State practice reveals that a number of States are likely to recognize immunity from jurisdiction to the armed forces only in certain specific circumstances. Moreover, such immunity is quite different from the functional immunity traditionally enjoyed by diplomatic and consular agents, as well as from the immunities enjoyed by other high-ranking State officials, such as the Head of State, the Head of Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 209-225
Author(s):  
Raffaella Nigro

The dispute between Italy and India on the Enrica Lexie incident has finally been decided by the Award handed down on 21 May 2020 by the Arbitral Tribunal to which the Parties had referred the case. After having concluded that it had jurisdiction on the issue of the immunity of the two Italian marines involved in the case at hand, the majority judgment (by three votes to two) affirmed that under customary international law the latter enjoyed functional immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of India. This article will argue that the Arbitral Tribunal’s conclusions are unconvincing, first and foremost, considering that, based on State practice, it is not possible to affirm without reservations that a settled customary rule exists under international law conferring immunity to all State officials, and regardless of the type of functions they perform. In fact, immunity has often been recognized as applying only to certain categories of State officials, and on the basis of the governmental nature of the functions they perform on behalf of the State. Given the doubtful existence under customary international law of a clear rule establishing the functional immunity of all State officials, for all the acts performed in the exercise of their functions, this article argues that the Arbitral Tribunal should have firstly ascertained the existence of a specific customary rule on the immunity of the military abroad, together with the exact content of such rule and, secondly, whether this was applicable in the case of the Enrica Lexie. As current practice stands, military forces abroad are entitled to immunity only under specific circumstances, which do not seem to occur in the present case. In particular, this article maintains that the Italian marines were not entitled to functional immunity. While the acts they performed did indeed fall within their typical functions, they were exercised on behalf of a private subject and not on behalf of the Italian State.


Author(s):  
Hongler Peter

Chapter 2 is the main part of the book and it is structured along the different sources of the international law of taxation. This includes (i) treaties, (ii) customary international law, (iii) general principles of international law, and (iv) soft law. The chapter contains a comprehensive outline of the functioning of double tax treaties and other treaties focusing on tax matters such as treaties on mutual exchange of taxpayer information. The entire OECD MC is discussed and reference is made to brief case studies in order to allow the reader a better understanding of the international tax regime. A particular focus is in on the functioning the allocation rules in Arts 6–22 OECD model convention, however, this chapter also includes general remarks on the interpretation of tax treaties and soft law used in international tax matters. The chapter closes with a concise overview of the EU tax system.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 344-368
Author(s):  
Kasey McCall-Smith

Abstract This article contributes to existing understandings about the influence of human rights treaty bodies on the development of customary international law. It offers a method of assessing State responses to treaty body jurisprudence for the purposes of determining to what extent the responses push toward the reaffirmation or crystallisation of a customary rule of international law, namely the prohibition against torture. It speaks to the way in which, despite its status as a peremptory norm, the content of the norm is often challenged, but also incrementally expanding due in large part to the way in which treaty bodies engage and guide States both inside and outside of the primary reporting procedures. Ultimately, this article demonstrates that State practice and opinio juris are increasingly influenced by treaty bodies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document