scholarly journals TAX TREATY ARBITRATION

2018 ◽  
pp. 21-36
Author(s):  
DANIL VINNITSKIY ◽  
ANDREY SAVITSKIY ◽  
EVGENIY PUSTOVALOV
Keyword(s):  
Research Methods ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Double Taxation ◽  
Functional Interpretation ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The Cross ◽  
International Tax ◽  
Tax Arbitration ◽  
Mutual Agreement

Introduction: this article reviews the cross-border tax disputes resolution practice in Russia and evaluates the prospects for the development of new mechanisms for the resolution of tax disputes arising from cross-border relations, including tax arbitration. In recent years, the development of international instruments for eliminating double taxation and resolving tax disputes within OECD and G20 multilateral formats as well as bilateral agreements on avoidance of double taxation have led to the growing interest in this paper’s topic. The purpose of this paper is to determine / identify an optimal mechanism for the cross-border tax disputes resolution in Russia, taking into account the current domestic legal regulation and international commitments in the field of cross-border taxation. Methods: given the nature of this research, we have used the general scientific and individual scientific research methods. We have also used legal research methods such as comparative legal and formal legal methods, logical, systemic, and functional interpretation. The recent academic literature on the particular aspects of this research has been investigated too. Analysis: the practice in the application of international tax agreements in Russia demonstrates that the cross-border tax disputes are mainly resolved within the framework of domestic judicial procedures. Mutual agreement procedures and tax arbitration are not common mechanisms for resolving cross-border tax disputes in Russia. Meanwhile, the international investment disputes affecting particular aspects of taxation are often dealt through international arbitration institutions. Results: as a part of the commitments made under the Multilateral Instrument (MLI), Russian Federation considers arbitration and mutual agreement procedures only as possible alternative ways to settle cross-border tax disputes arising from international tax agreements. Based on the well-known cross-border tax disputes resolution practice, we conclude that none of the states could completely isolate itself from the international arbitration procedures in the current circumstances. This is true even if such state did not include the arbitration clause in its tax agreements and did not make the commitments on tax arbitration under the Multilateral Instrument (MLI).

Two Accounts of International Tax Justice

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 317-339
Author(s):  
Ivan Ozai
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Tax Competition ◽  
Income Tax ◽  
Capital Mobility ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Developing Economies ◽  
Host Countries ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Relative Dependence ◽  
International Tax

The contemporary international tax regime has been increasingly criticized over the years from varied perspectives, particularly as to the unfairness it produces for developing countries. Some commentators argue it is unjust due to the lack of participation of developing countries in the policymaking process on an equal footing. Others suggest the international tax regime was designed by affluent countries to respond to self-interested goals. Some note that its current institutional design creates opportunities for tax competition and avoidance, which more seriously affect developing economies due to their relative dependence on corporate income tax and their greater vulnerability to capital mobility. Others specifically criticize how taxing rights, that is, the entitlement of countries to tax cross-border transactions, are currently allocated between home and host countries and how they disfavour capital-importing, developing countries.

scholarly journals “An Unacceptable Surrender of Fiscal Sovereignty”: The Neoliberal Turn to International Tax Arbitration

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Martin Hearson ◽  
Todd N. Tucker
Keyword(s):  
Global Financial Crisis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Wealth Accumulation ◽  
Incremental Change ◽  
Business Power ◽  
Past Half Century ◽  
International Tax ◽  
The Global Financial Crisis ◽  
Tax Arbitration

The growth of inequality over the past half century is closely connected to the rise of neoliberal policies and institutions, the latter of which shield capital from state actions that might limit wealth accumulation. Economic nationalism since the global financial crisis has slowed or even reversed this, yet this same era has seen the emergence of a new form of instrument in the neoliberal mold, in a stronghold of state sovereignty: taxation. Under mandatory binding tax arbitration, states cede sovereignty over the interpretation of international tax agreements to panels of transnational tax adjudicators. Focusing on the pivotal role of the United States, we use historical documents, including from the congressional archive and interviews with key actors to ask why tax arbitration emerged late in the neoliberal era, and at a counterintuitive time. We demonstrate that this outcome is the result of instrumental business power driving a process of incremental change through layering, to overcome states’ preference to retain sovereignty. This experience sheds light on the historically structured ways that business power constrains sovereignty in an era of high inequality.

scholarly journals The Resolution of Tax Disputes and International Tax Arbitration

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benja Anglès Juanpere
Keyword(s):  
Tax Avoidance ◽  
International Level ◽  
Double Taxation ◽  
Multilateral Agreements ◽  
International Tax ◽  
Tax Payments ◽  
International Transactions ◽  
Tax Arbitration ◽  
Bilateral Treaties ◽  
The Eu

Globalisation and the digital economy have revolutionised the world’s markets and international transactions, some of which manage to escape national jurisdictions and bilateral treaties between States. With the lack of multilateral agreements, certain taxpayers, multinationals in particular, have managed to slip through the net of individual countries’ tax regulations and been able to reduce their tax payments. To resolve tax disputes between taxpayers and States, with the chief goals of avoiding double taxation and not being subject to any tax jurisdiction, a number of multilateral measures have been instituted, including—amongst other mechanisms—binding international tax arbitration proceedings. The OECD and the EU are fostering the implementation of such measures, whose goal is to prevent tax avoidance and achieve a fair spread of tax burdens on an international level.

Latin American Opposition to Mandatory Arbitration in Tax Treaties

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yariv Brauner
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Latin American ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Tax Treaties ◽  
International Tax ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Latin American Countries

The international tax regime has recently made large strides toward a reform of its dispute resolution mechanism. Long-anticipated, mandatory tax treaty arbitration is finally gaining legitimacy beyond limited use by a few countries. Yet, the opposition to international arbitration among developing countries, led by Latin American countries, has not waned. This Article tracks this opposition to its origins and argues that it is misguided in the case of tax treaty arbitration, which such countries should rather generally support.

Taxing Cross-Border Services

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrés Moreno
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Rigid Framework ◽  
International Tax

Many developing countries have been trying to expand in the last decades their taxing powers on cross-border services rendered by non-residents beyond the rigid framework of the current international tax regime. However, this expansion has been carried on unilaterally and sometimes in an unplanned manner. This contribution describes the Brazilian and Argentinian experiences and tries to extract some policy lessons therefrom.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document