scholarly journals Requirements for assuming a permanent establishment under Art. 5 OECD Model Tax Convention

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-125
Author(s):  
Mandy Witt
Keyword(s):  
Research Question ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
German Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Level ◽  
Permanent Establishment ◽  
The Common ◽  
Article 5

In January 2019, the German Federal Finance Court defined the legally binding requirements with respect to a fixed place of business being a matter of a permanent establishment according to German law, thus the revenue generated being subject to the German taxation.This article addresses the research question ‘Which criteria have to be met by a permanent establishment to be effective for tax purposes?’Regarding the methods, the article reviews relevant literature and case law to identify the prevailing and dissenting opinions on the requirements for assuming a fixed place of business under Art. 5(5) OECD-Model Tax Convention. As to the question whether one can refer to a fixed place of business as a permanent establishment, the courts use to differentiate between Civil Jurisdiction and Common Law. For the sake of clarity, the courts coined the article 5 of the OECD[1] Model Tax Convention. In accordance to the abovementioned Model Tax Convention, binding provisions were defined on the international level for both, countries using the Common Law as well as for those using the Civil Law, with respect to the requirements as to a permanent establishment and the resulting country of taxation to be applied. In doing so, the question arose whether for instance a lockbox would represent a permanent establishment or not.However, the contracting states did not succeed in determining clear requirements as to the existence of the establishment in question. In fact, they left it to the state in question to define their respective double-tax agreements according to their own needs.    

scholarly journals A COMPARISON OF THE COMMON LAW BASED DUTY WITH ITS CIVIL LAW EQUIVALENT

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Azamat Omarov ◽  
Asylbek Kultasov ◽  
Kanat Abdilov
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Legal Term ◽  
Legal Effect ◽  
The World ◽  
The Common

The article discusses the features of civil law in different countries. The authors studied the origins of the modern tradition of civil law, comparing the legal systems of two European countries. One of the traditional classifications of duties in civil law is analyzed, the conclusion is made about the inappropriateness of the allocation of personal and universal duties. In comparative law, there are many situations where the same legal term has different meanings, or where different legal terms have same legal effect. This confusion most often occurs when civil lawyers have to deal with common law, or vice versa, when common law lawyers deal with civil law issues. While there are many issues which are dealt with in the same way by the civil law and common law systems, there remain also significant differences between these two legal systems related to legal structure, classification, fundamental concepts, terminology, etc. As lawyers know, legal systems in countries around the world generally fall into one of two main categories: common law systems and civil law systems. There are roughly 150 countries that have what can be described as primarily civil law systems, whereas there are about 80 common law countries. The main difference between the two systems is that in common law countries, case law – in the form of published judicial opinions – is of primary importance, whereas in civil law systems, codified statutes predominate.

The Common Law Legal Tradition: First Things First

2021 ◽  
pp. 15-22
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Legal Tradition ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

This chapter explains briefly the origins and development of the common law tradition in order to better understand the rise of judicial review in the seven common law countries discussed in this volume. The common law legal tradition is characterized historically, in public law, by limited, constitutional government and by forms of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation. In private law, the common law tradition is characterized by judge-made case law, which is the primary source of the law, instead of a massive code being the primary source of the law. The common law tradition is also characterized by reliance on the institution of trial by jury. Judges, rather than scholars, are the key figures who are revered in the common law legal tradition, and this is one of the key things that distinguishes the common law legal tradition from the civil law legal tradition. The common law legal tradition emphasizes judicial power, which explains why it has led to judicial review in the countries studied in this volume. It is the prevailing legal tradition in the four countries with the oldest systems of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation: the United States, Canada, Australia, and India. Thus, judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation in these four countries is very much shaped by common law attitudes about the roles of judges.

Conclusion The German Model and Gouvernement des Juges

2021 ◽  
pp. 315-318
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
German Model ◽  
The Common

I have now completed my discussion and analysis of the origins and growth of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation in the civil law nations. I should acknowledge at the outset that I faced a difficulty in writing Volume II on the civil law nations that I did not encounter in writing Volume I on the common law nations. In every common law country, the case law, and substantial commentary on the case law, is available in English....

4 Personal and Property Rights

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bamford Colin
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Project Financing ◽  
Fund Management ◽  
Law System ◽  
Bond Issues ◽  
The Common ◽  
Financial Transactions

The chapter explores the differences between property rights and rights that can be enforced only by action against a person. It contrasts the position in common law systems with that in civil law countries. The common law system is explained by looking at the development of equity and of the concepts of equitable ownership and of the trust. The chapter then examines the distinction by reference to case law, particularly in relation to the mechanism of charge-backs. It then argues that the approach adopted by the common law is particularly well suited to the needs of financial transactions, in syndicated lending, bond issues project financing fund management and in allowing flexibility in the structuring of complex security arrangements.

scholarly journals Charitable Foundations in the Principality of Liechtenstein – Tradition and Recent Developments

2011 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 159
Author(s):  
Francesco A Schurr
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Charitable Foundations ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Common

The purpose of this paper is to examine the evolution of the foundation (Stiftung) in the Principality of Liechtenstein. The article therefore deals with recent changes in the statutory legislation governing them as well as with current developments in case law. The paper will also address the different approaches taken towards foundations by the civil law and common law traditions within Europe. In fact, the jurisdiction of Liechtenstein embraces elements of both the civil and the common law traditions.

scholarly journals Peran Yurisprudensi dalam Sistem Hukum di Indonesia

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrico Simanjuntak
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
Law System ◽  
The Common ◽  
Civil Law System

Karakteristik sistem hukum common law adalah hukum yang berorientasi kepada kasus (case-law), sedangkan sistem civil law, hukum berorientasi kepada undang-undang (codified-law). Namun peraturan perundang-undangan sebagai basis legalitas hukum dalam tradisi Rechtstaats, memiliki keterbatasan tersendiri. Peraturan perundang-undangan tidak pernah mengatur secara lengkap dan detail bagaimana pemenuhan aturan hukum dalam setiap peristiwa hukum, oleh karenanya yurisprudensi lah yang akan melengkapinya. Selain untuk mengisi kekosongan hukum, yurisprudensi merupakan instrumen hukum dalam rangka menjaga kepastian hukum. Tulisan ini berusaha mengkaji kedudukan yurisprudensi dikaitkan dengan tugas dan fungsi MK sebagai pengawal konstitusi, bukan sebagai penegak undang-undang. Metode analisis yang digunakan adalah studi pustaka dengan pendekatan perbandingan. Kesimpulan yang didapat dalam penelitian ini adalah bahwa yurisprudensi merupakan salah satu sumber hukum yang penting dalam tradisi civil law. Setiap diskursus tentang yurisprudensi dalam tradisi civil law mengisyaratkan bahwa tradisi civil law mengakui hukum selain yang tertuang dalam bentuk undang-undang, juga terdapat hukum yang bersumber dari hukum hakim (judge made law) (rechtstersrecht) yang lebih dikenal dengan nama yurisprudensi (jurisprudentierecht).The characteristics of the common law legal system are case-law, whereas the civil law system, the law is codified-law. However, legislation as the basis of legal legality in the tradition of Rechtstaats, has its own limitations. Legislation never regulates in full and detail how compliance with the laws in every legal circumtances, therefore it is jurisprudence that will complement it. In addition to filling a legal vacuum, jurisprudence is a key legal instrument in order to maintain legal certainty. This paper seeks to examine the position of jurisprudence associated with the duties and functions of the Constitutional Court as a guardian of the constitution, not merely as statute enforcement. The analytical method used is a literature study with a comparative approach. The conclusion obtained in this study is that jurisprudence is an important source of law in the civil law tradition. Any discourse on jurisprudence in the civil law tradition implies that the civil law tradition recognizes law other than those contained in statutes, there is also a law that comes from judge made law (rechtstersrecht) better known as jurisprudence (jurisprudentierecht).

Is Style of Reasoning a Fundamental Difference Between the Common Law and the Civil Law?

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-290
Author(s):  
Colm Peter McGrath ◽  
◽  
Helmut Koziol ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Fundamental Difference ◽  
The Common

scholarly journals CODIFICATION, CONSOLIDATION, RESTATEMENT? HOW BEST TO SYSTEMISE THE MODERN LAW OF TORT

2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-305
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
The Law ◽  
Codal Provisions ◽  
Code Civil

AbstractThe law of tort (or extra or non-contractual liability) has been criticised for being imprecise and lacking coherence. Legal systems have sought to systemise its rules in a number of ways. While civil law systems generally place tort law in a civil code, common law systems have favoured case-law development supported by limited statutory intervention consolidating existing legal rules. In both systems, case law plays a significant role in maintaining the flexibility and adaptability of the law. This article will examine, comparatively, different means of systemising the law of tort, contrasting civil law codification (taking the example of recent French proposals to update the tort provisions of the Code civil) with common law statutory consolidation and case-law intervention (using examples taken from English and Australian law). In examining the degree to which these formal means of systemisation are capable of improving the accessibility, intelligibility, clarity and predictability of the law of tort, it will also address the role played by informal sources, be they ambitious restatements of law or other means. It will be argued that given the nature of tort law, at best, any form of systemisation (be it formal or informal) can only seek to minimise any lack of precision and coherence. However, as this comparative study shows, further steps are needed, both in updating outdated codal provisions and rethinking the type of legal scholarship that might best assist the courts.

Classifying precontractual liability: a comparative analysis

Legal Studies ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joachim Dietrich
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Common Elements ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
The Common ◽  
Initial Focus

The common law has solved questions of liability arising in the context of precontractual negotiations by resort to a range of different doctrines and approaches, adopting in effect ‘piecemeal’ solutions to questions of precontractual liability. Consequently, debate has arisen as to how best to classify or categorise claims for precontractual work and as to which doctrines are best suited to solving problems arising from anticipated contracts. The purpose of this article is to consider this question of how best to classify (cases of) precontractual liability. The initial focus will be on the ongoing debate as to whether principles of contract law or principles of unjust enrichment can better solve problems of precontractual liability. I will be suggesting that unjust enrichment theory offers little by way of explanation of cases of precontractual liability and, indeed, draws on principles of contract law in determining questions of liability for precontractual services rendered, though it does so by formulating those principles under different guises. Irrespective, however, of the doctrines utilised by the common law to impose liability, it is possible to identify a number of common elements unifying all cases of precontractual liability. In identifying such common elements of liability, it is necessary to draw on principles of both contract and tort law. How, then, should cases of precontractual liability best be classified? A consideration of the issue of classification of precontractual liability from a perspective of German civil law will demonstrate that a better understanding of cases of precontractual liability will be gained by classifying such cases as lying between the existing categories of contract and tort.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document