Search

The article analyses the latest international tax law developments in dispute resolution settlement protocols and the need for effective multilateral solutions to prevent international double taxation. While several treaties currently minimise the risks of international double taxation, more must be achieved to provide judicial remedies in cases where two states want to tax the same income simultaneously. The OECD has developed a dispute resolution system based on arbitration clauses to be introduced in conventions signed by the state and a brand-new MLI (multilateral instrument) that should be applicable on a broader scale. These remedies have proven unsatisfactory as the taxpayer is not entitled to play any role in these (arbitration) procedures and cannot stand personally in front of any panel. The authors argue that such a scenario is inconsistent with the rule of law and the due process clauses and should be amended. Creating a supranational court with the entitlement to adjudicate the power to tax would be the optimal solution, but this would collide with the position of several states and their distrust of the international judiciary in tax matters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2022, the European Commission introduced, for the first time in its history, a windfall profit tax to be applied on "excessive" profits realized by qualified businesses operating in the "Oil and Gas" sector. Immediately after its implementation, questions arose as to its sustainability and its consistency with constitutional principles of the different member states regulating the domestic power to tax. To assess the consistency with the aforesaid rules, the article samples two countries, inside and outside the EU (Italy and Australia, respectively), and the historical precedents of the matter. Italy has been chosen due to the particularly stringent set of principles regulating the power of the legislature to tax, and Australia has been chosen because of the long-standing experience with superprofit taxes. In most of the scenarios analyzed, one common feature emerged: the complexity in defining the "Extra" nature of the profits and, consequently, the uncertainties in the calculation of the taxable base. In the case of Italy, for instance, the legislator had to intervene in several different moments to fine-tune the taxable base and restore certainty to the tax system. As a conclusion, while the taxation of extra profits should not per se be disregarded, its implementation demands a more robust and precise legal framework together with the understanding that the introduction of such a levy would be a one-way journey for the tax systems: windfall profits taxes would be here to stay. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The alleged infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in the Jussila case is examined. Mr. Jussila, a taxpayer in Finland, challenged the reassessment of his VAT, but failed, and later claimed that he was not given a fair tax trial. An evaluation of the case and an interpretation of article 6 of the ECHR are provided.

The Masa Investment Group case explains how the European Court of Human Rights handles tax cases. The decision indicates how contributions to tax law resulting from the European Convention on Human Rights produced a different result.

Copyright of Collected Papers of the Law Faculty of the University of Rijeka / Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci is the property of Pravni fakultet Sveucilista u Rijeci and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Defining tax avoidance has been always a nearly impossible quest for tax lawyers. In Continental Europe, however, it could be said that the notion of "avoidance" is strongly embedded to the concept of "abuse" of a right, being an "abuse", according to the Roman law tradition, the exercise of a right inconsistently with the general principles of correctness, good faith or even with the basic rules of ethics. Therefore the definition of avoidance is not purely legal, but it depends also on other disciplines which influence it. In EU law qualifying avoidance is even more complex as the law of the Union is nearly deprived of any influence by other systems of values, the only general principles to rely on are the fundamental freedoms and the nondiscrimination principle both enshrined in the Treaty. That is why when in recent cases the Court had to rule on the "abuse of law" it did its best to find principles or values to build the concept on. The results were different in direct tax and in VAT cases: the notion of abuse can be wider in some of them and narrower in some others as far as it depends on the background to the specific provisions discussed. In case of the VAT the system is more complex and the court has to strike a balance between the need for neutrality of the tax and the coherence. In direct tax cases only the Treaty is applicable, and together with it the freedoms bestowed upon the taxpayer who can make the most of them in any case, unless the purpose of the scheme implemented is only to save taxes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]