Search

Copyright of Die Unternehmensbesteuerung (Ubg) is the property of De Gruyter 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.)

Copyright of Umsatzsteuer-Rundschau is the property of De Gruyter 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.)

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter 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.)

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter 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.)

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]

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter 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.)

Copyright of Umsatzsteuer-Rundschau is the property of De Gruyter 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.)

In international cooperation on taxation, countries strive to achieve equality in international taxation and, thus, create the basis for a fair international tax system. Justice exists in an international system of taxation only when states allocate taxing powers among themselves in a manner consistent with dominant views of justice internationally. A fair international tax system will not exist until there is some international consensus on how countries should allocate axing powers among themselves. International cooperation allows countries to improve the coordination of tax policy at the international level. We can talk about several types of coordination. For example, one type aims to make a country's tax system more similar to others - in other words, to harmonize taxes. Other types aim to establish minimum or maximum tax rates to avoid double taxation of cross-border income streams, prevent transfer pricing, coordinate arrangements with competent authorities and limit harmful tax competition. The current official agreements mean business activities through a permanent establishment and give the source country the primary right to tax profits from this operation. The country of residence is obliged to exempt these profits from tax, at least to the extent that they were taxed by the country of source. A tax treaty also often provides for an exemption from taxation of the employee's income from personal services provided the employee is in the country for no more than a specified period of time and the compensation is received by a non-resident employer without a permanent establishment. The treaty usually reduces or eliminates withholding tax on at least some items of investment-type income, such as interest, dividends, rents and royalties, that are not attributable to business carried on through a permanent establishment. The tax treaty also provides that the country of residence can tax capital gains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2012, sales tax was replaced in China with value-added tax (VAT). This study evaluates the effect of this change on service exports. VAT reform was introduced across provinces and service sectors at different times. Hence, our paper identifies the impacts of VAT reform on firms' export behavior by utilizing a difference-in-difference (DID) estimation methodology and finds that VAT reform significantly increases service exports in intensive and extensive margins. The export-enhancing effects are larger for non-state-owned enterprises and firms of larger scale and higher productivity levels. VAT reform alleviates tax magnification and double taxation and effectively promotes the competitiveness of China's service exports. With the complete implementation of VAT reform, alongside the full refund of VAT on exported products, China's service exports would increase by approximately two-and-a-half times. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Stiftungswesen is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH 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.)

Copyright of Umsatzsteuer-Rundschau is the property of De Gruyter 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.)

The article focuses on taxation issues in Indian country, exploring jurisdictional overlaps between federal, state, and tribal governments. Topics include dual taxation scenarios where both federal and state governments tax the same income, the complexities of preemption in federal Indian law affecting tax disputes, and the economic impacts of taxation on investment. The analysis also emphasizes the role of tax compacts between tribes and states while maintaining tribal sovereignty.

Attempts to ensure safety and quality control in the Day-Old Chicks (DOCs) value chain in Nigeria have been perceived to involve some duplicity/multiplicity of roles and/ or responsibilities, putting undue burden on the actors. Therefore, experts' workshop on the DOCs value chain in Oyo State was implemented by the Innovation Lab for Policy Leadership in Agriculture and Food Security (PiLAF) to provide a guide for agenda setting for building a better industry. The workshop had the dual purpose of (i) undertaking a situational analysis of the DOCs value chain in Oyo State, Nigeria, and (ii) strengthening the policy process to effectively respond to the needs of the DOCs value chain in the state through clearly defined, unambiguous regulations and regulatory processes. Twenty-four experts comprising major actors along the DOCs value chain in Oyo State participated in the workshop. Using brainstorming and consensus building process, participants identified infrastructure and markets (strengths), weak regulatory control and high operating cost (weaknesses); supply gap, and good return on investment (opportunities); including adulteration and sharp practices (threats) as the most important Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) factors influencing or capable of affecting the DOCs industry in the state. The DOCs value chain operators identified National Institute of Animal Science (NIAS) followed by the Veterinary Council of Nigeria as the most visible operators in the DOCs value chain. However, the operators perceived the activities of the regulatory bodies as more geared toward revenue generation than actually enforcing compliance to standard practices in the industry. The value chain actors affirm there are overlaps in some aspects of policy guidelines for the DOCs value chain by the Veterinary Council of Nigeria and NIAS leading to what may be described as double taxation to the disadvantage of the actors. Specifically, registration and licensing, prohibition, and import and export domains are some of the aspects of the policy documents that need some minor modifications for clarity and separation of roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Public Law / Zeitschrift für Öffentliches Recht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH 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.)

In many countries, farmer cooperatives have been successful at facilitating access to markets in conditions of imperfect competition for a long time. However, modern farmer cooperatives have only been operational in Romania since 2005, and their development is slowed by several internal and external conditions. In the absence of empirical evidence of possible explanations for alleged shortcomings in the growth of farmer cooperatives in Romania, applied research is necessary to inform recommendations for practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders. Using financial data from 1,426 farmer cooperatives in Romania for the 2017–21 period, we estimate a double hurdle panel model of the probability and the intensity commercial activity with annual revenue as the variable of interest. All else equal, annual revenue increased in 2020 and 2021 relative to 2017, which to some extent refutes observations of underdevelopment. Although the membership size of farmer cooperatives in Romania is relatively small, its relationship to the probability and the intensity of commercial activity is positive. The relationship of age to the probability and the intensity of commercial activity is ∩‐shaped, which may imply a relatively short lifespan for farmer cooperatives in Romania. Possible explanations are member opportunism and double taxation misunderstandings, but further research is necessary to generate more insights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is dedicated to comparative and legal analysis of the provisions on mutual agreement procedure in Art. 25 of the Convention between the Government of Ukraine and the Government of Azerbaijan Republic on Avoidance of Double taxation and Prevention of Tax Evasion regarding Taxes on Income and Capital dated 30 July 1999 in the context of recommendations included in Art. 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention. The latter one is widely recognized source of interpretation of norms of bilateral double taxation treaties in many countries including Ukraine. This analysis, on the one hand, is aimed at finding ways of improvement of normative basis of mutual agreement procedure taking into consideration the risk of high number of tax disputes (for example, the replacement of the term ‘person’ with the term ‘resident’ in the first sentence of Art. 25(1) of the abovementioned Convention creates the risk of ambiguity in the context of personal scope of mutual agreement procedure in case of non-compliance of contracting state with the duties on non-discrimination regime) and, on the other hand, is assisting in the determination of compliance of Art. 25 of the abovementioned Convention with other international commitments of both contracting states (e.g., both contracting states have accepted commitments to introduce three-year minimum term for initiation of mutual agreement procedure by taxpayers according to the framework of the global campaign on counteracting base erosion and profit shifting but Art. 25(1) of the mentioned Convention does not mention such limitation in contrast to the provisions of Art. 25(1) of the OECD Model Tax Convention). Moreover, the author also admits that Art. 25(2) of the bilateral Convention does not include reference to the duty on implementation of mutual agreements concluded between competent authorities under the mutual agreement procedure without the link to the domestic time limits that is also not in accordance of the multilateral commitments. On the basis of this analysis, the author determines the need of amendments of Art. 25(1) and Art. 25(2) of the mentioned Convention that could improve efficiency and effectiveness of mutual agreement procedure as a mechanism of dispute resolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a collection of summaries of papers published in the Journal of the American Taxation Association. The summaries cover a range of topics related to taxation and its effects on various aspects of business and society. The papers explore issues such as the impact of value-added tax adoption on income tax avoidance, the influence of service messages on taxpayer compliance behavior, the relationship between tax disclosures and non-innovative corporate investment, the connection between tax avoidance and corporate social responsibility, the consequences of income tax subsidies in the restaurant industry, and the relationship between corporate social responsibility and tax avoidance. These summaries provide valuable insights for researchers, policymakers, and individuals interested in understanding the complexities of taxation and its implications. [Extracted from the article]

This study provides evidence of the relationship between adopting a value-added tax (VAT) and corporate income tax avoidance. Our analysis exploits the staggered replacement of retail sales tax with VAT in China between 2012 and 2019. Based on a sample of 6,948 firm-years, we find that firms affected by the VAT reform are associated with an increase in their book (cash) effective income tax rates by 1.4 (2.2) percentage points. Such an effect is more pronounced among firms that make the most of their sales to businesses than individuals and among those that are located in regions with low social trust and tax enforcement levels. Additional test results show that changes in ETRs are not mechanically driven by changes in sales and costs and consumption taxes brought about by the reform. While aiming to eliminate double taxation, the VAT reform generates a positive externality for income tax collection. JEL Classifications: H25; H26; K42. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter 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.)

When a natural person ceases to be resident, there is a deemed disposal of worldwide assets, and a capital gain must be calculated. Taxation levied because of a change in residence is referred to as an exit tax. In this context, juridical double taxation could arise if the assets are taxed in both the previous and the new state of residence. South Africa has a convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with the United Kingdom (SA‒UK DTA). Article 21 of the SA‒UK DTA contains the Elimination of Double Taxation provisions. South Africa provides relief from juridical double taxation in terms of section 6quat of the Income Tax Act. However, these measures may not always provide relief for exit taxes. A qualitative research approach was followed, in the form of a literature review. Secondary data were collected and analysed to determine if Article 21 and/or section 6quat provide for the elimination of this juridical double taxation. Where neither Article 21 nor section 6quat provide relief, the research aimed to establish whether any other procedure could provide relief. The findings suggest that Article 21 does not provide for the elimination of this juridical double taxation. Furthermore, section 6quat would only in certain instances provide relief. Should neither Article 21 nor section 6quat provide relief, the mutual agreement procedure (MAP) could be considered for resolving this juridical double taxation. However, while the MAP is satisfactory in theory, it has a number of practical limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In late August 2022, the Lone Star tribunal concluded one of the latest awards in tax-related investment treaty disputes (the tax-related claims account for almost USD 1.5 billion of the total of almost USD 4.7 billion claimed in compensation). It also is the first award in which the tribunal dealt with the application of the substance over form doctrine (SOFD) by tax authorities and courts of the host state to prevent the abuse of a double tax treaty (DTT), and the impact of the refusal to accord the claimants the benefits under the DTT via a domestic (Korean) SOFD on the investment protection standards under the bilateral investment treaty (BIT). The Lone Star tribunal implicitly considered the Korean SOFD to be a suitable rule to prevent abuses of the Korea-Belgium DTT and thus compatible with the BLEU-Korea BIT. This article critically analyses the tribunal's methodology and reasoning in reaching that conclusion. Notably, the article highlights the need to consider the principle of an abuse of rights while examining the compatibility of a SOFD with a BIT and a DTT. Such an approach could enhance the rule of law in the interpretation of tax and investment treaties in other similar cases. It is also in accordance with the principle of systemic integration. The article argues that it is increasingly more important to properly understand the concept of economic substance insofar as denial of benefits (DoB) clauses in investment treaties and principal purposes test (PPT) in tax treaties appear to specifically prevent abuses of those treaties by arrangements with no or insufficient economic substance. Global and regional tax developments, including the implementation of anti-base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) rules, as well as Pillar Two rules (global minimum tax of 15%), strengthen the need for a comparative research on economic substance under tax and investment treaties. Such research may reveal that a convergence in denying benefits under DTTs and BITs will enhance the rule of law and increase legal certainty in tax and investment domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of KritV, CritQ, RCrit. Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft / Critical Quarterly for Legislation & Law / Revue critique trimestrielle de jurisprudence et de législation is the property of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG 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.)

The article is dedicated to comparative and legal analysis of the provisions on mutual agreement procedure in Art. 25 of the Convention between the Government of Ukraine and the Government of Azerbaijan Republic on Avoidance of Double taxation and Prevention of Tax Evasion regarding Taxes on Income and Capital dated 30 July 1999 in the context of recommendations included in Art. 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention. The latter one is widely recognized source of interpretation of norms of bilateral double taxation treaties in many countries including Ukraine. This analysis, on the one hand, is aimed at finding ways of improvement of normative basis of mutual agreement procedure taking into consideration the risk of high number of tax disputes (for example, the replacement of the term ‘person’ with the term ‘resident’ in the first sentence of Art. 25(1) of the abovementioned Convention creates the risk of ambiguity in the context of personal scope of mutual agreement procedure in case of non-compliance of contracting state with the duties on non-discrimination regime) and, on the other hand, is assisting in the determination of compliance of Art. 25 of the abovementioned Convention with other international commitments of both contracting states (e.g., both contracting states have accepted commitments to introduce three-year minimum term for initiation of mutual agreement procedure by taxpayers according to the framework of the global campaign on counteracting base erosion and profit shifting but Art. 25(1) of the mentioned Convention does not mention such limitation in contrast to the provisions of Art. 25(1) of the OECD Model Tax Convention). Moreover, the author also admits that Art. 25(2) of the bilateral Convention does not include reference to the duty on implementation of mutual agreements concluded between competent authorities under the mutual agreement procedure without the link to the domestic time limits that is also not in accordance of the multilateral commitments. On the basis of this analysis, the author determines the need of amendments of Art. 25(1) and Art. 25(2) of the mentioned Convention that could improve efficiency and effectiveness of mutual agreement procedure as a mechanism of dispute resolution.

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Abgaben-, Finanz- und Steuerrecht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH 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.)

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Abgaben-, Finanz- und Steuerrecht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH 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.)

The purpose of the article is to present the basic assumptions of Pillar I of BEPS 2.0 and to identify areas of potential disputes on the background of the application of the new mechanisms. The article will briefly outline preventive mechanisms aimed at ensuring tax certainty in connection with the application of the new regulations, as well as mechanisms for eliminating double taxation. The currently available international tax disputes mechanisms will be discussed. The subject of the remainder of the article will be an analysis of the extent to which these mechanisms can serve to resolve disputes arising from the application of Pillar I solutions, and to what extent the implementation of the new rules for the allocation of taxing rights between states with respect to the business income of multinational enterprises will require the introduction of new regulations and what solutions have already been proposed in this matter.

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.

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter 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.)

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter 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.)

This article reviews international tax policy, treaties, and the nature of disputes to challenge common beliefs as to what states want in international taxation and what the interests are in tax disputes. It argues that states are implicitly part of all tax disputes on both sides of the dispute and that the taxpayer versus revenue conceptualisation is inadequate. It calls for a reconsideration of thought in these areas if progress is to be made in justice in international taxation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter 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.)

Copyright of Boletín Económico de ICE is the property of S.G.E.E.I.P.C., Secretaria de Estado de Comercio, Ministerio de Industria, Comercio y Turismo 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.)

Copyright of Prawo Budżetowe Państwa i Samorządu is the property of Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Faculty of Law & Administration 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.)