The Interpretation of Plurilingual Tax Treaties: Routine Interpretation — A Refutation

R. X. Resch
{"title":"The Interpretation of Plurilingual Tax Treaties: Routine Interpretation — A Refutation","authors":"R. X. Resch","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3301474","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Based on an analysis of 3,844 tax treaties, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and its Commentaries (VCLT), and case law of various domestic and international courts.<br><br>The current orthodoxy maintains that courts are not required to compare all language texts of a plurilingual treaty but may rely on a single one for cases of routine interpretation. This view is erroneous, in violation of the VCLT, and the source of treaty misapplication; taxpayers are ill-advised to pay attention only to the text in their own language.<br><br>In daily practice, the issue is of great relevance: almost three-quarters of the well over 3,000 concluded tax treaties are plurilingual. The BEPS MLI escalates complexity because it modifies a large number of treaties having texts in various languages. This study aims to (1) increase awareness about the pitfalls of the current orthodoxy and, in consequence, help diminish misapplication of plurilingual tax treaties through its abandonment, (2) show that sole reliance on prevailing texts is available as a pragmatic alternative in line with the VCLT, and (3) provide policy recommendations how residual cases may be eliminated.<br><br>To support these goals, this study seeks to provide conclusive arguments and useful data to policy makers, treaty negotiators, judges, practitioners, and other scholars. Its analysis of all tax treaty final clauses is intended to help both taxpayers and courts interpreting tax treaties in practice. The general arguments presented in this book are however not limited to tax treaties, since similar issues play a role in the interpretation of other treaties, for example, in the field of foreign investment regulation.<br><br>Note: Excerpt of my Thesis, consisting in TOC, Introduction, and Chapter 3 (Routine Interpretation: A Refutation), the latter being an updated and more extensive version of my previous paper 'Not in Good Faith — A Critique of the Vienna Convention Rule of Interpretation Concerning its Application to Plurilingual (Tax) Treaties'.","PeriodicalId":191678,"journal":{"name":"PSN: International Agreements/Treaties (Topic)","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: International Agreements/Treaties (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3301474","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Based on an analysis of 3,844 tax treaties, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and its Commentaries (VCLT), and case law of various domestic and international courts.

The current orthodoxy maintains that courts are not required to compare all language texts of a plurilingual treaty but may rely on a single one for cases of routine interpretation. This view is erroneous, in violation of the VCLT, and the source of treaty misapplication; taxpayers are ill-advised to pay attention only to the text in their own language.

In daily practice, the issue is of great relevance: almost three-quarters of the well over 3,000 concluded tax treaties are plurilingual. The BEPS MLI escalates complexity because it modifies a large number of treaties having texts in various languages. This study aims to (1) increase awareness about the pitfalls of the current orthodoxy and, in consequence, help diminish misapplication of plurilingual tax treaties through its abandonment, (2) show that sole reliance on prevailing texts is available as a pragmatic alternative in line with the VCLT, and (3) provide policy recommendations how residual cases may be eliminated.

To support these goals, this study seeks to provide conclusive arguments and useful data to policy makers, treaty negotiators, judges, practitioners, and other scholars. Its analysis of all tax treaty final clauses is intended to help both taxpayers and courts interpreting tax treaties in practice. The general arguments presented in this book are however not limited to tax treaties, since similar issues play a role in the interpretation of other treaties, for example, in the field of foreign investment regulation.

Note: Excerpt of my Thesis, consisting in TOC, Introduction, and Chapter 3 (Routine Interpretation: A Refutation), the latter being an updated and more extensive version of my previous paper 'Not in Good Faith — A Critique of the Vienna Convention Rule of Interpretation Concerning its Application to Plurilingual (Tax) Treaties'.
多语税收协定的解释:常规解释——一个反驳
本文基于对3844项税收条约、《维也纳条约法公约》及其评注的分析,以及各国国内和国际法院的判例法。目前的正统观点认为,法院不需要比较多语条约的所有语文文本,但在例行解释的情况下可以依赖单一语文文本。这种观点是错误的,违反了VCLT,也是条约误用的根源;纳税人只关注本国语言的文本是不明智的。在日常实践中,这个问题非常重要:在3000多项已缔结的税收协定中,近四分之三是多语种的。BEPS MLI增加了复杂性,因为它修改了大量具有不同语言文本的条约。本研究旨在(1)提高人们对当前正统观念陷阱的认识,从而有助于减少因放弃多语税收协定而导致的误用;(2)表明,完全依赖现行文本是符合VCLT的务实替代方案;(3)提供如何消除剩余案例的政策建议。为了支持这些目标,本研究试图为政策制定者、条约谈判者、法官、从业者和其他学者提供结论性的论据和有用的数据。本文对所有税收协定最后条款的分析旨在帮助纳税人和法院在实践中解释税收协定。然而,本书中提出的一般性论点并不局限于税收条约,因为类似的问题在解释其他条约中也起着作用,例如在外国投资管制领域。注:摘自我的论文,包括TOC、引言和第3章(常规解释:反驳),后一章是我之前的论文“非善意——维也纳公约解释规则对多语(税收)条约适用的批判”的更新和更广泛的版本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信