Special Tax Zones and the WTO

Tax eJournal Pub Date : 2017-03-02 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2928644
R. Avi-Yonah, Martin G. Vallespinos
{"title":"Special Tax Zones and the WTO","authors":"R. Avi-Yonah, Martin G. Vallespinos","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2928644","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the SCM agreement was enacted in 1995, the global leadership in the field of STZs has shifted from the OECD to the WTO. \nThe WTO general agreement includes a broad set of policy goals that goes beyond trade relationships, but its legal framework has been systematically narrowed to the task of assuring market access, non-discrimination, and fairness in trade. Other relevant issues that has impacts on trade, such as for example harmful tax competition or tax base erosion, has not been sufficiently weighted and has been treated as secondary items. \nAs of today, having passed more than 20 years since the enactment of the first WTO agreements, the WTO overall treatment of STZs appears to be inconsistent with the general policy goals of the organization. While service STZs generally remain free from challenge because there are no formal subsidy rules concerning services, manufacturing STZs with substantial activities have been significantly curtailed by the SCM Agreement. The disparity in the treatment of “goods” and “services” has produced a negative impact on developing countries, as they tend to rely more on manufacturing STZs to achieve economic growth, while benefitting developed countries, which to rely more on offshore banking, technology, and financial services STZs in order and attract investment. \nThe fairness and distributional concerns raised by this disparity in treatment has also been placed in a secondary position, on the grounds that the objectives of the WTO are limited to market access, freedom, and non-discrimination in trade. This perspective, however, is not consistent with the rationale and general policy goals of the organization, as provided by the main WTO agreement.","PeriodicalId":22313,"journal":{"name":"Tax eJournal","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tax eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2928644","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the SCM agreement was enacted in 1995, the global leadership in the field of STZs has shifted from the OECD to the WTO. The WTO general agreement includes a broad set of policy goals that goes beyond trade relationships, but its legal framework has been systematically narrowed to the task of assuring market access, non-discrimination, and fairness in trade. Other relevant issues that has impacts on trade, such as for example harmful tax competition or tax base erosion, has not been sufficiently weighted and has been treated as secondary items. As of today, having passed more than 20 years since the enactment of the first WTO agreements, the WTO overall treatment of STZs appears to be inconsistent with the general policy goals of the organization. While service STZs generally remain free from challenge because there are no formal subsidy rules concerning services, manufacturing STZs with substantial activities have been significantly curtailed by the SCM Agreement. The disparity in the treatment of “goods” and “services” has produced a negative impact on developing countries, as they tend to rely more on manufacturing STZs to achieve economic growth, while benefitting developed countries, which to rely more on offshore banking, technology, and financial services STZs in order and attract investment. The fairness and distributional concerns raised by this disparity in treatment has also been placed in a secondary position, on the grounds that the objectives of the WTO are limited to market access, freedom, and non-discrimination in trade. This perspective, however, is not consistent with the rationale and general policy goals of the organization, as provided by the main WTO agreement.
特别税区与WTO
自SCM协议于1995年生效以来,stz领域的全球领导权已从经合组织转移到世贸组织。世贸组织总协定包括一套广泛的政策目标,超出了贸易关系,但其法律框架已系统地缩小到确保市场准入、非歧视和贸易公平的任务。对贸易有影响的其他有关问题,例如有害的税收竞争或税基侵蚀,没有得到充分的重视,被视为次要项目。时至今日,自第一批WTO协定颁布以来已经过去了20多年,WTO对stz的总体待遇似乎与该组织的总体政策目标不一致。由于没有关于服务业的正式补贴规则,服务性stz通常不受挑战,而具有实质性活动的制造业stz则因SCM协议而大大减少。“商品”和“服务”待遇的差异对发展中国家产生了负面影响,发展中国家倾向于更多地依赖制造业stz来实现经济增长,而发达国家则更多地依赖离岸银行、技术和金融服务业stz来吸引投资。这种待遇差异所引起的公平和分配问题也被置于次要地位,理由是世贸组织的目标仅限于市场准入、自由和贸易中的非歧视。然而,这种观点与世贸组织主要协定所规定的该组织的基本原理和一般政策目标不一致。
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