Taxpayer protection standard in international tax disputes

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
M. D. Polenchuk
{"title":"Taxpayer protection standard in international tax disputes","authors":"M. D. Polenchuk","doi":"10.52468/2542-1514.2022.6(2).106-119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The research project aims to find the most optimal solution to develop the current level of taxpayers' guarantees in the tax treaty disputes resolution procedures.The subject of the article is the analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on application and interpretation of Article 6 “Right to a fair trial” of the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of the tax treaty disputes resolution procedures.The Author believes that the standard of protection of human right to a fair trial can be used as a starting point for the development of a taxpayer protection standard in the tax treaty disputes resolution procedures.The methodology of the research includes the logical and analytical methods, such as analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, as well as formal legal interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.The key findings are the following. Currently, the international tax disputes resolution procedures under tax treaties based on the OECD / UN Model Tax Conventions are contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The mutual agreement procedure, which provides the taxpayer with the opportunity personal participation, could eliminate such a contradiction.The main results, scope of application. The study showed that two approaches in relation to application of the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to tax disputes can be defined – (a) formal and (b) “substantial”.Formally, the guarantees of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights do not apply to taxpayers in tax treaty disputes resolution procedures, i.e. mutual agreement procedure and arbitration, at least as long as a taxpayer has access to the national court of one of the contracting states to protect the violated rights. Under the case law of the European Court of Human Rights cross-border tax disputes are not typical category of disputes. At the moment the European Court of Human Rights does not express a position on the merits of such disputes with reference to the wide discretion of states in the field of taxation.Nevertheless, according to the “substantial” approach it is necessary to extend guarantees of the right to a fair trial to taxpayers in the tax treaty disputes resolution procedures. This conclusion is based on the fact that the national courts cannot be treated as an effective means of protection of the rights of taxpayers as it is determined by the Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This approach is in line with the trend set by EU Directive 2017/1852 on tax dispute resolution mechanisms in the European Union, as well as the idea of foreign researchers to develop a global standard for protecting the rights of taxpayers.In the Author’s view, compliance with the fair trial guarantees requires provision of direct participation of the taxpayers in the tax treaty disputes resolution procedures. In this case, the taxpayer will receive the opportunity to be heard and to review all the evidence and procedural documents on the case. The participation of the taxpayer will mitigate the key drawback of the mutual agreement procedure - the lack of a guarantee of a final decision on the case. This is especially important for those states that do not use arbitration, such as Russia.The main conclusion is that the application of the standard of protection of human right to a fair trial in relation to the taxpayers in the tax treaty disputes resolution procedures is an efficient way to develop the current mutual agreement procedure and arbitration and to increase the confidence of taxpayers in these mechanisms.","PeriodicalId":40342,"journal":{"name":"Pravoprimenenie-Law Enforcement Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pravoprimenenie-Law Enforcement Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2022.6(2).106-119","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The research project aims to find the most optimal solution to develop the current level of taxpayers' guarantees in the tax treaty disputes resolution procedures.The subject of the article is the analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on application and interpretation of Article 6 “Right to a fair trial” of the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of the tax treaty disputes resolution procedures.The Author believes that the standard of protection of human right to a fair trial can be used as a starting point for the development of a taxpayer protection standard in the tax treaty disputes resolution procedures.The methodology of the research includes the logical and analytical methods, such as analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, as well as formal legal interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.The key findings are the following. Currently, the international tax disputes resolution procedures under tax treaties based on the OECD / UN Model Tax Conventions are contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The mutual agreement procedure, which provides the taxpayer with the opportunity personal participation, could eliminate such a contradiction.The main results, scope of application. The study showed that two approaches in relation to application of the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to tax disputes can be defined – (a) formal and (b) “substantial”.Formally, the guarantees of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights do not apply to taxpayers in tax treaty disputes resolution procedures, i.e. mutual agreement procedure and arbitration, at least as long as a taxpayer has access to the national court of one of the contracting states to protect the violated rights. Under the case law of the European Court of Human Rights cross-border tax disputes are not typical category of disputes. At the moment the European Court of Human Rights does not express a position on the merits of such disputes with reference to the wide discretion of states in the field of taxation.Nevertheless, according to the “substantial” approach it is necessary to extend guarantees of the right to a fair trial to taxpayers in the tax treaty disputes resolution procedures. This conclusion is based on the fact that the national courts cannot be treated as an effective means of protection of the rights of taxpayers as it is determined by the Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This approach is in line with the trend set by EU Directive 2017/1852 on tax dispute resolution mechanisms in the European Union, as well as the idea of foreign researchers to develop a global standard for protecting the rights of taxpayers.In the Author’s view, compliance with the fair trial guarantees requires provision of direct participation of the taxpayers in the tax treaty disputes resolution procedures. In this case, the taxpayer will receive the opportunity to be heard and to review all the evidence and procedural documents on the case. The participation of the taxpayer will mitigate the key drawback of the mutual agreement procedure - the lack of a guarantee of a final decision on the case. This is especially important for those states that do not use arbitration, such as Russia.The main conclusion is that the application of the standard of protection of human right to a fair trial in relation to the taxpayers in the tax treaty disputes resolution procedures is an efficient way to develop the current mutual agreement procedure and arbitration and to increase the confidence of taxpayers in these mechanisms.
国际税收纠纷中的纳税人保护标准
本研究项目旨在寻找最优的解决方案,以发展当前税收协定争议解决程序中纳税人担保的水平。本文的主题是分析欧洲人权法院判例法在税收协定争端解决程序背景下对《欧洲人权公约》第6条“公平审判权”的适用和解释。笔者认为,公平审判人权保障标准可以作为税收协定争议解决程序中纳税人保护标准的一个起点。研究方法包括分析与综合、归纳与演绎等逻辑和分析方法,以及对《欧洲人权公约》和欧洲人权法院判例法的正式法律解释。主要发现如下。目前,基于经合组织/联合国示范税收公约的税收协定下的国际税收争端解决程序与《欧洲人权公约》第六条相违背。为纳税人提供个人参与的机会的协议程序可以消除这一矛盾。主要成果,适用范围。这项研究表明,在将《欧洲人权公约》第6条适用于税务争端方面可以确定两种方法- - (a)正式和(b)“实质性”。形式上,《欧洲人权公约》第6条的保障不适用于税收条约争端解决程序中的纳税人,即相互协议程序和仲裁,至少只要纳税人可以向缔约国之一的国家法院申请保护其被侵犯的权利。根据欧洲人权法院的判例法,跨境税收纠纷并不是典型的一类纠纷。目前,欧洲人权法院没有就这些涉及国家在税收领域的广泛自由裁量权的争端的是非问题表示立场。然而,根据“实质性”方法,有必要在税收协定争端解决程序中将公平审判权的保障扩大到纳税人。这一结论是基于这样一个事实,即不能像《欧洲人权公约》第13条所确定的那样,将国家法院视为保护纳税人权利的有效手段。这种做法符合欧盟关于欧盟税收争议解决机制的2017/1852号指令所确定的趋势,也符合国外研究人员制定保护纳税人权利的全球标准的想法。发件人认为,遵守公平审判保证要求纳税人直接参与税收协定争端解决程序。在这种情况下,纳税人将有机会听取意见,并审查有关案件的所有证据和程序文件。纳税人的参与将减轻共同协议程序的主要缺点——对案件的最终裁决缺乏保证。这对俄罗斯等不使用仲裁的国家尤其重要。主要结论是,在税收协定争端解决程序中对纳税人的公平审判适用人权保护标准是发展目前的相互协议程序和仲裁并增加纳税人对这些机制的信心的有效途径。
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
66.70%
发文量
79
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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