DIGITAL SERVICES TAX REGULATION AND WTO NON-DISCRIMINATION PRINCIPLE: IS THE DECK STACKED?

Q3 Social Sciences
Mutiara Elisabet, Y. Dewi
{"title":"DIGITAL SERVICES TAX REGULATION AND WTO NON-DISCRIMINATION PRINCIPLE: IS THE DECK STACKED?","authors":"Mutiara Elisabet, Y. Dewi","doi":"10.17304/ijil.vol19.1.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A growing debate on the imposition of digital services tax emerged as one of the latest trade war battlegrounds. Indonesia and the European Union (EU) are among the countries that have taken unilateral actions to implement digital services tax. This paper examines (i) digital services tax regulation in Indonesia and the EU and (ii) whether the digital services tax regulation violates the non-discrimination principles of WTO according to the GATS. By comparing the statutory and practice of digital services tax in Indonesia and the EU, this work concludes that firstly, digital services tax in Indonesia is regulated by law, which implements significant economic presence (SEP) criteria. In the EU, digital services tax is regulated through the Council Directives and implements ring-fencing method as well as SEP criteria. Secondly, the non-discrimination principles in the GATS are promulgated in Article II concerning MostFavored Nation Treatment and Article XVII concerning National Treatment as well as relevant jurisprudence of WTO case laws. Indonesia and the EU’s digital services tax regulation are not discriminatory, because based on existing indicators, the existence of both de jure and de facto discrimination is not proven. This paper suggests that in the event that there are member states who decide to challenge the measures to the WTO, Indonesia and the EU should provide evidence that shows the absence of unfavorable treatment of certain WTO member states in digital services tax practices by Indonesia and the EU.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"213 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17304/ijil.vol19.1.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

A growing debate on the imposition of digital services tax emerged as one of the latest trade war battlegrounds. Indonesia and the European Union (EU) are among the countries that have taken unilateral actions to implement digital services tax. This paper examines (i) digital services tax regulation in Indonesia and the EU and (ii) whether the digital services tax regulation violates the non-discrimination principles of WTO according to the GATS. By comparing the statutory and practice of digital services tax in Indonesia and the EU, this work concludes that firstly, digital services tax in Indonesia is regulated by law, which implements significant economic presence (SEP) criteria. In the EU, digital services tax is regulated through the Council Directives and implements ring-fencing method as well as SEP criteria. Secondly, the non-discrimination principles in the GATS are promulgated in Article II concerning MostFavored Nation Treatment and Article XVII concerning National Treatment as well as relevant jurisprudence of WTO case laws. Indonesia and the EU’s digital services tax regulation are not discriminatory, because based on existing indicators, the existence of both de jure and de facto discrimination is not proven. This paper suggests that in the event that there are member states who decide to challenge the measures to the WTO, Indonesia and the EU should provide evidence that shows the absence of unfavorable treatment of certain WTO member states in digital services tax practices by Indonesia and the EU.
数字服务税监管与wto非歧视原则:甲板是堆叠的吗?
关于征收数字服务税的辩论日益激烈,成为最新的贸易战战场之一。印度尼西亚和欧盟(EU)是采取单边行动实施数字服务税的国家之一。本文考察了(i)印度尼西亚和欧盟的数字服务税监管以及(ii)根据服务贸易总协定,数字服务税监管是否违反了WTO的非歧视原则。通过比较印度尼西亚和欧盟的数字服务税的法定和实践,本研究得出结论:首先,印度尼西亚的数字服务税受法律监管,实施了显著经济存在(SEP)标准。在欧盟,数字服务税通过理事会指令进行监管,并实施环形围栏方法和SEP标准。其次,《服务贸易总协定》的非歧视原则体现在关于最惠国待遇的第2条和关于国民待遇的第17条以及WTO判例法的相关判例中。印度尼西亚和欧盟的数字服务税监管不具有歧视性,因为根据现有指标,没有证明存在法律上和事实上的歧视。本文建议,如果有成员国决定向WTO提出挑战,印度尼西亚和欧盟应提供证据,证明印度尼西亚和欧盟在数字服务税实践中没有对某些WTO成员国给予不利待遇。
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
CiteScore
0.50
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