{"title":"Legitimacy in International Tax Law-Making: Can the OECD Remain the Guardian of Open Tax Norms?","authors":"Linda Brosens, J. Bossuyt","doi":"10.59403/8jtx0e","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.59403/8jtx0e","url":null,"abstract":"The fight against tax avoidance and tax evasion has become a policy priority of many states. Unilateral action is, however, not an appropriate solution. Global problems of tax avoidance and evasion can only be successfully addressed through international cooperation. In this context, the efforts of the OECD for enhancing cooperation in international taxation have been impressive over the last decade. Reference can, for example, be made to the various initiatives relating to information sharing and the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project. Although these initiatives seem legitimate, the role of the OECD in international tax law-making has been criticized. The more influential the OECD’s initiatives are and the more the decision-making authority in relation to taxation shifts from the national to the international level, the more its legitimacy is questioned. The purpose of this article is to examine whether the OECD indeed lacks legitimacy and, if so, what could be done to overcome such a legitimacy deficit. The article starts by analysing in more detail the role that the OECD has played (and is still playing) in international tax law-making and what legal value should be attached to the instruments that have been developed by the OECD. The authors then proceed to assess the legitimacy of the OECD during the BEPS Project. A conceptual framework is needed to assess an international institution’s legitimacy. In this respect, the political science-oriented angle of input, output and throughput legitimacy was taken as a basis. The research shows that the OECD lacked input and output during the BEPS Project, but the authors also identified many flaws in the decision-making process itself. The authors argue that whatever international (rule-making) body is developed to take on a role in international tax law-making, legitimacy issues will remain in the absence of appropriate decision-making procedures. Whilst turning the OECD into a sounding board under the auspices of another organization may therefore not be very helpful, the organization should acknowledge that it needs to monitor its decision-making procedures if it wants to remain the guardian of open tax norms in international taxation. More transparent and equal participation by states, other stakeholders and the public at large, as well as more robust accountability mechanisms, may restore the OECD’s legitimacy.","PeriodicalId":504227,"journal":{"name":"World Tax Journal","volume":"89 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141208454","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Limitation of Holding Structures for Intra-EU Dividends: An End to Tax Avoidance?","authors":"S.H. Baerentzen, A. Lejour, M. V. Riet","doi":"10.59403/155q6e","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.59403/155q6e","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the recent rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union in two Danish cases and examines their possible impact on international tax avoidance. These rulings regard limitations of tax benefits related to cross-border dividend payments resulting from the interposition of holding companies in the European Union. From a legal perspective, the authors conclude that the rulings demonstrate the alignment of international tax policies to combat tax avoidance between the European Union and the OECD. The concerted action between the two is implemented by the economic test to counter abusive legal holding structures. From a quantitative perspective, the rulings limit the potential for multinational enterprises to lower their tax burden considerably. The worldwide average potential gain from treaty shopping is reduced from 5.6% to 4.5% when the EU Member States cannot be used on treaty shopping routes. With more countries, the combat against tax avoidance is more effective. However, the fact that some countries have a standard withholding tax rate of zero per cent hampers the combat.","PeriodicalId":504227,"journal":{"name":"World Tax Journal","volume":"114 16","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141216960","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Critical Analysis of the Principal Purpose Test and the Limitation on Benefits Rule: A World Divided but It Takes Two to Tango","authors":"A. Mithe","doi":"10.59403/1vs36t8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.59403/1vs36t8","url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on the principal purpose test (PPT) and the limitation on benefits (LOB) provision as two divergent treaty anti-abuse measures presented by BEPS Action 6 and the Multilateral Instrument (MLI). It first traces the evolution of both these measures. Thereafter, it discusses the diverse interpretations of the PPT and studies the double-step application of the LOB in light of the US approach and comments on the merit of a standalone application of each measure as opposed to their combined application in a treaty. The article subsequently observes that while Action 6 recommended a combined application of both measures, the country choices in the MLI show a polarized global implementation of these measures. Most countries (the European Union being at the forefront) prefer a standalone application of the PPT (without the LOB), while the US rejects the PPT and continues to exclusively apply the LOB provision. Lastly, the author proposes a solution to bridge this global divide.","PeriodicalId":504227,"journal":{"name":"World Tax Journal","volume":" 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141219666","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Confronting Conflicts of Qualification in Tax Treaty Law: The Principle of Common Interpretation and the New Approach Revisited","authors":"C. Pleil, Stefan Schwibinger","doi":"10.59403/her9d7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.59403/her9d7","url":null,"abstract":"The principle of common interpretation and the new approach to article 23 A/B of the OECD Model Tax Convention are two concepts in tax treaty interpretation to avoid double taxation and double non-taxation resulting from conflicts of qualification. Against the backdrop of the introduction of similarly working approaches, namely the linking rules of BEPS Action 2, it seems appropriate to re-evaluate the doctrinal foundation and practical applicability of both concepts. Since the effectiveness of the principle of common interpretation and the new approach depends on their international recognition, the analysis is based on a comparative study including six jurisdictions, representing common and civil law: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. In the first part of this article, the principle of common interpretation is examined, while the second part assesses the new approach. The third part concludes and gives proposals for the development of a joint methodological understanding of both concepts.","PeriodicalId":504227,"journal":{"name":"World Tax Journal","volume":"10 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147900410","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}