税收协定争端解决程序

Mariia Dmitrievna Polenchuk
{"title":"税收协定争端解决程序","authors":"Mariia Dmitrievna Polenchuk","doi":"10.7256/2454-065x.2023.2.38324","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The subject of the work is a comparative analysis of the OECD approach and the EU approach to the resolution of international tax disputes. The research is conducted on the basis of the provisions of the OECD Model Tax Convention, the OECD Multilateral Tax Convention, the EU Arbitration Convention and the EU Directive. The purpose of the work is to find the most effective mechanism for resolving international tax disputes in terms of ensuring the protection of taxpayers' rights in the dispute resolution procedure. The methodological basis of the work was made up of general scientific (analysis, classification, synthesis, deduction, induction, analogy), private scientific (system method) and special legal (formal legal and comparative legal) methods of scientific research. The scientific novelty of the work suggests the proposal and justification as a way to increase the effectiveness of the resolution of international tax disputes, the use of mediation in a mutually agreeable procedure with the provision of the taxpayer with the possibility of direct participation in the dispute resolution procedure. Based on the results of the study, the author came to the following conclusions. The practice of applying the mutual agreement procedure and arbitration shows that this dispute resolution mechanism has a number of significant drawbacks. In order to improve the efficiency of dispute resolution, the OECD and the EU are striving to develop mandatory arbitration and do not consider non-binding mechanisms, since they do not guarantee an agreement on the dispute. However, mandatory arbitration cannot be considered a universal instrument, since States see it as a threat to sovereignty. The experience of States that actively use mediation to resolve domestic tax disputes shows that mediation can also become an effective mechanism for resolving disputes at the international level, since it allows the parties to consider various aspects of the dispute from different sides. According to the author's position, the shortcomings of mediation outlined in the doctrine can be mitigated by granting the affected taxpayer the right to participate directly in mediation, presenting his position on the case.\n","PeriodicalId":167614,"journal":{"name":"Налоги и налогообложение","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tax Treaty Dispute Resolution Procedures\",\"authors\":\"Mariia Dmitrievna Polenchuk\",\"doi\":\"10.7256/2454-065x.2023.2.38324\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The subject of the work is a comparative analysis of the OECD approach and the EU approach to the resolution of international tax disputes. The research is conducted on the basis of the provisions of the OECD Model Tax Convention, the OECD Multilateral Tax Convention, the EU Arbitration Convention and the EU Directive. The purpose of the work is to find the most effective mechanism for resolving international tax disputes in terms of ensuring the protection of taxpayers' rights in the dispute resolution procedure. The methodological basis of the work was made up of general scientific (analysis, classification, synthesis, deduction, induction, analogy), private scientific (system method) and special legal (formal legal and comparative legal) methods of scientific research. The scientific novelty of the work suggests the proposal and justification as a way to increase the effectiveness of the resolution of international tax disputes, the use of mediation in a mutually agreeable procedure with the provision of the taxpayer with the possibility of direct participation in the dispute resolution procedure. Based on the results of the study, the author came to the following conclusions. The practice of applying the mutual agreement procedure and arbitration shows that this dispute resolution mechanism has a number of significant drawbacks. In order to improve the efficiency of dispute resolution, the OECD and the EU are striving to develop mandatory arbitration and do not consider non-binding mechanisms, since they do not guarantee an agreement on the dispute. However, mandatory arbitration cannot be considered a universal instrument, since States see it as a threat to sovereignty. The experience of States that actively use mediation to resolve domestic tax disputes shows that mediation can also become an effective mechanism for resolving disputes at the international level, since it allows the parties to consider various aspects of the dispute from different sides. According to the author's position, the shortcomings of mediation outlined in the doctrine can be mitigated by granting the affected taxpayer the right to participate directly in mediation, presenting his position on the case.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":167614,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Налоги и налогообложение\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Налоги и налогообложение\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-065x.2023.2.38324\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Налоги и налогообложение","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-065x.2023.2.38324","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项工作的主题是经合组织的方法和欧盟的方法来解决国际税收纠纷的比较分析。本研究以OECD税收示范公约、OECD多边税收公约、欧盟仲裁公约和欧盟指令的规定为基础进行。这项工作的目的是寻找解决国际税收争端的最有效机制,以确保纳税人在争端解决程序中的权利得到保护。工作的方法论基础由一般科学(分析、分类、综合、演绎、归纳、类比)、私人科学(系统方法)和特殊法律(形式法和比较法)科学研究方法组成。这项工作的科学新颖性表明,建议和论证作为一种提高解决国际税收争议有效性的方法,在双方同意的程序中使用调解,并提供纳税人直接参与争议解决程序的可能性。根据研究结果,作者得出以下结论。应用相互协议程序和仲裁的实践表明,这种争议解决机制存在一些明显的缺陷。为了提高争端解决的效率,经合组织和欧盟正在努力发展强制性仲裁,而不考虑非约束性机制,因为它们不能保证就争端达成协议。然而,强制性仲裁不能被视为一项普遍文书,因为各国认为它是对主权的威胁。积极利用调解解决国内税务争端的国家的经验表明,调解也可以成为解决国际一级争端的有效机制,因为它允许当事方从不同方面考虑争端的各个方面。根据作者的立场,可以通过给予受影响的纳税人直接参与调解的权利来减轻理论中概述的调解的缺点,并提出他对此案的立场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Tax Treaty Dispute Resolution Procedures
The subject of the work is a comparative analysis of the OECD approach and the EU approach to the resolution of international tax disputes. The research is conducted on the basis of the provisions of the OECD Model Tax Convention, the OECD Multilateral Tax Convention, the EU Arbitration Convention and the EU Directive. The purpose of the work is to find the most effective mechanism for resolving international tax disputes in terms of ensuring the protection of taxpayers' rights in the dispute resolution procedure. The methodological basis of the work was made up of general scientific (analysis, classification, synthesis, deduction, induction, analogy), private scientific (system method) and special legal (formal legal and comparative legal) methods of scientific research. The scientific novelty of the work suggests the proposal and justification as a way to increase the effectiveness of the resolution of international tax disputes, the use of mediation in a mutually agreeable procedure with the provision of the taxpayer with the possibility of direct participation in the dispute resolution procedure. Based on the results of the study, the author came to the following conclusions. The practice of applying the mutual agreement procedure and arbitration shows that this dispute resolution mechanism has a number of significant drawbacks. In order to improve the efficiency of dispute resolution, the OECD and the EU are striving to develop mandatory arbitration and do not consider non-binding mechanisms, since they do not guarantee an agreement on the dispute. However, mandatory arbitration cannot be considered a universal instrument, since States see it as a threat to sovereignty. The experience of States that actively use mediation to resolve domestic tax disputes shows that mediation can also become an effective mechanism for resolving disputes at the international level, since it allows the parties to consider various aspects of the dispute from different sides. According to the author's position, the shortcomings of mediation outlined in the doctrine can be mitigated by granting the affected taxpayer the right to participate directly in mediation, presenting his position on the case.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信