Article
Jun 30
Back

(UN)CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROVISION ON THE PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OF TRANSACTION OR ARANGEMENT TEST FROM THE TAX TREATIES

Dejan Popović, Gordana Ilić Popov

10.5937/AnaliPFB1902007P
ABSTRACT /

The principal purpose of transaction or arrangement test (PPT) contained in MLI authorises tax authorities to deny a treaty benefit. The structure of PPT shows that tax authorities were given wide discretion. Its wording does not determine what will be taxed in the source country once the benefit is denied. In authors’ opinion the residence country may decide to deny the relief for elimination of double taxation if it considers that it is the conflict of qualifications that arises from differences in interpretation of treaty or facts rather than from differences in domestic law. The constitutionality of PPT may be assessed with respect to the principles of legal certainty and equality. The tax authorities were given arbitrary authorisation to assess whether it is an abusive “one of the principal purposes of a transaction“ or a legitimate commercial objective. This may violate the principles of equality and taxation based on ability-to-pay.

DOWNLOAD COMPLETE ARTICLE /
Serbian (cyr)   Serbian (lat)  
REFERENCES /
  • Aaronson, Graham. 2011. GAAR Study. A Study to Consider whether a General Anti-avoidance Rule Should be Introduced into the UK Tax System. London: The National Archives, https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130402163458/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/gaar_final_report_111111.pdf (poslednji pristup 7. januar 2019. godine).
  • Arnold, Brian J. 2016. International Tax Primer. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.
  • Atkinson, Chris. 2012. General Anti-Avoidance Rules: Exploring the Balance between the Taxpayer’s Need for Certainty and the Government’s Need to Prevent Tax Avoidance. Journal of Australian Taxation 14: 1–56.
  • Báez Moreno, Andrés. 2017. GAARs and Treaties: From the Guiding Principle to the Principal Purpose Test. What Have We Gained from BEPS Action 6?. Intertax 45: 432–446.
  • Baker, Philip. Tax Avoidance, Tax Mitigation and Tax Evasion, https://vdocuments. site/tax-avoidance-tax-mitigationphilip-baker.html (posled-
  • nji pristup 25. decembar 2018. godine).
  • Bourgeois, Marc. 2008. Constitutional Framework of the Different Types of Income.79–183 u The Concept of Tax, urednik Bruno Peeters. Amsterdam: IBFD.
  • Bravo, Nathalie. 2016. The Multilateral Tax Instrument and Its Relationship with Tax Treaties. World Tax Journal 8: 279–304.
  • Chand, Vikram. 2018a. The Interaction of Domestic Anti-Avoidance Rules with Tax Treaties (with special referen-ces to the BEPS project). Zurich: Schulthess.
  • Chand, Vikram. 2018b. The Principal Purpose Test in the Multilateral Convention: An in-depth Analysis. Intertax 46: 18–44.
  • De Broe, Luc, i Joris Luts. 2015. BEPS Action 6: Tax Treaty Abuse. Intertax 43: 122–146.
  • Dourado, Ana Paula. 2015. Aggressive Tax Planning in EU Law and in the Light of BEPS: The EC Recommenda-tion on Aggressive Tax Planning and BEPS Actions 2 and 6. Intertax 43: 42–57.
  • Engelen, Frank. 2004. Interpretation of Tax Treaties under International Law. Amsterdam: IBFD.
  • Freedman, Judith. 2004. Defining Taxpayer Responsibility: In Support of a General Anti-Avoidance Principle. Bri-tish Tax Review 4: 332–357.
  • Jelčić, Božidar. 1998. Financijsko pravo i financijska znanost, Zagreb: Informator.
  • Kasoulides Paulson, Stella. 2013. When It Comes to General Anti-Avoidance Rules, is Broader Better?. Wellington: Victoria Univer­sity of Wellington, Faculty of Law.
  • Kemmeren, Eric C. C. M. 2014. Where is EU Law in the OECD BEPS Discussion?. EC Tax Review 23: 190–193.
  • Kok, Reinout. 2016. The Principal Purpose Test in Tax Treaties under BEPS 6. Intertax 44: 406–412.
  • Koriak, Oleksandr. 2016. The Principal Purpose Test under BEPS Action 6: Does the OECD Proposal Fit the EU Legal Framework. Lund: School of Economics and Management Lund University.
  • Lang, Michael. 2014. BEPS Action 6: Introducing an Antiabuse Rule in Tax Treaties. Tax Notes International 74: 655–664.
  • Lovčević, Jovan. 1993. Institucije javnih finansija, Beograd: Službeni list SRJ.
  • Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, http://www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/multilateral-convention-to-implement-tax-treaty-related-measures-to-prevent-BEPS.pdf (poslednji pristup 10. januar 2019).
  • OECD. 2013. Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, Paris: OECD.
  • OECD. 2015. Developing a Multilateral Instrument to Modify Bilateral Tax Treaties. Action Plan 15: 2015 Final Report. Paris: OECD.
  • OECD. 2017. Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital, Paris: OECD.
  • OECD. 1990. Taxpayers’ Rights and Obligations. Paris: OECD.
  • Pinetz, Erik. 2016. Use of a Principal Purpose Test to Prevent Treaty Abuse. 271–301 u Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). The Proposals to Revise the OECD Model Convention, urednici Michael Lang, Pasquale Pistone, Alexander Rust, Josef Schuch i Claus Staringer. Vienna: Linde Verlag.
  • Popović, Dejan. 2018. Poresko pravo. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
  • Popović, Dejan, i Gordana Ilić Popov. 2017. Značaj i efekti BEPS multilateralne konvencije u međunarodnom poreskom pravu. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu 75: 13–31.
  • Popović, Dejan, i Svetislav V. Kostić. 2009. Ugovori Srbije o izbegavanju dvostrukog oporezivanja. Pravni okvir i tumačenje. Beograd: Cekos in.
  • Schwidetzky, Walter D. 1996. Hyperlexis and the Loophole. Oklahoma Law Review 49: 403–424.
  • Taboada, Carlos Palao. 2015. OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Action 6: The General Anti-Abuse Rule. Bulletin for International Taxation 69: 602–608.
  • Thuronyi, Victor. 2003. Comparative Tax Law. The Hague: Kluwer.
  • Tiley, John. 2000. Revenue Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
  • Todorović, Milan. 1930. Nauka o finansijama. I Nauka o porezima. Beograd: Geca Kon.)
  • Valderrama, Irma Johanna Mosquera. 2018. Output Legitimacy Deficits and the Inclusive Framework of the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Initiative. Bulletin for International Taxation 72: section 1 – section 4.
  • Van Dijk, Pieter, Gret Haller, Jeffrey Jowell i Kaarlo Tuori. 2011. Report on the Rule of Law, Study No. 512/2009. Strasbourg: European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission).
  • Weber, Dennis. 2017. The Reasonableness Test of the Principal Purpose Test Rule in OECD BEPS Action 6 (Tax Treaty Abuse) versus the EU Principle of Legal Certainty and the EU Abuse of Law Case Law. Erasmus Law Review 1: 48–59.