Članak
jun 30
Nazad

(NE)USTAVNOST ODREDBE O TESTU GLAVNOG CILJA TRANSAKCIJE ILI ARANŽMANA IZ PORESKIH UGOVORA

Dejan Popović, Gordana Ilić Popov

10.5937/AnaliPFB1902007P
SAŽETAK /

Stupanjem na snagu Multilateralne konvencije (Multilateral Instrument – MLI) u Srbiji počinje da deluje klauzula o glavnom cilju transakcije ili aranžmana (GCT test), koja dozvoljava poreskim vlastima da ne odobre pogodnost iz obuhvaćenog poreskog ugovora. U članku se analizira struktura GCT i ustanovljava da su im ostavljena široka diskreciona ovlašćenja. Formulacija norme je takva da ne određuje šta će se oporezovati u zemlji izvora pošto pogodnost bude uskraćena. Autori zaključuju da zemlja rezidentstva može da ne dâ olakšicu kojom eliminiše nastalo dvostruko oporezivanje ako smatra da nije reč o razlikama u nacionalnom pravu već o razlikama u tumačenju odredaba ugovora ili činjenica. Ustavnost GCT testa mogla bi se ocenjivati u odnosu na principe pravne sigurnosti i jednakosti. Poreske vlasti su dobile arbitrarna ovlašćenja da procenjuju da li je reč o abuzivnom, jednom od glavnih ciljeva transakcije ili o legitimnom komercijalnom cilju, kojim će biti narušeni ustavni principi jednakosti i oporezivanja prema ekonomskoj snazi.

ČLANAK JE RASPOLOŽIV NA /
Ćirilici   Latinici  
REFERENCE /
  • 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.