Article: Interpretation of Multi-lateral Treaties: The Purposive Approach and Multiple Parties Through the Lens of the UK Courts

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW Intertax Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.54648/taxi2022083
H. Brown, G. Jackson
{"title":"Article: Interpretation of Multi-lateral Treaties: The Purposive Approach and Multiple Parties Through the Lens of the UK Courts","authors":"H. Brown, G. Jackson","doi":"10.54648/taxi2022083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article the authors consider how to interpret the multilateral provisions in relation to tax administration such as the Common Reporting Standard (CRS), Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) and the Mandatory Disclosure Regime, the pace of adoption of which continues to accelerate. They discuss whether the pre-existing framework provided by the Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties is either adequate or appropriate in its application to the interpretation of such multi-later instruments. In light of this analysis the authors consider what principles of interpretation are found in case law and whether the principles ennunciated in Fowler v. Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2021] 1 All ER 97, could be used to remedy any deficiency in the Vienna Rules. This includes an examination of the dangers of the use of commentary in the interpretation of multi-later instrument and the importance of principles that allow the interpretative tradition of the relevant jurisdiction to override commentary. Having examined these difficulties and the inadequacies in the modern interpretive code, they propose methods of approach to ease the interpretative issues created by multi-lateral instruments, including the possibility of an internal code of interpretation for such multi-lateral instruments.\nTreaty interpretation, multilateral, BEPS, CRS, MDR, OECD, purposive interpretation, Vienna Convention, tax treaties, double taxation.","PeriodicalId":45365,"journal":{"name":"Intertax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intertax","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2022083","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article the authors consider how to interpret the multilateral provisions in relation to tax administration such as the Common Reporting Standard (CRS), Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) and the Mandatory Disclosure Regime, the pace of adoption of which continues to accelerate. They discuss whether the pre-existing framework provided by the Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties is either adequate or appropriate in its application to the interpretation of such multi-later instruments. In light of this analysis the authors consider what principles of interpretation are found in case law and whether the principles ennunciated in Fowler v. Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2021] 1 All ER 97, could be used to remedy any deficiency in the Vienna Rules. This includes an examination of the dangers of the use of commentary in the interpretation of multi-later instrument and the importance of principles that allow the interpretative tradition of the relevant jurisdiction to override commentary. Having examined these difficulties and the inadequacies in the modern interpretive code, they propose methods of approach to ease the interpretative issues created by multi-lateral instruments, including the possibility of an internal code of interpretation for such multi-lateral instruments. Treaty interpretation, multilateral, BEPS, CRS, MDR, OECD, purposive interpretation, Vienna Convention, tax treaties, double taxation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
文章:多边条约的解释:英国法院视角下的目的性方法和多方
在本文中,作者考虑了如何解释与税收管理有关的多边条款,如共同报告标准(CRS),税基侵蚀和利润转移(BEPS)和强制性披露制度,其采用速度不断加快。他们讨论了《维也纳条约法公约》所提供的现有框架是否充分或适当地适用于解释这类多后文书。根据这一分析,作者考虑判例法中存在哪些解释原则,以及Fowler v. Revenue and Customs commissions [2021] 1 All ER 97中阐明的原则是否可用于弥补《维也纳规则》中的任何缺陷。这包括审查在解释多事后文书时使用评注的危险,以及允许相关司法管辖区的解释传统凌驾于评注之上的原则的重要性。在审查了这些困难和现代解释性法典的不足之处之后,他们提出了缓解多边文书造成的解释性问题的方法,包括为这种多边文书制定内部解释性法典的可能性。条约解释,多边,BEPS, CRS, MDR, OECD,目的解释,维也纳公约,税收协定,双重征税。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Intertax
Intertax LAW-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
50.00%
发文量
45
期刊最新文献
(In)congruence Between Taxation, Spending, and Representation: The Ambiguous Character of Tax-based Contributions Taxing Powers of the European Union Judicial Review of the EU Own Resources Decision by the ECJ Protecting EU Financial Interests in the Collection of Tax-Based Own Resources Article: Conflicts between Directives that Require Taxation of Income and Tax Treaties: The Effectiveness of the EU Primacy-based Conflict Rule
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1