When the comprehensive Refugee Act was passed in 1980, it was hailed as "one of the most important pieces of humanitarian legislation ever enacted by a United States Congress."' The Refugee Act was one of the first U.S. laws that sought to codify U.S. obligations pursuant to a United Nations multilateral human rights treaty. 2 To that extent, it was a significant step forward in bringing the U.S. into compliance with its international human rights obligations. But international human rights treaties are much more than the four corners of a document, to be codified in domestic law. They represent a set of political values, collectively understood, to guarantee and respect the life, liberty and security of individuals by their governments.3 This is the essence of the social
{"title":"A Question of Values: Continuing Divergences between U.S. and International Refugee Norms","authors":"C. P. Blum","doi":"10.15779/Z38V939","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38V939","url":null,"abstract":"When the comprehensive Refugee Act was passed in 1980, it was hailed as \"one of the most important pieces of humanitarian legislation ever enacted by a United States Congress.\"' The Refugee Act was one of the first U.S. laws that sought to codify U.S. obligations pursuant to a United Nations multilateral human rights treaty. 2 To that extent, it was a significant step forward in bringing the U.S. into compliance with its international human rights obligations. But international human rights treaties are much more than the four corners of a document, to be codified in domestic law. They represent a set of political values, collectively understood, to guarantee and respect the life, liberty and security of individuals by their governments.3 This is the essence of the social","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124449368","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":"Recognizing the Rights of Indigenous People to Their Traditional Lands: A Case Study of an Internally-Displaced Community in Guatemala","authors":"M. Holley","doi":"10.15779/Z38BD2V","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38BD2V","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134044071","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}
As the use of partnerships as vehicles for international investment has increased, corresponding attention has been given to the U.S. tax issues associated with international partnerships.' The resolution of these tax issues, however, can be elusive. Tax treatment is often uncertain because entities that the U.S. treats as partnerships are chameleon-like. Although the distinguishing feature of a partnership (as opposed to a corporation) under U.S. tax law is that its profits and losses are recognized by its individual partners, in the analysis of subtler issues it is often unclear whether a partnership should be viewed as a mere aggregate of its partners or as a separate, stand-alone entity. Uncertain tax treatment also arises in the international context with respect to hybrid entities-the situation where one nation characterizes an entity as a partnership while another nation characterizes it as a corporation.' These issues have become more prominent since the IRS issued regulations that permit taxpayers to elect whether most domestic unincorporated business associations and many foreign business associations should be treated for federal tax purposes as corporations or partnerships (or in some cases as branches). 3
{"title":"The U.S. International Tax Treatment of Partnerships: A Policy-Based Approach","authors":"David L. Forst","doi":"10.15779/Z38W93N","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38W93N","url":null,"abstract":"As the use of partnerships as vehicles for international investment has increased, corresponding attention has been given to the U.S. tax issues associated with international partnerships.' The resolution of these tax issues, however, can be elusive. Tax treatment is often uncertain because entities that the U.S. treats as partnerships are chameleon-like. Although the distinguishing feature of a partnership (as opposed to a corporation) under U.S. tax law is that its profits and losses are recognized by its individual partners, in the analysis of subtler issues it is often unclear whether a partnership should be viewed as a mere aggregate of its partners or as a separate, stand-alone entity. Uncertain tax treatment also arises in the international context with respect to hybrid entities-the situation where one nation characterizes an entity as a partnership while another nation characterizes it as a corporation.' These issues have become more prominent since the IRS issued regulations that permit taxpayers to elect whether most domestic unincorporated business associations and many foreign business associations should be treated for federal tax purposes as corporations or partnerships (or in some cases as branches). 3","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1996-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127277970","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}
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) creates a free trade zone between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. To safeguard against biased application of antidumping and countervailing duty law, NAFTA creates a binational panel review system. The novelty of the binational panel system, however, raises serious constitutional concerns. After examining Article II1 of the United States Constitution, the foreign relations power, and the decisions interpreting them, the author argues that NAFTA 's binational panel system does not violate the principles and requirements of Article II.
{"title":"Article III, the Foreign Relations Power, and the Binational Panel System of NAFTA","authors":"E. Boyer","doi":"10.15779/Z382066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z382066","url":null,"abstract":"The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) creates a free trade zone between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. To safeguard against biased application of antidumping and countervailing duty law, NAFTA creates a binational panel review system. The novelty of the binational panel system, however, raises serious constitutional concerns. After examining Article II1 of the United States Constitution, the foreign relations power, and the decisions interpreting them, the author argues that NAFTA 's binational panel system does not violate the principles and requirements of Article II.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1996-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131026866","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":"The Antitrust and Technology Transfer Licensing Interface: A Comparative Analysis of Current Developments","authors":"Howard W. Fogt, I. Gotts","doi":"10.15779/Z38F94K","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38F94K","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1995-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125616040","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}
Recent tax reform proposals by the American Law Institute and the United States Treasury Department have revived the debate over whether the United States should retain separate individual and corporate income taxes. Integrating the corporate and individual income taxes would present domestic and international challenges. The author analyzes the recent proposals for tax reform and recommends a course of action for the United States or any nation reconsidering its tax policy.
美国法律研究所(American Law Institute)和美国财政部(United States Treasury Department)最近提出的税制改革建议，重新引发了关于美国是否应该保留单独的个人所得税和公司所得税的辩论。企业所得税和个人所得税的整合将带来国内和国际挑战。作者分析了最近的税收改革提案，并建议美国或任何国家重新考虑其税收政策的行动方针。
{"title":"Corporate Income Tax Reform in the United States: Proposals for Integration of the Corporate and Individual Income Taxes, and International Aspects","authors":"J. K. McNulty","doi":"10.15779/Z38TH1D","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38TH1D","url":null,"abstract":"Recent tax reform proposals by the American Law Institute and the United States Treasury Department have revived the debate over whether the United States should retain separate individual and corporate income taxes. Integrating the corporate and individual income taxes would present domestic and international challenges. The author analyzes the recent proposals for tax reform and recommends a course of action for the United States or any nation reconsidering its tax policy.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1994-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116821349","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}
R EGIM E .................................................... 7 IV. THE TRANSITIONAL REGIME ........................................ 9 A. Purpose, Theory, and Basic Concepts of the Transitional R egim e ................................................. 9 B. Obligations, under the General VAT Scheme ............... 16 1. Registration for the VAT .............................. 16 2. VAT Identification Number ............................ 18 3. Accounts and the VAT Register ........................ 20 4. Invoices ............................................. 21 5. Filing of Returns and Payment of Taxes ................ 23 6. Recapitulative Statement .............................. 24 a. Exempt Intra-Community Supplies .................. 27
R EGIM E ....................................................7 IV。过渡政权 ........................................9个。目的、理论和基本概念的过渡R egim e .................................................9 B.一般增值税计划...............项下的义务16个1。注册增值税 ..............................16 2。增值税身份证号码 ............................18 3。账户和增值税登记 ........................20 4． 发票 .............................................21 5。申报和纳税................23日6。概括性的语句 ..............................24一个。免除Intra-Community供应 ..................27
{"title":"The European Community's Value-Added Tax System: Analysis of the New Transitional Regime and Prospects for Further Harmonization","authors":"C. Hart","doi":"10.15779/Z386S7Q","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z386S7Q","url":null,"abstract":"R EGIM E .................................................... 7 IV. THE TRANSITIONAL REGIME ........................................ 9 A. Purpose, Theory, and Basic Concepts of the Transitional R egim e ................................................. 9 B. Obligations, under the General VAT Scheme ............... 16 1. Registration for the VAT .............................. 16 2. VAT Identification Number ............................ 18 3. Accounts and the VAT Register ........................ 20 4. Invoices ............................................. 21 5. Filing of Returns and Payment of Taxes ................ 23 6. Recapitulative Statement .............................. 24 a. Exempt Intra-Community Supplies .................. 27","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1994-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126937644","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":"Reforming Japan's Securities Markets: The Loss Compensation Scandal","authors":"C. Char","doi":"10.15779/Z38CH2B","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38CH2B","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1993-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114449565","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}
The Internal Revenue Code (the "Code") contains a bias toward financing a corporation with debt instead of equity. The Code subjects corporate distributions on equity to double taxation. The Code first taxes the corporation for the net income it earns.1 It then taxes the equity-holder for receipt of a dividend from the corporation.2 On the other hand, the Code imposes a tax on corporate distributions to debtholders only once. The debtholder pays tax on the inteiest income he receives, but the corporation may deduct the payment as an interest expense. 3 For this reason, an equityholder has the incentive to characterize additional contributions to a corporation as debt in order to minimize its tax burden.4 This tax incentive creates a problem as corporations are encouraged to finance their capital structure with excessive debt. Corporations with a
{"title":"Unsatisfactory Response to the International Problem of Thin Capitalization: Can Regulations Save the Earnings Stripping Provision, An","authors":"Robert J. Misey","doi":"10.15779/Z38PW68","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38PW68","url":null,"abstract":"The Internal Revenue Code (the \"Code\") contains a bias toward financing a corporation with debt instead of equity. The Code subjects corporate distributions on equity to double taxation. The Code first taxes the corporation for the net income it earns.1 It then taxes the equity-holder for receipt of a dividend from the corporation.2 On the other hand, the Code imposes a tax on corporate distributions to debtholders only once. The debtholder pays tax on the inteiest income he receives, but the corporation may deduct the payment as an interest expense. 3 For this reason, an equityholder has the incentive to characterize additional contributions to a corporation as debt in order to minimize its tax burden.4 This tax incentive creates a problem as corporations are encouraged to finance their capital structure with excessive debt. Corporations with a","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1991-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115766272","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}
Traditionally, one of the advantages of doing business abroad through a foreign subsidiary has been the possibility of using tax havens to minimize foreign income taxes and, at the same time, defer the offshore profits for U.S. income tax purposes. As long as the foreign earnings that accumulated in the tax haven were not remitted to the United States, the U.S. tax bill was delayed. There are several Internal Revenue Code provisions, however, that curb or, in some cases, totally eliminate deferral benefits sought in this manner. Among these are the formidable Subpart F rules for controlled foreign corporations and the passive foreign investment company provisions. Nonetheless, with careful tax planning, foreign subsidiaries that engage in certain types of offshore business activities, notably manufacturing, can still navigate around these anti-haven tax shoals and enjoy substantial deferral benefits. Other foreign subsidiaries, in contrast to traditional wisdom, may set their course directly toward these anti-haven tax shoals in order to secure significant foreign tax credits. Due to the reduced corporate rates introduced by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, most U.S. multinational companies today find themselves in excess tax credit positions.' Accordingly, any foreign taxes they pay above the U.S. statutory rate of 34% are not allowed as a credit against their U.S. tax liability, a fact that directly reduces the company's bottom line, unless it can utilize these "excess" credits during the statutory carryover period. In many cases, companies can capture tax advantages by shifting some overseas operations from high-tax jurisdictions to low-tax jurisdictions. Shifting operations
传统上，通过外国子公司在海外开展业务的优势之一是，可以利用避税天堂将外国所得税降至最低，同时，为了美国所得税的目的，可以推迟离岸利润。只要在避税天堂积累的海外收入没有汇到美国，美国的税单就会被推迟。但是，《国内税收法》有几项规定限制或在某些情况下完全取消以这种方式寻求的递延福利。其中包括针对受控外国公司和被动外国投资公司的严格的F部分规定。尽管如此，通过仔细的税务规划，从事某些类型的离岸业务活动(尤其是制造业)的外国子公司仍然可以绕过这些“反避税天堂”，并享受大量的递延优惠。与传统智慧不同的是，其他外国子公司可能会直接向这些反避税天堂的“浅滩”进发，以获得大量的外国税收抵免。由于1986年《税收改革法案》(Tax Reform Act of 1986)降低了企业税率，大多数美国跨国公司如今发现自己处于超额的税收抵免状态。因此，他们支付的任何高于美国法定税率34%的外国税款都不允许作为他们在美国纳税义务的抵免，这一事实直接降低了公司的底线，除非它能在法定结转期间利用这些“超额”抵免。在许多情况下，企业可以通过将一些海外业务从高税收管辖区转移到低税收管辖区来获得税收优势。转移操作
{"title":"International Commerce through a Foreign Subsidiary: Navigating the Anti-Haven Tax Shoals of the Internal Revenue Code","authors":"Ernest R. Larkins","doi":"10.15779/Z385W63","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z385W63","url":null,"abstract":"Traditionally, one of the advantages of doing business abroad through a foreign subsidiary has been the possibility of using tax havens to minimize foreign income taxes and, at the same time, defer the offshore profits for U.S. income tax purposes. As long as the foreign earnings that accumulated in the tax haven were not remitted to the United States, the U.S. tax bill was delayed. There are several Internal Revenue Code provisions, however, that curb or, in some cases, totally eliminate deferral benefits sought in this manner. Among these are the formidable Subpart F rules for controlled foreign corporations and the passive foreign investment company provisions. Nonetheless, with careful tax planning, foreign subsidiaries that engage in certain types of offshore business activities, notably manufacturing, can still navigate around these anti-haven tax shoals and enjoy substantial deferral benefits. Other foreign subsidiaries, in contrast to traditional wisdom, may set their course directly toward these anti-haven tax shoals in order to secure significant foreign tax credits. Due to the reduced corporate rates introduced by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, most U.S. multinational companies today find themselves in excess tax credit positions.' Accordingly, any foreign taxes they pay above the U.S. statutory rate of 34% are not allowed as a credit against their U.S. tax liability, a fact that directly reduces the company's bottom line, unless it can utilize these \"excess\" credits during the statutory carryover period. In many cases, companies can capture tax advantages by shifting some overseas operations from high-tax jurisdictions to low-tax jurisdictions. Shifting operations","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1991-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128457783","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：