This book chapter assesses the 1906 landmark decision by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in case of De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v Howe (Surveyor of Taxes). The case represents a remarkable instance of a revenue statute leaving a foundational concept – that of the ‘residence’ of companies – for determination by judges. In doing so, the House of Lords based its decision entirely upon the case law of lower courts, one case drawing on the celebrated work of the German jurist Carl Friederich von Savigny. The chapter shares findings of research performed about the intellectual origins of the judicial test for corporate tax residence (‘central management and control’) that has caused De Beers to be viewed as a landmark decision in countries sharing a legal tradition with the UK. The parallels between Savigny’s work on corporate domicile and the development of a judicial test in England for tax residence are explained, as well as the difficulties that arose in the application of the test after the process of transplantation begun.
The decision in De Beers is less well known for the unique historical context and facts that gave rise to the dispute before the English courts. The chapter contextualizes the decision with reference to the factual background to the disputes, as well as the aftermath of the decision since it caused the De Beers company to be subject to double taxation in the UK and the Cape Colony (South Africa). The dramatis personae were no less than Cecil John Rhodes, chairman of De Beers and Prime Minister of the Cape Colony where the De Beers diamond mines were situated, and the Rothschild conglomerate who financed its operations and who were major shareholders that assisted in the establishment of a diamond syndicate in London in control of the global market. The House of Lords famously decided that the company, incorporated in the Cape Colony, was resident in London because it was centrally managed and controlled by its London directors, despite all of its diamond mining business being conducted at the Cape where Rhodes was mostly based. Research conducted in the archives of the House of Lords and private archives of the company revealed incomplete facts before the English courts concerning the South African directors, especially Rhodes, which arguably may have altered the outcome and the impact of the decision on others. The chapter makes the point that the decision by the House of Lords ought to be appreciated and evaluated in light of the uniqueness of the company.
这本书的章节评估了1906年由上议院司法委员会在戴比尔斯联合矿业有限公司诉Howe(税务测量师)案中做出的具有里程碑意义的决定。该案是税收法规将公司“居住地”这一基本概念留给法官决定的一个显著例子。在这样做的过程中，上议院的决定完全基于下级法院的判例法，其中一个案例借鉴了德国法学家卡尔·弗里德里希·冯·萨维尼(Carl Friederich von Savigny)的著名著作。本章分享了关于企业税务居住地司法测试(“中央管理和控制”)的智力起源的研究结果，这使得戴比尔斯在与英国共享法律传统的国家被视为具有里程碑意义的决定。本文解释了Savigny在公司注册地方面的工作与英国税务居住司法测试的发展之间的相似之处，以及在移植过程开始后，在应用测试中出现的困难。戴比尔斯案的判决不太为人所知，因为它具有独特的历史背景和在英国法院引发争议的事实。本章将该决定与争议的事实背景联系起来，以及该决定的后果，因为它导致戴比尔斯公司在英国和开普殖民地(南非)遭受双重征税。其中最引人注目的人物是塞西尔·约翰·罗兹，他是戴比尔斯的董事长，也是戴比尔斯钻石矿所在地开普殖民地的首相，以及为其运营提供资金的罗斯柴尔德集团，他们是帮助在伦敦建立控制全球市场的钻石集团的大股东。英国上议院(House of Lords)做出了一个著名的决定，即这家在开普殖民地注册成立的公司位于伦敦，因为它由伦敦董事集中管理和控制，尽管它所有的钻石开采业务都是在开普进行的，而开普是罗得岛的主要所在地。在上议院档案和公司私人档案中进行的研究揭示了英国法院关于南非董事，特别是罗兹的不完整事实，这可能会改变结果和决定对其他人的影响。本章指出，应根据该公司的独特性，对英国上议院的决定予以赞赏和评估。
{"title":"De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd V Howe (1906) Corporate Residence: An Early Attempt at European Harmonisation","authors":"J. Hattingh, John F. Avery Jones","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3676278","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3676278","url":null,"abstract":"This book chapter assesses the 1906 landmark decision by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in case of De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v Howe (Surveyor of Taxes). The case represents a remarkable instance of a revenue statute leaving a foundational concept – that of the ‘residence’ of companies – for determination by judges. In doing so, the House of Lords based its decision entirely upon the case law of lower courts, one case drawing on the celebrated work of the German jurist Carl Friederich von Savigny. The chapter shares findings of research performed about the intellectual origins of the judicial test for corporate tax residence (‘central management and control’) that has caused De Beers to be viewed as a landmark decision in countries sharing a legal tradition with the UK. The parallels between Savigny’s work on corporate domicile and the development of a judicial test in England for tax residence are explained, as well as the difficulties that arose in the application of the test after the process of transplantation begun. <br><br>The decision in De Beers is less well known for the unique historical context and facts that gave rise to the dispute before the English courts. The chapter contextualizes the decision with reference to the factual background to the disputes, as well as the aftermath of the decision since it caused the De Beers company to be subject to double taxation in the UK and the Cape Colony (South Africa). The dramatis personae were no less than Cecil John Rhodes, chairman of De Beers and Prime Minister of the Cape Colony where the De Beers diamond mines were situated, and the Rothschild conglomerate who financed its operations and who were major shareholders that assisted in the establishment of a diamond syndicate in London in control of the global market. The House of Lords famously decided that the company, incorporated in the Cape Colony, was resident in London because it was centrally managed and controlled by its London directors, despite all of its diamond mining business being conducted at the Cape where Rhodes was mostly based. Research conducted in the archives of the House of Lords and private archives of the company revealed incomplete facts before the English courts concerning the South African directors, especially Rhodes, which arguably may have altered the outcome and the impact of the decision on others. The chapter makes the point that the decision by the House of Lords ought to be appreciated and evaluated in light of the uniqueness of the company.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86482574","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}
Portuguese Abstract: Esta tese procede a um estudo crítico do impacto dos acordos celebrados entre a UE e países terceiros no plano da fiscalidade direta. Estudamos os acordos, compreendemos as motivações subjacentes à sua celebração, estruturamos os mesmos em categorias especificas e examinamos o impacto dos mesmos nas regras tributárias dos Estados-Membros. Procuramos ainda mapear as normas portuguesas que aparentam apresentar problemas de compatibilidade com os referidos acordos.
Após esse exame, aplicamos os conhecimentos que adquirimos para propor modificações que eliminassem os problemas de compatibilidade de normas portuguesas com os acordos. Estudamos e estruturamos as normas potencialmente violadoras em quatro tipos de perfis e propomos soluções para cada um desses perfis.
Face a todos os argumentos utilizados e aos problemas que identificamos, consideramos ser imperioso que se procedam a várias alterações legislativas no sentido das propostas que avançamos.
English Abstract: This thesis focuses on a critical analysis of the agreements between the EU and third countries regarding direct taxation. We have studied the agreements, identified their motivations, structured them into specific categories and examined their impact on the domestic tax provisions of Member-States. We sought to pinpoint the provisions that might present issues in terms of compatibility with the Portuguese tax system.
After this examination, we used the acquired expertise to design proposals aiming towards eliminating issues of compatibility between our domestic tax system and those agreements. The potential incompatible provisions were studied and structured into four provision profile types.
Due to the arguments used and the issues found, we consider that it is imperative to make some legislative amendments following our legislative proposals.
{"title":"Aspetos Fiscais Decorrentes Dos Acordos Celebrados Pela União Europeia - Uma Análise Crítica ((Tax Implications Arising from the Agreements Celebrated by the European Union - A Critical Analysis)","authors":"Tiago Ferreira da Silva","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3306734","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3306734","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Portuguese Abstract:</b> Esta tese procede a um estudo crítico do impacto dos acordos celebrados entre a UE e países terceiros no plano da fiscalidade direta. Estudamos os acordos, compreendemos as motivações subjacentes à sua celebração, estruturamos os mesmos em categorias especificas e examinamos o impacto dos mesmos nas regras tributárias dos Estados-Membros. Procuramos ainda mapear as normas portuguesas que aparentam apresentar problemas de compatibilidade com os referidos acordos.<br><br>Após esse exame, aplicamos os conhecimentos que adquirimos para propor modificações que eliminassem os problemas de compatibilidade de normas portuguesas com os acordos. Estudamos e estruturamos as normas potencialmente violadoras em quatro tipos de perfis e propomos soluções para cada um desses perfis.<br><br>Face a todos os argumentos utilizados e aos problemas que identificamos, consideramos ser imperioso que se procedam a várias alterações legislativas no sentido das propostas que avançamos.<br><br><b>English Abstract:</b> This thesis focuses on a critical analysis of the agreements between the EU and third countries regarding direct taxation. We have studied the agreements, identified their motivations, structured them into specific categories and examined their impact on the domestic tax provisions of Member-States. We sought to pinpoint the provisions that might present issues in terms of compatibility with the Portuguese tax system.<br><br>After this examination, we used the acquired expertise to design proposals aiming towards eliminating issues of compatibility between our domestic tax system and those agreements. The potential incompatible provisions were studied and structured into four provision profile types.<br><br>Due to the arguments used and the issues found, we consider that it is imperative to make some legislative amendments following our legislative proposals.<br>","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91387423","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}
Section 2(a) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CGST Act’) states that, “any lease, tenancy, easement, license to occupy land is a supply of services”, further, Section 2(b) of the CGST Act makes it clear that, “any lease or letting out of the building including a commercial, industrial or residential complex for business or commerce, either wholly or partly, is a supply of services”.
Section 5(21) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘I&B Code’) defines the operational debt as a claim in respect of the provision of goods or services including employment or a debt in respect of the repayment dues arising under the law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority.
{"title":"Whether Recovery of ‘Arrears of Lease Rent’ Can Be Claimed As ‘Operational Debt’ Within the Meaning of Section 5(21) of the I&B Code, 2016?","authors":"Shivam Goel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3303046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3303046","url":null,"abstract":"Section 2(a) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CGST Act’) states that, “any lease, tenancy, easement, license to occupy land is a supply of services”, further, Section 2(b) of the CGST Act makes it clear that, “any lease or letting out of the building including a commercial, industrial or residential complex for business or commerce, either wholly or partly, is a supply of services”.<br><br>Section 5(21) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘I&B Code’) defines the operational debt as a claim in respect of the provision of goods or services including employment or a debt in respect of the repayment dues arising under the law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76377401","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}
We document the existence of a size premium for independent manufacturing companies in Europe: larger companies tend to have higher Return on Total Costs. This impact has a large magnitude and is statistically significant. Following the OECD Guidelines, the impact of size should thus be taken into account by Transfer Pricing practitioners when performing comparable company searches, in industries where such size premia are observed. The current practice of relying on small comparable companies to benchmark large MNEs should be revised.
{"title":"The Importance of Size in Transfer Pricing Comparable Company Searches","authors":"Sylvain Gilibert, Lukas Hinteregger, Thibaut Roques","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3298727","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3298727","url":null,"abstract":"We document the existence of a size premium for independent manufacturing companies in Europe: larger companies tend to have higher Return on Total Costs. This impact has a large magnitude and is statistically significant. Following the OECD Guidelines, the impact of size should thus be taken into account by Transfer Pricing practitioners when performing comparable company searches, in industries where such size premia are observed. The current practice of relying on small comparable companies to benchmark large MNEs should be revised.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90550886","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}
Pub Date : 2018-11-23DOI: 10.18601/16926722.n13.03
Ana Cristina Triana Suárez, Carlos Humberto Aragón Trujillo
La economía digital es una nueva forma de hacer negocios, que día a día va ganando terreno en la globalización de las operaciones mediante las cuales los diferentes Estados transan bienes, servicios y capitales. Este esquema se basa principalmente en las transacciones de intangibles, lo cual dificulta la fiscalización de las mismas por parte de los diferentes países, debido a vacíos en la normatividad tributaria doméstica de aquellos, lo cual limita la imposición de los diferentes tributos a las transacciones internacionales, abriendo una brecha para la evasión y/o elusión tributaria internacional, mediante el uso de estrategias de planificación agresiva por parte de los agentes económicos que intervienen en estas operaciones. A raíz de ello, la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (ocde) incluyó dentro del Proyecto beps la Acción 1 (Desafíos de la economía digital), en la cual se realiza la contextualización, análisis y desarrollo de recomendaciones que los Estados puede adoptar a fin de ajustar sus normas tributarias domésticas, que les permitan ser aplicadas a las transacciones internacionales. Así las cosas, en el presente artículo se analiza este nuevo modelo económico, que se encuentra en el streaming prestado por diferentes multinacionales como Netflix, Spotify, hbo go, Amazon Video, Mubi o Vudu, a fin de determinar sus características y evaluar si las normas tributarias colombianas vigentes permiten la imposición de los impuestos directos e indirectos sobre estas transacciones. De acuerdo con lo anterior, se realiza una categorización de las rentas derivadas de estas transacciones, determinadas a partir del estudio de la legislación comercial, civil y tributaria que las enmarca y que las clasifica dentro de un tipo de renta especifica, como son los cánones o regalías. En este contexto, se analiza la viabilidad de gravar con el impuesto de renta las operaciones objeto de estudio, y para ello se clasifican como los ingresos de fuente nacional. Así mismo, se evalúan los efectos de la Ley 1819 de 2016 en esta materia, toda vez que la norma ajustó la normatividad fiscal existente de los impuestos indirectos para hacerla extensiva a algunos servicios virtuales prestados desde el exterior, y dispuso los mecanismos de recaudo de estos.
{"title":"Acción 1 BEPS. Metodología Aplicación en Colombia Economía Digital - Negocio Streaming – Caso Netflix (Action 1 BEPS. Methodology Application in Colombia Digital Economy-Business Streaming-Case Netflix)","authors":"Ana Cristina Triana Suárez, Carlos Humberto Aragón Trujillo","doi":"10.18601/16926722.n13.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18601/16926722.n13.03","url":null,"abstract":"La economía digital es una nueva forma de hacer negocios, que día a día va ganando terreno en la globalización de las operaciones mediante las cuales los diferentes Estados transan bienes, servicios y capitales. Este esquema se basa principalmente en las transacciones de intangibles, lo cual dificulta la fiscalización de las mismas por parte de los diferentes países, debido a vacíos en la normatividad tributaria doméstica de aquellos, lo cual limita la imposición de los diferentes tributos a las transacciones internacionales, abriendo una brecha para la evasión y/o elusión tributaria internacional, mediante el uso de estrategias de planificación agresiva por parte de los agentes económicos que intervienen en estas operaciones. A raíz de ello, la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (ocde) incluyó dentro del Proyecto beps la Acción 1 (Desafíos de la economía digital), en la cual se realiza la contextualización, análisis y desarrollo de recomendaciones que los Estados puede adoptar a fin de ajustar sus normas tributarias domésticas, que les permitan ser aplicadas a las transacciones internacionales. Así las cosas, en el presente artículo se analiza este nuevo modelo económico, que se encuentra en el streaming prestado por diferentes multinacionales como Netflix, Spotify, hbo go, Amazon Video, Mubi o Vudu, a fin de determinar sus características y evaluar si las normas tributarias colombianas vigentes permiten la imposición de los impuestos directos e indirectos sobre estas transacciones. De acuerdo con lo anterior, se realiza una categorización de las rentas derivadas de estas transacciones, determinadas a partir del estudio de la legislación comercial, civil y tributaria que las enmarca y que las clasifica dentro de un tipo de renta especifica, como son los cánones o regalías. En este contexto, se analiza la viabilidad de gravar con el impuesto de renta las operaciones objeto de estudio, y para ello se clasifican como los ingresos de fuente nacional. Así mismo, se evalúan los efectos de la Ley 1819 de 2016 en esta materia, toda vez que la norma ajustó la normatividad fiscal existente de los impuestos indirectos para hacerla extensiva a algunos servicios virtuales prestados desde el exterior, y dispuso los mecanismos de recaudo de estos.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77059772","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}
Pub Date : 2018-11-23DOI: 10.18601/16926722.n13.09
Juan Andrés González Montes
La prueba es la herramienta que le permite al juez de la administración de impuestos el esclarecimiento de los hechos materia de controversia, llegando a una convicción respecto de la realidad misma que le permite fallar en justicia, lo cual es el resultado de un análisis crítico, profundo, juicioso y libre de vicios, lo que le permite creer que la solución del conflicto coincide con la verdad de los hechos. Así, la información exógena es un elemento probatorio y, como tal, está sujeto al principio de publicidad y contradicción. Dependiendo de la forma como se desarrollan los hechos del proceso de discusión tributaria, dicha prueba, en ciertos casos, puede ser insumo directo del fallo por parte de la jurisdicción en contra del contribuyente, pues el levantamiento de la presunción de veracidad de las declaraciones tributarias, en armonía con la aplicación del juicio de valoración de las pruebas aportadas por el contribuyente, convierte la información exógena en prueba contundente de inexactitud tributaria. Además, cuando la relación entre el hecho indicador y el hecho indicado es tan estrecha, permite tener certeza de la vulneración de ley, generada por el incumplimiento de obligaciones sustantivas o deberes formales.
{"title":"El valor probatorio de la información exógena tributaria en Colombia (The Evidentiary Value of Exogenous Tax Information in Colombia)","authors":"Juan Andrés González Montes","doi":"10.18601/16926722.n13.09","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18601/16926722.n13.09","url":null,"abstract":"La prueba es la herramienta que le permite al juez de la administración de impuestos el esclarecimiento de los hechos materia de controversia, llegando a una convicción respecto de la realidad misma que le permite fallar en justicia, lo cual es el resultado de un análisis crítico, profundo, juicioso y libre de vicios, lo que le permite creer que la solución del conflicto coincide con la verdad de los hechos. Así, la información exógena es un elemento probatorio y, como tal, está sujeto al principio de publicidad y contradicción. Dependiendo de la forma como se desarrollan los hechos del proceso de discusión tributaria, dicha prueba, en ciertos casos, puede ser insumo directo del fallo por parte de la jurisdicción en contra del contribuyente, pues el levantamiento de la presunción de veracidad de las declaraciones tributarias, en armonía con la aplicación del juicio de valoración de las pruebas aportadas por el contribuyente, convierte la información exógena en prueba contundente de inexactitud tributaria. Además, cuando la relación entre el hecho indicador y el hecho indicado es tan estrecha, permite tener certeza de la vulneración de ley, generada por el incumplimiento de obligaciones sustantivas o deberes formales.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84072626","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}
Portuguese Abstract: O presente estudo visa discorrer sobre a necessidade da transparência do beneficiário efetivo das empresas e arranjos legais e sua importância no combate à corrupção e aos abusos fiscais. Discute- -se o conceito de beneficiário efetivo e o risco de opacidade e secretismo, em particular face às recentes revelações dos Panama Papers e dos Paradise Papers. As conquistas normativas no tocante à evidenciação do beneficiário efetivo são expostas desde a sua genealogia, nos acordos e convenções internacionais até à sua concretização no direito interno de Portugal e Brasil. São identificados os principais desafios no tema, tais como: i) a constituição de registros centrais de beneficiários efetivos abertos, ii) a implementação de mecanismos automáticos de troca de informações de beneficiários efetivos, iii) a exigência de padronização e verificação dessas informações, e iv) o compromisso sincero dos governos em prol da divulgação dessas informações e do acesso por potenciais interessados no combate aos delitos perpetrados mediante o uso de empresas sem beneficiário efetivo identificado.
English Abstract: The present study aims to review on the transparency of the beneficial ownership of companies and legal arrangements and their importance in combating corruption and tax abuses. The concept of beneficial ownership and the risk of opacity and secrecy is discussed, particularly in view of the recent revelations from the Panama papers and Paradise papers. Normative achievements regarding the evidence of the beneficial owner against corruption are exposed from their genealogy, international agreements and conventions until their implementation in the domestic law in Portugal and Brazil.
The main challenges in the theme are identified, namely:
i) the establishment of open central registers of beneficial ownership,
ii) the implementation of automatic mechanisms for the exchange of information of beneficial ownership,
iii) the requirement of standardization and verification of this information, and
iv) the committed and proactive stance of the governments for the dissemination and access of this information to potential interested in combating the offences perpetrated by the use of anonymous companies.
{"title":"Transparência do Beneficiário Efetivo: Conquistas e Desafios na Prevenção da Corrupção e dos Abusos Fiscais (Transparency on Beneficial Ownership: Achievements and Challenges in the Prevention of Corruption and Tax Abuse)","authors":"Antonio Lopo Martinez","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3294987","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3294987","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Portuguese Abstract:</b> O presente estudo visa discorrer sobre a necessidade da transparência do beneficiário efetivo das empresas e arranjos legais e sua importância no combate à corrupção e aos abusos fiscais. Discute- -se o conceito de beneficiário efetivo e o risco de opacidade e secretismo, em particular face às recentes revelações dos Panama Papers e dos Paradise Papers. As conquistas normativas no tocante à evidenciação do beneficiário efetivo são expostas desde a sua genealogia, nos acordos e convenções internacionais até à sua concretização no direito interno de Portugal e Brasil. São identificados os principais desafios no tema, tais como: i) a constituição de registros centrais de beneficiários efetivos abertos, ii) a implementação de mecanismos automáticos de troca de informações de beneficiários efetivos, iii) a exigência de padronização e verificação dessas informações, e iv) o compromisso sincero dos governos em prol da divulgação dessas informações e do acesso por potenciais interessados no combate aos delitos perpetrados mediante o uso de empresas sem beneficiário efetivo identificado.<br><br><b>English Abstract:</b> The present study aims to review on the transparency of the beneficial ownership of companies and legal arrangements and their importance in combating corruption and tax abuses. The concept of beneficial ownership and the risk of opacity and secrecy is discussed, particularly in view of the recent revelations from the Panama papers and Paradise papers. Normative achievements regarding the evidence of the beneficial owner against corruption are exposed from their genealogy, international agreements and conventions until their implementation in the domestic law in Portugal and Brazil. <br><br>The main challenges in the theme are identified, namely: <br><br>i) the establishment of open central registers of beneficial ownership, <br><br>ii) the implementation of automatic mechanisms for the exchange of information of beneficial ownership, <br><br>iii) the requirement of standardization and verification of this information, and <br><br>iv) the committed and proactive stance of the governments for the dissemination and access of this information to potential interested in combating the offences perpetrated by the use of anonymous companies.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90677045","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}
How to outsource and keep control and ownership? A challenge for many tax administrations around the world, when keeping control and ownership over data and information, avoiding possible conflicts of interest, ensuring transparency and protecting privacy are key concerns. From Australia to the United States, from Indonesia to Uganda, it is a challenge. The EU Court of Audit may provide good guidelines for outsourcing.
{"title":"Tax Administrators and the Challenge of Outsourcing the EU Court of Audit Inspires!","authors":"G. Heij","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3278084","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3278084","url":null,"abstract":"How to outsource and keep control and ownership? A challenge for many tax administrations around the world, when keeping control and ownership over data and information, avoiding possible conflicts of interest, ensuring transparency and protecting privacy are key concerns. From Australia to the United States, from Indonesia to Uganda, it is a challenge. The EU Court of Audit may provide good guidelines for outsourcing.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78442848","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}
With the recent focus on BEPS and digital taxation, it is expected that we will see a ‘tsunami’ of disputes in the coming decade. In order to counteract this, both the OECD and the EU have introduced new dispute resolution measures through the MLI and the Dispute Resolution Directive respectively. Although the provisions in these instruments may appear to have similar structures at first glance, they vary greatly in terms of scope and procedure. In fact, taxpayers will soon be facing questions as to which procedure to apply and how they relate to each other and interact. Accordingly, this article aims to compare the dispute resolution provisions in both instruments so as to point out similarities, differences and the consequences thereof.
{"title":"The New Face of International Tax Dispute Resolution: Comparing the OECD Multilateral Instrument with the EU Dispute Resolution Directive","authors":"Sriram Govind","doi":"10.54648/ecta2018034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2018034","url":null,"abstract":"With the recent focus on BEPS and digital taxation, it is expected that we will see a ‘tsunami’ of disputes in the coming decade. In order to counteract this, both the OECD and the EU have introduced new dispute resolution measures through the MLI and the Dispute Resolution Directive respectively. Although the provisions in these instruments may appear to have similar structures at first glance, they vary greatly in terms of scope and procedure. In fact, taxpayers will soon be facing questions as to which procedure to apply and how they relate to each other and interact. Accordingly, this article aims to compare the dispute resolution provisions in both instruments so as to point out similarities, differences and the consequences thereof.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80767687","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}
According to transfer pricing rules, the allocation of assets, functions and risks within multinational companies determines the distribution of profits. This gives multinationals the incentive to shift valuable assets, complex functions and high risks to low tax countries. Whereas the literature has extensively studied the allocation of assets and debt within multinationals, I shed light on the intra-group allocation of risk. First, I outline how intragroup risk shifting can be conducted in different industries. Second, by using a dataset of unconsolidated financial statements, I show that subsidiaries’ level of risk is significantly affected by the statutory tax rate. This holds especially true for manufacturing groups and their subsidiaries in the service industry. Third, I show that for a matched sample of stand-alone companies, their level of risk is also affected by the statutory tax rate.
{"title":"The Impact of Tax Rates on Corporate Risk-Taking","authors":"M. Gamm","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3312398","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3312398","url":null,"abstract":"According to transfer pricing rules, the allocation of assets, functions and risks within multinational companies determines the distribution of profits. This gives multinationals the incentive to shift valuable assets, complex functions and high risks to low tax countries. Whereas the literature has extensively studied the allocation of assets and debt within multinationals, I shed light on the intra-group allocation of risk. First, I outline how intragroup risk shifting can be conducted in different industries. Second, by using a dataset of unconsolidated financial statements, I show that subsidiaries’ level of risk is significantly affected by the statutory tax rate. This holds especially true for manufacturing groups and their subsidiaries in the service industry. Third, I show that for a matched sample of stand-alone companies, their level of risk is also affected by the statutory tax rate.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81840658","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}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号