Mandatory binding tax arbitration—is this a pathway to a more efficient Mutual Agreement Procedure?

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Markham
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
Effective Mechanism ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
International Tax ◽  
Tax Arbitration ◽  
Best Offer ◽  
Mutual Agreement

Abstract The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recently been exploring ways to improve dispute resolution mechanisms in the realm of international tax, notably through the use of binding mandatory arbitration as part of the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) Article in Double Tax Agreements. This article seeks to examine whether binding mandatory arbitration would provide an effective mechanism for resolving international tax disputes. It investigates policy concerns with mandatory arbitration, especially sovereignty issues, access to mandatory arbitration and its scope, as well as the interface between MAP arbitration and domestic remedies. The possibility of deferring time limits on arbitration, the appropriateness of the ‘last-best-offer’ or baseball arbitration approach versus the ‘independent opinion’ approach and contentious issues surrounding the appointment of arbitrators will be considered, along with recent developments in arbitration processes. ‘Arbitration of taxation disputes is attractive and effective, presenting significant advantages to businesses and governments… Arbitration always reaches a conclusion, provides for impartial determinations with proper taxpayer participation and applies law rather than expediency. The process is orderly, predictable and transparent.’ 1

scholarly journals TAX TREATY ARBITRATION

2018 ◽  
pp. 21-36
Author(s):  
DANIL VINNITSKIY ◽  
ANDREY SAVITSKIY ◽  
EVGENIY PUSTOVALOV
Keyword(s):  
Research Methods ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Double Taxation ◽  
Functional Interpretation ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The Cross ◽  
International Tax ◽  
Tax Arbitration ◽  
Mutual Agreement

Introduction: this article reviews the cross-border tax disputes resolution practice in Russia and evaluates the prospects for the development of new mechanisms for the resolution of tax disputes arising from cross-border relations, including tax arbitration. In recent years, the development of international instruments for eliminating double taxation and resolving tax disputes within OECD and G20 multilateral formats as well as bilateral agreements on avoidance of double taxation have led to the growing interest in this paper’s topic. The purpose of this paper is to determine / identify an optimal mechanism for the cross-border tax disputes resolution in Russia, taking into account the current domestic legal regulation and international commitments in the field of cross-border taxation. Methods: given the nature of this research, we have used the general scientific and individual scientific research methods. We have also used legal research methods such as comparative legal and formal legal methods, logical, systemic, and functional interpretation. The recent academic literature on the particular aspects of this research has been investigated too. Analysis: the practice in the application of international tax agreements in Russia demonstrates that the cross-border tax disputes are mainly resolved within the framework of domestic judicial procedures. Mutual agreement procedures and tax arbitration are not common mechanisms for resolving cross-border tax disputes in Russia. Meanwhile, the international investment disputes affecting particular aspects of taxation are often dealt through international arbitration institutions. Results: as a part of the commitments made under the Multilateral Instrument (MLI), Russian Federation considers arbitration and mutual agreement procedures only as possible alternative ways to settle cross-border tax disputes arising from international tax agreements. Based on the well-known cross-border tax disputes resolution practice, we conclude that none of the states could completely isolate itself from the international arbitration procedures in the current circumstances. This is true even if such state did not include the arbitration clause in its tax agreements and did not make the commitments on tax arbitration under the Multilateral Instrument (MLI).

Tax treaty arbitration

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-219
Author(s):  
Hans Mooij
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Tax Avoidance ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Profit Shifting ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
International Tax ◽  
Treaty Networks ◽  
Multilateral Treaty ◽  
Mutual Agreement

Abstract Traditionally, tax authorities endeavour to resolve their tax treaty disputes among themselves, by amicable settlement through a mutual agreement procedure (commonly known as ‘MAP’ procedure), without involvement from any third parties—neither arbitrators nor mediators. In past years, due to globalization of countries’ economies and spread of tax treaty networks, the number of disputess, their complexity and revenue interest involved have gone up drastically, exceeding many authorities’ capacities, and resulting in MAP cases taking up increasingly more time, or remaining unresolved at all. It is generally expected that the recent OECD/G20 initiated ‘BEPS’ (short for: Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) measures against international tax avoidance will add further to this. Arbitration so far having been hardly tried in practice, the recent arbitration piece under the BEPS multilateral treaty (MLI) and EU Directive on dispute resolution in international tax matters, however, create new momentum. It is now up to tax authorities if they can accustom themselves to the use of arbitration as an ordinary, and in certain circumstances preferable tool for resolving their disputes.

Arbitration and tax treaty disputes

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 473-504
Author(s):  
Michelle Andrea Markham
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Profit Shifting ◽  
The Past ◽  
The World ◽  
Arbitration Procedure ◽  
International Tax ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Mutual Agreement

Abstract The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Action Plan and its implementation around the world over the last few years has brought about widespread and fundamental changes to the international tax framework. A corollary of these changes has been an increase in international tax treaty disputes, as newly-designed rules are challenged by both taxpayers and tax administrations. This article seeks to examine how such controversies have been addressed in the past, and to evaluate whether in this new environment arbitration may provide the key to successful tax treaty dispute resolution, despite concerns regarding national sovereignty. It considers the changes effected to the traditional tax treaty dispute resolution mechanism under the Mutual Agreement Procedure by the Action 14 Final Report on Making Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective. Furthermore, it evaluates the use of arbitration under the Multilateral Instrument, as well as the application of certain reservations and options available in this regard. It explores some of the benefits of instituting an arbitration procedure that will ensure resolution for all international stakeholders. Finally, it considers the potential for Advance Pricing Agreements to proactively resolve tax treaty disputes, and the need for taxpayers to take a strategic and informed view of controversy management in the international tax sphere.

Recent Developments in the Regulation of Investor-State Dispute Resolution: Any Lessons for the Southern African Development Community?

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 180-204
Author(s):  
Lawrence Ngobeni ◽  
Babatunde Fagbayibo
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Southern African Development Community ◽  
African Union ◽  
Foreign Investments ◽  
African Development ◽  
Trade Area ◽  
Recent Developments

Abstract In 2016, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) amended Annex 1 of the SADC Protocol on Finance and Investment (FIP) in order to remove investor access to international arbitration or Investor-State Dispute Resolution (ISDS). The recent formation of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and the COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite Free Trade Agreement (T-FTA) are factors that will likely curtail SADC’s ability to regulate foreign investments. Both AfCFTA and T-FTA are supposed to have their own investment protocols. This means that SADC faces the loss of regulatory authority over foreign investments. The recent formation of the Pan African Investment Code (PAIC) has shown that some African Union (AU) Member States want to provide ISDS for their investors, while others including SADC Members States do not. This article intends to evaluate the lessons SADC can learn from other jurisdictions in terms of the effective regulation of ISDS.

Penyelesaian Sengketa Dalam Perjanjian Baku Jual Beli Rumah Susun Menurut Undang Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1999 Tentang Perlindungan Konsumen

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eni Jaya ◽  
Arihta Esther Tarigan
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Housing Development ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Housing Construction ◽  
Entrepreneurship Research ◽  
Normative Approach ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Mutual Agreement

Rapid development of housing construction raises various concerns related to making the customer satisfied and at concurrently allowing the developer to make profit. Increase in housing development does not go in pair with increase in compliance of obligations made by the entrepreneurs.   Terms and conditions of the business construction agreement are prepared by the entrepreneur and listed as standard agreement or standard clause. The purpose of this research was to determine the resolution of disputes in consumer protection law. The normative approach consists of learning the laws regarding the juridical process and debating about the standard agreement using terms of consumer protection law.   he outcome of this research ar (1) Legal Provisions of standard clauses in PPJB which is detrimental to consumer and is contained in the provisions of the article 18 of law Number 8 from  1999 concerning consumer protection. (2) Resolved the consumer dispute through mutual agreement or by means of a third party (authorized agency).  The existence of standard agreement has impact on the profitability of the entrepreneurship. Research shows that there is a necessity to regulate the contents of standard clauses in order to make the development of Indonesian business more transparent.Keywords: Consumer Protection, standard agreement, dispute resolution ABSTRAKPesatnya pembangunan rumah susun menimbulkan permasalahan lain yang sering muncul dalam pemenuhan kebutuhan akan perumahan yakni hak-hak konsumen yang dirugikan. Meningkatnya pembangunan perumahan, seringkali tidak diselaraskan dengan pemenuhan kewajiban oleh pelaku usaha. Permasalahan dalam bisnis rumah susun yang sering muncul adalah ketentuan mengenai pernyataan dan persetujuan untuk menerima segala persyaratan dan ketentuan-ketentuan yang ditetapkan secara sepihak dan ketentuan-ketentuan penandatanganan atas dokumen-dokumen yang telah dipersiapkan lebih awal oleh pelaku usaha, tercantum dalam surat pemesanan yang sering disebut perjanjian baku atau klausula baku. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui penyelesaian sengketa dalam bidang hukum perlindungan konsumen. Metode pendekatan normatif, yang terdiri dari pendekatan yuridis dengan cara mempelajari isi dari Undang-Undang,dengan melihat perdebatan mengenai perjanjian baku  ditinjau menurut UU Perlindungan Konsumen.  Adapun hasil penelitian ini adalah : (1) Ketentuan hukum terhadap pencantuman klausula baku  dalam PPJB yang merugikan konsumen menurut Undang-undang Perlindungan Konsumen terdapat dalam ketentuan pada Pasal 18 Undang-Undang No. 8 Tahun 1999 Tentang  Perlindungan Konsumen.(2) Penyelesaian sengketa dalam bidang hukum perlindungan konsumen pada umumnya dapat diselesaikan setidak-tidaknya melalui 2 (dua) cara penyelesaian, yaitu, Penyelesaian sengketa secara damai dan Penyelesaian melalui lembaga atau instansi yang berwenang, karena adanya kontrak baku perjanjian ini, cenderung merugikan pihak yang kurang dominan dalam hal ini pihak konsumen. Adapun  saran dalam penelitian ini diantaranya adalah Perlunya adanya peraturan dan sanksi terhadap pencantuman  klausa baku untuk memberikan batasan-batasan bagi perkembangan bisnis di Indonesia.Kata Kunci: Perlindungan Konsumen, Perjanjian Baku, penyelesaian sengketa           

Part III Arbitral Rules, 16 Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baumann Antje
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Chamber Of Commerce ◽  
International Court ◽  
Arbitral Proceedings ◽  
Number Of Parties ◽  
International Chamber Of Commerce

This chapter discusses the arbitration rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). It begins with a background on the ICC International Court of Arbitration, with emphasis on its role in the development of international commercial arbitration. It then examines the 2017 ICC Arbitration Rules, citing some relevant figures related to ICC arbitration for the year 2017, including the number of parties involved in cases, the arbitral tribunals, and awards rendered by arbitral tribunals. Figures on other ICC dispute resolution rules are also given. The chapter concludes with a commentary of Articles 1–42 of the ICC Arbitration Rules, which cover topics such as definitions; time limits for written notifications or communications; request for arbitration and the respondent’s counterclaims to such a request; effect of the arbitration agreement; constitution of the arbitral tribunal; appointment, confirmation, challenge, and replacement of arbitrators; and rules of law applicable to the arbitral proceedings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document