scholarly journals New Developments in Dispute Resolution in International Tax

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Markham
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
New Developments ◽  
International Tax

scholarly journals Permanent establishment as a foreign direct investment in Poland: identification of tax barriers in the context of new tax development

2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-193
Author(s):  
Marcin Jamroży ◽  
Magdalena Janiszewska
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Tax Avoidance ◽  
Tax Law ◽  
Profit Shifting ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Permanent Establishment ◽  
International Tax

Abstract The paper aims to identify the significant tax barriers to foreign direct investment (FDI) in Poland, in particular in the form of a permanent establishment (PE), in the context of new developments in international tax law. Due to the recommendations of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, launched by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to prevent international tax avoidance, the understanding of PE has changed, which could lead to changes in business models. The purpose of the research is also to identify the significant tax barriers to economic activity in Poland, in particular in the form of PE, against the international tax law context. The study conducted by the authors relies on the most current tax rulings and judgments of administrative courts issued between 2017 and 2020. It is concluded that not so much the effective tax burdens but the regulatory ambiguity surrounding the tax obligations may contribute to the reduction of Poland's attractiveness as a location for FDI.

scholarly journals Digitalization and International Tax Dispute Resolution: A Window of Opportunity for BRITACOM

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinyan Li ◽  
Nathan Jin Bao ◽  
Shanghua Hu ◽  
Wei Hu ◽  
Matias Zerbino
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Window Of Opportunity ◽  
International Tax

scholarly journals Global Laboratories of Third-Party Funding Regulation

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 34-39
Author(s):  
Victoria Shannon Sahani
Keyword(s):  
Private Sector ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Regulatory Issues ◽  
The Public ◽  
True Prevalence ◽  
Party Funding ◽  
To Receive

Third-party funding, also known as “dispute finance,” is a controversial, dynamic, and evolving arrangement whereby an outside entity (“the funder”) finances the legal representation of a party involved in litigation or arbitration, whether domestically or internationally, on a non-recourse basis, meaning that the funder is not entitled to receive any money from the funded party if the case is unsuccessful. It has been documented in more than sixty countries on six continents worldwide—including in many of the jurisdictions highlighted in this symposium that are experimenting with other aspects of international commercial dispute resolution. Indeed, funding greases the wheels of this experimentation. The true prevalence of third-party funding is likely far greater than we know since disclosure is not presently mandated everywhere. This essay argues that the three biggest global regulatory issues with respect to dispute finance are disclosure, definition, and delegation of oversight and that the global laboratories of dispute finance remain firmly within the control of the private sector with the public regulators continuously struggling to understand and address new developments in the industry. An apt analogy would be that the dispute financiers are driving cars and building spaceships with respect to their innovative financing arrangements, while many of the regulators are aiming their sights at the classic “horse-and-buggy” third-party funding arrangements that are rapidly falling out of use.

Latin American Opposition to Mandatory Arbitration in Tax Treaties

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yariv Brauner
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Latin American ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Tax Treaties ◽  
International Tax ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Latin American Countries

The international tax regime has recently made large strides toward a reform of its dispute resolution mechanism. Long-anticipated, mandatory tax treaty arbitration is finally gaining legitimacy beyond limited use by a few countries. Yet, the opposition to international arbitration among developing countries, led by Latin American countries, has not waned. This Article tracks this opposition to its origins and argues that it is misguided in the case of tax treaty arbitration, which such countries should rather generally support.

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.

scholarly journals Tax Sovereignty and Investor Protection: Why the Proposed Global Minimum Tax Is not the Final Frontier for Corporate Tax Arbitrage

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-131
Author(s):  
Michael Motala ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Global Minimum ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Investor Protection ◽  
Tax Avoidance ◽  
International Taxation ◽  
Corporate Tax ◽  
Profit Shifting ◽  
Tax Arbitrage ◽  
International Tax

Over the past decade, international tax governance has evolved with bewildering speed in response to the challenges of digitalization and widespread corporate tax avoidance. Since the launch of the Group of 20 (G20)-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) initiative in 2012, 135 countries and 14 international organizations have joined the BEPS Inclusive Framework, committing to implement new global standards on corporate tax, which has already been lauded as a revolution in the architecture of international tax law and policy. Even further expanding the scope of the OECD’s work on international taxation in a landmark announcement in March 2021, the U.S. administration further proposed imposing a global minimum corporate tax at a rate of 21% to be implemented through an international agreement by mid-2021. If the new OECD initiative is agreed, will the plan to implement a minimum corporate tax be fully implemented by G20 members, and if so, will it do enough to address the tax challenges of digitalization embodied in corporate tax arbitrage? Although the evidence suggests legislative and public policy compliance is likely to be high among G20 members, this article argues the minimum tax initiative is unlikely to go far enough to address deficiencies in global tax dispute resolution, which are extremely germane to the success of the proposed minimum tax. As explained in this article, U.S. leaders and global policymakers must enhance the mutual agreement procedure (MAP), a cornerstone of tax dispute resolution, given a growing body of tax litigation in investment law that threatens the implementation of BEPS 2.0. To do so, global policymakers must also reconcile the conflict of norms between tax sovereignty and investor protection contained in the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime. Only by addressing the conflict between the principles of tax sovereignty and investor protection can they prevent a tidal wave of investor disputes that will challenge the implementation of the minimum tax through national tax laws.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document