The Principle of Non-Discrimination in International and European Tax Law.

Format:

Book

Thesis/Dissertation

Author/Creator:

Bammens, Niels.

Series:

Doctoral series ; 1570-7164 v. 24.

IBFD doctoral series, 1570-7164 ; v. 24

Language:

English

Subjects (All):

Conflict of laws--Taxation.

Conflict of laws.

Taxation--Law and legislation--Europe.

Taxation.

Physical Description:

xx, 1130 pages ; 24 cm.

Edition:

1st ed.

Place of Publication:

Amsterdam : IBFD Publications USA, Incorporated, 2012.

Summary:

This dissertation analyses the non-discrimination principle in tax treaties and in the direct tax case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Contents:

Intro

Title Page

Copyright Page

Table of Contents

Part I Introduction

Part I: Introduction

Chapter 1: Aristotle's Concept of Distributive Justice

Chapter 2: Basic Principles of Discrimination

2.1. Elements of the discrimination analysis

2.2. Proposal for an analytical framework

2.3. A brief note on ability to pay

Chapter 3: Overview of the Study

Part II Article 24 of the OECD Model Convention

Chapter 4: Origin of Article 24 of the OECD Model Convention

4.1. Historical roots of the provision

4.2. The League of Nations

4.3. The OEEC Fiscal Committee

4.3.1. The first report of Working Party no. 4

4.3.2. Reception of the first report

4.3.3. The second report

4.3.4. The third report

4.3.5. The final report

4.3.6. Conclusions

4.4. The genesis of the OECD Model Convention

4.5. The current version of Article 24 of the OECD Model Convention

Chapter 5: Article 24(1): Nationality Non-Discrimination

5.1. General

5.2. No taxation without discrimination?

5.3. Nationality

5.3.1. Individuals

5.3.2. Other persons

5.3.2.1. General

5.3.2.2. The nationality of legal entities

5.3.2.2.1. The position taken in the Commentary

5.3.2.2.2. The 2008 update

5.3.2.2.3. Transvaal Special Income Tax Court decision of 10 March 1992

5.3.2.2.4. 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal decision of 13 December 2002

5.4. Entitlement to article 24

5.5. The comparability test: "in the same circumstances"

5.5.1. On sameness and similarity

5.5.2. Case law

5.5.2.1. Leeuwarden Court of Appeal decision of 7 April 2000

5.5.2.2. United Dominions Trust Ltd

5.5.2.3. Belgian Supreme Court decision of 30 June 1988

5.5.2.4. The Anglo-Swiss Land and Building Company Ltd.

5.5.2.5. Biso

5.5.2.6. Saipem

5.5.3. Discrimination "on the basis of" nationality?.

5.6. The disadvantage test: "other or more burdensome"

5.6.1. General

5.6.2. Reverse discrimination

5.6.3. Other issues

5.6.4. Case law

5.6.4.1. Woodend Rubber and Tea

5.6.4.2. Dutch Supreme Court decision of 14 June 1972

5.6.4.3. Bundesfinanzhof decision of 14 March 1989

5.6.4.4. Conseil d'état decision of 28 May 1986

5.7. Reciprocity

5.7.1. General

5.7.2. Case law

5.7.2.1. American Trust Company

5.7.2.2. Brown &amp

Williamson Ltd

5.7.2.3. Dutch Supreme Court decision of 2 September 1992

5.7.2.4. Dutch Supreme Court decision of 20 November 2009

5.7.3. Conclusion

5.8. Comparability as a safety valve?

5.9. "Other or more burdensome" as a safety valve?

Chapter 6: Article 24(2): Stateless Persons

6.1. The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons

6.2. The OECD Model Convention

Chapter 7: Article 24(3): Permanent Establishments

7.1. Entitlement to article 24(3): what is "an enterprise"?

7.2. The comparability test: "an enterprise carrying on the same activities"

7.2.1. General

7.2.1.1. "Carrying on the same activities"

7.2.1.2. Separate entity approach

7.2.2. Case law

7.2.2.1. Case law on the subject of comparison

7.2.2.1.1. Reuters Ltd

7.2.2.1.2. Brussels Court of Appeal decision of 28 May 1993

7.2.2.1.3. Ghent Court of Appeal decision of 17 November 1994

7.2.2.1.4. Bundesfinanzhof decision of 22 April 1998

7.2.2.1.5. Bundesfinanzhof decision of 10 March 2005

7.2.2.1.6. Verwaltungsgerichtshof decision of 16 February 2006 and 28 November 2007

7.2.2.2. Case law on the object of comparison

7.2.2.2.1. Swiss Bundesgericht decision of 28 November 2005

7.2.2.2.2. Finanzgericht Köln decision of 20 September 1995

7.2.2.2.3. UBS AG

7.3. The disadvantage test: "taxation … less favourably levied"

7.3.1. "Taxation".

7.3.2. "Less favourably levied"

7.3.2.1. Assessment of tax

7.3.2.2. Structure and rate of tax

7.3.2.2.1. Progressive scales and the non-resident's worldwide profits

7.3.2.2.2. Tax-free thresholds

7.3.2.2.3. Special taxes on a non-resident's PE

7.3.2.3. Dividends received in respect of holdings owned by a permanent establishment

7.3.2.4. Withholding tax on dividends, interest and royalties received by a permanent establishment

7.3.2.5. Credit for foreign tax and the extension to permanent establishments of the benefit of tax treaties concluded with third states

7.3.3. Case law

7.3.3.1. Assessment of tax

7.3.3.1.1. Brussels Court of Appeal decision of 30 June 1994

7.3.3.1.2. Commerzbank AG v. Inland Revenue Commissioners

7.3.3.1.3. Automated Securities Clearance

7.3.3.1.4. Saipem

7.3.3.2. Structure and rate of tax

7.3.3.3. Dividends received in respect of holdings owned by a permanent establishment: UBS AG

7.3.3.4. Credit for foreign tax and the extension to permanent establishments of the benefit of tax treaties concluded with third states

7.3.3.4.1. Finanzgericht Hamburg decision of 9 August 1985

7.3.3.4.2. Dutch Supreme Court decision of 8 February 2002

7.3.3.5. Disadvantages caused by the treaty of which article 24(3) is invoked

7.3.3.5.1. Metchem Canada Inc

7.3.3.5.2. Brussels Court of First Instance decision of 9 November 2006

7.3.4. No extension to personal allowances

7.3.4.1. Dutch Supreme Court decision of 19 December 1990

7.3.4.2. Dutch Supreme Court decision of 11 September 1991

7.3.4.3. Dutch Supreme Court decision of 6 November 1996

7.3.4.4. Antwerp Court of Appeal decision of 2 February 2010

7.3.4.5. Conclusion

Chapter 8: Article 24(4): Deductibility

8.1. General

8.2. The comparability test

8.2.1. No express comparability requirement.

8.2.2. "Under the same conditions" as a comparability requirement?

8.3. The disadvantage test

8.4. Domestic rules on thin capitalization

8.4.1. General

8.4.2. "Interest"

8.4.3. Examples

8.4.3.1. Article 54 of the Belgian Income Tax Code

8.4.3.2. Article 26 of the Belgian Income Tax Code

8.4.4. Case law

8.4.4.1. Millennium Infocom Technologies

8.4.4.2. Specialty Manufacturing

Chapter 9: Article 24(5): Foreign Ownership

9.1. Entitlement to article 24(5)

9.1.1. General

9.1.1.1. The wording of article 24(5)

9.1.1.2. Indirect ownership: Re A Oy and B Oy

9.1.2. Only the resident company is protected

9.1.2.1. Example: imputation systems vs.split-rate systems

9.1.2.2. Group treatment

9.1.3. Discrimination on the basis of foreign ownership

9.1.3.1. On the basis of

9.1.3.2. On the sole basis of?

9.1.3.3. Application of these principles

9.1.3.4. Example: Decision of the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court on the interpretation of "solely"

9.2. The comparability test: "other similar enterprises"

9.2.1. Similarity as a reference to shareholders' residence?

9.2.2. Similarity as a reference to the applicable tax regime?

9.2.3. Similarity as a reference to all relevant circumstances other than foreign ownership

9.2.4. Case law

9.2.4.1. Swedish Supreme Administrative Court decision of 19 November 1987

9.2.4.2. Dutch Supreme Court decision of 23 December 1992

9.2.4.3. Dutch Supreme Court decisions of 27 April 1994

9.2.4.4. Boake Allen

9.2.4.5. DaimlerChrysler India

9.2.4.6. UnionBanCal

9.2.4.7. Square D

9.2.4.8. FCE Bank

9.3. The disadvantage test: "other or more burdensome"

9.3.1. General

9.3.1.1. The origin of the expression

9.3.1.2. Interpretation

9.3.2. Case law

9.3.2.1. The Delaware case.

9.3.2.2. Luxembourg Administrative Court of Appeal decision of 19 April 2007

9.3.2.3. The Swedish Supreme Administrative Court on the interpretation of "other"

9.4. Relationship to article 24(4)

9.4.1. General

9.4.2. Case law: Andritz

Chapter 10: Article 24(6): Taxes Covered

10.1. General

10.2. Case law: Dutch Supreme Court decision of 1 November 2000

Chapter 11: The Concurrent Application of Different Provisions of Article 24 of the OECD Model Convention

11.1. Article 24(1) and article 24(3)

11.2. Article 24(1) and article 24(4)

11.3. Article 24(1) and article 24(5)

11.4. Article 24(3) and article 24(4)

11.5. Article 24(3) and article 24(5)

11.6. Conclusion

Part III Non-Discrimination in European Tax Law

Chapter 12: General Overview of the Approach of the European Court of Justice to Non-Discrimination

12.1. The Court's Aristotelian understanding of non-discrimination

12.1.1. Overview

12.1.2. Methodology

12.2. Types of discrimination

12.2.1. Discrimination in form and discrimination in substance

12.2.2. Direct and indirect discrimination

12.2.3. Reverse discrimination

12.2.3.1. The Court's traditional position

12.2.3.2. Later evolution and criticism

12.2.4. Quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect

12.2.5. Dassonville extended to other freedoms

12.2.6. Conclusion

Chapter 13: Non-Discrimination in European Tax Law: General Remarks

13.1. Introduction

13.1.1. Purpose and scope of the study

13.1.2. The case law of the European Court of Justice on direct taxation

13.2. Comparable situations

13.3. Equal treatment

13.4. Types of discrimination

13.4.1. Direct and indirect discrimination

13.4.2. Reverse discrimination.

13.4.3. Is ECJ case law in direct tax matters still based on a discrimination analysis, or has it evolved towards a restriction-based reading of the Treaty?.

Notes:

Ph. D. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven 2011.

"Degree awarded on 18 October 2011."

Includes bibliographical references (pages 1093-1128).

Description based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources.

ISBN:

90-8722-160-6

OCLC:

909446969