Double taxation is known as restricting the free flow of capital and accordingly results in a limited access of the internal market. Although, not many Member States have entered into double taxation conventions in order to avoid juridical double taxation of inheritances. The question then arises whether this failure to eliminate juridical double taxation is restricting the free movement of capital. The ECJ‟s case law regarding inheritance taxes are very varying. In its initial case law, the ECJ stated that national measures which reduce the value of the inheritance are in breach of EC law. Even measures which could restrict investors in one Member State from investing in other Member States are considered to be a breach of EC law. The ECJ also stated that discriminating situations could not be justified with the argument that these situations arise due to the co-existence of national tax systems. Given these facts, it seems like juridical double taxation is likely to constitute a breach of EC law. The ECJ has however only concentrated on which effect the national provisions in a single Member State may have and have not given concern to which effect these provisions may have in connection with the tax provisions in other Member States. The author believes that the Court takes this approach because of a respect of the Member States fiscal sovereignty. This respect also shows in the Block case. In this case the ECJ made it clear that juridical double taxation, caused by the co-existence of national tax systems, is not considered to be a breach of EC law. The ECJ also stated that when the Member States develops their tax systems, due to the lack of harmonised Community rules regarding direct taxation, they are not obliged to adapt to the tax systems of other Member States in order to avoid double taxation. The ECJ also made it clear that the citizens are not guaranteed a neutral tax situation when transferring their place of residence. In this thesis a comparison has also been made to judgements where the ECJ considers economic double taxation to be a breach of EC law. After studying all these cases it seems like the ECJ considers juridical double taxation to be an undesirable restriction of the free flow of capital. But even though the ECJ encourages the Member States to enter into double taxation conventions, there are no consequences when the Member States fail to do this. The difference between cases regarding economic double taxation and juridical double taxation could be that the ECJ considers it to be too far reaching to judge juridical double taxation as a breach of EC law and do not want to regulate how this restriction shall be avoided and thereby take the role of the Community legislator or breach the fiscal sovereignty of the Member States. The author believes that it would be more beneficial for the internal market if juridical double taxation was avoided and that it would not be harmful if the ECJ would give the Member States some incentives for entering into double taxation conventions in order to eliminate or alleviate situations where juridical double taxation occurs.

Tax treaty protection from international double taxation only goes as far as the treaty's substantive scope. Nations worldwide have adopted the text of Article 2 of the OECD Model Double Taxation Conventions (headed Taxes covered) in concluding bilateral treaties to prevent double taxation in the area of taxes on income and capital and taxes on estates, inheritances, and on gifts. The wording and structure of Article 2 give rise to a host of ambiguities, creating uncertainty for taxpayers regarding the taxes that come within treaty scope. A research strategy that draws on historic materials documenting the development of Article 2 throughout the League of Nations, OEEC, and OECD seeks to shed light on a provision that has retained its basic format and wording since the 1920s. Recent case law and academic literature are analyzed to gain a clearer picture of the common international concepts expressed in tax treaties that use the formulations proposed in the OECD Model Conventions. The research strategy, conceptual models, and proposed results aim to contribute to the understanding of the "taxes covered" and to guide subsequent research and heighten awareness of problems in the interpretation and application of the provision on substantive scope in tax treaties.(author's abstract)

Corporate income taxation has a profound impact on economic behavior in the United States. This dissertation focuses on two aspects: the impact of dividend taxation on investment and the impact of corporate income tax exemption on nonprofit organizations activity. The first essay compares dividend payout ratios of C and S corporations to test the validity of the traditional and the new views on dividend taxation. Average corporate income tax rate is used as an instrumental variable. The results support the traditional view. The second essay focuses on whether the exemption of nonprofit organizations from the corporate income tax affects the competition between for-profit and nonprofit hospitals. Time series and panel data analysis show that tax subsidies to nonprofit organizations have a positive impact on nonprofit hospitals market share.

<p>Double taxation is known as restricting the free flow of capital and accordingly results in a limited access of the internal market. Although, not many Member States have entered into double taxation conventions in order to avoid juridical double taxation of inheritances. The question then arises whether this failure to eliminate juridical double taxation is restricting the free movement of capital. The ECJ‟s case law regarding inheritance taxes are very varying. In its initial case law, the ECJ stated that national measures which reduce the value of the inheritance are in breach of EC law. Even measures which could restrict investors in one Member State from investing in other Member States are considered to be a breach of EC law. The ECJ also stated that discriminating situations could not be justified with the argument that these situations arise due to the co-existence of national tax systems. Given these facts, it seems like juridical double taxation is likely to constitute a breach of EC law. The ECJ has however only concentrated on which effect the national provisions in a single Member State may have and have not given concern to which effect these provisions may have in connection with the tax provisions in other Member States. The author believes that the Court takes this approach because of a respect of the Member States fiscal sovereignty.</p><p>This respect also shows in the Block case. In this case the ECJ made it clear that juridical double taxation, caused by the co-existence of national tax systems, is not considered to be a breach of EC law. The ECJ also stated that when the Member States develops their tax systems, due to the lack of harmonised Community rules regarding direct taxation, they are not obliged to adapt to the tax systems of other Member States in order to avoid double taxation. The ECJ also made it clear that the citizens are not guaranteed a neutral tax situation when transferring their place of residence. In this thesis a comparison has also been made to judgements where the ECJ considers economic double taxation to be a breach of EC law. After studying all these cases it seems like the ECJ considers juridical double taxation to be an undesirable restriction of the free flow of capital. But even though the ECJ encourages the Member States to enter into double taxation conventions, there are no consequences when the Member States fail to do this. The difference between cases regarding economic double taxation and juridical double taxation could be that the ECJ considers it to be too far reaching to judge juridical double taxation as a breach of EC law and do not want to regulate how this restriction shall be avoided and thereby take the role of the Community legislator or breach the fiscal sovereignty of the Member States. The author believes that it would be more beneficial for the internal market if juridical double taxation was avoided and that it would not be harmful if the ECJ would give the Member States some incentives for entering into double taxation conventions in order to eliminate or alleviate situations where juridical double taxation occurs.</p>

The European Commission on 16 March 2011 proposed a harmonized system for the tax base calculation of companies operating in the EU. The proposed Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) indicates that businesses would benefit from a "one-stop-shop" system for filing their tax returns and would be able to consolidate all the profits and losses they incur across the EU. Member States would maintain their full sovereign right to set their own corporate tax rate. However, many Member States are against this new system as they think that CCCTB does not meet principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and is not available to reach its goals. Therefore, the hypothesis of this Master Thesis was formulated that CCCTB is an appropriate way to reach company tax harmonization in the EU and abolish obstacles which arise because of 27 different taxation systems in EU. After comprehensive analysis of major company taxation obstacles in the first chapter, these main barriers were identified: double taxation, additional compliance cost, over-taxation which arise in cross-border activities. The main measures such as Parent-Subsidiary Directive, Merger Directive, Interest and Royalties Directive and Arbitration Convention designed to cope with these barriers were discussed and the main challenges needed to solve by CCCTB were formulated. Proposed Directive and main elements of CCCTB were investigated in the second chapter. As there is a disagreement between Member States regarding to... [to full text] / Europos Komisija 2011 m. kovo 16 d. pateikė pasiūlymą harmonizuoti pelno mokesčio bazės apskaičiavimą. Pasiūlyta Bendra konsoliduota pelno mokesčio bazė (BKPMB) reiškia, kad būtų taikomas „vieno langelio” principas pildant vieną deklaraciją ir įmonės galėtų konsoliduoti visą pelną ir nuostolius pagal bendras taisykles. Valstybės išlaikytų nepriklausomą teisę nustatyti apmokestinimo tarifus. Tačiau dauguma ES valstybių yra prieš šios sistemos įvedimą, jos savo prieštaravimus grindžia tuo, kad BKPMB pažeidžia subsidiarumo ir proporcingumo principus bei nėra pajėgi pasiekti savo tikslų. Dėl to buvo šiame darbe buvo iškelta hipotezė: BKPMB yra tinkamas būdas siekti įmonių apmokestinimo harmonizavimo ir panaikinti kliūtis, kurios kyla taikant 27 skirtingas apmokestinimo sistemas ES. Atlikus išsamią analizę pirmojoje dalyje šios pagrindinės kliūtys buvo nustatytos: dvigubas apmokestinimas, didelės mokestinių reikalavimų laikymosi sąnaudos bei tarpvalstybinės nuostolių užskaitos apribojimas. Taip pat buvo nagrinėjami pagrindiniai dokumentai: Direktyva dėl bendrosios mokesčių sistemos, taikomos įvairių valstybių narių patronuojančioms ir dukterinėms bendrovėms; Direktyva dėl bendros mokesčių sistemos, taikomos įvairių valstybių narių įmonių jungimui, skaidymui, turto perleidimui ir keitimuisi akcijomis; Direktyva dėl bendros apmokestinimo sistemos, taikomos palūkanų ir autorinių atlyginimų mokėjimams tarp skirtingų valstybių narių asocijuotų bendrovių; Konvencija dėl dvigubo... [toliau žr. visą tekstą]

Originally dissertation: Nürnberg Universiẗat 2002.

Thesis (doctoral)--Erasmus University, Rotterdam, 2006. / "NUR 826." Includes bibliographical references (p. 395-407).

No description available.

The continued growth of world commerce has led to the advance of the permanent establishment principles. These principles are, however, constantly challenged by the developments of e-commerce. This thesis considers the taxing of a permanent establishment and the influence of e-commerce on the concept of a permanent establishment. In 2000, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) developed and introduced guidelines on how to deal with e-commerce in the context of a permanent establishment. Since the OECD guidelines on e-commerce were issued, the permanent establishment principles have come under further scrutiny. The latest development came about in 2013 with the release of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”) Action Plan. This Action Plan addresses the intention of the OECD to deal with the taxing of the digital economy. With the development of e-commerce and the result of e-commerce creating intangible boundaries between countries, the concept of a virtual permanent establishment has emerged. This has resulted in the need to tax a presence of an enterprise in a jurisdiction where no actual physical connection can be established. Various authors have made suggestions on how to ensure that an economy in which business is being carried on is correctly compensated for in the form of taxes. The source of income is the driving force for the imposition of taxation today. The main goal of this thesis was to explore the alignment of the concepts of a permanent establishment and e-commerce in the digital economy. This study therefore examined the concepts of both permanent establishments and e-commerce, and explored authors’ views and suggestions on how to deal with the inter-related effects of these two concepts. The relevant Action Points in the OECD Action Plan were also considered. / Maiden name: Venter, Michelle

O presente estudo trata do procedimento amigável e da arbitragem como métodos de solução de controvérsias envolvendo a dupla tributação no âmbito das convenções internacionais celebradas por diversos países. Com efeito, em virtude do desenvolvimento das tratativas comerciais, são recorrentes as discussões relativas à soberania dos países e ao limite de sua competência tributária, sendo que as convenções internacionais para evitar a dupla tributação surgiram como mecanismos para conciliação dos interesses dos Estados Contratantes e de seus contribuintes. Ocorre, contudo, que os acordos internacionais nem sempre são suficientes para dirimir todos os conflitos envolvendo a dupla tributação, exigindo-se a adoção de outros mecanismos, i.e. procedimento amigável e arbitragem, conforme previstos no artigo 25, da Convenção Modelo da Organização para Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Econômico. O procedimento amigável permite a negociação entre dois ou mais países visando solucionar eventual conflito surgido no âmbito da aplicação da convenção internacional, bem assim a integração de seu conteúdo e a resolução de problemas interpretativos que podem desvirtuar seu fim. A arbitragem, por sua vez, possibilita a composição pacífica dos Estados Contratantes mediante a submissão da controvérsia à apreciação de um tribunal arbitral composto por sujeitos altamente capacitados e com expertise sobre a matéria. A despeito das inúmeras vantagens apresentadas por esses mecanismos, o Brasil não adota o procedimento amigável e ainda não incluiu a arbitragem em suas convenções internacionais, de modo que é imperativo o estudo de referido tema para o incremento e a harmonização das relações internacionais mantidas pelo país e seus contribuintes. / The present study deals with the mutual agreement procedure and arbitration as methods of resolving disputes involving double taxation in tax treaties signed by several countries. Indeed, due to the development of commercial trades are currently the discussions on the sovereignty of states and the limit of its tax competence, so the tax treaties for the avoidance of double taxation have emerged as mechanisms for reconciling the interests of the Contracting States and its taxpayers. However, these tax treaties are not always sufficient to resolve all conflicts of double taxation by requiring the adoption of other mechanisms, such as mutual agreement procedure and arbitration as provided for in Article 25 of the Model Convention of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Economic Development. The mutual agreement procedure allows the negotiation between two or more countries to resolve any conflicts arising in the scope of tax treaty, as well as the integration of content and the resolution of interpretive issues that can prejudice its finality. Arbitration, on the other side, enables the peaceful settlement of the Contracting States through the submission of the dispute before an arbitral tribunal composed of highly trained individuals and expertise on the matter. Despite the many advantages presented by these mechanisms, Brazil does not adopt the mutual agreement procedure and the arbitration is not yet included in their tax treaties, so it is imperative the study of theme for the improvement and harmonization of international relations retained by country and its taxpayers.