This paper addresses a principle in international taxation that has long been a subject of controversy in many countries regarding the countering of abusive maneuverings in tax matters and had engendered debates amongst academic scholars concerning its predictibility. This anti-abuse principle, doctrine or clause in international tax matters had over the years received many names according to variant applied in each country. It is mentioned sometimes or refer to in many jurisdictions as: the principle of economic reality, the doctrine of economic substance, theory of valid economic motives, the principle of substance over form, abuse of the law, theory of the new realism etc. However, inspite of its variation in countries, it is internationally known as the ‘’General Anti-Avoidance Rule’’ (or GAAR), generally covering abusive arrangements, and it is distinguished from the SAAR (‘’Specific Anti-Avoidance Rule’’), insofar as these latter rule apply to specific status in dealing with specific tax issues. The long time perspective regarding the principle that is expounded in this discussion paper contain some of the most relevant and important contexts in international tax law. It is interesting that this paper seeks to catapult vis-à-vis the GAARs along side the rule of law regarding its conformity.

Tax avoidance is an exceedingly complex area of law. It is also a matter generally found not far from the headlines, or from the concerns of state and policy forums such as the G8 and the OECD. In an increasingly capital mobile world, the concern on the part of Governments for the protection of their sources of revenue has increased. Adam Smith’s four canons of taxation are well known. In his work, The Wealth of Nations, Smith regarded the values of certainty, equity, efficiency and convenience as integral to the functioning of a tax system. Among these, however, Smith would seem to have regarded certainty as of particular significance. The prominence afforded to the value of certainty, in conjunction with the smaller role afforded the state likely contributed to the formalistic approach taken by the courts of the British Commonwealth to the interpretation of taxing statutes. In recent times, however, the importance of certainty among policy makers and jurists has declined. Although this is not to contend that the value of certainty has ceased to be a consideration, it would seem to have come to be regarded as a lesser value among many rather than an end in itself. Although the optimal level of certainty within a jurisdiction is undoubtedly a matter for debate, the presence of uncertainty may carry with it a number of risks and unintended consequences which may hinder the achievement of the ends sought after by policy makers. These may include an increase in the rate of capital flight and in the use of asset sheltering devices, a decrease in the incidence of economic activity, and decreased rates of compliance among taxpayers. The value of certainty, in other words, may be of greater significance to the efficient functioning of a tax system than it has in recent times been thought to be. In contending with tax avoidance, the countries of the British Commonwealth tend to employ either one of two instruments; a statutory General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) or a judicial doctrine; an innovation of the common law. In this thesis, the writer sets out to examine the judicial doctrine applied in the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom (UK), and the statutory GAARs deployed in Canada and New Zealand, and the respective implications of each instrument for the value of certainty. While the difference in the implications presented by the application of a broad judicial doctrine and a narrow GAAR may be slight, it is the writer’s contention that, all things held equal, the use of a judicial doctrine is likely to have a less deleterious effect on the value of certainty than a GAAR. Accordingly, it is the writer’s contention that the use of a judicial doctrine is for this reason be preferred.

Title in English: Legal aspects of tax planning in the direct tax area Abstract: In 2012, the European Commission published its Recommendation on aggressive tax planning (2012/772/EU). To counteract aggressive tax planning, Member States should adopt a general anti-abuse rule (GAAR), which is drafted in the Recommendation. At that time, no one knew that GAARs would become obligatory for member states from 2019. In 2013, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) started the BEPS Project, which is considered the biggest revolution in the international tax law system since its creation in the 1950s. I introduce these initiatives and the legal instruments they bring. I focus on GAARs, which I consider to be the most important instruments. Their vagueness allows them to tackle any tax planning scheme. Their importance in the direct tax area grows as they become part of tax treaties based on the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting signed on 7 July 2017 and part of the national legal systems of the EU member states based on the Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016, laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market. First part of this thesis focuses on...

Tax avoidance has been a concern to revenue authorities throughout the ages, and revenue authorities worldwide are engaged in a constant struggle to ensure taxpayer compliance while combating tax avoidance. South Africa is no exception to this struggle and the increasingly innovative ways in which taxpayers seek to minimise their tax burdens necessitate amendments in order to remain at the forefront of taxpayer compliance. In view of the above, the general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR) have been amended numerous times to address weaknesses. The most recent of these amendments are those of 1996 and 2006. The research on GAAR in South Africa has focused on critical analyses once the legislation fails to stand up to the rigours of court, and has thus used the principle of hindsight to criticise GAAR and recommend improvements. However, in their current form (post-2006 amendments) the GAAR have not been presented before the courts, and thus the use of hindsight is not an appropriate tool to determine if the current GAAR regime has improved upon the weaknesses identified in the past. This study applied a qualitative case study approach to determine if the 2006 amendments to GAAR have in fact addressed these weaknesses. The current GAAR regime was applied to previous cases to determine if the unfavourable judgments for the Commissioner would now be considered favourable. In executing this process, an instrument was developed in phase 1 of the literature study to apply the new GAAR to the cases. In the second phase of the study this framework was applied to case law in which the previous GAAR regimes failed to stand up to the rigours of court, thus determining whether the 2006 amendments to GAAR addressed the weaknesses of the previous GAAR regime. The final phase of the study consisted of a literature control to determine if similar such conclusions have been made by other commentators to support the findings of the study. The findings of the case studies revealed that, on a balance of probabilities, none of the cases selected for analysis would have been held in favour of the Commissioner if they were brought to the courts today on the same grounds that they were attacked at the time and the courts used the instrument developed in phase 1 to apply the GAAR to these transactions. The study therefore indicates that the use of similar (often identical) wording of the purpose test as in the previous GAAR, as well as the use of the purpose test in conjunction with the amended abnormality test still result in a GAAR regime that may be an ineffective deterrent to tax avoidance. / Thesis (M.Com. (South African and International Taxation))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

Tax avoidance has been a concern to revenue authorities throughout the ages, and revenue authorities worldwide are engaged in a constant struggle to ensure taxpayer compliance while combating tax avoidance. South Africa is no exception to this struggle and the increasingly innovative ways in which taxpayers seek to minimise their tax burdens necessitate amendments in order to remain at the forefront of taxpayer compliance. In view of the above, the general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR) have been amended numerous times to address weaknesses. The most recent of these amendments are those of 1996 and 2006. The research on GAAR in South Africa has focused on critical analyses once the legislation fails to stand up to the rigours of court, and has thus used the principle of hindsight to criticise GAAR and recommend improvements. However, in their current form (post-2006 amendments) the GAAR have not been presented before the courts, and thus the use of hindsight is not an appropriate tool to determine if the current GAAR regime has improved upon the weaknesses identified in the past. This study applied a qualitative case study approach to determine if the 2006 amendments to GAAR have in fact addressed these weaknesses. The current GAAR regime was applied to previous cases to determine if the unfavourable judgments for the Commissioner would now be considered favourable. In executing this process, an instrument was developed in phase 1 of the literature study to apply the new GAAR to the cases. In the second phase of the study this framework was applied to case law in which the previous GAAR regimes failed to stand up to the rigours of court, thus determining whether the 2006 amendments to GAAR addressed the weaknesses of the previous GAAR regime. The final phase of the study consisted of a literature control to determine if similar such conclusions have been made by other commentators to support the findings of the study. The findings of the case studies revealed that, on a balance of probabilities, none of the cases selected for analysis would have been held in favour of the Commissioner if they were brought to the courts today on the same grounds that they were attacked at the time and the courts used the instrument developed in phase 1 to apply the GAAR to these transactions. The study therefore indicates that the use of similar (often identical) wording of the purpose test as in the previous GAAR, as well as the use of the purpose test in conjunction with the amended abnormality test still result in a GAAR regime that may be an ineffective deterrent to tax avoidance. / Thesis (M.Com. (South African and International Taxation))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

Memoria para optar al Grado de Licenciado en Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales / El presente trabajo de investigación tiene como base un aspecto tanto novedoso como controversial que introduce la reforma tributaria chilena (Ley Nº 20.780 y Ley Nº 20.899) como lo es nuestra primera Norma General Antielusión (en adelante, también, “NGA”). Dado que este tipo de cláusula es nueva en la legislación chilena, es menester analizarla desde un punto de vista comparado, de modo tal de poder conocer la institución, entender cómo ha funcionado en otros países y si ha sido una buena herramienta para poder reforzar el cumplimiento tributario. Este trabajo tiene como pretensión, entonces, poder conocer la institución de la NGA en sí y su aplicabilidad a través de un análisis de jurisprudencia comparada y posterior revisión de la legislación nacional, de manera de poder determinar si podría convertirse en una herramienta útil para hacer frente a la elusión tributaria. Aquello implica adentrarse en su vinculación con conceptos como elusión, evasión y planificación tributaria, conocer cómo se han implementado en otros países cláusulas de este tipo, tanto de tradición de Common Law como de Derecho Continental, y cómo ha sido aplicada por los Tribunales de Justicia de esos países. Esto nos permitirá entender la institución de la NGA de acuerdo a sus fines y propósitos, permitiéndonos determinar si su incorporación al derecho chileno será beneficiosa en cuanto herramienta antielusiva de acuerdo a la aplicación de la misma en el extranjero.

This thesis is about the taxation of the digital sector of the economy. Currently, this issue is being discussed because of the fast development of these services, where the current rules for taxation of goods and services are still dependent on the physical presence of entities at the point of sale and thus unusable. The work is focused on existing systems and proposals on how to tax this sector in the EU, problematics in international tax planning and aggressive planning to reduce the tax base. The aim of the thesis is to compare available proposals and established regimes in the EU and to draw a proposal for taxation of digital services for the Czech Republic. The main method of this thesis is to analyze the obtained data for the subsequent comparison of indicators and benefits for the Czech Republic. The thesis offers an insight into the digital sector, countermeasures by individual states by application of unilateral measures and the EU measures and effort to come up with a common tax regime. The main benefit of the thesis is the proposal for taxation of the digital sector in the Czech Republic and the estimate of possible revenues. The Czech Republic has started to address this issue in early 2019, but it is still uncertain how or when this taxation will occur.

A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Commerce (specializing in Taxation) Johannesburg 2015 / Due to the vast number of groups of companies having many subsidiaries that are no longer viable from an economic perspective or that no longer gain the tax benefit that they were first created to achieve, there are many group restructurings occurring. These restructurings are to potentially simplify the group structure as well as achieve the maximum tax benefit. This research report will analyse how groups may be restructured in line with the provisions of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’) as it stands currently by looking back at how restructurings were dealt with in the past and how that has now evolved. The research discusses the corporate rollover relief provisions that may be applied in order to simplify the restructuring process which is commonly used in today’s practice. The research suggests that there are many different ways to restructure a group in order to gain the maximum amount of benefit from a tax perspective. Key Words: branch, capital gains tax (CGT), corporate income tax, corporate rollover relief, deregistration, foreign tax resident, general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR), liquidation, partnership, restructure, value-added tax.

For some time now, the EU has worked on managing the tax issues that have spawned from companies establishing subsidiaries in various Member States. These tax issues have concerned that of double taxation leading to the conception of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (2011/96/EU, the PSD). One of the main purposes of the PSD is to prevent double taxation. The PSD aimed to create a mutual taxation system for parent companies, with subsidiaries in other Member States, as it was deemed essential. However, it was a mutual taxation system with regards to dividends paid from subsidiaries to parent companies, which meant there were still discrepancies to be found – and, as it turned out, exploited by companies seeking to gain an illegitimate tax advantage. Consequently, the EU announced the ‘de minimis’ anti-abuse rule in the PSD, whereby adoption was mandatory, for all Member States, so long as a Member State’s current tax legislation does not meet the requirements set forth by the anti-abuse rule. One of the main purposes of the anti-abuse rule was to ensure an improved legal clarity and security as well as preventing the abuse of the provisions as established in the PSD. The idea behind the anti-abuse rule is, thereby, perceived as well meaning although remarks have been made, by various authorities, regarding the prevalent flaws the anti-abuse rule is plagued by. There have been remarks against the anti-abuse rule’s conception to begin with, as it goes against the general principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Furthermore, there have been remarks regarding the vagueness of the prerequisites and wording in the anti-abuse rule, contrary to the main purposes of the anti-abuse rule as established by the EU.   In this study, the author will examine whether or not the criticism is justified, primarily by focusing on the possibilities of concretising the wording in the anti-abuse rule. This will be achieved by examining six Member States to determine how their respective adoption has fared. Also, the anti-abuse rule’s contribution to legal clarity and security will be determined, to discern whether or not the anti-abuse rule functions in accordance with its main purpose.   The author has found that the anti-abuse rule is indeed in accordance with the general principles of subsidiarity and proportionality given the proven inability of the individual Member States to devise a common solution to the aforementioned tax issues, as well as the fact that the extent of the measure is appropriate, considering the issue at hand. Furthermore, six Member States have been examined, to determine how their respective adoption of the anti-abuse rule have fared. Three Member States have chosen to adopt the anti-abuse rule whereas the remaining three have chosen to refrain on the grounds that it has been deemed superfluous, seeing as their current legislation already meets the minimum requirements as established in the provisions of the anti-abuse rule. The Member States that have chosen to implement the anti-abuse rule have done so by adopting the vague wording verbatim, giving credence to the notion that they refrained from interpreting and/or rephrasing the wording as it is perceived as not only vague but also occasionally abstract, thus difficult to concretise. Not only does this mean that the anti-abuse rule should be regarded as that of inferior standard, as far as legal clarity and security go, but also that it lacks transparency and should thereby be regarded as nigh counterproductive. / EU har sedan länge arbetat med att hantera de beskattningsfrågor som uppkommer i takt med att bolag etablerar dotterbolag i en annan medlemsstat. Dessa frågor berör exempelvis dubbelbeskattning varpå EU upprättade Moder- och Dotterbolagsdirektivet (2011/96/EU, nedan benämnt PSD) som avsåg hjälpa bolag undslippa denna problematik. Direktivet tog sikte på att skapa gemensamt beskattningssystem för moderbolag och dotterbolag hemmahörande i olika medlemsstater – då det ansågs viktigt med enhetliga beskattningsregler inom EU. Det ska observeras att denna enhetlighet enbart sträcker sig till vinstutdelning som lämnas från dotterbolag till moderbolag i en annan medlemsstat, vilket innebar att olikheter fortfarande förelåg i övriga beskattningsfrågor. Detta ledde sedermera till att multinationella bolag kunde utnyttja medlemsstaternas olikheter genom att företa arrangemang som resulterade i en otillbörlig skattefördel.   Företagandet av sådana arrangemang ledde till att EU valde att upprätta en de minimis-bestämmelse i PSD som var obligatorisk för samtliga medlemsstater att implementera, givet att deras nationella lagstiftningar inte redan uppfyllde bestämmelsens minimikrav. Denna bestämmelse kom sedermera att benämnas anti-missbruksbestämmelsen och ämnade tillföra en högre grad klarhet och säkerhet för att tydligare belysa de arrangemang som anses godtagbara och som inte ämnade missbruka PSD:s bestämmelser, där syftet bakom missbruket av PSD var att anskaffa skattefördelar. Tanken bakom anti-missbruksbestämmelsen är således godartad men likväl är bestämmelsen inte utan brister, samtidigt som den ifrågasätts från olika instanser. Det har påpekats att bestämmelsen inte bör ha upprättats, till att börja med, då den strider mot subsidiaritets- och proportionalitetsprincipen, som är fördragsstadgade. Vidare har det påpekats att rekvisiten i anti-missbruksbestämmelsen är otydliga och tillför således inte den klarhet och säkerhet enligt EU:s syfte.   Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka huruvida den nya anti-missbruksbestämmelsens ordalydelse kan konkretiseras, vilket görs efter att ha klarlagt hur sex utvalda medlemsstater gått till väga med implementeringen av nämnd bestämmelse. Slutligen utreds huruvida anti-missbruksbestämmelsens bidrag till klarhet och säkerhet görs i enlighet med dess syfte. Författaren har i denna uppsats kommit fram till att anti-missbruksbestämmelsen är förenlig med såväl subsidiaritetsprincipen som proportionalitetsprincipen, då medlemsstaterna, till dags dato, inte förmått hitta en lösning utan EU:s involverande samtidigt som EU:s ingripande står i proportion till målet med åtgärden. Det har funnits att medlemsstaterna som implementerat anti-missbruksbestämmelsen har avstått från att tolka och anpassa anti-missbruksbestämmelsen varför bestämmelsens vaga ordalydelse återfinns i respektive lands lagbestämmelser. Anledningen bakom varför de avstått från att tolka bestämmelsen anser författaren bero på att bestämmelsen är vag, stundtals abstrakt, med anledning av de rekvisit som begagnas. Detta medför att bestämmelsen blir svår att konkretisera, varför det kan anses att en av EU:s målsättningar – att bidra till ökad klarhet och säkerhet – inte kan anses uppfyllt. Vidare har anti-missbruksbestämmelsen lett till en minskad förutsebarhet och rättssäkerhet, varför bestämmelsen inte bara bör anses undermålig utan även nära inpå kontraproduktiv.

BEPS-projektet startades år 2012 för att förhindra att skattesubjekt använder kryphål i skatteavtalen och staternas nationella lagstiftningar för att erhålla skatteförmåner. År 2013 utgav OECD en handlingsplan som identifierar 15 åtgärder som ämnas vidtas. Åtgärdspunkt 6 reglerar problematiken kring hur skatteavtal missbrukas genom att skattesubjekt ”shoppar” efter jurisdiktionen med det skatteavtal som leder till den förmånligaste beskattningen. Åtgärdspunkt 6 föreslår att en specifik LOB-regel eller en generalklausul, PPT-regeln, införs i OECDs modellavtal för att motverka det aktuella förfarandet. LOB-regeln reglerar i vilka specifika situationer en skatteförmån är tillämplig och kan beviljas medan PPT-regeln är av allmän karaktär och innehåller allmänt hållna formuleringar för att täcka in förhållanden som är svåra att förutse på förhand. Uppsatsens syfte är att utreda huruvida de föreslagna reglerna kan uppfylla ändamålet med åtgärdspunkten, att motverka missbruk av skatteavtal. Om detta inte är möjligt undersöks om Sverige kan motverka sådana förfaranden genom att tillämpa generalklausulen mot skatteflykt som återfinns i skatteflyktslagen. Författarna bedömmer att LOB-regeln är allt för komplex i sin nuvarande lydelse vilket försvårar en tillämpning av regeln. Eftersom PPT-regeln är vag ger den utrymme för godtyckliga bedömningar, vilket inte ger ett förutsebart utfall när det inte finns klar vägledning. Författarna är med hänsyn till detta av uppfattningen att reglerna i dess nuvarande lydelse och form inte kan leva upp till syftet med åtgärdspunkt 6.  Enligt Peru-målet är skatteflyktslagen rent principiellt tillämplig på förfaranden som omfattas av skatteavtal. Generalklausulen ska då prövas mot förfarandet. Det fjärde rekvisitet, i strid med lagstiftnings syfte, är dock svårtillämpat och domstolens bedömningar varierar. Författarnas anser dock att genom att införa i skatteavtalen att dess syfte inte är att tillåta missbruk av avtalet kan generalklauslen motverka det aktuella förfarandet och skydda mot erodering av den svenska skattebasen vad gäller missbruk av skatteavtal. / In 2012 the BEPS project started with the purpose of preventing tax subjects from using loopholes in the tax treaties and national tax laws in order to receive tax benefits. In 2013, the OECD published an action plan that identifies 15 actions that is meant to be taken regarding this issue. Action 6 regulates treaty abuse through treaty shopping, which means that a tax subject is searching for the tax jurisdiction with the tax treaty that leads to the most beneficial taxation. To prevent this, Action 6 suggests that a specific LOB-rule and a general anti-avoidance rule, PPT-rule, should be included in the OECD model convention. The LOB-rule regulates in which specific situations a treaty benefit can be granted. The PPT-rule is more general and contains general wordings to cover situations that is difficult to foresee. The purpose of this thesis is to examine whether the proposed rules can fulfill the purpose of Action 6, to prevent treaty abuse. If not possible, it will be determined if Sweden can prevent treaty abuse by applying the general anti-avoidance rule against tax evasion stated in the Swedish skatteflyktslagen. The authors of the thesis are of the opinion that the LOB-rule is too complex in its current wording which makes it difficult to apply. Since the PPT-rule is vague, there is a wide scope for arbitrary assessments leads to an unpredictable outcome when the guidance is unclear. Therefore, the authors find that the rules in its current wordings cannot satisfy the purpose of Action 6.  According to the Peru-judgement the skatteflyktslagen can be applicable to situations that are covered by a tax treaty. The transaction should be tested against the general antiavoidance. The fourth prerequisite, in contravention of the purpose of the legislation, is difficult of apply and the judgements of the court varies. The authors believe that if the treaty preamble includes a statement which clarifies that the intention of the treaty is not to allow treaty abuse, the Swedish general anti-avoidance rule can prevent treaty abuse and thereby protect the Swedish tax base against BEPS regarding treaty abuse.