<p>It was assumed in the mid 1990s that 60% of all global trade took place within a group of enterprises. With increased globalisation leading to an increase in mergers and acquisitions this figure is most likely higher. Thus intra-company and intra-group transactions form a major part of business. These transactions, due to the association between the enterprises, may not always reflect the conditions that a market with independent actors would dictate. There are various reasons for this, which include not only tax considerations but also difficulties in establishing conditions that reflect those that inde-pendent companies would apply, in other words conditions in accordance with the arm’s length principle. In cases where these conditions are not in accordance with what the state considers as an arm’s length price, the profits of the enterprise located in that state may be adjusted for taxation purposes under transfer pricing provisions.</p><p>The complexity of transfer pricing rules and the various methods for establishing an arm’s length price result in different interpretations and increased uncertainty for multinational enterprises that often face different rules for determining a correct transfer price. Therefore, enterprises may often face transfer pricing adjustments of their profits due to the complexity and differences in transfer pricing legislation. Transfer pricing adjustments potentially lead to unresolved double taxation, in fact business reports have indicated that 42% of the transfer pricing adjustments lead to double taxation. Therefore it is imperative to have legal mechanisms that resolve potential double taxation.</p><p>The Convention on the Elimination of Double Taxation in Connection with the Adjustment of Profits of Associated Enterprises (Arbitration Convention) was adopted to give the multinational enterprises, facing double taxation due to adjustments of their profits, a remedy that obliged the states to resolve the double taxation. This was the first, and is still the only, EC-wide mechanism that technically guarantees that transfer pricing double taxation is resolved and thus holds a great improvement over other existing mechanisms to resolve double taxation. The Arbitration Convention was originally a proposed EC Directive but was transformed into a intergovernmental convention. This has resulted in that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has no jurisdiction to interpret the Arbitration Convention or its application. Furthermore there is no supranational or international organ that could take action against states that interpret or apply the Conven-tion in an unintended manner. The chosen legal form has also resulted in different interpretations as to what status the Arbitration Convention has compared to bilateral tax conventions, and thus whether it precedes them. This could prove troublesome when future bilateral treaties are concluded or where there already exist tax treaties that have different solutions to transfer pricing related double taxation.</p><p>The risk of the Convention being interpreted differently is greatly increased by the various undefined terms and lack of precise provisions in the Convention. Therefore, the Convention has been subject to an inconsistent application and interpretation from the date it came into effect in 1995. The Convention was only given a five year life span, after which it was destined to be renewed if the contracting states so expressed, involving the same ratification process as at the initial acceptation of the Convention. However, as this was inefficient, a Prolongation Protocol was signed to amend the Convention with an automatic extension of its life. As it took till 2004 for this Protocol to be ratified and finally enter into force on 1 November 2004 it created one of the main interpretation and application differences in the life of the Convention.</p><p>The function of the Convention’s procedures and thus its efficiency in resolving double taxation is impeded by the numerous interpretation differences and lack of precise pro-visions in the Convention. The fact that there is no way to guarantee that the provisions of the Convention are precisely followed, partly since there are uncertainties regarding the precise interpretation but also partly since there is no organ that could enforce a uniform application of the Convention, further impedes the efficiency of the Convention, which is clearly seen in practice.</p><p>Another question of interpretation and application raised is that, although the Convention was originally intended as a means for resolving transfer pricing related double taxation, there have been arguments that the Convention could apply to double taxation due to provisions concerning thin capitalisation as well. These provisions bring about similar conditions as those the Convention requires for its applicability and, although a different area of law, the connections in the conditions are many and undeniable.</p>

Syftet med uppsatsen är att analysera ändamålsenligheten med de svenska CFC-reglerna samt att problematisera det nuvarande CFC-regelverket utifrån de åtgärder och nyckel-överväganden som lyfts fram ur OECDs två rapporter om BEPS. BEPS är ett omfattande problem, vilket har presenterats i två rapporter framförda av OECD. Syftet med rapporterna är att de ska mynna ut i åtgärder på det mellanstatliga beskattningsområdet för att motverka BEPS. Många länder har inkorporerat CFC-regler i sina skattesystem. Några av de åtgärder som presenteras i rapporterna avser att förbättra just dessa regler. För att kunna tyda dessa åtgärder har nyckelöverväganden från OECD lyfts fram. Dessa är; ökad transparens och utbyte av information, heltäckande åtgärder och nytänkande samt gemensam ansats och samspel mellan regler. De flesta länder har vissa grundkomponenter gemensamt när det kommer till strukturen av deras CFC-regler. Dessa gäller bl.a. definitionen av ett CFC-bolag, vad för slags infly-tande eller kontroll det ska finnas mellan det inhemska bolaget och CFC-bolaget, vad som utgör låg beskattning samt vilken typ av inkomst som är hänförlig till ett CFC-bolag. I Sverige återfinns CFC-reglerna i 39a kap. IL. De svenska CFC-reglerna är ändamålsenliga såtillvida att deras strukturella utformning ger dem ett brett tillämpningsområde. Däremot kan reglerna kritiseras för att vara oupp-daterade på två punkter. Samspelet mellan skatterättsliga regelverk, dels inhemska och dels mellanstatliga, är nyckeln till att lösa BEPS. En uppdatering av det svenska CFC-regelverkets ändamålsenlighet kan därför vara en liten pusselbit i det komplexa BEPS-pusslet. / The purpose of this thesis is to analyse the effectiveness of the Swedish CFC rules and to problematize the current CFC rules against the actions and key considerations highlighted by the OECD's two reports on BEPS. BEPS is a widespread problem, which has been presented in two reports carried out by the OECD. The purpose of these reports is to lead to actions in the cross-border taxation area that are aimed at counteracting BEPS. Many countries have incorporated CFC rules into their tax systems. Some of the actions presented in the reports are designed to improve these rules. To be able to interpret these actions, some key considerations have therefore been highlighted. These are; increased transparency and exchange of information, comprehensive actions and innovative thinking and common approach and coherent rules. Most countries have some basic elements in common, when it comes to the structure of their CFC rules. These relate inter alia to the definition of a CFC, what kind of influence or control there should be between the resident company and the CFC company, what constitutes low taxation and what type of income that is attributable to a CFC company. In Sweden, the CFC rules are found in the 39a Ch. IL. The Swedish CFC rules are effective in the sense that their structural design gives them a wide scope. However, the rules can be criticised on two grounds for being outdated. The interaction between tax regimes, partly domestic and partly cross-border, is the key to solve BEPS. An update of the Swedish CFC rules’ effectiveness may therefore be a small piece in the complex BEPS puzzle.

O tema da presente tese é o contexto referido no art. 3 da CM-OCDE para a interpretação e aplicação de termos não definidos nos textos de convenções fiscais. O Brasil e os seus acordos de bitributação são adotados como referenciais, embora também seja investigada a jurisprudência de uma série de outros países quanto à interpretação e aplicação de suas convenções fiscais. A Introdução apresenta o tema, o problema, a hipótese, o objetivo e as principais questões analisadas na tese, seguidas de considerações propedêuticas necessárias ao desenvolvimento de todo o trabalho. O Capítulo I se ocupa: (i) do sentido de contexto referido no art. 3 da CM-OCDE; (ii) do seu relacionamento com a cláusula de reenvio ao Direito doméstico prevista no mesmo dispositivo e; (iii) dos critérios formais, funcionais e materiais de reconhecimento de evidências sob o escopo do contexto. O Capítulo II analisa o chamado contexto intrínseco e identifica: (i) quais evidências seriam abrangidas pelo contexto intrínseco, a exemplo do texto do acordo de bitributação, seu preâmbulo e anexos, documentos elaborados em conexão com o tratado, protocolos e acordos posteriores celebrados pelos Estados contratantes, bem como; (ii) quais técnicas seriam úteis à exploração de tais evidências, como métodos sintáticos, semânticos de interpretação do texto do acordo como um todo, testes comparativos da função e do sentido dos termos no acordo de dupla tributação como um todo, a identificação dos objetivos e propósitos do acordo a partir de detalhes de cada uma de suas partes. O Capítulo III analisa o chamado contexto extrínseco primário, especialmente com vistas aos procedimentos amigáveis, às práticas seguidas pelos Estados (autoridades fiscais, judiciárias e legislativas) para a aplicação de acordos de dupla tributação e aos parallel treaties. O Capítulo IV aborda o chamado contexto extrínseco secundário, que compreende as decisões de Cortes nacionais de terceiros Estados, a doutrina dos publicistas mais qualificados das diferentes Nações, a Convenção Modelo da OCDE e os seus respectivos Comentários, os trabalhos preparatórios, os atos unilaterais quanto à intenção dos Estados contratantes e as circunstâncias relacionadas à conclusão da convenção fiscal. / This thesis deals with the context referred to in the art. 3 (2) of the OECD Model Tax Convention to interpretation and application of terms not defined in tax treaties. It adopts the Brazilian system and its tax treaties as reference, although it also analyzes the cases law from a number of other countries regarding the interpretation and application of its tax treaties. The Introduction presents the theme, the problem, the hypothesis, the goal and the key issues addressed by the thesis, followed by propaedeutic considerations needed to develop the whole study. The Chapter I deals with: (i) the meaning of context referred to in the art. 3 (2) of the OECD Model Tax Convention; (ii) the precedence between the context and the domestic law (general renvoi clause) and; (iii) the formal, functional and material criteria for recognition of evidences under the scope of the context. The Chapter II examines the so-called intrinsic context, in order to: (i) identify some evidences under its scope, such as the tax treaty text, its preamble and annexes, materials prepared in connection with the convention, protocols and subsequent agreements concluded by the Contracting States, as well as; (ii) which methods would be useful to handle such materials, such as syntactic and semantic methods, comparative tests of the function and meaning terms at the whole treaty, as well the identification of the objectives and purposes of the agreement from the details of each of its parts. The Chapter III analyses the so-called primary extrinsic context, which includes mutual agreement procedures, practices followed by the fiscal, judicial and legislative authorities for the application of tax treaties and the parallel treaties. The Chapter IV deals with the so-called secondary extrinsic context, which comprises decisions of national courts of third States, the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, the OECD Model Tax Convention and their Commentaries, preparatory works, unilateral materials about the intention of the parts and circumstances occurred at the time of the conclusion of the tax treaty.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:23:49Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Guilherme Andrade Lucci.pdf: 393864 bytes, checksum: 41baac140236a87786a7e9e0a7fa7136 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-09-01 / This work purposes to analyze the role of Brazilian Jurisdiction in the implementation of tax laws included in international treaties that Brazil is a signatory, at the national level, as well as the realization of the right to freedom to international tax planning undertaken baser on these international treaties. Examines the duties of the Brazilian magistrate, especially the Brazilian federal judge, as political agent guarantor of effectiveness of the right to tax freedom established in international tax treaties, as well honoring international commitments assumed by the Republic / Este estudo tem por objeto analisar o papel da Jurisdição brasileira na concretização, no plano nacional, de normas tributárias contempladas em tratados internacionais de que o Brasil seja signatário, bem assim na concretização do direito do contribuinte à liberdade ao planejamento tributário internacional realizado com fundamento nesses tratados internacionais. Examina a atribuição do magistrado brasileiro, especialmente do juiz federal brasileiro, como agente político garantidor tanto da efetividade, no caso concreto, do direito à liberdade fiscal estabelecido em tratados tributários internacionais, quanto da concretização dos compromissos assumidos internacionalmente pela República. Palavras-chave: Direito Tributário Internacional. Jurisdição federal

A tese que apresento perante a Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de São Paulo tem por foco a análise dos mecanismos de controle da dupla-tributação apurados pelas Convenções Fiscais Bilaterais e os princípios decorrentes dos Tratados Comerciais, especialmente o de não-concessão de subsídios e o tratamento da nação mais favorecida. Tomando como pano de fundo a relação entre os países desenvolvidos e em desenvolvimento, demonstro que a resistência dos Estados exportadores de capital na implementação das cláusulas de crédito fictício nas Convenções Fiscais Bilaterais é injustificada, prestando-se unicamente para dar prevalência à tributação com base na residência, em detrimento da neutralidade fiscal em face dos Estados de fonte dos rendimentos. Ainda, colocada a relação entre os fundamentos da celebração de Convenções Fiscais Bilaterais, afasto a possibilidade de o regime delas decorrente ser estendido a terceiros por força da cláusula do tratamento da nação mais favorecida constante do GATT e de outros Tratados Comerciais. / This thesis makes an analysis of the mechanisms of control of the double-taxation thickened by the Bilateral Fiscal Conventions and the principles of the Commercial Agreements, especially the one of no-concession of subsidies and the treatment of the most-favored-nation. Taking as backdrop the relationship among the developed countries and indevelopment countries, I demonstrate that the resistance of Capital Exporters States in the negotiating fictitious credit in the Bilateral Fiscal Conventions is unjustified, being only rendered to maintain to the taxation based in the residence, avoiding the fiscal neutrality in face of States of source of the revenues. Still, placed the relationship among the foundations of the Bilateral Fiscal Conventions, I move away the possibility of the regime of them to be extended in favor of Third Countries using the GATTs most favored nation clause.

O fenômeno jurídico denominado dupla tributação internacional ocorre quando dois ou mais Estados soberanos submetem uma mesma pessoa (física ou jurídica), num mesmo período de tempo, ao pagamento de tributos comparáveis, em razão de um mesmo fato gerador. Embora não seja proibida expressamente por qualquer princípio geral de Direito Internacional, a dupla tributação é altamente indesejável em virtude de seus efeitos danosos à economia e, indiretamente, à sociedade em geral. Em vista disso, desde o século XIX os Estados nacionais vêm tentando implementar soluções para o problema, dentre as quais se incluem as chamadas convenções de bitributação, cujo objetivo consiste exatamente em evitar ou, ao menos, minimizar este pernicioso fenômeno. As normas contidas nestas convenções atuam atribuindo a competência tributária ora a um, ora a outro Estado, dependendo do tipo de rendimento, e, desta forma, limitam a soberania fiscal dos Estados contratantes. Considerando a enorme diversidade de ordenamentos jurídicos, bem como a grande facilidade com que são estruturadas novas operações comerciais e, até mesmo, a diversidade de idiomas, conclui-se que a eficácia das normas destas convenções é essencialmente dependente das formas e métodos de interpretação e aplicação de suas cláusulas. As entidades dedicadas ao estudo do tema, notadamente a Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Econômico - OCDE, a Organização das Nações Unidas - ONU e também a International Fiscal Association - IFA constantemente elaboram estudos que contém recomendações de critérios a serem seguidos pelos países para a interpretação e aplicação das convenções. Contudo, em face das incompatibilidade entre os ordenamentos, em virtude dos frequentes reenvios ao direito interno dos países, e, muitas vezes, em decorrência dos próprios conflitos de interesses econômicos entre os países, nem sempre os critérios de interpretação tradicionais, ou seja, aqueles já propostos pela OCDE, ONU e mesmo pela IFA, são capazes de resolver os conflitos interpretativos e/ou de qualificação de forma a possibilitar o maior grau de eficácia de tais acordos. Assim, surge a necessidade de uma solução alternativa para o problema. Propomos, desta forma, a aplicação da teoria da argumentação jurídica com o objetivo de facilitar o raciocínio e manter a discussão sobre a interpretação das cláusulas, termos e expressões o máximo possível na esfera internacional, evitando o reenvio ao direito interno e preenchendo as lacunas deixadas pelos critérios tradicionais, possibilitando, assim, maior eficácia das normas convencionais. / International double taxation occurs when to or more sovereign states impose comparable taxes to the same person or legal entity within the same period of time. Although it is not expressly forbidden by any International Law rule or principle, international double taxation is highly undesirable as a result of it harmful effects to the countries economy and society in general. In view of this, since the 19th century countries have been trying to provide solutions for the problem, and among these possible solutions the double taxation conventions stand out as a way to avoid or at least minimize this harmful phenomenon. The rules provided in these conventions work by allocating the taxing power either to one or to the other contracting state, depending on the type of income, and, therefore, double taxation conventions do represent a limitation to the tax sovereignty of the contracting states. Considering the enormous diversity of legal systems, as well as the profusion of structures that may be used for commercial transactions, and even due to the variety of languages, it is possible to conclude that the efficiency level of double taxation conventions considerably depends on the way and on the methods pursuant to which their clauses are interpreted and applied. The international entities dedicated to analyze and suggest solutions for these issues, especially the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development - OECD, the United Nations - UN and also the International Fiscal Association - IFA are constantly searching for solutions and also recommending some criteria to the interpretation and application of these conventions. These criteria compose the traditional, also called classical, method of interpretation. Nevertheless, due to the incompatibilities between legal systems, as well as in virtue of the frequent recourse to national law, and sometimes due to the conflicts of economical interests between the countries, the traditional criteria already proposed by the OECD, UN and IFA for the interpretation and application of double tax conventions become quite inefficient, and, as a result of this, double taxation remains a problem. Therefore, there is an urging need for an alternative solution. Thence, we propose the application of the Theory of Legal Argumentation in order to facilitate the process of interpretation and legal reasoning regarding clauses, terms and expressions, avoiding, thus, the recourse to national law and also filling the gaps existing in the traditional criteria, for the purpose of allowing larger efficiency of conventional rules.

This thesis examines whether the fundamental freedoms of the EC Treaty prescribe most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment. The right to MFN treatment concerns the issue whether taxpayers resident in one Member State can “cherry-pick” the most beneficial tax treaty available to other taxpayers. Two issues of fundamental impor-tance are examined in this thesis. First, whether a resident of a Member State (A) who receives income in another Member State (B), can claim from that state, the most beneficial tax treaty available to a resident of a third Member State (C). Second, whether a resident can claim from his state of residence (A), the same tax treatment as provided in a tax treaty concluded by his state of residence and another Member State (C), when this tax treaty provides better treatment in terms of avoiding double taxa-tion in the state of residence than the tax treaty applicable to the source of income (B). The ECJ has held that discrimination arises only through the application of different rules to comparable situations or the application of the same rule to different situa-tions. The current state of EC law prohibits unequal treatment of residents and non-residents as well as residents who have exercised their rights to free movement in comparison to residents who have not. The condition is that they must be considered to be in comparable situations and that there is no objective difference to justify the difference in treatment. The ECJ has so far not ruled on the MFN issue. It is there-fore uncertain as to whether Member States are obligated to treat; 1) different non-resident taxpayers equally and, 2) whether Member States are prohibited from treat-ing their own residents differently when they exercise their rights to free movement in different Member States. This thesis identifies the requirements for the application of MFN treatment and ex-amines in which tax treaty provisions it is possible to apply MFN treatment. The ECJ, has in its case law, concluded that the application of tax treaties must be exer-cised in accordance EC law. It can be argued that a well-functioning internal market cannot allow bilateral tax treaties to provide preferential tax treatment to residents of one Member State, while denying it to residents of the remaining Member States. However, the application of MFN treatment could have far-reaching ramifications on the Member States’ existing tax treaty network. It is therefore fair to assume, as has been stated in other doctrinal opinions, that the ECJ will approach this issue care-fully when providing its interpretation on the matter.

CFC legislation has become an instrument to protect national tax bases and minimize the abusive effects of international tax planning. The Swedish CFC legislation is found in chapter 39a of the ITA whereas it is established under what circumstances CFC taxation can arise. If a shareholder of a foreign legal entity is liable of CFC taxation in Sweden such a holder is also entitled to deduct tax paid by the CFC abroad. The purpose of the granted tax credit is to avoid double taxation, although if foreign tax is paid by another entity than the foreign entity in question such CFC-tax cannot be credited. The situation at hand can result in that the holder is liable of paying double CFC tax, contrary to the purpose of tax credit. The freedom of establishment is part of the fundamental freedoms concluded in the EC Treaty. The general goal of the Community is to establish an internal market. The freedom of establishment, stated in Article 43 EC stipulates that restrictions on the freedom of establishment on nationals shall be prohibited. However, restrictions on the freedom of establishment can be justified under certain circumstances. The ECJ has developed a rule of reason test which can justify prohibited restrictions if certain criterias are fulfilled. Concerning tax matters the grounds of justification that have been accepted by the ECJ are the cohesion of the tax system, the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the counteraction of tax avoidance, the need to safeguard the balanced allocation of the power to tax between the Member States and a combination of grounds of justification. An exemplification scheme serves as a mean to illustrate in what instance double CFC taxation can arise. The scheme concerns a corporate group whereas a Swedish parent company owns a subsidiary in the U.K. through which the parent company plans to establish another subsidiary in the UAE. Swedish tax legislation provides that the Swedish parent company is subject to corporation tax on its worldwide profits in Sweden. However, the parent company is generally not taxed on the profits of its subsidiaries as they arise nor is it taxed on dividends distributed by a subsidiary established in Sweden. Although, when subsidiaries are not resident in Sweden and CFC legislation applies tax exempt according to the intercorporate share holding legislation will not be applicable. Therefore, in order for double CFC taxation to arise it is established that CFC legislation will be applicable to the exemplified scheme. Profits accrued in the UAE will be subject to CFC taxation in both the U.K. and Sweden and double taxation relief will not be granted in Sweden for the CFC tax paid in the U.K. It is questionable if double CFC taxation and the lack of tax relief in such a situation is in compliance with the freedom of establishment. The analysis, whereas the purpose of this thesis is concluded, follows the reasoning of the ECJ in accordance with the rule of reason. The purpose is to examine if the lack of double CFC tax relief is in compliance with Community law. It is established that since relief is not granted for double CFC taxation, national legislation hinders the freedom of establishment by forcing a parent company to avoid or modify an intra group structure which leads to the unfavorable consequences in taxation. The tax disadvantage must be seen as making it less attractive for Sweden’s own resident to establish in another Member State and the hindering nature of the lack of double CFC taxation relief constitutes a prohibited restriction to the freedom of establishment. The grounds of justification previously accepted by the ECJ are examined in order to establish if such grounds can justify the lack of double CFC tax relief as a prohibited restriction on the freedom of establishment. None of the acknowledged grounds of justification are able to justify the lack of double CFC tax relief and such a restricted measure is therefore not found to be in compliance with Community Law. Lastly, potential adjustments to CFC legislation, regarding the lack of double CFC tax relief, are discussed to enable compliance with Community law.

När relaterade bolag belägna i olika länder säljer varor och tjänster sinsemellan kan det av olika anledningar ske till ett pris som avviker från det marknadsmässiga. Det kan bero på skatteplanering, men också på diverse andra omständigheter. För att kunna fastställa vilket som är rätt marknadspris och därigenom kunna ta ut rätt skatt är de flesta länder bundna av dubbelbeskattningsavtal, som vanligtvis är utformade efter OECD: s modellavtal. I artikel 9 i detta modellavtal finns regler om internprissättning och där definieras ”Armlängdsprinci-pen”, som säger att prissättningen ska följa de marknadsmässiga principerna. Vid en från marknadspris avvikande prissättning måste det konstateras om bolagen är relaterade eller ej, då reglerna för internprissättning endast gäller relaterade bolag. Enligt OECD: s modellav-tal kan bolag vara relaterade på grund av kontroll genom kapital, ledning eller annan kon-troll, och det är det sista kriteriet, begreppet ”annan kontroll”, som skapar störst förvirring. Varken OECD: s artikel 9 eller modellavtalet som sådant innehåller någon definition av be-greppet och det står inte heller att läsa hur de tre kriterierna förhåller sig till varandra. Vida-re saknas vägledning om vilka situationer som omfattas av artikeln. Enligt Art 3(2) i modellavtalet ska odefinierade termer tolkas enligt nationell lagstiftning om inte omständigheterna kräver annorlunda. Art. 9 ges ofta en vidare definition än den given i OECD:s modellavtal, vilket kan resultera i en inkorrekt skattesituation. Eftersom dubbelbeskattningsavtalet endast rör justering av dubbelbeskattning, kan en justering inte äga rum genom användande av modellavtalet. Genom att utvidga beskattningsrätten, bryter länderna mot den gyllene regeln, vilken de flesta dubbelbeskattningsavtal bygger på, att ett dubbelbeskattningsavtal aldrig kan användas för att utvidga beskattningsrätten, endast in-skränka denna. Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka hur man kan ge kontrollbegreppet en riktig definition som överensstämmer med Art. 9. Eftersom tolkning via nationell lag kan ge oönskade resultat, kräver omständigheterna ett annorlunda tolkningssätt. Genom att ge kontrollbegreppet en autonom konventions tolkning som reflekterar syftet och bakgrunden till Art. 9, undviks problemet. / When associated enterprises situated in different countries sell goods and services between themselves, the transfer price may, because of different reasons, diverge from the market price. The divergence may be a consequence of tax planning, but it may also arise from other circumstances. To determine the right market price and thereby be able to make a correct taxation, most countries are committed to double taxation agreements, which are usually designed after the OECD Model Convention (hereafter OECD MC). Art. 9 of the convention provides for transfer pricing regulations and in this article the “arm’s length principle” is defined, stating that the pricing should be set according to the market price principles. When the transfer price diverges from the market price it must be established if the enterprises are associated or not, since the transfer pricing regulations only applies to associated enterprises. According to the OECD MC enterprises may be associated through capital, management or control, and it is the last notion, the notion of “control” that creates the greatest confusion. Neither in Art. 9 nor in the rest of the OECD MC, a definition of the notion exists, and it is nowhere stated how the criteria relate to each other. Further-more, guidance is missing describing in which situations the article is meant to be applica-ble. According to Art. 3(2) OECD MC, undefined terms shall be interpreted according to domestic law, unless the context otherwise requires. Art. 9 is often given a wider definition than the one provided in the OECD MC when domestic interpretation is used, which may result in an incorrect tax situation. Since the double taxation agreement only deals with the adjustment of double taxation, an adjustment cannot be justified by the use of the OECD MC. By broadening the scope of the article, the countries break the golden rule upon which most double taxation agreements rely, that a double taxation agreement may never be used to expand the right of taxation, only restrict it. The purpose of the thesis is to investigate how to give the term control an appropriate definition in line with Art. 9. Since the use of domestic interpretation may give unwanted results, the context requires an alternative way of interpretation. By giving the notion of control an autonomous treaty interpretation that reflects the purpose and context of Art. 9, the problem is avoided.

<p>CFC legislation has become an instrument to protect national tax bases and minimize the abusive effects of international tax planning. The Swedish CFC legislation is found in chapter 39a of the ITA whereas it is established under what circumstances CFC taxation can arise. If a shareholder of a foreign legal entity is liable of CFC taxation in Sweden such a holder is also entitled to deduct tax paid by the CFC abroad. The purpose of the granted tax credit is to avoid double taxation, although if foreign tax is paid by another entity than the foreign entity in question such CFC-tax cannot be credited. The situation at hand can result in that the holder is liable of paying double CFC tax, contrary to the purpose of tax credit.</p><p>The freedom of establishment is part of the fundamental freedoms concluded in the EC Treaty. The general goal of the Community is to establish an internal market. The freedom of establishment, stated in Article 43 EC stipulates that restrictions on the freedom of establishment on nationals shall be prohibited. However, restrictions on the freedom of establishment can be justified under certain circumstances. The ECJ has developed a rule of reason test which can justify prohibited restrictions if certain criterias are fulfilled. Concerning tax matters the grounds of justification that have been accepted by the ECJ are the cohesion of the tax system, the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the counteraction of tax avoidance, the need to safeguard the balanced allocation of the power to tax between the Member States and a combination of grounds of justification.</p><p>An exemplification scheme serves as a mean to illustrate in what instance double CFC taxation can arise. The scheme concerns a corporate group whereas a Swedish parent company owns a subsidiary in the U.K. through which the parent company plans to establish another subsidiary in the UAE. Swedish tax legislation provides that the Swedish parent company is subject to corporation tax on its worldwide profits in Sweden. However, the parent company is generally not taxed on the profits of its subsidiaries as they arise nor is it taxed on dividends distributed by a subsidiary established in Sweden. Although, when subsidiaries are not resident in Sweden and CFC legislation applies tax exempt according to the intercorporate share holding legislation will not be applicable. Therefore, in order for double CFC taxation to arise it is established that CFC legislation will be applicable to the exemplified scheme. Profits accrued in the UAE will be subject to CFC taxation in both the U.K. and Sweden and double taxation relief will not be granted in Sweden for the CFC tax paid in the U.K. It is questionable if double CFC taxation and the lack of tax relief in such a situation is in compliance with the freedom of establishment.</p><p>The analysis, whereas the purpose of this thesis is concluded, follows the reasoning of the ECJ in accordance with the rule of reason. The purpose is to examine if the lack of double CFC tax relief is in compliance with Community law. It is established that since relief is not granted for double CFC taxation, national legislation hinders the freedom of establishment by forcing a parent company to avoid or modify an intra group structure which leads to the unfavorable consequences in taxation. The tax disadvantage must be seen as making it less attractive for Sweden’s own resident to establish in another Member State and the hindering nature of the lack of double CFC taxation relief constitutes a prohibited restriction to the freedom of establishment. The grounds of justification previously accepted by the ECJ are examined in order to establish if such grounds can justify the lack of double CFC tax relief as a prohibited restriction on the freedom of establishment. None of the acknowledged grounds of justification are able to justify the lack of double CFC tax relief and such a restricted measure is therefore not found to be in compliance with Community Law. Lastly, potential adjustments to CFC legislation, regarding the lack of double CFC tax relief, are discussed to enable compliance with Community law.</p>