Canada and Taiwan have not entered into a tax treaty. Consequently, because each jurisdiction uses different connecting factors, that is 'residence' in Canada and 'income source' in Taiwan, double taxation may occur for individuals subject to tax in both jurisdictions. With the increasing number of Taiwanese immigrants to and investors in Canada, double taxation is becoming a significant problem. A treaty is probably the most efficient mechanism to resolve the double taxation problem. However, the political issue is how can a nation (Canada) enter into a treaty with a jurisdiction (Taiwan) that it does not recognize as a nation state? Despite facing the same problem, on May 29, 1996 Australia signed a tax agreement with Taiwan concerning the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of tax evasion. The Australia-Taiwan Tax Agreement is unique because it was signed by two private sector organizations rather than by the respective governments. Using the same mechanism, New Zealand and Vietnam have signed tax agreements with Taiwan as well. This thesis analyses the likelihood of Canada entering into a tax treaty with Taiwan. In so doing, it considers how double taxation arises, reviews the foreign reporting rules and argues that a tax treaty between Canada and Taiwan is desirable. The conclusion is that, theoretically and pragmatically, a tax treaty (or agreement) between Canada and Taiwan is possible and needed in order to relieve punitive double taxation and to facilitate bilateral economic and trading relations between the two jurisdictions. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

La comptabilité est utilisée en droit fiscal pour déterminer les bases imposables des principaux impôts auxquels l‟entreprise est assujettie. C'est en raison de la crédibilité des informations qu'elle contient que la comptabilité est utilisée par le droit fiscal. La crédibilité de ces informations offre une garantie pour l'administration fiscale de remplir sa mission de contrôle avec efficacité. Mais, cette fiabilité permet, en outre, à l'entreprise de déterminer sereinement les bases d'imposition à déclarer et de se défendre en se fondant sur ses données en cas de contestation par l'administration fiscale des résultats déclarés. Néanmoins, dans certaines hypothèses la comptabilité d'une entreprise peut ne pas être considérée comme ayant une valeur probante suffisante et peut être rejetée par l'administration fiscale.Malgré l'importance de la jurisprudence et l'intérêt pratique de cette notion, l'étude de la valeur probante de la comptabilité de l'entreprise, ne semble pas avoir beaucoup inspirée les auteurs. La valeur probante de la comptabilité sera analysée tant sur ses fondements que sur ses caractères essentiels. Quelles sont les conditions que doit remplir la comptabilité pour servir valablement de preuve devant l'administration fiscale ? Dans quelles conditions cette comptabilité peut-elle être rejetée ? En cas de rejet, quels sont les moyens de preuve à la disposition de l‟entreprise ? L'administration fiscale doit-elle ou non apporter la preuve lorsque la comptabilité de l'entreprise comporte de graves irrégularités ? / Accountancy is used in tax law to determine the base of the main duties owed by companies. It is due to the credibility of information contains that accountancy is used by the tax law. The credibility of this information gives a guarantee for the French tax authorities to complete its mission of control with effectiveness. Furthermore, the accountancy reliability allows the company to serenely determine the tax bases to declare and to defend itself by basing on its data when the French tax authorities challenging declared company income. However, in certain hypothesis the company accountancy cannot be considered as having a sufficient convincing value and to be rejected by the French tax authorities.In spite of the practical importance of this notion, the study of the company accountancy convincing value did not seem to have inspired the authors. The accountancy convincing value will be analyzed both on its basis and on its essential characteristics. What are the conditions which accountancy must comply to act legitimately as proof in front of the French tax authorities? In what conditions this accountancy will be rejected? In case of rejection, what are the company means of proof at its disposition? Must the French tax authorities or not bear the burden of proof when the company accountancy contains serious irregularities?

Tax revolts have existed since time immemorial and have been caused by many factors. The pay-now-argue-later principle, as used by South African Revenue Services is a provision in tax administration to compel a taxpayer to settle their tax debt despite their intention to challenge the assessment for instance in a tribunal. The interrelationship between a tax revolt and the pay-now-argue-later principle researches the history, development, and psychology of a tax revolt. It also looks at the pay-now-argue-later principle, the dynamics, its rationale, and constitutionality. Some of the questions considered are whether a challenge to the pay-now-argue-later principle amounts to a tax revolt and what is the impact of the pay-now-argue-later principle on the rights of a taxpayer, including the right to protest in section 17 of the Constitution. The study looks at whether South African Revenue Service can use the pay-now-argue-later principle in dealing with a tax revolt. There is dearth of legal literature and case law about a tax revolt in South Africa and the region while many studies exist on the pay-now-argue-later principle. This study endeavors to fill that gap. This is a desk-based research. In its conclusion, the research makes recommendations that could be adopted especially by the fiscus. / Mini Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2021. / Mercantile Law / LLM / Unrestricted

Measures to combat the coronavirus pandemic in the field of tax law Abstract On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared a pandemic in relation to the worldwide spread of SARS-CoV-2, a member of the coronavirus family. A few days later, the Czech Republic responded to the situation by declaring an emergency status. Throughout the duration of the coronavirus pandemic, a number of measures were taken in diverse areas of law to influence or mitigate the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. One of these areas was the field of tax law. Therefore, the subject of this thesis is the measures to combat the coronavirus pandemic in the field of tax law. With regard to the number of measures adopted, I am focusing on two selected measures that have been adopted under Act No. 609/2020 Coll. amending certain tax law and certain other laws ("the tax package"), namely the introduction of a progressive tax rate and the abolition of super-gross salary as a partial base of the employment income tax. The aim of this thesis is to describe the most important measures in the field of tax law and to critically assess whether the introduction of a progressive tax rate and the abolition of super- gross salary as the partial base of the employment income tax are measures to combat the coronavirus pandemic in the field...

A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Commerce (Specialising in Taxation) / The taxation of financial services is challenging from a Value-Added Tax (VAT) perspective. Conceptually, VAT should apply to any fee for services but where financial services are concerned, there is difficulty in quantifying the value-added by these institutions. According to the First Interim Report on Value-Added Tax for the Minister of Finance (the Davis Tax Committee report) most jurisdictions have therefore opted to exempt financial services from VAT. In South Africa, financial services are exempt from VAT, however, where an explicit fee is charged as consideration for a supply, it will be taxed. The South African VAT legislation provides for the denial of input tax on costs incurred to generate exempt supplies. The burden of an irrecoverable VAT cost exposes the financial industry to hindrances such as vertical integration and tax cascading. Certain VAT jurisdictions have however implemented policies to reduce the overall cost of financial institutions. This study will therefore analyse the alternate VAT methods to determine whether a more viable mechanism of taxing financial services in South Africa, exists. Key words: Apportionment, cascading, implicit fees, input tax, efficiency, exemption, explicit fees, equity, full taxation approach, neutrality, simplicity, standard rate, reduced input tax credit, value-added, VAT grouping, vertical integration, zero-rating / MT2017

Added value of this thesis is to order principles of taxes and fees into a system, which allows its easier application in context of tax law and law of fees. This system then uncurtain joint relations among these principles and enable its further analysis. The result is a system (tree) of principles within which principles are divided according to different criteria. They can be sorted into three groups, namely the principle of regulatory intent (there are mostly the principles of the other disciplines; these principles determine intent, reason and purpose of the regulation), the principles of regulatory instrument (it is created by the principle of legal state; these principles represents legal dogmatic) and the principles of efficient regulation (here everything follows from the principle of economy). Thesis target on material side of problem which it differs from the other thesis on this topic. An essential partial step toward revealing the system of principles is also a definition of tax and definition of fee and also analysis what is the principle.

A presente Tese defende que o processo de construção histórica da disciplina hodiernamente conhecida como Direito Tributário no Brasil pode ser visualizada sob diferentes formatações ou reformulações históricas, decorrentes diretamente de fatores internos e externos ao processo de construção jurídica da disciplina, identificados em etapas ou configurações mais ou menos definidas, mas nem por isso impermeáveis. Ao mesmo tempo, fundamentado em sólida investigação sobre a formação histórica da disciplina, defende também que o processo histórico disciplinar do Direito Tributário Brasileiro liga-se ao processo identificado na epistemologia (e pedagogia) denominado especialização disciplinar, caracterizado pela prevalência da especialização disciplinar pautada na sucessiva redução do objeto de estudo e na tendência ao isolamento disciplinar, o que se confirma também pelo histórico tratamento concedido entre o Direito Tributário e a Ciência das Finanças, bem como pela natural elevação da autonomia. Contudo, o reconhecimento preliminar da autonomia do Direito Tributário também revela importância estratégia ao presente estudo, pois concentrado na premissa de diferentes aspectos dessa autonomia, e que levam a diferentes modos de enxergar o processo histórico-disciplinar do Direito Tributário no Brasil. Em qualquer perspectiva analisada, e observando eventual predomínio epistemológico da especialização disciplinar, chega-se à conclusão de que o processo histórico disciplinar do Direito Tributário Brasileiro não assume plenamente essa tendência, pois fatores históricos peculiares da disciplina favorecem uma adoção ponderada, ainda que determinadas linhas de estudo sejam favorecidas por esse contexto epistemológico prevalecente nas ciências do século XX. No mesmo passo, a prevalência, ainda que com ponderações, do processo de especialização disciplinar pode ser comprovada pelo tímido tratamento tradicionalmente concedido pela doutrina ao que se convencionou denominar por interdisciplinaridade (que não é simplesmente a busca de conhecimentos extraídos de outras disciplinas para simples aplicação ao Direito Tributário, e nem se identifica com o diálogo entre disciplinas jurídicas constantemente operadas no âmbito disciplinar da Ciência do Direito). Tais reflexões oportunizam também a elaboração de breves observações orientadas ao passado recente, ao presente e ao futuro da disciplina, seja pela consideração de fatores contemporâneos (internos e externos) que influenciam a construção recente do direito tributário (e a disciplina dedicada a estudá-la), seja pela perspectiva de estudos interdisciplinares do qual o Direito Tributário, enquanto disciplina jurídica, pode tomar parte. / This Thesis argues that the historical process of construction of the nowadays known as Tax Law discipline in Brazil can be viewed under different formats or historical restatements, arising directly from internal and external factors to the legal construction process of this discipline, identified in different steps or more or less defined settings - but not so incommunicables. At the same time, also based on solid research on the historical development of the discipline, this Thesis also argues that the disciplinary historical process of Brazilian Tax Law binds to the process identified in epistemology (and pedagogy) as \"disciplinary specialization\", characterized by the prevalence of disciplinary expertise guided on the successive reduction of the research matter and on tendency to disciplinary isolation, which is confirmed also by the historical treatment accorded between the Tax Law and the Science of Finance, as well as the natural elevation of its autonomy. However, the preliminary recognition of the autonomy of Tax Law also reveals the strategic importance to this research, because it\'s concentrated on the premise of different aspects of autonomy, that lead to different ways of seeing the historical and disciplinary procedures of the Tax Law in Brazil. In any analyzed perspective, and observing any epistemological dominance of disciplinary specialization, one comes to the conclusion that the disciplinary historical process of Brazilian Tax Law does not fully take this trend, because peculiar historical factors of discipline favor a weighted adoption, though certain lines study are favored by this epistemological context prevailing in the sciences of the twentieth century. In this perspective, the prevalence of the disciplinary specialization process can be proven by the timid treatment traditionally given by the doctrine to what is conventionally called as \"interdisciplinary\" (which is not simply the pursuit of knowledge drawn from other disciplines for simple application to the Tax Law, and that not identifies with the dialogue between legal constraints constantly operated in the disciplinary scope of the Law Science). Such reflections also allow the development of brief remarks directed to the recent past, the present and the future of the discipline, by the consideration of contemporary factors (internal and external) that influence the recent construction of the Tax Law (and the discipline dedicated to studying it), or by the perspective of interdisciplinary studies which the Tax Law, as a legal discipline, can take part.

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.

Den internationella rätten utgörs av mellanstatliga samarbeten mellan suveräna stater på olika områden. De suveräna staterna har exklusiv behörighet att lagstifta inom sina territorier och således har ingen annan stat rätt att stifta lagar som blir gällande på en annans stats territorium. Denna exklusiva rätt till självbestämmande benämns territorialitetsprincipen. På den internationella skatterättens område innebär territorialitetsprincipen att en stat har rätt att beskatta all inkomst som har ett samband med den staten. Detta görs genom att obegränsat skattskyldiga beskattas för all sin inkomst oavsett var den uppstått och begränsat skattskyldiga beskattas endast för den inkomst som uppkommit i den staten. Då en självständig stat överlämnar en del av sin suveränitet till ett sådant internationellt samarbete som till exempel EG utgör, splittras det i internationell rätt vedertagna territorialitetsbegreppet eftersom den exklusiva lagstiftningskompetensen i viss mån måste delas med EG: s lagstiftande makt. Etableringsfriheten som stadgas i artiklarna 43 EG och 48 EG utgör en del av de åtaganden som medlemsstaterna måste beakta efter inträdet i EG. Medlemsstaterna får därigenom inte i sin nationella lagstiftning ha åtgärder som inskränker gemenskapsmedborgares och bolags rätt till fri etablering. Med tanke på att beaktandet av EG-rätten föranleder att territorialitetsbegreppet splittras kan det ifrågasättas om territorialitetsprincipen har någon ställning i EG-rätten. Härav är det även av intresse att utreda hu-ruvida territorialitetsprincipen kan utgöra en självständig rättfärdigandegrund av nationellt inskränkande åtgärder som anses strida mot etableringsfriheten. Trots att det råder osäkerhet kring huruvida territorialitetsprincipen utgör en självständig rättfärdigandegrund eller inte åberopar medlemsstater principen på grund av att EG-domstolen erkänt principen i ett mål rörande etableringsfrihet. Därav kan territorialitetsprincipens ställning som rättfärdigandegrund inte enkelt avfärdas. Vi anser dock inte att territorialitetsprincipen har en ställning som självständig rättfärdigandegrund av nationell lagstiftning som inskränker etableringsfriheten i artiklarna 43 EG och 48 EG. Territorialitetsprincipen fördelar enbart upp beskattningsbehörigheten mellan medlemsstaterna och har enligt oss samma definition inom EG-rätten som den har i den internationella skatterätten. På grund av att territorialitetsprincipen i internationell skatterätt endast används för att definiera en stats beskattningsbehörighet anser vi att principen inte går att använda som stöd för att neka en gemenskapsmedborgare eller ett bolag en skatteförmån enbart med hänvisning till principen. / International law is composed by cooperation between sovereign states within different areas. Sovereign states have the power to legislate within their territories and because of this no other state can make binding laws on another state’s territory. This sovereign right to legislate is known as the principle of territoriality. Within international tax law the principle of territoriality means that a state has the right to taxation within its territory on all income related to that state. This means that those liable to full taxation are taxed on all their income regardless of where the income is earned and those liable to limited taxation are only taxed on income earned in that particular state. When a sovereign state gives up parts of its sovereignty to the European Community (EC), which is a part of the international cooperation among states, the concept of territoriality is fragmentized since the exclusive legislative power that a state holds must be shared with the legislative power of the EC. The freedom of establishment in articles 43 EC and 48 EC must be respected by the Member States since they through the admission of the EC granted that they would not apply laws that restricted the right for community citizens and companies to establish themselves in other member states than their own. With the limitation of the state’s sovereignty the term of territoriality becomes vaguer and it can be ques-tioned if the principle of territoriality has a position within EC law. It is also interesting to examine whether the principle can be seen as a justification for national law that is in conflict with the freedom of establishment or not. Even though there is some uncertainty whether the principle of territoriality can be seen as a valid justification or not the member states are still trying to invoke it. Since the European Court of Justice recognized the principle of territoriality in a case concerning the right to freedom of establishment it can not easily be dismissed. We do not, however, consider the principle of territoriality to be an independent justification for laws that are in conflict with the freedom of establishment in articles 43 EC and 48 EC. We believe that the principle only attributes the right to taxation between the Member States and that the principle is defined as in international tax law. Because the principle is given this definition it can only be used to define a states ability to taxation. We believe that the principle can not be relied upon to deny a Community citizen or a company a right to a tax relief.

<p>Den internationella rätten utgörs av mellanstatliga samarbeten mellan suveräna stater på olika områden. De suveräna staterna har exklusiv behörighet att lagstifta inom sina territorier och således har ingen annan stat rätt att stifta lagar som blir gällande på en annans stats territorium. Denna exklusiva rätt till självbestämmande benämns territorialitetsprincipen. På den internationella skatterättens område innebär territorialitetsprincipen att en stat har rätt att beskatta all inkomst som har ett samband med den staten. Detta görs genom att obegränsat skattskyldiga beskattas för all sin inkomst oavsett var den uppstått och begränsat skattskyldiga beskattas endast för den inkomst som uppkommit i den staten.</p><p>Då en självständig stat överlämnar en del av sin suveränitet till ett sådant internationellt samarbete som till exempel EG utgör, splittras det i internationell rätt vedertagna territorialitetsbegreppet eftersom den exklusiva lagstiftningskompetensen i viss mån måste delas med EG: s lagstiftande makt. Etableringsfriheten som stadgas i artiklarna 43 EG och 48 EG utgör en del av de åtaganden som medlemsstaterna måste beakta efter inträdet i EG. Medlemsstaterna får därigenom inte i sin nationella lagstiftning ha åtgärder som inskränker gemenskapsmedborgares och bolags rätt till fri etablering. Med tanke på att beaktandet av EG-rätten föranleder att territorialitetsbegreppet splittras kan det ifrågasättas om territorialitetsprincipen har någon ställning i EG-rätten. Härav är det även av intresse att utreda hu-ruvida territorialitetsprincipen kan utgöra en självständig rättfärdigandegrund av nationellt inskränkande åtgärder som anses strida mot etableringsfriheten.</p><p>Trots att det råder osäkerhet kring huruvida territorialitetsprincipen utgör en självständig rättfärdigandegrund eller inte åberopar medlemsstater principen på grund av att EG-domstolen erkänt principen i ett mål rörande etableringsfrihet. Därav kan territorialitetsprincipens ställning som rättfärdigandegrund inte enkelt avfärdas.</p><p>Vi anser dock inte att territorialitetsprincipen har en ställning som självständig rättfärdigandegrund av nationell lagstiftning som inskränker etableringsfriheten i artiklarna 43 EG och 48 EG. Territorialitetsprincipen fördelar enbart upp beskattningsbehörigheten mellan medlemsstaterna och har enligt oss samma definition inom EG-rätten som den har i den internationella skatterätten. På grund av att territorialitetsprincipen i internationell skatterätt endast används för att definiera en stats beskattningsbehörighet anser vi att principen inte går att använda som stöd för att neka en gemenskapsmedborgare eller ett bolag en skatteförmån enbart med hänvisning till principen.</p> / <p>International law is composed by cooperation between sovereign states within different areas. Sovereign states have the power to legislate within their territories and because of this no other state can make binding laws on another state’s territory. This sovereign right to legislate is known as the principle of territoriality. Within international tax law the principle of territoriality means that a state has the right to taxation within its territory on all income related to that state. This means that those liable to full taxation are taxed on all their income regardless of where the income is earned and those liable to limited taxation are only taxed on income earned in that particular state.</p><p>When a sovereign state gives up parts of its sovereignty to the European Community (EC), which is a part of the international cooperation among states, the concept of territoriality is fragmentized since the exclusive legislative power that a state holds must be shared with the legislative power of the EC. The freedom of establishment in articles 43 EC and 48 EC must be respected by the Member States since they through the admission of the EC granted that they would not apply laws that restricted the right for community citizens and companies to establish themselves in other member states than their own. With the limitation of the state’s sovereignty the term of territoriality becomes vaguer and it can be ques-tioned if the principle of territoriality has a position within EC law. It is also interesting to examine whether the principle can be seen as a justification for national law that is in conflict with the freedom of establishment or not.</p><p>Even though there is some uncertainty whether the principle of territoriality can be seen as a valid justification or not the member states are still trying to invoke it. Since the European Court of Justice recognized the principle of territoriality in a case concerning the right to freedom of establishment it can not easily be dismissed.</p><p>We do not, however, consider the principle of territoriality to be an independent justification for laws that are in conflict with the freedom of establishment in articles 43 EC and 48 EC. We believe that the principle only attributes the right to taxation between the Member States and that the principle is defined as in international tax law. Because the principle is given this definition it can only be used to define a states ability to taxation. We believe that the principle can not be relied upon to deny a Community citizen or a company a right to a tax relief.</p>