Thesis (LL.M.)--University of Hong Kong, 1996. / Includes bibliographical references (l. 60-62). Also available in print.

Theses (master's)--Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, 2007. / Includes register. Collection of master's theses of the 2006/2007 postgraduate LLM program "International Tax Law" at the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration.

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.

<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>

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.

Uppsatsens syfte är att utreda hur EU:s förändringar i moder/dotterbolagsdirektivet kommer att påverka svensk lagstiftning i form av IL och SFL. Förändringarna i direktivet har gjorts för att förhindra bolagens användande av s.k. hybridlån för att uppnå dubbel icke-beskattning i medlemsstater. Utöver den här förändringen har det även infogats gemensamma skatteflyktbestämmelser i direktivet, bestämmelser som samtliga medlemsstater måste följa. Sverige har sedan tidigare implementerat moder/dotterbolagsdirektivet i svensk lagstiftning och har även en lag mot skatteflykt. Skatteflykt är idag ett erkänt problem inom EU och de olika medlemsstaternas nationella lagstiftningar skiljer sig åt mellan varandra, därför har det ansetts nödvändigt att försöka skapa en gemenskap mellan medlemsstaternas lagstiftningar. För att uppfylla uppsatsens syfte har vi utrett de antagna förslagen från EU och gjort jämförelser med svensk lagstiftning, i syfte att se hur den svenska lagstiftningen kommer att påverkas av de ändrade reglerna i moder/dotterbolagsdirektivet. Tanken är inte att föreslå en lydelse av reglerna i svensk lagstiftning, utan enbart att utreda hur IL och SFL kommer att påverkas när direktivets ändringar implementeras innan slutet av år 2015. Slutsatsen enligt vår mening blir att Sverige troligtvis inte kommer behöva ändra den svenska generalklausulen då den redan täcker men även går längre än det som den gemensamma skatteflyktsklausulen vill uppnå. Vi anser att Sverige rimligen borde implementera reglerna som motverkar dubbel icke-beskattning och att detta rimligen bör införas i IL. Vi anser även att det är väldigt viktigt att den implementerade bestämmelsen är så tydlig som möjligt i sin lydelse. / The purpose of the thesis is to examine how EU’s changes in the Parent-Subsidiary Directive will affect Swedish legislation in the form of the Income Tax Act and the Tax Evasion Act. The changes in the directive have been made to prevent the companies from using so-called hybrid loans to achieve double non-taxation in the Member States. In addition to this change, a general anti-abuse rule has also been implemented into the Directive, a rule that all Member States must implement. Sweden has already implemented the Parent-Subsidiary Directive into Swedish law and has also a law against tax evasion. Tax evasion is a recognized problem within the EU and the different national legislations between the Member States differ from each other and therefor it has been considered necessary to try to create a connection between the Member States' legislation. To fulfill the purpose of the thesis, it has been necessary to examine the changes made by the EU and make a comparison with the Swedish legislation, in order to see how the Swedish legislation will be affected by the changed rules of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive. The idea is not to propose a complete amendment to the rules in the Swedish law, but only to investigate how the Income Tax Act and Tax Evasion Act will be affected when the changes in the directive are implemented. The conclusion, according to us, is that Sweden will probably not need to change the Swedish general tax evasion clause because it already covers and also goes further than what the general anti-abuse rule in the Directive wants to achieve. We believe that Sweden probably should implement the rules that prevent double non-taxation, and that this should be inserted in the Income Tax Act. We also believe that it is very important that the implemented provision is as clear as possible in its wording.

O fenômeno da globalização teve o condão de aproximar os diversos povos, cada um com seus interesses e culturas próprios. A existência de um consenso internacional na definição de princípios a serem seguidos quando das relações externas não consegue impedir, contudo, o surgimento de possíveis conflitos e divergências, tendo em vista a pluralidade cultural das diversas nações mundiais, fato que induziu a sociedade internacional a desenvolver meios que pudessem dirimir pacificamente as controvérsias, porventura, surgidas entre elas. A adoção dos meios para solução pacífica dos conflitos internacionais encontra-se incentivada pela Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil (art. 4., incisos VI e VII) e sua utilização não importa qualquer renúncia ao exercício da soberania, nem tampouco à imunidade de jurisdição. Para que se tenha uma eficácia maior da submissão dos conflitos surgidos no âmbito externo aos meios admitidos para resolvê-los, é importante que os países envolvidos no litígio possuam orientação interna no sentido de privilegiar o Direito Internacional frente à sua legislação infraconstitucional doméstica. A eventual primazia do direito interno pode resultar na inocuidade da adoção dos meios pacíficos de solução de controvérsias internacionais, uma vez que as autoridades dos países litigantes poderão se esquivar do cumprimento do acordo ou decisão alegando uma possível contrariedade com os ditames legais domésticos. Nesse contexto, a seara tributária tem despertado constantes divergências internacionais. As diferentes interpretações conferidas pelas diversas nações, dentre elas o Brasil, quando da aplicação dos tratados por elas firmados e que tenham vertente fiscal, em especial aqueles que visam evitar a dupla imposição fiscal da renda, ou garantir o livre trânsito de bens, pessoas e serviços, acaba trazendo grande insegurança àqueles investidores que possuem operações conectadas a dois ou mais sistemas tributários diferentes. Assim, ganham cada vez mais corpo, os debates em torno da extensão dos mecanismos pacíficos para resolução de divergências, também ao âmbito de aplicação de todo e qualquer tratado que verse sobre a matéria tributária. Tal fato propicia a busca de uma possível uniformização dos métodos hermenêuticos aplicáveis àqueles fatos geradores tributáveis que se encontrem vinculados a dois ou mais entes soberanos. É nesse contexto que se apresenta o presente estudo, o qual aborda a possibilidade de a República Federativa do Brasil submeter ao procedimento arbitral aquelas controvérsias de cunho tributário que eventualmente decorram da interpretação divergente das convenções internacionais das quais seja parte e que tratem de matéria fiscal. / The phenomenon of globalization had the power to bring together different peoples, each with their own interests and cultures. However, in view of the cultural diversity of different peoples around the world, the existence of an international consensus in establishing the principles to be followed when external relations are formed cannot prevent the emergence of external conflicts and disagreements. This led the international society to develop mechanisms that could peacefully settle the controversies that may eventually arise. The adoption of such mechanisms is encouraged by the Brazilian Constitution, whose article 4, sections VI and VII, advocates the pursuit of peace and peaceful settlement of disputes. Its use does not lead to the renunciation of the exercise of sovereignty nor to the immunity of jurisdiction. Meanwhile, in order to achieve greater efficacy in the submission of disputes arising outside of the means allowed to solve them, it is important that countries involved in the disputes have consolidated internal orientation towards favouring international law over their domestic infra-constitutional legislation. The primacy of the domestic law may result in the ineffectiveness of adopting peaceful means for solving international controversies since authorities of the countries engaged in the dispute may avoid compliance with the agreement or decision on the grounds of some contradiction with the domestic law procedures. In this context, the taxation arena has been constantly attracting international disagreement. The different interpretations conferred by various nations, including Brazil, in applying taxation-related treaties signed by themselves, particularly those attempting to avoid double income taxation or to guarantee the free flow of goods, people and services, bring a high level of insecurity to investors possessing operations connected to two or more distinct tax systems. As a result, the debates regarding the extension of the peaceful mechanisms to the solution of divergences take shape, including those related to the application of any treaty which speaks to the subject of taxation. This favors the search for the standardization of the hermeneutical methods applicable to those tax events which are linked to two or more sovereign entities. This is the context surrounding the current study, which addresses the possibility of the Federative Republic of Brazil to refer tax-related disputes, caused by divergent interpretation of the international conventions of which it is a member, to the arbitral proceedings.

O fenômeno da globalização teve o condão de aproximar os diversos povos, cada um com seus interesses e culturas próprios. A existência de um consenso internacional na definição de princípios a serem seguidos quando das relações externas não consegue impedir, contudo, o surgimento de possíveis conflitos e divergências, tendo em vista a pluralidade cultural das diversas nações mundiais, fato que induziu a sociedade internacional a desenvolver meios que pudessem dirimir pacificamente as controvérsias, porventura, surgidas entre elas. A adoção dos meios para solução pacífica dos conflitos internacionais encontra-se incentivada pela Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil (art. 4., incisos VI e VII) e sua utilização não importa qualquer renúncia ao exercício da soberania, nem tampouco à imunidade de jurisdição. Para que se tenha uma eficácia maior da submissão dos conflitos surgidos no âmbito externo aos meios admitidos para resolvê-los, é importante que os países envolvidos no litígio possuam orientação interna no sentido de privilegiar o Direito Internacional frente à sua legislação infraconstitucional doméstica. A eventual primazia do direito interno pode resultar na inocuidade da adoção dos meios pacíficos de solução de controvérsias internacionais, uma vez que as autoridades dos países litigantes poderão se esquivar do cumprimento do acordo ou decisão alegando uma possível contrariedade com os ditames legais domésticos. Nesse contexto, a seara tributária tem despertado constantes divergências internacionais. As diferentes interpretações conferidas pelas diversas nações, dentre elas o Brasil, quando da aplicação dos tratados por elas firmados e que tenham vertente fiscal, em especial aqueles que visam evitar a dupla imposição fiscal da renda, ou garantir o livre trânsito de bens, pessoas e serviços, acaba trazendo grande insegurança àqueles investidores que possuem operações conectadas a dois ou mais sistemas tributários diferentes. Assim, ganham cada vez mais corpo, os debates em torno da extensão dos mecanismos pacíficos para resolução de divergências, também ao âmbito de aplicação de todo e qualquer tratado que verse sobre a matéria tributária. Tal fato propicia a busca de uma possível uniformização dos métodos hermenêuticos aplicáveis àqueles fatos geradores tributáveis que se encontrem vinculados a dois ou mais entes soberanos. É nesse contexto que se apresenta o presente estudo, o qual aborda a possibilidade de a República Federativa do Brasil submeter ao procedimento arbitral aquelas controvérsias de cunho tributário que eventualmente decorram da interpretação divergente das convenções internacionais das quais seja parte e que tratem de matéria fiscal. / The phenomenon of globalization had the power to bring together different peoples, each with their own interests and cultures. However, in view of the cultural diversity of different peoples around the world, the existence of an international consensus in establishing the principles to be followed when external relations are formed cannot prevent the emergence of external conflicts and disagreements. This led the international society to develop mechanisms that could peacefully settle the controversies that may eventually arise. The adoption of such mechanisms is encouraged by the Brazilian Constitution, whose article 4, sections VI and VII, advocates the pursuit of peace and peaceful settlement of disputes. Its use does not lead to the renunciation of the exercise of sovereignty nor to the immunity of jurisdiction. Meanwhile, in order to achieve greater efficacy in the submission of disputes arising outside of the means allowed to solve them, it is important that countries involved in the disputes have consolidated internal orientation towards favouring international law over their domestic infra-constitutional legislation. The primacy of the domestic law may result in the ineffectiveness of adopting peaceful means for solving international controversies since authorities of the countries engaged in the dispute may avoid compliance with the agreement or decision on the grounds of some contradiction with the domestic law procedures. In this context, the taxation arena has been constantly attracting international disagreement. The different interpretations conferred by various nations, including Brazil, in applying taxation-related treaties signed by themselves, particularly those attempting to avoid double income taxation or to guarantee the free flow of goods, people and services, bring a high level of insecurity to investors possessing operations connected to two or more distinct tax systems. As a result, the debates regarding the extension of the peaceful mechanisms to the solution of divergences take shape, including those related to the application of any treaty which speaks to the subject of taxation. This favors the search for the standardization of the hermeneutical methods applicable to those tax events which are linked to two or more sovereign entities. This is the context surrounding the current study, which addresses the possibility of the Federative Republic of Brazil to refer tax-related disputes, caused by divergent interpretation of the international conventions of which it is a member, to the arbitral proceedings.

In the present round table, tax specialists from Peru, Colombia, Chile and Mexico discuss about the tax reforms carried out and outstanding in their respective countries on the tax treatment of capital gain within the framework of the Latin American integrated Market. / En la presente mesa redonda, destacados especialistas de Perú, Colombia, Chile y México comentan las reformas tributarias realizadas y pendientes por realizar en sus respectivos países en torno al tratamiento tributario de las ganancias de capital en el marco del Mercado integrado Latinoamericano (en adelante, “MILA”).