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>

<p>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.</p><p>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.</p> / <p>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.</p><p>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>

<p>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).</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p>

A presente dissertação objetiva analisar a forma de recepção dos tratados internacionais em matéria tributária pelo ordenamento jurídico brasileiro. Para isso, é fundamental verificar a relação entre o direito internacional e o direito interno, por meio da análise das teorias monista e dualista. Apresenta-se o Direito Tributário Internacional como uma das variações do Direito Internacional Público, com o objetivo de introduzir a matéria tributária. Estudam-se os tratados como uma das principais fontes do direito internacional e o modo como o Poder Executivo e o Poder Legislativo participam de sua ratificação. Detalham-se, assim, os objetivos e os métodos dos tratados internacionais em matéria tributária, os quais visam a evitar a ocorrência do fenômeno jurídico da bitributação. Concluída a análise do procedimento de internalização desses tratados pelo ordenamento brasileiro, há a possibilidade de surgirem conflitos entre a norma internacional recepcionada e a lei interna anterior ou superveniente. E, por essa razão, apresentam-se os critérios gerais e específicos adotados pela doutrina e pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal para solucionar antinomias jurídicas. / The present dissertation aims to analyze the form of reception of international tax treaties by the Brazilian domestic order. For this to happen, it is important to verify the form as the international law is related with the domestic law. By presenting the International Tax Law as one of the branches of the Public International Law, it is also relevant to study the international treaties as one of the main sources of the International Law, along with the way how the Executive and the Legislative participate of its ratification. Besides that, the dissertation also points for international tax treaties objectives and methods to avoid the double taxation. After the reception of these international treaties, it can appear conflicts with the internal order. And that is te reason to study the general and specific methods adopted by the doctrine and the Federal Supreme Court to solve the legal antinomies.

A presente dissertação objetiva analisar a forma de recepção dos tratados internacionais em matéria tributária pelo ordenamento jurídico brasileiro. Para isso, é fundamental verificar a relação entre o direito internacional e o direito interno, por meio da análise das teorias monista e dualista. Apresenta-se o Direito Tributário Internacional como uma das variações do Direito Internacional Público, com o objetivo de introduzir a matéria tributária. Estudam-se os tratados como uma das principais fontes do direito internacional e o modo como o Poder Executivo e o Poder Legislativo participam de sua ratificação. Detalham-se, assim, os objetivos e os métodos dos tratados internacionais em matéria tributária, os quais visam a evitar a ocorrência do fenômeno jurídico da bitributação. Concluída a análise do procedimento de internalização desses tratados pelo ordenamento brasileiro, há a possibilidade de surgirem conflitos entre a norma internacional recepcionada e a lei interna anterior ou superveniente. E, por essa razão, apresentam-se os critérios gerais e específicos adotados pela doutrina e pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal para solucionar antinomias jurídicas. / The present dissertation aims to analyze the form of reception of international tax treaties by the Brazilian domestic order. For this to happen, it is important to verify the form as the international law is related with the domestic law. By presenting the International Tax Law as one of the branches of the Public International Law, it is also relevant to study the international treaties as one of the main sources of the International Law, along with the way how the Executive and the Legislative participate of its ratification. Besides that, the dissertation also points for international tax treaties objectives and methods to avoid the double taxation. After the reception of these international treaties, it can appear conflicts with the internal order. And that is te reason to study the general and specific methods adopted by the doctrine and the Federal Supreme Court to solve the legal antinomies.

A presente dissertação objetiva analisar a forma de recepção dos tratados internacionais em matéria tributária pelo ordenamento jurídico brasileiro. Para isso, é fundamental verificar a relação entre o direito internacional e o direito interno, por meio da análise das teorias monista e dualista. Apresenta-se o Direito Tributário Internacional como uma das variações do Direito Internacional Público, com o objetivo de introduzir a matéria tributária. Estudam-se os tratados como uma das principais fontes do direito internacional e o modo como o Poder Executivo e o Poder Legislativo participam de sua ratificação. Detalham-se, assim, os objetivos e os métodos dos tratados internacionais em matéria tributária, os quais visam a evitar a ocorrência do fenômeno jurídico da bitributação. Concluída a análise do procedimento de internalização desses tratados pelo ordenamento brasileiro, há a possibilidade de surgirem conflitos entre a norma internacional recepcionada e a lei interna anterior ou superveniente. E, por essa razão, apresentam-se os critérios gerais e específicos adotados pela doutrina e pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal para solucionar antinomias jurídicas. / The present dissertation aims to analyze the form of reception of international tax treaties by the Brazilian domestic order. For this to happen, it is important to verify the form as the international law is related with the domestic law. By presenting the International Tax Law as one of the branches of the Public International Law, it is also relevant to study the international treaties as one of the main sources of the International Law, along with the way how the Executive and the Legislative participate of its ratification. Besides that, the dissertation also points for international tax treaties objectives and methods to avoid the double taxation. After the reception of these international treaties, it can appear conflicts with the internal order. And that is te reason to study the general and specific methods adopted by the doctrine and the Federal Supreme Court to solve the legal antinomies.

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 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.