The Principle of Non-Discrimination in International and European Tax Law

• Record Nr.: UNINA9911011341703321
• Autore: Bammens Niels
• Pubbl/distr/stampa: Amsterdam : , : IBFD Publications USA, Incorporated, , 2012; ©2012
• ISBN: 90-8722-160-6
• Edizione: [1st ed.]
• Descrizione fisica: xx, 1130 pages ; ; 24 cm
• Collana: IBFD doctoral series, , 1570-7164 ; ; v. 24
• Soggetti: Conflict of laws - Taxation; Taxation - Law and legislation - Europe
• Lingua di pubblicazione: Inglese
• Formato: Materiale a stampa
• Livello bibliografico: Monografia
• Note generali: "Degree awarded on 18 October 2011."
• Nota di bibliografia: Includes bibliographical references (pages 1093-1128).
• Nota di contenuto: Intro -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- Part I Introduction -- Part I: Introduction -- Chapter 1: Aristotle's Concept of Distributive Justice -- Chapter 2: Basic Principles of Discrimination -- 2.1. Elements of the discrimination analysis -- 2.2. Proposal for an analytical framework -- 2.3. A brief note on ability to pay -- Chapter 3: Overview of the Study -- Part II Article 24 of the OECD Model Convention -- Chapter 4: Origin of Article 24 of the OECD Model Convention -- 4.1. Historical roots of the provision -- 4.2. The League of Nations -- 4.3. The OEEC Fiscal Committee -- 4.3.1. The first report of Working Party no. 4 -- 4.3.2. Reception of the first report -- 4.3.3. The second report -- 4.3.4. The third report -- 4.3.5. The final report -- 4.3.6. Conclusions -- 4.4. The genesis of the OECD Model Convention -- 4.5. The current version of Article 24 of the OECD Model Convention -- Chapter 5: Article 24(1): Nationality Non-Discrimination -- 5.1. General -- 5.2. No taxation without discrimination? -- 5.3. Nationality -- 5.3.1. Individuals -- 5.3.2. Other persons -- 5.3.2.1. General -- 5.3.2.2. The nationality of legal entities -- 5.3.2.2.1. The position taken in the Commentary -- 5.3.2.2.2. The 2008 update -- 5.3.2.2.3. Transvaal Special Income Tax Court decision of 10 March 1992 -- 5.3.2.2.4. 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal decision of 13 December 2002 -- 5.4. Entitlement to article 24 -- 5.5. The comparability test: "in the same circumstances" -- 5.5.1. On sameness ; and similarity -- 5.5.2. Case law -- 5.5.2.1. Leeuwarden Court of Appeal decision of 7 April 2000 -- 5.5.2.2. United Dominions Trust Ltd -- 5.5.2.3. Belgian Supreme Court decision of 30 June 1988 -- 5.5.2.4. The Anglo-Swiss Land and Building Company Ltd. -- 5.5.2.5. Biso -- 5.5.2.6. Saipem -- 5.5.3. Discrimination "on the basis of" nationality?.; 5.6. The disadvantage test: "other or more burdensome" -- 5.6.1. General -- 5.6.2. Reverse discrimination -- 5.6.3. Other issues -- 5.6.4. Case law -- 5.6.4.1. Woodend Rubber and Tea -- 5.6.4.2. Dutch Supreme Court decision of 14 June 1972 -- 5.6.4.3. Bundesfinanzhof decision of 14 March 1989 -- 5.6.4.4. Conseil d'état decision of 28 May 1986 -- 5.7. Reciprocity -- 5.7.1. General -- 5.7.2. Case law -- 5.7.2.1. American Trust Company -- 5.7.2.2. Brown &amp -- Williamson Ltd -- 5.7.2.3. Dutch Supreme Court decision of 2 September 1992 -- 5.7.2.4. Dutch Supreme Court decision of 20 November 2009 -- 5.7.3. Conclusion -- 5.8. Comparability as a safety valve? -- 5.9. "Other or more burdensome" as a safety valve? -- Chapter 6: Article 24(2): Stateless Persons -- 6.1. The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons -- 6.2. The OECD Model Convention -- Chapter 7: Article 24(3): Permanent Establishments -- 7.1. Entitlement to article 24(3): what is "an enterprise"? -- 7.2. The comparability test: "an enterprise carrying on the same activities" -- 7.2.1. General -- 7.2.1.1. "Carrying on the same activities" -- 7.2.1.2. Separate entity approach -- 7.2.2. Case law -- 7.2.2.1. Case law on the subject of comparison -- 7.2.2.1.1. Reuters Ltd -- 7.2.2.1.2. Brussels Court of Appeal decision of 28 May 1993 -- 7.2.2.1.3. Ghent Court of Appeal decision of 17 November 1994 -- 7.2.2.1.4. Bundesfinanzhof decision of 22 April 1998 -- 7.2.2.1.5. Bundesfinanzhof decision of 10 March 2005 -- 7.2.2.1.6. Verwaltungsgerichtshof decision of 16 February 2006 and 28 November 2007 -- 7.2.2.2. Case law on the object of comparison -- 7.2.2.2.1. Swiss Bundesgericht decision of 28 November 2005 -- 7.2.2.2.2. Finanzgericht Köln decision of 20 September 1995 -- 7.2.2.2.3. UBS AG -- 7.3. The disadvantage test: "taxation … less favourably levied" -- 7.3.1. "Taxation".; 7.3.2. "Less favourably levied" -- 7.3.2.1. Assessment of tax -- 7.3.2.2. Structure and rate of tax -- 7.3.2.2.1. Progressive scales and the non-resident's worldwide profits -- 7.3.2.2.2. Tax-free thresholds -- 7.3.2.2.3. Special taxes on a non-resident's PE -- 7.3.2.3. Dividends received in respect of holdings owned by a permanent establishment -- 7.3.2.4. Withholding tax on dividends, interest and royalties received by a permanent establishment -- 7.3.2.5. Credit for foreign tax and the extension to permanent establishments of the benefit of tax treaties concluded with third states -- 7.3.3. Case law -- 7.3.3.1. Assessment of tax -- 7.3.3.1.1. Brussels Court of Appeal decision of 30 June 1994 -- 7.3.3.1.2. Commerzbank AG v. Inland Revenue Commissioners -- 7.3.3.1.3. Automated Securities Clearance -- 7.3.3.1.4. Saipem -- 7.3.3.2. Structure and rate of tax -- 7.3.3.3. Dividends received in respect of holdings owned by a permanent establishment: UBS AG -- 7.3.3.4. Credit for foreign tax and the extension to permanent establishments of the benefit of tax treaties concluded with third states -- 7.3.3.4.1. Finanzgericht Hamburg decision of 9 August 1985 -- 7.3.3.4.2. Dutch Supreme Court decision of 8 February 2002 -- 7.3.3.5. Disadvantages caused by the treaty of which article 24(3) is invoked -- 7.3.3.5.1. Metchem Canada Inc -- 7.3.3.5.2. Brussels Court of First Instance decision of 9 November 2006 -- 7.3.4. No extension to personal allowances -- 7.3.4.1. Dutch Supreme Court decision of 19 December 1990 -- 7.3.4.2. Dutch Supreme Court decision of 11 September 1991 -- 7.3.4.3. Dutch Supreme Court decision of 6 November 1996 -- 7.3.4.4. Antwerp Court of Appeal decision of 2 ; February 2010 -- 7.3.4.5. Conclusion -- Chapter 8: Article 24(4): Deductibility -- 8.1. General -- 8.2. The comparability test -- 8.2.1. No express comparability requirement.; 8.2.2. "Under the same conditions" as a comparability requirement? -- 8.3. The disadvantage test -- 8.4. Domestic rules on thin capitalization -- 8.4.1. General -- 8.4.2. "Interest" -- 8.4.3. Examples -- 8.4.3.1. Article 54 of the Belgian Income Tax Code -- 8.4.3.2. Article 26 of the Belgian Income Tax Code -- 8.4.4. Case law -- 8.4.4.1. Millennium Infocom Technologies -- 8.4.4.2. Specialty Manufacturing -- Chapter 9: Article 24(5): Foreign Ownership -- 9.1. Entitlement to article 24(5) -- 9.1.1. General -- 9.1.1.1. The wording of article 24(5) -- 9.1.1.2. Indirect ownership: Re A Oy and B Oy -- 9.1.2. Only the resident company is protected -- 9.1.2.1. Example: imputation systems vs.split-rate systems -- 9.1.2.2. Group treatment -- 9.1.3. Discrimination on the basis of foreign ownership -- 9.1.3.1. On the basis of -- 9.1.3.2. On the sole basis of? -- 9.1.3.3. Application of these principles -- 9.1.3.4. Example: Decision of the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court on the interpretation of "solely" -- 9.2. The comparability test: "other similar enterprises" -- 9.2.1. Similarity as a reference to shareholders' residence? -- 9.2.2. Similarity as a reference to the applicable tax regime? -- 9.2.3. Similarity as a reference to all relevant circumstances other than foreign ownership -- 9.2.4. Case law -- 9.2.4.1. Swedish Supreme Administrative Court decision of 19 November 1987 -- 9.2.4.2. Dutch Supreme Court decision of 23 December 1992 -- 9.2.4.3. Dutch Supreme Court decisions of 27 April 1994 -- 9.2.4.4. Boake Allen -- 9.2.4.5. DaimlerChrysler India -- 9.2.4.6. UnionBanCal -- 9.2.4.7. Square D -- 9.2.4.8. FCE Bank -- 9.3. The disadvantage test: "other or more burdensome" -- 9.3.1. General -- 9.3.1.1. The origin of the expression -- 9.3.1.2. Interpretation -- 9.3.2. Case law -- 9.3.2.1. The Delaware case.; 9.3.2.2. Luxembourg Administrative Court of Appeal decision of 19 April 2007 -- 9.3.2.3. The Swedish Supreme Administrative Court on the interpretation of "other" -- 9.4. Relationship to article 24(4) -- 9.4.1. General -- 9.4.2. Case law: Andritz -- Chapter 10: Article 24(6): Taxes Covered -- 10.1. General -- 10.2. Case law: Dutch Supreme Court decision of 1 November 2000 -- Chapter 11: The Concurrent Application of Different Provisions of Article 24 of the OECD Model Convention -- 11.1. Article 24(1) and article 24(3) -- 11.2. Article 24(1) and article 24(4) -- 11.3. Article 24(1) and article 24(5) -- 11.4. Article 24(3) and article 24(4) -- 11.5. Article 24(3) and article 24(5) -- 11.6. Conclusion -- Part III Non-Discrimination in European Tax Law -- Chapter 12: General Overview of the Approach of the European Court of Justice to Non-Discrimination -- 12.1. The Court's Aristotelian understanding of non-discrimination -- 12.1.1. Overview -- 12.1.2. Methodology -- 12.2. Types of discrimination -- 12.2.1. Discrimination in form and discrimination in substance -- 12.2.2. Direct and indirect discrimination -- 12.2.3. Reverse discrimination -- 12.2.3.1. The Court's traditional position -- 12.2.3.2. Later evolution and criticism -- 12.2.4. Quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect -- 12.2.5. Dassonville extended to other freedoms -- 12.2.6. Conclusion -- Chapter 13: Non-Discrimination in European Tax Law: General Remarks -- 13.1. Introduction -- 13.1.1. Purpose and scope of the study -- 13.1.2. The case law of the European Court of Justice on direct taxation -- 13.2. Comparable situations -- 13.3. Equal treatment -- 13.4. Types of discrimination -- 13.4.1. Direct and indirect discrimination -- 13.4.2. Reverse discrimination.; 13.4.3. Is ECJ case law in direct tax matters still based on a discrimination analysis, or has it evolved towards a restriction-based ; reading of the Treaty?.
• Sommario/riassunto: This dissertation analyses the non-discrimination principle in tax treaties and in the direct tax case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.