11139nam 22005293 450 991079598740332120231110214310.09789087227944(electronic bk.)9789087227937(MiAaPQ)EBC30160926(Au-PeEL)EBL30160926(CKB)24937730100041(OCoLC)1346358340(EXLCZ)992493773010004120220930d2022 uy 0engurcnu||||||||txtrdacontentcrdamediacrrdacarrierThe Effectiveness of General Anti-Avoidance Rules1st ed.Amsterdam :IBFD Publications USA, Incorporated,2022.©2022.1 online resource (325 pages)IBFD Doctoral ;v.65Print version: Sinnig, Julia The Effectiveness of General Anti-Avoidance Rules: Their Limits, Challenges and Potential in EU and International Tax Law Amsterdam : IBFD Publications USA, Incorporated,c2022 9789087227937 Cover -- IBFD Doctoral Series -- Title -- Copyright -- Table of Contents -- Preface -- Abbreviations -- Chapter 1: Introduction -- 1.1. The future of international taxation: The 2020s compromise? -- 1.2. The interdisciplinary field of tax law and economics -- 1.3. Methodology -- 1.4. Terminology -- 1.4.1. Tax evasion -- 1.4.2. Tax avoidance and tax abuse -- Chapter 2: Tax Policy in a Time of Crisis: Ensuring the Tax Revenue -- 2.1. Introduction to the global tax arena -- 2.2. The history of the international tax system: The harmonization vs. tax competition controversy -- 2.2.1. The global network of tax treaties -- 2.3. The international standards set by the OECD Model -- 2.3.1. The 1920s compromise: A system welded for tax competition -- 2.4. Alleviating double taxation by allocating tax revenue -- 2.4.1. Different forms of double taxation -- 2.4.2. A brief history of relieving double taxation -- 2.4.2.1. The economic consequences of double taxation -- 2.4.2.2. Checking tax evasion -- 2.4.2.3. Allocation rules for dividends and interest -- 2.4.3. The formation of the OECD -- 2.5. Corporate tax and how to avoid it -- 2.5.1. The role of the corporate form -- 2.5.2. Nexus and the notion of treaty residence -- 2.5.3. Distributive rules -- 2.5.3.1. The conduit company method -- 2.5.3.2. The last-minute restructuring method -- 2.5.4. The impact of the PPT -- 2.6. Economic substance: The ailment or the cure? -- 2.6.1. Transfer pricing as a method to allocate profit -- 2.6.2. Economic substance to counter abuse: BEPS Action 6 -- 2.6.2.1. Action 6: Preamble -- 2.6.2.2. The treaty abuse rule in article 7: The PPT -- 2.7. The multilateral instrument (MLI) -- 2.8. Summary: Treaty shopping, directive shopping and withholding taxes -- Chapter 3: Preventing Treaty Abuse within the OECD Framework.3.1. From preventing double taxation to further preventing treaty abuse -- 3.2. Combating BEPS -- 3.3. Improper use of tax treaties and treaty shopping -- 3.4. From beneficial ownership to a PPT -- 3.4.1. The 1963 and 1977 OECD Models -- 3.4.2. The 1986 OECD Conduit Companies Report -- 3.4.3. The 1992 update to the OECD Model Commentary -- 3.4.4. The 1998 Report on Harmful Tax Competition and the 2002 Report Restricting the Entitlement to Treaty Benefits -- 3.4.5. The 2003 update to the OECD Model Commentary -- 3.4.6. The 2014 update to the OECD Model Commentary -- 3.4.7. The 2017 update to the OECD Model Commentary -- 3.5. Preliminary conclusion -- Chapter 4: Judicial Anti-Avoidance in the European Union -- 4.1. Introduction -- 4.2. The specific nature of EU tax law -- 4.3. The methodological and constitutional nature of EU direct tax law -- 4.3.1. The internal market in the BEPS era -- 4.3.2. EU primary law - The treaties and the fundamental freedoms -- 4.3.3. The legal basis of general principles of EU law -- 4.3.4. The effect of a general principle in EU law -- 4.4. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union -- 4.4.1. Emsland Stärke - The elements of an abuse test -- 4.4.2. Cadbury Schweppes - Wholly artificial arrangements -- 4.4.3. Kofoed - A general principle of prohibition of abuse -- 4.4.4. The Danish beneficial ownership cases -- 4.4.4.1. Background -- 4.4.4.2. Legal framework -- 4.4.4.3. Difference from AG Kokott's opinions -- 4.4.4.4. Understanding the outcome -- 4.4.4.5. Assessing the facts -- 4.4.5. The dividend cases -- 4.4.5.1. T Danmark (C-116/16) - The TDC Case -- 4.4.5.2. Y Denmark (C-117/16) - The NetApp Case -- 4.4.6. The interest cases -- 4.4.6.1. Case C-115/16 - N Luxembourg I - The TDC Parent Case -- 4.4.6.2. Case C-118/16 - X Denmark A/S - The Nycomed/Takeda Case -- 4.4.6.3. Case C-119/16 - C Danmark I.4.4.6.4. Case C-299/16 - Z Denmark -- 4.4.7. The notion of abuse in EU law after the Danish beneficial ownership cases -- 4.4.8. The elements of the abuse test -- 4.4.8.1. The subjective element of the abuse test -- 4.4.9. Balancing the general principles of EU law - Legal certainty and anti-abuse -- 4.4.9.1. The legal nature of the prohibition of abuse of rights under EU law -- 4.4.9.2. The general principle of abuse and the fundamental freedoms -- 4.4.9.3. The principle of abuse and the directives -- 4.5. Preliminary conclusion -- Chapter 5: Alignment between the European Union and the OECD: An Interlocking Relationship -- 5.1. Introduction -- 5.2. Beneficial ownership according to the ECJ: A specific example of alignment -- 5.3. Common standards to combat tax abuse -- 5.4. Disentangling abuse from real economic activity: An economic assessment -- 5.5. Understanding the indications of abuse through economic theory -- 5.5.1. Behavioural theory of corporations -- 5.5.2. The theory of the firm -- 5.6. Everyday hallmarks of economic standards -- 5.6.1. Pre-tax profit -- 5.6.2. Risk and market forces -- 5.6.3. Indifferent parties and intermediaries -- 5.7. Indications of abuse in the subjective element -- 5.7.1. Group structure put in place to obtain a tax advantage -- 5.7.2. Immediate redistribution of dividends or interest -- 5.7.3. Insignificant income -- 5.7.4. Sole activity is redistribution and company lacks personnel and facilities -- 5.7.5. Contractual obligations rendering the company unable to use and enjoy -- 5.7.6. Close connection between the arrangement and new tax legislation -- 5.8. Preliminary conclusion: An economic test to disentangle abuse from real economic activity -- Chapter 6: A Network Analysis to Estimate the Effects of Anti-Avoidance Measures in the European Union and the OECD -- 6.1. Introduction.6.2. Applying the tax treaty network in light of modern international tax policy -- 6.3. Computing the tax benefit of holding structures -- 6.3.1. Case C-116/16: T Danmark - TDC -- 6.3.2. Case C-117/16: Y Denmark - NetApp ApS -- 6.4. Weighing the tax benefits against other business benefits -- 6.5. Assessing the impact of the rulings on treaty shopping gains -- 6.6. Network analysis of treaty shopping -- 6.6.1. The network approach and treaty shopping gains -- 6.6.2. Baseline 2018 -- 6.6.3. Scenarios for the analysis -- 6.7. Impact analysis: Scenario results -- 6.7.1. Scenario 1: Denmark unilateral -- 6.7.2. Scenario 2: EU-wide -- 6.7.3. Scenario 3: Inclusive Framework -- 6.7.4. Scenario 4: EU-wide prohibitive penalty -- 6.7.5. Scenario 5: OECD IF (Strong) -- 6.8. Summary of scenario results -- 6.9. Preliminary conclusion -- Chapter 7: Case Studies -- 7.1. Introduction -- 7.2. France -- 7.2.1. Introduction -- 7.2.2. The history of the French GAAR: Fictious arrangements and fraude à la loi -- 7.2.3. Applying the French GAAR -- 7.2.4. The French GAAR and the European Union -- 7.2.4.1. Non-genuine arrangements -- 7.2.4.2. Main purpose/one of the main purposes to obtain a tax advantage -- 7.2.4.3. Case C-6/16 Eqiom SAS &amp -- Enka SA -- 7.2.4.4. Domestic rulings from the Conseil d'État on 5 June 2020 (nos. 423811, 423809, 423810, 423812 and Enka) -- 7.2.5. The French GAAR and tax treaties -- 7.2.6. Preliminary conclusion -- 7.3. Germany -- 7.3.1. Introduction -- 7.3.2. The history of the German GAAR: Teleological interpretation or statutory provision? -- 7.3.3. Applying the German GAAR -- 7.3.4. The German GAAR and the European Union -- 7.3.4.1. Non-genuine arrangements -- 7.3.4.2. Main/sole purpose -- 7.3.4.3. Cases C-504/16 Deister Holding AG and C-613/16 Juhler Holding A/S -- 7.3.4.4. GS -- 7.3.4.5. X -- 7.3.5. The German GAAR and tax treaties.7.3.6. Preliminary conclusion -- 7.4. Denmark -- 7.4.1. Introduction -- 7.4.2. The (brief) history of the Danish GAAR from 2015 -- 7.4.3. Recent rulings involving the Danish GAAR -- 7.4.3.1. SKM2017.333.SR -- 7.4.3.2. SKM2019.413.SR -- 7.4.3.3. SKM2020.39.SR: The first domestic application on "inverted Christmas trees" -- 7.4.4. The Danish GAAR and tax treaties -- 7.4.4.1. SKM2018.466.SR: The "Singapore ruling" -- 7.4.5. Rulings from the High Court of Eastern Denmark on the beneficial ownership cases on dividends -- 7.4.5.1. The TDC Case: C-116/16 T Danmark -- 7.4.5.2. The NetApp Case: C-117/16 Y Denmark ApS -- 7.4.6. Preliminary conclusion -- 7.5. Australia -- 7.5.1. Introduction -- 7.5.2. The Australian GAAR: Literal or purposive interpretation? -- 7.5.3. Applying the GAAR -- 7.5.3.1. Sole/dominant purpose or principal purpose -- 7.5.3.2. Tax benefit -- 7.5.4. Significant case law -- 7.5.4.1. Peabody -- 7.5.4.2. Spotless -- 7.5.4.3. Hart -- 7.5.4.4. RCI -- 7.5.4.5. Futuris -- 7.5.5. Australia's recent GAAR rules dealing with BEPS -- 7.5.6. The Australian GAAR and the OECD Multilateral Instrument -- 7.5.7. Preliminary conclusion -- Chapter 8: Conclusion - Effectiveness of the GAARs -- 8.1. Chapter 1 - Introduction -- 8.2. Chapter 2 - Ensuring the tax revenue -- 8.3. Chapter 3 - Preventing treaty abuse within the OECD framework -- 8.4. Chapter 4 - Judicial anti-avoidance in the European Union -- 8.5. Chapter 5 - Alignment between the European Union and the OECD - An interlocking relationship -- 8.6. Chapter 6 - A network analysis to estimate the effects of anti-avoidance measures in the European Union and the OECD -- 8.7. Chapter 7 - Case studies -- 8.7.1. France -- 8.7.2. Germany -- 8.7.3. Denmark -- 8.7.4. Australia -- 8.8. Final conclusions -- References -- Other Titles in the IBFD Doctoral Series.The book analyzes two destination-based corporate tax models, their application to different types of digitalized business models, and their compliance with tax and data protection law frameworks.IBFD Doctoral European Union countriesInternational business enterprisesTax planningEuropean Union countries.International business enterprises.Tax planning.Sinnig Julia1062742MiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQ9910795987403321The Effectiveness of General Anti-Avoidance Rules3673870UNINA