The Effectiveness of General Anti-Avoidance Rules : : Their Limits, Challenges and Potential in EU and International Tax Law.

• Superior document: IBFD Doctoral Series ; v.65
• Author: Baerentzen, Susi.
• Place / Publishing House: Amsterdam : : IBFD Publications USA, Incorporated,, 2022.; ©2022.
• Year of Publication: 2022
• Edition: 1st ed.
• Language: English
• Series: IBFD Doctoral Series
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (325 pages)

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.

Table of Contents

• 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.