En generell skatteavtalsrättslig norm mot missbruk: en folkrättslig grund för att utan uttryckligt stöd i skatteavtalet neka en skattebetalare avtalets förmåner?
(2014) JURM02 20142Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Stater sluter skatteavtal för att undanröja dubbelbeskattning. Det är emellertid ett välkänt problem att skattebetalare nyttjar skatteavtalen för att undgå att betala skatt. Sedan år 2003 innehåller kommentaren till OECD:s modellavtal omfattande direktiv för hur staterna ska förhålla sig när någon missbrukar ett skatteavtal. En viktig fråga är om en stat kan neka en skattebetalare avtalets förmåner i en sådan situation. Kommentaren besvarar denna fråga jakande. I doktrin har förts en diskussion om huruvida det finns en generell skatteavtalsrättslig norm mot missbruk som ger stater rätt att neka en skattebetalare skatteavtalets förmåner när avtalet missbrukas, trots att stöd för detta saknas i avtalets ordalydelse. Inläggen i debatten är... (More)
- Stater sluter skatteavtal för att undanröja dubbelbeskattning. Det är emellertid ett välkänt problem att skattebetalare nyttjar skatteavtalen för att undgå att betala skatt. Sedan år 2003 innehåller kommentaren till OECD:s modellavtal omfattande direktiv för hur staterna ska förhålla sig när någon missbrukar ett skatteavtal. En viktig fråga är om en stat kan neka en skattebetalare avtalets förmåner i en sådan situation. Kommentaren besvarar denna fråga jakande. I doktrin har förts en diskussion om huruvida det finns en generell skatteavtalsrättslig norm mot missbruk som ger stater rätt att neka en skattebetalare skatteavtalets förmåner när avtalet missbrukas, trots att stöd för detta saknas i avtalets ordalydelse. Inläggen i debatten är många men frågan har aldrig lyfts ur ett svenskt perspektiv. Syftet med denna uppsats är att med fokus på svensk rätt diskutera och analysera den eventuella existensen och den praktiska betydelsen av en sådan norm.
De teorier som framförts till stöd för en generell skatteavtalsrättslig norm mot missbruk kan delas upp i två grupper. Den ena gruppen omfattar teorier som baseras på en general principle of law. Vissa betraktar det folkrättsliga förbudet mot abuse of rights som en sådan princip. En uppfattning är att den folkrättsliga abuse of rights-doktrinen kan överföras till skatteavtalsrätten. Min slutsats är dock att detta inte är möjligt då denna typ av normer endast är tillämpliga i den folkrättsliga sfären och inte på förhållandet mellan stat och skattebetalare. En annan uppfattning är att en general principle of law som ger stater rätt att neka en skattebetalare skatteavtalets förmåner vid missbruk kan härledas från de interna rättssystemen. Även detta resonemang kan enligt min uppfattning kritiseras. En viktig aspekt är att en sådan general principle of law inte har erkänts av ICJ, en annan att det är oklart om en sådan norm överhuvudtaget har tillräckligt stöd i de interna rättssystemen. Det kan också anföras att endast normer som är tillämpliga på förhållandet mellan stater kan utgöra general principles of law. Den andra gruppen omfattar teorier som baseras på att en sådan norm kan härledas från en tolkning av skatteavtalet i good faith och med beaktande av avtalets ändamål och syfte. Min slutsats är att det krävs en separat tolkning av varje enskilt skatteavtal för att konstatera huruvida det innehåller en generell skatteavtalsrättslig norm mot missbruk. Någon allmän slutsats kan således inte dras i detta avseende.
I uppsatsen undersöks också betydelsen av en eventuell skatteavtalsrättslig norm mot missbruk för svenska domstolar. I mitt resonemang har jag utgått från en norm i form av en general principle of law. Slutsatsen är att en sådan norm skulle utgöra ett folkrättsligt stöd för att tillämpa skatteflyktslagen i en situation som omfattas av ett skatteavtal, något som idag förekommer i svenska domstolar. Däremot skulle domstolarna fortsatt behöva förlita sig på svenska interna regler mot missbruk, det vill säga skatteflyktslagen och tolkningsprincipen verklig innebörd. Detta då det inte är möjligt att identifiera en universell standard. (Less) - Abstract
- The main purpose of tax treaties is to prevent double taxation. However, it is a well-known problem that taxpayers use tax treaties in order to avoid taxation. The commentary on the OECD Model Tax Convention addresses the issue on how states should deal with abuse of tax treaties. A key question is whether or not a state has to grant the benefits of the treaty in these situations. According to the commentary, the answer is yes. Meanwhile, some scholars have argued that there exists an anti-abuse rule in taxation matters. According to this rule states do not have to grant the benefits of a tax treaty in cases of abuse, despite lack of support for this conclusion in the wording of the treaty. As yet this issue has not been discussed from a... (More)
- The main purpose of tax treaties is to prevent double taxation. However, it is a well-known problem that taxpayers use tax treaties in order to avoid taxation. The commentary on the OECD Model Tax Convention addresses the issue on how states should deal with abuse of tax treaties. A key question is whether or not a state has to grant the benefits of the treaty in these situations. According to the commentary, the answer is yes. Meanwhile, some scholars have argued that there exists an anti-abuse rule in taxation matters. According to this rule states do not have to grant the benefits of a tax treaty in cases of abuse, despite lack of support for this conclusion in the wording of the treaty. As yet this issue has not been discussed from a Swedish perspective. The object of this paper is to, from a primarily Swedish point of view, discuss and analyse the possible existence and consequences of an anti-abuse rule in taxation matters.
The theories in support of an anti-abuse rule in taxation matters can be divided into two groups. The theories in the first group are based on a general principle of law. It has been suggested that the prohibition of abuse of rights in international public law constitutes a general principle of law. It is a theory that this principle from international public law can be applied against taxpayers. I do not agree with this conclusion. In my opinion principles of public international law can only be applied in the relations between states. Another theory is that a general principle of law, according to which states do not have to grant the benefits of a tax treaty in cases of abuse, can be derived from municipal law. I cannot agree with this conclusion either. Firstly, the ICJ has never recognized this principle. Secondly, it is uncertain to which extent an anti-abuse rule in taxation matters is supported by municipal law. Finally, it can be argued that only principles governing the relations between states can constitute a general principle of law. The theories in the second group are based on the interpretation of the treaty in good faith and in consideration of its object and purpose. My understanding is that all tax treaties has to be interpreted individually in order to determine whether or not they include an anti-abuse principle based on this theory. This means that it is not possible to draw any general conclusions in this matter.
In this paper I also address the consequences of an anti-abuse rule in taxation matters for Swedish tax treaty law. My conclusions are based on an anti-abuse rule grounded on a general principle of law. I conclude that the existence of such a rule would mean that the application of the Swedish law against tax avoidance (skatteflyktslagen) in tax treaty matters would not constitute a breach of the tax treaty. However, it is not possible to deduce a universal standard for an anti-abuse rule, meaning that courts would still have to apply internal anti-abuse rules. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4914167
- author
- Raaby Lindahl, Maria LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- A general anti-abuse rule in taxation matters: a basis in international law for refusing treaty benefits?
- course
- JURM02 20142
- year
- 2014
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- finansrätt, folkrätt, skatterätt, skatteavtal
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4914167
- date added to LUP
- 2015-01-16 09:22:57
- date last changed
- 2015-01-16 09:22:57
@misc{4914167,
abstract = {{The main purpose of tax treaties is to prevent double taxation. However, it is a well-known problem that taxpayers use tax treaties in order to avoid taxation. The commentary on the OECD Model Tax Convention addresses the issue on how states should deal with abuse of tax treaties. A key question is whether or not a state has to grant the benefits of the treaty in these situations. According to the commentary, the answer is yes. Meanwhile, some scholars have argued that there exists an anti-abuse rule in taxation matters. According to this rule states do not have to grant the benefits of a tax treaty in cases of abuse, despite lack of support for this conclusion in the wording of the treaty. As yet this issue has not been discussed from a Swedish perspective. The object of this paper is to, from a primarily Swedish point of view, discuss and analyse the possible existence and consequences of an anti-abuse rule in taxation matters.
The theories in support of an anti-abuse rule in taxation matters can be divided into two groups. The theories in the first group are based on a general principle of law. It has been suggested that the prohibition of abuse of rights in international public law constitutes a general principle of law. It is a theory that this principle from international public law can be applied against taxpayers. I do not agree with this conclusion. In my opinion principles of public international law can only be applied in the relations between states. Another theory is that a general principle of law, according to which states do not have to grant the benefits of a tax treaty in cases of abuse, can be derived from municipal law. I cannot agree with this conclusion either. Firstly, the ICJ has never recognized this principle. Secondly, it is uncertain to which extent an anti-abuse rule in taxation matters is supported by municipal law. Finally, it can be argued that only principles governing the relations between states can constitute a general principle of law. The theories in the second group are based on the interpretation of the treaty in good faith and in consideration of its object and purpose. My understanding is that all tax treaties has to be interpreted individually in order to determine whether or not they include an anti-abuse principle based on this theory. This means that it is not possible to draw any general conclusions in this matter.
In this paper I also address the consequences of an anti-abuse rule in taxation matters for Swedish tax treaty law. My conclusions are based on an anti-abuse rule grounded on a general principle of law. I conclude that the existence of such a rule would mean that the application of the Swedish law against tax avoidance (skatteflyktslagen) in tax treaty matters would not constitute a breach of the tax treaty. However, it is not possible to deduce a universal standard for an anti-abuse rule, meaning that courts would still have to apply internal anti-abuse rules.}},
author = {{Raaby Lindahl, Maria}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{En generell skatteavtalsrättslig norm mot missbruk: en folkrättslig grund för att utan uttryckligt stöd i skatteavtalet neka en skattebetalare avtalets förmåner?}},
year = {{2014}},
}