Metrika

  • citati u SCIndeksu: 0
  • citati u CrossRef-u:0
  • citati u Google Scholaru:[]
  • posete u poslednjih 30 dana:13
  • preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:11

Sadržaj

članak: 1 od 1  
2019, vol. 67, br. 2, str. 7-33
(Ne)ustavnost odredbe o testu glavnog cilja transakcije ili aranžmana iz poreskih ugovora
Univerzitet u Beogradu, Pravni fakultet

e-adresadejan.popovic@ius.bg.ac.rs, gordana@ius.bg.ac.rs
Ključne reči: Glavni cilj transakcije ili aranžmana; Multilateralni instrument; Izbegavanje poreza; Pravna sigurnost; Ustavnost
Sažetak
Stupanjem na snagu Multilateralne konvencije (Multilateral Instrument - MLI) u Srbiji počinje da deluje klauzula o glavnom cilju transakcije ili aranžmana (GCT test), koja dozvoljava poreskim vlastima da ne odobre pogodnost iz obuhvaćenog poreskog ugovora. U članku se analizira struktura GCT i ustanovljava da su im ostavljena široka diskreciona ovlašćenja. Formulacija norme je takva da ne određuje šta će se oporezovati u zemlji izvora pošto pogodnost bude uskraćena. Autori zaključuju da zemlja rezidentstva može da ne dâ olakšicu kojom eliminiše nastalo dvostruko oporezivanje ako smatra da nije reč o razlikama u nacionalnom pravu već o razlikama u tumačenju odredaba ugovora ili činjenica. Ustavnost GCT testa mogla bi se ocenjivati u odnosu na principe pravne sigurnosti i jednakosti. Poreske vlasti su dobile arbitrarna ovlašćenja da procenjuju da li je reč o abuzivnom, jednom od glavnih ciljeva transakcije ili o legitimnom komercijalnom cilju, kojim će biti narušeni ustavni principi jednakosti i oporezivanja prema ekonomskoj snazi.
Reference
*** Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. http://www.oecd.org/tax/ treaties/multilateral-convention-to-implement-tax-treaty-relatedmeasures-to-prevent-BEPS.pdf (poslednji pristup 10. januar 2019)
Aaronson, G. (2011) GAAR Study: A Study to Consider whether a General Anti-avoidance Rule Should be Introduced into the UK Tax System. London: National Archives, https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130402163458/http://www.hm-treasury. gov.uk/d/gaar_final_report_111111.pdf (poslednji pristup 7. januar 2019. godine)
Arnold, B.J. (2016) International Tax Primer. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer
Atkinson, C. (2012) General Anti-Avoidance Rules: Exploring the Balance between the Taxpayer's Need for Certainty and the Government's Need to Prevent Tax Avoidance. Journal of Australian Taxation, 14: 1-56
Báez, M.A. (2017) GAARs and Treaties: From the Guiding Principle to the Principal Purpose Test: What Have We Gained from BEPS Action 6?. Intertax, 45: 432-446
Baker, P. (2013) Improper use of tax treaties, tax avoidance and tax evasion. https://vdocuments.site/tax-avoidance-tax-mitigationphilip-baker.html (poslednji pristup 25. decembar 2018. godine)
Bourgeois, M. (2008) Constitutional Framework of the Different Types of Income. u: Bruno Peeters [ur.] The Concept of Tax, Amsterdam: IBFD, 79-183
Bravo, N. (2016) The Multilateral Tax Instrument and Its Relationship with Tax Treaties. World Tax Journal, 8: 279-304
Chand, V. (2018) The Interaction of Domestic Anti-Avoidance Rules with Tax Treaties (with special references to the BEPS project). Zurich: Schulthess
Chand, V. (2018) The Principal Purpose Test in the Multilateral Convention: An in-depth analysis. Intertax, 46: 18-44
de Broe, L., Luts, J. (2015) BEPS Action 6: Tax Treaty Abuse. Intertax, 6: 122-146
Dourado, A.P. (2015) Aggressive Tax Planning in EU Law and in the Light of BEPS: The EC Recommendation on Aggressive Tax Planning and BEPS Actions 2 and 6. Intertax, 43: 42-57
Engelen, F. (2004) Interpretation of Tax Treaties under International Law. Amsterdam: IBFD
Freedman, J. (2004) Defining Taxpayer Responsibility: In Support of a General Anti-Avoidance Principle. British Tax Review, 4: 332-357
Jelčić, B. (1998) Financijsko pravo i financijska znanost. Zagreb: Informator
Kasoulides, P.S. (2013) When It Comes to General Anti-Avoidance Rules, is Broader Better?. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington - Faculty of Law
Kemmeren, E.C.C.M. (2014) Where is EU Law in the OECD BEPS Discussion?. EC Tax Review, 23: 190-193
Kok, R. (2016) The Principal Purpose Test in Tax Treaties under BEPS 6. Intertax, 44: 406-412
Koriak, O. (2016) The Principal Purpose Test under BEPS Action 6: Does the OECD Proposal Fit the EU Legal Framework. Lund: Lund University-School of Economics and Management
Lang, M. (2014) BEPS Action 6: Introducing an Antiabuse Rule in Tax Treaties. Tax Notes International, 74: 655-664
Lovčević, J. (1993) Institucije javnih finansija. Beograd: Službeni list
OECD (2013) Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. Paris
OECD (2015) Developing a Multilateral Instrument to Modify Bilateral Tax Treaties: Action 15 - 2015 Final Report. Paris
OECD (2017) Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital. Paris
OECD (1990) Taxpayers' Rights and Obligations. Paris
Pinetz, E. (2016) Use of a Principal Purpose Test to Prevent Treaty Abuse. u: Michael Lang, Pasquale Pistone, Alexander Rust, Josef Schuch, Claus Staringer [ur.] Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS): The Proposals to Revise the OECD Model Convention, Vienna: Linde Verlag, 271-301
Popović, D., Ilić-Popov, G. (2017) Značaj i efekti BEPS multilateralne konvencije u međunarodnom poreskom pravu. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu, vol. 56, br. 75, str. 13-31
Popović, D. (2018) Poresko pravo. u: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, Beograd
Popović, D., Kostić, S.V. (2009) Ugovori Srbije o izbegavanju dvostrukog oporezivanja - pravni okvir i tumačenje. Beograd: Cekos in
Schwidetzky, W.D. (1996) Hyperlexis and the Loophole. Oklahoma Law Review, 49: 403-424
Taboada, P.C. (2015) OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Action 6: The General Anti-Abuse Rule. Bulletin for International Taxation, 69: 602-608
Thuronyi, V. (2003) Comparative Tax Law. The Hague: Kluwer
Tiley, J. (2000) Revenue Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing
Todorović, M. (1930) Nauka o finansijama - nauka o porezima. Beograd: Geca Kon, I
Valderrama, I.J.M. (2018) Output Legitimacy Deficits and the Inclusive Framework of the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Initiative. Bulletin for International Taxation, 72: section 1 -section 4
van Dijk, P., Haller, G., Jowell, J., Tuori, K. (2011) Report on the Rule of Law. Strasbourg: European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission, Study No. 512/2009
Weber, D. (2017) The Reasonableness Test of the Principal Purpose Test Rule in OECD BEPS Action 6 (Tax Treaty Abuse) versus the EU Principle of Legal Certainty and the EU Abuse of Law Case Law. Erasmus Law Review, 10(1): 48-59
 

O članku

jezik rada: srpski
vrsta rada: članak
DOI: 10.5937/AnaliPFB1902007P
objavljen u SCIndeksu: 28.06.2019.
Creative Commons License 4.0

Povezani članci