Основы международного корпоративного налогообложения [заметки]

Шрифт

Интервал

Хаванова И. А. Международные договоры Российской Федерации об избежании двойного налогообложения: монография (под ред. д. ю. н., проф. И. И. Кучерова). Институт законодательства и сравнительного правоведения при Правительстве Российской Федерации. ИД «Юриспруденция», 2016.

URL: rosifa.ru.

Реализуется совместно с International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation (IBFD).

В России в области международного налогового права существует площадка для обмена мнениями в рамках Российского отделения Международной налоговой ассоциации (Рос-ИФА), благодаря которой специалисты в области международного налогового права могут обмениваться мнениями, но это скорее исключение, подтверждающее правило о дефиците таких площадок.

Ларютина И. А. Избежание двойного налогообложения и уклонение от уплаты налогов в международном налоговом праве: автореф. дис… канд. юр. наук. М., 2002.

Seligman E. R. A. Double Taxation and International Fiscal Cooperation. The Macmillan Company. N. Y., 1928.

Seligman E. R. A. Essays in taxation. The McMillan Company. N. Y., 1925 (10th ed.).

Загряцков М. Д. Проблема двойного налогообложения в послевоенной литературе // Вестник финансов. 1929. № 7.

Падейский Н. А. Проблема двойного обложения и интересы советских хозорганов, действующих за границей // Вопросы торговли. 1929. № 9—10; Падейский Н. А. Двойное обложение как международная финансово-правовая проблема // Вестник финансов. 1929. № 11–12.

Под налоговой юрисдикцией государства понимаются пределы его правомочий устанавливать налоговые обязательства в отношении определенного круга лиц или объектов. Основные теоретические аспекты налоговой юрисдикции государств описаны в книге Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction. Deventer – Boston, 1989.

David Rosenbloom, The David R. Tillinghast. Lecture International Tax Arbitrage and the «International Tax System». International Tax Law Review. 2000. Р. 137, 140.

Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, Commentary on David Rosenbloom’s, The David R. Tillinghast Lecture International Tax Arbitrage and the «International Tax System». International Tax Law Review. 2000. Р. 167, 169.

На момент написания статьи (2000) Реувен Ави-Йонах упомянул о 2 тыс. соглашений. Однако на момент написания данной книги, по официальной оценке ОЭСР, количество действующих налоговых соглашений перевалило за 3 тыс. (OECD Model Tax Convention: 50 years of promoting a business-friendly tax environment. URL: www.oecd.org/general/oecdmodeltaxconvention50yearsofpromotingabusiness-friendlytaxenvironment.htm.)

В английском языке используется аббревиатура MNE, сокращение от multinational enterprise, а также MNC (multinational company). Определение данного термина содержится в отчете ОЭСР в Руководстве для мультинациональных компаний (Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises, 1976): «Мультинациональные предприятия обычно представляют собой компании и другие лица, собственность на которые может быть частной, государственной или смешанной, основанные в различных странах и взаимосвязанные между собой таким образом, что одна (или более) из них может быть в состоянии значительно влиять на деятельность других и в особенности совместно использовать знания и ресурсы с другими компаниями». Соответственно, под МНК обычно понимаются группы компаний, входящих в общий корпоративный холдинг, а не индивидуальные компании – холдинговые или корпоративные штаб-квартиры.

Compania de Tabacos v. Collector, 275 US 87 (SC). P. 100. URL: supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/275/87/case.html.

См., например, ст. 39 Налогового кодекса РФ («Реализация товаров, работ или услуг»).

Более подробно о применении импутационной системы см.: Peter Harris. Corporate/Shareholder Income Taxation and Allocating Taxing Rights Between Countries. 1996.

IBFD International Tax Glossary, 6th ed. Amsterdam: IBFD, 2009. P. 227.

К примеру, Великобритания применяет импутационную систему и не взимает налог у источника на дивиденды вне зависимости от того, кому они выплачиваются: резидентам или нерезидентам. Венгрия, Гонконг, Кипр, Малайзия, Мальта, Сингапур и другие страны не взимают налог у источника на дивиденды, выплачиваемые нерезидентам.

Ward Hussey & Donald Lubick. Basic World Tax Code and Commentary. 1996. § 164.

Richard J. Vann. International Aspects of Income Tax // Tax Law Design and Drafting. Vol. 2. Chapter 18. P. 12. International Monetary Fund 1998, Victor Thuronyi, ed. URL: www.imf.org/external/pubs/nft/1998/tlaw/eng.

См. индийское дело Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India, 2012 (URL: indiankanoon.org/doc/115852355), касающееся попытки индийских налоговых органов взыскать налог с компании-нерезидента в такой же ситуации. См. также комментарии к данному делу (Vodafone India // Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. URL: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vodafone_India#Vodafone-Hutchison_Tax_Case; Tax alerts: the Vodafone case // Ernst and Young India. URL: www.ey.com/IN/en/Services/Tax/About-Tax/Tax-alerts-the-Vodafone-case).

Кодекс внутренних доходов США, IRC. § 871 (d).

Шепенко Р. А. К вопросу о международном налоговом праве // Современные проблемы теории налогового права: материалы междунар. науч. конф. Воронеж, 4–6 сентября 2007 г. / под ред. М. В. Карасевой. Воронеж: Изд-во Воронежского государственного университета, 2007. С. 483–493.

Наиболее авторитетные международные издательства, выпускающие профессиональную литературу по международному налогообложению и международному налоговому праву: International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, IBFD, the Netherlands (www.ibfd.org); Bureau of National Affairs, BNA, USA (http://www.bna.com/); LexisNexis, USA (www.lexis-nexis.com); Tax Analysts, USA (www.tax.org).

Лещенко С. К. К вопросу о понятии международного налогового права // Промышленно-торговое право. 2008. № 3. URL: www.law.bsu.by/pub/48/4_leshchenko.doc.

Шахмаметьев А. А. Международное налогообложение и международное налоговое право: правовые аспекты взаимосвязи // Финансовое право. 2006. № 3. С. 24–31.

Шахмаметьев А. А. Международное налоговое право: учебно-методический комплекс. М.: Тровант, 2009.

Reuven S. Avi-Yonah. International tax as international law: an analysis of the international tax regime. Cambridge Tax Law Series. NY, 2007. P. 3.

Погорлецкий А. И. Принципы международного налогообложения и международного налогового планирования. СПб.: Изд-во СПбГУ, 2005. С. 53–54.

Кашин В. А. Налоговые соглашения России. Международное налоговое планирование для предприятий. М.: Финансы; ЮНИТИ, 1998. С. 47.

Богуславский М. М. Международное экономическое право. М.: Международные отношения, 1986. С. 44.

Безбородов Ю. С. Международные модельные нормы / М.: Волтерс Клувер, 2008. C. 50, 104.

Кучеров И. И. Международное налоговое право: учебник для вузов. М.: ЮрИнфоР, 2007. С. 452.

Кучеров И. И. Теоретические вопросы международного налогового права и его место в системе налогово-правового регулирования // Финансовое право. 2006. № 1. Стр. 44–48.

Меркулов Е. С. Понятие и предмет международного налогового права: спорные вопросы // Право и политика. 2004. № 4. С. 91—102.

Arnold Knechtle. Basic Problems in International Fiscal Law. London: HFL Publishers Ltd., 1979. P. 37.

Кашин В. А. Налоговые соглашения России. Международное налоговое планирование для предприятий. М.: Финансы; ЮНИТИ, 1998.

Там же. С. 383.

Погорлецкий А. И. Международное налогообложение: учебник. СПб.: Изд-во Михайлова В. А., 2006.

Ларютина И. А. Избежание двойного налогообложения и уклонение от уплаты налогов в международном праве: дис… канд. юр. наук. М., 2002.

Фомина О. Международное налоговое право: понятие, основные принципы // Хозяйство и право. 1995. № 5. С. 125–135.

Полякова С. П., Котляренко В. В. Понятие международного налогового права // Налоговое право: учебное пособие / под ред. С. Г. Пепеляева. М.: ФБК-ПРЕСС, 2000.

Денисаев М. В. Налоговые отношения с участием иностранных организаций в Российской Федерации: учебное пособие. М.: Юриспруденция, 2005.

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 20.

Ibid. P. 26. § 45а.

Статут Международного суда ООН // Организация Объединенных Наций. URL: www.un.org/ru/icj/statut.shtml#chap2.

Шахмаметьев А. А. Международное налоговое право: учебно-методический комплекс. М.: Тровант, 2009. С. 50.

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 14.

Венская конвенция о праве международных договоров была впервые открыта для присоединения (подписания) государствами 22 мая 1969 г. на конференции ООН о праве международных договоров в Вене (Австрия). Конвенция вступила в силу в 1980 г. (Венская конвенция о праве международных договоров. URL: www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/law_treaties.shtml).

Талалаев А. Н. Международные договоры в современном мире. Вопросы права международных договоров в свете работы Венской конференции ООН 1968–1969 гг. М.: Международные отношения, 1973; Талалаев А. Н. Право международных договоров. Общие вопросы. М.: Международные отношения, 1980.

Пункт 5 Постановления Пленума Верховного суда РФ от 31 октября 1995 г. № 8 «О некоторых вопросах применения судами Конституции Российской Федерации при осуществлении правосудия».

Права человека: сборник международных договоров ООН. Нью-Йорк: [б. и.], 1978.

Сборник действующих договоров, соглашений и конвенций, заключенных СССР с иностранными государствами. Вып. XXXII. М., 1978.

Там же.

Постановление Пленума Верховного суда Российской Федерации от 10 октября 2003 г. № 5 «О применении судами общей юрисдикции общепризнанных принципов и норм международного права и международных договоров Российской Федерации» // Российская газета. 2003. 2 декабря. URL: rg.ru/2003/12/02/pravo-doc.html

Налоговое право: учебник / отв. ред. и рук. авт. коллектива С. Г. Пепеляев. М.: Юристъ, 2005.

Cartou L. Droit fiscal international et europeen. Paris: Dalloz, 1981. P. 27.

Погорлецкий А. И. Принципы международного налогообложения и международного налогового планирования. СПб.: Изд-во СПбГУ, 2005. С. 33.

Cartou L. Op. cit. P. 26.

Tixier G., Gest G. Droit fiscal international. Paris: PUF, 1985. P. 32.

Кашин В. А. Налоговые соглашения России. Международное налоговое планирование для предприятий. М.: Финансы; ЮНИТИ, 1998. С. 43

Вахитов Р. Р. Обзор новых решений Европейского суда по правам человека // Налоговед. 2006. № 9; Вахитов Р. Р. В Европейском суде по правам человека // Налоговед. 2007. № 2; Вахитов Р. Р. Развитие судебной практики ЕСПЧ по налоговым и связанным с ними спорам в 2007 году // Налоговед. 2007. № 10; Калинин С. И. Использование правовых позиций ЕСПЧ по налоговым спорам в российской правоприменительной практике // Налоговед. 2007. № 12; Зинченко Л. А. Применение положений Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод в налоговых спорах // Ваш налоговый адвокат. 2007. № 10.

Европейская конвенция о защите прав человека и основных свобод от 4 ноября 1950 г. URL: europeancourt.ru/konvenciya-o-zashhite-prav-cheloveka-i-drugie-oficialnye-dokumenty/konvenciya-o-zashhite-prav-cheloveka-i-osnovnyx-svobod.

Постановление Конституционного суда РФ от 30 июля 2001 г. № 13-П по делу о проверке конституционности положений подпункта 7 пункта 1 статьи 7, пункта 1 статьи 77 и пункта 1 статьи 81 Федерального закона «Об исполнительном производстве» в связи с запросами Арбитражного суда Воронежской области, Арбитражного суда Саратовской области и жалобой открытого акционерного общества «Разрез „Изыхский“»; Определение ВАС РФ от 14 октября 2008 г. № 4588/08 по делу № А33-12967/2007.

Информационное письмо ВАС РФ от 20 декабря 1999 г. № С1-7/СМП-1341 «Об основных положениях, применяемых Европейским судом по правам человека при защите имущественных прав и права на правосудие» // Вестник ВАС РФ. 2000. № 2.

Berr C. J., Tremeau A. Le droit douanier: regime des operations de commerce international en France et dans la C.E.E. Paris: Economica, 1988. P. 67.

Хапов А. В. Налоговое право в системе международно-правовых отношений: методологический аспект // Российская юстиция. 2005. № 9. С. 69.

Международная юрисдикция Судебного комитета подтверждена законодательством 31 страны, в отношении которых он уполномочен рассматривать апелляции, из которых 13 стран – независимые государства. Обращение к Тайному совету признают Антигуа и Барбуда, Гренада, Ниуэ, Острова Кука, Содружество Багамских Островов, Сент-Винсент и Гренадины, Сент-Люсия, Тувалу, Федерация Сент-Китс и Невис, Ямайка; коронные владения Джерси, Гернси, включая территории, зависимые от Гернси: острова Олдерни, Сарк, Мэн; заморские территории Великобритании Ангилья, Бермуды, Британские Виргинские острова, острова Кайман, Фолклендские острова, Гибралтар, Монтсеррат, Острова Святой Елены, Вознесения и Тристан-да-Кунья, Теркс и Кайкос, Острова Питкэрн, Британская антарктическая территория, Южная Георгия и Южные Сандвичевы Острова, военные базы Акротири и Декелия (Кипр). Апелляции подаются напрямую в Судебный комитет от Содружества Доминики, Республики Маврикий, Республики Тринидад и Тобаго, а также, если дело затрагивает конституционные права, от Республики Кирибати. Кроме того, по соглашению между Великобританией и Государством Бруней-Даруссалам, суд рассматривает апелляции к султану и отчитывается перед ним (источник: Exchange of Notes concerning the Reference of Appeals from the Supreme Court of Brunei Darussalam to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty’s Privy Council. Bandar Seri Begawan: Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 1995. 19^>th January. URL: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/273164/2841.pdf).

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Taxmann, 2008. Р. 59.

Commonwealth of Nations // Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. URL: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations.

Многие государства, ранее входившие в Британское содружество, формально подчинялись английскому праву, разумеется, с учетом законодательных изменений и судебного вовлечения для привязки к местным законам территорий. Решения британских судов в настоящее время продолжают цитироваться в качестве авторитетного мнения в судах территорий. Для ряда стран Судебный комитет Тайного совета – это окончательная апелляционная инстанция. Многие страны, ранее подчинявшиеся британскому праву (например, Гонконг), продолжают признавать законы Великобритании в качестве своих, с учетом собственных законов (English law // Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. URL: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law).

Thiel v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 171 CLR 338.

Donroy Ltd., Dostrey, Ltd., Lacancal, Ltd., and Transpat, Ltd. v. United States of America (1961) № 17463. URL: ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19610503_0000031.NCA.htm/qx.

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust (1983) 144 ITR 146 AP. URL: www.indiankanoon.org/doc/865397.

Подробнее см.: Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 59.

European Court of Human Rights. URL: www.echr.coe.int.

Riener v. Bulgaria (Application № 46343/99). European Court of Human Rights. 2006. 23th May. URL: hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-75463#{"itemid":["001-75463"]}

Информация о деле (по материалам Постановления ЕСПЧ от 23 мая 2006 г. № 46343/99 / пер. с англ. В. А. Власихин, А. Н. Русов // Законы России. URL: lawrussia.ru/texts/legal_319/doc319a973x645.htm.

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 9 января 2007 г. по делу № 803/02 / пер. с англ. Г. А. Николаев // Сейчас. ру. URL: https://www.lawmix.ru/vas/119907.

Европейский суд по правам человека. Избранные постановления и решения 2001 г. Ч. 2 / сост. Л. И. Брычева и др. М.: Юридическая литература, 2004. С. 370, 375.

Ручкин О. Ю. Общепризнанные принципы и нормы международного права и международные договоры как источники финансового права // Международное публичное и частное право. 2005. № 4.

Peter Harris, David Oliver. International Commercial Tax. Cambridge University Press, 2010. P. 16.

Ibid. P. 18.

Knights of Columbus v. The Queen [2008]TCC 307 (TC) at § 82.

The Treaty on European Union and The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2012/C 326/01); Official Journal of the European Union. Консолидированный текст обоих документов появился по результатам Лиссабонского договора 2007 г.

Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen // Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Gend_en_Loos_v_Nederlandse_Administratie_der_Belastingen.

Более подробно о ЕС см.: European Union // Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union.

Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States. Official Journal L 225. 20/08/1990. P. 6–9.

Council Directive 2009/133/EC of 19 October 2009 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, partial divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States and to the transfer of the registered office of an SE or SCE between Member States. Official Journal L 310. 25.11.2009. P. 34–46.

Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States. Official Journal. L 157. 26.06.2003. P. 49–54.

Council Directive 2003/48/EC of 3 June 2003 on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments. Official Journal. L 157. 26.06.2003. P. 38–48.

Конвенция о защите прав человека и основных свобод (Рим, 4 ноября 1950 г.) (с изменениями от 21 сентября 1970 г., 20 декабря 1971 г., 1 января, 6 ноября 1990 г., 11 мая 1994 г.) // Европейская конвенция о защите прав человека: право и практика. URL: www.echr.ru/documents/doc/2440800/2440800-001.htm.

Федеральный закон от 30 марта 1998 г. № 54-ФЗ «О ратификации Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод и Протоколов к ней» // Гарант. ру. URL: http://base.garant.ru/12111157/.

Edmond McGovern. European Community Anti-Dumping and Trade Defence Law and Practice. Globefield Press, 2008. P. D5:21.

Peter Harris, David Oliver. International Commercial Tax. Cambridge University Press, 2010. P. 28.

Alfred Nizamiev. The Main Characteristics of State’s Jurisdiction to Tax in International Dimension. LM Theses and Essays. 2003. Paper 36. URL: http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/stu_llm/36/.

F. Mann, The doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law, III RdC 1964-I. P. 30.

Ibid. p. 15.; Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction. Deventer – Boston, 1989. P. 13–14.

100

Restatement (Second) of Law, Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Section S, 1962; Kathleen Hixson, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Under the Third Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States – Fordham. International Law Journal. Issue 1. 1988 (art. 6).

101

Jean Marc Rivier, Droit Fiscal Suisse: Le Droit Fiscal International (1983). Le pouvoir d’édicter des norms de droit fiscal et de les appliquer pour lever l’impôt.

102

J. H. Beale. The jurisdiction of a Sovereign State. Harvard Law Review. Vol. 36. P. 241.

103

Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction. Deventer – Boston, 1989. P. 13.

104

George W. Cook (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States. Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 1927. P. 209–213, 213–217.

105

Santa Clara Estates Case (Supplementary Claim), 1903. P. 455–460.

106

Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction. Deventer – Boston, 1989. Р. 46.

107

Ibid. P. 44.

108

S. S. Lotus (France v. Turkey) 1927 P.C.I.J. Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A. № 10. Collection of Judgments. A.W. Sijthoff’s Publishing Company. Leyden, 1927. URL: www.icj-cij.org/pcij/serie_A/A_10/30_Lotus_Arret.pdf.

109

См. также: Блищенко И. П., Дориа Ж. Экономический суверенитет государства. М.: Изд-во РУДН, 2000; Малеев Ю. Н. Международное воздушное право. Вопросы теории и практики. М.: Международные отношения, 1986. С. 75; Лазарев М. И. О понятии правопорядка в Мировом океане // Вопросы международного морского и воздушного права: сб. статей. М.: Ин-т государства и права, 1979. С. 8.

110

W. Riphagen. Some Reflections on «Functional Sovereignty». Netherlands Yearbook of International Law. Vol. 6. 1975. Р. 121–165. URL: journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5114160.

111

Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. Extraterritorial Taxation in International Law / Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in theory and practice. Dr. Karl M. Meessen ed., 1996. Р. 31–32.

112

Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction. Deventer – Boston, 1989. Р. 64.

113

David H. Rosenbloom. Taxing the Income of Foreign Controlled Corporations. 36 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 1525, 1532. 2001.

114

Ex parte Blain; In re Sawers (1879) LR 12 Chancery Division 522 at 526.

115

Clark (Inspector of Taxes) v. Oceanic Contractors Inc. (1983) 1 ALL ER 133.

116

Clark v. Oceanic Contractors Inc. (1983) Lord Scarman: «Parliament recognises the almost universally accepted principle that fiscal legislation is not enforceable outside the limits of the territorial sovereignty of the Kingdom. Fiscal legislation is no doubt drafted in the knowledge that it is the practice of nations not to enforce the fiscal legislation of other nations. But, in the absence of any clear indications to the contrary it does not necessarily follow that Parliament has in its fiscal legislation intended any limitation other than that imposed by such unenforceability».

117

Agassi v. Robinson (Inspector of Taxes) [2006]1 WLR 2126. 186. URL: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060517/agasro.pdf.

118

Louis Henkin. International Law: Politics, Values and Functions. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1989.

119

Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1987), § 431.

120

121

United States v. Toyota Motor Corp. (1983) USDCC Cal.

122

Kees van Raad. Non-discrimination in international tax law. Series on international taxation № 6. Kluwer Law International, 1986. Р. 20. Ref. 10.

123

Milwaukee County v. M.E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268 (1935). URL: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/296/268.html.

124

Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Revenue Division) v. Taylor and Another (1955) A.C. 491. URL: www.uniset.ca/other/css/1955AC491.html.

125

United States of America v. Harden (1963) S.C.R. 366. URL: uniset.ca/other/cs5/1963SCR366.html.

126

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia v. Gilbertson (1979). URL: law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/597/1161/125691.

127

Sociata Anonima Principe Di Paterno Moncada v. INPS // International Law Reports. Vol. 71. C. J. Greenwood, E. Lauterpacht; Cambridge, Grotius Publications Limited, 1986. URL: www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0521464161/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link.

128

Подписана в Страсбурге и Париже 25 января 1988 г., вступила в силу с 1 апреля 1995 г. Первоначально сторонами конвенции были страны – члены Совета Европы и ОЭСР. На заседании Большой двадцатки 3 ноября 2011 г. в Каннах (Франция) конвенцию подписали и страны G20 [Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters. URL: www.oecd.org/document/14/0,3746,en_2649_33767_2489998_1_1_1_1,00.html.

129

Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures. URL: eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32010L0024:EN: NOT.

130

OECD, Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs). URL: www.oecd.org/document/7/0,3746,en_2649_33767_38312839_1_1_1_1,00.html.

131

Термин «налоговая привязка» редко употребляется в отечественной профессиональной литературе по налогообложению. Единственное известное автору упоминание термина встречается в статье В. Тутыхина (Тутыхин В. Налоговая резидентность защитных структур // Авторская страница Валерия Тутыхина. URL: www.vvtlaw.com/?page_id=389). А. Шахмаметьев использует выражение «экономическая связь» субъекта/объекта с фискальной территорией государства.

132

Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction. Deventer – Boston, 1989. Р. 46.

133

Arnold Knechtle. Basic Problems in International Fiscal Law. Kluwer, The Netherlands, 1979.

134

Kees van Raad. Non-discrimination in international tax law. Series on international taxation № 6. Kluwer Law International, 1986. Р. 20–21.

135

Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction. Deventer – Boston, 1989. Р. 20.

136

A. R. Albrecht. The Taxation of Aliens under International Law. 29 Brit. Y. B. Int’l Law, 1952. P. 145.

137

Ibid. P. 145–146.

138

Georg von Schanz. Zur Frage der Steuerpflicht. Finanzarchiv, 9. Jahrg., H. 2. Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, 1892. URL: www.jstor.org/pss/40904760.

139

U. S. Treasury, Blueprints for Basic Tax Reform (1977).

140

Stephen E. Shay, J. Clifton Fleming Jr. and Robert Peroni. What’s Source Got to Do With It? Source Rules and International Taxation. The David R. Tillinghast Lecture. 56 Tax Law Review. 2002. P 81, 92; Green, Robert A. The Future of Source-Based Taxation of the Income of Multinational Enterprises, 79 Cornell Law Review 18. 1993. P. 21–22, 30–32 and 70–86.

141

Gijsbert Bruins (Netherlands), Luigi Einaudi (Italy), Edwin Seligman (United States), Sir Josiah Stamp (United Kingdom). Report on Double Taxation. League of Nations Doc E.F.S.73 F.19. URL: openlibrary.org/books/OL15422186M/Report_on_double_taxation.

142

A. R. Albrecht. The Taxation of Aliens under International Law. 29 Brit. Y. B. Int'l Law, 1952. Р. 146. Ref. 2.

143

The 1923 Report on Double Taxation. League of Nations Doc E.F.S.73 F.19 at Part II, Section I.A. The Basis of Taxation. The Principle of Ability to Pay.

144

State of Colorado v. Harbeck (1921) 232 N. Y. 71, 133 N.E. 357 N.Y. URL: uniset.ca/other/cs3/133NE357.html.

145

Wirtschaftliche Zugehörigkeit (нем); economic allegiance (англ.).

146

The 1923 Report on Double Taxation. League of Nations Doc E.F.S.73 F.19 at Part II, Section I.A. The Basis of Taxation.

147

Ibid. P. 23.

148

Double Taxation and Tax Evasion. Report and Resolutions submitted by the Technical Experts to the Financial Committee. 1925 (F.212); Draft of a Bilateral Convention for the Prevention of Double Taxation and Tax Evasion. Report presented by the Committee of Technical Experts on Double Taxation and Tax Evasion. 1927 (C.216.M.85.1927.II); Double Taxation and Tax Evasion. League of Nations, Fiscal Committee, London and Mexico Model Tax Conventions, Commentary and Text, 1946 (C.88.M.88.1846.II.A); The Elimination of Double Taxation. The First Report of the Fiscal Committee of the O.E.E.C. 1958.

149

Cook v. Tait (1924) 265 U.S. 47. URL: www.givemeliberty.org/docs/taxresearchcd/Cases/Cook.pdf.

150

Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Imperial Tobacco Co. Of India Ltd. (1949). URL: indiankanoon.org/doc/89806.

151

The Minquiers and Ecrehos Case (1953). URL: www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=88&code=fuk&p1=3&p2=3&case=17&k=19&p3=4.

152

Также см.: Rosembuj Tulio. Personal and Economic Allegiance under the Personal Income Tax and Corporate Tax in Spain. 26 Intertax. 1998. P. 4–6.

153

Eric C.C.M. Kemmeren. Source of Income in Globalizing Economies: Overview of the Issues and a Plea for an Origin-Based Approach. IBFD Bulletin for International Taxation. November 2006. P. 431.

154

Ibid.

155

Schanz Georg. Zur Frage der Steuerpflicht in Finanzarchiv: Zeitschrift für r das gesamte Finanzwesen. Stuttgart: Mohr, 1892. Vol. IX. P. 368. («Jeder, der wirtschaftlich an die Gemeinschaft gekettet ist, d.h. jeder, dem aus der Erfüllung der Aufgaben des Gemeinwesens Vorteile erwachsen, trägt zu den Lasten bei»).

156

Более подробно на эту тему см. Gijsbert Bruins (Netherlands), Luigi Einaudi (Italy), Edwin Seligman (United States), Sir Josiah Stamp (United Kingdom). Report on Double Taxation. League of Nations Doc E.F.S.73 F.19. P. 19; Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction. Deventer – Boston, 1989. P. 69, 71, 79, 99.

157

Schanz Georg. Zur Frage der Steuerpflicht in Finanzarchiv: Zeitschrift für das gesamte Finanzwesen. Stuttgart: Mohr, 1892. Vol. IX. Р. 287.

158

Tom Magney. Some Aspects of Source of Income (In the Last Decade of the Twentieth Century). 5th National Tax Retreat of the Taxation Institute of Australia, Queensland, 7–9 August 1997). P. 46: «[B]ehind all initiatings, negotiations and other activities leading to the conclusion of a transaction there must be activities (including decision making) by individuals (i.e. human beings) and it is where these individuals are physically located when the relevant activities take place or decisions are made which is of prime importance in determining the source of income».

159

Kees van Raad. Non-discrimination in international tax law. Series on international taxation № 6. Kluwer Law International, 1986. Р. 23–24.

160

Winans and Another v. Attorney General (1904) A.C. 287. URL: www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/1904AC287.html.

161

De Ganay v. Lederer, 250 U.S. 376 (1919). URL: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/250/376.html.

162

Burnet v. Brooks (1933) 288 U.S. 378. URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/288/378/case.html.

163

Burton et al. v. Minister of National Revenue (1969) S.C.R. 732. URL: scc.lexum.org/en/1969/1969scr0-732/1969scr0-732.html.

164

Re Wolfenden Estate (1971), W.W.R. 168. Canadian Yearbook of International Law. Vol. XI. University of British Columbia Press, 1973.

165

Peter Harris, David Oliver. International Commercial Tax. Cambridge University Press, 2010. P. 49.

166

Ibid.

167

Morrissey v. Commissioner (1935) 296 US 344 (SC).

168

Title 26 Code of Federal Regulations (US) § 301.7701-1.

169

Padmore v. IRC (1989) 62 TC 352.

170

Например, такой подход использует РФ. Как сообщает п. 2 ст. 11 НК РФ, понятие «организация» включает в себя «…иностранные юридические лица, компании и другие корпоративные образования, обладающие гражданской правоспособностью, созданные в соответствии с законодательством иностранных государств…» (Налоговый кодекс Российской Федерации // КонсультантПлюс. URL: www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_19671/0b14e6fcebc7613ee7846b850f1402cc4565d09c).

171

Dreyfus v. CIR (1929) 14 TC 560 (CA).

172

Ryall v. Du Bois (1933) 18 TC 431 (CA).

173

Garland v. Archer-Shee (1931) AC 212 (HL).

174

Memec plc v. CIR (1998) STC 754 (CA).

175

Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. Extraterritorial Taxation in International Law / Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in theory and practice. Dr. Karl M. Meessen ed., 1996. Р. 23.

176

Karl Zemanek. The Legal Foundation of the International System. The Hague; Boston; London: M. Nijhoff, 1998. Р. 70.

177

178

Qureshi A. H. The Public International Law of Taxation. Text, Cases and Materials. Graham & Trotman / Martinus Nijhoff. 1994. Р. 22—125.

179

Ibid. Р. 22–25.

180

Brian J. Arnold. Tax Discrimination Against Aliens, Non-residents, and Foreign Activities: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Canadian Tax Foundation. Canadian Tax Paper № 90. 1991. P. 7.

181

Подробнее см.: Publication 4588, Basic Tax Guide for Green Card Holders: Understanding Your U.S. Tax Obligations. 2006. URL: www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Taxation-of-Resident-Aliens.

182

S. Surrey. Current Issues in the Taxation of Corporate Foreign Investment. Columbia Law Review. 1956. № 6. P. 817.

183

F. Beveridge. The Treatment and Taxation of Foreign Investment Under International Law. Manchester University Press, 2001. P. 76–77.

184

Kees van Raad. Non-discrimination in international tax law. Series on international taxation № 6. Kluwer Law International, 1986. Р. 21. Ref. 12.

185

Sol Picciotto. International business taxation: a study in the internationalization of business regulations. Quorum Books, 1992.

186

Ibid. P. 308.

187

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 11. § 7.7a.

188

Ibid. P. 12. § 7b.

189

Ibid. P. 13. § 10.

190

191

Arnold Knechtle. Basic Problems in International Fiscal Law. London: HFL Publishers Ltd., 1979. P. 37.

192

Arvid K. Skaar. Permanent Establishment: Erosion of a Tax Treaty Principle. Kluwer law and taxation publishers, 1991. P. 20.

193

Island of Palmas case (1928). Reports of International Arbitral Awards. Vol. II. P. 829–871.

194

Reuven Avi-Yonah. Tax Competition, Tax Arbitrage, and the International Tax Regime. Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation Working Paper Series, WP 07/09, June 2007.

195

Walter Hellerstein. Roles of States/Provinces in Taxation in the Canada/U.S. Context. Canada-United States Law Journal. Vol. 2. 2001. Р. 21.

196

Charles H. Gustafson, Robert J. Peroni, Richard Crawford Pugh. Taxation of International Transactions: materials, texts and problems. Thomson West Publishing, Third Edition, 2006. Р. 15.

197

Свод (третий) законов США о международных отношениях (Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States) 1987 г. определяет несколько базисов для налоговой юрисдикции: гражданство, домициль, резидентство, присутствие, ведение бизнеса, владение имуществом (§ 411–412). Юрисдикция может распространяться на имущество, находящееся на территории, и на сделки, связанные с территорией.

198

Michael Kobetsky. International Taxation of Permanent Establishments. Cambridge University Press, 2011. P. 24.

199

St. Louis v. Ferry Company – 78 U.S. 423 (1870). URL: supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/78/423/case.html.

200

Restatement (Second) of Law, Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Section S, 1962. P. 95.

201

Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction. Deventer – Boston, 1989. Р. 157.

202

Frank W. Ross v. Commissioner, 44 B.T.A. 1 (1941).

203

Данная формулировка в действовавшем на тот момент законе США о подоходном налоге 1921 г. (U.S. Income Tax Act (Revenue Act) of 1921, Section 217(a)(2), в оригинале): «The amount received as dividends (A) from a domestic corporation other than a corporation entitled to the benefits of section 262, or (B) from a foreign corporation unless less than 50 per centum of the gross income of such foreign corporation for the three-year period ending with the close of its taxable year preceding the declaration of such dividends (or for such part of such period as the corporation has been in existence) was derived from sources within the United States as determined under the provisions of this section». URL: www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/042_itax.pdf.

204

Lord Forres v. Commissioner, 25 B.T.A. 154 (1932). См. Фокин А. В. Международное налогообложение пассивных доходов (процентов, дивидендов, роялти): американский опыт: монография. М.: Волтерс Клувер, 2009. С. 89; Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction. Deventer – Boston, 1989. P. 158.

205

Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction. Deventer – Boston, 1989. P. 159.

206

J. H. Beale. The jurisdiction of a Sovereign State. Harvard Law Review. Vol. 36. 1922–1923. P. 241, 243.

207

Harold Wurzel. Foreign Investment and Extraterritorial Taxation. Columbia Law Review, 1937. P. 209.

208

IBFD International Tax Glossary, 6th ed. Amsterdam: IBFD, 2009. P. 376.

209

Секция § 861(a)(2)(B) Кодекса внутренних доходов США (URL: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/861.html). Подробнее см. источник в электронной библиотеке Конгресса США (URL: www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4290). Также см.: Фокин А. В. Международное налогообложение пассивных доходов (процентов, дивидендов, роялти): американский опыт: монография. М.: Волтерс Клувер, 2009. С. 83–86.

210

Фокин А. В. Международное налогообложение пассивных доходов (процентов, дивидендов, роялти): американский опыт: монография. М.: Волтерс Клувер, 2009. С. 87.

211

Там же. С. 89.

212

Exparte Blain In Re Sawers; Agassi v. Robinson (Inspector of Taxes); Clark (Inspector of Taxes) v. Oceanic Contractors Inc.

213

Murray v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation 29. C.L.R. 1929. P. 134; Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction. Deventer – Boston, 1989. Р. 160.

214

Caltex (India) Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax, High Court of Judicature, Bombay, 1951, Bombay Law Reporter; Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction. Deventer – Boston, 1989. Р. 160.

215

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 10. § 34. P. 197. URL: dx.doi.org/10.1787/mtc_cond-2014-en.

216

Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR. URL: www.indiankanoon.org/doc/56146.

217

British Columbia Electric Railway Company Limited v. King (1946) 2 AC 527.

218

GVK Inds. Ltd. & Anr v. The Income Tax Officer & Anr (Civil Appeal No. 7796 of 1997 of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India (2011). URL: www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1608984.

219

Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2012). URL: indiankanoon.org/doc/115852355.

220

Шахмаметьев А. А. Режим налогообложения нерезидентов: правовая основа регулирования. М.: Юрлитинформ, 2010.

221

Там же.

222

IBFD International Tax Glossary, 6th ed. Amsterdam: IBFD, 2009. P. 358.

223

В настоящее время территориальная система налогообложения в классической форме присутствует в Гонконге, Малайзии, Сингапуре. В смешанной форме она применяется в Республике Мальта, Гибралтаре, ряде стран Латинской Америки (The 2012 worldwide corporate tax guide. Ernst & Young, 2012. URL: www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Worldwide_corporate_tax_guide_2012/$FILE/WCTG_2012_Worldwide_Corporate_Tax_Guide.pdf).

224

Peter Harris, David Oliver. International Commercial Tax. Cambridge University Press, 2010. P. 58.

225

Шахмаметьев А. А. Режим налогообложения нерезидентов: правовая основа регулирования. М.: Юрлитинформ, 2010.

226

Rosier C. L’impôt. P.: Fernand Aubier. Editions Montaigne, 1936. Р. 55.

227

Richard J. Vann. International Aspects of Income Tax. Tax Law Design and Drafting. Vol. 2. Chapter 18. P. 12.

228

Angharad Miller, Lynne Oats B. Bus. Principles of International Taxation (2d ed.). Tottel Publishing, 2009. Р. 32.

229

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 201.

230

Ned Shelton. Interpretation and application of double tax treaties. Tottel Publishing, reprinted 2007. P. 72.

231

Погорлецкий А. И. Международное налогообложение: учебник. СПб.: Изд-во Михайлова В. А., 2006. С. 113.

232

IBFD International Tax Glossary, 6th ed. Amsterdam: IBFD, 2009. P. 139.

233

Dictionaire de Droit International Public. Sous la direction de Jean Salmon. Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2001. Р. 356.

234

US Internal Revenue Code. URL: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26.

235

Если быть более точным, США облагают налогом резидентов, как это определено в Кодексе внутренних доходов США – US IRC, § 7701(b). Понятие «резидент» включает граждан и резидентов-неграждан (resident aliens). Гражданство – аспект резидентства; персональная принадлежность к США предполагает, что граждане США остаются резидентами США, даже когда покидают страну и не проживают в ней. Юрисдикционные нормы в США сформулированы таким образом. Вначале сообщается, что все граждане и юридические лица в мире – налогоплательщики США в отношении их дохода (USA IRC § 11(a) и 1), затем вводится исключение (§ 2(d), 11(d), 871, 877, 882) в отношении иностранных корпораций и нерезидентов-неграждан (non-resident aliens): их налогообложение ограничено только доходами из источников в США. Таким образом, если рассуждать по методу исключения, получается, что доходы граждан США облагаются в США из общемировых источников в любом случае.

236

Дернберг Р. Л. Международное налогообложение. М.: ЮНИТИ, 1997. С. 25.

237

Более подробно на эту тему см. отчет IFA Cahiers «The tax treatment of transfer of residence by individuals». 2002. Vol. 87b.

238

В последнее время все больше состоятельных американских граждан отказываются от гражданства США, к примеру один из соучредителей Facebook Эдуардо Саверин сделал это перед IPO компании в 2012 г. (Laura Saunders. Should You Renounce Your U.S. Citizenship? // The Wall Street Journal. May 18, 2012. URL: www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303879604577410021186373802).

239

The 183-day rule: some problems of application and interpretation, OECD CFA. 1992.

240

Например, Великобритания следует этому подходу после судебного дела CIR v. Wilkie (1951). Подробнее об этом и других делах, связанных с трактовкой 183-дневного теста в Великобритании, см.: Mike Truman. Wise guidance? // Taxation. 2005. 1 Sept. URL: www.taxation.co.uk/taxation/articles/2005/09/01/3447/wise-guidance.

241

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 200.

242

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 4. § 2.

243

Calcutta Jute Mills v. Nicholson (1876) 1 ExD 428 (Ex) at 432.

244

Ned Shelton. Interpretation and application of double tax treaties. Tottel Publishing, reprinted 2007. P. 67.

245

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 210.

246

Ibid.

247

Ibid.

248

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 262–264.

249

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 210.

250

De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd. v. Howe (1906) AC 455. URL: www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/19052KB612.html.

251

Исходный текст (англ.): «…An individual may be of foreign nationality, and yet reside in the United Kingdom. So may a company. Otherwise it might have its chief seat of management and its centre of trading in England under the protection of English law, and yet escape the appropriate taxation by the simple expedient of being registered abroad and distributing its dividends abroad… In applying the conception of residence to a company, we ought, I think, to proceed as nearly as we can upon the analogy of an individual. A company cannot eat or sleep, but it can keep house and do business. We ought, therefore, to see where it really keeps house and does business… The decision of Kelly C.B. and Huddleston B. in the Calcutta Jute Mills v. Nicholson (1876) 1 Ex. D. 428. and the Cesena Sulphur Co. v. Nicholson (1876) 1 Ex. D. 428, now thirty years ago, involved the principle that a company resides for the purposes of income tax where its real business is carried on… I regard that as the true rule, and the real business is carried on where the central management and control actually abides. <…> This is a pure question of fact to be determined, not according to the construction of this or that regulation or by-law, but upon a scrutiny of the course of business and trading…»

252

После дела De Beers установленный в нем принцип подтвердился еще как минимум в трех решениях суда палаты лордов: American Thread Co. v. Joyce, New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Thew и Bradbury v. English Sewing Cotton Co. Ltd.

253

Bullock v. Unit Construction Co Ltd. (1959) 38 TC 712.

254

Robert Couzin. Corporate residence and international taxation. IBFD, 2002. P. 87.

255

Swedish Central Railway Company Limited v. Thompson (Inspector of Taxes) (1923–1925) 9 TC 342.

256

Todd (Inspector of Taxes) v. Egyptian Delta Land and Investment company (1926–1928) 14 TC 119.

257

New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v Thew (1922) 8 TC 208 (HL).

258

Egyptian Hotels Ltd. v. Mitchell (Surveyor of Taxes) (1914–1916) 6 TC 542.

259

Wood and Another v. Holden (2006) EWCA Civ 26. URL: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/26.html.

260

Wood and Another v. Holden (2006) EWCA Civ 26.

261

Re Little Olympian Each Ways Ltd. (1995) 1 WLR 560; Untelrab Ltd v. McGregor (Inspector of Taxes) (1996) STC (SCD).

262

Untelrab Ltd v. McGregor (Inspector of Taxes) (1996) STC (SCD).

263

Laerstate BV v. Revenue and Customs Commissioners (2009) UKFTT 209 TC.

264

Collett Matthew. Developing a New Test for Fiscal Residence for Companies. // University of New South Wales Law Journal. 2003. Vol. 26(3). P. 622. Footnotes 18–22. URL: www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLJ/2003/42.html#Heading7.

265

Zehnder and Company v. Minister of National Revenue, 70 DTC 6064 (1970).

266

Yamaska Steamship Company Limited v. Minister of National Revenue 61 DTC 716 (TAB).

267

Crossley Carpets (Canada) Limited v. Minister of National Revenue 69 DTC 5015 (1969).

268

Robert Couzin. Corporate residence and international taxation. IBFD, 2002. P. 80, 87.

269

Esquire Nominees Ltd v. FCT (1973) 129 CLR 177.

270

Esquire Nominees Ltd v. FCT («…the firm had power to exert influence, and perhaps strong influence, on the appellant, but that is all»).

271

North Australian Pastoral Co Ltd v. FCT (1946) 71 CLR 623.

272

Malayan Shipping Co Ltd v. FCT (1946) 71 CLR 156.

273

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 4. § 1. P. 85.

274

Ibid. § 8–8.1. P. 86.

275

Ibid. Commentary to art. 4. § 8.7. P. 88.

276

Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction. Deventer – Boston, 1989. § 141-4.

277

Smallwood v. RCC (2008) 10 ITLR 574 (SC), § 88—102.

278

Ibid. § 4–5. P. 83.

279

Ibid. § 22. P. 86.

280

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Art. 4. § 3. P. 26.

281

Smallwood v. RCC (2008) 10 ITLR 574 (SC). § 112.

282

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 262.

283

Ibid.

284

The Impact of the Communications Revolution on the Application of the «Place of Effective Management» as a Tie Breaker Rule. OECD, 2001, para. 27, footnote 9: Vogel, K, Klaus Vogel, Double Taxation Conventions, 3rd edition, Kluwer Law International: «Термин „место управления“, установленный в немецком праве, схож с понятием, используемым в соглашениях об избежании двойного налогообложения, ввиду того, что термин „место управления“ интерпретируется судами на основании фактических условий».

285

Ibid, para. 28.

286

К примеру, в Великобритании это предусмотрено в Акте о налогообложении прибыли компаний: CTA 1988, s. 19; CTA 2010, s. 1141–1153.

287

Crown Forest Industries Ltd v. Canada (1995) 2 SCR 802 (SC).

288

Ibid. § 68.

289

Jacques Sasseville. Chapter 9: The meaning of «Place of Effective Management» // Residence of Companies under Tax Treaties and EC Law / ed. by Prof. Gugliemo Maisto. IBFD. Amsterdam, 2009. Р. 299.

290

BGE 4 December 2003, 2A 321/2003.

291

Transfer Pricing and Business Restructurings: Streamlining All the Way / ed. by Anuschka Bakker. IBFD, 2009. P. 364.

292

OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2000). Commentary. URL: www.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/model-tax-convention-on-income-and-on-capital-condensed-version-2000_mtc_cond-2000-en.

293

Удаленный текст п. 24 Комментария версии 2005 г. содержал следующую фразу: «Место эффективного управления находится там, где принимают решения наиболее старшие по должности лица (например, совет директоров)»: «The place of effective management will ordinarily be the place where the most senior person or group of persons (for example a board of directors) makes its decisions…».

294

OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2008). Commentary to art. 4. § 24: «24. As a result of these considerations, the „place of effective management“ has been adopted as the preference criterion for persons other than individuals. The place of effective management is the place where key management and commercial decisions that are necessary for the conduct of the entity’s business as a whole are in substance made. All relevant facts and circumstances must be examined to determine the place of effective management. An entity may have more than one place of management, but it can have only one place of effective management at any one time».

295

The Impact of the Communications Revolution on the Application of the «Place of Effective Management» as a Tie Breaker Rule. OECD, 2001.

296

Place of Effective Management Concept: Suggestions for Changes to the OECD Model Tax Convention. OECD, 2003. URL: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/17/2956428.pdf.

297

Ibid. § 24.1 (3). P. 89.

298

The Impact of the Communications Revolution on the Application of the «Place of Effective Management» as a Tie Breaker Rule. OECD, 2001. P. 7.

299

Rajesh Kadakia, Nilesh Modi. The Law and Practice of Tax Treaties: an Indian Perspective. CCH, 2008. P. 164–165.

300

DLJMB Mauritius Investment Co v. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 268 (AAR).

301

Integrated Container Feeder Service v. JCIT (2005) 278 ITR 182 (Mum).

302

Saraswati Holding Corporation Ltd. v. DDIT (2007) 111 TTJ 334.

303

Crown Forest Industries Ltd v. Canada (1995) 2 SCR 802 (SC).

304

The Impact of the Communications Revolution on the Application of the «Place of Effective Management» as a Tie Breaker Rule. OECD, 2001. P. 8.

305

Kohl Uta. The Horror-Scope for the Taxation Office: The Internet and its Impact on «Residence» // University of New South Wales Law Journal. 1998. Vol. 21(2). P. 436. URL: www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLJ/1998/53.html.

306

The Impact of the Communications Revolution on the Application of the «Place of Effective Management» as a Tie Breaker Rule. OECD, 2001. P. 10.

307

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 4. § 22. P. 90.

308

The Impact of the Communications Revolution on the Application of the «Place of Effective Management» as a Tie Breaker Rule. OECD, 2001. § 64.

309

Place of Effective Management Concept: Suggestions for Changes to the OECD Model Tax Convention. OECD, 2003. § 3. P. 1.

310

Ibid. § 8. P. 3.

311

Collett Matthew. Developing a New Test for Fiscal Residence for Companies // University of New South Wales Law Journal. 2003. Vol. 26(3).

312

Australian Taxation Office Ruling TR 98/11 (5.46).

313

Australian Taxation Office Ruling TR 97/20 (2.39).

314

Kirt Butler. Multinational Finance. 2d Ed. Michigan State University. P. 303.

315

Collett Matthew. Developing a New Test for Fiscal Residence for Companies. // University of New South Wales Law Journal. 2003. Vol. 26(3).

316

Шахмаметьев А. А. Режим налогообложения нерезидентов: правовая основа регулирования. М.: Юрлитинформ, 2010.

317

Rosier C. L’impôt. P.: Fernand Aubier. Editions Montaigne, 1936. Р. 55.

318

Дернберг Р. Л. Международное налогообложение. М.: ЮНИТИ, 1997. С. 25.

319

Шахмаметьев А. А. Режим налогообложения нерезидентов: правовая основа регулирования. М.: Юрлитинформ, 2010.

320

Денисаев М. В. Налоговые отношения с участием иностранных организаций в Российской Федерации: учебное пособие. М.: Юриспруденция, 2005. С. 15–22; Погорлецкий А. И. Международное налогообложение: учебник. СПб.: Изд-во Михайлова В. А., 2006. С. 122–123.

321

Погорлецкий А. И. Принципы международного налогообложения и международного налогового планирования. СПб.: Изд-во СПбГУ, 2005. С. 123.

322

Michael Kobetsky. International Taxation of Permanent Establishments. Cambridge University Press, 2011. P. 36. Ref. 116.

323

Ibid. Ref. 115.

324

Adam Becker. The principle of Territoritoriality and Corporate Income Taxation. Part II. Bulletin for international taxation. April 2016.

325

Nathan v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1918) 25 CLR 183; 24 ALR 286. URL: law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/print.htm?DocID=JUD%2F25CLR183%2F00002&PiT=99991231235958&Life=10010101000001-99991231235959.

326

Johnson v. Commissioner of Stamp Duties (1956).

327

Miller Bros. Co v. Maryland (1954). URL: supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/340.

328

Шахмаметьев А. А. Режим налогообложения нерезидентов: правовая основа регулирования. М.: Юрлитинформ, 2010.

329

IBFD International Tax Glossary, 6th ed. Amsterdam: IBFD, 2009. P. 394.

330

Radhakishan Rawal. Taxation of Cross-Border Services. CCH / Wolters Kluwer (India) Pvt Ltd. 2012. P. 53–58.

331

CIT v. Lady Kanchanbai (1970) 77 ITR 123. URL: indiankanoon.in/doc/744070.

332

Chidambaran Mulrak and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 7. URL: www.indiankanoon.org/doc/621600.

333

Section(s) 80-I(6), 80-IA(5) of the Income Tax Act (1961).

334

Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2012). URL: indiankanoon.org/doc/115852355.

335

Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Limited v. DCIT (2004) 91 ITD 133.

336

Hart v. Sangster (1956) 31 ITR 624; (1958) 34 ITR 303.

337

Rhodesia Metals Ltd (Liquidator) v. CIT (Privy Council) (1941) 9 ITR (Supp) 45.

338

Performing Rights Society v. CIT (Cal HC) (1974) 93 ITR 44.

339

Raja Rameshwara Rao v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 144.

340

Peter Harris, David Oliver. International Commercial Tax. Cambridge University Press, 2010. P. 72.

341

Ibid.

342

Eric C. C. M. Kemmeren. Source of Income in Globalizing Economies: Overview of the Issues and a Plea for an Origin-Based Approach. IBFD Bulletin for International Taxation. November 2006. P. 432.

343

Литература, более подробно описывающая критерии, которые государства применяют для заявления налоговых прав: Endriss Horst Walter. Wohnsitz-oder Ursprungprinzip? (Cologne: Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, 1967). Р. 61, 71; Pires Manuel. International Juridical Double Taxation of Income (Deventer, the Netherlands and Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1989). Р. 120–123; Martha R. S. J. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law (Deventer, the Netherlands: Kluwer Law and Taxation, 1989). Р. 109; Forst David L. The Continuing Vitality of Source-Based Taxation in the Electronic Age. 15 Tax Notes International. 1997. Р. 1455.

344

Eric C. C. M. Kemmeren. Source of Income in Globalizing Economies: Overview of the Issues and a Plea for an Origin-Based Approach. IBFD Bulletin for International Taxation. November 2006.

345

Gijsbert Bruins (Netherlands), Luigi Einaudi (Italy), Edwin Seligman (United States), Sir Josiah Stamp (United Kingdom). Report on Double Taxation. Р. 20.

346

Ibid. P. 20–23.

347

Commissioner v. Piedras Negras Broadcasting, 127 F.2d 260 (5th Cir. 1942), affirming 43 B.T.A. (1941).

348

Selected Tax Policy Implications of Global Electronic Commerce. Department of the Treasury Office of Tax Policy, 1996. P. 18. URL: www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/internet.pdf.

349

Helvering v. Boekman, 107 F.2d 388 (2d Cir. 1939).

350

Boyle Michael P. et al. The Emerging International Tax Environment for Electronic Commerce. Tax Management International Journal. Vol. 28. № 6. 1999. Р. 376.

351

Michael Kobetsky. International Taxation of Permanent Establishments. Cambridge University Press, 2011. P. 31.

352

Richard A. Musgrave and Peggy B. Musgrave. Public Finance in Theory and Practice. 4^>th Ed. McGraw-Hill, 1984. P. 1345; Donald J. S. Brean, Richard Miller Bird. The Interjurisdictional Allocation of Income and the Unitary Debate. Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada, 1986. P. 294.

353

United Nations. Draft Manual for the Negotiation of Bilateral Tax Treaties between Developed and Developing Countries. 2001. P. 1. § 2.

354

Klaus Vogel. Worldwide vs. source taxation of income – A review and re-evaluation of arguments. Part I. Intertax, 1988. Р. 223–228.

355

Richard L. Doernberg, Luc Hinnekens. Electronic Commerce and International Taxation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999. Р. 14–15.

356

К странам Андского пакта относятся Колумбия, Боливия, Эквадор и Перу. На момент создания пакта в нем участвовала Чили (вышла в 2006-м), а в 1973 г. к пакту присоединилась Венесуэла (вышла в 2006 г.) (Andean Community // Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. URL: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andean_Pact).

357

Статья 2е Андского пакта 1971 г.

358

Оригинальный текст на английском языке: «The word „source“ means the activity, right, or property that generates, or may generate, the income» (неофициальный английский перевод опубликован здесь: Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation 8. 1974. № 28. Supplement D).

359

Selected Tax Policy Implications of Global Electronic Commerce. Department of the Treasury Office of Tax Policy, 1996. P. 23. URL: www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/internet.pdf.

360

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 223.

361

Конвенция ООН по морскому праву. 1982. Ст. 3–5. URL: www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/lawsea.shtml.

362

Подробнее см.: Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction. Deventer – Boston, 1989. P. 165.

363

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 224.

364

Ibid. P. 222.

365

Ibid. Р. 223.

366

Ned Shelton. Interpretation and application of double tax treaties. Tottel Publishing, reprinted 2007. P. 80.

367

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 223.

368

Klaus Vogel. Worldwide vs. source taxation of income – A review and re-evaluation of arguments. Intertax, 1988. P. 225.

369

Catlex (India) Limited (1952) 21 ITR 278.

370

Overseas Trust Corporation v. CIR (1926) AD 444.

371

Robert J. Patrick. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Volume 65b. 1980. P. 15–18; J. S. Phillips, M. H. Collins. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Volume 70a. 1985. P. 25–26.

372

Ariane Pickering. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 97a. Enterprise Services. 2012. Section 1.3. P. 29.

373

Ibid. P. 30.

374

Ibid.

375

Ibid. P. 31.

376

Ibid.

377

IRC v. Brackett (1986) STC 521 at 540, (1986) 60 TC 124 at 149; C of T (NSW) v. Cam & Sons Ltd (1936) 4 ATD 32 at 34; FC of T v. French (1957) 98 CLR 398; FC of T v. Efstathaskis (1979) 9 ATR 867.

378

Evans v. FC of T 81 ATC 4512.

379

FC of T v. Mitchum (1965) 113 CLR 401; (1965) 9 AITR 559.

380

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 222.

381

Richard J. Vann. International Aspects of Income Tax. Tax Law Design and Drafting. Vol. 2. Chapter 18. P. 16.

382

Section 9 Income Tax Act. 1961.

383

R. v. Verrette (1978) 2 SCR 838 at 847. URL: www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1978/1978canlii208/1978canlii208.html.

384

Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT (2007) 158 Taxmann 259 (SC).

385

Section 9 Indian Income Tax Act 1961, Subsection 9(1)(vii)(b): «Explanation – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this section, income of a non-resident shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India under clause (v) or clause (vi) or clause (vii) of sub-section (1) and shall be included in the total income of the non-resident, whether or not, (i) the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India; or (ii) the non-resident has rendered services in India».

386

Finance Bill. 2009. № 2. Provisions Relating to Direct Taxes. Part 1, Income Tax. URL: indiabudget.nic.in/ub2009-10/memo.htm.

387

Ashapura Minichem v. ADIT (ITAT Mumbai). URL: itatonline.org/archives/index.php/ashapura-minichem-vs-adit-itat-mumbai-fees-for-technical-services-even-if-rendered-outside-india-are-taxable.

388

Hindalco Industries Ltd v. ACIT (2005) 94 ITD 242 (Mum.).

389

Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2012). URL: indiankanoon.org/doc/115852355. Параграф 78 судебного решения в оригинальном тексте (англ.) гласит: «In the case of a non-resident, Sub-section (2) of Section 5 enunciates that the total income of any previous year would include all income from whatever source derived which (i) is received or is deemed to be received in India by or on behalf of such person; or (ii) accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India».

390

Ibid. § 54.

391

D. P. Mittal. Indian Double Taxation Agreements & Tax Laws. Vol. 1. 6^>th Ed. Taxmann, 2010. § 1.8.

392

Ibid. § 79.

393

Ibid. § 1.4.

394

Hunt v. Commissioner 90 TC 1289 (1988).

395

Explanation (a) Section 9. The Income-Tax Act. 1995. URL: www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1369261.

396

Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2010), § 79.

397

Seth Pushalal Mansinghka (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 159 (SC). URL: indiankanoon.org/doc/1261397.

398

Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2010). § 81.

399

Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT West Bengal (1953) AIR 519, 1954 SCR 211. URL: www.indiankanoon.org/doc/127231.

400

Section 5 Direct Taxes Code Bill 2010.

401

Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2012). URL: indiankanoon.org/doc/115852355.

402

Section 9 Income Tax Act 1961; Section 5 Direct Taxes Code Bill, 2010. URL: indiacorplaw.blogspot.com/2010/09/direct-taxes-code-bill-2010-versus.html.

403

Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR. URL: www.indiankanoon.org/doc/56146.

404

CIT, New Delhi v. M/s. Eli Lilly and Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Appeal No. 5114 of 2007). URL: www.manupatrainternational.in/supremecourt/2001%20onwards/sc2009/s090487.htm.

405

Sheraton International Inc. v. Deputy Director Of Income Tax (2007) 293 ITR 68 (Delhi). URL: www.indiankanoon.org/doc/131840.

406

The Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 452. URL: www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1629177.

407

International Tourist Corporation and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors, AIR 1981 SC 774. URL: www.indiankanoon.org/doc/501420; The State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala, AIR 1957 SC 699. URL: www.indiankanoon.org/doc/212098.

408

Tarunkumar G. Singhal & Anil D. Dosh. Taxation of Non-Residents – Income deemed to accrue or arise in India. Finance Bill 2010. AIFTP Journal, March 2010. § 1.3. URL: www.aiftponline.org/journal/March10/Finance%20Bill%202010%20_2.htm.

409

Klaus Vogel. Worldwide vs. Source Taxation Income – A Review And Re-Evaluation Of Arguments. Part I. Intertax, 1988. P. 216, 223.

410

Adrian Ogley. The Principles Of International Tax-A Multinational Perspective. London: Interfisc Publishing, 1996. P. 33–35.

411

Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India & Anr. [S.L.P. (C) No. 26529 of 2010, dated 20 January 2012: URL: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/115852355/;Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2010). Bombei High Court. URL: www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1488702.

412

KPMG Newsletter, Vodafone Judgment – International Tax. URL: www.kpmg.com/MU/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/Vodafone.pdf.

413

Agassi (Respondent) v. Robinson (2006) 1 WLR 2126. 186. (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes). URL: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060517/agasro.pdf.

414

Japan Income Tax Act (Limited to the provisions related to nonresidents and foreign corporations). № 33 of March 31, 1965. URL: www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail_main?id=52&vm=2&re=.

415

Ibid.

416

Agreement for avoidance of double taxation and prevention of fiscal evasion with Japan; № GSR 101(E), dated 1-3-1990, as amended by Notification Nos. SO 753(E), dated 16-8-2000 (w.r.e.f. 1-10-1999), SO 1136(E), dated 19-7-2006, w.r.e.f. 28-6-2006 and SO 2528(E), dated 8-10-2008, w.r.e.f. 1-10-2008.

417

Более подробно см. Toshio Miyatake et al. Japanese International Taxation. Juris Publishing, 2004. Sec. 3.02.

418

Prof. Ryoji Ichitaka. Key Practical Issues To Eliminate Double Taxation of Business Income. IBFD Asia-Pacific Tax Bulletin, November/December 2011. P. 450.

419

New Saudi Arabia Income Tax Law (2004). URL: https://dzit.gov.sa/dzit_logon/MenuItems.jsp?menu_id=taxpayers&menu_grp=lawsbylaws&ume.logon.locale=en

420

Implementing Regulations (By-Laws) to Income Tax Law (2004). URL: https://dzit.gov.sa/dzit_logon/MenuItems.jsp?menu_id=regulations&menu_grp=lawsbylaws&ume.logon.locale=en

421

Bank of America v. Commissioner (23 °Ct. 679; 680 F.2d 142); Howkins v. Commissioner 49 T. C. 689 (1968).

422

FCT v. United Aircraft Corporation (1943) 7 ATD 318.

423

Section 14(1) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance. URL: www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/legis/ord/112/s14.html.

424

Inland Revenue Ordinance. URL: www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/legis/ord/112/s2.html#profits_arising_in_or_derived_from_hong_kong.

425

Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes. № 21 (Revised) Locality of Profits. P. 3–4. Inland Revenue Department (Government of Hong Kong SAR). URL: www.ird.gov.hk/eng/pdf/e_dipn21.pdf.

426

Yates v. GCA International Ltd (1992) STC 723 at 729.

427

Australian Machinery and Investment Co Ltd v. DCT (1946) 8 ATD 81.

428

Nathan v. FC of T (1918) 25 CLR 183; Thorpe Nominees Pty Ltd v. FC of T (1988) 19 ATR 1834.

429

CIR v. Hang Seng Bank Ltd. [1990 3 HKTC 351 (PC). Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes. № 21 (Revised) Locality of Profits. P. 3–4. URL: www.ird.gov.hk/eng/pdf/e_dipn21.pdf.

430

CIR v. HK-TVB International Ltd. (1992) 3 WLR 439. URL: www.rytc.com.hk/e_tg_pf_ap_sop_3_a.htm.

431

HK-TVB International Ltd v CIR (1992) 2 AC 397 at 409.

432

CIR v. Magna Industrial Co Ltd (1997) HKLRD 171. Р. 178.

433

Consco Trading Company Limited v. CIR (2004) HCIA 3/2003.

434

ING Baring Securities (Hong Kong) Limited v. CIR (2007) FACV 19_2006/587.

435

CIR v. Orion Caribbean Ltd (in vol liq) (1999) MSTC 11,031.

436

Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes. № 21 (Revised) Locality of Profits. § 23.

437

Ibid.

438

Ibid. § 18–26.

439

Michael Littlewood. How Simple Can Tax Law Be? The Instructive Case Of Hong Kong. Journal of the Australasian Tax Teachers Association. 2005. P. 18.

440

Ong Sim Ho, Ong Ken Loon (Drew & Napier LLC). Erosion of remittance basis of Taxation and Revival of the Source Issue. International Tax Review July/August 2009.

441

TTT Pte Ltd v. CIR (1995) 2 MSTC 5189.

442

Grainger & Son v. Gough (1986) AC 325; Andrew Halkyard. The Hong Kong Tax Paradox Or Why Jurassic Park Exists in the Pearl River Delta. Revenue Law Journal. Vol. 8. Issue 1. Article 2.

443

Smidth & Co v. Greenwood (1922) 8 TC 193. URL: www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/intmanual/intm263050.htm.

444

Malaine & Co. v. Eccott (1926) 10 TC 481.

445

20th Century Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. State Of Maharashtra (2000). URL: indiankanoon.org/doc/795465.

446

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union Of India & Ors (2006).

447

Grainger & Son v. Gough (1896) AC 325.

448

Lovell & Christmas Ltd v. C of T (1908) AC 46; C of T (WA) v D & W Murray Ltd (1929) 42 CLR 332.

449

C of T v. Meeks (1915) 19 CLR 568; C of T v. Kirk (1900) AC 588.

450

Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co Ltd v. Llewellin (1957) 37 TC 111.

451

Sulley v. Attorney General (1860) 2 TC 149.

452

Greenwood v. FL Smidth & Co (1922) 8 TC 193 HL.

453

Erichsen v. Last (1881) 8 QBD 414 at 418. URL: www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/intmanual/intm263030.htm.

454

Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co Ltd v. Lewellin (1957) 31 ITR 338 Bom. URL: indiankanoon.org/doc/1495135.

455

Entores Ltd v. Miles Far Eastern Corporation (1955) 2 QB 327 at 332-4.

456

Thomas & Anor v. BPE Solicitors (A Firm) [2010 EWHC 306. URL: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/306.html.

457

Guide to tax consequences of trading over the internet. (May 2002, rev. Dec 2007). P. 12.

458

Mendelson-Zeller Co Inc v T & C Providores Ltd (1981) 1 NSWLR 366.

459

Gary D. Sprague, Michael P. Boyle. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. A. Taxation of income derived from electronic commerce. 2001. P. 21–63.

460

Are the current treaty rules for taxing business profits appropriate for e-commerce? OECD Business Profits TAG Discussion Draft. 2003. URL: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/38/20655083.pdf.

461

Bill Cannon. A Practical Look at E-Commerce & Source Rules. 4th World Tax Conference, Sydney 25–27 February, 2004.

462

IBFD International Tax Glossary, 6th ed. Amsterdam: IBFD, 2009. Р. 295.

463

Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady // Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. URL: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_Auto_Transit,_Inc._v._Brady.

464

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota // Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. URL: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota.

465

Hearing before the Committee on Ways and Means (US House of Representatives), May 24, 2011. Serial № 112—12. How other countries have used tax reform to help their companies to compete in the global market and create jobs. URL: waysandmeans.house.gov.

466

Ibid. P. 7.

467

Ibid. P. 9.

468

Ibid. P. 7.

469

Ibid. P. 37.

470

Ibid. P. 44.

471

In the Senate of the United States, February 9, 2012; Mr. Enzi, A Bill To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform the international tax system of the United States, and for other purposes.

472

U.S. Internal Revenue Code. § 958, 318a.

473

Irfan Bandoo. Corporate International Taxation Reform: Should US move towards a Territorial Tax System. NY: Honors College Theses, Pace University.

474

Testimony of Professor Reuven S. Avi-Yonah. Hearing on how other countries have used tax reform to help their companies in the global market. U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means. May 24, 2011.

475

Scott A. Hodge. Ten Reasons the U.S. Should Move to a Territorial System of Taxing Foreign Earnings. Special Report. Tax Foundation. May 2011. Issue № 191.

476

H.R. 1834, the Freedom to Invest Act of 2011. URL: thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1834:.

477

Peggy B. Musgrave. Combining Fiscal Sovereignty and Coordination: National Taxation in a Globalizing World. Oxford University Press, 2006. Р. 167; Peggy B. Musgrave, Richard A. Musgrave. Inter-Nation Equity. Modern Fiscal Issues. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972. Р. 63–85; Peggy B. Musgrave, Richard A. Musgrave. Fiscal Coordination and Competition in an International Setting. Retrospectives on Public Finance. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1991. Р. 65–66; Peggy B. Musgrave. Sovereignty, Entitlement, and Cooperation in International Taxation. Brooklyn J. Int’l L. 26. 2001. Р. 1335–1356; Nancy Kaufman. Fairness and the Taxation of International Income. Law and Policy in International Business, 1998; Klaus Vogel. Worldwide vs. source taxation of income – A review and re-evaluation of arguments. Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1991. Р. 160.

478

Mihir A. Desai, James R. Hines Jr. Evaluating International Tax Reform. National Tax Journal. Volume LVI. № 3. 2003.

479

Peggy B. Musgrave. United States Taxation of Foreign Investment Income: Issues and Arguments (1969); JCT Reports on International Taxation, 1999. Tax Notes Today 124-8 (June 29, 1999).

480

Страна, применяющая систему налоговых зачетов (кредитов), будет облагать налогом своих резидентов в отношении их общемировых доходов безотносительно страны происхождения доходов. Предположим, страна К (использует зачетный метод) установила налоговую ставку в 35 %. Резидент страны К заработал 100 долларов из источников в стране Т, применяющей территориальное налогообложение доходов нерезидентов по ставке 30 %, т. е. налог будет равен 30 долларам. Страна К применит ставку 35 % к доходу в 100 долларов и получит налог 35 %, а для устранения двойного налогообложения позволит зачесть иностранные доллары против национального налога в размере 35 долларов. В результате 5 долларов будут подлежать доплате стране К. В итоге резиденты К облагаются налогом одинаково по ставке 35 % на внутренний и зарубежный доход безотносительно ставок налога за рубежом, т. е. достигается налоговая нейтральность экспорта капитала, поскольку разница в налоговых ставках не влияет на решение об инвестировании. Однако в примере ставка налога за рубежом ниже, чем национальная. Если ставка налога в стране Т, скажем, 45 %, то для достижения полной нейтральности страна К вынуждена была бы вернуть разницу между налогом, уплаченным за рубежом (45 долларов), и налогом, исчисленным по внутренней налоговой ставке (35 долларов).

481

В системе, применяющей механизм освобождения в чистом виде, государства не облагают налогом зарубежный доход своих резидентов. Представим, что страна Т, применяющая метод освобождения, взимает налог с внутренних доходов по ставке 40 %. Если корпорация из Т заработает 100 долларов в стране С, где ставка налога – 35 %, то она заплатит 35 долларов стране С, но налог не будет взиматься в стране Т. То же самое происходит, если налог в стране С составляет лишь 20 %. Резиденты С и Т всегда имеют одинаковое налоговое бремя в отношении доходов из этих стран. Предоставляя освобождение от иностранных доходов, Т достигает того, что ее резиденты уплатят ровно столько налогов в стране С, сколько инвесторы из третьих стран, а значит, будут принимать решения об инвестировании в С нейтрально с точки зрения налоговой системы в Т. Условие для правильной работы системы – отсутствие налоговой дискриминации нерезидентов в стране С, в противном случае принцип CIN нарушается.

482

Scott A. Hodge. Ten Reasons the U.S. Should Move to a Territorial System of Taxing Foreign Earnings. Tax Foundation, Special Report. May 2011. № 191.

483

Richard C. Henderson. Taxes, Market Structure, and International Price Discrimination. 10 Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business. 1989. URL: www.law.northwestern.edu/jilb/past_issues/vol10no2.html.

484

Scott Wilkie, Robert Raizenne, Heather I. Kerr, Angelo Nikolakakis. The Foreign Affiliate System in View and Review. Corporate Management Report. Canadian Tax Foundation, 1993.

485

Принцип взаимности // Academic.ru. URL: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/lower/13624.

486

Тихомирова Л. В., Тихомиров М. Ю. Юридическая энциклопедия. 5-е изд., доп. и перераб. М., 2006. С. 703.

487

B. Arnold, M. McIntyre. International Tax Primer. Kluwer Law International, 1995. Р. 21.

488

Maximov vs. United States, 373 U.S. 49 (1963). URL: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/373/49.html.

489

Sol Picciotto. International business taxation: a study in the internationalization of business regulations. Quorum Books, 1992. Р. 317.

490

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Art. 24. P. 37.

491

Ibid. Commentary to Art. 24. § 2. P. 349.

492

Конвенция между Правительством Российской Федерации и Правительством Австрийской Республики об избежании двойного налогообложения в отношении налогов на доходы и капитал от 13.04.2000 г. (с учетом Протокола к указанной Конвенции от 13.04.2000 г.). Дополнение к ст. 7 и 9 Конвенции: «Понимается, что при применении статьи 7 и пункта 1 статьи 9 Российская Федерация не будет дискриминировать Австрию по отношению к другим государствам – членам Европейского союза, и наоборот».

493

Convention between the Government of the French Republic and the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income, Capital and Inheritances. 1982. IBFD Tax Treaties. Art. 18.A.3.

494

OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (2010). OECD, 2010. Preface. Р. 18.

495

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Art. 9 «Associated enterprises». P. 38–39.

496

OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (2010). OECD, 2010. Chapter I.

497

Интернет-портал ЕС, посвященный общей налоговой базе: Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB). URL: ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/company_tax/common_tax_base/index_en.htm.

498

Company Taxation in the Internal Market. Commission Staff Working Paper. Brussels, 2001. URL: ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/company_tax_study_en.pdf.

499

Proposal for a Council Directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base 2011/0058 (CNS). URL: ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/company_tax/common_tax_base/com_2011_121_en.pdf.

500

The KPMG Guide to CCCTB. Part 3. 2002. P. 7. URL: www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/ccctb-part3.pdf.

501

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. A Fair and Efficient Corporate Tax System in the European Union: 5 Key Areas for Action. Brussels, 17.6.2015 COM (2015) 302 final URL: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/company_tax/fairer_corporate_taxation/com_2015_302_en.pdf.

502

Anti Tax Avoidance Package Factsheet. URL: europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-159_en.htm.

503

Ibid. P. 41.

504

Transfer Pricing and Multinational Enterprises. OECD, 1979.

505

Double taxation and tax evasion. Report presented by the Committee of technical experts on double taxation and tax evasion. League of Nations. Geneva, 1927. URL: faculty.law.wayne.edu/tad/Documents/League/League_Tech_Experts.pdf.

506

Проблема международного неналогообложения была одной из тем ежегодной налоговой конференции, организованной Международной налоговой ассоциацией (International Fiscal Association) в Вене в 2004 г. Материалы тематических докладов были изложены в томе 89а (2004) IFA Cahiers «Double non-taxation».

507

Судебные решения Estate of Hausmann v. R (1998, Canada), Lamesa Holdings v. Commissioner (1997, Australia), Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Anr. (2003, India), Gladden Estate v. The Queen (1985, Canada).

508

General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 89a. Double non-taxation. 2004. Р. 77.

509

The Application of the OECD Model Convention to partnerships (1999); Model Tax Convention on Income and Capital. July 2010. OECD, 2010. Commentary to Article 23.

510

Более подробно см.: Subject-to-tax clauses in Tax treaties. European Taxation, 2004. Volume 44.

511

General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 89a. Double non-taxation. 2004. Р. 83.

512

Ibid. P. 85–86.

513

См. ст. 10 соглашения об избежании двойного налогообложения между Российской Федерацией и Великобританией, предусматривающую требование об облагаемости налогом дивидендов, полученных резидентом одного государства, как необходимое условие для снижения налоговой ставки в стране – источнике дивидендов.

514

The estate of Michel Hausmann v. Her Majesty The Queen 97-1767 (IT)I, 20 May 1998, Tax Court of Canada; M.N.R. v. Stickel (1975) 2 S.C.R. 233; Lamesa Holdings BV v. Commissioners of Taxation (1999) FCA 612.

515

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014; General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 89a. Double non-taxation. 2004. Р. 102.

516

Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction. Deventer – Boston, 1989. § 141-4.

517

См. также классификацию юрисдикционных конфликтов Д. В. Винницкого (Российский ежегодник международного налогового права. 2009. № 1).

518

Qureshi A. H. The Public International Law of Taxation. Text, Cases and materials. Graham & Trotman / Martinus Nijhoff. 1994. Р. 369.

519

Ibid. Р. 369–370.

520

General Report. IFA Cahiers. Volume 90a. Source and Residence: new configuration of their principles. 2005. P. 40.

521

Richard J. Vann. International Aspects of Income Tax. Tax Law Design and Drafting. Vol. 2. Chapter 18. P. 19.

522

Pires Manuel. International Juridical Double Taxation of Income. Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1990. Р. 55–62.

523

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 16. § 16.

524

Richard J. Vann. International Aspects of Income Tax. Tax Law Design and Drafting. Vol. 2. Chapter 18. P. 50.

525

General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 90a. Source and Residence: new configuration of their principles. 2005. P. 41.

526

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 281.

527

Ibid.

528

IBFD International Tax Glossary, 6th ed. Amsterdam: IBFD, 2009.

529

General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 90a. Source and Residence: new configuration of their principles. 2005. P. 43.

530

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 286.

531

Ibid.

532

General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 90a. Source and Residence: new configuration of their principles. 2005. P. 63.

533

Netherlands: Unilateral Decree on Avoidance of Double Taxation Amended Due to Introduction of New Tax on Banks. URL: www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403304_text.

534

Richard Vann. Tax Treaty Policy of Dynamic Non-Member Economies, in Tax Treaties: Linkages between OECD Member Countries and Dynamic Non-Member Economies. Paris: OECD, 1996.

535

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Introduction.

536

Ibid. P. 328.

537

Венская конвенция о праве международных договоров 1969 г. URL: www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/law_treaties.shtml.

538

О проблемах имплементации международных норм и их взаимодействии с национальным налоговым законодательством см.: Борзунова О. А. Ориентиры в развитии налоговых систем в переходных экономиках // Lex terra incognita. 2008. № 3. URL: www.mgimo.ru/lex/issues/n36967.phtml.

539

Постановление Пленума Верховного суда РФ от 10 октября 2003 г. № 5 «О применении судами общей юрисдикции общепризнанных принципов и норм международного права и международных договоров Российской Федерации».

540

Qureshi A. H. The Public International Law of Taxation. Text, Cases and Materials. Graham & Trotman / Martinus Nijhoff. 1994. Р. 10.

541

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 70–71.

542

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 18.

543

Ibid. P. 18–21.

544

Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010. S. 6(2): «6. The effect given by section 2 to double taxation arrangements (1) Subject to this Part and Part 18 of ICTA, double taxation arrangements have effect in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) despite anything in any enactment». URL: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/8.

545

Подробнее см.: Броунли Ян. Международное право: в 2 кн. Кн. 1. М.: Прогресс, 1977. С. 65—103; Лукашук И. И. Международное право в судах государств. СПб.: Россия-Нева, 1993; Лукашук И. И. Нормы международного права в правовой системе России: учеб. – практ. пособие. М.: Спарк, 1997; Мюллерсон Р. А. Соотношение международного и национального права. М.: Международные отношения, 1982.

546

Курс международного права: в 6 т. Т. 1. Понятие и сущность современного международного права / под ред. В. М. Чхиквадзе (рук.) [и др.]. М.: Наука, 1967. С. 226.

547

Гаврилов В. В. Теория согласования международных и внутригосударственных правовых норм // Государство и право. 2005. № 12. С. 61–70.

548

549

Броунли Я. Международное право: в 2 кн. М.: Прогресс, 1977. Кн. 1. С. 92–93.

550

Усенко Е. Т. Теоретические проблемы соотношения международного и внутригосударственного права // Советский ежегодник международного права, 1977. М.: Наука, 1979. С. 69.

551

Мюллерсон Р. А. Соотношение международного и национального права. М.: Международные отношения, 1982. С. 74.

552

Об имплементации международных норм и их взаимодействии с национальным налоговым законодательством подробнее см., например: Борзунова О. А. Ориентиры в развитии налоговых систем в переходных экономиках. URL: www.mgimo.ru/files/36967/Lex_2008-03_borzunova.doc.

553

Броунли Я. Международное право: в 2 кн. М.: Прогресс, 1977. Кн. 1. С. 102–103.

554

ICJ. Reports 1988. P. 34.

555

Венская конвенция о праве международных договоров. URL: www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/law_treaties.shtml.

556

OECD Report (1989) R(8). Tax treaty override, in: Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital 2010: Full Version. URL: www.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/model-tax-convention-on-income-and-on-capital-2010/r-8-tax-treaty-override_9789264175181-101-en.

557

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. P. 35.

558

Kees van Raad. Non-discrimination in international tax law. Series on international taxation № 6. Kluwer Law International, 1986. Р. 28.

559

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. P. 35.

560

Ibid.

561

Ibid.

562

Например, ст. 9 Федеральной Конституции Швейцарии устанавливает принцип недопустимости злоупотребления правом.

563

Конституции государств Европейского союза. М.: ИНФРА-М-НОРМА, 1997. С. 676.

564

Курс международного права: в 6 т. Т. 1. Понятие и сущность современного международного права / под ред. В. М. Чхиквадзе (рук.) [и др.]. М.: Наука, 1967. С. 233.

565

Курс международного права: в 7 т. Т. 1. Понятие, предмет и система международного права. М.: Наука, 1989. С. 296.

566

Бернам У. Правовая система США. М.: Новая юстиция, 2006. С. 1196.

567

Фридмэн Л. Введение в американское право. М.: Прогресс-Универс, 1993. С. 151–152.

568

Конституции государств Европейского союза. М.: Норма, 1997. С. 181–234.

569

Лукашук И. И. Взаимодействие международного и внутригосударственного права в условиях глобализации // Сейчас. ру. URL: www.lawmix.ru/comm/5303.

570

Статья 59 Основного закона Германии.

571

Конституция РФ (п. 4 ст. 15); Федеральный закон от 15 июля 1995 г. № 101-ФЗ «О международных договорах Российской Федерации» (ст. 5); Налоговый кодекс РФ (ст. 7).

572

Курс международного права: в 7 т. Т. 2: Основные принципы международного права. М.: Наука, 1989.

573

Шахмаметьев А. А. Режим налогообложения нерезидентов: правовая основа регулирования. М.: Юрлитинформ, 2010.

574

Конституция РФ (п. 4 ст. 15), Федеральный закон от 15 июля 1995 г. № 101-ФЗ «О международных договорах Российской Федерации».

575

576

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 67. § 128.

577

578

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 69. § 131–132.

579

Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Collco Dealings Ltd. Inland (1961) 43 ITR 125 Cal. URL: indiankanoon.org/doc/1939312.

580

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp. 466 U.S. 243 (1984). URL: supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/243.

581

The Woodend (K. V. Ceylon) Rubber And Tea Company Ltd., v. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Privy Council Appeal № 39 of 1968. URL: www.lawnet.lk/docs/case_law/nlr/common/html/NLR73V241.htm.

582

Champagner-Weizenbier. BGH – I ZR 15/67. URL: www.kanzlei-pms.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=228&catid=37:urteile.

583

OECD Report (1989) R(8). Tax treaty override, in: Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital 2010: Full Version.

584

OECD (2012) R(6). Double taxation conventions and the use of conduit companies, in: Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital 2010: Full Version. OECD, 2010. P. R(6)-4. § 22.

585

Ibid. § 43: «Existing conventions may have clauses with safeguards against the improper use of their provisions. Where no such provisions exist, treaty benefits will have to be granted under the principle of „pacta sunt servanda“ even if considered to be improper».

586

Francisco Alfredo Garcia Prats. Abuse of tax treaties and treaty shopping. Ad Hoc Group of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters. Eleventh Meeting Geneva, United Nations, 15–19 December 2003. § 29–30.

587

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to Art. 1. § 22.1. P. 70.

588

Philip Baker. Double Taxation Conventions. Sweet & Maxwell, 2003. F8-10.

589

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Anr. (2003). URL: www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1960330.

590

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 125–126.

591

The Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act (FIRPTA).

592

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 129.

593

В ходе дебатов в Комитете Сената США по международным отношениям в 1988 г. сенатор Сарбанс усомнился в том, что нормы о превалировании международных норм действительно таковые, потому что «стороны, заключающие эти международные договоры, были полностью осведомлены о том, что Конгресс США намерен в дальнейшем принять нормы об их превалировании, а поэтому стороны заключали их, обладая данным знанием». Однако далеко не все в США были согласны с подобной точкой зрения.

594

The Constitution of the United States: «…all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding». URL: www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf.

595

Whitney v. Robertson (1888), USA. URL: supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/124/190.

596

Kees van Raad. Non-discrimination in international tax law. Series on international taxation № 6. Kluwer Law International, 1986. Р. 28.

597

Cook v. United States 288 U.S. 102 (1933), USD.

598

Ibid. P. 120; Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U.S. 536; United States v. Payne, 264 U. S. 446, 264 U.S. 448.

599

Aiken Industries Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 56 T.C. 925 (1971).

600

Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010. Formerly ICTA 1988, s 788(3). Part 2. Chapter 1. Section 6. URL: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/8/part/2.

601

Ibid. Section 2.1.(a).

602

INTM152060 – Double taxation agreements: introduction: Domestic law. URL: www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/intmanual/intm152060.htm.

603

Angharad Miller, Lynne Oats B. Bus. Principles of International Taxation (2d ed.). Tottel Publishing, 2009. P. 114.

604

Ibid.

605

Brian J. Arnold, Jacques Sasseville, Eric M. Zolt. The Taxation of Business Profits Under Tax Treaties. Canadian Tax Foundation. Chapter 4: Source Rules for Taxing Business Profits Under Tax Treaties. P. 109–131.

606

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to Art. 13. § 3. P. 243.

607

Philip Baker. Double Taxation Conventions and International Tax Law (2d ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1994. Р. 5. § 2-02.

608

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 27–28. § 46, 46a.

609

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 32.

610

Richard J. Vann. International Aspects of Income Tax. Tax Law Design and Drafting. Vol. 2. Chapter 18. P. 10.

611

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 27. § 46.

612

Ned Shelton. Interpretation and application of double tax treaties. Tottel Publishing, reprinted 2007. P. 50.

613

ATO Taxation Ruling TR 2001/11. URL: law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?locid='TXR/TR200111/NAT/ATO'&PiT=20040929000001.

614

Klaus Vogel. Tax treaty news. Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation (June 2002). P. 226.

615

Richard J. Vann. International Aspects of Income Tax. Tax Law Design and Drafting. Vol. 2. Chapter 18. P. 10. Ref. 18: FRA CGI § 165 bis, 209 I.

616

Locher, Meier, von Siebenthal and Kolb, DBA CH-D, B 4.2 no. 36; Locher «Zur „negativen Wirkung“ von Doppelbesteuereungsabkommen». Festgabe zum Schweizerischen Juristentag. 1988. P. 365.

617

Раздел 7 ст. 1 Конституции США.

618

Philip Baker. Double Taxation Conventions and International Tax Law (2d ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1994. Р. 5.

619

Ibid. P. 6.

620

Ibid. P. 6–7; Ned Shelton. Interpretation and application of double tax treaties. Tottel Publishing, reprinted 2007. P. 51.

621

Philip Baker. Double Taxation Conventions and International Tax Law (2d ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1994. P. 7.

622

France Re Société Schneider Electric. Conseil d’Etat. Ass. June, 28 2002. № 232276.

623

Stéphane Austry, Michel Collet. French Report in Tax treaties and tax avoidance: application of anti-avoidance provisions. Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International 2010. Vol. 95a. P. 321.

624

Aznavour, Conseil d’Etat, Ass. March 28, 2008. № 271366. 9th and 10th section.

625

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to Art. 1. § 22.1. P. 72.

626

Article 165 bis. Code général des impôts. «Nonobstant toute disposition contraire du présent code, sont passibles en France de l'impôt sur le revenu tous revenus dont l'imposition est attribuée à la France par une convention internationale relative aux doubles impositions».

627

Article 162, Japan Income Tax Act (Limited to the provisions related to nonresidents and foreign corporations). Act № 33 of March 31, 1965. URL: www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail_main?id=52&vm=2&re=.

628

United States Model Income Tax Convention (2006). Art. 1. § 2.

629

United States Model Income Tax Convention (2006). Art. 1. § 4.

630

В МК ОЭСР 2014 г. п. 1–2 ст. 11 сформулированы так: «Interest arising in a contracting state and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State. 2. However, interest arising in a Contracting State may also be taxed in that State according to the laws of that State…» OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 11. § 1–2. P. 208.

631

Ст. 2 Федерального закона от 15 июля 1995 г. № 101-ФЗ «О международных договорах Российской Федерации» определяет «международное соглашение» как «соглашение, заключенное Российской Федерацией с иностранным государством (или государствами), с международной организацией либо с иным образованием, обладающим правом заключать международные договоры… в письменной форме и регулируемое международным правом, независимо от того, содержится такое соглашение в одном документе или в нескольких связанных между собой документах, а также независимо от его конкретного наименования».

632

Статья 2 Федерального закона от 15 июля 1995 г. № 101-ФЗ «О международных договорах Российской Федерации».

633

Там же. Пункт 3 ст. 5.

634

Шахмаметьев А. А. Режим налогообложения нерезидентов: правовая основа регулирования. М.: Юрлитинформ, 2010.

635

Морозова Ю. Г. Подлежит ли применению международное соглашение, не опубликованное в средствах массовой информации? // Арбитражная практика. 2002. № 6.

636

Статья 15 Федерального закона от 15 июля 1995 г. № 101-ФЗ «О международных договорах Российской Федерации».

637

Пункт 3 Постановления Пленума Верховного суда РФ от 10 октября 2003 г. № 5 (Бюллетень ВС РФ. 2003. № 12).

638

Такое согласие (п. 1 ст. 6 Федерального закона № 101-ФЗ) выражается путем подписания договора; обмена документами, его образующими; ратификации договора; утверждения договора; принятия договора; присоединения к договору; любым иным способом, о котором условились договаривающиеся стороны.

639

Конституция РФ, п. 4 ст. 15. Аналогичное положение закреплено в ст. 5 Федерального закона от 15 июля 1995 г. № 101-ФЗ «О международных договорах Российской Федерации» и в ст. 7 Налогового кодекса РФ.

640

Постановление Пленума Верховного суда РФ от 10 октября 2003 г. № 5.

641

Постановление Президиума ВАС РФ от 23 июня 1998 г. № 3846/97; Определение ВАС РФ от 14 марта 2008 г. № 12010/07 по делу № А40-48454/06-118-331.

642

Пункт 9 Постановления Пленума Верховного суда РФ от 10 октября 2003 г. № 5 «О применении судами общей юрисдикции общепризнанных принципов и норм международного права и международных договоров Российской Федерации».

643

Muellerson R. Ordering Anarchy. International Law in International Society. The Hague, 2000. Р. 199.

644

Тиунов О. И. Международное гуманитарное право. М., 1999. С. 254.

645

Кучеров И. И. Международное налоговое право: учебник для вузов. М.: ЮрИнфоР, 2007. С. 83–95; Налоговое право: учеб. пособие / под ред. С. Г. Пепеляева. М.: ФБК-ПРЕСС, 2000. С. 248–252, 341–344; Борисов К. Г. К вопросу о формировании международного налогового права в международном общении государств // Московский журнал международного права. 1999. № 4. С. 43; Ларютина И. А. Международное налоговое право // Московский журнал международного права. 2001. № 4. С. 99—100.

646

Шахмаметьев А. А. Международное налоговое право: учебно-методический комплекс. М.: Тровант, 2009.

647

В заключительном акте совещания по безопасности и сотрудничеству в Европе 1975 г. государства-участники, признав необходимость облегчения торговли и содействия новым формам промышленного сотрудничества, согласились благожелательно относиться к заключению специальных двусторонних соглашений по различным вопросам, представляющим взаимный интерес. Так, в области торговли и промышленного сотрудничества, в частности, была обозначена цель «устранить двойное налогообложение и облегчить перевод прибылей и возврат стоимости вложенных средств».

648

Примерами таких договоров могут служить международно-правовые документы, лежащие в основе создания таможенного и экономического союза: Договор об учреждении Евразийского экономического сообщества (с изменениями и дополнениями от 25 января 2006 г. и от 6 октября 2007 г.). URL: www.tsouz.ru/Docs/IntAgrmnts/Pages/Dogovor_EvrAzES.aspx; Договор о создании единой таможенной территории и формировании Таможенного союза (совершено в Душанбе 6 октября 2007 г.). URL: www.tsouz.ru/Docs/IntAgrmnts/Pages/D_sozdETTiformTS.aspx; Договор о Таможенном кодексе Таможенного Союза (совершено в Минске 27 ноября 2009 г.). URL: www.tsouz.ru/Docs/Pages/mgs4proekt.aspx.

649

Актуальный перечень действующих соглашений об избежании двойного налогообложения на 12 января 2012 г.

650

Соглашение между Правительством СССР и Правительством Итальянской Республики об освобождении от двойного налогообложения в области морского судоходства от 20 ноября 1975 г. URL: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/16659352.

651

Соглашение между Правительством СССР и Правительством Финляндской Республики о взаимном освобождении авиапредприятий и их персонала от налогообложения и взносов на социальное страхование от 5 мая 1972 г. URL: base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=INT;n=19079.

652

Соглашение между Правительством Российской Федерации и Правительством Республики Куба о торгово-экономическом сотрудничестве от 14 мая 1999 г. URL: open.lexpro.ru/document/300259.

653

Венская конвенция о дипломатических сношениях 1961 г. URL: www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/dip_rel.shtml; Венская конвенция о консульских сношениях 1963 г. URL: www.varna.mid.ru/doc/pk1_1.htm.

654

Конвенция о привилегиях и иммунитетах ООН (принята 13 февраля 1946 г. Резолюцией 22A Генеральной Ассамблеи ООН). URL: www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/privileg.shtml; Венская конвенция о представительстве государств в их отношениях с международными организациями универсального характера (от 14 марта 1975 г.). URL: www.lawrussia.ru/texts/legal_689/doc689a649x939.htm.

655

Соглашение между Российской Федерацией и Киргизской Республикой о статусе и условиях пребывания российской авиационной базы на территории Киргизской Республики (от 22 сентября 2003 г.).

656

657

Постановление Правительства РФ от 2 декабря 1994 г. № 1344 «О заключении соглашений между Правительством Российской Федерации и правительствами иностранных государств о сотрудничестве и обмене информацией в области борьбы с нарушениями налогового законодательства».

658

Кашин В. А. Налоговые соглашения России. Международное налоговое планирование для предприятий. М.: Финансы; ЮНИТИ, 1998. С. 142–144.

659

В то время организация носила название «Европейская организация экономического сотрудничества» (Organization for European Economic Cooperation, OEEC).

660

Kees van Raad. Non-discrimination in international tax law. Series on international taxation № 6. Kluwer Law International, 1986. Р. 30.

661

League of Nations Report on Double Taxation Submitted to the Financial Committee by Professors Bruins, Einaudi, Seligman and Sir Josiah Stamp. W. H. Coates, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Vol. 87. № 1. Jan., 1924. P. 99—102. URL: www.jstor.org/pss/2341293.

662

Kees van Raad. Non-discrimination in international tax law. Series on international taxation № 6. Kluwer Law International, 1986. Р. 28.

663

Michael J. McIntyre. Developing Countries and International Cooperation on Income Tax Matters: An Historical Review. 2005. P. 4. URL: www.michielse.com/files/mcintyre_intl_cooperation.pdf.

664

Ibid.

665

Например, следующие отчеты ОЭСР: «Transfer pricing, corresponding adjustments and the mutual agreement procedure» (24.11.1982); «The taxation of income derived from the leasing of industrial, commercial or scientific equipment»; «Double taxation conventions and the use of base companies» (27.11.1986); «Double taxation conventions and the use of conduit companies» (27.11.1986); «Tax treatment of software» (23.07.1992); «Triangular cases» (23.07.1992); «The tax treatment of employees’ contributions to foreign pension schemes» (23.07.1992); «Attribution of income to permanent establishments» (26.11.1993); «Tax sparing. A reconsideration» (24.02.1998); «The application of the OECD model tax convention to partnerships» (20.01.1999); «Cross-border income tax issues arising from employee stock-option plans» (16.06.2004). В 2002 г. ОЭСР выпустила публикацию «2002 Reports Related to the OECD Model Tax Convention» из трех частей («Restricting the Entitlement to Treaty Benefits», «Treaty Characterisation Issues Arising From E-Commerce: Report Adopted by the Committee on Fiscal Affairs» и «Issues Arising Under Article 5 (Permanent Establishment) of the Model Tax Convention»), каждая из которых содержала отчет; в результате них были внесены изменения в версию МК и Комментария 2003 г. URL: www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?CID=&LANG=EN&SF1=DI&ST1=5LMQCR2K4GTH.

666

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. URL: dx.doi.org/10.1787/mtc_cond-2014-en.

667

Подробнее о многосторонних конвенциях см.: Multilateral Treaties. McGill University. URL: www.mcgill.ca/tax-law/treaties/multilateraltreaties; Richard L. Reinhold. Some Things That Multilateral Tax Treaties Might Usefully Do. URL: www.americanbar.org/publications/tax_lawyer_home/rein.html; Multilateral Tax Treaties: New Developments in International Tax Law (Series on International Taxation). Ed. Michael Lang. Springer, 1998.

668

Convention Between the Nordic Countries for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital. The effective date is January 1, 1998. URL: www.nordisketax.net/main.asp?url=/ntt.asp&c=dan&l=eng&m=.

669

Agreement Among The Member States of The CARICOM for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to taxes on income, profits or gains and capital gains and for the encouragement of regional trade and investment. 1994. URL: www.caricom.org/jsp/secretariat/legal_instruments/agreement_doubletaxation_1994.jsp. Стороны данного соглашения – Антигуа и Барбуда, Багамы, Барбадос, Белиз, Гайана, Гренада, Доминика, Монтсеррат, Сент-Винсент и Гренадины, Сент-Китс и Невис, Сент-Люсия, Суринам, Тринидад и Тобаго, Ямайка.

670

Andean Community of Nations // Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. URL: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andean_Pact.

671

Andean Community Income and Capital Model Tax Treaty (Unofficial translation as provided by the Andean Community General Secretariat). IBFD Tax Trety Database.

672

Argentina – Chile Income and Capital Tax Treaty (Unofficial translation) 1976 (entered into force 19 December 1985). IBFD Tax Trety Database.

673

Argentina – Bolivia Income and Capital Tax Treaty (Unofficial translation) 1976 (entered into force 4 June 1979). IBFD Tax Trety Database.

674

R. E. Evans. The Expanding Role of Income Tax Treaties in Planning Latin American Ventures. Tax Notes International. September 25, 2000. P. 1471.

675

J. Husban. The Andean Pact Model Convention as Viewed by the Capital Exporting Countries. Fiscal Harmonization in the Andean Countries. IBFD, 1975. P. 59.

676

Nordiskt skatteavtal (текст Скандинавского договора на норвежском языке). URL: www.nordisketax.net/main.asp?url=/ntt.asp&c=dan&l=isl.

677

Marjaana Helminen. The Nordic Multilateral Tax Treaty as a Model for a Multilateral EU Tax Treaty. IBFD, 2014. URL: www.ibfd.org/IBFD-Products/Nordic-Multilateral-Tax-Treaty-Model-Multilateral-EU-Tax-Treaty.

678

Типовая конвенция ООН об избежании двойного налогообложения в отношениях между развитыми и развивающимися странами (United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries). Нью-Йорк, 2001. С изменениями и дополнениями от 2011 г. Разработана в 1980 г. группой экспертов, назначенных Экономическим и Социальным Советом ООН (ЭКОСОС). Документ размещен в сети Интернет (URL: www.un.org/esa/ffd/tax/unmodel.htm). Данная МК и Комментарии к ней обычно публикуются вместе и воспринимаются в единстве. Далее, когда речь пойдет об МК ООН, будет подразумеваться (если не указано иное), что это понятие охватывает саму МК и Комментарий.

679

680

Подробнее см.: Liselott Kana, Ron van der Merwe. The Commentary on Article 5 – The Changes and Their Significance. Bulletin for International Taxation. November 2012.

681

Financing for Development Office (FfDO) of UN-DESA; Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters; Letter from India (13 August 2012). URL: www.un.org/esa/ffd/tax/unmodel.htm.

682

Имеется в виду новый стандарт, введенный в ст. 26 МК ОЭСР в 2010 г. касательно прав государств на запрос налоговой информации. Ранее могла быть запрошена необходимая информация (в англоязычном тексте п. 1 ст. 26 МК ОЭСР до 2006 г. использовалось слово necessary). Новый стандарт изменил текст п. 1 ст. 26: информация названа «имеющей отношение» (as is foreseeably relevant) к налоговым целям запрашивающего государства.

683

Статья 14 была удалена из МК ОЭСР в 2000 г. после выпуска очередных изменений и дополнений (The 2000 Update to the Model Tax Convention). Налоговый комитет ОЭСР принял решение удалить ее 29 апреля 2000 г. на основании Доклада Налогового комитета ОЭСР «Вопросы, связанные со ст. 14 МК ОЭСР» (Issues related to Article 14 of the OECD Model Tax Convention), выпущенного 27 января 2000 г.

684

Налоги на капитал, как они определены в ст. 2 МК ОЭСР, в основном включают ежегодные поимущественные налоги на богатство и на капитал предприятий, но не налоги на эстейт, наследство и дарение. Их регулируют самостоятельные соглашения, составленные на основе МК ОЭСР 1983 г. в отношении налогов на эстейт и на дарение (OECD 1983 Model Double Tax Convention on Estates and Gifts).

685

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Art. 4. § 1. P. 26.

686

R(15). The application of the OECD Model Tax Convention to partnerships (1999). Reproduced in the Vol. II. OECD, Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital 2010: Full Version. OECD, 2010.

687

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to Art. 4. § 8.8. P. 88.

688

United States Model Income Tax Convention (2006). Article 1, § 6. «An item of income, profit or gain derived through an entity that is fiscally transparent under the laws of either Contracting State shall be considered to be derived by a resident of a State to the extent that the item is treated for purposes of the taxation law of such Contracting State as the income, profit or gain of a resident». URL: www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/The-U.S.-Model-Income-Tax-Convention-and-Model-Technical-Explanation.

689

United States Model Technical Explanation Accompanying The United States Model Income Tax Convention of November 15, 2006. P. 5. URL: www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/The-U.S.-Model-Income-Tax-Convention-and-Model-Technical-Explanation.

690

Ibid.

691

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to Art. 1. § 2–7. P. 48–61.

692

Ibid.

693

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 26. § 45b.

694

Ibid. Р. 27. § 45d.

695

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Introduction. § 19. P. 11.

696

Ibid. § 21. P. 11–12.

697

Ibid. § 22. P. 12.

698

Richard J. Vann. International Aspects of Income Tax. Tax Law Design and Drafting. Vol. 2. Chapter 18. P. 44.

699

Klaus Vogel. Double Tax Treaties and Their Interpretation. Berkley Journal of International Law. Vol. 4. Issue 1. 1986.

700

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 29. § 48.

701

Ibid. § 29.

702

Ibid. P. 1281.

703

Kees van Raad. Non-discrimination in international tax law. Series on international taxation № 6. Kluwer Law International, 1986. Р. 26.

704

Ibid. P. 28. Ref. 79.

705

Организация европейского экономического сотрудничества (ОЕЭС) – предшественница ОЭСР.

706

Kees van Raad. Non-discrimination in international tax law. Series on international taxation № 6. Kluwer Law International, 1986. Р. 73.

707

Ibid. р. 74

708

Дернберг Р. Л. Международное налогообложение. М.: ЮНИТИ, 1997. С. 115.

709

Параграф 1 Комментария к МК ОЭСР (2014) к ст. 24(1) гласит: «For that reason, the Article should not be unduly extended to cover so-called „indirect” discrimination. For example, whilst paragraph 1, which deals with discrimination on the basis of nationality, would prevent a different treatment that is really a disguised form of discrimination based on nationality such as a different treatment of individuals based on whether or not they hold, or are entitled to, a passport issued by the State, it could not be argued that non-residents of a given State include primarily persons who are not nationals of that State to conclude that a different treatment based on residence is indirectly a discrimination based on nationality for purposes of that paragraph». OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 24. § 1. P. 349.

710

Ibid. Commentary to art. 24. § 2. P. 349.

711

Здесь и далее подразумевается отсылка к МК ОЭСР и Комментарию 2014 г., если не указано иное.

712

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 1280. § 2.

713

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to Art. 25. § 31, 45, 76. P. 380, 384, 392.

714

Ibid. Commentary to Art. 25. § 50–55. P. 386–387.

715

Более подробно см.: Zvi D. Altman. Dispute Resolution under Tax Treaties. Vol. 11 in the Doctoral Series. IBFD, 2006; Mario Züger. Arbitration under Tax Treaties. Vol. 5 in the Doctoral Series. IBFD, 2001.

716

Improving The Resolution of Tax Treaty Disputes. OECD Report adopted by the Committee on Fiscal Affairs (on 30 January 2007). URL: www.oecd.org/ctp/disputeresolution.

717

OECD Manual on Effective Mutual Agreement Procedures (MEMAP). URL: www.oecd.org/ctp/dispute/manualoneffectivemutualagreementproceduresmemap.htm.

718

Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. URL: www.oecd.org/tax/transparency.

719

За последнее десятилетие заключено более тысячи подобных двусторонних соглашений. В их основе лежит модельное соглашение, разработанное ОЭСР: «Model Tax Information Exchange Agreement». URL: www.oecd.org/ctp/exchangeofinformation/taxinformationexchangeagreementstieas.htm.

720

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to Art. 26. § 1. P. 414.

721

Ibid.

722

Ibid.

723

Общая информация об обмене информацией предоставлена на интернет-странице ОЭСР Exchange of information. URL: www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/). Информация об автоматическом обмене информацией представлена на интернет-портале ОЭСР. URL: http://www.oecd.org/tax/automatic-exchange. См. также: OECD Council Recommendation on the use of the OECD Model Memorandum of Understanding on Automatic Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes (adopted by Council at its 1000th session on 22 March 2001 [C/M(2001)6]) (URL: search.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?cote=C(2001)28/FINAL&docLanguage=En); Automatic Exchange of Information: What it is, how it works, benefits, what remains to be done. URL: www.oecd.org/ctp/exchange-of-tax-information/AEOI_FINAL_with%20cover_WEB.pdf.

724

Более подробно см.: Tax Information Exchange between OECD Member Countries: A Survey of Current Practices. OECD, 1994.

725

Recommendation of the Council concerning an OECD Model Agreement for the Undertaking of Simultaneous Tax Examinations. 23 July 1992. URL: acts.oecd.org/Instruments/ShowInstrumentView.aspx?InstrumentID=85&InstrumentPID=82&Lang=en&Book=False.

726

OECD Model agreement for the undertaking of simultaneous tax examinations. 1992. URL: www.oecd.org/ctp/exchange-of-tax-information/2666483.pdf.

727

См., например, ст. 9 («Налоговые проверки за границей») Страсбургской конвенции о взаимной административной помощи в налоговой области. URL: conventions.coe.int/treaty/rus/Treaties/Html/127.htm.

728

Improving Access to Bank Information for Tax Purposes. OECD, 2000. URL: www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/2497487.pdf.

729

Перечень данных соглашений с информацией о датах их подписания содержится на странице www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/taxinformationexchangeagreementstieas.htm.

730

Более подробная информация о Страсбургской конвенции о взаимной административной помощи в налоговой области доступна на интернет-сайте ОЭСР в разделе «Exchange of Tax Information». URL: www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/conventiononmutualadministrativeassistanceintaxmatters.htm; www.oecd.org/ctp/exchange-of-tax-information/ENG-Amended-Convention.pdf; русскоязычный текст конвенции доступен по ссылке conventions.coe.int/treaty/rus/Treaties/Html/127.htm.

731

Harmful Tax Competition – An Emerging Global Issue. URL: www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/44430243.pdf.

732

Model Agreement on Exchange of Information on Tax Matters. 2002. URL: www.oecd.org/ctp/exchange-of-tax-information/2082215.pdf.

733

Постановление Правительства РФ от 14 августа 2014 г. № 805 «О заключении соглашений об обмене информацией по налоговым делам».

734

Model Protocol For The Purposes of Allowing The Automatic And Spontaneous Exchaneg Of Information under A TIEA. URL: http://www.oecd.org/ctp/exchange-of-tax-information/Model-Protocol-TIEA.pdf.

735

Полный текст FATCA расположен на сайте Службы внутренних доходов США. URL: www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/reg-121647-10.pdf.

736

Перечень данных соглашений опубликован на сайте Казначейства США: URL: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Pages/FATCA.aspx.

737

Maryte Somare, Viktoria Wohrer, Two Different FATCA Model Intergovernmental Agreements: Which Is Preferable? // IBFD, Bulletin for International Taxation. August 2014. P. 395–403.

738

Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation. URL: europa.eu/legislation_summaries/other/l33029_en.htm.

739

Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC. URL: europa.eu/legislation_summaries/taxation/fi0006_en.htm.

740

Council Directive 2014/107/EU of 9 December 2014 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation. URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0107&from=EN.

741

Council Directive 2015/2376 of 8 December 2015 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation. URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32015L2376.

742

Council Directive 2003/48/EC of 3 June 2003 on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments. URL: ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/personal_tax/savings_tax/savings_directive_review/index_en.htm.

743

Текст ст. 27 МК ОЭСР и Комментария к ней доступен на официальном интернет-портале ОЭСР. URL: www.oecd.org/ctp/exchange-of-tax-information/39261225.pdf.

744

OECD Manual on the Implementation of Assistance in Tax Collection. URL: www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/39261429.pdf.

745

Ned Shelton. Interpretation and application of double tax treaties. Tottel Publishing, reprinted 2007. P. 76.

746

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Art. 13. § 3. P. 33.

747

Комментарий к МК ОЭСР (2014) (ст. 11) гласит: «Проценты считаются возникающими в договаривающемся государстве, если плательщик – резидент данного государства. Если же, однако, лицо, выплачивающее доход, независимо от того, является ли оно резидентом договаривающегося государства или нет, имеет в договаривающемся государстве постоянное представительство, в связи с которым возникла задолженность, в отношении которой выплачиваются проценты, и такие проценты выплачивает данное постоянное представительство, тогда данные проценты должны считаться возникающими в государстве, в котором располагается постоянное представительство». OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 11. § 30. P. 221.

748

Richard J. Vann. International Aspects of Income Tax. Tax Law Design and Drafting. Vol. 2. Chapter 18. P. 18.

749

Ibid. P. 20.

750

Note on the Taxation Services under the United Nations Model Tax Convention. Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters. Sixth session. Geneva, 18–22 October 2010. P. 27. URL: www.un.org/esa/ffd/tax/documents/bgrd_model_tts.htm.

751

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 400. § 6–7.

752

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to Art. 5. § 42.18. P. 117.

753

Radhakishan Rawal. Taxation of Permanent Establishments. Spiramus, 2006. P. 368.

754

Richard J. Vann. International Aspects of Income Tax. Tax Law Design and Drafting. Vol. 2. Chapter 18. P. 45.

755

К примеру, см. Соглашение от 29 мая 1996 г. между Российской Федерацией и Федеративной Республикой Германия об избежании двойного налогообложения в отношении налогов на доходы и имущество. Протокол (в ред. Протокола от 15.10.2007), п. 3 («К статьям 7 и 9»). URL: base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=80568.

756

Гидирим В., Иванов А. Недостаточная капитализация: буква закона против здравого смысла // Налоговый вестник. 2012. № 1. С. 57–66.

757

См., например, нормы закона о подоходном налоге Германии: EStG § 49(1)(3), (4): «…services performed in Germany, utilized in Germany, or paid for from public funds» (англ.); в налоговых нормах Бразилии источник также определяется по принципу нахождения плательщика: RIR §§ 2, 743, 785; ECU RTI § 8(2); аналогичные нормы существуют в Индии касательно местонахождения плательщика в отношении услуг и роялти.

758

Данное положение, к примеру, предусмотрено в законе о налоге на прибыль корпораций Германии – Körperschaftsteuergesetz (s. 8(3) «Ermittlung des Einkommens»). URL: www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kstg_1977/__8.html.

759

Peter Harris, David Oliver. International Commercial Tax. Cambridge University Press, 2010. P. 248.

760

Примеры: Австралия, США.

761

Taxation of New Financial Instruments. OECD Publishing, 1994. URL: www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?lang=en&sf1=DI&st1=5LMQCR2KLPHD.

762

Richard J. Vann. International Aspects of Income Tax. Tax Law Design and Drafting. Vol. 2. Chapter 18. P. 46.

763

См. также: OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to Art. 11. § 7.1. P. 209.

764

В тексте действующей ст. 11 МК ОЭСР рекомендованная ставка налога у источника на проценты равна 10 %, однако далее в тексте Комментариев предлагается целый ряд исключений, предполагающих снижение или отмену ставки (§ 7.2, 7.3), например для процентов, получаемых государством или государственным учреждением (§ 7.4), финансовым учреждением (§ 7.7), для процентов по товарным кредитам (§ 7.8, 7.9), процентов, полученных освобожденными организациями, в том числе пенсионными фондами (§ 7.10—7.11). См. OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to Art. 11. § 7.2–7.12. P. 209–212.

765

Richard J. Vann. International Aspects of Income Tax. Tax Law Design and Drafting. Vol. 2. Chapter 18. P. 22.

766

Eric C. C. M. Kemmeren. Source of Income in Globalizing Economies: Overview of the Issues and a Plea for an Origin-Based Approach. IBFD Bulletin for International Taxation. November 2006. P. 433.

767

Данное дело также описано здесь: Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction. Deventer – Boston, 1989. Р. 107–108.

768

USA IRC. § 861(a)(4).

769

United States Model Technical Explanation Accompanying The United States Model Income Tax Convention of November 15, 2006. P. 42.

770

Пункт 3 ст. 12 МК ООН. URL: www.un.org/esa/ffd/tax/unmodel.htm.

771

См., например, соответствующие положения Кодекса внутренних доходов США: 54USA IRC § 865(d)(1)(B). Точно так же и платежи роялти могут частично включать компоненты, касающиеся и использования, и продажи, как это предусмотрено в законодательстве о налоге на прибыль в Японии: JPN Corp TL § 138(7).

772

Например, почти все налоговые соглашения Бразилии (кроме очень давнего соглашения с Японией) приравнивают технические платежи к роялти в текстах протоколов к заключенным соглашениям; а в некоторых соглашениях и протоколах Малайзии, Индии и некоторых африканских стран содержится отдельная статья о платежах за технические услуги.

773

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to Art. 5. § 8.2. P. 222.

774

Sonata Software Ltd. v. ITO (International Taxation) (2006) 6 SOT 700 Bang. URL: www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1823622.

775

Tata Consultancy Services v. State Of Andhra Pradesh (2004). URL: indiankanoon.org/doc/428977.

776

Novel Inc. v. The Deputy Director of Income-tax (2010) ITA № 4368/Mum/2010. URL: www.indiankanoon.org/doc/187368127.

777

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and others ([2005) ITA № 2808/2005. URL: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1637612/.

778

В ст. 17 МК ООН (UN MC (2011), art. 17.2) используется тот же принцип, что и в МК ОЭСР (ст. 17): «Когда доход от личных услуг, оказываемых артистом или спортсменом в своем качестве, зачисляется не лично такому артисту или спортсмену, а иному лицу, то такой доход может, невзирая на положения ст. 7, 14 и 15, облагаться налогом в договаривающемся государстве, в котором происходит деятельность артиста или спортсмена».

779

Richard J. Vann. International Aspects of Income Tax. Tax Law Design and Drafting. Vol. 2. Chapter 18. P. 29.

780

МК ОЭСР (ст. 21) оставляет право на налогообложение доходов, не перечисленных ранее в соглашении, только за страной резидентства, кроме доходов, относимых к постоянному представительству такого резидента в другой стране. Подробнее см.: OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Art. 21. P. 35: «1. Items of income of a resident of a Contracting State, wherever arising, not dealt with in the foregoing Articles of this Convention shall be taxable only in that State. 2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply to income, other than income from immovable property as defined in paragraph 2 of Article 6, if the recipient of such income, being a resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein and the right or property in respect of which the income is paid is effectively connected with such permanent establishment. In such case the provisions of Article 7 shall apply».

781

Отличие подхода МК ООН от подхода МК ОЭСР, описанного в предыдущей сноске, состоит в том, что в ст. 21 МК ООН был добавлен новый параграф 3, позволяющий стране-источнику осуществить налоговые права безотносительно предыдущих положений. Подробнее см.: UN MC (2011). Art. 21: «3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2, items of income of a resident of a Contracting State not dealt with in the foregoing Articles of this Convention and arising in the other Contracting State may also be taxed in that other State».

782

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 5. § 42.1—41.10.

783

Ariane Pickering. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 97A. Enterprise Services. 2012. P. 20.

784

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 5. § 42.22.

785

Ariane Pickering. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 97A. Enterprise Services. 2012. P. 21.

786

Model Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation between Member Countries and Other Countries outside the Andean Subregion (Andean Model).

787

Agreement among the Governments of the Member States of the Caribbean Community for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, Profits or Gains and Capital Gains and for the Encouragement of Regional Trade and Investment. The Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) was established in 1973 by the Treaty of Chaguaramas which came into effect on 1 August 1973.

788

Ariane Pickering. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 97A. Enterprise Services. 2012. P. 25.

789

Ibid. P. 27.

790

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 12. § 11.1—11.5.

791

Ibid. § 11.6.

792

Convention Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of India for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income (12 Sept. 1989). URL: www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/india.pdf.

793

Agreement Between the Government of Malaysia and the Government of the Republic of India for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income (9 May 2012). URL: taxguru.in/income-tax/indiamalaysia-treaty-recognizes-branch-arm-foreign-ho-tax-dividend-reduced-5.html.

794

Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States.

795

Consolidated Versions of the Treaty on European Union and The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2012/C 326/01).

796

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2012/C 326/01).

797

Case C-170/05 Denkavit International BV, Denkavit France SARL v. Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de l’Industrie (2006) ECR I-11949 (ECJ).

798

Case C-379/05 Amurta S.G.P.S. v. Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (2007) ECR I-9569 (ECJ).

799

Case C-303/07 Aberdeen Property Fininvest Alpha (2009) ECR 00 (ECJ).

800

Лукашук И. И. Международное право. Общая часть. Изд. 3-е, перераб. и дополн. М.: Волтерс Клувер, 2005. С. 122. URL: lib.lunn.ru/KP/Sovremenniki/lukashuk_1.pdf.

801

Юридический словарь. Том 2 / глав. ред. П. И. Кудрявцев. М.: Госюриздат, 1956.

802

Лукашук И. И. Современное право международных договоров. Т. 1. М.: Волтерс Клувер, 2004. С. 610.

803

György Haraszti. Some Fundamental Problems of the Law of Treaties. Budapest, 1973. P. 18, 29.

804

Венская конвенция о праве международных договоров. URL: www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/law_treaties.shtml.

805

Ned Shelton. Interpretation and application of double tax treaties. Tottel Publishing, reprinted 2007. P. 165.

806

Worldwide Corporate Tax Guide. Ernst & Young, 2015. P. 842.

807

RStBl 1399/1401 (regarding German treaty with Switzerland); 1938 RStBl 937 (regarding German treaty with Italy); 1940 RStBl 809, 810 (regarding German treaty with Switzerland); Klaus Vogel. Double Tax Treaties and Their Interpretation. Berkley Journal of International Law. Vol. 4. Issue 1. 1986. P. 25. Ref. 104.

808

Debatin. Auslegungsmaximen zum Internationalen Steuerrecht. 1969; Klaus Vogel. Double Tax Treaties and Their Interpretation. Berkley Journal of International Law. Vol. 4. Issue 1. 1986. Ref. 105.

809

Debatin. Auslegungsmaximen zum Internationalen Steuerrecht. P. 26.

810

Талалаев А. Н. Венская конвенция о праве международных договоров: комментарий. М.: Юридическая литература,1997. С. 82.

811

Competence of Assembly regarding admission to the United Nations. International Court of Justice. Reports 1950. P. 8, 196, 199. URL: www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/9/1883.pdf.

812

813

Шепенко Р. А. Международные налоговые правила. Ч. 1. М.: Юрлитинформ, 2012. С. 482.

814

Ned Shelton. Interpretation and application of double tax treaties. Tottel Publishing, reprinted 2007. P. 168.

815

O’Connor, J.F. Good Faith in International Law, Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, England 1991, P. 124.

816

B. Cheng. General Principles of Law as applied by International Courts and Tribunals. Cambridge, 1953 (Reprinted in 1987). P. 107, 113, 115–116, 121–136.

817

Competence of Assembly regarding admission to the United Nations. International Court of Justice. Reports 1950. Р. 8. URL: www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/9/1883.pdf.

818

Yearbook of the International Law Commission. Vol. II. NY, 1966. P. 220, 221; Brownlie I. Principles of Public International Law. 7th ed., 2008. P. 631.

819

Brownlie I. Principles of Public International Law. 7th ed., 2008. P. 631.

820

Yearbook of the International Law Commission. Vol. II. NY, 1966. P. 220–221.

821

Qureshi A. H. The Public International Law of Taxation. Text, Cases and Materials. Graham & Trotman / Martinus Nijhoff. 1994. P. 135–153.

822

Вайпан В. А., Вайпан Г. В., Ивлиева А. Г. Компетенция российского арбитражного суда рассматривать иск к иностранному юридическому лицу, действующему на территории Российской Федерации через аккредитованное представительство иностранной дочерней компании // Право и экономика. 2011. № 7. URL: http://justicemaker.ru/view-article.php?id=12&art=2456.

823

Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits (1962).

824

Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case (jurisdiction). Judgement of July 22d, 1952. I. C. J. Reports 1952. P. 93. URL: www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/16/1997.pdf.

825

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 37. § 70.

826

Thiel v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 171 CLR 338. URL: http://policy.mofcom.gov.cn/enservice/fcaseEN!fetch.action?id=CDFE5206-DEEE-48F7-9742-A14D85D29773.

827

Ostime (Inspector Of Taxes) v. Australian Mutual Provident Society (1958). URL: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1408736/.

828

Union Of India And Anr v. Azadi Bachao Andolan And Another (2003).

829

IBFD International Tax Glossary, 6th ed. Amsterdam: IBFD, 2009. P. 93.

830

Обмен нотами 15 февраля 1994 г. между Чрезвычайным и Полномочным Послом Соединенного Королевства Великобритании и Северной Ирландии в Российской Федерации и заместителем министра иностранных дел Российской Федерации. URL: www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_13981/?frame=2.

831

Совместный разъяснительный меморандум к соглашению об избежании двойного налогообложения между Нидерландами и Бельгией 5 июня 2002 г., вступившему в силу в 2003 г. Он был выпущен как приложение к ратификационным документам (Joint explanatory memorandum of the Belgium – Netherlands DTC of 5 June 2002 is annexed to the Bill of ratification. Parl. Doc, Senate. 2002–2003. № 2-1293). См. подробнее: General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 95a. Tax treaties and tax avoidance: application of anti-avoidance provisions. 2010. Marc Bourgeois, Edoardo Traversa. Belgium Report. Footnote 92. P. 142.

832

U.S. Tax Treaties (перечень действующих налоговых соглашений США и «Технических разъяснений» к ним). URL: www.unclefed.com/ForTaxProfs/Treaties; United States Model Technical Explanation accompanying the United States Model Income Tax Convention of November 15, 2006. URL: www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/temod006.pdf.

833

Agreed Minutes. A Russian delegation of the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Taxes and Levies and a German Delegation of the Federal Ministry of Finance met in Berlin on 25th and 26th September 2001 for discussions of problems related to application of the Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation (DTA) dated 29th May 1996.

834

Agreed Minutes. The negotiations for application of the provisions of the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus for the avoidance of double taxation in respect of taxes on income and capital of 5.12.1998, held in Moscow 30 and 31 October 2001 (Done in Moscow on 31 October 2001); Agreed Minutes. A delegation of the Republic of Cyprus… and a delegation of the Russian Federation… met in Nicosia on July 10th and 11th 2000, for consultations concerning the application of particular provisions of the Agreement between the two States for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income and Capital of 5.12.1998; Detailed Minutes of the consultations concerning the applications of particular provisions of the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus for the avoidance of double taxation in respect of taxes on income and capital. Held in Nicosia on 8—10 August 2001.

835

Agreed Minutes (The delegations of France and Russia… met in Paris on… 22 January 2001, to resolve the difficulties related to the implementation of the French-Russian tax convention of 26 November 1996, entered into force on 8 February 1999, replacing the convention of 4 October 1985 which bound USSR to France).

836

Письмо Минфина РФ от 19.06.2002 № 23-2-12/10-839 (о применении Соглашения между РФ и Францией); Письмо Министерства РФ по налогам и сборам от 6 февраля 2004 г. № 23-1-10/9-419 «О применении Соглашения между РФ и Федеративной Республикой Германия об избежании двойного налогообложения в отношении налогов на доходы и имущество» от 29.05.1996 г.; Письмо Минфина РФ от 10 ноября 2014 г. № 03-08-13/56523: «Обращаем внимание, что согласованное толкование положений Соглашения доведено до налоговых органов Российской Федерации» (письмо Минфина России от 11.12.2003 г. № 04-06-06/Германия); письмо Министерства РФ по налогам и сборам от 06.02.2004 № 23-1-10/9-419; Письмо Минфина РФ от 4 марта 2013 г. № 03-08-05/6423: «Согласованное единообразное толкование положений Соглашения закреплено в Меморандуме о взаимопонимании от 26.09.2001, составленном на английском языке. В свою очередь, содержание указанного Меморандума изложено в Информационном сообщении (письмо МНС России от 06.02.2004 N 23-1-10/9-419) об отдельных вопросах применения Соглашения, размещенном на официальном сайте Минфина России (minfin.ru) в подразделе „Разъяснение положений международных соглашений“ раздела „Международные налоговые отношения“»; Письмо Министерства РФ по налогам и сборам от 12 февраля 2004 г. № 23-1-10/4-497 «О применении Соглашения между Правительством РФ и Правительством Республики Кипр об избежании двойного налогообложения в отношении налогов на доходы и капитал от 05.12.1998».

837

Подробнее см.: Официальное опубликование нормативных правовых актов / Н. Я. Соколов, К. С. Кармадонов. М.: Проспект, 2013.

838

Ссылка на Меморандум от 10.08.2001 о применении некоторых положений соглашения с Кипром: Девятый арбитражный апелляционный суд. Постановление от 22 июня 2011 г. № 09АП-14151/2011-АК; ссылка на Письмо Минфина РФ от 19.06.2002 г. № 23-2-12/10-839: Федеральный арбитражный суд Московского округа от 20 мая 2003 г., дело № КА-А41/2940-03; ссылка на письмо Министерства РФ по налогам и сборам от 6 февраля 2004 года № 23-1-10/9-419: например, Конституционный суд Российской Федерации, Определение от 24 марта 2015 г. № 695-О «Об отказе в принятии к рассмотрению жалобы открытого акционерного общества „Гурово-Бетон“ на нарушение конституционных прав и свобод пунктами 2, 3 и 4 статьи 269 НК РФ»; Девятый арбитражный апелляционный суд. Постановление от 28 августа 2012 г. № 09АП-26461/2012.

839

Frank Engelen. Interpretation of Tax Treaties under international law. IBFD, Doctoral Series. Academic Council. 2004. P. 431–432.

840

Yearbook of International Law Commission 1966. Vol. II. P. 221. URL: http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/english/ilc_1966_v2.pdf.

841

Frank Engelen. Interpretation of Tax Treaties under international law. IBFD, Doctoral Series. Academic Council. 2004. P. 434.

842

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 37. § 69.

843

Burghardt vs. Commissioner 80 Tax Court 705 (1983).

844

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 37. § 69a.

845

Crown Forest Industries Ltd. v. Canada (1995) 2 S.C.R. 802. URL: scc.lexum.org/en/1995/1995scr2-802/1995scr2-802.html.

846

Gladden Estate v. The Queen (1985) 1 CTC 163 (FCTD). P. 166–167.

847

Commissioners of Taxation v. Lamesa Holdings BV (1997) 785 FCA. URL: www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/1997/785.html?&nocontext=1.

848

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Introduction. § 7. P. 8.

849

OECD Model Double Taxation Convention on Income and Capital (1977). Introduction. P. 5.

850

Philip Baker. Double Taxation Conventions and International Tax Law (2d ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1994. Р. 5. § С-28.

851

Maximov v. United States, 373 US 49 (1963).

852

Thiel v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 171 CLR 338. URL: http://policy.mofcom.gov.cn/enservice/fcaseEN!fetch.action?id=CDFE5206-DEEE-48F7-9742-A14D85D29773.

853

Christopher McGimpsey and Michael McGimpsey Plaintiffs v. Ireland, An Taoiseach and Others Defendants (S.C. № 314, 1988).

854

Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd – House Of Lords (1981) AC 251. URL: www.jus.uio.no/lm/england.fothergill.v.monarch.airlines.hl.1980.

855

Аналогичная аргументация содержится также в постановлениях Melford Development v. R (1982) (Canada); CIR v. JFP Energy Inc. (1990) (New Zealand); IRC v. Commerzbank AG (1990) (United Kingdom); FTC v. Lamesa Holdings BV (1997) (Australia); Chong v. FCT (2000) (Australia).

856

James Buchanan & Co Ltd v. Babco Forwarding & Shipping (UK) Ltd (1977); StagLine Ltd. v. Foscolo Mango & Co Ltd. (1932) AC 328. P. 350.

857

Ned Shelton. Interpretation and application of double tax treaties. Tottel Publishing, reprinted 2007. P. 164–165.

858

A. Holding ApS. § 3.4.2–3.4.3. Federal Tribunal, 28 November 2005; A. Holding ApS, 2A.239/2005, ITLR 8 (2006). P. 536–562.

859

Administrative Court, 26 July 2000, N. AG, 97/14/0070; ITLR 2 (2000). P. 884–901.

860

Administrative Court, 9 December 2004. IFSC Dublin Docks. 2002/14/0074.

861

Crown Forest Industries Ltd. v. Canada (1995) 2 S.C.R. 802.

862

Brandstetter Patricia. The Substantive Scope of Double Tax Treaties – a Study of Article 2 of the OECD Model Conventions. Doctoral thesis, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business. URL: http://epub.wu.ac.at/2019/1/Brandstetter.pdf.

863

Lord McNair. The Law of Treaties. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961. Chapter XXXIII. P. 411–423.

864

IBFD International Tax Glossary, 6th ed. Amsterdam: IBFD, 2009. P. 451.

865

United States Model Technical Explanation Accompanying The United States Model Income Tax Convention of November 15, 2006.

866

Convention between the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Kazakhstan for the avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital (effective of 1 January 1997); Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Poland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention Of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income (effective of 1 January 2004).

867

Agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Turkey for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income (effective of 1 January 1989).

868

Ned Shelton. Interpretation and application of double tax treaties. Tottel Publishing, reprinted 2007. P. 166–167.

869

New Chair of the OECD's Committee on Fiscal Affairs. URL: www.oecd.org/ctp/newchairoftheoecdscommitteeonfiscalaffairs.htm.

870

United States Model Technical Explanation Accompanying The United States Model Income Tax Convention of November 15, 2006.

871

Постановление Правительства РФ от 24 февраля 2010 г. № 84.

872

Recommendation of the OECD Council Concerning The Model Tax Convention On Income and On Capital (Adopted by the Council on 23 October 1997). Annex.

873

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Introduction. § 3. P. 7.

874

Ibid. § 29. P. 14.

875

Frank Engelen. Interpretation of Tax Treaties under international law. IBFD, Doctoral Series. Academic Council. 2004. P. 439.

876

Philip Baker. Double Taxation Conventions and International Tax Law (2d ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1994. P. 13–14.

877

Kees van Raad. Interpretatie van belastingsverdragen. 47 MBB 2/3, 1978. P. 49–56.

878

Kees van Raad. Het nationale recht bij de uitlegging van belastingverdragen, in. J.F.M. Giele et al. (ed). Van wet naar recht, opstellen aangebogen aan Prof. Mr. J.P. Scheltens. Deventer: Kluwer, 1984. P. 162.

879

Kees van Raad. Interpretation and Application of Tax Treaties by Tax Courts. 36 European Taxation, 1996. P. 4.

880

John Avery Jones et al. The Interpretation of tax treaties with particular reference to Art. 3(2) of the OECD Model Convention. Part I and II. British Tax Review, 1984.

881

Michael Lang. The Application of the OECD Model Tax Convention to Partnerships. Kluwer Law International, 2000. Р. 20–28.

882

Convention Between The United States Of America And The Republic Of Austria For The Avoidance Of Double Taxation And The Prevention Of Fiscal Evasion With Respect To Taxes On Income, signed in Vienna on May 31, 1996. Memorandum Of Understanding. Re Interpretation of the Convention. URL: www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/austria.pdf.

883

TR 2001/13. Australian Taxation Office. Taxation Ruling. Income tax: Interpreting Australia’s Double Tax Agreements.

884

Klaus Vogel. Double Tax Treaties and Their Interpretation. Berkley Journal of International Law. Vol. 4. Issue 1. 1986. P. 41. URL: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/bjil/vol4/iss1/1/.

885

Ibid. P. 42.

886

Klaus Vogel, The influence of the OECD Commentaries on Treaty Interpretation. 54 IBFD Bulletin. 12, 2000. P. 612–616.

887

Frank Engelen. Interpretation of Tax Treaties under international law. IBFD, Doctoral Series. Academic Council. 2004. P. 445.

888

Лукашук И. И. Современное право международных договоров. Т. 2. М.: Волтерс Клувер, 2006. C. 94.

889

Каламкарян Р. А. Эстоппель в международном публичном праве: монография. М.: Наука, 2001. C. 8.

890

Georgia v. South Carolina-497 U.S. 376 (1990).

891

Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits (1962), I.C.J. Rep. 6; Note, 56 Am. J. INT’L L. 1033 (1962); Note, 11 INT’ & COMP. L.Q. 1183 (1962). URL: www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=284&p1=3&p2=3&case=45&p3=5.

892

PCIJ. 1993 Series A/B № 53. P. 70. URL: www.icj-cij.org/pcij/serie_AB/AB_53/01_Groenland_Oriental_Arret.pdf.

893

Frank Engelen. Interpretation of Tax Treaties under international law. IBFD, Doctoral Series. Academic Council. 2004. P. 136.

894

E. van der Bruggen. «Good Faith» in the Application and Interpretation of Double Tax Conventions. BTR. № 1, 2003. P. 43.

895

John Avery Jones et al. The Interpretation of tax treaties with particular reference to Art. 3(2) of the OECD Model Convention. British Tax Review, 1984. P. 93.

896

Michael Lang. Later Commentaries to OECD Model Convention Not to Affect the Interpretation of Previously Concluded Tax Treaties. Intertax. Vol. 25. Issue 1. 1997.

897

Klaus Vogel. The Influence of the OECD Model Commentaries on Treaty Interpretation. IBFD Bulletin, December 2000. P. 615; Martin M. J. Ellis. The Influence of the OECD Commentaries on Treaty Interpretation – Response to Prof. Dr. Klaus Vogel. IBFD Bulletin, December 2000. P. 617.

898

Klaus Vogel. The Influence of the OECD Model Commentaries on Treaty Interpretation. IBFD Bulletin, December 2000. P. 612.

899

Philip Baker. Double Taxation Conventions and International Tax Law (2d ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1994. P. 28–31.

900

Richard J. Vann. International Aspects of Income Tax. Tax Law Design and Drafting. Vol. 2. Chapter 18. P. 11. URL: www.imf.org/external/pubs/nft/1998/tlaw/eng/ch18.pdf.

901

Протокол от 7 июня 2004 г. к Соглашению от 7 июня 2004 г. между Правительством Российской Федерации и Правительством Мексиканских Соединенных Штатов об избежании двойного налогообложения в отношении налогов на доходы. Пункт 8. URL: www.nalog.ru/html/docs/conv/Mexico.pdf.

902

Prévost Car Inc. v. Canada 2009 FCA 57 (2010) 2 F.C.R. 65.

903

Taisei Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd et al v. Commissioner (1995) 104 TC 535.

904

R. v. Melford Developments Inc. (1982) 2 S.C.R. 504.

905

Stephen R. Richardson, James W. Welkoff. The Interpretation of Tax Conventions in Canada. Canadian Tax Journal. 1995. Vol. 43. № 5. P. 1769.

906

The Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. I-4). URL: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/I-4.pdf.

907

Prévost Car Inc. v. Canada 2009 FCA 57 (2010) 2 F.C.R. 65.

908

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Introduction. § 33–34. P. 15.

909

Ibid. § 35–36. P. 15–16.

910

Philip Baker. Double Taxation Conventions. 3rd Edition. 2001. § E-1—E-35.

911

IBFD International Tax Glossary, 6th ed. Amsterdam: IBFD, 2009. P. 148.

912

OECD (2014), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris. Art. 3. § 1b.

913

Burghardt v. Commissioner (1983) в США и Ducking v. Gollan (1965) в Великобритании.

914

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 124–126.

915

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. P. 50–52.

916

Peter Harris, David Oliver. International Commercial Tax. Cambridge University Press, 2010. P. 37.

917

Подробнее об эстоппеле см.: Эстоппель // Dic.Academic.Ru. URL: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/fin_enc/19574.

918

Smallwood v. RCC (2008) 10 ITLR 574 (SC). § 99.

919

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v. FCE Bank Plc (2011) UKUT 420 (TCC). URL: www.internationaltaxreview.com/pdfs/HMRC_v_FCE_Bank_Plc.pdf; FCE Bank Plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (2012) EWCA Civ 1290. URL: www.pumptax.com/wp-content/uploads/old/documents/FCE171012.pdf.

920

OECD (2014), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris. Introduction. § 29. P. 14.

921

Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada v. Pearson (H M Inspector of Taxes) (1986). URL: www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/sun-life-assurance-co-canada-v-pearson-inspector-taxes.

922

NEC Semi-Conductors Ltd. and others v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (2003) EWHC 2813 (Ch). URL: http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2003/november/nec-semi-conductors-ltd-and-others-v-inland-revenue-commissioners.

923

Boake Allen Limited and others (Appellants) v. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondents) (2007) UKHL 25. URL: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd070523/boake.pdf.

924

UBS AG v. Revenue And Customs (2010) UKFTT 366 (TC). URL: www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2010/TC00648.html.

925

Smallwood and Smallwood, Trustees of the Trevor Smallwood Trust v. Commissioners for Revenue and Customs (2008) UKSPC SPC0069. URL: db1.spiderline.com/exec/search?q=smallwood&a=100053.

926

Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada v. Pearson (1984) STC 461. P. 510–511.

927

Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines Ltd (1981) AC 251 (HL). P. 287.

928

Варшавская конвенция 1929 г. для унификации некоторых правил, касающихся международных воздушных перевозок (в ред. изменений, внесенных Гаагским протоколом от 28 сентября 1955 г.).

929

Her Majesty The Queen v. Crown Forest Industries Limited (1995) 2 S.C.R. 802. URL: scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1271/index.do.

930

United States of America, v.A. L. Burbank & CO., Ltd., and Bank of Tokyo, Ltd., and Westward Shipping, Ltd. (1975) 75-2 USTC P 9795. URL: bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/525/525.F2d.9.16.68.74-2342.74-2470.74-2359.html.

931

Cudd Pressure Control Inc. v. The Queen (1999) 98 DTC 6630 (FCA). URL: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/1998/a-369-95_6778/a-369-95.html.

932

CIR v. JFP Energy Inc. (1990) 14 TRNZ 617.

933

United States Model Technical Explanation Accompanying The United States Model Income Tax Convention of November 15, 2006.

934

BNB 1992/379 Hoge Raad, 2 September 1992.

935

History of Tax Treaties Database. URL: www.taxtreatieshistory.org.

936

Раздел сайта ОЭСР, посвященный налоговым соглашениям. URL: www.oecd.org/tax/treaties.

937

938

Danish Administrative Tax Court, Case № 1985-5-173, decision of 22 May 1985; Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines (1981) AC 251.

939

US Supreme Court, Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U.S. (1996). P. 226.

940

Estate of Burghardt v. Commrs. (1983) (US); IRC v. Exxon Corp. (1982) (UK); Union Texas Petroleum Corp. v. Critchley (1988) (UK); The Queen v. Melford Developments Inc. (1982) (Canada).

941

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2014. Commentary to art. 3. § 11–13. P. 83–84.

942

Shannon H. US Income Tax Treaties, Reference to Domestic Law for the Meaning of Undefined Terms. Intertax, 1989. P. 157.

943

John Avery Jones et al. The Interpretation of tax treaties with particular reference to Art. 3(2) of the OECD Model Convention. British Tax Review, 1984. Part I and II. P. 100.

944

OECD Model Tax Convention (2000). Commentary to Art. 23. § 32.1—32.7.

945

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Article 3, m.no 61–74.

946

Leonhardt Andra and Partner GmbH v. CIT (2000). URL: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/850000/.

947

Klaus Vogel. Double Tax Treaties and Their Interpretation. Berkley Journal of International Law. Vol. 4. Issue 1. 1986. P. 27.

948

OECD, Fiscal Committee. Minutes of the 21st Session held in Paris on Tuesday 28th, Wednesday 29th, Thursday 30th September, and Friday 1st October, 1965, FC/M(65)3. Paris, 22nd October 1965. P. 3 («General Remarks»).

949

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2014. Commentary to Art. 3. § 12. P. 83.

950

Frank Engelen. Interpretation of Tax Treaties under international law. IBFD, Doctoral Series. Academic Council. 2004. P. 482.

951

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. P. 50.

952

John Avery Jones, The One True Meaning of a Tax Treaty. IBFD Bulletin, June 2001. P. 220–224.

953

Шепенко Р. А. Международные налоговые правила. Ч. 1. М.: Юрлитинформ, 2012. С. 126.

954

M. Lang. Doppelbesteuerungsabkommen und innerstaatliches Recht. Vienna: Orac, 1992. P. 105.

955

Письмо Минфина России от 06.12.2002 г. № 04-06-05/1/35. URL: http://taxpravo.ru/novosti/statya-55832-tolkovanie_termina_laquopryamoe_vlojenieraquo_v_soglashenii_s_kiprom_.

956

Memorandum of Understanding, May 15, 1989. U.S. – India Tax Treaty Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Fees For Included Services In Article 12. URL: www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/india.pdf.

957

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2014. Art. 3. Par. 1 (a, b). P. 25.

958

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 209. Note 60a.

959

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2014. Art. 3. § 2. P. 25.

960

Ibid. Commentary to art. 23. § 32.3. P. 331.

961

Klaus Vogel. Double Tax Treaties and Their Interpretation. Berkley Journal of International Law. Vol. 4. Issue 1. 1986. P. 60.

962

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. P. 52.

963

Boulez v. Commissioner 83 T.C. 584 (1984). URL: https://casetext.com/case/boulez-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-1.

964

United States Model Technical Explanation Accompanying The United States Model Income Tax Convention of November 15, 2006.

965

Ned Shelton. Interpretation and application of double tax treaties. Tottel Publishing, reprinted 2007. P. 208.

966

Bruno Beernaerts, Luc Gerondal, Robbert Frassino. Multi-jurisdictional tax planning across the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Tax Planning International Review; BNA. Issue 7. 2011. P. 3.

967

Архив Налогового бюллетеня International Tax Alert (Ernst & Young). URL: www.ey.com/RU/ru/Services/Tax/Tax_International-Tax-Alert-archive.

968

Ned Shelton. Interpretation and application of double tax treaties. Tottel Publishing, reprinted 2007. P. 208.

969

Klaus Vogel. Double Tax Treaties and Their Interpretation. Berkley Journal of International Law. Vol. 4. Issue 1. 1986. P. 62.

970

Brian J. Arnold, Tax Treaty News, IBFD Bulletin for International Taxation, January 2009.

971

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2014. Commentary to Art. 3. § 12. P. 83–84.

972

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust (1983). URL: www.indiankanoon.org/doc/865397.

973

974

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. The Queen, 76 DTC 6120, at 6135.

975

CIR v. United Dominican Trust, 197331 NZTC 61-028.

976

Taisei Fire and Marine Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner, 104 TC 535 (1995).

977

Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines Ltd (1981) AC 251.

978

Memec Plc v. Inland Revenue Commissioner (1998) EWCA Civ 941, 1 ITL Rep 3. URL: judgmental.org.uk/judgments/EWCA-Civ/1998/[1998_EWCA_Civ_941.html.

979

The Queen v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Commerzbank AG, European Court Reports (1993), Case C-330/91, Page I-04017. URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61991CJ0330:EN: HTML.

980

Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Commerzbank AG (1990) 63 TC 218. URL: www.swarb.co.uk/lisc/TaxMn19901990.php.

981

James Buchanan & Company Ltd. v. Babco Forwarding and Shipping (UK) Ltd. (1976) EWCA Civ 9. URL: www.judgmental.org.uk/judgments/EWCA-Civ/1976/[1976_EWCA_Civ_9.html.

982

Часть 3 ст. 5 Федерального закона от 15 июля 1995 г. № 101-ФЗ «О международных договорах Российской Федерации».

983

Постановление Президиума ВАС РФ от 15.11.2011 г. № 8654/11.

984

Постановление Конституционного суда РФ от 25.06.2015 г. № 16-П «По делу о проверке конституционности пункта 2 статьи 207 и статьи 216 Налогового кодекса Российской Федерации в связи с жалобой гражданина Республики Беларусь С. П. Лярского».

985

Брук Б. Я. Правила недостаточной капитализации: закрепление пройденного или новые тенденции в правоприменении? // Налоговед. 2011. № 10. URL: www.arbitr.ru/press-centr/smi/39458.html.

986

Brian Arnold. Threshold requirements for taxing business profits under tax treaties. Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation. 2003. № 10. P. 476.

987

Brian Arnold, Jacqes Sasseville, Eric Zolt. Summary of proceedings of an invitational seminar on the taxation of business profits under tax treaties // Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation. 2003. № 5.

988

Brian Arnold. Threshold requirements for taxing business profits under tax treaties. Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation. 2003. № 10. P. 477. Footnote 7.

989

US Internal Revenue Code. Sec. 864(b).

990

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Sec. 6–5.

991

Викулов К. Е. Правила налогообложения иностранных организаций, действующих через постоянное представительство: опыт ОЭСР и правовое регулирование в России: дис… канд. юр. наук. М.: МГИМО, 2011. С. 74. См. также: Кашин В. А. Налоговые соглашения России. Международное налоговое планирование для предприятий. М.: Финансы; ЮНИТИ, 1998. С. 188.

992

Налоговое право: учебник / отв. ред. и рук. авт. коллектива С. Г. Пепеляев. М.: Юристъ, 2005. С. 366.

993

994

OECD (2014), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris. Commentary to art. 5. § 1.

995

Ned Shelton. Interpretation and application of double tax treaties. Tottel Publishing, reprinted 2007. P. 305.

996

Huston J., Willams L. Permanent Establishment: A Planning Primer. Denver, Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers. 1993. P. 1.

997

998

Jean Schaffner. How fixed is a permanent establishment? Wolters Kluwer, 2013. P. 10.

999

См., к примеру: Convention between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Norway for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital Gains, Article 21 «Miscellaneous rules applicable to certain offshore activities». URL: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/281378/8801.pdf; Конвенция от 26 марта 1996 г. между РФ и Королевством Норвегия об избежании двойного налогообложения и предотвращении уклонения от уплаты налогов в отношении налогов на доходы и капитал – положения протокола «Офшорная деятельность». URL: www.nalog.ru/html/docs/conv/Norway.pdf.

1000

Arvid K. Skaar. Permanent Establishment: Erosion of a Tax Treaty Principle. Kluwer law and taxation publishers, 1991. P. 539.

1001

A. Mehta. Permanent Establishment in international taxation. Taxmann, 2012. P. 444.

1002

OECD (2014), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris. Commentary to art. 5. § 41.1., P. 111–112.

1003

OECD (2014), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris. Art. 5. § 1., P. 26.

1004

OECD (2014), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris. Commentary to art. 5. § 2., P. 94.

1005

1006

Коннов О. Ю. Понятие постоянного представительства в налоговом праве: дис… канд. юр. наук. М., 2001. С. 25.

1007

OECD (2014), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris. Commentary to art. 5. § 4–4.6. P. 95–96.

1008

Ibid. Art. 5. § 4.1, P. 95.

1009

Ibid. Art. 5. § 4.1, P. 95.

1010

Ibid. Art. 5. § 4, P.95.

1011

1012

OECD (2014), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris. Commentary to art. 5. § 8, P. 98–99.

1013

Interpretation and application of Article 5 (Permanent Establishment) of the OECD Model Tax Convention (12 October 2011 to 10 February 2012). OECD Public Discussion Draft. URL: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/7/48836726.pdf.

1014

OECD (2014), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris. Commentary to art. 5. § 42.7—42.9, P. 113–114.

1015

Ibid. § 9.1., P. 99.

1016

OECD (2014), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris. Commentary to art. 5. § 20., P. 103.

1017

Bundesfinanzhof № IIR 12/92, 30.10.1996. URL: http://home.germany.net/101-274850/pipeline.html.

1018

TfS 1987.50 LSR.

1019

OECD (2014), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014. OECD Publishing, Paris. Commentary to art. 5. § 8. P. 98–99.

1020

Ibid. § 5.2. P. 96–97.

1021

Amadeus Global Travel Distribution S.A. v. DCIT. URL: itatonline.org/archives/amadeus-global-travel-vs-dcit-itat-delhi.

1022

Galileo International Inc. v. DCIT (2007) TIOL 447 ITAT (Del). URL: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56225/.

1023

VwGF 21 May 1997, 96/14/0084. URL: www.ris.bka.at.

1024

Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Australia) Case U 162 dated 5 August 1987 (87 ATC 942).

1025

Golf in Dubai LLC, In Re (2008) 174 Taxmann 480 (AAR – New Delhi).

1026

BFH-Urteil vom 3.2.1993 (I R 80–81/91) BStBl. 1993 II S. 462. URL: www.jurion.de/Urteile/BFH/1993-02-03/I-R-80_91, www.jurion.de/Urteile/BFH/1993-02-03/I-R-81_91.

1027

Joseph Fowler v. MNR (2012) 18 taxmann.com 209 (TC–Canada).

1028

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 5. § 4–4.2. P. 95.

1029

1030

Revised Proposals Concerning The Interpretation and Application of Article 5 (Permanent Establishment) of the Model Tax Convention (19 October 2012 to 31 January 2013). OECD.

1031

Ibid. P. 5.

1032

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 5. § 4.2–4.5. P. 95–96.

1033

Ibid. § 5.5. Данный параграф был включен в текст Комментария к МК ОЭСР в 2010 г. вслед за выпуском специального отчета ОЭСР, посвященного налогообложению в телекоммуникационном секторе: Tax treaty issues related to common telecommunication transactions. OECD Public Discussion Draft. URL: www.oecd.org/tax/taxtreaties/44148625.pdf.

1034

Revised Proposals Concerning The Interpretation and Application of Article 5 (Permanent Establishment) of the Model Tax Convention (19 October 2012 to 31 January 2013). OECD. § 4.8. P. 10.

1035

Court of Appeal of Ghent, 20 October 2009 / Jean Schaffner. How fixed is a permanent establishment? Wolters Kluwer, 2013. P. 123.

1036

Revised Proposals Concerning The Interpretation and Application of Article 5 (Permanent Establishment) of the Model Tax Convention (19 October 2012 to 31 January 2013). OECD. § 4.8. P. 10.

1037

Sunbeam Corporation (Canada) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (2012) 18 Taxmann 213 (SC–Canada).

1038

Knights of Columbus v. Her Majesty the Queen (2012) 18 Taxmann 211 (TC–Canada).

1039

American Income Life Insurance v. Her Majesty the Queen.

1040

Her Majesty The Queen v. William Dudney (2012) 18 taxmann.com 208 (FC–Canada).

1041

Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Club v. The Minister of Finance (2012) 18 taxmann.com 206 (CA-Ontario).

1042

Syntax Ltd. v. Sous-Ministre du revenue du Quebec (1981) R.D.F.Q.1.

1043

Western Union Financial Services Inc. v. ADIT (2007) 104 ITD 34 (Delhi).

1044

Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz 4. Senat | 4 K 2608/95, 24.04.1998. URL: www.juris.de/jportal/prev/STRE987116170.

1045

Finanzgeright Nürnberg – 2.12.98 – III 84/96.

1046

BFH, Urteil vom 4. 6. 2008 – I R 30/07; FG Köln. URL: http://lexetius.com/2008,2312.

1047

Ericsson Radio Systems A.B. v. DCIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Delhi) (SB).

1048

Motorola Inc. V. DDIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Delhi) (SB).

1049

Mehta A. Permanent Establishment in international taxation. Taxmann, 2012. P. 122.

1050

Ministry of National Revenue v. Tara Exploration and Development Company Limited (2012) 18 Taxmann.com 215 (SC–Canada).

1051

Elizabeth Herbert v. CIR (2012) 18 taxmann.com 210 (TC – USA).

1052

Inez de Amodio v. CIR (2012) 18 taxmann.com 205 (TC – US).

1053

DDIT (International Taxation) v. Dharti Dredging & Infrastructure Ltd. (2011) 44 SOT 586 (Hyd.).

1054

Nederlandsche Overzee Baggermaschappii B.V. v. DDIT (2010).

1055

DDIT v. Perfetti SPA (2008) 19 SOT 433 (Delhi).

1056

FG Baden-Württemberg, Entscheidung vom 11. Mai 1992 – 3 K 309/91.

1057

F. E. Koch. Double Taxation Conventions. London: Stevens & Sons, 1947. Vol. I. P. 51. Quoting Mitchell B. Caroll before the sub-committee of the committee of U. S. Senate Foreign Relations.

1058

Commissioner v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust 1983 144 ITR 146 AP.

1059

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to Art. 5. § 6. P. 97.

1060

Revised Proposals Concerning The Interpretation and Application of Article 5 (Permanent Establishment) of the Model Tax Convention (19 October 2012 to 31 January 2013). OECD. § 6.1. P. 14.

1061

Ibid.

1062

OECD (2014), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris. Commentary to Art. 5. § 6. P. 97–98.

1063

Ibid.

1064

Ibid.

1065

Ibid.

1066

1067

Ibid. P. 98.

1068

1069

Rev. Ruling 67-321 (1967-39 I.R.B. 23). URL: www.charitableplanning.com/document/681495.

1070

Case 5 17.08.1965, Taxation Board of Review (New Zealand), 3 NZTBR 49.

1071

VwGF 21 May 1997, 96/14/0084. URL: www.ris.bka.at.

1072

08.06.2004, HR-2004-01003-A (sak nr. 2003/1311). URL: www.domstol.no/no/Enkelt-domstol/-Norges-Hoyesterett/Avgjorelser/Avgjorelser-2004/Sporsmal-om-fast-driftssted-etter-skatteavtale-basert-pa-OECDs-monsteravtale.

1073

Furgo Engineering v. ACIT (2008) 26 SOT 78 (Delhi).

1074

Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg Gent. Case № G1 08/0446 dated 15 May 2008.

1075

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 5. § 10. P. 99—100.

1076

Ibid.

1077

Mehta А. Permanent Establishment in international taxation. Taxmann, 2012. P. 48.

1078

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 5. § 42.6. P. 113.

1079

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Finanzgericht, Urteil vom 06.09.2001, II 1224/97 (JurPC Web-Dok. 272/2002 – DOI 10.7328/jurpcb/20021710251).

1080

Raffaele Russo, Edoardo Pedrazzini. Permanent Establishments under Italian Tax Law: An Overview. IBFD, European Taxation 08/09, 2007. P. 393.

1081

Ibid. § 12.

1082

Revised Proposals Concerning The Interpretation and Application of Article 5 (Permanent Establishment) of the Model Tax Convention (19 October 2012 to 31 January 2013). OECD. § 59. P. 22.

1083

Reichsfinanzhof, Judgment of 16.6.1931 IA – 462/30, RStsBl 1931, 848; Cit. in Joachim Englisch. Chapter 16: Germany. Residence of Companies under Tax Treaties and EC Law. Ed. by Prof. Gugliemo Maisto. IBFD. Amsterdam, 2009. P. 486–487.

1084

OECD (2014). Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris. Commentary to art. 5. § 13. Р. 98.

1085

Ibid. Р. 104.

1086

RHF RStBl. 67, 70 (1937); RStBl. 788 (1939): Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 296. § 49.

1087

Hoge Raad, Rolno. 17 776, BNB 1976/33: DTC Netherlands – Germany: Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 296. § 49.

1088

Hoge Raad, Rolno. 29 938, BNB 1989/142; см. также аналогичное дело Hof Amsterdam, Rolno. 2259/87, BNB 1991/256: Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 296. § 49.

1089

Ibid. § 50.

1090

Counceil d’Etat, req. n. 44.902, 37 Dr. Fisc. Comm. 2192 (1985): DTC France – Algeria.

1091

Hof’s – Gravenhage, Rolno. 101/82 M II, BNB 1948/279: DTC Netherlands – Switzerland.

1092

BFH BStBl. II 148 (1994): Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 296. § 50.

1093

RFH RStBl. 804, 805 (1936); RStBl. 949 (1938): Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 296. § 50.

1094

Arvid K. Skaar. Permanent Establishment: Erosion of a Tax Treaty Principle. Kluwer law and taxation publishers, 1991. P. 117.

1095

Ibid.

1096

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 5. § 42. P. 112.

1097

Philip Morris Case (Italy) – Supreme Court Decision № 7682, 25 May 2002.

1098

General Report. IFA Cahiers. 2009.

1099

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 5. § 17. P. 101–102.

1100

Пункт 4 ст. 308 НК РФ.

1101

Постановление ФАС Волго-Вятского округа от 22.10.2008 г. по делу № А82-6882/2007-27.

1102

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 5. § 19. P. 102.

1103

Ibid.

1104

Revised Proposals Concerning The Interpretation and Application of Article 5 (Permanent Establishment) of the Model Tax Convention (19 October 2012 to 31 January 2013). OECD. § 67. P. 26.

1105

General Report. IFA Cahiers. 2009.

1106

Revised Proposals Concerning The Interpretation and Application of Article 5 (Permanent Establishment) of the Model Tax Convention (19 October 2012 to 31 January 2013). OECD. § 44. P. 18.

1107

Ariane Pickering. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Volume 97A. Enterprise Services. 2012. P. 38–39.

1108

The Tax Treaty Treatment of Services: Proposed Commentary Changes. Public discussion draft, 8 December 2006. § 42.11. URL: www.oecd.org/ctp/discussiondrafts.htm (эти же положения были перенесены из вышеуказанного отчета в Комментарий к ст. 5 МК ОЭСР 2010 г.: § 42.11).

1109

Pijl H. The OECD service permanent establishment alternative. European Taxation. 2008. № 9. P. 472.

1110

United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries (2011 Update), Commentary on Art. 5(3). URL: www.un.org/esa/ffd/tax/unmodel.htm.

1111

United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention. Commentary on Art. 5. § 12.

1112

India’s position on § 42.31 of the OECD Commentary on Art. 5 of the OECD Model. OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2010). Positions on the Commentary. § 39. P. 439.

1113

Ariane Pickering. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 97A. Enterprise Services. 2012. Section 1.3. Ref. 56. P. 39.

1114

Pijl H. The OECD service permanent establishment alternative. European Taxation. 2008. № 9. P. 472.

1115

Radhakishan Rawal. Taxation of Cross-Border Services. CCH. Wolters Kluwer (India) Pvt Ltd. 2012. P. 680–681.

1116

Clifford Chance v. DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 106 (Mumbai).

1117

Maharashtra State Electricity v. DCIT (2004) 90 ITD 793.

1118

Worley Parsons Services Pty Ltd. v. DIT [2009 (AAR № 748). URL: http://aarrulings.in/it-rulings/uploads/pdf/1250753293_748-.pdf.

1119

AB LLC and BD Holdings LLC v Commissioner of the South African Revenue Services (13276) (2015) ZATC 2. URL: www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZATC/2015/2.html.

1120

Linklaters LLP v. Income Tax Officer-International Taxation, Ward 1(1)(2), Mumbai ITA № 4896/Mum/03, 5085/Mum/03. URL: itatonline.org/archives/wp-content/files/Linklaters_PE_force_attraction.pdf.

1121

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 5. § 42.23. P. 117–118. «Несмотря на положения пп. 1, 2 и 3, в случаях когда предприятие договаривающегося государства оказывает услуги в другом договаривающемся государстве а) через физическое лицо, находящееся в том, другом государстве в течение периода или периодов, в совокупности составляющих 183 дня в 12-месячном периоде, и если более 50 % от валового дохода, относимого к активной деятельности предприятия в течение этого периода или периодов, извлекается от оказания услуг в том другом государстве через это физическое лицо, или b) в течение периода или периодов, превышающих в совокупности 183 дня в любом 12-месячном периоде, и если эти услуги оказываются для одного и того же проекта или для связанных проектов через одно (или более) физическое лицо, находящееся в том, другом государстве или оказывающее услуги в нем, то деятельность в том, другом государстве по оказанию таких услуг должна считаться как осуществляемая через постоянное представительство предприятия в другом государстве, если только эти услуги не ограничиваются видами, упомянутыми в п. 4, которые, даже если они осуществляются через постоянное место деятельности, не образуют в отношении такого места деятельности постоянное представительство согласно положениям указанного пункта. Для целей данного пункта услуги, оказанные физическим лицом от имени одного предприятия, не должны рассматриваться как оказанные другим предприятием через это физическое лицо, если только другое предприятие не занимается надзором, управлением и контролем за характером осуществления таких услуг, оказываемых физическим лицом» (перевод автора).

1122

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 5. § 42.12. P. 115–116.

1123

Ibid. § 42.17. P. 116–117.

1124

Ibid. § 42.18. P. 117.

1125

Ibid. § 36. P. 139.

1126

Орешин Евгений Игоревич. Договоры о представительстве в российском гражданском праве: дис… канд. юр. наук. М., 2007.

1127

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 5. § 32. P. 107.

1128

Ibid.

1129

Ibid. § 33. P. 106.

1130

Revised Proposals Concerning The Interpretation and Application of Article 5 (Permanent Establishment) of the Model Tax Convention (19 October 2012 to 31 January 2013). OECD. § 106–113.

1131

Ibid. § 108.

1132

CE 31 mars 2010 № 304715, 308525, 10e et 9e s.-s., Sté Zimmer limited; CAA Paris 2-2-2007 № 05-2361.

1133

Supreme Court ruling in HR-2011-02245-A (Case № 2011/755).

1134

Convention Between Ireland and the Kingdom of Norway for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital (22 November 2000).

1135

Supreme Court’s Judgement of 7 March 2002 № 3667, 3368, 7682 and 1095 (Italy).

1136

Lower Court of Amsterdam, 20 Jun. 1978 № 1106/761 (BNB 1979/190); Hoge Raad, 28 Mar. 2001, № 33 490 (BNB 2001/239).

1137

SRN 7 March 2008.

1138

Arvid K. Skaar. Permanent Establishment: Erosion of a Tax Treaty Principle. Kluwer law and taxation publishers, 1991. P. 492.

1139

Hoge Raad Case № 14,458; 17 May 1961 in Mehta A. A. Permanent Establishment in international taxation. Taxmann, 2012. P. 385.

1140

Hoge Raad Case № 14,445; 13 January 1971 in Mehta A. A. Permanent Establishment in international taxation. Taxmann, 2012. P. 386.

1141

Rolls Royce Pvt Ltd. v. ADIT. URL: http://itatonline.org/archives/rolls-royce-singapore-pvt-ltd-vs-adit-delhi-high-court-profits-attributable-to-dependent-agent-permanent-establishment-taxable-in-india/.

1142

Lower Court of Amsterdam case № 1106/76 M II dated 20 June 1978 in Mehta A. A. Permanent Establishment in international taxation. Taxmann, 2012. P. 387.

1143

Case № 101/82 MII 28.03.1983 Gerechtshof’s-Gravenhage.

1144

TVM Limited v. CIT (1999) 102 Taxmann 578 (AAR – New Delhi).

1145

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 5. § 33.1. P. 108.

1146

Ibid. § 32.1. P. 107–108.

1147

Supreme Court of Italy. Decision № 8488 of 09.04.2010.

1148

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 5. § 38.6. Р. 110.

1149

Ibid. § 38.7. Р. 110.

1150

Revised Proposals Concerning The Interpretation and Application of Article 5 (Permanent Establishment) of the Model Tax Convention (19 October 2012 to 31 January 2013). OECD. § 119.

1151

ACIT v. DHL Operations B.V. (2005) 142 Taxmannn1 (Mum.) (Mag.).

1152

Bundesfinanzhof № IIR 12/92, 30.10.1996. URL: http://home.germany.net/101-274850/pipeline.html.

1153

Airlines Rotalbes Ltd. v. Joint Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) (2011) 44 SOT 368 (Mum.).

1154

Landskatteretten, TfS 1989.165. LSR in Wittendorff Jens. Agency Permanent Establishments and the Zimmer Case. IBFD International Transfer Pricing Journal. № 09/10. 2010. P. 359. URL: http://corit-academic.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/zimmer.pdf.

1155

Landskatteretten, TfS 1992.294 LSR in Wittendorff Jens. Agency Permanent Establishments and the Zimmer Case. IBFD International Transfer Pricing Journal. № 09/10. 2010.

1156

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 5. § 32.1, 33. P. 107–108.

1157

UAE Exchange Centre Ltd. v. UOI (2004) 139 Taxmann 82 (AAR – New Delhi).

1158

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 5. § 24. Р. 104.

1159

Ibid. § 28. Р. 106.

1160

Are the current treaty rules for taxing business profits appropriate for e-commerce? OECD Business Profits TAG Discussion Draft. Section 4.A.d. 2003. URL: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/38/20655083.pdf.

1161

OECD (2014), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris. Commentary to art. 5. § 44. P. 125.

1162

Revised Proposals Concerning The Interpretation and Application of Article 5 (Permanent Establishment) of the Model Tax Convention (19 October 2012 to 31 January 2013). OECD. P. 31.

1163

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 320. § 114.

1164

ADIT v. M. Fabrikant & Sons Ltd. (2011) 9 taxmann.com 286 (Mum.).

1165

Arrest van het Hof van Beroep te Gent dd. 30.11.2004; № 1998/FR/113. URL: http://ccff02.minfin.fgov.be/KMWeb/document.do?method=view&id=62215521-6ce7-4a64-8fdd-89ceb0b252a4#findHighlighted.

1166

OECD (2014), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris. Commentary to art. 5. § 22. P. 103–104.

1167

Вахитов Р. Р., Гидирим В. А. Уроки дела Bloomberg // Налоговед. 2011. № 4. URL: http://nalogoved.ru/art/1205.

1168

Conseil d’État, 9ème et 10ème sous-sections réunies, 28/05/2014, 360890, Inédit au recueil Lebon. URL: www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriAdmin.do?idTexte=CETATEXT000029003672.

1169

BFH, Urteil vom 23.01.1985 – I R 292/81. URL: http://lexetius.com/1985,49.

1170

Пункт 7 ст. 5 МК ОЭСР (2014): «Тот факт, что компания – резидент одного договаривающегося государства контролирует компанию – резидента (или контролируется компанией-резидентом) другого договаривающегося государства или ведет бизнес в другом государстве (через постоянное представительство или иным образом), сам по себе не приводит к образованию постоянного представительства друг друга». OECD (2014), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris. Art. 5. § 7. P. 27.

1171

Пример приведен в параграфе 3 п. 4 Комментария к ст. 5 МК ОЭСР (2010).

1172

OECD (2014), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris. Commentary to art. 5. § 41.1. Р. 111–112.

1173

Ibid. § 42. Р. 112.

1174

Italian Supreme Court, 7 March 2002, Philip Morris, № 3667, 3368, 7682, 1095.

1175

Emidio Cacciapuoti. Private Equity Funds, Permanent Establishments and Italian Operations. IBFD. European Taxation. 2004. № 4. P. 172.

1176

OECD (2014), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris. Commentary to art. 5. § 41.1. Р. 111–112.

1177

Более подробно на тему судебного решения Philip Morris в Италии: R. Russo and E. Pedrazzini. Permanent Establishments under Italian Tax Law: An Overview. European Taxation. 2009. № 8/9. P. 389; C. Romano and R. Russo. Italian Tax Consequences of Permanent Establishments. Bulletin for International Taxation. 2010. № 8/9. P. 456; M. Gazzo. Permanent Establishment through Related Corporations: New Case Law in Italy and its Impact on Multinational Flows. Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation 2003. № 6. P. 257; L. Favi. Italy, in Sasseville and Skaar, supra note 17. P. 393; C. Innamorato. The Concept of a Permanent Establishment within a Group of Multinational Enterprises. European Taxation. 2008. № 2. P. 81.

1178

Tribunal Supremo. Sala de lo Contencioso, STS 201/2012. 1626/2008. URL: www.poderjudicial.es/search/documento/TS/6256232/tributario/20120203.

1179

«34. Where the requirements set out in paragraph 5 are met, a permanent establishment of the enterprise exists to the extent that the person acts for the latter, i.e. not only to the extent that such a person exercises the authority to conclude contracts in the name of the enterprise». OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2010). Commentary to art. 5. § 33. P. 106.

1180

Adolfo Martín Jiménez. Preventing the Artificial Avoidance of PE Status. Papers on Selected Topics in Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries. September 2014. P. 64. URL: www.un.org/esa/ffd/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/20140923_Paper_PE_Status.pdf.

1181

Tribunal Supremo. Sala de lo Contencioso STS 2680/2014, 1933/2011. URL: www.poderjudicial.es/search/doAction?action=contentpdf&databasematch=TS&reference=7123477&links=borax&optimize=20140714&publicinterface=true.

1182

Places of business are not «separated organizationally» where they each perform in a Contracting State complementary functions such as receiving and storing goods in one place, distributing those goods through another etc. An enterprise cannot fragment a cohesive operating business into several small operations in order to argue that each is merely engaged in a preparatory or auxiliary activity. OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2010). Commentary to art. 5. § 27.1. P. 104.

1183

Resolución № 00/2107/2007 de Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central. 15 de Marzo de 2012. URL: http://doctrina-administrativa.vlex.es/vid/irpf-ocde-cmc-sts-409133422.

1184

«38.7. Persons cannot be said to act in the ordinary course of their own business if, in place of the enterprise, such persons perform activities which, economically, belong to the sphere of the enterprise rather than to that of their own business operations. Where, for example, a commission agent not only sells the goods or merchandise of the enterprise in his own name but also habitually acts, in relation to that enterprise, as a permanent agent having an authority to conclude contracts, he would be deemed in respect of this particular activity to be a permanent establishment, since he is thus acting outside the ordinary course of his own trade or business (namely that of a commission agent), unless his activities are limited to those mentioned at the end of paragraph 5». OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2010) Commentary to art. 5. § 38.7. P. 108.

1185

Resolución № 00/221/2009 de Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central, 20 de Diciembre de 2012. URL: http://doctrina-administrativa.vlex.es/vid/irnr-sts-424810962.

1186

M/s Rolls Royce Plc vs. Dy. Director of Income-Tax Circle 2(1). International Taxation. New Delhi (2007). URL: www.transferpricing.com/pdf/india_rolls_royce_pe.pdf.

1187

European Commission. Report of VC Expert Group on Removing Tax Obstacles to Cross-border Venture Capital Investments, 30 April 2010. URL: ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/company_tax/initiatives_small_business/venture_capital/tax_obstacles_venture_capital_en.pdf.

1188

Ibid. Figure № 2. A typical VC fund structure. P. 10.

1189

Emidio Cacciapuoti. Private Equity Funds, Permanent Establishments and Italian Operations. IBFD. European Taxation. 2007. № 4. P. 169.

1190

Report of Expert Group on Removing Tax Obstacles to Cross-border Venture Capital Investments. P. 18.

1191

Ibid.

1192

Revised Proposals Concerning The Interpretation and Application of Article 5 (Permanent Establishment) of the Model Tax Convention (19 October 2012 to 31 January 2013). OECD. § 23. P. 38–41.

1193

Ibid.

1194

Rosemarie Portner. Comments on the OECD Working Party № 1’s proposal concerning the application of the existing «permanent establishment» definition with respect to ISPs. Tax Planning International, E-commerce. 2000. № 1. P. 14.

1195

Jean Schaffner. How fixed is a permanent establishment? Wolters Kluwer, 2013. P. 105.

1196

Ariane Pickering. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 97A. Enterprise Services. 2012. P. 52.

1197

Германия, Индия, Италия, Испания, Китайский Тайбэй, Новая Зеландия, Перу, Уругвай, Швейцария, Шри-Ланка, ЮАР.

1198

Khodakovsky P., Pogrebna A. Ukraine Report. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 97A. Enterprise Services. 2012. P. 697.

1199

Dzhalichinov D., Popov P. Russia Report. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 97A. Enterprise Services. 2012. P. 584.

1200

M/s DIT (International Taxation) v. M/s Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. Civil Appeal № 2914 of 2007 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) № 12907 of 2006) with Civil Appeal № 2915 of 2007 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) № 16163 of 2006). M/s Morgan Stanley & Co. INC. URL: http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=29205.

1201

Temasek Holdings Advisors (I) P. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA № 4203/Mum/2012).

1202

Centrica India Offshore Private Ltd v. CIT (A.A.R. № 856 of 2010).

1203

United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries (2011 Update). Commentary on Chapter II. Article 5. § 17. P. 119.

1204

The UN Model Tax Convention as Compared with the OECD Model Tax Convention – Current Points of Difference and Recent Developments. IBFD. Asia-Pacific Tax Bulletin. January – February 2009.

1205

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 5. § 39. P. 110–111.

1206

United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries (2011 Update). Article 5. § 7. Second sentence; Commentary on the § 31–33 of article 5. P. 131–132. URL: www.un.org/esa/ffd/tax/unmodel.htm.

1207

United Nations Publication: ST/ESA/102: Sales № E.80.XVI.3.

1208

Seagate Singapore International Headquarters Pvt. Ltd., AAR Ruling No. 831/2009 February 25, 2010. URL: www.taxmann.com/fileopener.aspx?surl=www.taxmann.com/taxmannflashes/flashnbn4-3-10_6.htm&searchid=2596.

1209

Ibid.

1210

Leonardo Marques dos Santos. The Sub-Permanent Establishment («Sub-PE») and the OECD Model Convention. CONSULEGIS, 2009/2010.

1211

Ibid. P. 3.

1212

Ibid. P. 6.

1213

Ibid. P. 13.

1214

Данный пример также описан в статье: Lang Michael. Triangular Situation: Partnership with Sub-Permanent Establishment in Third Countries. Steuer und Wirtschaft International, 2004. P. 14–16.

1215

1216

Mitchell Carroll. Draft Convention on the Allocation of Business Income between States for the Purposes of Taxation. Annex to the Report to the Council on the Fourth Session of the Committee (1933). League of Nations Fiscal Committee.

1217

См., например, п. 3 ст. 307 НК РФ.

1218

OECD Report on Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments. 2008. § 2. URL: www.oecd.org/tax/transfer-pricing/41031455.pdf.

1219

Philip Baker, Richard S. Collier. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 91b. Attribution of Profit to Permanent Establishments. 2006. P. 34.

1220

Brian J. Arnold, Marc Darmo. Summary of the Proceedings of an Invitational Seminar on the Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments. Canadian Tax Journal, 2001. P. 528.

1221

OECD Report on Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments. 2010. URL: www.oecd.org/ctp/transfer-pricing/45689524.pdf.

1222

OECD Model Convention on Income and Capital (2008). Article 7. § 1: «The profits of an enterprise of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein. If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other State but only so much of them as is attributable to that permanent establishment».

1223

OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2008). Commentary to Art. 7. § 9. P. 119.

1224

United Nations Model Tax Convention (2011). Art. 7. § 3.

1225

OECD Report on Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments. 2008. P. 23. § 60.

1226

General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 91b. Attribution of Profit to Permanent Establishments. 2006. P. 30.

1227

Michael Kobetsky. International Taxation of Permanent Establishments. Cambridge University Press, 2011. P. 200.

1228

OECD Report on Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments (2008). § 69. P. 15.

1229

1230

OECD Report on Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments (2008). § 72. P. 26.

1231

Ibid. § 78–79. P. 27.

1232

Philip Baker, Richard S. Collier. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 91b. Attribution of Profit to Permanent Establishments. 2006. P. 42.

1233

OECD Model Convention on Income and Capital (2008). Article 7. § 2: «Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3, where an enterprise of a Contracting State carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein, there shall in each Contracting State be attributed to that permanent establishment the profits which it might be expected to make if it were a distinct and separate enterprise engaged in the same or similar activities under the same or similar conditions and dealing wholly independently with the enterprise of which it is a permanent establishment».

1234

OECD Report on Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments (2008). § 226 (Note 7). P. 229.

1235

Ibid. § 227.

1236

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to Art. 10. § 31, 32. P. 195–196.

1237

Ibid. Commentary to Art. 11. § 24, 25. P. 218–219.

1238

Ibid. Commentary to Art. 12. § 20, 21. P. 237–238.

1239

OECD Report on Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments (2008). § 97. P. 31.

1240

Annual Tax Act implements Authorized OECD Approach into German tax law. URL: http://taxinsights.ey.com/archive/archive-pdfs/Annual-Tax-Act-implements-OECD-Approach-in-German-tax-law-.pdf.

1241

National Westminster Bank plc v. United States (2008) 512 F 3d 1347 (FCA).

1242

2005 Model Commentary. § 12.1. P. 117–188.

1243

National Westminster v. United States (2008) 2008-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) p. 50, 140; North West Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1996) 107 TC 363.

1244

OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2008). Commentary to art. 7. § 16. P. 122.

1245

Cudd Pressure Control Inc. v. The Queen (1999) 98 DTC 6630 (FCA).

1246

Ibid.

1247

Rafael Russo, Ed. The Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments. The taxation of intra-company dealings. IBFD, 2005. P. 32.

1248

Klaus Vogel. Worldwide vs. Source Taxation of Income. Part III. Intertax, 1988. P. 319–320.

1249

Donald J. S. Brean, Richard Miller Bird. The Interjurisdictional Allocation of Income and the Unitary Debate. Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada, 1986. P. 1383.

1250

Michael Kobetsky. International Taxation of Permanent Establishments. Cambridge University Press, 2011. P. 220.

1251

Michael Kobetsky. International Taxation of Permanent Establishments. Cambridge University Press, 2011. P. 224.

1252

Ibid.

1253

OECD Report on Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments (2008). P. 71.

1254

Richard Vann. Reflections on Business Profits and Arm’s Length Principle in Brian Arnold et. al. (eds). The Taxation of Business Profits Under Tax Treaties. 2003. P. 159–161.

1255

OECD Report on Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments (2008).

1256

Ibid. § 4 (Introduction). P. 11.

1257

OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2008). Commentary to art. 7. § 7. P. 119.

1258

Ibid. § 16–17. P. 122.

1259

OECD Report on Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments (2008). P. 28–64.

1260

OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2008). Commentary to art. 7. § 18. P. 123.

1261

Ibid.

1262

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to Art. 10. § 31. P. 195–196.

1263

Ibid. Commentary to Art. 11. § 24. P. 218.

1264

Ibid. Commentary to Art. 12. § 20. P. 237.

1265

OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2008). Commentary to Art. 7. § 11. P. 120.

1266

Ibid. § 21. P. 124.

1267

Mitchell Carroll, Report to the Council on the Fourth Session of the Committee (1933), League of Nations Fiscal Committee. § 2. P. 2.: «The fundamental principle laid down is that, for tax purposes permanent establishments must be treated in the same manner as independent enterprises operating under the same or similar conditions, with the corollary that the taxable income of such establishments is to be assessed on the basis of their separate accounts». URL: www.uni-heidelberg.de/institute/fak2/mussgnug/historyoftaxdocuments/normtexte/voelkerrecht/V00015.pdf.

1268

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 428. § 63.

1269

Michael Kobetsky. International Taxation of Permanent Establishments. Cambridge University Press, 2011. P. 194–195.

1270

OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2008). Commentary to Art. 7. § 26. P. 125.

1271

OECD Report on Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments (2008). Part I. Sec. D-5. P. 66.

1272

Philip Baker, Senior Visiting Fellow, Institute for Advanced Legal Studies, London University; and Richard Collier, Tax Partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers, London, 2008. OECD Model: Changes to the Commentary on Article 7 and the Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments. Bulletin for International Taxation, May/June 2009. IBFD, P. 199.

1273

OECD Model Convention on Income and Capital (2008). Article 7. § 3: «In determining the profits of a permanent establishment, there shall be allowed as deductions expenses which are incurred for the purposes of the permanent establishment, including executive and general administrative expenses so incurred, whether in the State in which the permanent establishment is situated or elsewhere».

1274

OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2008). Commentary to Art. 7. § 26. P. 125–126.

1275

Michael Kobetsky. International Taxation of Permanent Establishments. Cambridge University Press, 2011. P. 222–223.

1276

OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2008). Commentary to Art. 7. § 29. P. 126.

1277

Ibid. § 31. P. 126–127.

1278

Ibid. § 32. P. 127.

1279

Ibid. § 33.

1280

Ibid. § 34.

1281

Rafael Russo, Ed. The Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments. The taxation of intra-company dealings. IBFD, 2005. P. 17.

1282

OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2008). Commentary to Art. 7. § 34. P. 128.

1283

Ibid. § 36. P. 128.

1284

Ibid. § 37. P. 128.

1285

Ibid. § 38. P. 128.

1286

Ibid. § 40. P. 129.

1287

Philip Baker, Richard S. Collier. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 91b. Attribution of Profit to Permanent Establishments. 2006. P. 48.

1288

Ibid.

1289

United Nations Model Tax Convention (2011). Art. 7. § 3: «In the determination of the profits of a permanent establishment, there shall be allowed as deductions expenses which are incurred for the purposes of the business of the permanent establishment including executive and general administrative expenses so incurred, whether in the State in which the permanent establishment is situated or elsewhere. However, no such deduction shall be allowed in respect of amounts, if any, paid (otherwise than towards reimbursement of actual expenses) by the permanent establishment to the head office of the enterprise or any of its other offices, by way of royalties, fees or other similar payments in return for the use of patents or other rights, or by way of commission, for specific services performed or for management, or, except in the case of a banking enterprise, by way of interest on moneys lent to the permanent establishment. Likewise, no account shall be taken, in the determination of the profits of a permanent establishment, for amounts charged (otherwise than towards reimbursement of actual expenses), by the permanent establishment to the head office of the enterprise or any of its other offices, by way of royalties, fees or other similar payments in return for the use of patents or other rights, or by way of commission for specific services performed or for management, or, except in the case of a banking enterprise, by way of interest on moneys lent to the head office of the enterprise or any of its other offices».

1290

Ibid. P. 49.

1291

OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2008). Commentary to Art. 7. § 41–51. P. 129–132.

1292

Transfer Pricing and Multinational Enterprises (Three Taxation Issues). OECD Report. 1984.

1293

OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2008). Commentary to Art. 7. § 41. P. 130.

1294

Transfer Pricing and Multinational Enterprises (Three Taxation Issues). OECD Report. 1984. § 49. P. 57.

1295

Ibid. § 45. P. 56.

1296

OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2008). Commentary to Art. 7. § 46. P. 131.

1297

OECD Report on Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments (2008). Part I. Sec. D-2(v)b. P. 40.

1298

1299

OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2008). Commentary to Art. 7. § 48. P. 131.

1300

Ibid.

1301

Philip Baker, Richard S. Collier. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 91b. Attribution of Profit to Permanent Establishments. 2006. P. 46.

1302

OECD Model Convention on Income and Capital (2008). Article 7. § 4: «Insofar as it has been customary in a Contracting State to determine the profits to be attributed to a permanent establishment on the basis of an apportionment of the total profits of the enterprise to its various parts, nothing in paragraph 2 shall preclude that Contracting State from determining the profits to be taxed by such an apportionment as may be customary; the method of apportionment adopted shall, however, be such that the result shall be in accordance with the principles contained in this Article».

1303

OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2008). Commentary to Art. 7. § 48. P. 131.

1304

Ibid. § 55. P. 134.

1305

Prof. Wim Wijnen, Prof. Jan de Goede and Andrea Alessi. The Treatment of Services in Tax Treaties. IBFD Bulletin for International Taxation. January 2012.

1306

Kenya Revenue Authority invokes force of attraction rule with respect to permanent establishments. EY Global Tax Alert, 29.08.2013. URL: http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Kenya_Revenue_Authority_invokes_force_of_attraction_rule_with_respect_to_permanent_establishments/$FILE/2013G_CM3770_Kenya%20Revenue%20Authority%20invokes%20force%20of%20attraction%20rule%20with%20respect%20to%20permanent%20establishments.pdf.

1307

Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Duke of Westminster (1936) App. Cas. 1, 19. Lord Tomlin: «[e]very man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be».

1308

Gregory v. Helvering (1934), 69 F.2d 809, 810. Judge Learned Hand: «[a]ny one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes», aff'd, 293 U.S. 465 (1935).

1309

Australia, Jaques v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1924). 34 C.L.R. 328, 362. Judge Starke: «[t]here is nothing wrong in companies and shareholders entering, if they can, into transactions for the purpose of avoiding, or relieving them of taxation…».

1310

General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 95a. Tax treaties and tax avoidance: application of anti-avoidance provisions. 2010.

1311

Philip Baker, Richard S. Collier. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 91b. Attribution of Profit to Permanent Establishments. 2006. P. 21.

1312

Philip Baker, Richard S. Collier. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 91b. Attribution of Profit to Permanent Establishments. 2006. P. 26–27.

1313

Например, совместное Постановление Пленума ВС РФ и ВАС РФ от 11 июня 1999 г.; Постановление Пленума ВАС РФ от 28.02.2001 г., Постановление Пленума ВАС РФ от 4 августа 1999 г. № 10.

1314

Income Tax Assessment Act (ITAA). Part IVA. Schemes to Reduce Income Tax.

1315

177D, Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth).

1316

Acts Interpretation Act, 1901, as amended, 1901 Austl. Acts 2, § 15AA (1): «In the interpretation of a provision of an Act, a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying the Act (whether that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act or not) shall be preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object».

1317

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Peabody, 181 C.L.R. 359 (1994).

1318

IRCF v Duke of Westminster (1936) AC 1, 19.

1319

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Spotless Services Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 404, 418.

1320

DFCT v. Chant (1991) 24 NSWLR 352, 356.

1321

Tax avoidance schemes. URL: www.ato.gov.au/General/Tax-planning/Tax-avoidance-schemes.

1322

Гидирим В., Исаков А. Противодействие налоговым злоупотреблениям: опыт Германии и Франции // Налоговая политика и практика. 2011. № 10 (106). С. 54–57.

1323

Judgment of June 10, 1981, № 19,079, Conseil d’État, Lebon 248; Judgment of Apr. 19, 1988, № 86.19079, Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, Revue de jurisprudence fiscale 1989, № 2, at 47; также см.: Cyrille David et al. Les grands arrêts de la jurisprudence fiscale. Thème 9. 106 et seq. (2d ed. 1991).

1324

Req. 3 August 1915, Clément Bayard, D.P. 1917 I 79; S. 1920, I, 300.

1325

Amos & Walton’s Introduction to French Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. 3rd edition. P. 219; David Ward et al. The Business Purpose Test and Abuse of Rights. British Tax Review, 1985. P. 68; Maurice Cozian. Les grands principes de la fiscalité des entreprises Litec, 4th édition.

1326

John Prebble. Abus de droit and the General anti-avoidance rule of Income tax law: A comparison of the laws of seven jurisdictions and the European Community. Working paper series. 2008. Working Paper № 56. P. 20. URL: www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/centres-and-institutes/cagtr/working-papers/WP56.pdf.

1327

Article L64 of the Livre de Procédure Fiscale.

1328

Administrative Tribunal of Versailles 13/12/2005 5e ch., № 0404909, RJF 6/06 № 750; Droit et Patrimoine, May 2006 & RJF 6/06 № 750.

1329

CE, 18 February 2004, № 247729, min. c/ Sté Pléiade: Dr. fisc. 2004, № 47; RJF 5/04, № 510.

1330

Judgment of Apr. 14, 1976, Conseil d’Etat, 1976 Lebon, № 97.260, at 202; Judgment of Apr. 30, 1980, Conseil d’Etat, 1980 Lebon, № 16.253, at 206.

1331

Reichsabgabenordnung of 1919 § 4; Steueranpassungsgesetz of 1934 § I/II.

1332

Abgabenordnung. Zweiter Teil – Steuerschuldrecht (§ 33–77). Zweiter Abschnitt – Steuerschuldverhältnis (§ 37–50). § 42. Missbrauch von rechtlichen Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten. «(1) Durch Missbrauch von Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten des Rechts kann das Steuergesetz nicht umgangen werden. Ist der Tatbestand einer Regelung in einem Einzelsteuergesetz erfüllt, die der Verhinderung von Steuerumgehungen dient, so bestimmen sich die Rechtsfolgen nach jener Vorschrift. Anderenfalls entsteht der Steueranspruch beim Vorliegen eines Missbrauchs im Sinne des Absatzes 2 so, wie er bei einer den wirtschaftlichen Vorgängen angemessenen rechtlichen Gestaltung entsteht. (2) Ein Missbrauch liegt vor, wenn eine unangemessene rechtliche Gestaltung gewählt wird, die beim Steuerpflichtigen oder einem Dritten im Vergleich zu einer angemessenen Gestaltung zu einem gesetzlich nicht vorgesehenen Steuervorteil führt. Dies gilt nicht, wenn der Steuerpflichtige für die gewählte Gestaltung außersteuerliche Gründe nachweist, die nach dem Gesamtbild der Verhältnisse beachtlich sind». URL: https://dejure.org/gesetze/AO/42.html.

1333

1334

BFH (19.06.1991) IX R 134/86, BStBl II 1991, 904.

1335

BFH (19.01.2000) I R 94/97, DStR 2000, 511.

1336

GAAR rising. Mapping tax enforcement’s evolution. Ernst & Young, February 2013. URL: www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Mapping_tax_enforcement%E2%80%99s_evolution/$FILE/GAAR.pdf.

1337

General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 91b. Attribution of Profit to Permanent Establishments. 2006. P. 25.

1338

Ibid. P. 43.

1339

Tax treaties and tax avoidance: application of anti-avoidance provisions, Vol. 95A. IFA Cahiers 2010. Canada Branch Report. P. 175.

1340

Paul Antle and Renee Marquis-Antle Spousal Trust v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 465 (TCC). URL: decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/2009/2009tcc465/2009tcc465.html.

1341

MIL (Investments) SA v. The Queen (2006) 5 CTC 2552 (TCC).

1342

Garron Family Trust (Trustee of) v. R., 2009 TCC 450 (TCC).

1343

General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 95a. Tax treaties and tax avoidance: application of anti-avoidance provisions. 2010. P. 26.

1344

Например, Конвенция ООН по морскому праву 1982 г., ст. 300; Европейская конвенция о защите прав человека и основных свобод, ст. 17 и 27.

1345

Luc De Broe, Nathalie Goyette, Philippe Martin, Roy Rohatgi, Stef van Weeghel and Phil West. Tax Treaties and Tax Avoidance: Application of Anti-Avoidance Provisions. Bulletin for International Taxation. July 2011. P. 375.

1346

Improper use of the Convention: «Having regard to paragraphs 7 to 12 of the Commentary to Article 1 of the OECD model tax convention, it is understood that this Convention shall not be interpreted to mean that a Contracting State is prevented from applying its domestic legal provisions on the prevention of tax evasion or tax avoidance where those provisions are used to challenge arrangements which constitute an abuse of the Convention».

1347

Такие же положения входят в налоговые соглашения Германии, заключенные с Албанией, Болгарией, Казахстаном, Македонией, Малайзией, Мальтой, Республикой Корея, Румынией, Словенией и др.

1348

«1. This Agreement shall not be interpreted to mean that (a) a Contracting State is prevented from applying its domestic legal provisions, on the prevention of tax evasion or tax avoidance as long as those provisions are in accordance with the principles contained in this Agreement…».

1349

«(e) Nothing in the Convention shall be construed as restricting, in any manner, the application of any provision of the laws of a Contracting State which is designed to prevent the avoidance or evasion of taxes».

1350

«The provisions of this Agreement shall in no case prevent a Contracting State from the application of the provisions of its domestic laws aiming at the prevention of fiscal evasion and avoidance, provided that the taxation in that State on the income concerned is not contrary to this Agreement».

1351

General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 95a. Tax treaties and tax avoidance: application of anti-avoidance provisions. 2010. P. 43.

1352

Ibid. P. 46.

1353

Brian J. Arnold and Stefan van Weeghel. Chapter 5: The Relationship between Tax Treaties and Domestic Anti-abuse Measures in Tax Treaties and Domestic Law. EC and International Tax Law Series. Vol. 2. P. 95.

1354

United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries (2011 Update). Commentary on Chapter I. Article 1. § 36. P. 49: «Benefits provided for by this Convention shall not be available where it may reasonably be considered that a main purpose for entering into transactions or arrangements has been to obtain these benefits and obtaining the benefits in these circumstances would be contrary to the object and purpose of the relevant provisions of this Convention». («Выгоды, предоставленные настоящей Конвенцией, не должны быть предоставлены, когда есть разумные основания полагать, что основной целью совершения транзакции или схемы было получение данных выгод и их получение в данных обстоятельствах противоречило бы объекту и цели соответствующих положений данной Конвенции»).

1355

Supplementary Note to Treaty Abuse and Treaty Shopping. IV. Comments from Mr. McIntyre. Article 1. § 2b. (Interpretation of this Convention).

1356

United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries (2011 Update). Commentary on Chapter I. Article 1. § 34. P. 48. «A competent authority of a Contracting State may deny the benefits of this Convention to any person, or with respect to any transaction, if in its opinion the granting of those benefits would constitute an abuse of the Convention according to its purpose. Notice of the application of this provision will be given by the competent authority of the Contracting State concerned to the competent authority of the other Contracting State». («Компетентный орган договаривающегося государства может отказать в предоставлении выгод данной Конвенции любому лицу или в отношении любой транзакции, если, по его мнению, предоставление таких выгод может составить злоупотребление Конвенцией, исходя из ее целей. Компетентный орган договаривающегося государства направит уведомление о применении данного положения компетентному органу другого договаривающегося государства»).

1357

Ibid. § 35. P. 48. «Nothing in the Agreement shall be construed as preventing a Contracting State from denying benefits under the Agreement where it can reasonably be concluded that to do otherwise would result in an abuse of the provisions of the Agreement or of the domestic laws of that State». («Ничто в настоящем Соглашении не должно толковаться как не позволяющее договаривающему государству отказать в предоставлении выгод на основании данного Соглашения, когда есть разумные основания полагать, что иное имело бы результатом злоупотребление положениями Соглашения или внутреннего законодательства данного государства»).

1358

1359

Ibid. § 19.

1360

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 66. § 125b.

1361

MIL Investments S.A. v. The Queen (2006) TCC 460 (TC) at § 86.

1362

Klaus Vogel. Abkommensbindung und Missbrauchsabwehr, in Francis Cagianut / Klaus A. Vallender (Hrsg.) Steuerrecht, Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Ernst Höhn. Bern. 1995. P. 467, 472; Rainer Prokisch, in Klaus Vogel / Moris Lehner, a.a.O. № 117. Art. 1.

1363

Yanko-Weiss Holdings Ltd. v. Assessing Officer of Holon (2007).

1364

Guy Katz. Israeli branch report. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 95a. Tax treaties and tax avoidance: application of anti-avoidance provisions. 2010. P. 418.

1365

Aiken Industries Inc. v. Commissioner (1971) T.C. 925.

1366

Ibid.

1367

Matthew McKee. China gets Serious on Anti-avoidance. URL: www.lehmanlaw.com/fileadmin/lehmanlaw_com/Publications/China_gets_serious_on_Anti-Avoidance.pdf; Sharon Xu, Squire Sanders. New PRC tax treatment for disposal of offshore intermediate holding companies. January 12, 2009. P. 7. URL: http://documents.lexology.com/631e0f55-5ff5-45f8-8a4e-9f21f2c5cbad.pdf#page=7; Larry Sussman, Anita Choi. More SPVs are being challenged: China brings General Anti-Avoidance rules from concept to reality. January 26, 2009. URL: www.omm.com/fcwsite/abc.aspx?url=newsroom%2FpenPDF.aspx%3Fpub%3D713.

1368

Stefan van Weeghel. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 95a. Tax treaties and tax avoidance: application of anti-avoidance provisions. 2010. P. 40.

1369

Ibid. P. 23.

1370

Ibid. P. 23.

1371

Пример – п. 5 ст. 13 налогового соглашения между Нидерландами и Польшей. Оригинальный текст (англ.): «The provisions of paragraph 4 shall not affect the right of each of the Contracting States to levy according to its own law a tax on gains from the alienation of shares or „jouissance” rights in a company, the capital of which is wholly or partly divided into shares and which under the laws of that State is a resident of that State, derived by an individual who is a resident of the other Contracting State and has been a resident of the first-mentioned State in the course of the last ten years preceding the alienation of the shares or „jouissance“ rights».

1372

Ibid.

1373

Ibid. P. 29.

1374

Hoge Raad, BNB 2009/260-262 (2009). Faustina G. F. Peters, Aart Roelofsen. The Netherlands Branch Report. IFA Cahiers. 2010. P. 563.

1375

Hoge Raad, 19 June 2009, BNB 2009/263.

1376

William L. Dentino and Christine Manolakas, The Exit Tax: A Move in the Righth Direction, 3 Wm. & Mary Bus. L. Rev. 341 (2012), URL: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmblr/vol3/iss2/3.

1377

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Pub. L. № 104–191, § 511–513, 110 Stat. 1936, 2093-102 (1996).

1378

American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Pub. L. № 108–357, § 804, 118 Stat. 1418, 1569-74.

1379

IRS. Expatriation tax, URL: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/expatriation-tax.

1380

2008 JCT Explanation, supra note 339.

1381

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 1. § 10.1. P. 63.

1382

Brian J. Arnold, Patrick Dibout. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 86b. Limits on the use of low-tax regimes by multinational businesses: current measures and emerging trends. 2001. P. 35.

1383

OECD. Double taxation conventions and the use of base companies. P. R(5)-7.

1384

Ibid. § B.21. P. R(5)-8.

1385

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 9. § 8. P. 185.

1386

Ibid.

1387

Такие нормы есть, к примеру, во Франции: FRA CGI § 238A.

1388

Приказ от 13 ноября 2007 № 108-н «Об утверждении перечня государств и территорий, предоставляющих льготный налоговый режим налогообложения и (или) не предусматривающих раскрытия и предоставления информации при проведении финансовых операций (офшорные зоны)».

1389

Heleno Taveira Tôrres, Brazil Branch Report. Tax treaties and tax avoidance: application of anti-avoidance provisions, Vol. 95A. IFA Cahiers. 2010. P. 165.

1390

Более подробно см.: International Fiscal Association, International Aspects of Thin Capitalization, 81b Cahiers de droit fiscal international. 1996.

1391

OECD Model Tax Convention (2010). Condensed Version. Commentary to Art. 24. § 4, 5. P. 349–350.

1392

Thin capitalization. OECD Report. Adopted by the OECD Council on 26 November 1986. P. R(4)-14. Reproduced in vol. II of the full-length version of the OECD Model Convention (2012) at page R(4)-1.

1393

Такие правила установлены, например, в Кодексе внутренних доходов США. IRC § 163(j)(2)(a)(I),(B).

1394

Internal Revenue Code (US) s. 163(j). В США также применяется и «фикс рацио» коэффициент долга к капиталу, равный 1,5: 1.

1395

Income Tax Law (Einkommensteuergesetz). S. 4h.

1396

Alexandre Lagarrigue, Partner, Clifford Chance. French Thin-Capitalization Rules. URL: www.cliffordchance.com/briefings/2011/03/french_thin-capitalizationrules.html.

1397

Gareth Green. U.K. Thin Capitalisation: After the Renovations. URL: www.tpsolutions.co.uk/TPITP0904.pdf.

1398

Ibid.

1399

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to Art. 9. § 3a. P. 183.

1400

Ibid. Commentary to Art. 24. § 74. P. 366–367.

1401

Ibid.

1402

Case № 233,894 sect., SA Andritz, 30 December 2003.

1403

Case C-324/00 Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v. Finanzamt Steinfurt (2002) ECR 2002 I-11779 (ECJ).

1404

См., например, п. 4 ст. 269 НК РФ.

1405

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to Art. 9. § 3b. P. 183.

1406

Treaty Abuse and Treaty Shopping. Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters. Second session. (Mr. Kyung Geun Lee, Coordinator) of the Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters. Geneva, 30 October – 3 November 2006. E/C.18/2006/2. P. 33. URL: www.un.org/esa/ffd/tax/documents/bgrd_model_ta.htm.

1407

International Fiscal Association, International Aspects of Thin Capitalization, 81b Cahiers de droit fiscal international. 1996. P. 58.

1408

Положения, отсылающие к внутренним нормам Налогового кодекса о недостаточной капитализации, содержатся в п. 7 ст. 24 типового налогового соглашения РФ (утверждено Постановлением Правительства № 84 от 24.02.2010 в ред. Постановления Правительства РФ от 25.10.2012 № 1097), а также в п. 3 протокола к налоговому соглашениях с Мексикой (от 7 июня 2004 г.), в п. 5 протокола к налоговому соглашению с Бразилией (от 22 ноября 2004 г.) и т. п.

1409

К примеру, в протоколе к налоговому соглашению между Францией и Испанией 1995 г. содержится следующая формулировка: «16. The provisions of the Convention shall not prevent: (a) France from applying the provisions of Articles 209b and 212 of its general code of taxes, or other similar provisions which may amend or replace those articles… It is understood that the abovementioned provisions of domestic law regarding thin capitalization are applicable insofar as they are in accordance with the principles of paragraph 1 of article 9».

1410

К примеру, такая норма содержится в п. 16 протокола к налоговому соглашению между Бразилией и Канадой: «Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 6 of article 10 and of paragraph 15 of this Protocol, where a resident of Canada controls, directly or indirectly, alone or together with members of a related group or together with not more than four other residents of Canada, a company which is a resident of Brazil and in which he holds an equity percentage of at least 10 %, such resident may be subject to tax in Canada on his proportionate share of the aggregate of the company’s net income for any taxation year from property and businesses other than active businesses and the company’s net taxable capital gains for any taxation year from the alienation of property other than property used for active business purposes; for the purposes of this provision, any income from a source in a country other than Canada which pertains to or is incident to an active business carried on in a country other than Canada shall be deemed to be income from an active business».

1411

См., к примеру, ст. XIII(5) налогового соглашения между Израилем и Канадой: «The provisions of paragraph 4 shall not affect the right of either of the Contracting States to levy, according to its domestic law, a tax on gains from the alienation of any property derived by an individual who is a resident of the other Contracting State and has been a resident of the first-mentioned State at any time during the five years immediately preceding the alienation of the property».

1412

В качестве примера можно привести измененное ст. V протокола определение дивидендов в ст. 10 налогового соглашения между Кипром и Россией (в редакции протокола от 7 октября 2010 г.): «3. Термин „дивиденды“ при использовании в настоящей статье означает доход от акций или других прав, не являющихся долговыми требованиями, дающих право на участие в прибыли, а также доходы – даже выплачиваемые в форме процентов – которые подлежат такому же налогообложению, как доходы от акций в соответствии с налоговым законодательством Государства, резидентом которого является компания, выплачивающая дивиденды». Одновременно ст. VI протокола вносит изменения и в определение процентов, исключая конфликт определений процентов и дивидендов: «Однако термин „проценты“ не включает для целей настоящей статьи штрафы за просрочку платежа или проценты, рассматриваемые как дивиденды в соответствии с пунктом 3 статьи 10».

1413

Protocol, § 5: «Nothing in this Convention shall prevent either Contracting State fromapplying its domestic tax laws in orderto prevent fiscal evasion and tax avoidance».

1414

Статья 6(m) протокола от марта 1988 г. к данному налоговому соглашению: «Nothing in this Convention shall affect the application of the domestic provisions to prevent fiscal evasion and tax avoidance concerning the limitation of expenses and any deductions arising from transactions between enterprises of a Contracting State and associated enterprises or permanent establishments of such enterprises which are situated in the other Contracting State, if the main purpose of the transactions undertaken between them was to obtain benefits under this Convention that would not otherwise be available».

1415

Параграф k протокола: «Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as preventing the application of the provisions of the domestic law of each Contracting State concerning fiscal evasion, in particular the taxation of income of personsin respect of their participation in non-resident companies».

1416

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 1. § 9.6. P. 63.

1417

United Nations Model Tax Convention (2011). Commentary to Art 1. § 47–56. P. 53–61.

1418

Ibid. § 10–20. P. 63–69.

1419

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to Art. 1. § 17. P. 65–66.

1420

Art. 3.1.(n) of the United Kingdom – United States Income Tax Treaty (2001) (as amended through 2002): «The term „conduit arrangement“ means a transaction or series of transactions: (i) which is structured in such a way that a resident of a Contracting State entitled to the benefits of this Convention receives an item of income arising in the other Contracting State but that resident pays, directly or indirectly, all or substantially all of that income (at any time or in any form) to another person who is not a resident of either Contracting State and who, if it received that item of income direct from the other Contracting State, would not be entitled under a convention for the avoidance of double taxation between the state in which that other person is resident and the Contracting State in which the income arises, or otherwise, to benefits with respect to that item of income which are equivalent to, or more favourable than, those available under this Convention to a resident of a Contracting State; and (ii) which has as its main purpose, or one of its main purposes, obtaining such increased benefits as are available under this Convention».

1421

Art. 10. § 9: «The provisions of this Article shall not apply in respect of any dividend paid under, or as part of, a conduit arrangement».

1422

В Протоколе от 24 сентября 2011 г. о внесении изменений в соглашение между Российской Федерацией и Швейцарской Конфедерацией об избежании двойного налогообложения в отношении налогов на доходы и капитал, подписанное в Москве 15 ноября 1995 г., существует ст. VIII, согласно которой соглашение дополняется новой статьей 25b «Противодействие подставным схемам»: «Статья 25b. Противодействие подставным схемам. Положения статей 10, 11 и 12 не применяются в отношении любых дивидендов, процентов или доходов от авторских прав и лицензий, выплаченных в рамках подставной схемы или как ее составная часть. Термин „подставная схема“ означает сделку или серию сделок, осуществленных таким образом, что резидент Договаривающегося Государства, имеющий право на льготы, предоставляемые Соглашением, и получающий вид дохода от источников в другом Договаривающемся Государстве, выплачивает прямо или косвенно весь или почти весь доход (в любое время и в любой форме) другому лицу, которое не является резидентом ни одного из Договаривающихся Государств и которое в случае получения такого вида дохода напрямую из другого Договаривающегося Государства не имело бы в соответствии с соглашением об избежании двойного налогообложения между Государством, резидентом которого является это лицо, и Договаривающимся Государством, в котором возникает доход, или на другом основании права на льготы в отношении этого вида дохода, которые эквивалентны или более выгодны, чем льготы, предоставляемые настоящим Соглашением резиденту Договаривающегося Государства, и главной целью такой схемы является получение льгот, предоставляемых настоящим Соглашением. Компетентные органы в соответствии со взаимосогласительной процедурой могут согласовать случаи или обстоятельства, в которых основной целью подставной схемы является получение льгот, предоставляемых упомянутыми статьями».

1423

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 1. § 19a-19e. P. 66–67.

1424

Ibid. § 19a. General bona fide provision: «The foregoing provisions shall not apply where the company establishes that the principal purpose of the company, the conduct of its business and the acquisition or maintenance by it of the shareholding or other property from which the income in question is derived, are motivated by sound business reasons and do not have as primary purpose the obtaining of any benefits under this Convention».

1425

Ibid. § 19b. Activity provision: «The foregoing provisions shall not apply where the company is engaged in substantive business operations in the Contracting State of which it is a resident and the relief from taxation claimed from the other Contracting State is with respect to income that is connected with such operations».

1426

Ibid. § 19c. Amount of tax provision: «The foregoing provisions shall not apply where the reduction of tax claimed is not greater than the tax actually imposed by the Contracting State of which the company is a resident».

1427

Ibid. § 19d. Stock exchange provision: «The foregoing provisions shall not apply to a company that is a resident of a Contracting State if the principal class of its shares is registered on an approved stock exchange in a Contracting State or if such company is wholly owned – directly or through one or more companies each of which is a resident of the first mentioned State – by a company which is a resident of the first-mentioned State and the principal class of whose shares is so registered».

1428

Ibid. § 19e. Alternative relief provision: «In cases where an anti-abuse clause refers to non-residents of a Contracting State, it could be provided that the term shall not be deemed to include residents of third States that have income tax conventions in force with the Contracting State from which relief from taxation is claimed and such conventions provide relief from taxation not less than the relief from taxation claimed under this Convention».

1429

United States Model Income Tax Convention. Art. 22. Limitation of Benefits; 2016. URL: www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Documents/Treaty-US%20Model-2016.pdf.

1430

Ibid.

1431

Art. 26(2)(c)(i) 1992 Netherlands – US treaty (as amended by the 1993 and 2004 Protocols).

1432

Ibid. Art. 26(2)(c)(ii).

1433

Ibid. Art. 26(2)(f).

1434

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Anr. (2003).

1435

Постановление Правительства РФ от 24 февраля 2010 г. № 84 «О заключении межгосударственных соглашений об избежании двойного налогообложения и о предотвращении уклонения от уплаты налогов на доходы и имущество» (в ред. Постановления Правительства РФ от 25.10.2012 г. № 1097). Статья 29. Ограничение льгот: «1. Компетентные органы Договаривающегося Государства могут отказать в предоставлении льгот в соответствии с настоящим Соглашением любому лицу или в отношении любой сделки, если, по их мнению, предоставление таких льгот приведет к злоупотреблению настоящим Соглашением с точки зрения его целей. 2. Если после даты подписания настоящего Соглашения Договаривающееся Государство примет законодательство, согласно которому офшорный доход компании: a) от морских перевозок; b) от банковской, финансовой, страховой, инвестиционной или подобной деятельности; c) от существования в качестве штаб-квартиры, координационного центра или подобного образования, занимающегося предоставлением административных услуг или иной поддержки группе компаний, чья деятельность происходит в основном в других государствах, – освобождается в этом Договаривающемся Государстве от налогообложения или облагается налогом по ставке, которая значительно ниже ставки налога, уплачиваемого на доходы от подобной деятельности на его территории, другое Договаривающееся Государство не обязано применять любое ограничение, установленное настоящим Соглашением, в отношении своего права облагать налогом доход, полученный компанией от такой офшорной деятельности, или своего права облагать налогом дивиденды, выплачиваемые компанией. 3. На юридическое лицо, которое является резидентом Договаривающегося Государства и получает доход из источников в другом Договаривающемся Государстве, не будут в этом Договаривающемся Государстве распространяться преимущества настоящего Соглашения, если более 50 % участия в этом лице принадлежит прямо или косвенно любой комбинации одного или более лиц, не являющихся резидентами первого указанного Договаривающегося Государства. Однако это положение не применяется, если такое лицо осуществляет в Договаривающемся Государстве, резидентом которого оно является, значительную предпринимательскую деятельность, за исключением простого владения ценными бумагами или другими активами либо простого осуществления вспомогательной, подготовительной или любой другой подобной деятельности в отношении других связанных с ним лиц».

1436

Agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and The Hong Kong Special Administrative region of the People’s Republic of China for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income, 22 March 2010, as amended through 2010. Protocol, Sec. VII.

1437

Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Singapore for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income, 19 February 1971, as amended through 2009. Art. 5.

1438

Barbados – Netherlands Income Tax Treaty of 28 November 2006 (as amended through 2009). «Article 10. Dividends. <…> Par. 4. Where a company fails to qualify for benefits under paragraph 3, it may however qualify if the competent authority of the Contracting State which has to grant the benefits determines that the establishment, acquisition or maintenance of the company does not have as its main purpose or one of its main purposes to secure the benefits of paragraph 3. Such determination shall be based on all facts and circumstances including: a) the nature and volume of the activities of the company in its country of residence in relation to the nature and volume of the dividends; b) both the historical and the current ownership of the company; and c) the business reasons for the company residing in its country of residence. The competent authority of the Contracting State which has to grant the benefits will consult with the competent authority of the other Contracting State before denying the benefits under this paragraph».

1439

Данный режим был отменен в Люксембурге еще в 2007 г. (с трехлетним переходным периодом), однако в настоящий момент законодательство Люксембурга предусматривает альтернативные налоговые режимы, применимость налоговых соглашений к которым сомнительна (например, режим SICAR, при нем некоторые доходы освобождены от налога в Люксембурге, однако такая компания может получить сертификат резидентства в Люксембурге).

1440

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 1. § 21.3. P. 70.

1441

Ibid. § 21.4. P. 69: «The provisions of this Article shall not apply if it was the main purpose or one of the main purposes of any person concerned… to take advantage of this Article».

1442

Lodewijk P.W. Berger, Vincent van der Lans. The Improper Use of Holding Companies. Selected Recent Developments. 2011. P. 7. Footnotes 22, 23.

1443

Article 29: «[a]person that is a resident of a Contracting State and derives income from the other Contracting State shall not be entitled to relief from taxation in that other State otherwise provided for in this Convention if it was the main purpose or one of the main purposes of any person concerned with the creation or assignment of such item of income to take advantage of the provisions of this Convention».

1444

Article 3 of the 2005 Protocol: «2. A shell/conduit company that claims it is a resident of a Contracting State shall not be entitled to the benefits of Article 1 of this Protocol. A shell/conduit company is any legal entity falling within the definition of resident with negligible or nil business operations or with no real and continuous business activities carried out in that Contracting State. 3. A resident of a Contracting State is deemed to be a shell/conduit company if its total annual expenditure on operations in that Contracting State is less than $200,000 or Indian Rs 50,00,000 in the respective Contracting State as the case may be, in the immediately preceding period of 24 months from the date the gains arise. 4. A resident of a Contracting State is deemed not to be a shell/conduit company if: a. it is listed on a recognised stock exchange of the Contracting State; or b. its total annual expenditure on operations in that Contracting State is equal to or more than S$200,000 or Indian Rs 50,00,000 in the respective Contracting State as the case may be, in the immediately preceding period of 24 months from the date the gains arise».

1445

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 1. § 22.1. P. 72.

1446

Ibid. § 9.5. P. 63.

1447

См. Подробнее: Lodewijk P.W. Berger, Vincent van der Lans. The Improper Use of Holding Companies. Selected Recent Developments. 2011. P. 5. URL: www.ifausa.org/dman/Document.phx/Events/%5Eeman.208/Conference+Handouts/The+(Im)Proper+Use+of+Holding+Companies?folderId=Events%2F%255Eeman.208%2FConference%2BHandouts&cmd=download.

1448

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 1. § 27.6. P. 75.

1449

Кроме того, важную роль в понимании некоторых норм, препятствующих определенным формам недопустимого использования налоговых соглашений, играют комментарии к ст. 10 (п. 17 и 22), ст. 11 (п. 12) и ст. 12 (п. 7) МК ОЭСР (2014).

1450

United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries (rev. 2011). Commentary on the Chapter 1. § 10. P. 42.

1451

Stefan van Weeghel. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 95a. Tax treaties and tax avoidance: application of anti-avoidance provisions. 2010.

1452

Luc De Broe, Nathalie Goyette, Philippe Martin, Roy Rohatgi, Stef van Weeghel, and Phil West. Tax Treaties and Tax Avoidance: Application of Anti-Avoidance Provisions. Bulletin for International Taxation. IBFD. July 2011. P. 376, 377.

1453

General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 95a. Tax treaties and tax avoidance: application of anti-avoidance provisions. 2010. P. 26–27.

1454

Addressing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. OECD Report. URL: www.oecd.org/tax/addressing-base-erosion-and-profit-shifting-9789264192744-en.htm. Версия доклада на русском языке также доступна на интернет-сайте ОЭСР. URL: www.oecd.org/publications/addressing-base-erosion-and-profit-shifting-russian-version-9789264201262-ru.htm.

1455

Доклад ОЭСР: размывание налоговой базы и перевод прибыли // Российский налоговый бюллетень. Ernst & Young. Февраль 2013. С. 11. URL: www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/RTB-February-2013-Rus/$FILE/RTB-February-2013-Rus.pdf.

1456

Например, отчет ОЭСР «Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements: Tax Policy and Compliance Issues» (March 2012); отчет ОЭСР «Tackling Aggressive Tax Planning Through Increased Transparency and Disclosure» (February 2011); работа, проделанная на Глобальном форуме ОЭСР по транспарентности и обмену информацией для целей налогообложения (Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes); введение в 2010 г. IX главы Руководства ОЭСР по регулированию трансфертного ценообразования и т. д.

1457

Более подробно см.: Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. 2013. URL: www.oecd.org/tax/action-plan-on-base-erosion-and-profit-shifting-9789264202719-en.htm.

1458

Страны – члены ОЭСР (2016 г.): Австралия, Австрия, Бельгия, Великобритания, Венгрия, Германия, Греция, Дания, Израиль, Ирландия, Исландия, Испания, Италия, Канада, Люксембург, Мексика, Нидерланды, Новая Зеландия, Норвегия, Польша, Португалия, Республика Корея, Словакия, Словения, США, Турция, Чехия, Чили, Швеция, Швейцария, Финляндия, Франция, Эстония, Япония. В работе ОЭСР также участвует Европейский союз.

1459

Финальные отчеты BEPS 2015. URL: www.oecd.org/tax/beps-2015-final-reports.htm.

1460

Разъяснительный меморандум OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project Explanatory Statement. URL: www.oecd.org/ctp/beps-explanatory-statement-2015.pdf.

1461

Отчет Генерального секретаря ОЭСР Финансовым министрам Большой 20-ки от 23–24 июля 2016 г. URL: https://www.oecd.org/ctp/oecd-secretary-general-tax-report-g20-finance-ministers-july-2016.pdf.

1462

Более подробно, см. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-2265_en.htm.

1463

Подготовлено на основе информационного бюллетеня EY от 9 октября 2015 г. URL: www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-tax-alert-9-october-2015-rus/$FILE/EY-tax-alert-9-october-2015-rus.pdf.

1464

См. Глобальный налоговый алерт «OECD releases final reports on BEPS Action Plan». URL: www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/OECD_releases_final_reports_on_BEPS_Action_Plan/$FILE/2015G_CM5818_OECD%20releases%20final%20reports%20on%20BEPS%20Action%20Plan.pdf; PWC Tax Policy Bulletin: Multinationals receive OECD recommendations on BEPS proposals for G20 and wider take-up. URL: www.pwc.com/gx/en/tax/newsletters/tax-policy-bulletin/assets/pwc-oecd-provides-beps-recommendations-for-multinational-companies.pdf; KPMG Special report on BEPS. URL: https://home.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2015/11/tnf-beps-special-report.pdf.

1465

Итоговый отчет «Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy, Action 1 – 2015 Final Report», OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2005. URL: dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241046-en.

1466

Отчет ОЭСР от 16 сентября 2014 г. Addressing the tax challenges of the digital economy. URL: http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxation/addressing-the-tax-challenges-of-the-digital-economy_9789264218789-en#.V9qJdE101D8.

1467

См. Глобальный налоговый алерт EY „The latest on BEPS – 2016 mid-year review; A review of OECD and country actions during January-June 2016”, стр. 6–7; URL: http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-the-latest-on-beps-2016-mid-year-review/$FILE/EY-the-latest-on-beps-2016-mid-year-review.pdf.

1468

Итоговый отчет: Neutralising the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements, Action 2 – 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015. URL: dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241138-en.

1469

Более подробно см. информацию на сайте Правительства Великобритании: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/549859/EN-_Amendment_1-131_and_154-160_to_clause_65_and_Schedule_10_Hybrid_and_other_mismatches.pdf.

1470

Проект отчета ОЭСР для публичного обсуждения о гибридных структурах с использованием филиалов. URL: http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/Discussion-draft-Action-2-Branch-mismatch-structures.pdf.

1471

См. Глобальный налоговый алерт EY «The latest on BEPS – 2016 mid-year review; A review of OECD and country actions during January-June 2016», с. 7; URL: http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-the-latest-on-beps-2016-mid-year-review/$FILE/EY-the-latest-on-beps-2016-mid-year-review.pdf.

1472

Итоговый отчет: Designing Effective Controlled Foreign Company Rules, Action 3 – 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015. URL: dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241152-en.

1473

Limiting Base Erosion Involving Interest Deductions and Other Financial Payments, Action 4 – 2015 Final Report. OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015. URL: dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241176-en.

1474

См. Глобальный налоговый бюллетень EY «The latest on BEPS – 2016 mid-year review; A review of OECD and country actions during January – June 2016». С. 8. URL: www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-the-latest-on-beps-2016-mid-year-review/$FILE/EY-the-latest-on-beps-2016-mid-year-review.pdf.

1475

Countering Harmful Tax Practices More Effectively, Taking into Account Transparency and Substance, Action 5 – 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015. URL: dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241190-en.

1476

Более подробно см. Глобальный налоговый алерт EY «The latest on BEPS – 2016 mid-year review; A review of OECD and country actions during January – June 2016». С. 9—10. URL: www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-the-latest-on-beps-2016-mid-year-review/$FILE/EY-the-latest-on-beps-2016-mid-year-review.pdf.

1477

Более подробно см. информацию на сайте совета ЕС. URL: www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/12/08-ecofin-cross-broder-tax-ruling.

1478

См. Глобальный налоговый алерт EY «The latest on BEPS – 2016 mid-year review; A review of OECD and country actions during January – June 2016». С. 10. URL: www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-the-latest-on-beps-2016-mid-year-review/$FILE/EY-the-latest-on-beps-2016-mid-year-review.pdf.

1479

Preventing the Granting of Treaty Benefits in Inappropriate Circumstances, Action 6 – 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015. URL: dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241695-en.

1480

Положения LOB – одни из самых важных антизлоупотребительных правил, используемых в налоговых соглашениях, заключаемых США с иностранными государствами. Правила LOB все чаще используют и другие страны при заключении налоговых соглашений. Основной результат действия данных правил – ограничение предоставления льгот по налоговым соглашениям (пониженных ставок налогов у источника на пассивный доход, возможных освобождений от уплаты налога на прирост капитала и др.), если определенные условия и требования для применения таких льгот не соблюдены (текст таких положений очень сложный и длинный: получатель дохода должен подпадать под определенную категорию бенефициарного собственника (qualified shareholder) или соответствовать требованиям одного из специализированных тестов (например, теста о ведении активной торговли или бизнеса – active trade or business test).

1481

Текст обновленной МК США был опубликован на сайте Казначейства США (Department of the treasury). URL: www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Documents/Treaty-US%20Model-2016.pdf.

1482

Preventing the Artificial Avoidance of Permanent Establishment Status, Action 7 – 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015. URL: dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241220-en.

1483

Проект отчета ОЭСР о порядке отнесения прибыли к постоянному представительству. URL: www.oecd.org/tax/transfer-pricing/BEPS-discussion-draft-on-the-attribution-of-profits-to-permanent-establishments.pdf.

1484

Итоговые отчет: Aligning Transfer Pricing Outcomes with Value Creation, Actions 8—10 – 2015 Final Reports, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015. URL: dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241244-en.

1485

Более подробно см. информацию на официальном сайте ОЭСР. URL: http://www.oecd.org/tax/oecd-council-approves-incorporation-of-beps-amendments-into-the-transfer-pricing-guidelines-for-multinational-enterprises-and-tax-administrations.htm.

1486

Проект отчета ОЭСР с разъяснениями о порядке применения методов распределения прибыли. URL: http://www.oecd.org/tax/transfer-pricing/BEPS-discussion-draft-on-the-revised-guidance-on-profit-splits.pdf.

1487

См. стр. 15 итогового отчета: Measuring and Monitoring BEPS. Action 11 – 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015. URL: dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241343-en.

1488

Mandatory Disclosure Rules. Action 12 – 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015. URL: dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241442-en.

1489

В частности, компании и группы компаний с оборотом превышающим £200 млн. или с балансовой стоимостью активов превышающей £2 млрд.; более того, если бизнес в Великобритании подпадает под требования подачи CBC отчетности в рамках Мероприятия 13, то требования о предоставления информации будут применяться вне зависимости от достижения пороговых значений в отношении оборота или бухгалтерского баланса. Более подробно см. информацию, опубликованную на сайте Правительства Великобритании. URL: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/large-businesses-publish-your-tax-strategy.

1490

Более подробно см. информацию, опубликованную на сайте Правительства Великобритании. URL: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/large-businesses-publish-your-tax-strategy.

1491

Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting, Action 13 – 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015. URL: dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241480-en.

1492

См. Дополнительные разъяснения ОЭСР по вопросу имплементации CbC отчетности. URL: http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/guidance-on-the-implementation-of-country-by-country-reporting-beps-action-13.htm.

1493

Signatories of the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement on the Exchange of Country-by-Country Reports, URL: https://www.oecd.org/tax/automatic-exchange/about-automatic-exchange/CbC-MCAA-Signatories.pdf.

1494

Country-by-Country Reporting XML Schema: User Guide for Tax Administrations and Taxpayers; URL: http://www.oecd.org/tax/automatic-exchange/about-automatic-exchange/country-by-country-reporting-xml-schema-user-guide-for-tax-administrations-and-taxpayers.htm.

1495

См. Глобальный налоговый алерт EY „The latest on BEPS – 2016 mid-year review; A review of OECD and country actions during January-June 2016”, стр. 16; URL: http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-the-latest-on-beps-2016-mid-year-review/$FILE/EY-the-latest-on-beps-2016-mid-year-review.pdf.

1496

См. соответствующий пресс-релиз Совета ЕС: URL: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/05/25-exchange-tax-related-information-multinationals/.

1497

См. соответствующий пресс-релиз Совета ЕС: URL: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1349_en.htm?locale=en.

1498

Making Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective, Action 14 – 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015. URL: dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241633-en.

1499

Developing a Multilateral Instrument to Modify Bilateral Tax Treaties, Action 15. 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015. URL: dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241688-en.

1500

BEPS ACTION 15 Development of a Multilateral Instrument to Implement the Tax Treaty related. BEPS Measures (31 May – 30 June 2016). URL: www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/BEPS-Discussion-draft-Multilateral-Instrument.pdf

1501

Ibid.

1502

Brian J. Arnold, Patrick Dibout. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 86b. Limits on the use of low-tax regimes by multinational businesses: current measures and emerging trends. 2001. P. 38.

1503

Johannes Aslan, Ayhan Ustun. Turkey: Newly introduced CFC rules: Do they work in practice? BNA International Tax Planning International Review. August 2007.

1504

Controlled Foreign Company Regimes Essentials. Deloitte, 2012. P. 9.

1505

Vinay Sambaragimath, Sanjiv Malhotra. Proposed CFC rules in India – a Practitioner’s Perspective. URL: www.bmradvisors.com/upload/documents/Article_Proposed%2 °CFC%20Rules%20in%20India_Vinay%20and%20Sanjiv_IT_22nd%20Sep1317634187.pdf.

1506

Case C-196/04 Cadbury Schweppes (2006) ECR I-7995 (ECJ).

1507

Судебное дело DSG Retail Ltd v. RCC в Великобритании – хорошая иллюстрация спора в области трансфертного ценообразования в ситуации, когда британские правила КИК не могли быть применены.

1508

William McBride. New Zealand’s Experience with Territorial Taxation. Fiscal Fact. Tax Foundation. June 19, 2013. URL: http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/ff375.pdf.

1509

Reuven S. Avi-Yonah. International Tax as International Law. An Analysis of the International Tax Regime. Cambridge Tax Law Series. Cambridge University Press. 2007. P. 24.

1510

C-298/05 Columbus Container Services BVBA & Co v. Finanzamt Bielefeld-Innenstadt (2007) ECR I-10451 (ECJ). URL: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-298/05.

1511

Consolidated Application Note – Guidance in applying the 1998 Report to preferential tax regimes (2004), Chapter III.

1512

План мероприятий ОЭСР по противодействию размыванию налогооблагаемой базы и выводу прибыли из-под налогообложения (Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) от 19 июля 2013 г. URL: www.oecd.org/ctp/BEPSActionPlan.pdf.

1513

OECD Secretary-General Report to the G20. P. 5.

1514

Отчет ОЭСР «Addressing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting» (февраль 2013); версия на английском языке – URL: www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxation/addressing-base-erosion-and-profit-shifting_9789264192744-en; версия на русском языке – URL: www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxation/addressing-base-erosion-and-profit-shifting-russian-version_9789264201262-ru#page1.

1515

PwC Tax Policy Bulletin, Momentum behind the Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. P. 3. URL: www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/tax/newsletters/tax-policy-bulletin/assets/pwc-tax-policy-bulletin-beps-september-2013.pdf.

1516

BEPS part 1: three places where the Action Plan seems to contradict UK policy. URL: https://martinhearson.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/beps-part-1-three-places-where-the-action-plan-seems-to-contradict-uk-policy/.

1517

Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. P. 16.

1518

Reuven S. Avi-Yonah. International Tax as International Law. An Analysis of the International Tax Regime. Cambridge Tax Law Series. Cambridge University Press. P. 26, 148, 184–185.

1519

Ibid. P. 185.

1520

Ibid. P. 185.

1521

Danon Robert. La refonte de la fiscalité internationale des entreprises. Analyse des possibles incidences pour la Suisse au regard de questions choisies. P. 29.

1522

Public Discussion Draft, BEPS Action 1. Address the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy. 24 March 2014 – 14 April 2014. P. 54. URL: www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-challenges-digital-economy-discussion-draft-march-2014.pdf.

1523

Reuven S. Avi-Yonah. International Tax as International Law. An Analysis of the International Tax Regime. Cambridge Tax Law Series. Cambridge University Press. P. 26.

1524

Ibid. P. 25.

1525

Ibid. P. 25.

1526

Ibid. P. 25.

1527

Ibid. P. 26.

1528

Ibid. P. 20.

1529

Ibid. P. 20.

1530

Ibid. P. 44.

1531

Worldwide Corporate Tax Guide. Ernst & Young, EYGM Limited, 2013. P. 668 (Japan).

1532

Ibid. P. 409.

1533

Ibid. P. 1369.

1534

Ibid. P. 429.

1535

Ibid. P. 1250.

1536

Ibid. P. 258.

1537

Ibid. P. 1250.

1538

Более подробно см.: Pascal Hinny, Jean-Blaise Eckert. Corporate tax: is Swiss corporate tax system still attractive despite EU pressure? International Tax Review. March 2013. URL: www.internationaltaxreview.com/Article/3167145/Corporate-tax-Is-Swiss-corporate-tax-system-still-attractive-despite-EU-pressure.html.

1539

Controlled Foreign Company Regimes Essentials. Deloitte, 2012. P. 3.

1540

Ibid.

1541

В общем докладе IFA в сноске № 34 на с. 48 приводится пример США, применяющих общемировое налогообложение лишь к компаниями, инкорпорированным в США. Иностранные юридические лица, переместившие место управления в США, будут облагаться только по доходам и операциям, имеющим определенную привязку (nexus) к США.

1542

Brian J. Arnold, Patrick Dibout. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 86b. Limits on the use of low-tax regimes by multinational businesses: current measures and emerging trends. 2001. P. 41.

1543

Guide to Controlled Foreign Company Regimes. Deloitte, 2015. URL: http://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/tax/articles/guide-to-controlled-foreign-company-regimes.html.

1544

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Art. 23. P. 36–37.

1545

Ibid. Commentary to Art. 1. § 23. P. 72.

1546

Peter Harris, David Oliver. International Commercial Tax. Cambridge University Press, 2010. P. 304.

1547

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to Art. 7. § 14. P. 136.

1548

Ibid. Art. 10. § 1. P. 30: «1. Dividends paid by a company which is a resident of a Contracting State to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State».

1549

Ibid. Art. 10. § 5, P. 31: «Where a company which is a resident of a Contracting State derives profits or income from the other Contracting State, that other State may not… subject the company's undistributed profits to a tax on the company's undistributed profits…».

1550

Ibid. Art. 13. § 1–5.

1551

Ibid. Art. 21. § 1: «Items of income of a resident of a Contracting State, wherever arising, not dealt with in the foregoing Articles of this Convention shall be taxable only in that State».

1552

Convention between the Government of the French Republic and the Government of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria for the Avoidance of Double Taxation, the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion and Fraud and the Establishment of Rules of Mutual Assistance with Respect to Taxes on Income, on Capital, and on Estates and Inheritances (together with a Protocol) (1999). Protocol, § 7.

1553

BOI 4 H-1-07. Appendix 3.

1554

Daniel Gutmann, François Meziane. The French CFC Regime. Footnote 14. URL: www.americantaxpolicyinstitute.org/s/pdf/Arnold%20paper.pdf.

1555

Public Discussion Draft, BEPS Action 6: Preventing the Granting of Treaty Benefits in Appropriate Circumstances. P. 21–22. URL: www.oecd.org/ctp/treaties/treaty-abuse-discussion-draft-march-2014.pdf.

1556

Венская конвенция о праве международных договоров (заключена в Вене 23 мая 1969 г.).

1557

France Re Société Schneider Electric. Conseil d’Etat. Ass. June, 28. 2002. № 232276.

1558

Dr Noah Gaoua, Alexis Ribeiro, French CFC Legislation: An Illustration of Recovery from a «Tax Treaty Override» Situation. European Taxation, Special Issue (Sept. 2013). P. 451.

1559

Bricom Holdings Ltd v. IRC (1997) STC 1179 (CA).

1560

Peter Harris, David Oliver. International Commercial Tax. Cambridge University Press, 2010. P. 305.

1561

Stefan van Weeghel. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 95a. Tax treaties and tax avoidance: application of anti-avoidance provisions. 2010.

1562

Paul Morton, Laurent Sykes. United Kingdom Report. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 95a. Tax treaties and tax avoidance: application of anti-avoidance provisions. 2010. P. 30.

1563

Lord Strathalmond v. CIR 48 TC 537.

1564

Paul Morton, Laurent Sykes. United Kingdom Report. General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 95a. Tax treaties and tax avoidance: application of anti-avoidance provisions. 2010. P. 811.

1565

RÅ 2008. Case No. Regeringsrätten, Mål № 2655-05, 3 april 2008.

1566

Подробнее см. Treaty Override – a Tax Treaty’s relation to (new) Swedish CFC rules. Delphi News. October 2008. URL: www.legal500.com/assets/images/stories/firmdevs/advo10688/tax.pdf.

1567

Подробнее см. Maria Hilling. The Swedish Supreme Administrative Court Totally Disregards Tax Treaty – A Critical Analysis of a CFC Judgment. Intertax 36.10 (2008). P. 455–461. URL: https://works.bepress.com/maria_hilling/1/.

1568

KHO:2002:26.

1569

International Tax Avoidance and Evasion. Double Taxation Conventions and the Use of Base Companies. OECD, 1987.

1570

Luc de Broe. International Tax Planning and Prevention of Abuse: A Study under Domestic Tax Law. Tax Treaties and EC Law in Relation to Conduit and Base Companies. IBFD, 2008. P. 455.

1571

Ibid. P. 457.

1572

Supreme Administrative Court of Finland, 20.03.2002; KHO:2002:26, 4 International Tax Law Reports 2002, 1009.

1573

Landsskatteretten SKM2004.439.LSR (Tfs 2004, 862 LSR).

1574

David Taylor, Laurent Sykes. Controlled Foreign Companies and Foreign Profits. British Tax Review. 2007. № 5. P. 641. URL: www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Business_Taxation/Events/conferences/2007/taxing_foreign_profits/taylor-paper.pdf.

1575

Jakob Bundgaard, Peter Koerver Schmidt, IFA 2010, Denmark Report. Tax Treaties and Tax Avoidance: Application of Anti-Avoidance Provisions. IFA Cahiers, 2010. P. 271.

1576

Supreme Court of Japan dated 29.10.2009, 2008 (Gyo-hi) № 91.

1577

Heleno Taveira Tôrres, IFA Brazil Report. Tax Treaties and Tax Avoidance: Application of Anti-Avoidance Provisions, IFA Cahiers, 2010. P. 160.

1578

1st Conselho de Contribuintes, 8th Panel, Decision 108-08,765 of 23 March 2006.

1579

1st Conselho de Contribuintes, 1st Panel, Decision 101-95.802 of 19 October 2006.

1580

1st Conselho de Contribuintes, 1st Panel, Decision 101-97.070 of 17 December 2008.

1581

Rodrigo Maito da Silveira and Leonardo Freitas de Moraes e Castro. International Tax Planning in Brazil: What to Expect Following Recent Case Law. Bulletin for International Taxation. IBFD. November 2010. P. 573.

1582

Convention Between the Government of the Hungarian People’s Republic and the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income. 20 June 1986. Treaties IBFD.

1583

BR: 1st Section of the Conselho Administrativo de Recursos Fiscais, 4^>th Panel, 27 Jan. 2011, Decision 140200.391.

1584

Paola Violin. Brazil’s Controlled Foreign Company Regime in Question. Bulletin for International Taxation. IBFD. February 2012. P. 98.

1585

BR: Tribunal Regional Federal da 2a Regiao, 25 Nov. 2011, Writ of Mandamus 2003.51.01.002937-0.

1586

Более подробно см. налоговый бюллетень Ernst & Young от 6 мая 2014 г. URL: www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Brazil_Superior_Court_of_Justice_rules_CFC_regime_not_compatible_with_tax_treaties/$FILE/2014G_CM4395_BR%20STJ%20Justice%20rules%2 °CFC%20regime%20not%20compatible%20w%20tax%20treaties.pdf.

1587

BR: Supremo Tribunal Federal, Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade, (ADI) № 2.588/01.

1588

Article 74 of Provisional Measure 2,158-35/01.

1589

Mauricio Pereira Faro, Brazil’s Supreme Court rules on CFC regime, International tax review. URL: http://www.internationaltaxreview.com/Article/3242859/Brazils-Supreme-Federal-Court-rules-on-CFC-regime.html.

1590

Более подробно см. налоговый бюллетень Ernst & Young от 15 мая 2014 г. URL: www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Brazil_enacts_tax_reform/$FILE/2014G_CM4420_Brazil%20enacts%20tax%20reform.pdf.

1591

Vodafone 2 v. RCC (2009) EWCA Civ 446 (CA). URL: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/446.html.

1592

Section 751A of ICTA 1988.

1593

Vodafone 2 v. RCC (2008) EWHC 1569 (HC). § 73.

1594

Brussels, 10.12.2007; COM (2007) 785 final Communication from the Commission to the Council. The European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee. The application of anti-abuse measures in the area of direct taxation – within the EU and in relation to third countries. P. 3–4. URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0785:FIN: EN: PDF.

1595

C-298/05 Columbus Container Services BVBA & Co v. Finanzamt Bielefeld-Innenstadt (2007) ECR I-10451 (ECJ) [http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-298/05].

1596

Ibid. § 43.

1597

Case C-513/04 Kerckhaert and Morres (2006) ECR I-10967. URL: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=64683&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=245402.

1598

Ibid. § 53.

1599

Case C-196/04 Cadbury Schweppes (2006) ECR I-7995 (ECJ). § 49.

1600

Jérôme Monsenego. Taxation of Foreign Business Income within the European Internal Market. Vol. 22 in the Doctoral Series. 2012. P. 167–168.

1601

Case C-201/05 Test Claimants (2008) in the CFC and Dividend Group Litigation ECR I-2875. URL: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69464&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=244682.

1602

IBFD Tax Treaties Database. URL: www.ibfd.org/IBFD-Products/Tax-Treaties-Database.

1603

«It is understood that the „beneficial owner“ clause should be interpreted in the meaning that a third country resident will not be allowed to get benefits from the Tax Agreement with regard to dividends, interest and royalties derived from Turkey or Italy, but this restriction shall in no case be applied to residents of a Contracting State»

1604

«With reference to Articles 10, 11 and 12: „The recipient of the dividends, interest and royalties is the beneficial owner within the meaning of Articles 10, 11 and 12 if he is entitled to the right upon which the payments are based and the income derived therefrom is attributable to him under the tax laws of both States“».

1605

Philip Baker. Beneficial ownership: after Indofood. GITS Review. February 2007. Vol. VI. № 1. P. 23. URL: www.taxbar.com/documents/Beneficial_Ownership_PB.pdf.

1606

Etymological Online Dictionary. URL: www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=b&p=15&allowed_in_frame=0.

1607

«…Involving the personal enjoyment of proceeds: a beneficial owner». URL: dictionary.reference.com/browse/beneficial.

1608

IBFD International Tax Glossary, 6th ed. Amsterdam: IBFD, 2009. P. 39.

1609

Outline and background material. IFA 53rd Congress: October 1999. Seminar F: Beneficial ownership. P. 15.

1610

John F. Avery Jones (United Kingdom), Luc De Broe (Belgium), Maarten J. Ellis and Kees van Raad (Netherlands), Jean-Pierre Le Gall (France), Sanford H. Goldberg (United States), Jürgen Killius (Germany), Guglielmo Maisto (Italy), Toshio Miyatake (Japan), Henri Torrione (Switzerland), Richard J. Vann (Australia), David A. Ward (Canada) and Bertil Wiman (Sweden). The Origins of Concepts and Expressions Used in the OECD Model and their Adoption by States. Bulletin – Tax Treaty Monitor. June 2006. P. 246.

1611

Ibid.

1612

Beneficial Ownership, J. David B. Oliver, Jerome B. Libin, Stef van Weeghel and Charl du Toit. IBFD Bulletin. July 2000. P. 311.

1613

Philip Baker. Progress Report of Subcommittee on Improper Use of Tax Treaties: Beneficial Ownership. Addendum. Note by the Coordinator of the Subcommittee on Improper Use of treaties: Proposed amendments. E/C.18/2008/CRP.2/Add.1. P. 16. URL: www.un.org/esa/ffd/tax/fourthsession/EC18_2008_CRP2_Add1.pdf.

1614

Louan Verdoner et. al. A Cross-Country Perspective on Beneficial Ownership. Part 1. IBFD, European Taxation. Sept. 2010. P. 419; см. также: J. Bundgaard and N. Winther-Sorensen. Beneficial Ownership in International Financing Structures. Tax Notes International. 19 May 2008. P. 590.

1615

Outline and background material. IFA 53rd Congress: October 1999. Seminar F: Beneficial ownership. P. 13.

1616

Ayerst (Inspector of Taxes) v. C&K (Construction) Ltd. (1975) STC 345, HL, at 349; Charl du Toit. The Evolution of the Term «Beneficial Ownership» in Relation to International Taxation over the Past 45 Years. IBFD Tax Treaty Monitor. Bulletin for International Taxation. October 2010. P. 500.

1617

Jeorge T. Bogert. Trusts. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1987. P. 1.

1618

Steven van Weeghel. The Improper Use of Tax Treaties. Kluwer Law International, 1998. P. 65.

1619

John F. Avery Jones et al. The Origins of the Concepts and Expressions Used in the OECD Model and their Adoption by States. IBFD Bulletin. 2006. P. 246.

1620

Waters Donovan. The Nature of the Trust Beneficiary’s Interest. 45 Canadian Bar Review. 1967. P. 219.

1621

Avery Jones, J. F. The Beneficial Owner Concept Was Never Necessary in the Model. Lang, Pistone, Schuch, Staringer &Storck (eds). Beneficial Ownership: Recent Trends. 2013. P. 333–339.

1622

C. Brown. Symposium: Beneficial ownership and the Income Tax Act (51 CTJ 1 2003). P. 424–427.

1623

Mark D. Brender. Beneficial Ownership in Canadian Income Tax Law. Bijurilex. URL: www.bijurilex.org/site/att/BRENDER-Propriete_effective_2002-08-20_E.htm; Mark D. Brender. Symposium: Beneficial ownership and the Income Tax Act. Canadian Tax Journal. 2003. № 1. P. 315–318.

1624

P. J. Hattingh. Beneficial Ownership and Double Tax Conventions. Part II. A. De-Koker and E. Brincker (eds.), International Tax. Durban: Lexis-Nexis.

1625

Outline and background material. IFA 53rd Congress: October 1999. Seminar F: Beneficial ownership. P. 13.

1626

J Sainsbury plc v. O’Connor (Inspector of Taxes) (1991) STC 318, CA. P. 328–330.

1627

Wood Preservation Ltd v. Prior (Inspector of Taxes) (1968) 45 TC 112, CA. P. 133.

1628

Leigh Spinners Ltd v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1956) 46 TC 425, Ch. D. P. 427–432.

1629

Court of Chancery // Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Chancery.

1630

Ayerst (Inspector of Taxes) v. C&K (Construction) Ltd. (1975) STC 345 HL. Р. 349.

1631

Parway Estates Limited v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 45 T.C. 135 (1958).

1632

Montana Catholic Missions v. Missoula County 200 U.S. 118 (1906). P. 127–128.

1633

Anthony Yelencsics and Norma Yelencsics, et al. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1513 (1980). P. 1528.

1634

Rupe Investment Corporation v. Commissioner 3 AFTR 2d 1276 (5th Cir. 1959). P. 1280–1281.

1635

Covert v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Finance) (1980), S.C.J. № 101 (Q.L.) (1980), 2 S.C.R. 774. P. 784. Citing MacKeen Estate v. Nova Scotia (1977), C.T.C. 230 (NSSC). § 46.

1636

Prévost Car Inc. v. Revenue (2008) 10 ITLR 736 (Tax Court Canada) 98.

1637

Anna Vitko. Per Aspera ad Astra: Towards the International Fiscal Meaning of the Concept «Beneficial Owner». Master Thesis, Lund University, 2011. P. 14.

1638

Montana Catholic Missions v. Missoula County 200 U.S. 118 (1906).

1639

Anderson v. Commissioner 164 F.2d 870 (7th Cir. 1947).

1640

Anthony Yelencsics and Norma Yelencsics, et al. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1513 (1980). P. 1528.

1641

Supra, note 30.

1642

Ted F. Merrill and Elizabeth H. Merrill v. Commissioner 40 T.C. 66 (1963), at 74.

1643

Ibid.

1644

Pacific Coast Music Jobbers, Inc. v. Commissioner 55 T.C. 866 (1971) at 874.

1645

J. David B. Oliver, Jerome B. Libin, Stef van Weeghel and Charl du Toit. Beneficial Ownership. IBFD Bulletin. July 2000. P. 318 (Section X. The common law meaning): «The beneficial owner is the person whose ownership attributes outweigh that of any other person».

1646

Ibid. P. 318.

1647

Венская конвенция о праве международных договоров была впервые открыта для присоединения (подписания) государствами 22 мая 1969 г. на Конференции ООН о праве международных договоров в Вене (Австрия). Конвенция вступила в силу в 1980 г.

1648

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 37. Note 69a.

1649

Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd (1991) 499 U.S. 530.

1650

J. David B. Oliver, Jerome B. Libin, Stef van Weeghel and Charl du Toit. Beneficial Ownership. IBFD Bulletin. July 2000. Section X. Treaty meaning: the common law meaning. P. 320.

1651

Ibid. Section XI. A definition which excludes agents and nominees. P. 320.

1652

1653

J. David B. Oliver, Jerome B. Libin, Stef van Weeghel and Charl du Toit. Beneficial Ownership. IBFD Bulletin. July 2000. P. 318.

1654

Статья 31.3.с Венской конвенции.

1655

J. David B. Oliver, Jerome B. Libin, Stef van Weeghel and Charl du Toit. Beneficial Ownership. IBFD Bulletin. July 2000. P. 317.

1656

Ibid. Section IX. Three possible treaty meanings. P. 318.

1657

United States Model Technical Explanation Accompanying The United States Model Income Tax Convention of November 15, 2006. P. 33: «The beneficial owner of the dividend for purposes of Article 10 is the person to which the income is attributable under the laws of the source State»

1658

Elena Kryzhanovskaya. The Beneficial Owner Concept in Civil Law Countries. Scandinavian Perspective. Master Thesis. Lund University. Department of Business Law, HARN 60, Direct Taxation. European and International Taxation. P. 8.

1659

John F. Avery Jones et al. The Origins of the Concepts and Expressions Used in the OECD Model and their Adoption by States. IBFD Bulletin. 2006. P. 247.

1660

Shintaku-ho (Law № 108, 2006), as amended.

1661

IAS 17 – Leases. URL: www.iasplus.com/en/standards/ias/ias17; SIC-27 – Evaluating the Substance of Transactions in the Legal Form of a Lease. URL: www.iasplus.com/en/standards/sic/sic-27.

1662

G. Maisto. The Taxation Of Trusts In Civil Law Countries – Italy: Aspects of Trust Taxation. European Taxation. August 1998. P. 242. О различиях между общей и цивилистической правовыми системами см.: D. W. M. Waters. The Concept Called «The Trust». Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation. 1999. № 3. P. 118–119.

1663

Art. 1(4) of Law № 239 of 29 March 1942 in John F. Avery Jones et al. The Origins of the Concepts and Expressions Used in the OECD Model and their Adoption by States. IBFD Bulletin. 2006. P. 249. Footnote 350.

1664

Ibid.

1665

Ministerial Resolution № 104/E of 6 May 1997 in Boll. trib. 1997. P. 776. Также см.: Circular Letter № 306/E of 23 December 1996 (Chap. VIII) in Boll. trib. 1997. P. 131; in John F. Avery Jones et al. The Origins of the Concepts and Expressions Used in the OECD Model and their Adoption by States. IBFD Bulletin. 2006. P. 249. Footnote 350.

1666

IBFD International Tax Glossary, 6th ed. Amsterdam: IBFD, 2009. P. 467.

1667

Prévost Car Inc v. Her Majesty the Queen 10 ITLR 736 (2008) (TCC) 97.

1668

Anna Vitko. Per Aspera ad Astra: Towards the International Fiscal Meaning of the Concept «Beneficial Owner». Master Thesis, Lund University, 2011. P. 15.

1669

H. B. Brockmeyer. Kommentar zur Abgabenordung. Munich, Verlag C.H. Beck, 2008. P. 212.

1670

A Cross-Country Perspective on Beneficial Ownership. Part 1. Louan Verdoner, René Offermanns, Steef Huibregtse. European Taxation, IBFD. September 2010. P. 426.

1671

Bundesfinanzhof (BFH), BStBl. II 1989. P. 414 in A Cross-Country Perspective on Beneficial Ownership. Part 1. Louan Verdoner, René Offermanns, Steef Huibregtse. European Taxation, IBFD. September 2010. Footnote 42.

1672

BFH, BStBl. 00,527; BFH BStBL. 05,46 in A Cross-Country Perspective on Beneficial Ownership. Part 1. Louan Verdoner, René Offermanns, Steef Huibregtse. European Taxation, IBFD. September 2010. P. 426. Footnote 43.

1673

John F. Avery Jones et al. The Origins of the Concepts and Expressions Used in the OECD Model and their Adoption by States. IBFD Bulletin. 2006. P. 249. Footnote 350.

1674

Там же. На тот момент Швейцария уже использовала данный термин ранее в своем внутреннем декрете о противодействии злоупотреблениям от 31.12.1962 г.

1675

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 562. Note 9.

1676

Ibid. P. 563. Note 10.

1677

Ibid.

1678

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 2: Practice. Taxmann, 2007. P. 143.

1679

Ministre de Économie v. Soc. Bank of Scotland (2006) 9 ITLR 683 (Conseil d’Etat).

1680

Prebble Z., Prebble J. Comparing the General Anti-Avoidance Rule of Income Tax Law with the Civil Law Doctrine of Abuse of Law. 62 Bulletin for International Taxation. 2008. P. 151.

1681

Richard Vann. Beneficial Ownership: What Does History (and maybe policy) Tell Us. Sydney Law School, Legal Studies Research Paper. Sept. 2012. № 12/66: «…Shares or stock in a corporation other than a municipal or governmental corporation (including shares or stock held by a nominee where the beneficial ownership is evidenced by scrip certificates or otherwise) shall be deemed to be situated at the place in or under the laws of which such corporation was created or organised…». URL: ssrn.com/abstract=2144038.

1682

Ibid.

1683

Ibid.: «The term „subsidiary corporation" referred to in Article XI of this Convention means a corporation all of whose shares (less directors qualifying shares) having full voting rights are beneficially owned by another corporation…».

1684

Ibid.

1685

Ibid.

1686

Ibid. Footnote 31.

1687

Charl du Toit. The Evolution of the Term «Beneficial Ownership» in Relation to International Taxation over the Past 45 Years. Bulletin for International Taxation – Tax Treaty Monitor. IBFD. October 2010. P. 502: «Relief from tax on dividends, interest and royalties… in the country of origin will no longer depend on whether the recipient is subject to tax in the other country, but will depend on the income being beneficially owned by a resident of the other country».

1688

Observations of Member Countries on difficulties raised by the OECD Draft Convention on Income and Capital. Comments received from Delegates on the OECD Draft Conventions (Art. 2 to 29) as at 2nd May 1967, and which supersedes TFD/FC/209; 9 May 1967. TFD/FC/216, p. 14. URL: www.taxtreatieshistory.org: «In our view the relief provided for under these Articles ought to apply only if the beneficial owner of the income in question is resident in the other contracting State, for otherwise the Articles are open to abuse by taxpayers who are resident in third countries and who could, for instance, put their income into the hands of bare nominees who are resident in the other contracting State. You will no doubt have noticed that our recent protocols with the United States and with Switzerland we have introduced this test of beneficial ownership which clearly reflects what was intended by the Committee when the Model Convention was prepared».

1689

United States. Technical Memorandum of Treasury Department Concerning Proposed Protocol Amending the Income Tax Convention between the United States and the United Kingdom (1966), Document 93-30729B.

1690

J. David B. Oliver, Jerome B. Libin, Stef van Weeghel and Charl du Toit. Beneficial Ownership. IBFD Bulletin for International Taxation. July 2000. P. 323. Footnote 39.

1691

Richard Vann. Beneficial Ownership: What Does History (and maybe policy) Tell Us. Sydney Law School, Legal Studies Research Paper. Sept. 2012. № 12/66. Footnote 28.

1692

Ibid. Footnote 31.

1693

Ibid.

1694

The National Archives (UK) Public Record Office, File IR 40/16741, «Beneficial Ownership» in Richard Vann. Beneficial Ownership: What Does History (and maybe policy) Tell Us; Taylor C. J. The Negotiation and Drafting of the 1967 United Kingdom – Australia Taxation Treaty. Studies in the History of Tax Law. Vol. 5. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2011. P. 427–502.

1695

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Double Taxation Conventions And The Use Of Conduit Companies.

1696

Progress Report of Subcommittee on Improper Use of Tax Treaties: Beneficial Ownership. Economic and Social Council Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters Fourth session Geneva, 20–24 October 2008 (E/C.18/2008/CRP.2/Add.1).

1697

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Article 10. § 1. P. 30.

1698

Ibid. Commentary to art. 10. § 12. P. 188.

1699

Ibid. § 12.1. P. 188–189.

1700

R(6). Double taxation conventions and the use of conduit companies. OECD, November 27, 1986.

1701

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 10. § 12.2. P. 189.

1702

Ibid. Commentary to art. 11. § 11. P. 215.

1703

Ibid. Commentary to art. 12. § 4.2. P. 225.

1704

1705

Council Directive 2003/48/EC of 3 June 2003 on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments Official Journal L 157/38, 26.

1706

«4. A company of a Member State shall be treated as the beneficial owner of interest or royalties only if it receives those payments for its own benefit and not as an intermediary, such as an agent, trustee or authorised signatory, for some other person».

1707

Article 5: «1. This Directive shall not preclude the application of domestic or agreement-based provisions required for the prevention of fraud or abuse. 2. Member States may, in the case of transactions for which the principal motive or one of the principal motives is tax evasion, tax avoidance or abuse, withdraw the benefits of this Directive or refuse to apply this Directive».

1708

5 Case C-373/00 Adolf Truly GmbH v Bestattung Wien GmbH (2003) ECR I-01931. § 35.

1709

Jūlija Petkeviča. The concept of beneficial owner: From international tax law to community law. Riga Graduate School of Law. Working Papers. 2005. № 26. P. 18. URL: www.rgsl.edu.lv/images/stories/publications/RWP24Petkevica.pdf.

1710

Cerioni L. Intra-EC Interest and Royalties Tax Treatment. IBFD, European Taxation. January, 2004. P. 52.

1711

Royal Dutch Shell, Hoge Raad, 6April 1994, BNB 1994.

1712

Indofood International Finance Ltd v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA (2006) EWCA Civ 158. URL: judgmental.org.uk/judgments/EWCA-Civ/2006/[2006]_EWCA_Civ_158.html.

1713

Prévost Car Inc. v. Canada (2009) FCA 57 (2010) 2 F.C.R. 65. URL: http://reports.fja-cmf.gc.ca/eng/2010/2009fca57.pdf; Velcro Canada Inc. v. Her Majesty the Queen (2012 TCC 57). URL: www.internationaltaxreview.com/pdfs/pending-000-9-24-02-20125-22-03.pdf.

1714

PT. Transportasi Gas Indonesia v. Direktur Jenderal Pajak (2008).

1715

Tata Industries v. Deputy Director of International Tax (Mumbai) (2011); IN: HC, 14 July 2011; Aditya Birla Nuvo v. DDIT, WP № 730 and 345 of 2010; New Cingular Wireless Services v. DDIT, WP 1837 of 2009; Tata Industries v. DDIT, № 38 of 2010.

1716

Federal Tribunal, 28 November 2005, A. Holding ApS, 2A.239/2005, ITLR 8 (2006). P. 536–562; Judgment of the Swiss Federal Administrative Tribunal A-6537/2010 of 7 March 2012. URL: www.walderwyss.com/files/news/51/en/Swiss%20Fed%20Adm%20Trib%20A-%206537_2010%20120307%20translation%20neutr.pdf.

1717

CE, 29 December 2006, No. 283314, 30 and 80 s.s.-, min. c/ Sté Bank of Scotland, RJF 2007, № 322.

1718

INTM332050 – Double Taxation applications and claims: HMRC reaction to Indofood case. URL: www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/intmanual/INTM332050.htm.

1719

Clarification of the meaning of «beneficial owner» in the OECD Model Tax Convention. Discussion Draft. 29 April 2011 to 15 July 2011. URL: www.oecd.org/tax/taxtreaties/47643872.pdf.

1720

OECD Model Tax Convention: Revised Proposals Concerning The Meaning of «Beneficial Owner» in Articles 10, 11 and 12. 19 October 2012 to 15 December 2012. URL: www.oecd.org/ctp/treaties/Beneficialownership.pdf.

1721

Public comments received on the revised proposals concerning the meaning of «beneficial owner» in Articles 10, 11 and 12 of the OECD Model Tax Convention. URL: www.oecd.org/ctp/treaties/publiccommentsreceivedontherevisedproposalsconcerningthemeaningofbeneficialownerinarticles1011and12oftheoecdmodeltaxconvention.htm.

1722

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014.

1723

OECD Model Tax Convention: Revised Proposals Concerning The Meaning of «Beneficial Owner» in Articles 10, 11 and 12. 19 October 2012 to 15 December 2012. P. 3.

1724

Ibid.

1725

Financial Action Task Force, International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation – The FATF Recommendations (OECD-FATF, Paris, 2012): includes the definition of the «beneficial owner»: «the natural person(s) who ultimately owns or controls a customer and/or the person on whose behalf a transaction is being conducted. It also incorporates those persons who exercise ultimate effective control over a legal person or arrangement». P. 109; OECD Steering Group on Corporate Governance. Behind the Corporate Veil: Using Corporate Entities for Illicit Purposes (OECD, Paris, 2001) defines beneficial ownership as follows: «…„beneficial ownership“ refers to ultimate beneficial ownership or interest by a natural person. In some situations, uncovering the beneficial owner may involve piercing through various intermediary entities and/or individuals until the true owner who is a natural person is found. With respect to corporations, ownership is held by shareholders or members. In partnerships, interests are held by general and limited partners. In trusts and foundations, beneficial ownership refers to beneficiaries, which may also include the settlor or founder». P. 14.

1726

OECD Model Tax Convention: Revised Proposals Concerning The Meaning of «Beneficial Owner» in Articles 10, 11 and 12. 19 October 2012 to 15 December 2012. P. 6.

1727

Public comments received on the revised proposals concerning the meaning of «beneficial owner» in Articles 10, 11 and 12 of the OECD Model Tax Convention.

1728

Richard Vann. Beneficial Ownership: What Does History (and maybe policy) Tell Us. Sydney Law School, Legal Studies Research Paper. Sept. 2012.

1729

Prof. Dr. Robert Danon. Clarification of the Meaning of «Beneficial Owner» in the OECD Model Tax Convention – Comment on the April 2011 Discussion Draft. 2011. P. 438.

1730

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary on Article 10. § 12. P. 188.

1731

Clarification of the Meaning of «Beneficial Owner» in the OECD Model Tax Convention. Discussion Draft. 29 April 2011. Commentary on Article 10. § 12.1—12.4.

1732

Prof. Dr. Robert Danon. Clarification of the Meaning of «Beneficial Owner» in the OECD Model Tax Convention – Comment on the April 2011 Discussion Draft. 2011. P. 438.

1733

Ibid. P. 3.

1734

Ibid. P. 439.

1735

Ibid.

1736

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 209. Note 60a.

1737

Ibid. P. 562. Note 8.

1738

Philip Baker, Progress Report of Subcommittee on Improper Use of Tax Treaties: Beneficial Ownership. Addendum, Note by the Coordinator of the Subcommittee on Improper Use of treaties: Proposed amendments. E/C.18/2008/CRP.2/Add.1. P. 9. URL: www.un.org/esa/ffd/tax/fourthsession/EC18_2008_CRP2_Add1.pdf.

1739

Luc de Broe. International Tax Planning and Prevention of Abuse: A Study under Domestic Tax Law. Tax Treaties and EC Law in Relation to Conduit and Base Companies. IBFD, 2008. P. 660–671.

1740

Ibid. P. 671.

1741

J Sainsbury plc v. O'Connor (Inspector of Taxes) (1991) STC 318, CA.

1742

J. David B. Oliver, Jerome B. Libin, Stef van Weeghel and Charl du Toit. Beneficial Ownership. IBFD Bulletin for International Taxation. July 2000. P. 322.

1743

1744

Ibid. P. 39. «The beneficial owner of the interest for purposes of Article 11 is the person to which the income is attributable under the laws of the source State».

1745

Ibid. P. 42.

1746

Technical Explanation of the Protocol signed at Chelsea on September 21, 2007, amending the Convention between the United States of America and Canada with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital done at Washington on September 26, 1980, as amended by the Protocols done on June 14, 1983, March 28, 1994, March 17, 1995, and July 29, 1997. URL: www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Documents/tecanada08.pdf.

1747

TFD/FC/216 (1967). P. 14. URL: http://www.taxtreatieshistory.org./

1748

DAF/FC/69.10 (1969). P. 6. URL: http://www.taxtreatieshistory.org./.

1749

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 564. Note 14.

1750

Conseil d’Etat, 13 October 1999, Case № 191191, min. c/SA Diebold Courtage, RJF 12/99 № 1492.

1751

Swiss Federal Supreme Court, X Holding ApS, 28 November 2005, № 2A.239/2005; International Tax Law Reports 8 (2006). P. 536–562.

1752

Рустам Вахитов, Елена Вознюк. Концепция бенефициарной собственности в судебной практике Украины и России. Legal Insight № 5 (21) 2013. URL: http://legalinsight.ru/koncepcija-beneficiarnoj-sobstvennosti-v-sudebnoj-praktike-ukrainy-i-rossii/.

1753

Например, письмо ГНАУ № 3917/5/12—0216 от 30 марта 2011 г., письмо ГНАУ № 4513/0/61—12/12—0016 от 31 октября 2012 г.

1754

Section 7701 (l) of the Internal Revenue Code.

1755

Treasury Regulations 1.881-3 and 1.881-4.

1756

Charles H. Gustafson, Robert J. Peroni, Richard Crawford Pugh. Taxation of International Transactions: materials, texts and problems. Third Edition. Thomson West Publishing, 2006. Р. 227 (Rev. Ruling 84-152).

1757

Leonardo F.M. Castro. U.S. policy against treaty shopping – from Aiken Industries to anti-conduit regs: critical view of current double-step approach in light of tax treaties' objectives and purposes. URL: www.thefreelibrary.com/U.S.+policy+against+treaty+shopping+-+from+Aiken+Industries+to… – a0278172189.

1758

ITA Circular 22/2004 of August 26, 2004.

1759

Guo Shui Han 2009 № 601, SAT, 27 October 2009; SAT Issues Guidance on Definition of «Beneficial Owner» in China’s Tax Treaties. URL: www.deloitte.com/view/en_cn/cn/9c33259fd6dd4210VgnVCM100000ba42f00aRCRD.htm#.

1760

China further clarifies beneficial ownership, issuing supplementary rules to Circular 601. URL: www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/China_clarifies_beneficial_ownership/$FILE/China_clarifies_beneficial_ownership.pdf.

1761

Shuizonghan (2013) № 165 (Circular 165); China Tax & Investment Express – Guidance regarding the determination of beneficial owner (BO) status under the dividend clause of the tax arrangement between Mainland China and Hong Kong (DTA) (Shuizonghan (2013) № 165). URL: www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/CTIE2013019_en/$FILE/CTIE2013019ENG.pdf.

1762

Supplementary rule to Circular 601 to add in new considerations for determining beneficial ownership. China Tax and Investment News. Issue № 2012005. 13 July 2012. URL: www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/CTIN2012005_en/$FILE/CTIN2012005(ENG). pdf.

1763

Tax treaty beneficial ownership clarifications issued. KPMG, China Alert, Issue 15. July 2012. URL: www.kpmg.com/CN/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Newsletters/ChinaAlerts/Documents/china-alert-1207-15.pdf.

1764

New stringent procedures for using tax treaty relief – News alert. November 2009. Harsono Hermanto Strategic Consulting. URL: www.harsono-strategic.com/download/news/10-09_News_Alert_Nov_2009_22.pdf.

1765

Это требование отражено в форме нового налогового сертификата DGT-1 в разделе вопросника V.7, в котором в качестве одного из условий присутствует следующая фраза (англ.): «The creation of an entity and/or the transaction structure was not motivated by reasons to take advantage of benefit of the DTC».

1766

Joel R. Hogarth. Indonesia Reissues New Tax Regulations with Clarifications on the Beneficial Ownership Test. O’Melveny & Myers LLP. URL: www.omm.com/fcwsite/abc.aspx?url=newsroom%2fpenPDF.aspx%3fpub%3d987.

1767

Федеральный закон № 376-ФЗ от 24.11.2014, который вступил в силу с 1 января 2015 г. URL: http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001201411250003.

1768

Письмо Министерства финансов РФ № 03-08-13/1 от 30 декабря 2011 г.

1769

Протокол ратифицирован Федеральным законом № 9-ФЗ от 28 февраля 2012 г., его положения применяются с 2013 г.

1770

Протокол ратифицирован Федеральным законом от 30 декабря 2012 г. № 301-ФЗ.

1771

1772

Hoge Raad. 6 April 1994. № 28 638, BNB 1994/217.

1773

Steven van Weeghel. The Improper Use of Tax Treaties. Kluwer Law International, 1998. P. 76.

1774

Ibid. P. 77.

1775

Ibid.

1776

CE, 29 December 2006, № 283314, 30 and 80 s.s.-, min. c/ Sté Bank of Scotland, RJF 2007, № 322.

1777

Bruno Gibert, Yacine Ouamrane. Beneficial Ownership – A French Perspective. IBFD. European Taxation. January 2008. P. 7.

1778

Ibid.

1779

Ibid.

1780

Ibid. P. 8.

1781

Lee A. Sheppard. Indofood and Bank of Scotland: Who Is the Beneficial Owner? Tax Notes International. Tax Analysts. February, 2007. P. 409–411.

1782

CE, 13 October 1999, № 191191, 80 and 90 s.-s., minister v. Diebold Courtage SA, RJF 12/99, № 1492.

1783

Bruno Gibert, Yacine Ouamrane. Beneficial Ownership – A French Perspective, IBFD, European Taxation, January 2008. P. 6; Emmanuelle Mignon. Fiscalité internationale des sociétés de personnes: la transparence n’est pas le vide. RJF, 12/1999. P. 931.

1784

Indofood International Finance Ltd. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. (2006) EWCA Civ 158.

1785

Indofood International Finance Ltd. v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., London Branch (2005) EWHC 2103 (Ch), § 44.

1786

Indofood International Finance Ltd v. JP Morgan Chase N.A. London Branch (2006) EWCA Civ. 158.

1787

Indofood International Finance Ltd v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.А. (2006) EWCA Civ 158 (CA), § 42.

1788

Philip Baker. Double Taxation Conventions and International Tax Law: A Manual on the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital of 1992. Sweet & Maxwell, 1994.

1789

Ibid. § 43.

1790

Ibid. § 44.

1791

INTM332050 International Tax Manual.URL: www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/intmanual/INTM332050.htm.

1792

Philip Baker. Beneficial ownership: after Indofood. GITS Review. February 2007. Vol. VI. № 1. P. 23.

1793

Ibid. P. 24–26.

1794

Ibid.

1795

Convention between Canada and the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, S.C. 1986, c. 48, Schedule I (see also (1987) Can. T.S. № 23), as amended by S.C. 1994, c. 17, Sch. VII, Art. II; 1997, c. 38, Sch. 6, Art. I (see also (1994) Can. T.S. № 32 and (1999) Can. T.S. № 3).

1796

Prévost Car Inc. v. Her Majesty the Queen 10 ITLR 736 (2008) (TCC).

1797

Prévost Car Inc. v. Canada (2009) FCA 57.

1798

Prévost Car Inc v. Her Majesty the Queen 10 ITLR 736 (2008) (TCC), § 40.

1799

Ibid.

1800

Hoge Raad, 6 April 1994, № 28 638, BNB 1994/217.

1801

Double taxation conventions and the use of conduit companies. OECD, Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital 2010: Full Version. OECD, 2010. P. R(6)-4. § 14.

1802

Prévost Car Inc v. Her Majesty the Queen 10 ITLR 736 (2008) (TCC) 57.

1803

Covert v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Finance) (1980) S.C.J. № 101 (Q.L.), (1980) 2 S.C.R. 774, at p. 784, citing MacKeen Estate v. Nova Scotia (1977) C.T.C. 230 (NSSC), § 46.

1804

Prévost Car Inc v. Her Majesty the Queen 10 ITLR 736 (2008) (TCC) 75.

1805

Du Toit, Charl P. Beneficial ownership of Royalties in Bilateral Tax Treaties. IBFD Publications, 1999. P. 165.

1806

Prévost Car Inc v. Her Majesty the Queen 10 ITLR 736 (2008) (TCC) 81.

1807

Steven van Weeghel. The Improper Use of Tax Treaties. Kluwer Law International, 1998. P. 75–77.

1808

Prévost Car Inc v. Her Majesty the Queen 10 ITLR 736 (2008) (TCC).

1809

Ibid. § 100.

1810

Ibid.

1811

Ibid.

1812

Prévost Car Inc. v. Canada (2009) FCA 57.

1813

Crown Forest Industries Ltd. v. Canada (1995) 2 S.C.R. 802; Klaus Vogel on Double Taxation Conventions: A Commentary to the OECD-, UN-, and US Model Conventions for Avoidance of Double Taxation of Income and Capital, with particular reference to German Treaty Practice, 3rd ed. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 43.

1814

Prévost Car Inc. v. Canada (2009) FCA 57, § 11.

1815

Velcro Canada Inc. v The Queen (2012) TCC 273.

1816

Brian Arnold. The Concept of Beneficial Ownership under Canadian Tax Treaties in Beneficial Ownership: Recent Trends. IBFD, 2013. P. 39, 47.

1817

Commission Fédérale de Recours en Matière de Contributions, Feb. 28, 2001, V. S.A., SRK 2000-055; VPB 65.86 (Case № JAAC65.86) ITLR 4 (2002). P. 191–214. URL: www.vpb.admin.ch/deutsch/doc/65/65.86.html.

1818

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. Р. 562.

1819

Peter Reinarz. Treaty Shopping and the Swiss Withholding Tax Trap. IBFD, European Taxation. Nov. 2001.

1820

Federal Tribunal, A. Holding ApS gegen Eidgenössische Steuerverwaltung, 2A.239/2005 of 28.11.2005. URL: www.rwi.uzh.ch/lehreforschung/alphabetisch/simonek/unterlagen/internationalessteuerrecht/BGer_28_November2005_2A_239_2005.pdf.

1821

Federal Tribunal, 9 November 1984, Y. B.V., BGE 110 Ib 287 = ASA 54 (1985/86). P. 64–74.

1822

Marcel R. Jung. Trends and Developments in Swiss Anti-Treaty Shopping Legislation and Treaty Shopping Case Law. IBFD, European Taxation. June 2011. P. 236.

1823

См., например: Stefan Oesterhelt, Maurus Winzap. Swiss Supreme Court Decision on Treaty Abuse. Europen Taxation. September 2006.

1824

Aiken Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 56 T.C. 925 (1971).

1825

Этот принцип был сформулирован в деле Aiken Industries со ссылкой на более раннее американское решение Maximov v. United States, 299 F.2d 565, 568 (C.A. 2, 1963), affd. 373 U.S. 49 (1963): (англ.): «In deciding whether a given taxpayer in a specific instance is protected by the terms of a treaty, we must „give the specific words of a treaty a meaning consistent with the genuine shared expectations [Курсив мой. – В. Г.]of the contracting parties“, and in so doing, it is necessary to examine not only the language, but the entire context of agreement».

1826

Статья IX налогового соглашения между США и Гондурасом 1957 г. была сформулирована следующим образом (англ): «Interest on bonds, securities, notes or on any other form of indebtedness from sources within one of the Contracting States received by a resident, corporation or other entity of the other Contracting State not having a permanent establishment within the former State at any time during the taxable year in which such interest is received, shall be exempt from tax by such former State».

1827

Aiken Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 56 T.C. 925 (1971).

1828

Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1997) 115 F.3d 506 (7th Cir.). URL: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/115/506/568256/.

1829

Gregory v. Helvering (1935) 293 U.S. 465, 469: «There is no rule against taking advantage of opportunities created by Congress or the Treasury Department for beating taxes»; Bass v. Commissioner (1968) 50 T.C. 595, 600: «A taxpayer may adopt any form he desires for the conduct of his business, and… the chosen form cannot be ignored merely because it results in a tax saving».

1830

Bass v. Commissioner (1968) 50 T.C. 595, 600 (the form chosen for business «must be a viable business entity, that is, it must have been formed for a substantial business purpose or actually engage in substantive business activity»).

1831

Ingemar Johansson et al. v. United States of America (1964) 336 F.2d 809. URL: http://openjurist.org/336/f2d/809.

1832

SDI Netherlands B.V., f.k.a. SDI International B.V. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1996) 9107 T.C. 161. URL: www.fordham.edu/law/faculty/colon/INTLTAX/sdi.htm.

1833

PT. Transportasi Gas Indonesia v. Direktur Jenderal Paiak (Case № Put-13602/PP/M.I/13/2008) (2008).

1834

Directorate General of Taxes. Circular Letter № SE-04/PJ.34/2005. 7 July 2005.

1835

Freddy Karyadi. Indonesia: Casenote – Determining Beneficial Ownership. IBFD, Asia – Pacific Tax Bulletin. March/April 2009. P. 81.

1836

Decision PUT-23289/PP/M.II/13/2010 (pronounced on 27 April 2010).

1837

Freddy Karyadi. Tax Court Ruling on Beneficial Ownership of Interest on Bonds Issued by Dutch Special Purpose Vehicle. IBFD, Derivatives and Financial Instruments, November/December 2010. P. 184.

1838

DDIT v. Universal International Music B.V. (2013) ITA 1464.

1839

Arne Riis, Nikolaj Bjørnholm. First Danish Ruling of Beneficial Ownership. European Taxaiton, 2010. P. 2.

1840

Lasse E. Christensen, Jef N. Hounsgaard. Danish Court Decided First Beneficial Ownership Case. 2011. P. 1.

1841

Lasse E. Christensen, Jef N. Hounsgaard. Danish Tax Ministry Will Not Take Beneficial Ownership Case to Supreme Court. 2012. P. 1.

1842

Jens Wittendorff. Taxpayer Prevails in Second Beneficial Ownership Case. 2011. P. 558. URL: services.taxanalysts.com.ludwig.lub.lu.se/taxbase/tnimag.nsf/96f174fb137caf5185256aae0076a5e7/392c617576d63353852577e3000cb0db?OpenDocument.

1843

Ibid. P. 410.

1844

Arne Riis. Danish Tax Authorities Prevail in Recent Beneficial Ownership Decision. 2011. P. 186–187.

1845

Thomas Booker. Recent Developments Regarding Beneficial Ownership in Denmark. European taxation, 2012. Vol. 52. № 2–3. P. 67–76.

1846

Ibid.

1847

Ibid.

1848

Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States.

1849

Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States.

1850

Arne Riis, Denmark: new anti-abuse rules aim to protect dividend WHT. Transfer Pricing International Journal. BNA. February 2013. URL: www.bechbruun.com/~/media/Files/Videncenter/Artikler/Corporate/2013/New%20anti-abuse%20rules%20aim%20to%20protect%20dividend%20WHT.pdf.

1851

RG 1481/2007, 28 September 2009, Tribunal Economico Administrativo Central.

1852

Adolfo Martin Jimenez. Beneficial Ownership: Current Trends. IBFD. World Tax Journal, February 2010.

1853

Audiencia Nacional JUR\2006\204307, Case 1110/2003 от 18.07.2006 Westlaw Aranzadi.

1854

Audiencia Nacional, 26.03.2007 (JUR\2007\101877); 13.11.2006 (JUR\2006\284618); 10.11.2006 (JUR\2006\284679); 20.07.2006 (JUR\2007\16526); 18.07.2006 (JUR\2007\8915), (JUR\2007\16549).

1855

Adolfo Martín Jiménez. La tributación de los cánones o regalías in Ruiz García and Calderón (eds.), Comentarios a los Convenios para evitar la doble imposición y prevenir la evasión fiscal concluidos por Españav. Coruña: Fundación Barriè de la Maza, 2004. P. 647.

1856

Francesco Avella. Recent Tax Jurisprudence on the Concept of Beneficial Ownership for Tax Treaty Purposes, European Taxation, February/March 2015, IBFD.

1857

Vadim Medvedev. Ukraine branch Report. The taxation of foreign passive income for groups of companies. 2013. Vol. 98a. P. 755.

1858

Постановление Днепропетровского окружного административного суда по делу № 2a/0470/15215/11 от 25.04.2012 г.

1859

Постановление Днепропетровского окружного административного суда по делу № 2a/0470/1541/12 от 15.02.2012 г.

1860

Постановление Львовского окружного административного суда по делу № 2a-2037/12/1370 от 20.06.2012 г.

1861

Рустам Вахитов, Елена Вознюк. Концепция бенефициарной собственности в судебной практике Украины и России. Legal Insight. 2013. № 5 (21). URL: http://legalinsight.ru/koncepcija-beneficiarnoj-sobstvennosti-v-sudebnoj-praktike-ukrainy-i-rossii/.

1862

Постановление Киевского апелляционного административного суда № 2а-11088/12/2670 от 29.11.2012 г.

1863

Постановление Киевского апелляционного административного суда № 2а-14772/12/2670 от 14.02.2013 г.

1864

Постановление ВАСУ от 21.05.2013 г. по селу № К/800/2817/13 («SEMKI»); Постановление Днепропетровского апелляционного административного суда от 18.12.2012 г. по делу № 2a/0470/1541/12 (окончательное) («Легкi» и «Флiнт»).

1865

Постановление ФАС МО от 07.04.2011 по делу №А41-598/10. URL: http://kad.arbitr.ru/Card/f18a37d5-310b-494-aead-caa4fb0c5e1d.

1866

Постановление девятого арбитражного апелляционного суда от 05.12.2012 по делу № А40-60755/12 URL: kad.arbitr.ru/Card/c07156d1-f155-4da9-8ada-67b8b6853c5a.

1867

Постановление девятого арбитражного апелляционного суда от 25.02.2015 по делу № А40-28065/13 URL: http://kad.arbitr.ru/Card/98f7dffc-69f9-413a-9cd9-62d0ad17dbef.

1868

Постановление федерального арбитражного суда Москвы от 19.05.2015 по делу № А40-100177/13. URL: kad.arbitr.ru/Card/fe82a0c5-bcf5-4d26-85ef-bc23d395b615.

1869

URL: www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-tax-alert-8-july-2015-rus/$FILE/EY-tax-alert-8-july-2015-rus.pdf.

1870

Решение арбитражного суда Москвы от 31.07.2015 по делу № А40-41441/15. URL: http://kad.arbitr.ru/Card/82a04702-4300-4039-b7f3-7fea75360921.

1871

Постановление девятого арбитражного апелляционного суда от 04.08.2015 по делу № А40-12815/15. URL: kad.arbitr.ru/Card/6ac9d3bc-81cd-4bb1-af0f-22052ef4f596.

1872

Определение Верховного суда РФ от 21.12.2015 по делу № А14-13723/2013. URL: kad.arbitr.ru/Card/5c14d57a-fa0d-4e57-87d2-79edd7fd7851.

1873

Постановление федерального арбитражного суда Московской области от 15.01.2016 по делу № А40-187121/2014. URL: kad.arbitr.ru/Card/026312b7-cc1c-492f-9f9b-eabf6aa61725.

1874

Постановление федерального арбитражного суда Северо-Западного округа от 15.03.2016 по делу № А13-5850/2014. URL: kad.arbitr.ru/Card/9270f2c5-5c69-4021-98cf-4dd8f95bd17a.

1875

Постановление федерального арбитражного суда Московской области от 27.05.2016 по делу № А40-116746/2015. URL: kad.arbitr.ru/Card/c99f6a08-87ac-4251-b67f-90a548a41ecd.

1876

Постановление девятого арбитражного апелляционного суда от 31.05.2016 по делу № А40-149755/2015. URL: kad.arbitr.ru/Card/c7b3abec-d065-4f3b-9112-22bc1617de83.

1877

Конвенция между Правительством Российской Федерации и Правительством Королевства Швеции от 15.06.1993 «Об избежании двойного налогообложения в отношении налогов на доходы».

1878

Постановление девятого арбитражного апелляционного суда от 14.06.2016 по делу № А40-241361/15. URL: kad.arbitr.ru/Card/abf53509-02dd-4eb2-a35b-542f6e47c1cb.

1879

Решение арбитражного суда Москвы от 11.07.2016 по делу № А40-442/15. URL: http://kad.arbitr.ru/Card/a0b582a9-0816-42e3-9111-452dabeaf973.

1880

Решение арбитражного суда города Москвы от 29.06.2016 по делу № А40-178650/15, URL: http://kad.arbitr.ru/Card/ceb3ec84-6d5f-4cfe-8b10-983088cd4cd2.

1881

Решение Арбитражного суда города Москвы от 31.10.2016 по делу №А40-113217/16 URL: http://kad.arbitr.ru/Card/25668b3d-a940-4cc3-b523-c56d91fd5bec.

1882

Раздел «Решения по жалобам» на сайте ФНС России, жалоба №СА-4-9/1907@ URL: www.nalog.ru/rn77/service/complaint_decision/6055214.

1883

Опубликована 17 февраля 2016 г. на сайте Федерального Казначейства США. URL: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Documents/Treaty-US%20Model-2016.pdf.