The changed landscape of Tax Dispute Resolution within the EU considerations of the Directive on Tax Dispute Resolution Mechanisms H. M. Pit
By: Pit, H. M
.
Material type: 






Item type | Current location | Home library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Artículos | IEF | IEF | OP 2141/2019/8/9-9 (Browse shelf) | Available | OP 2141/2019/8/9-9 |
Browsing IEF Shelves Close shelf browser
No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
OP 2141/2019/8/9-6 Taxpayer rights and taxpayer participation in procedures under the Dispute Resolution Directive | OP 2141/2019/8/9-7 Does the Achmea Case prevent the resolution of tax treaty disputes through arbitration ? | OP 2141/2019/8/9-8 Arbitration institutes | OP 2141/2019/8/9-9 The changed landscape of Tax Dispute Resolution within the EU | OP 2141/2020/1 Intertax | OP 2141/2020/10 Intertax | OP 2141/2020/10-1 The BEPS 2.0 Project over the coming months |
Resumen.
With the Council's adoption of the Directive on Tax Dispute Resolution Mechanisms on 10 October 2017, the resolution of tax disputes among Member States enters a new phase. What originally started in 1976 with a proposal for a directive to settle transfer pricing disputes by means of arbitration has led to the adoption of a directive in 2017 for all disputes among Member States on the interpretation and application of their mutual tax treaties on income and capital. This Directive aims at improving existing dispute resolution mechanisms contained in these tax treaties and the EU Arbitration Convention. To that end, four specific objectives have been defined in the directive's preamble, which are (1) broadening the scope of application of the EU Arbitration Convention to all disputes concerning the application and interpretation of tax treaties between Member States; (2) ensuring legal certainty for taxpayers; (3) ensuring effectiveness and efficiency; and (4) ensuring transparency. This article examines whether each of these objectives is attained in light of the experiences gained with the EU Arbitration Convention.
There are no comments for this item.