The impact of multilateral and unilateral measures on profit-shifting from South Africa to Mauritius Carli Botha, Roshelle Ramfol & Odette Swart
By: Botha, Carli
.
Contributor(s): Ramfol, Roshelle
| Swart, Odette
.
Material type: 








Item type | Current location | Home library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Artículos | IEF | IEF | OP 2141/2023/3-3 (Browse shelf) | Available | OP 2141/2023/3-3 |
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 2141/2023/3 Intertax | OP 2141/2023/3-1 The distorting effects of imputation systems on tax competition in the EU | OP 2141/2023/3-2 State aid through arbitration awards | OP 2141/2023/3-3 The impact of multilateral and unilateral measures on profit-shifting from South Africa to Mauritius | OP 2141/2023/3-4 A study of Vietnam's double tax treaties | OP 2141/2023/4 Intertax | OP 2141/2023/4-1 The rule of law and rule of reason in the aftermath of BEPS |
Resumen.
This article reviews the implementation of the BEPS Action Plan by both jurisdictions, namely Mauritius (as a low tax jurisdiction) and South Africa (as a high tax jurisdiction). The success of the BEPS Action Plan in curbing profit-shifting practices from South Africa to Mauritius is measured in conjunction with the South African anti-avoidance legislation. The findings highlight that only Action 5 has been successfully adopted by both South Africa and Mauritius. A preliminary analysis was conducted which indicates that the implementation of the BEPS Project will not result in less profit-shifting, due to gaps in the South African anti-avoidance legislation that facilitates these profit-shifting practices. It is suggested that the implementation of the BEPS Action Plan by higher tax jurisdictions should be prioritized.
There are no comments for this item.