000 02269nab a2200265 c 4500
999 _c140421
_d140421
003 ES-MaIEF
005 20221107163846.0
007 ta
008 190410t2019 ne ||||oo|||| 00| 0|eng d
040 _aES-MaIEF
_bspa
_cES-MaIEF
041 _aeng
100 1 _aElliffe, Craig M.
_960059
245 4 _aThe meaning of the principal purposes test
_bone ring to bind them all?
_c Craig Elliffe
260 _c2019
500 _aDisponible únicamente en formato electrónico en la Biblioteca del IEF.
500 _aResumen.
520 _aDue to the introduction of the Multilateral Convention (MLI), an ever-growing number of the world's international tax treaties will contain a treaty-based anti-avoidance rule known as the principal purpose test (PPT). These PPT provisions will almost certainly play an extremely important role in preventing international tax avoidance. With the introduction of such broad and powerful anti-avoidance rules comes the risk of individual countries, through their revenue authorities and their courts, developing divergent and state-centric views as to the interpretation of the PPT. This risk is quite considerable, and there are many reasons why a harmonized basis of interpretation may not, in reality, emerge. If courts pursue an individual and diverse approach to the interpretation of the PPT, the same transaction will be viewed as being effective in one jurisdiction and ineffective in another. From a broader perspective, this is undesirable, and it should not occur for policy and interpretative reasons. Why is the case for interpreting the PPT consistently, with a common meaning, so compelling? There is one major reason, and it is an obvious one: the PPT can now be found in thousands of treaties, and it is exactly the same test in all of these. It is clear that an international autonomous meaning is intended to be introduced through the uniform adoption of the PPT.
650 4 _944303
_aFISCALIDAD INTERNACIONAL
650 4 _941141
_aCONVENIOS
650 4 _948608
_aTRATADOS INTERNACIONALES
650 4 _931085
_aCLÁUSULA DEL PROPÓSITO PRINCIPAL
650 4 _963564
_aABUSO DE TRATADOS
773 0 _9160099
_oWTJ/2019/1
_tWorld Tax Journal
_w (IEF)62814
_g v. 11, n. 1, February 2019, p. 47-76
942 _cRE