000			01928nab a2200253 c 4500
999			_c150387 _d150387
003			ES-MaIEF
005			20250303185637.0
007			ta
008			240628t2023 ne |||||o|||| 00| 0|eng d
040			_aES-MaIEF _bspa _cES-MaIEF
100			_aFishbien, Nir _972386
245	1	4	_aThe 1963 OECD model tax convention _helectrónico _bnow and then _c Nir Fishbien, Eran Lempert
520			_aIn this article, the authors provide an assessment of the Finnish implementation of the European Union (EU) Anti–Tax Avoidance Directives (ATAD I and II) in consideration of the EU primary law and secondary law requirements. It is focused on examining the conformity between the Finnish implementation rules and the fundamental freedoms arising out of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Although Finland already had an extensive anti-avoidance framework in place before implementing the ATAD I and ATAD II, Finland had to make some adjustments in almost all areas covered by the Directives. What is perhaps most interesting is that the Finnish general anti-abuse rule (GAAR) in section 28 of the Act on Assessment Procedure has retained the exact same textual form that it had decades previously. The essential question is as follows: Has the actual content of the general clause changed based on ATAD Article 6 and, if affirmative, in what way?
650		4	_967760 _aMODELO DE CONVENIO OCDE
650		4	_944303 _aFISCALIDAD INTERNACIONAL
650		4	_948608 _aTRATADOS INTERNACIONALES
650		4	_945399 _aHISTORIA
650		4	_942888 _aESTADOS UNIDOS
650		4	_963148 _aEROSIÓN DE LA BASE IMPONIBLE Y TRASLADO DE BENEFICIOS
700			_aLempert, Eran _972387
773	0		_9171822 _oOP 2141/2023/12 _tIntertax _w(IEF)55619 _x 0165-2826 _g v. 51, Issue 12, December 2023, p. 870-873
856			_uhttps://kluwerlawonline.com/api/Product/CitationPDFURL?file=Journals\TAXI\TAXI2023078.pdf
942			_cRE