Along with the changing demographic structure of many countries, especially developed ones, one of the significant social groups are people who receive benefits from old-age security. One aspect of this phenomenon is the issue of taxation of financial benefits received by pensioners in cross-border situations, in particular when during retirement pensions are paid out of afund located in the territory of a different country from the one in which the beneficiary resides (tax residence). The taxpayer’s right to tax such pensions is subject to negotiations between states that intend to conclude adouble tax treaty, in which they will allocate tax power in this matter. These agreements are modeled on model conventions developed by the OECD and the UN. The purpose of this article is to analyze the legal, economic and administrative aspects resulting from modeled in the model conventions ways of allocating tax rights between the source of pension payment and the residential country of such a benefit.
Mutual agreement procedure (MAP) is an important instrument for resolving disputes on taxation not in accordance with the provisions of double taxation agreements. Nevertheless, its potential was not applied widely neither by taxpayers nor by the competent authorities in Ukraine. In 2020, the national legislator introduced changes to the Tax Code of Ukraine that might positively impact on the practice of application of MAP in Ukraine and make it more certain and comfortable for taxpayers and tax authorities. The taxpayers received the right to initiate MAP between competent authorities of contracting states in case of taxation not in accordance with the provisions of double taxation treaties. At the same time, the new legal provisions have few deficiencies in comparison with the international standards of international taxation included in the OECD MTC and its commentaries. Based on the results of the comparative analysis, the amendments to the Tax Code of Ukraine are proposed in the article.
In order to address the negative consequences of double taxation of the same income or capital belonging to a EU citizen, bi- and multilateral tax treaties have been concluded between the Member States. The EU legislator has enacted legislation introducing measures such as Directive 2003/49/EC, Directive 2011/96/EU and the EU Arbitration Convention to counteract the adverse effects of double taxation. Considering the imperfections in the previous procedures, the Council of the EU has issued Directive 2017/1852 on double taxation dispute resolution mechanisms in the EU, aiming to eliminate the existing shortcomings and to create a harmonized framework for dispute resolution. The aim of this article is to present the phenomenon of double taxation in the EU, to identify the shortcomings of the current mechanisms and to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the procedure provided for in Directive 2017/1852.
PL
W praktyce obrotu gospodarczego UE niejednokrotnie dochodzi do podwójnego opodatkowania tego samego dochodu lub kapitału należącego do obywatela UE. W celu zniwelowania negatywnych konsekwencji podwójnego opodatkowania państwa członkowskie zawarły między sobą liczne bi- i multilateralne umowy podatkowe. Prawodawca uchwalił akty prawne wprowadzające środki przeciwdziałające niekorzystnym skutkom podwójnego opodatkowania, to jest Dyrektywę 2003/49/WE, Dyrektywę 2011/96/UE i tak zwaną unijną konwencję arbitrażową. Mając na uwadze niedoskonałości w dotychczasowych procedurach, Rada UE wydała Dyrektywę 2017/1852 w sprawie mechanizmów rozstrzygania sporów dotyczących podwójnego opodatkowania w UE, która dąży do wyeliminowania istniejących niedociągnięć oraz stworzenia sharmonizowanych ram rozstrzygania sporów. Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie zjawiska podwójnego opodatkowania w UE, wskazanie wad obecnie obowiązujących mechanizmów oraz dokonane analizy procedury przewidzianej w Dyrektywie 2017/1852.
It seems that offshoring is becoming a more and more significant reality today. Offshoring is at the center of a huge public policy debate, which has emerged among business people, politicians, public servants, blue-collar workers and others. Proponents of offshoring see it as bringing prosperity to third-world countries, as well as saving costs and boosting innovation and productivity in corporate high-tax countries. They believe that saving money on cheaper labor benefits consumers due to lower costs and also benefits shareholders because of increased value. Opponents see it as an "assault on good paying jobs" in developed countries. According to them, the negative effect of offshoring is that many individuals lose their jobs, and this consequently hurts the economy of developed countries.This article analyzes offshoring through the legality of offshore enterprises and raises the question whether the business performed in the form of offshore enterprise and associated with the opportunity to maximize profits on the basis of tax reduction is legitimate, and, if so, what determines the legality of offshore enterprise. The paper also presents the understanding of offshore enterprises in the Lithuanian legal system, and examines whether offshore enterprises are legal within the Lithuanian legal system.
The Polish tax system includes a principle whereby the income obtained by a resident in Poland must be accounted for. However, agreements on the avoidance of double taxation to which Poland is a party may exclude this obligation because they constitute lex specialis in relation to the Polish legislation. The question of taxation of seafarers requires an in-depth analysis not only of national legislation, but also that of other states. When determining tax jurisdiction in respect of seamen it is easy to make a mistake owing to the complicated factual state in addition to the legal status. The presented gloss demonstrates difficulty arising when considering this issue.
Income tax is one of international capital group risk factors due to different technical solutions in use. The authors point out this aspect of international capital group tax risk which arises from double taxation of domestic and foreign incomes in different tax jurisdictions, including risk arising from transfer prices between related companies. The aim of the paper is to point out significant features of tax risk linked with double taxation of income as well as to present model solutions to this problem. The deliberations were enclosed to solutions in terms of international capital group incomes from primary operational activity.
PL
Jednym ze skutków funkcjonowania międzynarodowych grup kapitałowych jest opodatkowanie dochodów bezpośrednich z prowadzonej przez poszczególne podmioty działalności w różnych jurysdykcjach podatkowych. W tym kontekście podatek dochodowy staje się jednym z czynników ryzyka ich działalności. W artykule w szczególności wskazano na aspekt ryzyka podatkowego, który wiąże się z możliwością podwójnego opodatkowania dochodów w związku z nieograniczonym i ograniczonym obowiązkiem podatkowym podmiotów tworzących grupę kapitałową oraz stosowaniem przez nie cen transferowych.
Zasadą polskiego sytemu podatkowego jest obowiązek rozliczenia uzyskanych przez rezydenta dochodów w Polsce. Jednakże umowy o unikaniu podwójnego opodatkowania, których Polska jest stroną mogą wyłączyć ten obowiązek, ponieważ stanowią one lex specialis w stosunku do polskich uregulowań. Zagadnienie opodatkowania marynarzy wymaga dogłębnej analizy nie tylko ustawodawstwa krajowego, ale także zagranicznego. Nie trudno przy ustalaniu jurysdykcji podatkowej marynarzy o pomyłkę z uwagi na skomplikowany nie tylko stan faktyczny, ale również stan prawny. Niniejsza glosa jest przykładem trudności, jakie wynikają przy analizie tego zagadnienia.
EN
The principle of Polish tax system is the duty of the settlement obtained by the resident income in Poland. However, the law on the avoidance of double taxation to which Poland is a party may exclude this obligation because they are lex specialis in relation to the Polish legislation. The issue of taxation of seafarers requires an in-depth analysis not only of national legislation, but also abroad. It is not difficult when determining the tax jurisdiction sailors to make a mistake because of the complicated not only the facts, but also the legal status. This gloss is an example of the difficulties which arise when analyzing this issue.
The article analyzes the current practice of organizational and legal regulation of offshore business in the world in the context of unification of the national fiscal and tax system, erosion of the tax base and tax evasion. Based on a study of OECD tax transparency standards, the motivational components of the revision of international agreements on the avoidance of double taxation and the implementation of international rules on taxation of controlled foreign companies (CFC) in the legislation have been identified. The peculiarities of a new type of tax evasion due to the use of cryptocurrency have been studied. Analyzed as the rules of tax transparency are not prepared for the new dimension of finance, in addition to the above, the analysis of the "boom" of cryptocurrency, namely Bitcoin. The directions of introduction of tax practice on restriction of ways of withdrawal of profits in offshore jurisdictions based on provisions of the BEPS Action Plan and rules of CFC in the legislation of Ukraine are revealed.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.