|
|
xii | |
Preface |
|
xiii | |
Acknowledgements |
|
xiv | |
|
|
xv | |
|
|
xvii | |
|
|
xxi | |
|
1 The Future Of International Tax Dispute Resolution Post-Beps And MLI |
|
|
|
A The World Of Bilateralism |
|
|
1005 | (9) |
|
1 Dispute resolution under a traditional model |
|
|
1005 | (2) |
|
2 Traditional dispute resolution after the MLI |
|
|
1007 | (7) |
|
B The World Of Multilateralism |
|
|
1014 | (23) |
|
1 Scenarios of potential disputes regarding the Pillars |
|
|
1017 | (1) |
|
a Multilateral disputes as a result of Pillar One |
|
|
1017 | (7) |
|
2 Multilateral disputes as a result of Pillar Two |
|
|
1024 | (4) |
|
3 Lessons to be drawn from these |
|
|
1028 | (9) |
|
C Combining Bilateralism And Multilateralism |
|
|
1037 | (5) |
|
|
1042 | (959) |
|
2 What Disputes Does A Map Resolve? |
|
|
|
|
2001 | (3) |
|
B A Short History Of The Map |
|
|
2004 | (7) |
|
|
2011 | (36) |
|
1 Article 25(1) OECD Model: `Taxation not in accordance with the provisions of this Convention' |
|
|
2013 | (13) |
|
|
2026 | (4) |
|
|
2030 | (6) |
|
c Other cases of denial of access to the MAP |
|
|
2036 | (6) |
|
2 Article 25(3) OECD Model |
|
|
2042 | (5) |
|
D The Eu Arbitration Convention |
|
|
2047 | (10) |
|
E The Tax Dispute Resolution Directive |
|
|
2057 | (7) |
|
|
2064 | (937) |
|
3 Post-Beps Arbitration: Last Best Offer Versus Reasoned Opinion |
|
|
|
|
3001 | (3) |
|
B Differenttypes Of Arbitration Procedure: Main Characteristics, Advantages And Disadvantages |
|
|
3004 | (15) |
|
|
3004 | (1) |
|
|
3004 | (2) |
|
b Advantages and disadvantages |
|
|
3006 | (6) |
|
|
3012 | (1) |
|
|
3012 | (2) |
|
b Advantages and disadvantages |
|
|
3014 | (3) |
|
|
3017 | (2) |
|
C Current State Of Play: Types Of Arbitration Procedures Offered By International- And European-Tax Law Instruments |
|
|
3019 | (26) |
|
1 European instruments: reasoned opinion |
|
|
3019 | (1) |
|
a Tax Dispute Resolution Directive |
|
|
3019 | (5) |
|
b EU Arbitration Convention |
|
|
3024 | (5) |
|
2 OECD and UN instruments: last best offer |
|
|
3029 | (1) |
|
|
3029 | (7) |
|
|
3036 | (3) |
|
|
3039 | (4) |
|
|
3043 | (2) |
|
D A Glimpse Into The Future: Post-Beps Tax Arbitration And Other Areas For Future Consideration |
|
|
3045 | (12) |
|
1 Recent developments and expected tax dispute trends |
|
|
3045 | (4) |
|
2 Enhancing tax arbitration: areas for potential consideration |
|
|
3049 | (1) |
|
a Types of arbitration procedure: default choice and flexibility |
|
|
3049 | (4) |
|
b Other procedural issues |
|
|
3053 | (4) |
|
|
3057 | (944) |
|
4 Best Practices For Competent Authorities To Ensure Effective And Efficient Arbitration |
|
|
|
|
4001 | (12) |
|
1 Structure and content of the chapter |
|
|
4001 | (4) |
|
2 Background: BEPS Action 14, the OECD Peer Review and the OECD MAP Statistics |
|
|
4005 | (8) |
|
|
4013 | (27) |
|
1 The definition of a `CA' |
|
|
4013 | (5) |
|
2 Conceptualizing the role of the CA |
|
|
4018 | (1) |
|
a Legal aspects of the CA function |
|
|
4018 | (12) |
|
b Practical aspects of the CA function |
|
|
4030 | (10) |
|
C Legal Aspects Of the CA Function |
|
|
4040 | (9) |
|
1 CA functions influencing the effectiveness of arbitration |
|
|
4040 | (5) |
|
2 CA functions influencing the efficiency of arbitration |
|
|
4045 | (4) |
|
D Practical Aspects Oftheca Function |
|
|
4049 | (36) |
|
1 Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of CAs based on the BEPS Action 14 Peer Review results |
|
|
4049 | (1) |
|
a Selecting the relevant minimum standards |
|
|
4049 | (2) |
|
b Effectiveness of the MAP |
|
|
4051 | (12) |
|
|
4063 | (14) |
|
2 Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of CAs based on the OECD MAP Statistics |
|
|
4077 | (1) |
|
a Statistical Data on the Effectiveness of MAP |
|
|
4077 | (4) |
|
b Statistical data on the efficiency of MAP |
|
|
4081 | (4) |
|
|
4085 | (916) |
|
5 The Eu Dispute Resolution Directive |
|
|
|
|
5001 | (6) |
|
|
5007 | (21) |
|
|
5007 | (1) |
|
|
5008 | (1) |
|
|
5009 | (1) |
|
4 Personal scope: who are the `affected persons'? |
|
|
5010 | (5) |
|
5 Objective scope: what are `disputes'? |
|
|
5015 | (13) |
|
C The Procedural Framework: Mutual Agreement And Arbitration Procedure |
|
|
5028 | (20) |
|
|
5030 | (7) |
|
2 Mutual Agreement Procedure |
|
|
5037 | (4) |
|
|
5041 | (7) |
|
|
5048 | (953) |
|
6 Tax Arbitration And The Eu Treaties |
|
|
|
|
6001 | (4) |
|
|
6005 | (19) |
|
1 The Court Of Justice As A Tax Treaty Arbitrator |
|
|
6005 | (8) |
|
2 Autonomy And Unity Of Eu Law |
|
|
6013 | (6) |
|
3 Arbitration Panels As `Courts' |
|
|
6019 | (5) |
|
|
6024 | (13) |
|
1 Applicability Of Eu Fundamental Rights To International Tax Disputes Subject To Arbitration |
|
|
6024 | (6) |
|
2 Eu Fundamental Rights Of Concern For International Tax Disputes |
|
|
6030 | (7) |
|
|
6037 | (8) |
|
|
6037 | (5) |
|
|
6042 | (3) |
|
|
6045 | (956) |
|
7 Taxpayers Andtheir Rights In Alternative Tax Dispute Resolution |
|
|
|
|
7001 | (3) |
|
B The Legal Nature Ofthe Specific-Case Map |
|
|
7004 | (15) |
|
C Taxpayer Rights In Map And Arbitration |
|
|
7019 | (27) |
|
|
7021 | (9) |
|
|
7030 | (8) |
|
|
7038 | (8) |
|
D The Rights Of The Taxpayer In A Map: Two Domestic Courts' Approaches |
|
|
7046 | (12) |
|
E Concluding Remarks: What to Expect |
|
|
7058 | (943) |
|
8 Enforcement And Judicial Control Of Arbitration Decisions |
|
|
|
|
8001 | (6) |
|
|
8007 | (2) |
|
C Overview Of The Implementation Phase |
|
|
8009 | (21) |
|
|
8030 | (5) |
|
|
8030 | (4) |
|
2 Enforcement Under The Tdrd |
|
|
8034 | (1) |
|
|
8035 | (4) |
|
B Procedure For Enforcement |
|
|
8039 | (11) |
|
3 Enforcement Under The Mli |
|
|
8046 | (4) |
|
|
8050 | (9) |
|
1 Judicial Review By Domestic Courts |
|
|
8051 | (7) |
|
2 Judicial Review By International Bodies |
|
|
8058 | (1) |
|
|
8059 | (942) |
|
9 Alternative Dispute Resolution Through Mediation |
|
|
|
|
9001 | (5) |
|
|
9006 | (2) |
|
|
9008 | (5) |
|
|
9013 | (12) |
|
E The Use Of Adr In International Tax Dispute Resolution |
|
|
9025 | (24) |
|
|
9026 | (10) |
|
|
9036 | (3) |
|
|
9039 | (10) |
|
F Existing Oecd Framework For Sdr 9.041 1. Article 25(1) Oecd Model Cases |
|
|
9049 | (16) |
|
2 Articles 25(3) And (4) Oecd Model |
|
|
9051 | (8) |
|
3 Benefits From Using Sdr Techniques |
|
|
9059 | (6) |
|
|
9065 | (14) |
|
1 The Nature Of Mediation |
|
|
9068 | (2) |
|
2 Preparation For The Mediation |
|
|
9070 | (2) |
|
3 The Function Of The Mediator |
|
|
9072 | (5) |
|
|
9077 | (2) |
|
5 The Stages Of A Mediation |
|
|
9079 | (1) |
|
|
9079 | (1) |
|
|
9080 | (1) |
|
|
9081 | (1) |
|
|
9082 | (4) |
|
|
9084 | (2) |
|
H Sdr Process Protocol In International Tax Disputes |
|
|
9086 | (10) |
|
|
9096 | (905) |
|
10 Relation Between Dispute Resolution Under Double Taxation Conventions And Investment Treaties |
|
|
|
A Introduction And Context |
|
|
10001 | (16) |
|
1 Current Challenges And Weaknesses Of Dispute Resolution Under Dtcs |
|
|
10001 | (8) |
|
2 Increased Importance Of Investment Arbitration To Deal With Tax-Related Disputes |
|
|
10009 | (8) |
|
B Relation Between DTCS And IIAS: The Contribution Of The Cairn And The |
|
|
|
|
10017 | (1) |
|
1 Presentation Of Selected Findings In The Cairn And Lone Star Cases |
|
|
10017 | (17) |
|
2 Observations And Broader Considerations |
|
|
10034 | (1) |
|
a The Fundamental Distinction Between A Tax Dispute And A Tax-Related Investment Dispute |
|
|
10034 | (2) |
|
b Can Oecd/Un Materials Be Relevant For Purposes Of The Fet Standard? |
|
|
10036 | (965) |
|
11 The Independence And Impartiality Of Arbitrators |
|
|
|
|
11001 | (2) |
|
B The Standards Of Impartiality And Independence |
|
|
11003 | (43) |
|
|
11003 | (8) |
|
|
11011 | (14) |
|
3 Possible Criteria Of Application Of The Independence Standard: The Iba Guidelines |
|
|
11025 | (8) |
|
a Examples Of Non-Waivable Red List Issues |
|
|
11033 | (2) |
|
b Examples Of Waivable Red List Issues |
|
|
11035 | (3) |
|
c Examples Of Orange List Issues |
|
|
11038 | (6) |
|
d Example Of A Green List Issue |
|
|
11044 | (2) |
|
C Mechanisms To Safeguard The Impartiality And Independence Of Arbitrators |
|
|
11046 | (17) |
|
1 Rules On Objections, Challenge And Replacement In Tax Treaty Arbitration |
|
|
11049 | (8) |
|
2 Lack Of Independence And The Enforceability Of Decisions |
|
|
11057 | (6) |
|
D Conclusions And Outlook |
|
|
11063 | (938) |
|
12 Lessons From Investment Treaty Arbitration |
|
|
|
|
12001 | (4) |
|
B Concerns In International Investment Law |
|
|
12005 | (46) |
|
|
12005 | (12) |
|
2 Weaknesses Of Investment-Treaty Arbitration |
|
|
12017 | (1) |
|
a Impartiality And Independence Of Arbitrators |
|
|
12018 | (13) |
|
|
12031 | (13) |
|
3 The Asymmetric Nature Of Investment Treaties |
|
|
12044 | (7) |
|
C Matching Concerns With Solutions |
|
|
12051 | (950) |
|
1 Investment Treaty Reforms |
|
|
12052 | (31) |
|
2 Multilateral Reform - Uncitral Working Group III 12.072 D. Conclusions |
|
|
12083 | (918) |
|
13 Reflections On Dispute Resolution Under Gatt And The Wto And Double Tax Treaty Disputes |
|
|
|
|
13001 | (8) |
|
B A Brief Review Of Dispute Settlement Provisions Under Gatt And The Wto |
|
|
13009 | (23) |
|
C The Arbitration Provisions In The Mli |
|
|
13032 | (12) |
|
D Learning From The Trade Dispute Settlement Provisions |
|
|
13044 | (25) |
|
1 Independence And Interdependence Of States |
|
|
13046 | (8) |
|
2 State Control Of The Dispute Resolution Process |
|
|
13054 | (9) |
|
3 Institutionalizing Dispute Resolution |
|
|
13063 | (2) |
|
4 Third States In Bilateral Disputes |
|
|
13065 | (4) |
|
E Two Trends- Multilateralism And Formalism |
|
|
13069 | (9) |
|
|
13069 | (4) |
|
|
13073 | (5) |
|
|
13078 | |
Index |
|
315 | |