Abstract
The chapter addresses applicable non-discrimination principles impacting two World Trade Organization (WTO) Members, Canada and the UK, as a consequence of their respective memberships in the NAFTA and in the European Union (EU). Although both Canada and the UK are WTO Members, the non-discrimination obligations in tax matters splinter again when one looks at the operation of an integrated trade agreement. In Europe, direct tax measures are filtered through the lens of the free trade principles of the Treaty of Rome. EU members who are signatories to the GATS are subject to very different non-discrimination obligations with respect to tax measures when operating in a State that is a signatory to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) than, for example a service provider from a NAFTA Party operating in the same State. The non-discrimination obligations if any, that apply to a service provider from a State that is a GATS Member may therefore vary widely when providing services in another Member State depending on whether there is an additional integrated trade agreement like the TFEU with the source State. The non-discrimination obligations affecting service providers from EU Member State may also vary depending on the terms of the tax treaty between the EU Member States. The chapter concludes that there are many approaches to the matter of non-discrimination in tax matters and standards that may apply but there will be no minimum common standard of tax treatment for many non-residents without a non-discrimination obligation in a tax treaty.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
EU (2012).
- 2.
Portions of this chapter rely on a presentation by the author with M. O’Brien, “Tax Discrimination and the Cross-Border Provision of Services—Canada/UK Perspectives” (Paper delivered at the British Association for Canadian Studies Annual Conference, London, England, June 2005). The paper was later published as a book chapter “Tax Discrimination and the Cross—Border Provision of Services—Canada/UK Perspectives” with M. O’Brien in C. Waters, British and Canadian Perspectives on International Law (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhof Publishers, 2006).
- 3.
North American Free Trade Agreement Between the Government of Canada, the Government of Mexico, and the Government of the United States, 17 December 1992, Can TS 1994 No 2, 32 ILM 289 (entered into force 1 January 1994) [NAFTA].
- 4.
WTO (1994b) [WTO Agreement].
- 5.
For the purposes of this paper, direct taxation refers to corporate and personal income tax.
- 6.
Matters of direct taxation are left to the Member States and unanimity in the Council is required before tax measures can be adopted. Such tax measures must contribute to the functioning of the internal market, and satisfy the requirements of subsidiarity and proportionality.
- 7.
- 8.
See Convention between Canada and the United States of America with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital, 26 September 1980 Can TS 1984 No 15 (entered into force 16 August 1984) [Canada-US Treaty]; Convention between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United Mexican States for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income, 8 April 1991, Can TS 1992 No 15 (entered into force 11 May 1992) [Mexico-Canada Treaty]; Convention Between the Government of The United States Of America And the Government of the United Mexican States for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income, 18 September 1992, Treaty Doc No 103-7, 103d Cong., 1st Sess, (entered into force 1 January 1994) [US-Mexico Tax Treaty].
- 9.
See discussion in Chap. 3 at 3.2.3.
- 10.
The UK has bilateral tax treaties with over 100 other countries, including all 27 of the other EC Member States and the members of the NAFTA block. See HM Revenue & Customs: Tax Treaties in Force, online: Gov.UK <http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxtreaties/in-force/index.htm>.
- 11.
The NAFTA explicitly provides that in case of inconsistency with other agreements, unless otherwise specified in the NAFTA, the NAFTA will override other agreements that existed at the time the NAFTA became effective (Article 103). The WTO Agreement (1994) became effective after the NAFTA. In the final analysis, the choice of forum rules determines which of the WTO or NAFTA rules apply.
- 12.
Specifically, the GATS applies to measures by Members “affecting” trade in services. A measure is broadly defined as “any measure by a Member, whether in the form of a law, regulation, procedure, decision, administrative action, or any other form.” Trade in services is defined as the “supply of a service.”
- 13.
The GATS Article XX.
- 14.
Some deviation from this standard was permitted provided the Member listed such measures in the “Annex on Article II Exemptions” and the conditions for such exemptions were met. Canada has claimed exemptions for film, video and television co-production, as well as with respect to fishing, banking, trust and insurance services, air and marine transport, and for certain services related to agriculture. See WTO (1994a).
- 15.
The GATS Article XIV(e).
- 16.
The GATS Article XVII.
- 17.
The GATS Article XIV(d).
- 18.
The GATS Article XXII(3) provides that the non-discrimination clause in an international agreement relating to the avoidance of double taxation (a tax treaty) has primacy over the GATS national treatment provisions in resolving disputes involving the taxation of services and service suppliers with respect to measures that fall within the scope of the agreement.
- 19.
Article XXII(3) may preclude one country from challenging the scope of Article XIV(d) (e.g. whether one country’s income tax measure applicable to a non-resident is either inequitable or an arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination), to the extent that the issue falls within the scope of a tax treaty. As a type of national treatment obligation is imposed under most tax treaties with respect to nationals or citizens of a Contracting State who are residents of the other Contracting State, there is arguably little scope to challenge a tax that violates the national treatment obligation, at least under GATS. At issue will be the precise scope of the non-discrimination article in the tax treaty. This issue, according to GATS, is also to be resolved under an established tax treaty unless the Parties consent otherwise.
- 20.
NAFTA Parties also committed to encourage professional bodies to develop mutually acceptable standards for licensing professionals and reciprocal recognition of each other’s professional accreditations. This was an important step in eliminating a significant non-tariff barrier to free trade in services. Unfortunately there is no time limit on this process under NAFTA, although some progress has been made with respect to the engineering profession and foreign legal consultants (NAFTA, Annex 1210.5(1)). The NAFTA also requires the parties to fairly review and answer applications by the NAFTA party nationals for professional licensing.
- 21.
NAFTA Articles 1207 and 1209.
- 22.
NAFTA Article 2003.
- 23.
NAFTA Article 1204 requires that Parties accord to service providers of other Parties the better of national treatment and most favoured nation treatment.
- 24.
Annex 1 of the NAFTA contains the three countries’ reservation Schedules for their non-conforming federal measures. See Article 1206(a)(i). Laws and regulations that are listed as a reservation in Annex 1 cannot be challenged as long as they do not become more inconsistent with the agreement.
- 25.
There are two exceptions to the primacy of tax treaties in tax matters specifically listed in the NAFTA. The first is with respect to the national treatment obligation as it relates to the trade in goods. The national treatment obligation, as proscribed in Article III of the GATT, will have primacy over lesser obligations assumed under a tax treaty. The second is with respect to export taxes, specifically the provisions of Article 314, which allows Mexico to impose an export tax on basic foodstuffs, and Article 604, which addresses the imposition of export taxes on energy in defined circumstances. These exceptions may be of little practical effect as such matters are not normally addressed in a tax treaty. In addition, Article 2103(6) provides that Article 1110 (Expropriation) shall apply to taxation measures subject to certain procedural rules.
- 26.
NAFTA Article 2103(2).
- 27.
With regard to financial services, subparagraph 4(a) applies only to the cross-border provision of a financial service under paragraph 1405(3).
- 28.
Specifically, in relation to direct taxes, subparagraph 4(a) provides that certain direct tax measures listed therein (taxes on income, capital gains or the taxable capital of corporations and the Mexican asset tax) are, but for listed limitations, subject to the national treatment obligation with respect to the cross-border provision of services, including financial services. However, with regard to financial services subparagraph 4(a) applies only to the cross-border provision of a financial service under paragraph 1405(3).
- 29.
See the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act American Statement of Administrative Action (US) Final Draft September 1993, c 21.3. Taxation: c) Income & Capital Tax Measures Affecting Cross-Border Services & Financial Services.
- 30.
NAFTA Articles 2103(4)(c-h).
- 31.
NAFTA Article 1106(1) prohibits seven different types of practices, including achieving a given level or percentage of domestic content, and purchasing, using or according a preference to goods produced or services provided in its territory or to purchase goods or services from persons in its territory.
- 32.
To understand the Canadian position in the NAFTA block it is important to note that Canada has consistently maintained and negotiated a right to discriminate against non-residents in its tax treaties and has reserved her position under the Non-Discrimination Article in the OECD Model Tax Treaty. As a result, the provisions and the effect of the non-discrimination article in the Canada—Mexico Treaty varies considerably from that of the Canada-US Treaty, where the US rigorously pursued a non-discrimination article that was closer to the OECD Model Tax Treaty.
- 33.
See discussion in Chap. 3 at 3.2.3.
- 34.
To reach a conclusion about whether a tax is discriminatory, and if so, how it is to be disciplined, a series of questions could be posed. These might include:
1. What is the tax issue being complained about?
2. Does a tax treaty apply?
– If the answer is yes, the tax treaty prevails.
– If the answer is maybe, the competent authority will decide if the tax treaty applies to the matter with respect to the national treatment obligation under the GATS. With respect to other issues consider the role of the relevant Mutual Agreement Procedure.
– If the answer is no, see step 3.
3. If the answer to question 2 is no, which of the GATS or NAFTA applies? If the answer is either, which is the forum from the complainant’s perspective for dispute settlement?
- 35.
Saipem UK Ltd v R, [2011] 2 CTC 2341, 2011 TCC 25, aff’d [2012] 1 CTC 239, 2011 FCA 243 [Saipem].
- 36.
Convention Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion With Respect to Taxes on Income and Capital Gains, 8 September 1978, Can TS 1980 No 25 (entered into force 17 December 1980) as Amended by the Protocols Signed on 15 April 1980, 16 October 1985 and 7 May 2003, Part X.
- 37.
Subsection 88(1.1) of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 as amended.
- 38.
Saipem, supra note 35 at para 58.
- 39.
Saipem UK Ltd. v R, [2012] 1 CTC 239, 2011 FCA 243.
- 40.
The European Commission may also take action directly before the Court of Justice against a Member State for failure to fulfill its Treaty obligations if its laws contravene the Treaty (TFEU Article 258). Until recently, the Commission seemed reluctant to take this action. A Member State of the EU may also commence action in the Court against another Member State (TFEU Article 259), but this is extremely rare.
- 41.
Article 2 of the GATS defines trade in services as comprising four types of activity: (1) supply of a service from the territory of one Member to the territory of another, (2) in the territory of one Member to the service consumer of any other Member, (3) services supplied through commercial presence in the territory of another Member, and (4) through presence of nature persons in the territory of another Member.
- 42.
TFEU Articles 49-55. The right of establishment requires a Member State to allow a corporation or individual who is a national of another Member State to set up an establishment (for example, an office in the case of an individual offering professional services, or a branch or subsidiary in the case of a corporation) for the purpose of carrying on any type of business (not just providing services) on the host Member State’s territory under the same conditions as nationals of the host Member State.
- 43.
TFEU Articles 56-52, which also incorporate the principles of Articles 51-54 in the chapter on the Right of Establishment.
- 44.
TFEU Article 57. Companies and firms formed under the law of a Member State and which have their registered office, central administration or principal place of business in a Member State of the EC are treated as nationals of that Member State. See also TFUE Article 18.
- 45.
ECJ, Rolf Dieter Danner, C-136-00, [2002] ECR I-8147 [Danner]; ECJ, Skandia and Ramstedt v Riksskatteverket, C-422/01, [2003] ECR I-6817 [Skandia and Ramstedt]; ECJ, Commission v. Denmark, C-150/04, [2007] ECR I-1163, ECJ, Safir v Skattemyndigheten, C-118/96, [1998] ECR I-1897 at para 30 [Safir]; ECJ, Eurowings Luftverkehrn, C-294/97, [1999] ECR I-7447, and AG v Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna, C-294/97, [1999] ECR I-7447 at para 37 [Eurowings].
- 46.
TFEU Articles 114 and 115.
- 47.
TFEU Article 115.
- 48.
In addition to freedom of establishment and services, the TFEU provides for free movement of goods, workers and capital.
- 49.
ECJ, Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt v Schumacker, C-279/93, [1995] ECR I-225 at paras 27–30 [Schumacker].
- 50.
ECJ, Commission v Luxembourg, C-111/91, [1993] ECR I-817; ECJ, Giovanni Maria Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost, C-152/73, [1974] ECR 153 at para 11.
- 51.
Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro in C-434/04 Leppik at para 25: “The second test concerns the necessity of the measure. To put it more precisely: it concerns the question whether an alternative measure is realistically available that would protect the Member State’s legitimate interests just as effectively but would be less restrictive of the free movement of goods. In other words: could the Member State, by directing a similar amount of its resources into an alternative measure, achieve the same result at a lower cost to intra-Community trade?”
- 52.
See among others, ECJ, Hanns-Martin Bachmann v Belgium, C-204/90, [1992] ECR I-249; ECJ, Commission of the European Communities v Belgium, C-300/90, [1992] ECR I-305; Safir, supra note 45; Danner, supra note 45; Skandia and Ramstedt, supra note 45; ECJ, Commission of the European Communities v France, C-334/02, [2004] ECR I-2229.
- 53.
Eurowings, supra note 45.
- 54.
ECJ, Lindman, C-42/02, [2003] ECR I-13519 [Lindman].
- 55.
ECJ, Laboratoires Fournier SA v Direction des vérifications nationales et internationales, C-39/04, [2005] I-02057 [Laboratoires Fournier].
- 56.
ECJ, Skatteministeriet v Vestergaard, C-55/98, [1999] ECR I-7641 [Skatteministeriet].
- 57.
ECJ, Arnoud Gerritse v Finanzamt Neukölln-Nord, C-234/01, [2003] ECR I-05933 [Arnoud Gerritse].
- 58.
ECJ, FKP Scorpio Konzertproduktionen GmbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbüttel, C-290/04, [2006] I–09461 [Scorpio].
- 59.
ECJ, X NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën, C-498/10, [2012] [X].
- 60.
Skatteministeriet, supra note 56.
- 61.
Article 24 of the OECD Model Tax Treaty prohibits this discriminatory treatment of business expenses. The tax treaty between Greece and Denmark prohibits (and prohibited at the time) Denmark from disallowing a deduction for a disbursement made to a Greek resident which would be deductible if paid to a Danish resident so that presumably Mr. Vestergaard could have relied on the tax treaty. It may be that Mr. Vestergaard’s company paid the amount to a Danish travel agent or other organization, or that the allowance of the deduction to the company meant that the tax treaty did not strictly apply.
- 62.
The rare example of a successful rebuttal of the presumption given in Advocate General Saggio’s opinion was of a professor of classical history who was allowed to deduct expenses of a course held in Greece.
- 63.
Laboratoires Fournier, supra note 55.
- 64.
The EC, Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007, [2007] OJ, C 306 [Treaty of Lisbon] which came into force 1 December 2009 modified the Treaty on European Union (TEC) and many of the provisions were renumbered.
- 65.
Note that the Non-Discrimination Article in the OECD Model Tax Treaty would also not have prohibited this measure, as the Model only requires that a Contracting State allow a deduction for an expense where the amount is paid to a resident of the other Contracting Party in any case where the expense would be deductible if paid to a resident of the first State. The OECD Model Tax Treaty provision does not address tax credits.
- 66.
Arnoud Gerritse, supra note 57.
- 67.
The relationship of EC discrimination law with bilateral tax agreements is discussed in more detail below.
- 68.
Scorpio, supra note 58. See also ECJ, Cento Equestre da Lezíria Grande Lda v Bundesamt fur Finanzen, C-345/04, [2007] ECR I-1425.
- 69.
See Molenaar and Grams (2007).
- 70.
Scorpio, supra note 58 at para 52.
- 71.
The mutual assistance in collection directive has now been replaced by EU, Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures, [2010] OJ L 84/1. The directive was extended to income tax in 2001, since it was originally adopted in 1976.
- 72.
See infra note 78.
- 73.
Council Directive 2001/44, supra note 59.
- 74.
Under Dutch law at that time expenses could be deducted at source, but only after written approval was received from the Dutch tax authorities. The approval could be sought for in advance of the performance or up to one month after the performance. In the absence of the approval predetermined deemed expenses were deductible.
- 75.
ECJ (2008).
- 76.
Ibid at paras 49 and 50.
- 77.
X, supra note 59 at para 42.
- 78.
The court references Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 as amended by EC, Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001 amending Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of agricultural levies and customs duties and in respect of value added tax and certain excise duties, [2001] OJ L 175/17 [Council Directive 2001/44].
- 79.
The Directive establishes common rules on mutual assistance in order to ensure the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties and taxes. It allows a Member State to request assistance from another Member State in the recovery of income tax payable by a taxpayer resident in the other Member State.
- 80.
Directive 2001/44, supra note 78.
- 81.
X case, supra note 59 at para 50.
- 82.
Ibid at para 51.
- 83.
Ibid at para 60.
- 84.
The Court’s comments on this point can be found in para 33 “…the answer to the question, which is, moreover, not the subject of the present reference for a preliminary ruling, whether a withholding tax at source such as that at issue in the main proceedings also constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services if it results in the provision of services carried out by a non-resident provider being subject to a greater tax burden than that of a provision of services carried out by a resident provider. In so far as such a withholding tax may have repercussions on the cost of provision of the service at issue, it is liable to deter both the non-resident provider from providing that service and the recipient of the service from having recourse to such a provider.”
- 85.
Schumacker, supra note 49 at para 31.
- 86.
Scorpio, supra note 58 at para 36.
- 87.
TFEU Article 52 provides for general exceptions to Article 56 where a Member State can demonstrate that its law is necessary to protect public policy, public health or public security, but these defences have not been put forward in direct tax cases.
- 88.
In two cases, ECJ, Hanns-Martin Bachmann v Belgium, C-204/90, [1992] ECR I-249 and ECJ, Commission of the European Communities v Belgium, C-300/90, [1992] ECR I-305, among the earliest to be decided on direct discrimination, this defence was successful. The Belgian tax measure at issue in both cases allowed a deduction to a resident of Belgium in respect of pension contributions paid to an insurance company resident or established in Belgium, but denied the deduction for such payments to an insurance company not established in Belgium. The ECJ found that the measure constituted a restriction on free movement of workers and services, but was justified because there was no less restrictive way for Belgium to ensure that deductions would only be permitted where the insurance and pension benefits which would later be paid would be subject to tax in Belgium. There was a direct link between the deduction of the premiums and the taxation of the benefits in relation to one and the same taxpayer by the same tax authority, so that cohesion could only be maintained by making the deduction contingent on the resulting benefits being taxable. The cohesion argument has now largely been abandoned as it has not been accepted by the court again.
- 89.
However, a discriminatory rule will only be justified if it applies only to purely artificial arrangements intended to evade tax laws and permits a case by case assessment of whether the taxpayer has in fact illegitimately avoided tax. It is not sufficient that the measure have as its purpose the prevention of tax evasion. The ECJ frequently refers to EC, Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation, [1997] OJ, L336/15 as ensuring that national tax authorities have the necessary means of obtaining information from other Member States to prevent tax evasion.
- 90.
The ECJ refuses to allow a tax measure to be justified on the basis that it is necessary to protect government revenues or the tax base, stating that a measure that contravenes a fundamental Treaty freedom cannot be justified on purely economic grounds. Nor may a Member State apply tax rules that seek to equalize the tax burden on a particular form of cross-border income that is lightly taxed in another Member State. See e.g., ECJ, Anneliese Lenz v Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol, C-315/02, [2004] ECR I-07063.
- 91.
Marks & Spencer plc v David Halsey (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes), C-446/03 [2005] ECR I-10866.
- 92.
The various direct taxation directives adopted at the EC level since 1990 eliminate withholding tax on dividends, royalties and interest between subsidiary and parent corporations in different Member States, facilitate cross-border mergers, and provide for mutual assistance in the exchange of information and recovery of tax claims.
- 93.
ECJ, Commission of the European Communities v France C-270/83, [1986], ECR I-00273 [Commission v France], commonly referred to as “Avoir Fiscal.”
- 94.
Ibid at para 26.
- 95.
Article 14 was eliminated from the OECD Model Tax Treaty in 2000, so that the distinction previously created by Article 14 between individuals providing “independent personal services” and general business profits in Article 7 no longer exists. In the current OECD Model Tax Treaty, the only provision that treats services providers differently from other businesses is Article 17, which deals with “Artistes and Sportsmen.” However, most tax treaties still contain a provision equivalent to OECD Model Tax Treaty Article 14, even such recent ones as the pending treaty between the UK and France, signed in 2004.
- 96.
See for example Commission v France, supra note 93, ECJ, Algemene Maatschappij voor Investering en Dienstverlening NV (AMID) v Belgische Staat, C-141/99, [2000] ECR I-11619 and ECJ, Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, Zweigniederlassung Deutschland v Finanzamt Aachen-Innenstadt, C 307/97, [1999] ECR I-6161.
- 97.
Schumacker, supra note 49 at paras 31–35.
- 98.
Scorpio, supra note 58 at para 59.
- 99.
ECJ, GHEJ Wielockx v Inspecteur der Directe Belastingen, C-80/94, [1995] ECR I-2493.
- 100.
EJC, D v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, C-376/03, [2005] ECR I-05821.
- 101.
TEC Article 56 (now TFEU Article 63).
- 102.
In ECJ, Metallgesellschaft v Commissioners of Inland Revenue and HM Attorney General, C-397/98, [2001] ECR I-1727 the question was referred to the ECJ as to whether the UK was obliged to grant the same type of tax credit for UK advance corporation tax to German residents as it granted to residents of the Netherlands under its tax treaty with the Netherlands, but neither the Advocate General nor the court responded to this question.
- 103.
Article 24(7) Canada-US Tax Treaty.
- 104.
The same is true if the engineer were from Mexico. The Canada-Mexico Tax Treaty applies only to taxes imposed by the Government of Canada under the Income Tax Act and not to income taxes imposed by the provinces. Thus the Mexican government can also challenge the tax as being in violation of Canada’s national treatment obligation under the NAFTA.
- 105.
See discussion in Chap. 2 at 2.2.1.
- 106.
OECD, Model Tax Convention (2014), Commentary on Article 25 at para 92 includes the following discussion of the scope of a tax treaty: “… the phrase ‘falls within the scope’ is inherently ambiguous, as indicated by the inclusion in paragraph 3 of Article XXII of the GATS both an arbitration procedure and a clause exempting pre-existing conventions from its application in order to deal with disagreements related to its meaning. While it seems clear that a country could not argue in good faith that a measure relating to a tax to which no provision of a tax convention applied fell within the scope of that convention, it is unclear whether the phrase covers all measures that relate to taxes that are covered by all or only some provisions of the tax convention.”
- 107.
Article 26(3) of the UK-France Treaty is the equivalent provision to Article 24(7) of the Canada-US Tax Treaty and Article 24(3) of the OECD Model Tax Treaty.
- 108.
GATS Article II(2).
- 109.
NAFTA Article 2103(4)(c).
- 110.
See generally Article 7 of Canada’s tax treaties, as well as of the OECD Model Tax Treaty.
- 111.
The GATS Article XIV(d). A footnote refers specifically to measures by members to ensure the imposition or collection of taxes in their territory.
- 112.
NAFTA Article 2103(4).
- 113.
Indeed, the Commission has commenced an infringement action against Belgium (ECJ, Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium, C-433/04, [2006] ECR, I-10653) claiming that Belgium’s requirement to withholding 15% of gross amounts paid to construction industry subcontractors not established in Belgium infringes Article 49.
References
Legislation
Income Tax Act, RSC 1985.
North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act American Statement of Administrative Action (US) Final Draft September 1993, c 21.3.
Treaties and Treaty Documents
Convention between Canada and the United States of America with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital, 26 September 1980 Can TS 1984 No 15.
Convention Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion With Respect to Taxes on Income and Capital Gains, 8 September 1978, Can TS 1980 No 25.
Convention between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United Mexican States for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income, 8 April 1991, Can TS 1992 No 15.
Convention Between the Government of The United States Of America And the Government of the United Mexican States for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income, 18 September 1992, Treaty Doc No 103-7, 103d Cong., 1st Sess.
EC. (1997). Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation, OJ, L336/15.
EC. (2001). Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001 amending Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of agricultural levies and customs duties and in respect of value added tax and certain excise duties, OJ L 175/17.
EU. (2012). Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 326/47–326/390.
EU. (2010). Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures, OJ L 84/1.
North American Free Trade Agreement Between the Government of Canada, the Government of Mexico, and the Government of the United States, 17 December 1992, Can TS 1994 No 2, 32 ILM 289.
OECD. (2015). Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital 2014 (Full Version). Paris: OECD Publishing.
UN. (2011). Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Counties, New York.
WTO. (1994a). Canada Final List of Article II (MFN) Exemptions (15 April 1994) WTO Doc GATS/EU16, online: WTO <http://docsonline.wto.org>.
WTO. (1994b). Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, 15 April 1994.
Jurisprudence
AG v Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna, C-294/97, [1999] ECR I-7447.
ECJ, Algemene Maatschappij voor Investering en Dienstverlening NV (AMID) v Belgische Staat, C-141/99, [2000] ECR I-11619.
ECJ, Anneliese Lenz v Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol, C-315/02, [2004] ECR I-07063.
ECJ, Arnoud Gerritse v Finanzamt Neukölln-Nord, C-234/01, [2003] ECR I-05933.
ECJ, Belgian State—SPF Finances v Truck Center SA, C-282/07, [2008] ECR I-10767.
ECJ, Cento Equestre da Lezíria Grande Lda v Bundesamt fur Finanzen, C-345/04, [2007] ECR I-1425.
ECJ, Commission of the European Communities v Belgium, C-300/90, [1992] ECR I-305.
ECJ, Commission of the European Communities v France, C-334/02, [2004] ECR I-2229.
ECJ, Commission of the European Communities v France C-270/83, [1986], ECR I-00273.
ECJ, Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium, C-433/04, [2006] ECR, I-10653.
ECJ, Commission v. Denmark, C-150/04, [2007] ECR I-1163.
ECJ, Commission v Luxembourg, C-111/91, [1993] ECR I-817.
ECJ, Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, Zweigniederlassung Deutschland v Finanzamt Aachen-Innenstadt, C 307/97, [1999] ECR I-6161.
ECJ, D v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, C-376/03, [2005] ECR I-05821.
ECJ, Eurowings Luftverkehrn, C-294/97, [1999] ECR I-7447.
ECJ, Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt v Schumacker, C-279/93, [1995] ECR I-225.
ECJ, FKP Scorpio Konzertproduktionen GmbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbüttel, C-290/04, [2006] I–09461.
ECJ, GHEJ Wielockx v Inspecteur der Directe Belastingen, C-80/94, [1995] ECR I-2493.
ECJ, Giovanni Maria Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost, C-152/73, [1974] ECR 153.
ECJ, Hanns-Martin Bachmann v Belgium, C-204/90, [1992] ECR I-249.
ECJ, Laboratoires Fournier SA v Direction des vérifications nationales et internationales, C-39/04, [2005] I-02057.
ECJ, Lindman, C-42/02, [2003] ECR I-13519.
ECJ, Metallgesellschaft v Commissioners of Inland Revenue and HM Attorney General, C-397/98, [2001] ECR I-1727.
ECJ, Rolf Dieter Danner, C-136-00, [2002] ECR I-8147.
ECJ, Safir v Skattemyndigheten, C-118/96, [1998] ECR I-1897.
ECJ, Skandia and Ramstedt v Riksskatteverket, C-422/01, [2003] ECR I-6817.
ECJ, Skatteministeriet v Vestergaard, C-55/98, [1999] ECR I-7641.
ECJ, X NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën, C-498/10, [2012].
EC, Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007, [2007] OJ, C 306.
Marks & Spencer plc v David Halsey (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes), C-446/03 [2005] ECR I-10866.
Saipem UK Ltd v R, [2011] 2 CTC 2341, 2011 TCC 25, aff’d [2012] 1 CTC 239, 2011 FCA 243.
Saipem UK Ltd. v R, [2012] 1 CTC 239, 2011 FCA 243.
Secondary Material
Molenaar, D., & Grams, H. (2007). Scorpio and the Netherlands: Major changes in Artiste and Sportsman Taxation in the European Union. 2 European Taxation 63.
“Tax Discrimination and the Cross-Border Provision of Services—Canada/UK Perspectives” with M. O’Brien in C. Waters, British and Canadian Perspectives on International Law (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhof Publishers, 2006).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brown, C.A. (2017). The WTO, NAFTA and the TFEU: Regional Perspectives by WTO Members on Non-discrimination Obligations. In: Non-discrimination and Trade in Services. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4406-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4406-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-4405-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-4406-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)