Advertisement

Towards a New Non-discrimination Obligation—Policy Considerations

  • Catherine A. BrownEmail author
Chapter
  • 308 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter attempts to build a bridge between the non-discrimination obligations in trade law agreements and tax treaties that impact non-resident service provider. Underlying the discussion are two broad questions. Should non-residents be ‘fair game’ (‘Fair game’ is used in this context to refer to a person that is considered a reasonable target for any type of treatment, including discriminatory treatment) for source state tax authorities? If not, what non-discrimination principle, obligation or standard should apply? The proposed non-discrimination obligation proposed is at best an uneasy compromise that engages the non-discrimination obligation in Article 24(1) of the OECD and UN Model Tax Treaties in a manner that was not anticipated by its drafters. Nonetheless, it attempts to safeguard the obligations assumed under trade agreements by introducing a minimum non-discrimination obligation to tax treaties while respecting tax sovereignty. The addition of such a non-discrimination obligation to a tax treaty challenges the current notion that a source State owes non-residents no such obligation. It also aligns with international trade law objectives.

Keywords

Trade Agreement Dispute Resolution Competent Authority Bilateral Investment Treaty Appellate Body Report 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

Treaties & Treaty Documents

  1. EU, Consolidated version of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. 26 October 2012, OJ L 326/47-326/390.Google Scholar
  2. Havana Charter for an international trade organization. (1948). In United nations conference on trade & development, final act and related documents. Art. 46.1, U.N. Doc. E/Conf. 2/78.Google Scholar

Jurisprudence

  1. Elettronica Sicula S.P.A (ELSI) (United States of America v Italy). (1989). IJC Rep 15.Google Scholar
  2. Seimens v Argentina. (2007). ICSID case no. ARB/02/8.Google Scholar
  3. WTO, BrazilMeasures affecting imports of retreaded tyres. (2007). WT/DS332/AB/R (Appellate Body Report). Online: WTO. http://docsonline.wto.org
  4. WTO, European communitiesMeasures affecting asbestos and asbestos-containing products. (2000), WT/DS135/R (Panel Report). Online: WTO. http://docsonline.wto.org
  5. WTO, United States—Import prohibition of certain shrimp and shrimp products. (1998). WT/DS58/AB/R at para 150 (Appellate Body Report). Online: WTO. http://docsonline.wto
  6. WTO, United StatesMeasures affecting the cross-border supply of gambling and betting. (2005). WT/DS285/AB/R (Appellate Body Report). Online: WTO. http://docsonline.wto.org
  7. WTO, United States—Standards for reformulated and conventional gasoline. (1996). WT/DS2/9.Google Scholar

Secondary Material

  1. Adonnino, P. (1993). Non-discrimination rules in international taxation, general report. In International Fiscal Association, Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International, Congress of the International Fiscal Association, Florence 1993, 78b. Amersfoort, NL: Sdu Fiscale & Financiële Uitgevers.Google Scholar
  2. Altman, Z. D. (2005). Dispute resolution under tax treaties. Amsterdam, NL: IBFD.Google Scholar
  3. Ault, H. J., & Sasseville, J. (2010). Taxation and non-discrimination: A reconsideration. World Tax Journal, 2, 101.Google Scholar
  4. Bammens, N. (2012). The principle of non-discrimination in international and European tax law. Amsterdam, NL: IBFD.Google Scholar
  5. Brauner, Y. (2005a). An international tax regime in crystallization. Tax Law Review, 56(2), 259.Google Scholar
  6. Brauner, Y. (2005b). International trade and tax agreements may be coordinated, but not reconciled. Virginia Tax Review, 25(1), 251.Google Scholar
  7. Bruns, S. (2008). Taxation and non-discrimination: Clarification and reconsideration by the OECD. In The 2008 OECD model tax convention special issue. European Taxation (Vol. 491).Google Scholar
  8. Cossy, M. (2006). Determining ‘likeness’ under the GATS: Squaring the circle. Staff working paper ERSD-2006–08. World Trade Organization, Economic Research and Statistics Division.Google Scholar
  9. Farrell, J. E. (2013). The interface of international trade law and taxation. Amsterdam, NL: IBFD.Google Scholar
  10. Green, R. A. (1994). The troubled rule of nondiscrimination in taxing foreign direct investment. Law and Policy in International Business, 26(1), 113.Google Scholar
  11. Green, R. A. (1998). Antilegalistic approaches to resolving disputes between governments: A comparison of the international tax and trade regimes. Yale Journal of International Law, 23(1), 79.Google Scholar
  12. Kriebaum, U. (2013). Arbitrary/unreasonable or discriminatory measures. In M. Bungenberg, J. Griebel, S. Hobe, & A. Reinisch (Eds.), International investment law. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  13. Mason, R., & Knoll, M. S. (2012). What is tax discrimination? Yale Law Journal, 121(5), 1014.Google Scholar
  14. Prebble, J. (1994–1995). A philosophical and design problems that arise from the ectopic nature of income tax law and their impact on the taxation of international trade and investment. In Chinese Yearbook of International Law and Affairs (Vol. 13).Google Scholar
  15. Schreuer, C. H. (2009). Protection against arbitrary or discriminatory measures. In C. A. Rogers & R. P. Alford (Eds.), The future of investment arbitration (p. 183). Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
  16. TAXREP 48/07—OECD public discussion draft on the non-discrimination article in the OECD model convention. Written response submitted on 5 July 2007 by the ICAEW Tax Faculty Relating to the Public Discussion Draft on the non-discrimination article in the OECD model convention issued by OECD on 3 May 2007 at para 12. Online: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/39450236.pdf
  17. Turro, J. (1993). US tax concerns threaten GATT talks. Tax Notes, 61(10), 1151.Google Scholar
  18. UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II “fair and equitable treatment” (2012) In United nations conference on trade and development. New York and Geneva.Google Scholar
  19. van Raad, K. (2005). Nondiscrimination in taxation of cross-border income under the OECD model and EC treaty rules—A concise comparison and assessment. In H. van Arendonk, F. Engelen, & S. Jansen (Eds.), A tax globalist: The search for the Borders of international taxation. Amsterdam, NL: IBFD.Google Scholar
  20. Van Thiel, S. (2008). The agreement on trade in services and income taxation. In K. Byttebier & K. van der Borght (Eds.), WTO obligations and opportunities: Challenges of implementation. London, UK: Cameron May.Google Scholar
  21. Walde, T. (2008). National tax measures affecting foreign investors under the discipline of international investment treaties. In The sovereign power to tax: 102 proceedings of the annual meeting-American society of international law (Vol. 51).Google Scholar
  22. Working party no. 4 of the Fiscal committee (Netherlands-France): Report on tax discrimination on grounds of nationality or similar grounds. Doc FC/WP4(57) 1(6) (January 11, 1957).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations