Publication: Los procedimientos amistosos en el derecho fiscal internacional: propuesta para Argentina
Loading...
Files
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2017-02-01
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
Los Convenios para Evitar la Doble Imposición y Prevenir el Fraude Fiscal Internacional son una fuente inagotable de conflictos producidos en su interpretación y aplicación, al igual que otros Tratados internacionales. Los conflictos en la materia internacional tributaria se han incrementado en los últimos años, debido a distintos factores. A medida que aumenta el comercio y la inversión mundiales, la posibilidad de litigios fiscales transfronterizos necesariamente aumenta. Si se dejan de resolver estos conflictos, pueden ocasionar una doble imposición y un correspondiente impedimento a la libre circulación de bienes y servicios dentro de una economía global. Tanto los gobiernos como las empresas necesitan procedimientos eficaces para mantener dichas controversias al mínimo y resolver satisfactoriamente cuando se presentan. Es difícil de pensar que dentro del Derecho Fiscal Internacional no exista un mecanismo para resolver los conflictos que puedan suceder. Tradicionalmente, los Convenios para Evitar la Doble Imposición han incorporado en su clausulado al procedimiento amistoso, como el estándar máximo admitido por los Estados. El cambio de paradigmas se produjo con la modificación del art. 25 del MC OCDE en el 2008, y todos los trabajos previos de los últimos 10 años, con la incorporación de una cláusula arbitral del MC OECD. El dramático aumento en el comercio internacional y las inversiones en los últimos años ha tenido importantes implicaciones para el Derecho Fiscal Internacional. Gran parte de la atención se ha centrado en la adaptación de los principios tributarios sustantivos a las nuevas circunstancias económicas. Los aspectos procedimentales son igualmente importantes dentro de la materia anunciada. A medida que aumentan la frecuencia de las transacciones internacionales, también lo hacen los números de litigios fiscales. Encontramos como uno de los procedimientos de solución de controversias existentes desarrollados en el Modelo de CM OECD e incorporado en los tratados bilaterales, al Procedimiento de Acuerdo Mutuo (MAP), el que ha cumplido su tarea, pero que en la actualidad cada vez más se encuentra en tensión, derivado de la complejidad y el aumento considerable de los conflictos o casos. El procedimiento amistoso se encuentra dentro de un constante y continuo avance y revisión. Por lo tanto, es oportuno llevar a cabo un análisis del proceso de soluciones de controversias dentro del Derecho Fiscal Internacional...
The Agreements to Avoid Double Imposition and to Prevent Fiscal Fraud are an endless source of conflicts, produced in their interpretation and application, just as other International Agreements. The conflicts in tax international course have increased in the last years, due to different reasons As global trade and investment increase, the possibility of cross-border tax disputes necessarily increases as well. Left unresolved, these disputes can result in double taxation and a corresponding impediment to the free flow of goods and services in a global economy. Both governments and business need effective procedures to keep such disputes to a minimum and to resolve them satisfactorily when they arise. It is difficult to think that in International Fiscal Right there are no mechanisms to solve conflicts that can occur. Traditionally, Agreements to Avoid Double Imposition have incorporated Mutual Agreement to their clauses, as the maximum standard allowed by States. The change of paradigms was produced with de modification of the article 25 from the MC OCDE in 2008, and all the previous works from the last ten years have changed, due to the addition of an arbitral clause from the MC OCDE. The dramatic increase in international trade and investments in the past years has had important implications for international taxation. Much of the attention has focused on adapting substantive tax principles to the new economic circumstances. Equally important, however, are the procedural aspects of international taxation. As the frequency of international transactions increases, so does the potential number of tax disputes, involving several countries. The existing dispute resolution procedures developed in the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP), which was processed in the Model Convention and was incorporated in bilateral treaties, have in general worked effectively, but are increasingly being put under strain. Both the volume of cases and the complexity of the cases with which the MAP has to deal, have increased sharply. These developments are certain to continue in the future and thus it is timely to undertake a thorough review of the process for resolving international tax disputes. In this situation, it is curious to notice that the first text agreed in relation to the mutual agreement by the Society of Nations, on April, 17th, 1921, already counted with an arbitral formula, as a mechanism to solve international fiscal conflicts through a decision emitted from the International Court of Justice, and its trace can be observed at the first Agreements signed by the States...
The Agreements to Avoid Double Imposition and to Prevent Fiscal Fraud are an endless source of conflicts, produced in their interpretation and application, just as other International Agreements. The conflicts in tax international course have increased in the last years, due to different reasons As global trade and investment increase, the possibility of cross-border tax disputes necessarily increases as well. Left unresolved, these disputes can result in double taxation and a corresponding impediment to the free flow of goods and services in a global economy. Both governments and business need effective procedures to keep such disputes to a minimum and to resolve them satisfactorily when they arise. It is difficult to think that in International Fiscal Right there are no mechanisms to solve conflicts that can occur. Traditionally, Agreements to Avoid Double Imposition have incorporated Mutual Agreement to their clauses, as the maximum standard allowed by States. The change of paradigms was produced with de modification of the article 25 from the MC OCDE in 2008, and all the previous works from the last ten years have changed, due to the addition of an arbitral clause from the MC OCDE. The dramatic increase in international trade and investments in the past years has had important implications for international taxation. Much of the attention has focused on adapting substantive tax principles to the new economic circumstances. Equally important, however, are the procedural aspects of international taxation. As the frequency of international transactions increases, so does the potential number of tax disputes, involving several countries. The existing dispute resolution procedures developed in the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP), which was processed in the Model Convention and was incorporated in bilateral treaties, have in general worked effectively, but are increasingly being put under strain. Both the volume of cases and the complexity of the cases with which the MAP has to deal, have increased sharply. These developments are certain to continue in the future and thus it is timely to undertake a thorough review of the process for resolving international tax disputes. In this situation, it is curious to notice that the first text agreed in relation to the mutual agreement by the Society of Nations, on April, 17th, 1921, already counted with an arbitral formula, as a mechanism to solve international fiscal conflicts through a decision emitted from the International Court of Justice, and its trace can be observed at the first Agreements signed by the States...
Description
Tesis inédita de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Derecho, Departamento de Derecho Financiero y Tributario, leída el 11-01-2016