Als gevolg van voortschrijdende internationale ontwikkelingen op het terrein van compliance gestuurd toezicht en in de praktijk gerezen knelpunten bij de uitvoering van het beleid, is het in 2005... Show moreAls gevolg van voortschrijdende internationale ontwikkelingen op het terrein van compliance gestuurd toezicht en in de praktijk gerezen knelpunten bij de uitvoering van het beleid, is het in 2005 geïntroduceerde Nederlandse horizontaal toezichtmodel toe aan een modernisering om weer in de pas te lopen. In 2018 is de Belastingdienst gestart met de doorontwikkeling van het horizontale belastingtoezicht teneinde tot concrete verbetervoorstellen te komen in het licht van het totale toezichtspalet van de Belastingdienst. De auteurs bespreken de voorgenomen wijzigingen ten aanzien van de indeling van convenanten naar de grootte van ondernemingen, de individuele klantbehandeling van grote ondernemingen, de knel- en verbeterpunten in de uitvoering van het horizontale toezicht op basis van een individueel respectievelijk financieel dienstverlenersconvenant en beantwoorden de vraag of de voorgenomen wijzigingen zullen of zouden moeten leiden tot aanpassing van de leidraden horizontaal toezicht voor grote ondernemingen respectievelijk fiscaal dienstverleners en de toepasselijke convenanten horizontaal toezicht. Show less
This policy note aims at setting a methodological framework for the study of legal transplants in taxation and more specifically to the use of the comparative legal theories of legal transplants,... Show moreThis policy note aims at setting a methodological framework for the study of legal transplants in taxation and more specifically to the use of the comparative legal theories of legal transplants, legal (tax) systems and legal (tax) culture to study the implementation of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 4 Minimum Standards. Attention will be given to the following questions who is participating as donor or recipient andwhy? how the tax systems and tax culture (actors) influence the process? and what are the rules that will be implemented?By using comparative legal theories, this policy note allows to explain the reasons why countries decided to implement the BEPS 4 Minimum Standards. These reasons are for instance, prestige, political incentives, and chance and necessity. Furthermore, the study of the differences in tax systems and tax culture can allow policy makers in international organizations and countries to understand the transplantation process and thedevelopment of tax rules implementing the BEPS 4 Minimum Standards. The theory of tax systems will take into account the differences between civil law, common law and mixed legal systems. The theory of tax culture will take into account the behaviour, values and attitudes of the relevant actors (the courts with tax competence, tax law-makers, taxpayers, tax administration, business associations, tax advisors, scholars, and civil society Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs.). In order to illustrate these differences, this policy note has addressed the implementation of the Principal Purpose Test in the countries participating in the BEPS Inclusive Framework. Show less
The overall aim of this article is to analyse the principal purpose test as an emerging rule of customary international tax law. By means of the principal purpose test, the tax administration can... Show moreThe overall aim of this article is to analyse the principal purpose test as an emerging rule of customary international tax law. By means of the principal purpose test, the tax administration can deny the tax treaty benefit if one of the principal purposes of the action undertaken by the taxpayer was to obtain a benefit. This principal purpose test has been developed by the OECD with the political support of the G20 as one of the actions to tackle Base Erosion and Profit Shifting by multinationals (BEPS Project). At the time of writing, 137 jurisdictions including non-OECD, non-G-20 countries have committed to the implementation of the principal purpose test in their current and future tax treaties. Based on the analysis of the objective element (state practice) and subjective element (accepted as law), there are indications that this principal purpose test can emerge as a principle of customary international law. In the past, international tax law scholars addressed the customary international law regarding the OECD/UN tax treaty Models, the OECD Harmful Tax Practices, and the arm’s length principle. However, current international tax developments, including the BEPS Project, call for an analysis of the main elements of customary international law in respect of the principal purpose test, a general anti-avoidance rule that by its own nature, is often general, vague, and imprecise. Therefore, the findings of this article can be useful for generating new areas of research by international public law, international law, and international tax law experts. Show less
The aim of this article is to assess the regulatory framework of Base Erosion Profit Shifting Project (BEPS) Action 5 in order to evaluate tax incentives in the form of preferential tax regimes... Show moreThe aim of this article is to assess the regulatory framework of Base Erosion Profit Shifting Project (BEPS) Action 5 in order to evaluate tax incentives in the form of preferential tax regimes that provide benefits to geographically mobile business income in developing countries. To conduct this assessment, this article first addresses the use of preferential tax regimes considering BEPS Action 5. Thereafter, and taking into account the concerns expressed by international organizations, regional tax organizations and scholars, the author contends that the evaluation of tax incentives in light of BEPS Action 5 results in additional burden for developing countries. Countries will need to assess their tax incentives considering the factors provided by the 1998 OECD report and BEPS Action 5. Since there are no terms of reference for the application of these factors, the country will have to assess its own tax incentives, which brings increased uncertainty and compliance burden for developing countries. In order to provide some guidance in this evaluation, the author provides a list of the factors used by the 1998 OECD report and BEPS Action 5 and their application to tax incentives. Subsequently, this article will assess the legitimacy of the application of BEPS Action 5 to developing countries and will demonstrate that its assessment framework is ambiguous and prevents developing countries from enacting legitimate tax incentives. Finally, this article will conclude and provide some recommendations for further research. Show less
![Jongerenbijeenkomst: Verslag van de tweede jongerenbijeenkomst van de Vereniging voor Belastingwetenschap, gehouden op 12 maart 2020 te ’s-Gravenhage [WFR 2020/83]](/sites/all/modules/custom/islandora_solr_search/images/defaultimg.png?solr_nav%5Bid%5D=8b6a915482cc66047d7f&solr_nav%5Bpage%5D=0&solr_nav%5Boffset%5D=17)
