Regulacje CFC w świetle pozostałych rekomendacji OECD z projektu BEPS – stosunek zbieżności, wykluczenia oraz paralelizmu
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/1509-877X.01.05Słowa kluczowe:
BEPS, regulacje CFC, gospodarka cyfrowa, hybrydowe podmioty oraz płatności, szkodliwe reżimy podatkowe, ceny transferoweAbstrakt
Przedmiotem artykułu jest omówienie rekomendacji OECD wydanych na tle projektu Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) odnośnie do relacji regulacji CFC z innymi działaniami w ramach tego projektu. Analiza wytycznych przedstawionych przez OECD do projektu BEPS pokazuje, iż nie mają one charakteru holistycznego, czyli nie przewidują one wyraźnej hierarchizacji tych wytycznych, oraz że oddziaływanie regulacji CFC na zjawisko BEPS ma większości przypadków charakter subsydiarny względem tych innych podstawowych rekomendacji, jak przykładowo wskazówek dotyczących neutralizacji hybrydyzacji podatkowej, ograniczenia potrącalności podatkowej płatności finansowych czy też zwalczania szkodliwych reżimów podatkowych.
Pobrania
Bibliografia
Arginelli P., The Interaction between IP Box Regimes and Compensatory Tax Measures: a Plea for a Coherent and Balanced Approach, [w:] D. Weber (red.), EU Law and the Building of Global Supranational Tax Law: EU BEPS and State Aid, Amsterdam 2017.
Google Scholar
Athanasiou A., BEPS Action 3 (CFC rules): Final CFC Report Leaves Options Open, „Tax Notes International” 2015, nr 180.
Google Scholar
Athanasiou A., Lack of Consensus on CFC Rules Likely Here to Stay, „Tax Notes International” 2015, nr 78.
Google Scholar
Athanasiou A., OECD’s CFC Rule Draft Likely to Spur Controversy, „Tax Notes International” 2015, nr 78.
Google Scholar
Ault H., Arnold B., Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries: an Overview, Papers on Selected Topics in Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries, 2013, nr 1. Ault H., Schön W., Shay S., Base Erosion and Profit Shifting: a Roadmap for Reform, „Bulletin for International Taxation” 2014, nr 6–7.
Google Scholar
Avi-Yonah R., Full Circle? The Single Tax Principle, BEPS and the New US Model, „Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series” 2015, nr 480.
Google Scholar
Baker P., BEPS Appraisal: Interview with Philip Baker QC, „Journal of International Taxation” 2015, nr 1.
Google Scholar
Baker P., CFC Aspects of Intellectual Property, [w:] W. Nykiel, A. Zalasiński (red.), Tax Aspects of Research and Development within the European Union, Warszawa 2014.
Google Scholar
Boidman N., Kandev M., The OECD’s Cash-box Notion is Fundamentally Flawed, Writers Say, „Tax Notes International” 2016, nr 83.
Google Scholar
Brauner Y., BEPS: an Interim Evaluation, „World Tax Journal” 2014, nr 1.
Google Scholar
Bräutigam R., Spengel Ch., Streif F., Decline of CFC Rules and Rise of IP Regimes: How the ECJ Affects Tax Competition and Economic Distortions in Europe, Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW), Discussion Paper nr 15-055, 2016.
Google Scholar
Bronżewska K., Majdowski F., Badania i rozwój – jak zwiększyć polską innowacyjność poprzez politykę podatkową?, „Kwartalnik Prawa Podatkowego” 2015, nr 2.
Google Scholar
Cooper G., Preventing Tax Treaty Abuse, [w:] United Nations Handbook on Selected Issues in Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries, New York 2017.
Google Scholar
Degrève S., Molitor R., Tax Competition – Current Trends for Company Taxation in Europe, „Tax Notes International” 2006, nr 41.
Google Scholar
De Lange M., Lankhorst P., Hafkenscheid R., (Non-)recognition of Transactions between Associated Enterprises: On Behaving in a Commercially Rational Manner, Decision-Making Traps and BEPS, „International Transfer Pricing Journal” 2015, nr 3–4.
Google Scholar
Doernberg R., Hinnekens L., Electronic Commerce and International Taxation, Hague 1999.
Google Scholar
Dourado A., Aggressive Tax Planning in EU Law and in the Light of BEPS: The EC Recommendation on Aggressive Tax Planning and BEPS Actions 2 and 6, „Intertax” 2015, nr 1.
Google Scholar
Dourado A., May You Live in Interesting Times, „Intertax” 2016, nr 1.
Google Scholar
Dourado A., The Meaning of Aggresive Tax Planning and Avoidance in the European Union and the OECD: An Example of Legal Pluralism in International Tax Law, [w:] J. English (red.), International Tax Law: New Challenges to and from Constitutional and Legal Pluralism, Amsterdam 2016.
Google Scholar
Dourado A., The Role of CFC Rules in the BEPS Initiative and in the EU, „British Tax Review” 2015, nr 3.
Google Scholar
Durst M., Self-help and Altruism: Exploring the Problem of Tax Base Erosion in Developing Countries, Bloomberg BNA, „Tax Management Transfer Pricing Report” 2014.
Google Scholar
English J., BEPS Action 1: Digital Economy – EU Law Implications, „British Tax Review”, 2015, nr 3.
Google Scholar
Gaffney M., BEPS – Basically, Everyone on a Profit Split, „Tax Notes International” 2015, nr 147.
Google Scholar
Glicklich P., Leitner A., U.S. Taxation of E-commerce under Subpart F – Missing Pieces Leave Uncertainty, „Bulletin for International Taxation” 2001, nr 9–10.
Google Scholar
Graeme G., Some Thoughts on the BEPS Proposals to Control Treaty Abuse, [w:] S. Sim, M-J. Soo, Asian Voices: BEPS and beyond, Amsterdam 2017.
Google Scholar
Harris P., Neutralizing Effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements, [w:] A. Trepelkov, H. Tonino, D. Halka (red.), United Nations Handbook on Selected Issues in Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries, New York 2017.
Google Scholar
Haslehner W., The Controlled Foreign Company Regime, [w:] D. Weber, J. van de Streek (red.), The EU Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base: Critical Analysis, Alphen aan den Rijn 2017.
Google Scholar
Helminem M., EU Law Compatibility of BEPS Action 2: Neutralising the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements, „British Tax Review” 2015, nr 3.
Google Scholar
Hey J., Base Erosion and Profit Shifting and Interest Expenditure, „Bulletin for International Taxation” 2014, nr 6–7.
Google Scholar
Holmes K., Regulacje zapobiegające unikaniu opodatkowania, tłum. A. Biegalski, [w:] H. Hamaekers, K. Holmes, J. Głuchowski, T. Kardach, W. Nykiel, Wprowadzenie do międzynarodowego prawa podatkowego, Warszawa 2006.
Google Scholar
Jow LY., Do the CFC Regimes of the US and Japan Nullify Singapore’s Tax Incentives for Headquarters Activities?, „Australian Tax Forum” 2004, nr 19.
Google Scholar
Kahlenberg Ch., The Interplay between the OECD Recommendations of Actions 2 And 3 Regarding Hybrid Structures, „Intertax” 2016, nr 4.
Google Scholar
Kane M., The Role of Controlled Foreign Company Legislation in the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, „Bulletin for International Taxation” 2014, nr 6–7.
Google Scholar
Kofler G., Some Reflections on the ‘Saving clauses’, „Intertax” 2016, nr 8–9.
Google Scholar
Kuntz J., Peroni R., US International Taxation, Part B Taxation of U.S. Persons with Foreign Activities, B3.04. Subpart F Income (Section 952), WG&L International Treatises, Thomson Reuters, 2015.
Google Scholar
Liebman H., Heyvaert W., Oyen V., Countering Harmful Tax Practices: BEPS Action 5 and EU Initiatives – Past Progress, Current Status And Prospects, „European Taxation” 2016, nr 2–3.
Google Scholar
Lüdicke J., „Tax Arbitrage” with Hybrid Entities: Challenges And Responses, „Bulletin for International Taxation” 2014, nr 6–7.
Google Scholar
Maisto G., Controlled Foreign Company Legislation, Corporate Residence and Anti-Hybrid Arrangement Rules, „Bulletin for International Taxation” 2014, nr 6–7.
Google Scholar
Majdowski F., Implementacja klauzuli antyhybrydowej oraz tzw. małej klauzuli antyabuzywnej do ustawy o podatku dochodowym od osób prawnych na skutek „uszczelniania” dyrektywy o spółkach matkach i spółkach córkach, „Przegląd Podatkowy” 2016, nr 2.
Google Scholar
Majdowski F., Polskie regulacje dotyczące zagranicznej spółki kontrolowanej na tle rekomendacji OECD oraz wymogów unijnych (cz. 1), „Biuletyn Instytutu Studiów Podatkowych” 2016, nr 9.
Google Scholar
Majdowski F., Zróżnicowane kryteria zwalczania zjawiska unikania opodatkowania w podatku dochodowym od osób prawnych, „Zeszyty Naukowe Sądownictwa Administracyjnego” 2016, nr 4.
Google Scholar
Majdowski F., Bronżewska F., Revolutionary Changes to the Arm’s Length Principle under The OECD BEPS Project: Have CFC Rules Become Redundant?, „Intertax” 2018, nr 3.
Google Scholar
Maquire N., Anolik S., Subpart F and Source of Income Issues in E-commerce, „Tax Notes” 2000, nr 89.
Google Scholar
Oguttu A., OECD’s Action Plan on tax Base Erosion and Profit Shifting: Part 2 – a Critique of Some Priority OECD Actions from an African Perspective – Addressing Excessive Interest Deductions, Treaty Abuse and The Avoidance of The Status Of a Permanent Establishment, „Bulletin for International Taxation” 2016, nr 6.
Google Scholar
International Taxation” 2013, nr 8. Panayi Ch., Advanced Issues in International and European Tax Law, Oxford 2015. Panayi Ch., International Tax Law Following the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project, „Bulletin for International Taxation” 2016, nr 11.
Google Scholar
Park W., Fiscal Jurisdiction and Accrual Basis Taxation: Lifting the Corporate Veil to Tax Foreign Company Profits, „Columbia Law Review” 1978, nr 8.
Google Scholar
Piantavigna P., Tax Abuse and Aggressive Tax Planning in the BEPS Era: How EU Law and The OECD Are Establishing a Unifying Conceptual Framework in International Tax Law, Despite Linguistic Discrepancies, „World Tax Journal” 2017, nr 1.
Google Scholar
Picciotto S., Can the OECD Mend the International Tax System?, „Tax Notes International” 2013, nr 71.
Google Scholar
Pinto C., Tax Competition and EU Law, Hague 2002.
Google Scholar
Pinto D., A Proposal to Reform Income Anti-tax-deferral Regimes, „Australian Journal of Taxation” 2009, nr 12.
Google Scholar
Pinto D., Exclusive Source or Residence-Based Taxation – Is a New and Simpler World Tax stone, J. Schuch, C. Staringer (red.), Introduction to European Tax Law on Direct Taxation, Wien 2016.
Google Scholar
Popa O., Past, Present and Future of Tax Structuring Using Hybrid Entity Mismatches, [w:] M. Cotrut (red.), International Tax Structures in the BEPS Era: an Analysis of Anti-abuse Measures, Amsterdam 2015.
Google Scholar
Rosenbloom H., Brothers J., Reflections on the Intersection of U.S. Tax Treaty Policy, U.S. Tax Reform, And BEPS, „Tax Notes International” 2015, nr 78.
Google Scholar
Schler M., BEPS Action 2: Ending Mismatches on Hybrid Instruments, Part 2, „Tax Notes International” 2014, nr 75.
Google Scholar
Schön W., Transfer Pricing Issues of BEPS in the Light of EU Law, „British Tax Review” 2015, nr 3.
Google Scholar
Schuch J., Neubauer N., The Saving Clause: Article 1(3) of the OECD Model, [w:] M. Lang et al. (red.), Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), Schriftenreihe IStR Band 96, Wien 2015.
Google Scholar
Serrano Antón F., La influencia del Plan de Acción BEPS en la tributación española: impacto en la normativa, incremento de la litigiosidad y el papel de los tribunals, „Estudios financieros. Revista de contabilidad y tributación” 2015, nr 391.
Google Scholar
Shaviro D., The Two Faces of the Single Tax Principle, „Brooklyn Journal of International Law” 2016, nr 3.
Google Scholar
Shay S., Fleming J., Peroni R., Designing a 21st Century Corporate Tax – An Advance US Minimum Tax on Foreign Income and Other Measures to Protect the Base, „Florida Tax Review” 2015, nr 9.
Google Scholar
Steigen S., Are Controlled Foreign Company Rules Compatible with the Principle of Freedom of Movement of Capital within the EU?, „EC Tax Journal” 2002, nr 1.
Google Scholar
Traversa E., Interest Deductibility and the BEPS Action Plan: Nihil Novi Sub Sole?, „British Tax Review” 2013, nr 5.
Google Scholar
Vanistendael F., EU vs BEPS: Conflicting Concepts of Tax Avoidance, [w:] D. Weber (red.), EU Law and the Building of Global Supranational Tax Law: EU BEPS and State Aid, Amsterdam 2017.
Google Scholar
Vanistendael F., Is Tax Avoidance the Same Thing under the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Action Plan, National Tax Law and EU Law?, „Bulletin for International Taxation” 2016, nr 3.
Google Scholar
Vann R., International Aspects of Income Tax, [w:] V. Thuronyi (red.), Tax Law Design and Drafting, Hague 1998.
Google Scholar
Van Weeghel S., Emmerink F., Global Developments and Trends in International Anti-avoidance, „Bulletin for International Taxation” 2013, nr 8.
Google Scholar
Wittendorf J., The Poison Pill of BEPS: M&A and Intercompany Financing Transactions, „Tax Notes International” 2016, nr 83.
Google Scholar
Yoder L., Subpart F in Turmoil: Low-taxed Active Income under Siege, „Taxes – The Tax Magazine” 1999, nr 3.
Google Scholar
The BEPS Monitoring Group, Comments on BEPS Action 3: Strengthening the Rules on Controlled Foreign Corporations (CFCs), 2015.
Google Scholar
The BEPS Monitoring Group, Overall evaluation of the G20/OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, 2015.
Google Scholar
Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens, FEE Position Paper on Controlled Foreign Company Legislations in the EU, 2002.
Google Scholar
G20, Communiqué from G20 Leaders Meeting (Los Cabos, Mexico), 2012.
Google Scholar
G20, Final Communiqué Meeting of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, 2012.
Google Scholar
Internal Revenue Service, Guidance under Subpart F Relating to Partnerships and Branches (projekt Rozporządzenia nr TD 8767), 1998.
Google Scholar
Internal Revenue Service, Treatment of Hybrid Arrangements under Subpart F (okólnik nr Notice 98-11), 1998.
Google Scholar
Internal Revenue Service, Treatment of Hybrid Arrangements under Subpart F (okólnik nr Notice 98-35), 1998.
Google Scholar
Internal Revenue Service, Withdrawal of Guidance under Subpart F relating to Partnerships and Branches; and Issuance of New Guidance under Subpart F Relating to Certain Hybrid Transactions (projekt Rozporządzenia nr REG-113909-98), 1999.
Google Scholar
OECD, Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, 2013.
Google Scholar
OECD, Addressing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, 2013.
Google Scholar
OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy, Action 1: 2015 Final Report, 2015.
Google Scholar
OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, Neutralising the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements Action 2: 2015 Final Report, 2015.
Google Scholar
OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, Designing Effective Controlled Foreign Company Rules Action 3: 2015 Final Report, 2015.
Google Scholar
OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, Limiting Base Erosion Involving Interest Deductions and Other Financial Payments Action 4: 2015 Final Report, 2015.
Google Scholar
OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, Countering Harmful Tax Practices More Effectively, Taking into Account Transparency and Substance Action 5: 2015 Final Report, 2015.
Google Scholar
OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, Preventing the Granting of Treaty Benefits in Inappropriate Circumstances, Action 6: 2015 Final Report, 2015.
Google Scholar
OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, Aligning Transfer Pricing Outcomes with Value Creation Actions 8–10: 2015 Final Reports, 2015. OECD/G-20, Tax Annex to the St. Petersburg G20 Leaders' Declaration, 2013. OECD, Harmful Tax Competition. An Emerging Global Issue, 1998. OECD, OECD Tax Policy Study: Corporate Tax Incentives for Foreign Direct Investment, 2001. OECD, The OECD’S Project on Harmful Tax Practices: The 2004 Progress Report, 2004. Treasury Department Office of Tax Policy, The deferral of income earned through US controlled foreign corporations: a policy study, 2000.
Google Scholar
U.S. Department of the Treasury, General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2010 Revenue Proposals, 2009.
Google Scholar
U.S. Joint Committee on Taxation, Present Law and Backgrounds Related to Possible Income Shifting and Transfer Pricing. Scheduled of a Public Hearing before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 2010.
Google Scholar
Pobrania
Opublikowane
Jak cytować
Numer
Dział
Licencja
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Użycie niekomercyjne – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
PlumX metrics
