The Most Favoured Nation Clause in Tax Matters from the Perspective of the EU and the GATT

• Autorzy: Małgorzata Wróblewska

Warianty tytułu

Klauzula największego uprzywilejowania w sprawach podatkowych z perspektywy UE i GATT

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The most favoured nation clause has been one of the most complex elements of tax law. This results from the fact that it concerns the sensitive matter of the sovereignty of states related to fiscal matters and originates from various legal acts that have been established at international, European Union (EU) and national law levels. Additionally, it is related to the EU's dual membership of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The added value of the article is the endeavour to define the mutual relationship between the most favoured nation clause expressed in Art. 1 (1) of the GATT, resulting from EU law and Art. 24 of the OECD MC that is the template for bilateral agreements of double tax avoidance. The aim of the research is a comparison of the above-mentioned regulations in order to establish what kind of relationship exists between those regulations. In conclusion, it should be considered that in the current legal state, Art. 1 (1) of the GATT does not constitute the basis for the interpretation of bilateral double taxation avoidance agreements, unless their provisions are consistent with each other. The following research methods have been applied in the article: legal comparison, descriptive and analytical. (original abstract)

Klauzula największego uprzywilejowania (KNU) stanowi jedno z najbardziej złożonych zagadnień prawa podatkowego. Wynika to z faktu, że dotyczy ona delikatnej materii, jaką jest suwerenność państw w sprawach fiskalnych, oraz wywodzi się z różnych aktów prawnych, uchwalanych na poziomie prawa międzynarodowego, prawa UE i prawa krajowego. Dodatkowo wiąże się z członkostwem UE w WTO. Wartością dodaną artykułu jest próba określenia wzajemnych relacji pomiędzy instytucją KNU wyrażoną w art. 1 (1) GATT wynikającą z prawa UE oraz art. 24 MK OECD, który stanowi wzorzec dla dwustronnych umów o unikaniu podwójnego opodatkowania. Celem badań jest porównanie wymienionych regulacji i próba odpowiedzi na pytanie, jaka zachodzi między nimi relacja. Jako konkluzję należy przyjąć, że w obecnym stanie prawnym art. 1 (1) GATT nie stanowi podstawy interpretacji dwustronnych umów o unikaniu podwójnego opodatkowania, chyba że ich postanowienia są ze sobą spójne. W niniejszym artykule zastosowano następujące metody badawcze: prawnoporównawczą, opisową i analityczną. (abstrakt oryginalny)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Agreement to avoid double taxation; Tax regulations; International economic relations

PL

Umowa o zapobieganiu podwójnemu opodatkowaniu; Prawo podatkowe; Międzynarodowe stosunki gospodarcze

• Czasopismo: Sprawy Międzynarodowe
• Rocznik: 2020
• Numer: nr 4
• Strony: 223--252

Twórcy

autor

Małgorzata Wróblewska

• WSB University in Gdańsk

Bibliografia

• Consolidated version of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, "Official Journal of the European Union", vol. 59, 7 VI 2016, C 202/1.
• Draft Articles on most-favoured-nation clauses with commentaries. 1978, United Nations, 2005: <https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/1_3_1978.pdf> [accessed: 13 I 2021].
• Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts, "Official Journal of the European Communities", vol. 40, 10 XI 1997, C 340.
• Treaty of Nice amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts, "Official Journal of the European Communities", vol. 44, 10 III 2001, C 80.
• AB Report, Canada - Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals, 3 vi 1997 (wt/ DS31/AB/R).
• Judgment of the Court of 5 II 1963, Case 26/62: nv Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration (ECR 1963:1).
• Judgment of the Court of 31 III 1971, Case 22-70: Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities (ECR 1971:263).
• Judgment of the Court of 13 V 1971, Joined cases 41 to 44-70: NV International Fruit Company and others v Commission of the European Communities (ECR 1971:411).
• Judgment of the Court of 26 IV 1972, Case 92-71: Interfood GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Ericus (ECR 1972:231).
• Judgment of the Court of 30 IV 1974, Case 181-73: R. & V. Haegeman v Belgian State (ECLI:EU:c:1974:41).
• Judgment of the Court of 14 VII 1976, Joined cases 3, 4 and 6/76, References for a pre-liminary ruling: Arrondissementsrechtbank Zwolle and Arrondissementsrechtbank Alkmaar - Netherlands. Biological resources of the sea (ECR 1976:1279).
• Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 XII 1985, Case 290/84: Hauptzollamt Schweinfurt v Mainfrucht Obstverwertung GmbH (ECR 1985:3909).
• Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 VI 1986, Case 183/85: Hauptzollamt Itzehoe v H.J. Repenning GmbH (ECR 1986:1873).
• Judgment of the Court of 22 VI 1989, Case 70/87: Federation de lindustrie de lhuilerie de la CEE (Fediol) v Commission of the European Communities (ECR 1989:1781).
• Judgment of the Court of 7 V 1991, Case c-69/89: Nakajima All Precision Co. Ltd v Council of the European Communities (ECR 1991:2069).
• Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 II 1992, Case c-105/90: Goldstar Co. Ltd v Council of the European Communities (ECR 1992:677).
• Judgment of the Court of 10 IX 1996, Case c-61/94: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (ECR 1996:3989).
• Judgment of the Court of 23 XI 1999, Case c-149/96: Portuguese Republic v Council of the European Union (ECR 1999:8395).
• Judgment of the Court of 5 XI 2002, Case C-467/98: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (ECR 2002:9519) (The series of "Open Skies").
• Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 18 VII 2013, Case c-414/11: Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v demo Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emporiki Etairia Farmakon (ECLI:EU:C:2013:520).
• Judgment of the Court of 4 II 2016, Joined Cases c-659/13 and c-34/14: C & J Clark International Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majestys Revenue & Customs and Puma SE v Hauptzollamt Nurnberg (ECLI:EU:C:2016:74).
• Opinion 1/75 of the Court of 11 XI 1975 given pursuant to Article 228 of the EEC Treaty (ECR 1975:1355).
• Opinion 1/76 (1977) of the Court of 26 IV 1977 given pursuant to Article 228 (1) of the EEC Treaty: Draft Agreement establishing a European laying-up fund for inland waterway vessels (ECR 1977:741).
• Opinion 2/91 of the Court of 19 III 1993, Convention No. 170 of the International Labour Organization concerning safety in the use of chemicals at work (EU:C:1993:106).
• Opinion of the Court of 15 XI 1994, Competence of the Community to conclude international agreements concerning services and the protection of intellectual property - Article 228 (6) of the ec Treaty (ECR 1994:384).
• Opinion 1/03 of the Court (Full Court) of 7 II 2006, Competence of the Community to conclude the new Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (ECR 2006:1145).
• Opinion 1/08 of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 XI 2009 pursuant to Article 300 (6) EC, General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) (ECR 2009:11129).
• Opinion 1/13 of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 X 2014 (ECLI:EU:C2-14:2303).
• Panel Report United States - Treatment for Foreign Sales Corporation - Recourse to Art. 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities, 20 VIII 2001 (WT/ DS108/RW).
• Barcz J., W sprawie bezpośredniego skutku przepisów Porozumienia trips w świetle prawa wspólnotowego, cz. 1 ['On the direct effect of the provisions of the TRiPS Agreement under Community law, part 1'], "Europejski Przegląd Sądowy" 2006, nr 2.
• Bazerkoska J. B., The European Union and the World Trade Organization: problems and challenges, "Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy" 2011, vol. 7, issue 7.
• Dashwood A., The limits of European Community powers, "European Law Review" 1996, vol. 21, No. 2.
• Kofler G. W., Most-favoured-nation treatment in direct taxation: does EC law provide for community mfn in bilateral double taxation treaties?, "Houston Business and Tax Law Journal" 2005, vol. 5.
• Odio A.M., The most favoured nation and non-discrimination provisions in international trade law and the oecd codes of liberalisation, "OECD Working Papers on International Investment" 2020, No. 1, DOI: <https://doi.org/10.1787/c7abd 09b-en> [accessed: 15 I 2021].
• Rosas A., EU external relations: exclusive competence revisited, "Fordham International Law Journal" 2015, vol. 38, issue 4.
• Weatherill S., Competence creep and competence control, "Yearbook of European Law" 2004, vol. 23, issue 1.
• Wróblewska M., Klauzula najwiękkszego uprzywilejowania w dwustronnych umowach o unikaniu podwójnego opodatkowania na podstawie prawa UE ['The most favoured nation clause in the double tax agreements on the basis of EU law'], "Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze" 2010, t. 24.
• Ziemblicki B., Przyczyny i skutki jednoczesnego członkostwa Wspólnot Europejskich i ich państw członkowskich w Światowej Organizacji Handlu ['Causes and effects of the simultaneous membership of the ec and their member states in the WTO'], "Spotkania Europejskie" 2009, nr 2: <http://www.ziemblicki.pl/ Przyczyny_i_skutki_jednoczesnego_czlonkostwa_wspolnot_europejskich_i_ panstw_w_swiatowej_organizacji_handlu.pdf> [accessed: 15 I 2021].
• Craig P., Burca G. de, EU law. Text, cases and materials, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2001.
• Eeckhout P., EU external relations law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2011 (Oxford EU Law Library).
• GalsterJ., Mik C., Podstawy europejskiego prawa wspólnotowego. Zarys wykładu ['Fundamentals of European Community law. Outline of the lecture'], Comer, Toruń 1996.
• Gomułowicz A., Przerzucalność podatków obrotowych w PRL, ['Shifting of turnover taxes in the Polish People's Republic'], Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Poznań 1988.
• Gomułowicz A., Zasada sprawiedliwości podatkowej ['Principle of tax justice'], Dom Wydawniczy "ABC", Warszawa 2001.
• Judicial decisions on the law of international organizations, ed. C. Ryngaert, I. F. Dekker, R. A. Wessel, J. Wouters, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2016.
• Kalisz A., Wykładnia i stosowanie prawa wspólnotowego ['Interpretation and application of Community law'], Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2007.
• KałduńskiM.M., Klauzula najwięhzego uprzywilejowania ['The most favoured nation clause'], Dom Organizatora, Toruń 2006.
• Kaniel M., The exclusive treaty making power of the European Community up to the period of the Single European Act, Kluwer Law International, The Hague-Boston 1996.
• Law and practice of EU external relations, ed. A. Dashwood, M. Maresceau, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008.
• Mendez M., The legal effects of EU agreements, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013.
• Mik C., Europejskie prawo wspólnotowe. Zagadnienia teorii i praktyki ['European Community law. Problems of theory and practice'], t. 1, C. H. Beck, Warszawa 2000.
• Mik C., Fenomenologia regionalnej integracji państw. Studium prawa międzynarodowego ['Phenomenology of regional integration of states. Study of international law'], t. 2, C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2019.
• Musgrave R.A., Musgrave P. B., Public finance in theory and practice, McGraw-Hill International Editions, Singapore 1989.
• Polska kultura prawna a proces integracji europejskiej ['Polish legal culture and the process of European integration'], red. S. Wronkowska, Zakamycze, Kraków 2005.
• Prawo Wspólnot Europejskich. Orzecznictwo, ['European Communities law. Jurisprudence'], wybór i red. W. Czapliński, R. Ostrihansky, P. Saganek, A. Wyrozumska, Scholar, Warszawa 2001.
• The relevance of WTO law for tax matters, ed. J. Herdin-Winter, I. Hofbauer, Linde, Wien 2006.
• Saganek P., Podział kompetencji między Wspólnoty Europejskie a państwa członkowskie ['Division of powers between the European Communities and their member states'], Prawo i Praktyka Gospodarcza, Warszawa 2002.
• Sarooshi D., International organizations and their exercise of sovereign powers, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2007.
• Sozański J., Umowy międzynarodowe Unii Europejskiej po Traktacie z Lizbony ['International agreements of the European Union after the Lisbon Treaty'], Polskie Wydawnictwo Prawnicze "Iuris", Poznań 2011.
• Suwerenność i ponadnarodowość a integracja europejska ['Sovereignty and supranationality and European integration'], red. J. Kranz, Prawo i Praktyka Gospodarcza, Warszawa 2006.
• WTO and direct taxation, ed. M. Lang, J. Herdin, I. Hofbauer, Kluwer Law International, Wien 2005.
• Cappadona G., National report Italy, [in:] wto and direct taxation, ed. M. Lang, J. Herdin, I. Hofbauer, Kluwer Law International, Wien 2005.
• Huber S., The most favoured nation principle in wto and dtc law - similarities and differences, [in:] The relevance of wto law for tax matters, ed. J. Herdin-Winter, I. Hofbauer, Linde, Wien 2006.
• Jacobs F. G., Direct effect and interpretation of international agreements in the recent case law of the European Court of Justice, [in:] Law and practice of EU exter-nal relations, ed. A. Dashwood, M. Maresceau, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008.
• Kranz J., Suwerenność w dobie przemian ['Sovereignty in the era of changes'], [in:] Suwerenność i ponadnarodowość a integracja europejska ['Sovereignty and supranationality and European integration'], red. J. Kranz, Prawo i Praktyka Gospodarcza, Warszawa 2006.
• Kuijper P.J., Case 21-24/72, International Fruit Company v Produktschap voor Siergewassen, Court of Justice of the ec, [1972] ECR 1219, [in:] Judicial deci-sions on the law of international organizations, ed. C. Ryngaert, I. F. Dekker, R. A. Wessel, J. Wouters, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2016.
• Mik C., Wykładnia zgodna prawa krajowego z prawem Unii Europejskiej ['Interpretation consistent with the law of the European Union'], [in:] Polska kultura prawna a proces integracji europejskiej ['Polish legal culture and the process of European integration'], red. S.Wronkowska, Zakamycze, Kraków 2005.
• Nauer Ch., National treatment in the gatt and the gats compared to non-discrimi-nation in dtc - similarities and differences, [in:] The relevance of wto law for tax matters, ed. J. Herdin-Winter, I. Hofbauer, Linde, Wien 2006.
• Petritz M., National report Austria, [in:] wto and direct taxation, ed. M. Lang, J. Herdin, I. Hofbauer, Kluwer Law International, Wien 2005.
• Schyle M., Most favoured nation treatment in tax matters in the gatt, [in:] The rel-evance of wto law for tax matters, ed. J. Herdin-Winter, I. Hofbauer, Linde, Wien 2006.
• Stricker T. K., National report Germany, [in:] wto and direct taxation, ed. M. Lang, J. Herdin, I. Hofbauer, Kluwer Law International, Wien 2005.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.35757/sm.2020.73.4.08