Читать интересную книгу Основы международного корпоративного налогообложения - Владимир Гидирим

236

Дернберг Р. Л. Международное налогообложение. М.: ЮНИТИ, 1997. С. 25.

237

Более подробно на эту тему см. отчет IFA Cahiers «The tax treatment of transfer of residence by individuals». 2002. Vol. 87b.

238

В последнее время все больше состоятельных американских граждан отказываются от гражданства США, к примеру один из соучредителей Facebook Эдуардо Саверин сделал это перед IPO компании в 2012 г. (Laura Saunders. Should You Renounce Your U.S. Citizenship? // The Wall Street Journal. May 18, 2012. URL: www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303879604577410021186373802).

239

The 183-day rule: some problems of application and interpretation, OECD CFA. 1992.

240

Например, Великобритания следует этому подходу после судебного дела CIR v. Wilkie (1951). Подробнее об этом и других делах, связанных с трактовкой 183-дневного теста в Великобритании, см.: Mike Truman. Wise guidance? // Taxation. 2005. 1 Sept. URL: www.taxation.co.uk/taxation/articles/2005/09/01/3447/wise-guidance.

241

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 200.

242

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 4. § 2.

243

Calcutta Jute Mills v. Nicholson (1876) 1 ExD 428 (Ex) at 432.

244

Ned Shelton. Interpretation and application of double tax treaties. Tottel Publishing, reprinted 2007. P. 67.

245

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 210.

246

Ibid.

247

Ibid.

248

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 262–264.

249

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 210.

250

De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd. v. Howe (1906) AC 455. URL: www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/19052KB612.html.

251

Исходный текст (англ.): «…An individual may be of foreign nationality, and yet reside in the United Kingdom. So may a company. Otherwise it might have its chief seat of management and its centre of trading in England under the protection of English law, and yet escape the appropriate taxation by the simple expedient of being registered abroad and distributing its dividends abroad… In applying the conception of residence to a company, we ought, I think, to proceed as nearly as we can upon the analogy of an individual. A company cannot eat or sleep, but it can keep house and do business. We ought, therefore, to see where it really keeps house and does business… The decision of Kelly C.B. and Huddleston B. in the Calcutta Jute Mills v. Nicholson (1876) 1 Ex. D. 428. and the Cesena Sulphur Co. v. Nicholson (1876) 1 Ex. D. 428, now thirty years ago, involved the principle that a company resides for the purposes of income tax where its real business is carried on… I regard that as the true rule, and the real business is carried on where the central management and control actually abides. <…> This is a pure question of fact to be determined, not according to the construction of this or that regulation or by-law, but upon a scrutiny of the course of business and trading…»

252

После дела De Beers установленный в нем принцип подтвердился еще как минимум в трех решениях суда палаты лордов: American Thread Co. v. Joyce, New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Thew и Bradbury v. English Sewing Cotton Co. Ltd.

253

Bullock v. Unit Construction Co Ltd. (1959) 38 TC 712.

254

Robert Couzin. Corporate residence and international taxation. IBFD, 2002. P. 87.

255

Swedish Central Railway Company Limited v. Thompson (Inspector of Taxes) (1923–1925) 9 TC 342.

256

Todd (Inspector of Taxes) v. Egyptian Delta Land and Investment company (1926–1928) 14 TC 119.

257

New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v Thew (1922) 8 TC 208 (HL).

258

Egyptian Hotels Ltd. v. Mitchell (Surveyor of Taxes) (1914–1916) 6 TC 542.

259

Wood and Another v. Holden (2006) EWCA Civ 26. URL: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/26.html.

260

Wood and Another v. Holden (2006) EWCA Civ 26.

261

Re Little Olympian Each Ways Ltd. (1995) 1 WLR 560; Untelrab Ltd v. McGregor (Inspector of Taxes) (1996) STC (SCD).

262

Untelrab Ltd v. McGregor (Inspector of Taxes) (1996) STC (SCD).

263

Laerstate BV v. Revenue and Customs Commissioners (2009) UKFTT 209 TC.

264

Collett Matthew. Developing a New Test for Fiscal Residence for Companies. // University of New South Wales Law Journal. 2003. Vol. 26(3). P. 622. Footnotes 18–22. URL: www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLJ/2003/42.html#Heading7.

265

Zehnder and Company v. Minister of National Revenue, 70 DTC 6064 (1970).

266

Yamaska Steamship Company Limited v. Minister of National Revenue 61 DTC 716 (TAB).

267

Crossley Carpets (Canada) Limited v. Minister of National Revenue 69 DTC 5015 (1969).

268

Robert Couzin. Corporate residence and international taxation. IBFD, 2002. P. 80, 87.

269

Esquire Nominees Ltd v. FCT (1973) 129 CLR 177.

270

Esquire Nominees Ltd v. FCT («…the firm had power to exert influence, and perhaps strong influence, on the appellant, but that is all»).

271

North Australian Pastoral Co Ltd v. FCT (1946) 71 CLR 623.

272

Malayan Shipping Co Ltd v. FCT (1946) 71 CLR 156.

273

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 4. § 1. P. 85.

274

Ibid. § 8–8.1. P. 86.

275

Ibid. Commentary to art. 4. § 8.7. P. 88.

276

Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha. The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction. Deventer – Boston, 1989. § 141-4.

277

Smallwood v. RCC (2008) 10 ITLR 574 (SC), § 88—102.

278

Ibid. § 4–5. P. 83.

279

Ibid. § 22. P. 86.

280

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Art. 4. § 3. P. 26.

281

Smallwood v. RCC (2008) 10 ITLR 574 (SC). § 112.

282

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 262.

283

Ibid.

284

The Impact of the Communications Revolution on the Application of the «Place of Effective Management» as a Tie Breaker Rule. OECD, 2001, para. 27, footnote 9: Vogel, K, Klaus Vogel, Double Taxation Conventions, 3rd edition, Kluwer Law International: «Термин „место управления“, установленный в немецком праве, схож с понятием, используемым в соглашениях об избежании двойного налогообложения, ввиду того, что термин „место управления“ интерпретируется судами на основании фактических условий».

285

Ibid, para. 28.

286

К примеру, в Великобритании это предусмотрено в Акте о налогообложении прибыли компаний: CTA 1988, s. 19; CTA 2010, s. 1141–1153.

287

Crown Forest Industries Ltd v. Canada (1995) 2 SCR 802 (SC).

288

Ibid. § 68.

289

Jacques Sasseville. Chapter 9: The meaning of «Place of Effective Management» // Residence of Companies under Tax Treaties and EC Law / ed. by Prof. Gugliemo Maisto. IBFD. Amsterdam, 2009. Р. 299.

290

BGE 4 December 2003, 2A 321/2003.

291

Transfer Pricing and Business Restructurings: Streamlining All the Way / ed. by Anuschka Bakker. IBFD, 2009. P. 364.

292

OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2000). Commentary. URL: www.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/model-tax-convention-on-income-and-on-capital-condensed-version-2000_mtc_cond-2000-en.

293

Удаленный текст п. 24 Комментария версии 2005 г. содержал следующую фразу: «Место эффективного управления находится там, где принимают решения наиболее старшие по должности лица (например, совет директоров)»: «The place of effective management will ordinarily be the place where the most senior person or group of persons (for example a board of directors) makes its decisions…».

294

OECD Model Tax Convention. Condensed Version (2008). Commentary to art. 4. § 24: «24. As a result of these considerations, the „place of effective management“ has been adopted as the preference criterion for persons other than individuals. The place of effective management is the place where key management and commercial decisions that are necessary for the conduct of the entity’s business as a whole are in substance made. All relevant facts and circumstances must be examined to determine the place of effective management. An entity may have more than one place of management, but it can have only one place of effective management at any one time».

295

The Impact of the Communications Revolution on the Application of the «Place of Effective Management» as a Tie Breaker Rule. OECD, 2001.

296

Place of Effective Management Concept: Suggestions for Changes to the OECD Model Tax Convention. OECD, 2003. URL: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/17/2956428.pdf.

297

Ibid. § 24.1 (3). P. 89.

298

The Impact of the Communications Revolution on the Application of the «Place of Effective Management» as a Tie Breaker Rule. OECD, 2001. P. 7.

299

Rajesh Kadakia, Nilesh Modi. The Law and Practice of Tax Treaties: an Indian Perspective. CCH, 2008. P. 164–165.

300

DLJMB Mauritius Investment Co v. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 268 (AAR).

301

Integrated Container Feeder Service v. JCIT (2005) 278 ITR 182 (Mum).

302

Saraswati Holding Corporation Ltd. v. DDIT (2007) 111 TTJ 334.

303

Crown Forest Industries Ltd v. Canada (1995) 2 SCR 802 (SC).

304

The Impact of the Communications Revolution on the Application of the «Place of Effective Management» as a Tie Breaker Rule. OECD, 2001. P. 8.

305

Kohl Uta. The Horror-Scope for the Taxation Office: The Internet and its Impact on «Residence» // University of New South Wales Law Journal. 1998. Vol. 21(2). P. 436. URL: www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLJ/1998/53.html.

306

The Impact of the Communications Revolution on the Application of the «Place of Effective Management» as a Tie Breaker Rule. OECD, 2001. P. 10.

307

OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2014. Commentary to art. 4. § 22. P. 90.

308

The Impact of the Communications Revolution on the Application of the «Place of Effective Management» as a Tie Breaker Rule. OECD, 2001. § 64.

309

Place of Effective Management Concept: Suggestions for Changes to the OECD Model Tax Convention. OECD, 2003. § 3. P. 1.

310

Ibid. § 8. P. 3.

311

Collett Matthew. Developing a New Test for Fiscal Residence for Companies // University of New South Wales Law Journal. 2003. Vol. 26(3).

312

Australian Taxation Office Ruling TR 98/11 (5.46).

313

Australian Taxation Office Ruling TR 97/20 (2.39).

314

Kirt Butler. Multinational Finance. 2d Ed. Michigan State University. P. 303.

315

Collett Matthew. Developing a New Test for Fiscal Residence for Companies. // University of New South Wales Law Journal. 2003. Vol. 26(3).

316

Шахмаметьев А. А. Режим налогообложения нерезидентов: правовая основа регулирования. М.: Юрлитинформ, 2010.

317

Rosier C. L’impôt. P.: Fernand Aubier. Editions Montaigne, 1936. Р. 55.

318

Дернберг Р. Л. Международное налогообложение. М.: ЮНИТИ, 1997. С. 25.