Владимир Гидирим - Основы международного корпоративного налогообложения
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.
