지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
A tax treaty is applied to a resident of either contracting state. In general a tax treaty defines “resident of a state” as a person liable to tax in that state. One caveat is that if a person is liable to tax only on the income sourcing in the country, he(or it) is not regarded as a resident of that state. Many times businesses are tempted to make use of a tax treaty even if they are not entitled to the tax treaty because they are not residents of either state. To utilize the tax treaty they are likely to establish a separate entity in a place where the entity can enjoy the tax treaty benefit intended and provide financial advantage to them eventually. Such separate entity is often called as a “conduit company”, which is usually built in a low taxed jurisdiction like tax haven. Contracting states may well try to sanction on the apparent misuse of the tax treaty by a conduit company because they did not intend to extend tax treaty benefit to a person sitting behind it. Especially source country is eager to prevent this type of misuse through a conduit company because it has nothing to win anyhow.
This paper intends to provide a few approaches for the interpretation of tax treaty how a source country can sanction treaty shopping by a conduit company such as an offshore investment company. Before a source country applies a tax treaty to an entity, it has to decide whether the entity under question is a resident of the counterpart contracting state. The decision has to be made by the application tax treaties of countries which may affect the taxation of the entity’s income. For example, when the entity has its place of effective management in a country while it was established by the law of another country, the tax treaty between the two countries has to be applied for the decision of its residency. Sometimes the concept of permanent establishment may be utilized to stop double non-taxation, which nevertheless does not help the source country because the entity does not have any nexus in the source country. The source country cannot apply its tax treaty with the country of permanent establishment because a permanent establishment is not a person which in turn can be a resident of a country if it pays taxes there. Even if the source country cannot deny the residency of an entity in the counterpart contracting state, it can find a way not to apply the tax treaty to a resident of the counterpart contracting state. If a specific provision of a tax treaty is stipulated to be applied only to a “beneficial owner” of the income under question, the source country may find a way to argue that the beneficial ownership does not belongs to the conduit company because it is a nominal owner. Even without a specific provision on the beneficial ownership for the case under question, the source country may argue that the concept of beneficial ownership should be extended to such case from the perspective of the purpose and objective of the tax treaty. The concept of beneficial ownership is one of the so called “special anti avoidance rules” applicable tax treaties. If an investment structure is made of a few strata of limited liability companies, the interpretation of tax treaty may not give any clear answer to where the source country finally stops for the application of tax treaty. Possibly the revision of tax treaty to expand the concept of the resident may help, which is out of the scope of this study.
This paper intends to provide a few approaches for the interpretation of tax treaty how a source country can sanction treaty shopping by a conduit company such as an offshore investment company. Before a source country applies a tax treaty to an entity, it has to decide whether the entity under question is a resident of the counterpart contracting state. The decision has to be made by the application tax treaties of countries which may affect the taxation of the entity’s income. For example, when the entity has its place of effective management in a country while it was established by the law of another country, the tax treaty between the two countries has to be applied for the decision of its residency. Sometimes the concept of permanent establishment may be utilized to stop double non-taxation, which nevertheless does not help the source country because the entity does not have any nexus in the source country. The source country cannot apply its tax treaty with the country of permanent establishment because a permanent establishment is not a person which in turn can be a resident of a country if it pays taxes there. Even if the source country cannot deny the residency of an entity in the counterpart contracting state, it can find a way not to apply the tax treaty to a resident of the counterpart contracting state. If a specific provision of a tax treaty is stipulated to be applied only to a “beneficial owner” of the income under question, the source country may find a way to argue that the beneficial ownership does not belongs to the conduit company because it is a nominal owner. Even without a specific provision on the beneficial ownership for the case under question, the source country may argue that the concept of beneficial ownership should be extended to such case from the perspective of the purpose and objective of the tax treaty. The concept of beneficial ownership is one of the so called “special anti avoidance rules” applicable tax treaties. If an investment structure is made of a few strata of limited liability companies, the interpretation of tax treaty may not give any clear answer to where the source country finally stops for the application of tax treaty. Possibly the revision of tax treaty to expand the concept of the resident may help, which is out of the scope of this study.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 조세조약 적용 여부
Ⅲ. 역외투자회사에 대한 조세조약의 적용
Ⅳ. 결론
〈참고문헌〉
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문과 연관된 판례 (2)
-
대법원 1991. 5. 14. 선고 90누3027 판결
원고와 갑이 서로의 토지를 교환하고 각자 교환취득한 토지를 다시 을 은행에 양도한 것이 과중한 양도소득세의 부담을 회피하기 위한 행위라 해도 위와 같은 토지 교환행위는 가장행위에 해당한다는 등 특별한 사정이 없는 이상 유효하다고 보아야 할 것이므로 이를 부인하기 위하여는 권력의 자의로부터 납세자를 보호하기 위한 조세법률주의의 법적 안정성 또
자세히 보기 -
대법원 1992. 5. 22. 선고 91누12103 판결
가. 거래의 상대방을 누구로 볼 것인가의 문제는 법률행위 해석의 문제로서 계약의 내용과 당사자의 의사를 기초로 하여 판단하여야 할 것이지만, 실질과세의 원칙상 단순히 계약서상의 명의에만 의존할 것이 아니라, 당사자의 의사와 매매대금의 실질적인 출연자 등 계약의 실질적인 내용을 종합적으로 고려하여 판단하여야 할 것이고, 거래의 법적 형식이나
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
조세조약의 남용 방지
조세학술논집
2006 .02
-
조세조약 개정의 최근 동향
조세학술논집
2005 .02
-
Korea's Tax Treaty Policy In The Light Of Treaty Shopping
조세연구
2004 .09
-
국내세법의 적용과 Treaty Override
조세학술논집
2006 .08
-
국제조세 주요 판례의 조명과 과제
조세법연구
2016 .11
-
국제세원관리의 문제점과 개선방안
조세학술논집
2011 .02
-
국제투자펀드에 대한 조세조약 적용 : 이자소득에 대한 과세를 중심으로
조세학술논집
2007 .08
-
Star Company에 대한 세제상 고찰
조세학술논집
2012 .02
-
실질과세원칙과 국제조세조정에 관한 법률 제2의 제1항
조세학술논집
2006 .08
-
조세조약상 고정사업장 과세
조세학술논집
2007 .08
-
조세조약에 있어서 거주자 개념 : 대법원 1994. 4. 15. 선고 93누13162 판결
기업법연구
2007 .09
-
한ㆍ미 조세조약상 배당소득의 제한세율 요건에 관한 고찰 : 소유(Own)의 개념 및 적용을 중심으로
조세법연구
2015 .08
-
최근 세법의 동향
조세학술논집
2008 .08
-
국제조세법규 적용을 위한 소득구분 및 원천지 결정 - 과소자본세제 초과이자 및 미등록 특허사용료에 관한 판례를 중심으로 -
조세학술논집
2019 .06
-
OECD모델조세조약주석상 “수익적 소유” 개념 해석지침에 관한 연구
조세학술논집
2020 .03
-
국제조세분쟁과 투자협정상 투자자 : 국가 중재에 관한 고찰
국제경제법연구
2012 .11
-
세법상 거주자 개념
조세학술논집
2008 .02
-
조세조약상 수익적소유자와 국내세법상 실질귀속자와의 관계
조세학술논집
2013 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
‘단체 분류(Entity Classification)’에 관한 대법원 판례와 경제협력개발기구(OECD)의 ‘파트너쉽 보고서(Partnership Report)’의 조화(調和) 가능성에 관한 검토 : 해석론과 문제점을 중심으로
윤지현
조세학술논집
2014
.02
법인세법상 외국단체의 법인판단방법에 대한 고찰
이재호
조세법연구
2012
.12
집합투자기구에 대한 조세조약 적용방안에 관한 연구 : 최근 OECD에서의 논의를 중심으로
손영철
,
김선중
조세법연구
2009
.12
파트너쉽과 국제조세
이창희
조세학술논집
2005
.02
조세조약 해석방법
이창희
조세학술논집
2007
.08
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-329-016731109