On 10 October 2017, the Council adopted the “Directive on Tax Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in the EU” n. 2017/1852/UE. The adoption of this Directive stems from the recent trend, raised within the international tax community following the BEPS actions, to improve the international tax dispute resolution framework and, more in general, from the increasing concerns of the EU institutions with international double taxation. It is, indeed, established that the OECD BEPS actions have stipulated wide-ranging modifications to domestic tax laws and to tax treaties, that could increase legal uncertainty for relevant stakeholders and the risk of double taxation or of taxation not in accordance with Double Taxation Conventions, thus leading to a higher number of disputes between taxpayers and tax authorities. After the approval of the Directive n. 2017/1852, many posed the (enthusiastic) conclusion with regard to this "new" legal measure to be far better than the procedures provided for by the existing DTCs and the EU Arbitration Convention and, thus, to meet its purpose of strengthening the taxpayers legal safeguard within international tax disputes. Throughout this research far more sceptical conclusions will be reached. Precisely, by taking as a landmark the EU Arbitration Directive and by comparing this “brand new” legal instrument with the other existing dispute resolution tools, this research will “test” the efficiency of the overall dispute resolution mechanisms framework and demonstrate that, although the arbitration Directive provides for some clear improvements, many (relevant) bottlenecks of the existing dispute resolution mechanisms have not been completely superseded. The research is structured in four chapters. The first chapter provides for some introductory notions on the existing mechanisms to settle international tax disputes. More specifically, the first chapter will: (i) describe the general functioning and – most importantly – the weaknesses of the mechanisms to settle international disputes that exist alongside the EU Arbitration Directive; (ii) examine how these mechanisms, together with the Directive, can effectively apply for the settlement of transfer pricing disputes; (iii) explore how (and if) these mechanisms can be twisted in order to prevent the rise tax disputes in the first place. Chapters II and III will examine whether (and in which terms) the Directive has strengthened the legal protection of taxpayers through an in-depth comparison of the procedural rules envisioned therein with the procedural rules envisioned under the other existing mechanism. More specifically, given that the Directive, as the other coexisting mechanisms, institutes a two-tier procedure, chapter II and chapter III will address the procedural rules envisioned under the existing dispute resolution tools that govern the functioning, respectively, of the first tier (the so called “mutual agreement procedure”) and of the second tier (the so called “arbitration procedure”). Finally, by taking as a landmark the Italian administrative and judicial tax legal system, chapter IV will address the many and complex issues arising from the interactions of the existing legal instruments to settle international tax disputes with domestic (administrative and judicial) remedies.

Il presente lavoro – redatto in lingua inglese – si sviluppa in quattro capitoli e ha ad oggetto lo studio degli strumenti di risoluzione delle controversie fiscali internazionali attivabili nell’ambito dell’Unione Europea, le cui fonti giuridiche di attivazione sono rinvenibili: (a) nelle Convenzioni internazionali per evitare le doppie imposizioni, come “integrate” dalla “Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting” (MLI); (b) nella c.d. “Convenzione arbitrale” n. 90/436/CEE del 23 luglio 1990; (c) nella Direttiva UE n. 1852/2017. Nel primo capitolo si è tentato di offrire un inquadramento dei tre diversi strumenti di risoluzione delle controversie fiscali internazionali, esaminando alcune questioni di carattere generale. In particolare, tra le altre cose, si è tentato di vagliare: (i) i complessi problemi che si pongono in relazione ai rapporti tra i diversi strumenti e di valutare se, in seguito all’approvazione della Direttiva UE n. 1852/2017, le controversie fiscali tra Stati Membri dell’Unione Europea potranno ancora essere risolte tramite le procedure prefigurate nelle altre fonti giuridiche di attivazione; (ii) la possibilità di attivare le tre procedure – formalmente strutturate solo per la risoluzione di controversie fiscali bilaterali – anche per la risoluzione di controversie fiscali triangolari o multilaterali; (iii) la possibilità di attivare le tre procedure – formalmente strutturate solo per dirimere controversie già sorte – in funzione preventiva. Gli strumenti di risoluzione delle controversie fiscali internazionali oggetto di studio prevedono due distinte procedure: la prima è la c.d. “mutual agreement procedure” (“MAP”); la seconda – che è meramente eventuale, potendo essere attivata solo nel caso in cui la controversia non sia risolta durante la MAP – è la c.d. “procedura arbitrale”. Nei capitoli secondo e terzo si è dunque tentato di confrontare, rispettivamente, le MAPs e le procedure arbitrali regolate nelle diverse fonti giuridiche di attivazione, al fine di valutare quale sia, tra i vari strumenti di risoluzione delle controversie fiscali internazionali attivabili nell’Unione Europea, quello che assicura maggiori garanzie di tutela per i contribuenti. Tale indagine è stata compiuta muovendo dal presupposto che la salvaguardia dei contribuenti, nell’ambito della predette procedure, ruota attorno ad alcuni snodi chiave, quali, ad esempio: (i) l’adeguata ponderazione dei rapporti con i giudizi eventualmente instaurati “in parallelo” avanti agli organi di giustizia interni; (ii) l’esistenza e l’adeguatezza di regole che assicurino il contraddittorio con i contribuenti; (iii) la configurabilità di rimedi giurisdizionali avverso accordi amichevoli e/o lodi arbitrali ritenuti illegittimi. Accanto a tali considerazioni, di carattere strettamente procedurale, si sono, altresì, svolte alcune riflessioni circa: (v) la qualificazione degli accordi amichevoli e dei lodi arbitrali quali forme di esercizio dei poteri di accertamento riservati all’Amministrazione finanziaria; (vi) la compatibilità delle procedure amichevoli e arbitrali con l’articolo 344 del TFUE. Nel capitolo conclusivo si è tentato di esaminare alcune questioni che si pongono in relazione al coordinamento delle procedure oggetto di indagine con il diritto interno. Ad esempio, si è tentato di: individuare la natura legale degli atti amministrativi interni che danno attuazione ad accordi amichevoli e/o a decisioni arbitrali, nonché di valutarne l’impugnabilità nanti le Commissioni Tributarie; descrivere i rapporti tra le procedure internazionali oggetto di indagine e i giudizi instaurati “in parallelo” davanti agli organi di giustizia interni.

(2020). THE SETTLEMENT OF CROSS-BORDER TAX DISPUTES WITHIN THE EU: WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES. (Tesi di dottorato, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, 2020).

THE SETTLEMENT OF CROSS-BORDER TAX DISPUTES WITHIN THE EU: WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

CONSOLO, GIOVANNI
2020

Abstract

On 10 October 2017, the Council adopted the “Directive on Tax Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in the EU” n. 2017/1852/UE. The adoption of this Directive stems from the recent trend, raised within the international tax community following the BEPS actions, to improve the international tax dispute resolution framework and, more in general, from the increasing concerns of the EU institutions with international double taxation. It is, indeed, established that the OECD BEPS actions have stipulated wide-ranging modifications to domestic tax laws and to tax treaties, that could increase legal uncertainty for relevant stakeholders and the risk of double taxation or of taxation not in accordance with Double Taxation Conventions, thus leading to a higher number of disputes between taxpayers and tax authorities. After the approval of the Directive n. 2017/1852, many posed the (enthusiastic) conclusion with regard to this "new" legal measure to be far better than the procedures provided for by the existing DTCs and the EU Arbitration Convention and, thus, to meet its purpose of strengthening the taxpayers legal safeguard within international tax disputes. Throughout this research far more sceptical conclusions will be reached. Precisely, by taking as a landmark the EU Arbitration Directive and by comparing this “brand new” legal instrument with the other existing dispute resolution tools, this research will “test” the efficiency of the overall dispute resolution mechanisms framework and demonstrate that, although the arbitration Directive provides for some clear improvements, many (relevant) bottlenecks of the existing dispute resolution mechanisms have not been completely superseded. The research is structured in four chapters. The first chapter provides for some introductory notions on the existing mechanisms to settle international tax disputes. More specifically, the first chapter will: (i) describe the general functioning and – most importantly – the weaknesses of the mechanisms to settle international disputes that exist alongside the EU Arbitration Directive; (ii) examine how these mechanisms, together with the Directive, can effectively apply for the settlement of transfer pricing disputes; (iii) explore how (and if) these mechanisms can be twisted in order to prevent the rise tax disputes in the first place. Chapters II and III will examine whether (and in which terms) the Directive has strengthened the legal protection of taxpayers through an in-depth comparison of the procedural rules envisioned therein with the procedural rules envisioned under the other existing mechanism. More specifically, given that the Directive, as the other coexisting mechanisms, institutes a two-tier procedure, chapter II and chapter III will address the procedural rules envisioned under the existing dispute resolution tools that govern the functioning, respectively, of the first tier (the so called “mutual agreement procedure”) and of the second tier (the so called “arbitration procedure”). Finally, by taking as a landmark the Italian administrative and judicial tax legal system, chapter IV will address the many and complex issues arising from the interactions of the existing legal instruments to settle international tax disputes with domestic (administrative and judicial) remedies.
SARTORI, NICOLA
Procedure amichevoli; Procedure arbitrali; MAP; APA; Controversie fiscali
MAP; Arbitration; Transfer pricing; APA; Controversie fiscali
IUS/12 - DIRITTO TRIBUTARIO
English
23-gen-2020
SCIENZE GIURIDICHE - 84R
32
2018/2019
open
(2020). THE SETTLEMENT OF CROSS-BORDER TAX DISPUTES WITHIN THE EU: WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES. (Tesi di dottorato, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, 2020).
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
phd_unimib_823040.pdf

Accesso Aperto

Descrizione: tesi di dottorato
Dimensione 2.59 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.59 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10281/259330
Citazioni
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
Social impact