CC BY
78Информация для цитирования:
Винницкий Д. В., Савицкий А. И., Пустовалов Е. В. НАЛОГОВЫЙ АРБИТРАЖ В СООТВЕТСТВИИ С МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫМИ НАЛОГОВЫМИ СОГЛАШЕНИЯМИ // Herald of the Euro-Asian Law Congress. 2018. № 2. С. 21-36.
Vinnitskiy D., Savitskiy A., Pustovalov E. TAX TREATY ARBITRATION. Herald of the Euro-Asian Law Congress. 2018. Is. 2. P. 21-36.
УДК 34
BISAC LAW 086000 / Taxation
НАЛОГОВЫЙ арбитраж В СООТВЕТСТВИИ С МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫМИ НАЛОГОВЫМИ СОГЛАШЕНИЯМИ
ДАНИЛ ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ ВИННИЦКИЙ,
Уральский государственный юридический университет (Екатеринбург, Россия)
АНДРЕЙ ИВАНОВИЧ САВИЦКИЙ,
Уральский государственный юридический университет (Екатеринбург, Россия)
ЕВГЕНИЙ ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ ПУСТОВАЛОВ,
Уральский государственный юридический университет (Екатеринбург, Россия)
Введение: данная статья посвящена обзору российской практики разрешения трансграничных налоговых споров и оценке перспектив развития новых механизмов разрешения (в том числе налогового арбитража) налоговых споров, вытекающих из трансграничных отношений. Актуальность темы обусловлена развитием за последние годы международных инструментов устранения двойного налогообложения и разрешения налоговых споров в рамках многосторонних форматов ОЭСР и G20, а также в двусторонних соглашениях об избежании двойного налогообложения. Авторами поставлена цель определить оптимальный механизм разрешения трансграничных налоговых споров в России с учетом сложившегося внутригосударственного правового регулирования и взятых международных обязательств в области трансграничного налогообложения.
Методы: авторы использовали общенаучные и частнонаучные методы исследования, а также специально юридические методы познания: сравнительно-правовой, формально-юридический и метод логического, системного и функционального толкования. Изучена научная литература последних лет, посвященная отдельным аспектам исследования.
Анализ: практика применения международных налоговых соглашений России показывает, что разрешение трансграничных налоговых споров производится преимущественно в рамках внутригосударственных судебных процедур. Взаимосогласительные процедуры и налоговый арбитраж не являются распространенными механизмами разрешения трансграничных налоговых споров в России. Вместе с тем международные инвестиционные споры, затрагивающие отдельные аспекты налогообложения, зачастую рассматриваются с помощью международных институтов арбитража.
Результаты: Российская Федерация в рамках обязательств, принятых в соответствии с Многосторонним инструментом (MLI), рассматривает процедуры арбитража и взаимного соглашения только как возможные альтернативные способы урегулирования трансграничных
налоговых споров, возникающих из международных налоговых соглашений. Авторы с опорой на известную практику разрешения трансграничных налоговых споров сделали вывод о том, что в современных условиях ни одно государство не может полностью изолировать себя от международных арбитражных процедур, даже если соответствующее государство не включило арбитражную оговорку в свои налоговые соглашения и не взяло на себя обязательства в соответствии с Многосторонним инструментом (MLI) в отношении налогового арбитража.
Ключевые слова: трансграничное налогообложение, трансграничные налоговые споры, международные налоговые договоры, взаимосогласительные процедуры, налоговый арбитраж
UDC 34
BISAC LAW 086000 / Taxation
TAX TREATY ARBITRATION
DANIL V. VINNITSKIY,
Ural State Law University (Yekaterinburg, Russia)
ANDREY I. SAVITSKIY,
Ural State Law University (Yekaterinburg, Russia)
EVGENIY V. PUSTOVALOV,
Ural State Law University (Yekaterinburg, Russia)
Introduction: this article reviews the cross-border tax disputes resolution practice in Russia and evaluates the prospects for the development of new mechanisms for the resolution of tax disputes arising from cross-border relations, including tax arbitration. In recent years, the development of international instruments for eliminating double taxation and resolving tax disputes within OECD and G20 multilateral formats as well as bilateral agreements on avoidance of double taxation have led to the growing interest in this paper's topic. The purpose of this paper is to determine / identify an optimal mechanism for the cross-border tax disputes resolution in Russia, taking into account the current domestic legal regulation and international commitments in the field of cross-border taxation.
Methods: given the nature of this research, we have used the general scientific and individual scientific research methods. We have also used legal research methods such as comparative legal and formal legal methods, logical, systemic, and functional interpretation. The recent academic literature on the particular aspects of this research has been investigated too.
Analysis: the practice in the application of international tax agreements in Russia demonstrates that the cross-border tax disputes are mainly resolved within the framework of domestic judicial procedures. Mutual agreement procedures and tax arbitration are not common mechanisms for resolving cross-border tax disputes in Russia. Meanwhile, the international investment disputes affecting particular aspects of taxation are often dealt through international arbitration institutions.
Results: as a part of the commitments made under the Multilateral Instrument (MLI), Russian Federation considers arbitration and mutual agreement procedures only as possible alternative ways to settle cross-border tax disputes arising from international tax agreements. Based on the well-known cross-border tax disputes resolution practice, we conclude that none of the states could completely isolate itself from the international arbitration procedures in the current circumstances. This is true even if such state did not include the arbitration clause in its tax agreements and did not make the commitments on tax arbitration under the Multilateral Instrument (MLI).
Keywords: cross-border taxation, cross-border tax disputes, international tax treaties, mutual agreement procedures, tax arbitration
Introduction
This article is devoted to a review of the Russian practice of resolving cross-border tax disputes and assessing the prospects for the development of new mechanisms for the resolution (including tax arbitration) of tax disputes arising from cross-border relations. The relevance of the topic is due to the development in recent years of international instruments for eliminating double taxation and resolving tax disputes within the multilateral formats of OECD and G20, as well as in bilateral agreements on avoidance of double taxation. The authors set the goal to determine the optimal mechanism for resolving cross-border tax disputes in Russia, taking into account the prevailing domestic legal regulation and international commitments in the field of cross-border taxation.
Materials and methods
Taking into account the nature of the research, the authors used general scientific and private scientific methods of research, as well as specially legal methods of cognition: comparative legal, formal legal and logical, systemic and functional interpretation.
The authors studied the scientific literature of Russian and foreign authors, devoted to specific aspects of the research. Also, international and national regulations affecting cross-border taxation and resolution of tax disputes have been studied, and the departmental and judicial practice of their application has been summarized.
Results
The results of the research are expressed in the author's conclusions.
Discussion
1. Tax Treaty Disputes: the Current Landscape
1.1. The years 2011-2017 were marked in Russia by the quite dynamic development of the judicial doctrines connected with the cross-border taxation situations. Though we should recognize that the statistics of cross-border tax disputes (in particular, in regard to the cases on interpretation
and application of tax treaties) have not been so far summarized in a systemic way for public purposes, the RF Supreme Court and the Federal Tax Service of the RF undoubtedly keep their own records. The results of this work are the topical reviews of the court decisions and case-law summaries that are periodically sent to lower courts or tax authorities. The disputes which are considered at the higher court instances attract, as a rule, the attention of experts, are analyzed in academic and practical literature.
Among the cross-border tax disputes, which are regularly considered in the Russian Commercial Courts the following categories may be mentioned:
1) on the application of the thin capitalization rules (it is important to stress that the maximum growth in the number of cases of this category was in 2011-2016 period) [Vinnitskiy 2016: 133167; Mardan 2017: 1];
2) on the application of the beneficial owner concept (the increase of the disputes of this category is expected due to the introduction in 2015 of the special regulation in this sphere in Articles 7 and 312 of the RF Tax Code) (in Letter № CA-4-7/9270 of 17 May 2017, the Russian Federal Tax Service explained its approach to interpreting the concept of the beneficial ownership of income in applying tax treaty provisions. The position taken by the tax authorities is in line with the court practice of 2014-2017);
3) on the recognition of the Permanent establishment (PE) of a foreign company (including that of an agent type) which appeared in the Russian jurisdiction, in particular, in connection with «Oriflame» precedent (on 14 January 2016 the RF Supreme Court ruled in favour of the tax authorities in a controversial case involving the qualification of a legally separate Russian entity as a permanent establishment of its foreign affiliate, case № 305-KG15-11546);
4) on the cross-border taxation regimes of certain categories of passive incomes (dividends, interest, royalties) and disputes concerning the interpretation of other distributive articles (Arts 6-9, 13-21) of tax treaties [Huizingra, Voget, Wagner 2018: 306];
5) the procedural aspects of the application of international tax treaties, in particular, on the procedure of confirming residence or / and con-
firming the right to offset amount of taxes paid abroad (i. e. tax credit procedure), the procedures of submitting to court the documents, received in regard to the regime of tax information exchange between tax authorities, etc.;
6) on the application of transfer pricing rules (Chapter 14-14.6 of the RFTC); however, it seems that in the framework of these disputes the issues of the interpretation of domestic norms are the key ones.
1.2. In the recent period (in particular, in 2016-2017) the RF Supreme Court and Cassation Commercial Courts considered significant cross-border tax disputes mostly connected:
with the application of the low rate in regard to passive incomes (20 cases),
with the re-qualification of interest into dividends on the basis of applying thin capitalization rules (12 cases),
the confirmation of residence status (12 cases).
In the official database, it is possible to identify also several disputes connected with the exchange of information and the limitations on benefits in regard to a tax treaty (LOB), however, in principle they are not common yet and are quite isolated.
In 2014-2015, selected issues of cross-border taxation (on residence of natural persons and domestic thin capitalization rules) were considered in the RF Constitutional Court; though the grounds for the constitutional jurisdiction in this sphere seem quite disputable.
1.3. Undoubtedly, the number of cross-border tax disputes in Russia, in general, is gradually increasing. In particular, it is an important sign that in 2017 the RF Supreme Court approved the following quite important rulings directly devoted to cross-border tax disputes:
«The review of case-law connected with the protection of foreign investors», approved by the Presidium of the RF Supreme Court Presidium of 12 July 2017;
«The review of case-law connected with the application of certain provisions of section V.1 and Article 269 of RF Tax Code», approved by the Presidium of the RF Supreme Court of 16 February 2017.
1.4. It should be noted that the justifications of the final decisions of the domestic courts on the cross-border tax disputes do not always cor-
respond to the essence of the respective disputes and the legal issues which caused it. For instance, not in all the decisions on cross-border tax disputes, where the respective tax treaties were applied, they (the treaties) have been analyzed in the context of the OECD / UN Model Convention and the relevant commentaries to the Model. Besides, not in all cases the experts analyzing the decisions made could identify the interpretation methods applied by the court and the extent of their corresponding to the fundamental rules of interpretation of international treaties on the whole (also those following from the Vienna Convention on International Treaty Law).
1.5. The realization of the BEPS Action Plan has undoubtedly affected the system of solving cross-border tax disputes in Russia. Many recommendations following from the provisions of the BEPS Action Plan have been consistently implemented in the Russian domestic tax legislation:
1) the modernization of transfer pricing rules;
2) the introduction of special provisions against tax treaty abuse and rules on limitations of benefits into the RF Tax Treaty and bilateral tax treaties.
Besides, the provisions of the BEPS Action Plan indirectly have inspired the elaboration of the recently introduced RF Tax Code Chapters on taxation of Controlled Foreign Corporations and on taxation income in the hands of beneficial owner «a person who has an actual right to receive the income».
However, all the abovementioned parts of domestic legislation have been introduced recently and they just start to be interpreted and applied by national courts in concrete cross-border situations. Meanwhile, the current development of the Russian tax legislation de facto contributes to the increase of the number of cross-border tax disputes and the correlation of the content of these disputes with the key positions of the BEPS Action Plan.
In some summaries of the case-law we can see a direct reference to the BEPS Action Plan as a document which can influence the approaches of courts to taxation of cross-border operations (especially under the condition of the implementation of its respective provisions into Russian law). As an example, we may mention the Ruling on the results of summarizing the case-law of the
Fourth Commercial Appeal Court «On application of transfer pricing rules in connection with conducting operations with foreign organizations» (see Para. 7 of the Section I of the Working Plan of the Fourth Commercial Appeal Court for the period of July 2015 - December 2015, approved by the Decision of the Presidium of the Court of 14.07.2015 № 119). However, it should be taken into account that the abovementioned document was adopted at the level of the Court of the second instance and does not affect the case-law on the national scale.
The RF Supreme Court expressed its interest in the uniformity of approaches to the protection of the rights of foreign investors in levying taxes and customs duties, which it demonstrated by the adoption of the abovementioned Decision of the Presidium of the RF Supreme Court Presidium of 12 July 2017. However, the given document does not contain any specific references to the prospects of the implementation of the BEPS Action Plan into the Russian legal system.
1.6. A specific feature of the Russian legal system is that some issues of indirect taxation in cross-border situations are regulated not only by domestic law; they are also in the scope of special bilateral tax treaties (based on CIS Model) and in the scope of the Treaty on the foundation of the Eurasian Economic Union of 29 May 2018 (Treaty on EAEU). The application of both domestic law provisions and international treaties rules in this sphere gives rise to a special category of cross-border disputes in regard to VAT connected with:
the confirmation of the right to apply 0 % tax rate in case if exporting goods;
the identification of the place of supplying services for the purposes of VAT computation in regard to international contracts, etc.
Besides, in regard to some cases the Russian courts interpreted and applied the general rule of Article 72 of the Treaty on EAEU which provides for the principles of levying indirect taxes in the EAEU and the guarantees of non-discrimination.
Since 2015, the RF Supreme Court and Cassation Commercial courts have applied the given rule of the Treaty on EAEU in 13 cases. Potentially, the solution of disputes in the cases of this category may be also influenced by the legal positions of the Eurasian Economic Court whose jurisdiction is connected with the right to interpret
the international treaty concluded between EAEU Member States.
1.7. The Russian Federation belongs to the jurisdictions which usually do not provide in their tax treaties a provision on the possibility of tax arbitration. There are very few exceptions from this general approach and the most important among them, is the tax treaty between the Russian Federation and the Netherlands. However, there is no available information that the Parties to this treaty have ever resorted to the given arbitration reservation for resolving a particular dispute.
At the same time, the Russian Federation leads in the number of major investment disputes which were initiated on the basis of bilateral investment treaties or special multilateral treaties (e. g., Energy Charter) and which de facto are based on tax related issues. In most cases the investors' position was that the application of tax legislation (or tax legislation and relevant provisions of tax treaties) by Russian tax authorities fundamentally violated the guarantees of their economic rights, in particular, right of property / expropriation, due process, right for fair treatment and non-discrimination, etc. Evidently, the given disputes in the way of trying them by investment international tribunals are not quite similar to tribunals which could be invoked in accordance with tax treaties procedures. At the same time, it was the domestic tax legislation on cross-border operations (or the domestic tax legislation and the relevant provisions of tax treaties), that constitutes the «material basis» for the respective disputes [Vinnitskiy 2017: 461-482].
1.8. Certain tax issues including those of crossborder character can be considered in the framework of international commercial arbitration, as the tax consequences are able to influence the conditions of a certain transaction. As typical examples some situations may be mentioned where the participants of mergers and takeovers argued in regard to the damages to the company (the one which acquired the business) because the previous owner (shareholder) committed some tax violations which were revealed by a tax authority after the transfer of ownership rights for the respective company.
1.9. In Russian doctrinal literature there are often criticisms of the system of solving cross-border tax disputes developed in the Russian Fe-
deration, also for the lack of a uniform approach of courts to the legal role of the provisions of the Commentaries to the OECD / UN Mode Conventions [Vinnitskiy 2017; Ledneva 2018: 106-115] and for the controversy or lack of legal position of Courts in regard to the qualification of different legally important circumstances for the purposes of solving international tax disputes.
2. Dispute Resolution under a Mutual Agreement Procedure: State of the Art or Fundamentally Broken?
2.1. In Russian domestic tax legislation there are no special rules concerning Mutual agreement procedures. In this context, the analysis of the general rules on cross-border / international tax dispute resolution may be the starting point for identifying the role of MAP in the Russian legal system. We could suppose that MAP (the respective clause has been included in all 83 tax treaties of the Russian Federation) should be treated in the above-mentioned domestic context as a form of mediation and as an additional instrument to prevent or settle tax disputes.
However, one shall stress there is neither legal concept of a national «tax dispute», nor international tax dispute in the Russian tax law. Therefore, there are no special measures or instruments to avoid or settle an international tax dispute, except for Trilateral Advance pricing agreements (APAs) with regard to international transfer pricing cases. Due to the RF Constitution provisions and supporting procedural laws any tax dispute between a taxpayer and the tax authorities, including cross-border tax dispute, shall be governed by domestic dispute settlement rules, including pre-trial and judicial remedies.
Generally, the main tax dispute settlement procedure involves: 1) pre-trial reconciliation of disagreements between taxpayer and the tax authorities revealed in the tax audit, but before the tax ruling charging additional tax and penalties; 2) pre-trial appeal on the tax ruling that has not entered into force - to the higher tax authority; appeal on the tax ruling that has entered into force - to the higher tax authority up to the central department of the FTS; 3) judicial tax dispute settlement involving first, appeal, two cassations and ultimate supervisory instances of commercial (arbitration) and general jurisdiction courts.
2.2. Speaking about MAP and cross-border tax disputes, one may note the new Russian transfer
pricing rules (Art. 105.20 (2) of the Tax Code) which provide for the right of a Russian «major taxpayer» to address to the Federal Tax Service with the request to conclude an advance price agreement with the competent authority of a counter-party State, provided such party, being engaged in a foreign trade transaction, is a resident of a DTT-partner of the Russian Federation. Detailed rules shall be issued by the Ministry of Finance.
Certain domestic measures aimed at preventing cross-border tax disputes may be found in the Articles of the Tax Code dealing with the corporate residence and CFC rules, e. g. the provision according to which a foreign organization has the right to lodge an application to the tax authorities to be regarded as a Russian tax resident or to cease to be the Russian tax resident (see Art. 246.2 (8) of the Tax Code).
Article 25.13 (13) of the Tax Code allows Russian tax resident to recognize himself as a «controlling person» of a CFC and notify the tax authorities of it. Should the tax authorities find a taxpayer to be the «controlling person» of a CFC and failing to notify of it, the tax authorities have a right to request the taxpayer to file the notification of CFC and the latter has a right to present his clarifications and proving documents stating the contrary (Art. 25.14 (8) of the Tax Code).
Tax services could also prevent tax disputes, e.g. a foreign organization providing electronic services in Russia to natural persons without a PE shall communicate and file returns via electronic «VAT office» at the FTS' web-site (Art. 174.2 (8) of the Tax Code).
2.3. One more tax instrument has been recently introduced, namely the «tax monitoring» (see Chapter V. 2 of the Tax Code). A taxpayer - organization satisfying certain conditions (including 300 mln RUR of taxes accrued, 3 billion RUR of assets, etc.) could request a reasoned opinion of the tax authorities on assessment of taxes on executed or planned transaction. The taxpayer has a right to challenge a reasoned opinion and a mutual agreement procedure shall take place then, where the FTS will reconcile the reasoned opinion and adjust it if necessary.
Most other taxpayers including foreign taxpayers, not entitled to tax monitoring benefits, have the right to request a kind of a «tax rescript» -clarification of the tax legislation given by the regional tax authorities or the Federal Tax Service.
Should a taxpayer follow the tax clarification, provided such clarification was regarded erroneous later, he will be relieved from tax penalties, however a tax debt will still be due.
2.4. One more positive trend shall be stressed in the field of tax disputes resolution: tax authorities allow amicable agreements with taxpayers in judicial trials. The first successful amicable agreement approved by the court is found in the Ruling of the Presidium of the Higher Arbitration Tribunal of 26 June 2012 No. 16370/11 case No. A40-111792/10-127-534 «Loyalty Partners - Vostok». The Presidium concluded there is no violation of or contradiction to the law, such amicable agreement does not breach any rights or lawful interests of a third person and approved it. The taxpayer agreed to increase gains for CIT purposes and pay additional tax, penalties and penalty interests in prescribed amounts. Later the FTS issued the Letter of 2 October 2013 No. CA-4-7/17648 and confirmed the practice of amicable agreements in tax disputes.
It is noteworthy that the Higher Arbitration Tribunal (was merged with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation) has introduced bill No. 121844-6 on 02.08.2012 to the State Duma according to which any dispute could be settled by way of negotiations, mediation, judicial reconciliation and any other dispute settlement procedures, provided it is not contrary to the legal regulation. However, this bill has been rejected by the State Duma on 09.12.2016.
3. The Experience with Arbitration in International Tax Disputes
3.1. Ordinary international instruments on tax dispute resolution are well presented at the Russian tax treaties network including DTTs, EoI agreements, Multilateral Conventions, BITs and others. Almost all Russian DTTs comprise MAP (Art. 25 OECD MTC).
According to Art. 26 (5) of the Russia-Netherlands DTT, if MAP was not successful and there is still dispute between competent authorities of Contracting States, an independent tax arbitration may be initiated by competent authorities of Contracting States. The decision of this arbitration is mandatory both for Contracting States and for taxpayers.
Considering that national tax law and by-laws do not provide for any implementing rules for MAP or for tax arbitrage or another instrument,
the only support a taxpayer may have is a short guidance how to apply to the Ministry of Finance for MAP at its website (http://old.minfin.ru/com-mon/img/uploaded/library/2012/03/Provedenie_ vzaimosoglasitelnoy_protsedury.pdf). Thus, tax residence issues might hypothetically be resolved through MAP or tax arbitrage with the above-mentioned jurisdictions, although the procedure has not been set up and clear.
International tax dispute between states when the Russian Federation participates in it should be resolved through the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP). All double tax treaties (DTT), signed and ratified by the Russian Federation, contain an article on the MAP. At the same time, for the implementation of these procedures there have not been established any auxiliary institutes. There are not any published official guidelines and document templates to carry these procedures out.
3.2. The Russian DTT with the Netherlands provides for arbitration (ad hoc) procedure and there was some discussion in the expert community about the feasibility of the introduction of this institute in other DDTs, but this process has not received its development. So far we are not aware of any proceedings in arbitration according to this DDT. Moreover, for this arbitration certain procedures must be established in both contracting states. It has not been done at least in the Russian Federation.
3.3. It is important to take into account that even if an arbitration clause is provided for in a tax treaty, it does not necessarily mean that arbitration tribunal will be de facto created in case of a relevant tax dispute. Consequently, above-mentioned results that arbitration clause as such may not be considered as the establishment of the procedure of settling a dispute.
It explains, why in cross-border situations the ECtHR, Investment Arbitration and Commercial Arbitration Courts on private law disputes sometimes used as alternative dispute resolution mechanism in order to resolve some tax related cross-border disputes.
The significant number of the states, including Russia, are adherent of their national tax sovereignty impeding to provide for in their tax treaties binding arbitration procedure (which prevent them from making it a widely used procedure for settling tax treaty disputes).
However, in fact several existing legal mechanisms make it possible to consider some disputes of tax related nature in the regime of international arbitration. At the same time, it should be taken into account that in these cases we speak of a non-specialized tax arbitration and on the whole the dispute which has arisen may be characterized as a private law one.
International commercial arbitration when considering the claims connected with civil law damages which arose in different jurisdictions in many cases had to deal with the issues of cross-border taxation. For instance, the International Commercial Court (at the RF Commercial Chamber) met satisfied as a compensation of a real damage:
1) on the compensation of the expenses caused by the extra payment of the customs duty and VAT in regard to the amount of goods the shortage (decrease) of which is proved by the plaintiff (case № 413/1999, decision of 23.06.99);
2) on the compensation of the amount of VAT paid by a Russian company because a USA company resident (buyer) has not submitted the documents provided for by the contract which made it impossible for the seller to receive a tax benefit (case № 91/1997, decision of 29.05.98);
3) on the compensation of damages caused by the supply of defective goods in particular: insurance expenses in regard to the goods supplied under CFR conditions; the expenses connected with receiving an import license; with customs formalities in regard to the cargo and the payment of VAT; the expenses of checking the quality of goods in the country of destination and of opening a letter of credit (case № 166/1995, decision of 12.03.96);
4) in 2015 American Exxon Mobil initiated an arbitration in the Stockholm Commercial Court asking the RF Government to change the interpretation of the contract clause of production sharing agreement «Sakhalin-I» (in which Exxon is an operator) in regard to the application of a lower tax rate in the framework of the special regime for profit tax stipulated by the agreement. In 2017 the information appeared that the parties reached an amicable agreement in respect of the dispute [Devereux, Fuest, Lockwood 2015: 83].
In general, we may conclude that the Russian Federation has the Experience with arbitration in tax related international disputes, but not in in-
ternational tax disputes (in the narrow sense) as such.
4. The New Framework for Arbitration in Tax Treaty Matters
Russia was one of the first countries which joined the Multilateral instrument and expressed its desire to cover 66 tax treaties (http://www. oecd.org/tax/treaties/beps-mli-position-russia.pdf) by this document including the new, non-effective yet, treaties with Belgium and Brazil (the treaty with Brazil came into force on 19.07.2017 and has been applied since 01.01.2018), having established the most severe restrictions from those provided for by the Multilateral instrument.
In the official public information to the RF Government instruction on signing the Convention (http://government.ru/docs/27781/) the Russian Federation pointed out that the provisions of the Multilateral Instrument will not cover the tax treaties with Sweden and Japan as separate negotiations are held with these countries in respect of concluding new treaties with the account of the norms of the Multilateral instrument. Consequently, a conclusion may be drawn that all the subsequent Russian tax treaties will contain the provisions similar to those that the Russia is planning to introduce on the basis of of the Multilateral instrument.
At the same time, Russia has not expressed a desire to apply the arbitration procedure in the framework of the Multilateral instrument; it is expected that the new Russian bilateral treaties will also not contain the respective arbitration provisions.
5. The Players in Arbitration: Arbitrators, Competent Authorities, Taxpayers and Their Advisers
5.1. In the absence of practical experience of a respective country in international tax treaty arbitration, it makes sense to analyze the practice of other comparable public institutions the experience of which may be used in the framework of future development.
In the Russian Federation there is no special institution of independent third person, contributing to the resolution of international tax disputes between taxpayers and tax authorities and in tax disputes between states. However, if an international tax dispute between the taxpayer and the tax authorities arises and becomes resonant, the
Ombudsman for entrepreneurs or the Ombudsman for Human Rights can hypothetically participate in its resolution (their status is determined by federal laws, for example, Federal Law № 78-FZ of 7 May, 2013 «About Representatives on protection of the rights of entrepreneurs in the Russian Federation»).
It is necessary to note that Russia is a federal state, and in addition to the federal ombudsman for the whole country some regions of the federation have their regional ombudsmen institutions.
The above-mentioned ombudsmen are empowered to appeal to the authorities to protect human rights and the rights of entrepreneurs. However, this is not enough to deviate from the established rules, for example, to carry out a separate mediatory procedure to resolve a tax dispute.
5.2. At the same time in the Russian Federation there is an institution of the Commissioner for the Protection of the Rights of Entrepreneurs (so-called and hereinafter Business-ombudsman).
The procedure for appointing candidates for the position of Business-ombudsman is regulated by the federal law on commissioners (Federal Law No. 78-FZ , 2013: Part 2, art. 1; Part 4, art. 9). The Business-ombudsman is appointed and dismissed by the President of the Russian Federation; Regional Business-ombudsmen - in accordance with the law of the subject of the Russian Federation, upon agreement with the Federal Business-ombudsman, taking into account the opinion of the business community. The regional Business-ombudsmen are appointed and dismissed by senior officials of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on the proposal of the Federal Business-ombudsman taking into account the opinion of the business community [Purina 2015: 127].
The sphere of competence of the Business-ombudsmen is limited to the control of the actions of public authorities, bodies of the subjects of the federation and local self-government bodies, since the main direction of their activities is to monitor compliance with the rights and legitimate interests of business entities.
The federal law provides for the following rights of the Business-ombudsmen: 1) to request and receive from the state authorities, local self-government bodies the necessary information, documents and materials; 2) to participate in a
field audit of the applicant in the framework of state control (supervision) or municipal control.
5.3. A special status for the resolution of tax disputes (or assistance in resolving them) has not been established by law, however, in practice, various public councils are being created within the Business-ombudsmen, experts are called to help resolve disputes in various branches of legislation, including tax relations.
There are various examples where the actions of Business-ombudsmen in the regions led to the successful resolution of disputes between business entities and tax authorities in a pre-trial order. It can be assumed that the successful settlement of the dispute in the pre-trial order was determined by the legal position of the authorized person, but it cannot be said that such a dispute could not be resolved without the involvement of Business-ombudsmen, since Business-ombudsmen do not have authority for monitoring the activities of the tax authorities.
5.4. The Constitutional Law «On the Status of the RF Constitutional Court» provides for the special rules for an expert (e. g. professor of law) who may participate in the Court procedure and submit an official legal opinion on the dispute and the respective recommendations concerning the way how to resolve it. Taking into account that there are at least two important cases (on residence rules and on the application of thin capitalization clause in international context) in the practice of the Constitutional Court, the above-mentioned procedure for experts is quite relevant for the topic under discussion.
The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has a fundamental role in the development of a judicial doctrine on the resolution of tax disputes and the legal position on a particular issue is generally binding for application by the courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts.
The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, when resolving the issue of the compliance of the provisions of the RF Tax Code with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, often indicates which court is competent to resolve a tax dispute, and the courts should not limit themselves establishing only formal conditions for the application of the law. In case of doubt in the legality of the application of tax legislation,
courts are required to assess the totality of circumstances that are relevant to the proper resolution of the case (see for example Definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of January 24, 2008 № 33-0-0, Definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of September 29, 2011 № 1292-0-0, Definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of September 24, 2013 No. 1275-0).
The legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the tax disputes has a significant impact on the entire tax system, since the acts of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation are based on the interpretation of the basic principles of tax legislation, and not only individual articles of the tax code. The basic principles of tax legislation, in turn, are a continuation of the constitutional principles, which creates the basis for compliance with the tax legislation of the Russian Constitution.
When considering tax disputes, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation checks the impugned norms of the law for compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts, having come to the conclusion that the applicable rule of law is contrary to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, during resolution of a particular tax case, should apply to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to resolve such legal problem.
There are also examples when the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation referred to the practice of the European Court in the consideration of the case, thus it can be concluded that within its jurisdiction the court can confirm its understanding of the norms of tax legislation with references to other similar conclusions (see for example Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of July 14, 2005 № 9-P).
6. The Arbitration Method and Decision
6.1. The most relevant public institution (existing in the legal system), the activity of which may be considered as a basis for future development of tax arbitration in regard to cross-border disputes involving Russian jurisdiction, is mediation.
However, in Russian legislation there is no formal definition of tax mediation, though there is a well-established definition of mediation. Article 2 of the Federal Law № 193-FZ
«On the Alternative Dispute Resolution with the Participation of an Intermediary (Mediation Procedure)» defines mediation as «a method of dispute resolution with the help of a mediator based on the voluntary consent of the parties to the achievement of a mutually acceptable solution by the parties».
Discussions about the introduction of mediation have been taking place for a long time. But the legal basis for it appeared only in 2011 when the relevant federal law came into force (193-FZ). At the same time, the possibility of the mediator's participation in resolving economic disputes was provided for in the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation in 2002. Between 2002 and 2011, several draft laws on mediation and conciliatory procedures were developed, including one on the basis of the UNCITRAL model law.
Currently, there are training programs for people who want to obtain a certificate of mediator (see for example Mediator training program, approved by the order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation of February 14, 2011 № 187). Arbitration courts recommend the transfer of disputes for resolution in conciliation or in mediation and even provide venues for these procedures (see information on the work of the «Conciliation Room» at the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region in the web-site: http:// www.ekaterinburg.arbitr.ru/node/16041). Mediators in Russia are united in self-regulating organizations, hold conferences and other scientific and practical events.
Despite all of this, only a very limited number of disputes are resolved with the involvement of a mediator. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation published information on the application in 2015 of the Federal Law «On the Alternative Dispute Resolution with the Participation of an Intermediary (Mediation Procedure)» (http://www. vsrf.ru/Show_pdf.php?Id=10897) by the courts.
In particular, it is pointed out that by way of mediation the dispute was settled in 0.007 % of the number of cases considered by the courts of general jurisdiction and in 0.003 % of cases considered by arbitration courts. In this information there wasn't said anything about cases when there was no preliminary appeal to the court. It can be assumed that such cases occur and they slightly increase the number of disputes resolved
through mediation. But even taking this into account, we must state that the number of disputes is such that no significant role for mediation in the Russian legal order currently exists.
6.2. Before the developing on the basis of the common definition of mediation a new definition of «tax mediation» it is necessary to understand the peculiarities of tax disputes in the Russian Federation and of the existing procedures in this area.
Describing the system of the settlement of tax disputes in the Russian Federation, we can confirm that one of the key principles it is based on is «о налогах не договариваются» (this principle can be translated into English as «taxes (their size and order of payment) are not negotiable»), i.e. «tax liability stems from the law and not from the contract». It means that one party (the taxpayer) must obey the imperious requirements of the other party (the state). They cannot negotiate on an equal footing. This position has been numerously times supported by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (for example, Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation № 20-P of 17 December, 1996 on the case on verification of constitutionality of items 2 and 3 of Article 11 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 24 June 1993 «On Federal Tax Police Bodies»).
This position derives from an approach to the legal understanding of tax law that can be characterized as «formalistic». This model assumes that tax authorities and taxpayers mechanically apply tax law to facts.
6.3. All above-mentioned principles and concepts lead to a restriction of mediation for some areas. According to the mentioned Federal law the mediation in Russia may be formally used only for resolving of certain types of disputes - «disputes arising out of civil relationships, including in connection with the pursuance of business and other economic activity, and also disputes arising out of labor and family legal relationships» (Para. 2 art. 1 of 193-FZ). Other types of disputes can also be resolved through the mediation, but only if the relevant Federal law is adopted.
Regarding the tax disputes at the moment such a law has not been adopted. And, moreover, the special clause on non-use of mediation in disputes with public element (Para. 2 art. 1 of 193-FZ) establishes an additional barrier to the
usage of mediation in the Russian Federation for settlement of tax disputes.
A restriction on plea agreements in tax cases in the Russian courts can be seen as an additional obstacle for the introduction of the tax dispute mediation. The Plenum of the Supreme Commercial Court in its ruling held that because of public law nature of tax disputes the subject of a plea agreement could not be a change in the tax consequences of the disputed actions and operations in comparison to how such effects are determined by law (see Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Commercial Court of the RF № 50 of 18 July 2014 «On the reconciliation of the parties in the arbitration process»).
This ruling extremely reduces the possibility of mediation procedures in the course of judicial review of the tax case and, moreover, makes it de facto meaningless because after convergence of the disputing parties during a mediation procedure, the final decision cannot be fixed.
6.4. Some researchers are trying to identify mediation elements in the pre-trial stage of a tax dispute [Arakelova 2015; Gaidaenko 2015]. For instance, they offer to consider tax officials and (or) the higher tax authorities as mediators. This is hard to agree because of lack of opportunity to participate in the procedure for independent mediators and specific purposes of the procedure.
Tax disputes in Russia before they are tried by the court shall pass a mandatory pre-trial stage (Art. 138 or the Tax Code of the RF). This stage, in turn, can be divided into two phases.
On the first phase, the taxpayer objects the position, formulated by officials who conducted the tax audit, before the chief of a local tax body. This official (the chief of a local tax body) makes a decision which records the results of the tax audit, taking into account the taxpayer's objections.
On the second phase, the taxpayer objects this decision before the tax authority of a higher level (Art. 101 of the Tax Code of the RF and Chapter 19 of the Tax Code of the RF). The regulation of the procedure on the both phases does not provide a room for participation in it for an independent mediator and does not provide a decision-making person with the right to bargain and make concessions.
The main tasks of the chief of the local tax body, who hears the taxpayer's objections to the
tax audit act, and the main tasks of the special division of the superior tax authority, which examines complaints on the decisions of the lower tax authorities, are preventing poorly reasoned decisions and decision with gross violations of the law. The taxpayer's position and interests, the maximum satisfaction of the parties seem to be of secondary importance for them.
Based only on the designated provisions of the Russian legislation and practice of its enforcement (the Tax Code of the RF and the Federal Law № 193-FZ), one may say the concept of «tax mediation» in Russia is not in use and its definition may not be described.
However, there are several reasons that allow us to say, first, that some elements and possibilities of mediation in the resolution of tax disputes can be identified right now; second, that there are prerequisites for the further development of this institution in tax disputes settlement.
Firstly, there are examples of plea agreements concluded between taxpayers and tax authorities. Despite the restriction to conclude and adopt such plea agreements (these restrictions were mentioned above) there are some examples of them (for instance, in the joint letter of the Ministry of Finance and the FNS № CA-4-7/17648 of 2 October, 2013, at least two successful plea agreements were mentioned; at the same time there were stated that it is a good practice, and the basic requirements for such agreements were established). The practice of their conclusion, of course, will encourage the development of mediation in tax disputes, which can help the parties of the dispute to come to a mutually beneficial solution.
Secondly, the tax monitoring is a new opportunity for development of tax mediation. As we mentioned above a few years ago a new form of interaction between the taxpayers and tax authorities was introduced - tax monitoring (The Tax Code of the RF was amended by section V.2 «Tax control in the form of tax monitoring», Federal Law № 348-FZ of 4 November, 2014). This form involves a relationship of trust between the parties, as well as the abandonment of traditional tax audits. Disputes should be resolved with mutual agreement procedure (Art. 138 or the Tax Code of the RF). The Tax Code does not provide for a detailed regulation for the procedure. At the
same time a time frame for making a decision and the opportunity to interact with the taxpayer (his representatives) are fixed in the Code. Hypo-thetically, in this situation it is possible to use the resources of tax mediation. But so far there is no information about such experience.
6.5. Experts in Russia discuss the possibility of increasing the use of mediation in tax disputes (Tax Week in the Urals: «Mediation in a tax dispute», 4-8 June 2012, Yekaterinburg). Besides, the possibility of institutionalization of mediation in tax disputes is currently confirmed by representatives of the tax authorities (for example, Prospects for development and ways of improving the system of pre-trial settlement of tax disputes: The interview with E. V. Suvorova (Head of the Department for pre-trial settlement of tax disputes of the Federal Tax Service) on 23.04.2013).
Further, it is necessary to mention the work in this direction made by the Russian Chamber of Tax Consultants (a professional community of tax advisers). The Chamber is a member of the European Confederation of Tax Consultants (CFE) [Adigamova, Tufetulov 2014: 1133]. This organization has a scientific advisory council and one of the areas of its work is referred to as «Mediation in tax disputes» (see information about one of the last meetings of the council on the web-site: http:// www.palata-nk.ru/php/content.php?id=3127). They even developed and introduced to the State Duma a draft law «On Tax Counseling». This law, if adopted, could give impetus to the development of the tax mediation.
Thus, there are certain prospects for the tax mediation to become a reality. But in the current state of straitened finances (currently due to falling of prices of commodities and the sanctions imposed on Russia, the authorities have difficulty in balancing the budgets, on all levels of the budget system), when one of the measures to improve them is a strengthening of the tax administration, it is unlikely that the state in the coming years will reform procedures for dealing with tax disputes.
In general, it should be noted that the tax mediation is derivative of the general mediation (of its use in other categories of disputes). Currently, the general mediation in Russia is not highly developed. We can name several reasons for this. The main are the lack of a culture of
using this institution, as well as the low demand for it. The lack of demand is due to the low cost of court procedure for parties. Consequently, there are no incentives to search for extra-judicial methods of dispute resolution. 7. Procedural Issues
7.1. It seems, domestic procedural rules for mediation could be considered as the most relevant for developing procedures for international tax arbitration.
Before starting to consider the question of what requirements should be met by the mediator, the mediation procedure and the mediation agreement, it is necessary to focus on the aims of this institution. The objectives of tax mediation, in our opinion, are the benefits that it will bring to the procedure for resolving tax disputes.
Experts, who support the introduction of mediation in the procedures for resolving tax disputes, note (see for instance: T. Shamlikashvili «Media-tive Approach to Tax Disputes» on the web-site: http://www.garant.ru/ia/opinion/shamlikashvili/6/) the following advantages it can let achieve: it can help to bring certainty earlier; it can provide fresh impetus to discussions, especially in cases where existing dialogue have stalled or reached an impasse;
it can refocus taxpayer and tax authority on resolution and after that parties can work together identifying potential solutions and agreeing on acceptable bases for resolving the dispute;
it can help the parties to get a better understanding of the other side's arguments;
even if the parties have not reached an agreed resolution the mediation process can help to improve the efficiency of any subsequent litigation.
7.2. At the first stage of implementation of mediation in tax disputes mediators should be, of course, individuals. The same approach is currently enshrined in the articles 2, 9, 11 of the Federal Law № 193-FZ «On the Alternative Dispute Resolution with the Participation of an Intermediary (Mediation Procedure)».
Such subject as an «organization providing mediation services» is also mentioned in this law, but it has the ability only to organize the mediation process: to provide a venue, to suggest candidates for the mediator position, etc.
Basically, it is necessary to ensure achieving of a high level of individual responsibility for
the proposed solution to the dispute and for the results achieved. If some kind of association or corporation acts as a mediator, the level of individual responsibility will decrease.
However, the association of mediators in the self-regulatory organizations for the exchange of experience, training and developing of performance standards might be helpful.
In the future companies may be considered for participation in the settlement of tax disputes as a mediator company, but we think it should be done only for very complicated cases where teamwork is necessary. In this case the legal status of a mediator company and a head of a mediation group should be developed in order to distribute responsibility and authority between them. Right now such regulation is not in place.
Considering the organization of mediation in terms of independence of the mediator and nonintervention in his activities, we can name some main guarantees which can be considered:
prohibition of interference in the work of the mediator, as well as the prohibition of obstruction of his activities;
providing of secrecy of a mediation procedure (this guarantee will be justified because of need to observe the tax secrecy);
prohibition of removing the documents and information submitted to the mediator during a mediation procedure by parties (participants of the procedure).
These guarantees must be provided by measures of responsibility (up to criminal).
Currently, according to the Russian law, it is not required of the mediator to have a law degree, despite the fact that he has to deal with legal conflicts. However, for complex types of cases only mediator with necessary expertise can be involved. This expertise will help him to understand the case. Otherwise, the mediation in such cases may not be effective. Tax disputes due to their relation to the category of the most complex cases certainly require trained mediators for their resolving.
This circumstance requires special training of the mediator, which could be in the form of a qualification exam (as proposed, for example, in the draft law on tax advisors - Draft of the Federal law «On Tax Counseling»). To ensure the independence of the mediators, who will help to resolve tax disputes, their examinations should
be organized by self-governing organizations of mediators. Also, there should be a special register, which would give a guarantee qualification of the mediators that it listed.
It is important to stress that getting a mediator dependent on the public authorities is the same extreme as the dependence of a mediator on a taxpayer. This dependence certainly appears if the taxpayer pays the mediator's services. This problem should be solved and one of the solutions -financing the tax mediation from the state budget.
7.3. The ultimate goal of mediation is to reach a settlement with the other side. Once the parties have reached an agreement on the issue of how the dispute will be resolved, it must be formalized. In cases where mediative elements will be introduced into existing procedural forms of resolving a tax dispute, the question of a mediation agreement may not be relevant. In these cases, the results of mediation will be recorded in decisions made following the examination of tax audit report or in the results of appealing decisions of the tax authority.
In cases of the introduction of tax mediation, which will replace the judicial resolution of a tax dispute (third-party mediation) the law should specify the following requirements for such agreements:
the scope of a mediation agreement between tax authority and taxpayer (can it concern only facts or also the interpretation, the applicability of the law to the dispute?);
the formal and substantive condition of a mediation agreement (for example, should there be any preconditions for such agreement set in law? The same question can be asked about setting any limitations for agreement);
the place of this legal act in the existing system of legal tax acts (how they will correlate);
the coverage of costs of mediation procedure, etc.
Conclusions
Thought the Russian Federation, within the framework of the obligations taken on in accordance with the Multilateral instrument (MLI), is considering arbitration and mutual agreement procedures (MAP) only as possible alternative ways of settling cross-border tax disputes in re-
gard to tax treaties, it is difficult to predict the prospects and concreate forms of the future development of Arbitration in tax matters in Russian jurisdiction. However, we should take into account the following.
Firstly, Russia, in general, has not taken on the MLI obligations in respect of tax arbitration.
Secondly, the position of the Russian Federation in regard to MAP on MLI «minimum standards» is that most of the treaties already contain the respective instruments and for their effectiveness it is necessary to make them more detailed mostly at the national level (i. e. by the way of improvement of domestic legislation).
Thirdly, though, obviously, the work is being conducted in the RF Ministry of Finance and Federal Tax Service (FTS), so far no evident results to elaborating any documents implementing the MLI provisions have been announced at the national level.
However, in the framework of international cooperation the officials of the central departments of the FTS took part: 1) in 13th events of the OECD: Forum on MAP, subgroup of OECD Forum on tax legislation, the OECD Global Forum on Transfer Pricing, OECD Task Force № 6 on taxation of multinationals, the Task Force of the United Information Center on taxation (JITSIC SPOC Meeting), the meeting of competent officials on the exchange of information of the Global Forum on transparency and information exchange; participation in OECD Task Force № 10 on information exchange, etc.; 2) in the seminar «Tax treaties, BEPS, The OECD standard on automatic information exchange» conducted by the Institute of Austrian and international law of Vienna University of economics and business (Austria), etc.
Consequently, we may suppose that the Russian financial and tax authorities plan to take into account the international experience and international recommendation in the framework of the MLI implementation in national law [Janis 2015: 507].
Fourthly, there is a domestic experience of bilateral interaction of taxpayers and tax authorities in regard to the application of the preventive mechanisms of settling disputes in respect of the major taxpayers (Chapter 14.6 of the RF Tax Code) in connection of the cross-border transfer pricing disputes.
For instance, in the framework of the jurisdiction provided for in Chapter 14.6 of the RF Tax Code, in 2016 ten transfer pricing agreements («agreements on pricing for taxation purposes») were concluded (on sale of oil transactions on the Russian territory - 7, on code-share agreements between air companies - 3).
Fifthly, before signing the multilateral instrument Russia has not included an arbitration clause in its tax treaties (there were only several exceptions), however, there are some cases where international arbitration was also relevant for cross-border taxation and cross-border transactions involving the jurisdiction of Russia:
1) international arbitration in regard to private law disputes connected with cross-border taxation: cross-border mergers and acquisitions; cross-border purchasing of an enterprise; VAT as a part of the price in the contract; damages as a result of the fact of not due compliance or/and aggressive tax planning;
2) international arbitration in regard to Contracts (of the quasi-private nature) between the State and the Investor which include some clauses concerning taxation and guaranties for the respective investor: e.g. production sharing agreements and contracts between the Administration of the Special Economic (Tax) Zone (SE(T)Z) (see
IBFD project on STZs (Special Tax Zones) and presented the respective reports at Rotterdam Conference in 2017, at Vigo Conference in 2016) and the investor, etc. (Arbitration under the 2010 Arbitration rules of the United nations commission on international trade law in some of such cases were applicable);
3) arbitration based on the BITs and multilateral investments treaties connected with some tax issues [Vinnitskii 2017];
4) there were several projects concerning the establishing of the tax arbitration in the framework of the regional integration organizations involving Russia (e. g. the Eurasian Economic Community/Union (EAEU), BRICS; see, in particular the draft multilateral tax arbitration convention for the BRICS Countries was elaborated and was presented at the BRICS and Developing Countries Legal Expert Forum (Russia, Ekaterinburg, June 2017) and at the IV BRICS Legal Forum (Russia, Moscow, December, 2017).
Taking the above-mentioned into account, we may conclude that in the modern conditions the state may not totally isolate itself from international arbitration procedures even if the respective state has not included an arbitration clause in its tax treaties and has not taken on the MLI obligations in respect of tax arbitration.
Список литературы
Аракелова М. В. Медиация как способ урегулирования налоговых споров // Финансовое право. 2015. № 6. С. 29-34.
Винницкий Д. В. Международное налоговое право: проблемы теории и практики. М.: Статут, 2017. 463 с.
Гайдаенко Шер Н. И. Формирование системы альтернативных механизмов разрешения споров: бесконфликтное общество как основа противодействия коррупции / отв. ред. Н. Г. Семилютина. М.: ИЗиСП; ИНФРА-М, 2015. 176 с.
Леднева Ю. В. Концепция фактического права на доход: правоприменительные аспекты реализации // Журнал российского права. 2018. № 3. С. 106-115.
Adigamova F. F., Tufetulov A. M. Training of Tax Consultants: Experience and Prospects // Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014. Vol. 152. P. 1133-1136.
Devereux M. P., Fuest C., Lockwood B. The Taxation of Foreign Profits: A Unified View // Journal of Public Economics. 2015. Vol. 125. P. 83-97.
Huizingra H., Voget J., Wagner W. Capital Gains Taxation and the Cost of Capital: Evidence from Unanticipated Cross-Border Transfers of Tax Base // Journal of Financial Economics. 2018. Vol. 129. № 2. P. 306-328.
Janis M. W. International Law and Treaties // International Encyclopedia for the Social and Behavioral Sciences / ed. by J. Wright. Oxford: Elsevier, 2015. Vol. 11. P. 507-510.
Mardan M. Why Countries Differ in Thin Capitalization Rules: The Role of Financial Development // European Economic Review. 2017. Vol. 91. № C. P. 1-14.
Purina M. Tax Accounting in the Russian Federation // Procedia Economics and Finance. 2015. Vol. 25. P. 127-133.
Vinnitskii D. V. Chapter 5: Non-Discrimination in Tax Treaties - Art. 24(4) and (5) OECD MC: A Russian Approach to Tax Treaty Interpretation // Non-Discrimination in Tax Treaties: Selected Issues from a Global Perspective / ed. by G. Maisto, P. Pistone, D. Weber. Amsterdam: IBFD, 2016. P. 133-167.
References
Adigamova F. F., Tufetulov A. M. Training of Tax Consultants: Experience and Prospects, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2014, vol. 152, pp. 1133-1136.
Arakelova M. V. Mediatsiya kak sposob uregulirovaniya nalogovykh sporov [Mediation as a means of settlement of tax disputes], Finansovoe pravo, 2015, no. 6, pp. 29-34.
Devereux M. P., Fuest C., Lockwood B. The Taxation of Foreign Profits: A Unified View, Journal of Public Economics, 2015, vol. 125, pp. 83-97.
Gaidaenko Sher N. I. Formirovanie sistemy al'ternativnykh mekhanizmov razresheniya sporov: beskonflikt-noe obshchestvo kak osnova protivodeistviya korruptsii [Formation of the system of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms: a conflict - free society as the basis for anti-corruption: scientific and practical guide], Semi-lyutina N. G. (ed.), Moscow, IZiSP, INFRA-M, 2015, 176 p.
Huizingra H., Voget J., Wagner W. Capital Gains Taxation and the Cost of Capital: Evidence from Unanticipated Cross-border Transfers of Tax Base, Journal of Financial Economics, 2018, vol. 129, no. 2, pp. 306-328.
Janis M. W. International Law and Treaties, Wright J. (ed.) International Encyclopedia for the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Oxford, Elsevier, 2015, vol. 11, pp. 507-510.
Ledneva Yu. V. Kontseptsiya fakticheskogo prava na dokhod: pravoprimenitel'nye aspekty realizatsii [The Concept of the Actual Right to Income: Enforcement Aspects of Implementation], Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava, 2018, no. 3, pp. 106-115.
Mardan M. Why Countries Differ in Thin Capitalization Rules: The Role of Financial Development, European Economic Review, 2017, vol. 91, pp. 1-14.
Purina M. Tax Accounting in the Russian Federation, Procedia Economics and Finance, 2015, vol. 25, pp. 127-133.
Vinnitskii D. V. Mezhdunarodnoe nalogovoe pravo: problemy teorii i praktiki [International Tax Law: Issues and Solutions], Moscow, Statut, 2017, 463 p.
Vinnitskii D. V. Chapter 5: Non-Discrimination in Tax Treaties - Art. 24(4) and (5) OECD MC: A Russian Approach to Tax Treaty Interpretation, Maisto G., Pistone P. & Webber D. (eds.) Non-Discrimination in Tax Treaties: Selected Issues from a Global Perspective, Amsterdam, IBFD, 2016, pp. 133-167.
Информация об авторах
Данил Владимирович Винницкий - доктор юридических наук, профессор, заведующий кафедрой финансового права, директор Института права БРИКС, Уральский государственный юридический университет (ул. Комсомольская, д. 21, Екатеринбург, Россия 620137; e-mail: bricslawinstitute@gmail.com).
Андрей Иванович Савицкий - кандидат юридических наук, доцент кафедры финансового права, Уральский государственный юридический университет (ул. Комсомольская, д. 21, Екатеринбург, Россия 620137; e-mail: andrey.soeka@gmail.com).
Евгений Владимирович Пустовалов - преподаватель кафедры финансового права, Уральский государственный юридический университет (ул. Комсомольская, д. 21, Екатеринбург, Россия 620137; e-mail: pustovalove@gmail.com).
Information about the authors
Danil V. Vinnitskiy - doctor of juridical sciences, professor, head of the Financial Law Department, director of the BRICS Law Institute, Ural State Law University (21 Komsomol'skaya St., Yekaterinburg, 620137, Russia; e-mail: bricslawinstitute@gmail.com).
Andrey I. Savitskiy - candidate of juridical sciences, associate professor of the Financial Law Department, Ural State Law University (21 Komsomol'skaya St., Yekaterinburg, 620137, Russia; e-mail: andrey.soeka@ gmail.com).
Evgeniy V. Pustovalov - lecturer of the Financial Law Department, Ural State Law University (21 Komsomol'skaya St., Yekaterinburg, 620137, Russia; e-mail: pustovalove@gmail.com).
Дата поступления в редакцию / Received: 11.07.2018
Дата принятия решения об опубликовании / Accepted: 22.08.2018
© Д. В. Винницкий, 2018 © А. И. Савицкий, 2018 © Е. В. Пустовалов, 2018
