If you have difficulty viewing this message please click here - and use this code including the square brackets behind
the click here link [*link.webversion*]
   October 2015  
WTJ Preview IBFD, Your Portal to
Cross-Border Tax Expertise
World Tax Journal
This free e-mail service informs you about the contents of the forthcoming edition of World Tax Journal.

Issue No. 3 - 2015 of the World Tax Journal is now available online.

Visit www.ibfd.org for more information about IBFD publications and services.

Archive | Subscribe to other Journal Previews


P.O. Box 20237
1000 HE Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: 31-20-554 0176
Fax: 31-20-622 8658

You might also be interested in:

[Online Collection]
Tax Explorer Country Select
Tax Explorer - Country Select gives you the essentials to support your international tax practice, for just the countries of your business interest. Choose from 215 countries.
> Read more

LLM in International Tax Law
The University of Amsterdam and IBFD have combined their expert knowledge to create a unique advanced master's programme: “International Tax Law: Principles, Policy and Practice”.
2016 application is now open.
> Register now

Number 3 - 2015 contains the following:
The Taxation of Technical Services under the United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention: A Rushed – Yet Appropriate – Proposal for (Developing) Countries?
Andrés Báez Moreno

The research compares the current proposal under the UN Model Tax Convention on a new article on fees for technical services with other alternatives that have also been considered by the Committee (Service PE, “included services clauses” and Deemed PE approach) to conclude that: (1) In general terms, the proposal for a new article on (technical) services should be preferred over other alternatives that have been also explored by the Committee. (2) The final proposal, submitted to the UN Committee of Experts, could be improved before its final incorporation to the UN Model in order to maximize its strengths in comparison to other alternatives for the treatment of cross-border services.

A Utility-Based Explanation of Tax Asymmetries
Martin Fochmann and Martin Jacob
This article develops a utility-based explanation for the existence of an asymmetric tax treatment of gains and losses when investors are loss averse. We find that loss offset rules should be more restrictive for investors which are (1) more risk averse in case of gains, (2) less risk seeking in case of losses, or (3) more loss averse. Our findings have important policy implications. Tax authorities often implement identical loss offset rules for different investor clienteles. However, when designing loss offset rules, tax authorities should take into account differences in risk attitude and loss aversion across different groups of investors.
Legitimacy and the Making of International Tax Law: The Challenges of Multilateralism
Irma Johanna Mosquera Valderrama
This article will provide a description of the legitimacy of international tax law making by international organizations and the role of the OECD in respect of OECD and non-OECD countries. Thereafter, the OECD multilateral instruments to enhance transparency and exchange of information and of the BEPS Project will be assessed in respect of the input and output legitimacy. The assessment of input legitimacy will take into account transparency, participation, and representation of developing (non-OECD) countries in the setting of the agenda and the drafting of the content of the OECD multilateral instruments to exchange information and the BEPS multilateral instrument. The analysis of output legitimacy will address the shared goals i.e. to tackle tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning and the solutions presented by the G20 and OECD, adopted by OECD and non-OECD countries. The analysis of output legitimacy will also take into account the differences in objectives and resources between OECD and non-OECD (developing) countries.
The Arm’s Length Comparable in Transfer Pricing: A Search for an “Actual” or a “Hypothetical” Transaction?
Amir Pichhadze
When searching for an arm’s length comparable in the transfer pricing analysis, does the analysis require (or allow) searching for a transaction that actually took place in the market, or can/should the internal data of the controlled transaction simply be imputed to form a hypothetical uncontrolled transaction in which the parties are assumed to be operating at arm’s length but otherwise dealing under the same circumstances? This article sheds light on this question, based on lessons distilled from recent Canadian jurisprudence; particularly, the case Canada v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc. The author calls on Canada’s courts to reconsider their approach to this issue, and alerts courts in other jurisdictions to avoid transplanting the Canadian approach because otherwise they would risk repeating the same mistake(s).
IBFD, Your Portal to Cross-Border Tax Expertise
Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail.