INTERPRETATION ISSUE OF THE PRINCIPAL PURPOSE TEST

Authors

  • Vita Apriliasari

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31092/jpi.v3i2.734

Keywords:

MLI, PPT, Tax Treaty, Treaty Abuse, BEPS Action 6

Abstract

The existence of tax treaties has raised a base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) concern through the circumvention of the provisions of those treaties. Consequently, following the release of the BEPS Action 6 Final Report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Principal Purpose Test (PPT) has been introduced as a general anti abuse rule (GAAR) for tax treaties. As a BEPS action minimum standard, the PPT clauses are considered sufficient to prevent tax treaty abuses. However, since there has been no sufficiently clear guidance to the PPT implementation, several interpretation issues seem to arise. This situation is likely to put uncertainties for both tax administrations and taxpayers. This article aims to provide a literature review of the PPT clauses interpretation so as to help them to further address such issues. The discussion focuses on 4 (four) main elements of the PPT, (1) the interpretation of the phrase “one of the principal purposesâ€; (2) the reasonableness element; (3) the object and purpose of the relevant treaty provision; and (4) the burden of proof of the PPT.

References

Arnold, B. J. (2016). International tax primer. Kluwer Law International BV.

Bergedahl, Christopher (2018). Anti-Abuse Measures in Tax Treaties Following the OECD Multilateral Instrument - Part 1. Bulletin for International Taxation, January, 11-30.

Buriak, S. (2015). Chapter 2: The Application of the Principal Purpose Test under Tax Treaties in Tax Treaty Entitlement (M. Lang et al. eds.). IBFD. Online Book (accessed 21 May 2019)

Carney, Gerard (2015). Comparative Approaches to Statutory Interpretation in Civil Law and Common Law Jurisdictions. Statute Law Review. Vol. 36. No. 1. 46–58.

Chand, Vikram (2018). The Principal Purpose Test in the Multilateral Convention: An in-depth Analysis. INTERTAX. Vol. 46. Issue 1. 18-44.

Cuoco, Antonio (2019). The Principal Purpose Test as Introduced by the OECD MLI: Is It Time for a Compromise with EU Tax Law?. Intertax. Vol. 47. Issue 10. 869-884.

Danon, Robert J. (2018). Treaty Abuse in the Post-BEPS World: Analysis of the Policy Shift and Impact of the Principal Purpose Test for MNE Groups. Bulletin for International Taxation, January, 31-55.

De Broe, Lucas & Joris Luts (2015). BEPS Action 6: Tax Treaty Abuse. INTERTAX. Vol. 43. Issue 2. 122-146.

Elliffe, Craig (2019). The Meaning of the Principal Purpose Test: One Ring to Bind Them All?. World Tax Journal. February. 47-76.

Gomes, Marcus Livio (2018). Implementation in Practice of the Principal Purpose Test in the Multilateral Convention. INTERTAX. Vol. 46. Issue 1. 45-57.

Jiang, Qunfang & Yifan Yuan (2014). Legal Research in International and EU Tax Law. EUROPEAN TAXATION. October.

Kok, Reinout (2016). The Principal Purpose Test in Tax Treaties under BEPS 6. INTERTAX. Vol. 44. Issue 5. 406-412.

Kolosov, Valentyn (2017). Guidance on the Application of the Principal Purpose Test in Tax Treaties.

Kuzniacki, B. (2018). The Principal Purpose Test (PPT) in BEPS Action 6 and the MLI: Exploring Challenges Arising from Its Legal Implementation and Practical Application. World Tax Journal: WTJ, 10(2), 233-294.

Lang, Michael (2014). BEPS Action 6: Introducing an Antiabuse Rule in Tax Treaties. WU International Taxation Research Paper Series. 09. Tax Notes International. Vol. 74. No. 7.

Miller-Rushing, A. J., Primack, D., & Mukunda, S. (2006). Photographs and herbarium specimens as tools to document phonological changes in response to global warming. American Journal of Botany, 93, 1667-1674.

Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-OECD (2015). Action 6: Preventing the Granting of Treaty Benefits in Inappropriate Circumstances. Final Report.

Presidential Decree of the Republic of Indonesia Number 77 of 2019 concerning the Ratification of the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting.

Rosenbloom, H David. (1994). Derivative Benefits: Emerging US Treaty Policy. INTERTAX. 83.

Theodosopulos, Alejandro (2018). The Principal Purpose Test of the OECD Multilateral Agreement and the General Anti-Avoidance Rule of the Anti-Avoidance Directive. Master Thesis. International Business Tax Law, Tilburg School of Law, Tilburg University.

Weeghel, Stef van (2019). A Deconstruction of the Principal Purposes Test. Bulletin for International Taxation, February, 3-45.

Weber, D. (2017). The Reasonableness Test of the Principal Purpose Test Rule in OECD BEPS Action 6 (Tax Treaty Abuse) versus the EU Principle of Legal Certainty and the EU Abuse of Law Case Law. Erasmus L. Rev., 10, 48.

Published

2020-02-25

How to Cite

Apriliasari, V. (2020). INTERPRETATION ISSUE OF THE PRINCIPAL PURPOSE TEST. JURNAL PAJAK INDONESIA (Indonesian Tax Review), 3(2), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.31092/jpi.v3i2.734