pravoПравоприменениеLaw Enforcement Review2542-15142658-4050Dostoevsky Omsk State University10.52468/2542-1514.2022.6(2).106-119pravo-635Research ArticleПРИМЕНЕНИЕ НОРМ ПРАВА ОРГАНАМИ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЙ ВЛАСТИTHE LAW ENFORCEMENT BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIESСтандарт защиты прав налогоплательщиков при разрешении международных налоговых споровTaxpayer protection standard in international tax disputesПоленчукМ. Д.PolenchukM. D.

Поленчук Мария Дмитриевна – аспирант кафедры административного и финансового права.

199034, Санкт-Петербург, Университетская наб., 7/9

Maria D. Polenchuk – PhD student, Department of Administrative and Financial Law

7/9, Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034

maria.polenchuk94@gmail.comСанкт-Петербургский государственный университетРоссияSt. Petersburg UniversityRussian Federation20222206202262106119Copyright © Поленчук М.Д., 20222022Поленчук М.Д.Polenchuk M.D.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://enforcement.omsu.ru/jour/article/view/635

С каждым годом растет количество международных налоговых споров. При этом механизмы их разрешения, предусмотренные в рамках двусторонних налоговых договоров, являются сугубо межгосударственными и не обеспечивают налогоплательщику, чьи права были нарушены, уровень гарантий, соответствующий праву на справедливое судебное разбирательство в соответствии со ст. 6 Европейской конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод (Конвенции). В связи с этим в зарубежной литературе обсуждается вопрос о необходимости модернизации существующих механизмов разрешения международных налоговых споров в целях предоставления налогоплательщику возможности прямого и активного участия в процессе рассмотрения дела. В статье практика Европейского Суда по правам человека анализируется с точки зрения определения оснований для распространения гарантий ст. 6 Конвенции на механизмы разрешения международных налоговых споров.

The research project aims to find the most optimal solution to develop the current level of taxpayers' guarantees in the tax treaty disputes resolution procedures.

The subject of the article is the analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on application and interpretation of Article 6 “Right to a fair trial” of the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of the tax treaty disputes resolution procedures.

The Author believes that the standard of protection of human right to a fair trial can be used as a starting point for the development of a taxpayer protection standard in the tax treaty disputes resolution procedures.

The methodology of the research includes the logical and analytical methods, such as analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, as well as formal legal interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

The key findings are the following. Currently, the international tax disputes resolution procedures under tax treaties based on the OECD / UN Model Tax Conventions are contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The mutual agreement procedure, which provides the taxpayer with the opportunity personal participation, could eliminate such a contradiction.

The main results, scope of application. The study showed that two approaches in relation to application of the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to tax disputes can be defined – (a) formal and (b) “substantial”.

Formally, the guarantees of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights do not apply to taxpayers in tax treaty disputes resolution procedures, i.e. mutual agreement procedure and arbitration, at least as long as a taxpayer has access to the national court of one of the contracting states to protect the violated rights. Under the case law of the European Court of Human Rights cross-border tax disputes are not typical category of disputes. At the moment the European Court of Human Rights does not express a position on the merits of such disputes with reference to the wide discretion of states in the field of taxation.

Nevertheless, according to the “substantial” approach it is necessary to extend guarantees of the right to a fair trial to taxpayers in the tax treaty disputes resolution procedures. This conclusion is based on the fact that the national courts cannot be treated as an effective means of protection of the rights of taxpayers as it is determined by the Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This approach is in line with the trend set by EU Directive 2017/1852 on tax dispute resolution mechanisms in the European Union, as well as the idea of foreign researchers to develop a global standard for protecting the rights of taxpayers.

In the Author’s view, compliance with the fair trial guarantees requires provision of direct participation of the taxpayers in the tax treaty disputes resolution procedures. In this case, the taxpayer will receive the opportunity to be heard and to review all the evidence and procedural documents on the case. The participation of the taxpayer will mitigate the key drawback of the mutual agreement procedure - the lack of a guarantee of a final decision on the case. This is especially important for those states that do not use arbitration, such as Russia.

The main conclusion is that the application of the standard of protection of human right to a fair trial in relation to the taxpayers in the tax treaty disputes resolution procedures is an efficient way to develop the current mutual agreement procedure and arbitration and to increase the confidence of taxpayers in these mechanisms.

Международный налоговый спорправо на справедливое судебное разбирательствовзаимосогласительная процедураарбитражзащита прав налогоплательщиковInternational tax disputeright to a fair trialmutual agreement procedurearbitrationtaxpayer protectionИсследование выполнено при финансовой поддержке РФФИ в рамках научного проекта № 20-311-90057The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 20-311-90057ReferencesGovind S. P. The Changing Contours of Dispute Resolution in the International Tax World: Comparing the OECD Multilateral Instrument and the Proposed EU Arbitration Directive / S. P. Govind, L. Turcan // Bulletin for International Taxation. – 2017. – Vol. 71, No. 3/4. – Р. 1–11.Govind S.P., Turcan L. The Changing Contours of Dispute Resolution in the International Tax World: Comparing the OECD Multilateral Instrument and the Proposed EU Arbitration Directive. Bulletin for International Taxation, 2017, vol. 71, no. 3/4, pp. 1–11.Govind S. P. Cross-Border Tax Dispute Resolution in the 21st Century: A Comparative Study of Existing Bilateral and Multilateral Remedies / S. P. Govind, L. Turcan // Finance and Capital Markets (formerly Derivatives & Financial Instruments). – 2017. – Vol. 19, No. 5. – P. 1–34.Govind S.P., Turcan L. Cross-Border Tax Dispute Resolution in the 21st Century: A Comparative Study of Existing Bilateral and Multilateral Remedies. Finance and Capital Markets (formerly Derivatives & Financial Instruments), 2017, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 1–34.Mooij H. MAP Arbitration in Tax Treaty Disputes / H. Mooji // Flexible Multi-Tier Dispute Resolution / ed. byMooij H. MAP Arbitration in Tax Treaty Disputes, in: Pistone P., de Goede J.J.P. (eds.). Flexible Multi-Tier Dispute Resolution, Amsterdam, IBFD Publ., 2021, pp. 253–287.P. Pistone, J. J. P. de Goede. – Amsterdam : IBFD, 2021. – P. 253–287. 4. Ault H. 2008 OECD Model: The new arbitration provision / H. Ault, J. Sasseville // Bulletin for International Taxation. – 2009. – Vol. 63, No. 5/6. – P. 208–215.Ault H., Sasseville J. 2008 OECD Model: The new arbitration provision. Bulletin for International Taxation, 2009, vol. 63, no. 5/6, pp. 208–215.Perrou K. Taxpayer Participation in Tax Treaty Dispute Resolution / K. Perrou. – IBFD, 2014. – 316 p. – (IBFD Doctoral Series. Vol. 28).Perrou K. Taxpayer Participation in Tax Treaty Dispute Resolution, IBFD Doctoral Series, vol. 28. IBFD Publ., 2014. 316 p.Thiel S. Is There a Need for International Enforcement of Human Rights in the Tax Area? / S. Thiel // Human Rights and Taxation in Europe and the World / Eds. G. Kofler, M. P. Maduro, P. Pistone. – IBFD, 2011. – P. 153–184. – (IBFD GREIT Series).Thiel S. Is There a Need for International Enforcement of Human Rights in the Tax Area?, in: Kofler G., Maduro M.P., Pistone P. (eds.). Human Rights and Taxation in Europe and the World, IBFD GREIT Series, IBFD Publ., 2011, pp. 153–184.Maisto G. The impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on Tax Procedures and Sanctions with Special Reference to Tax Treaties and the EU Arbitration Convention / G. Maisto // Human Rights and Taxation in Europe and the World / Eds. G. Kofler, M. P. Maduro, P. Pistone. – IBFD, 2011. – P. 373–396. – (IBFD GREIT Series).Maisto G. The impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on Tax Procedures and Sanctions with Special Reference to Tax Treaties and the EU Arbitration Convention, in: Kofler G., Maduro M.P., Pistone P. (eds.). Human Rights and Taxation in Europe and the World, IBFD GREIT Series, IBFD Publ., 2011, pp. 373–396.Baker P. The decision in Ferrazzini: Time to reconsider the application of the European Convention on Human Rights to tax matters / P. Baker // Intertax. – 2001. – Vol. 29. – P. 360–392.Baker P. The decision in Ferrazzini: Time to reconsider the application of the European Convention on Human Rights to tax matters. Intertax, 2001, vol. 29, pp. 360–392.Baker P. Should Article 6 ECHR (civil) apply to tax proceedings? / P. Baker // Intertax. – 2001. – Vol. 29. – P. 205–211.Baker P. Should Article 6 ECHR (civil) apply to tax proceedings? Intertax, 2001, vol. 29, pp. 205–211.Voje J. EU Tax Dispute Resolution Directive (2017/1852): Paving the Path Toward a European Tax Court? / J. Voje // European Taxation. – 2018. – Vol. 58, No. 7. – P. 309–317.Voje J. EU Tax Dispute Resolution Directive (2017/1852): Paving the Path Toward a European Tax Court? European Taxation, 2018, vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 309–317.Opsahl T. Ten years’ coexistence Strasbourg – Geneva / T. Opsahl // Protecting Human Rights: The European Dimension : Essays in honor of Gerard Wiarda / Eds. F. Matscher, H. Petzold. – Koln : Carl Heymanns, 1988. – P. 431– 439.Opsahl T. Ten years’ coexistence Strasbourg – Geneva, in: Matscher F., Petzold H. (eds.). Protecting Human Rights: The European Dimension, Essays in honor of Gerard Wiarda, Koln, Carl Heymanns Publ., 1988, pp. 431–439.Klemans N. Congress Review: The Relationship between the National Systems of Legal Protection of the Taxpayer and the European Convention on Human Rights / N. Klemans // EC Tax Review. – 2000. – Vol. 9, iss. 1. – P. 45–50. – DOI: 10.54648/261261.Klemans N. Congress Review: The Relationship between the National Systems of Legal Protection of the Taxpayer and the European Convention on Human Rights. EC Tax Review, 2000, vol. 9, iss. 1, pp. 45–50.Federico L. The ECHR Principles as Principles of European Law and Their Implementation through the National Legal Systems / L. Federico // Human Rights and Taxation in Europe and the World / Eds. G. Kofler, M. P. Maduro, P. Pistone. – IBFD, 2011. – P. 83–94. – (IBFD GREIT Series).Federico L. The ECHR Principles as Principles of European Law and Their Implementation through the National Legal Systems, in: Kofler G., Maduro M.P., Pistone P. (eds.). Human Rights and Taxation in Europe and the World, IBFD GREIT Series, IBFD Publ., 2011, pp. 83–94.Orakhelashvili A. Restrictive Interpretation of Human Rights / A. Orakhelashvili // European Journal of International Law. – 2003. – Vol. 14. – P. 529–568. – DOI: 10.1093/ejil/14.3.529.Orakhelashvili A. Restrictive Interpretation of Human Rights. European Journal of International Law, 2003, vol. 14, pp. 529–568. DOI: 10.1093/ejil/14.3.529.Baker Ph. Double Taxation Conventions and Human Rights / Ph. Baker // Tax Polymath: A life in international taxation : essays in honour of J. F. Avery Jones / ed. by Ph. Baker, C. Bobbett. – IBFD, 2011. – P. 64–79.Baker Ph. Double Taxation Conventions and Human Rights, in: Baker Ph., Bobbett C. (eds.). Tax Polymath: A life in international taxation, essays in honour of J.F. Avery Jones, IBFD Publ., 2011, pp. 64–79.La Scala A. E. The taxpayer’s human rights in the examination of the European Court of Human Rights / A. E. La Scala // Legal remedies in European tax law / Ed. P. Pistone. – IBFD, 2009. – P. 495–518.La Scala A.E. The taxpayer’s human rights in the examination of the European Court of Human Rights, in: Pistone P. (ed.). Legal remedies in European tax law, IBFD Publ., 2009, pp. 495–518.Flora M. G. de. A New Vision on Exercising Taxing Powers and the Right to Fair Trial in Judicial Tax Procedures under Art. 6 ECHR, in Human Rights and Taxation in Europe and the World / M. G. de Flora // Human Rights and Taxation in Europe and the World / Eds. G. Kofler, M. P. Maduro, P. Pistone. – IBFD, 2011. – P. 411–424. – (IBFD GREIT Series).Flora M.G. de. A New Vision on Exercising Taxing Powers and the Right to Fair Trial in Judicial Tax Procedures under Art. 6 ECHR, in Human Rights and Taxation in Europe and the World, in: Kofler G., Maduro M.P., Pistone P. (eds.). Human Rights and Taxation in Europe and the World, IBFD GREIT Series, IBFD, 2011, pp. 411–424.Greggi M. The protection of human rights and the right to a fair tax trial in the light of the Jussila case / M. Greggi // Intertax. – 2007. – Vol. 35. – P. 610–615.Greggi M. The protection of human rights and the right to a fair tax trial in the light of the Jussila case. Intertax, 2007, vol. 35, pp. 610–615.Baker P. Observatory on the Protection of Taxpayers’ Rights : The IBFD Yearbook on Taxpayers’ Rights / P. Baker, P. Pistone, C.E. Weffe. – IBFD, 2020. – 199 р.Baker P., Pistone P., Weffe C.E. Observatory on the Protection of Taxpayers’ Rights, The IBFD Yearbook on Taxpayers’ Rights 2020. IBFD Publ., 2021. 199 p.Cockfield A. Protecting Taxpayer Privacy Rights Under Enhanced Cross-Border Tax Information Exchange: Toward a Multilateral Taxpayer Bill of Rights / A. Cockfield // University of British Columbia Law Review. – 2010. – Vol. 42. – P. 420–471.Cockfield A. Protecting Taxpayer Privacy Rights Under Enhanced Cross-Border Tax Information Exchange: Toward a Multilateral Taxpayer Bill of Rights. University of British Columbia Law Review, 2010, vol. 42, pp. 420–471.McCracken S. K. Going, Going, Gone. Global: A Canadian Perspective on International Tax Administration Issues in the “Exchange-of-Information Age” / S. K. McCracken // Canadian Tax Journal. – 2002. – Vol. 50, No. 6. – P. 1869–1912.McCracken S.K. Going, Going, Gone. Global: A Canadian Perspective on International Tax Administration Issues in the “Exchange-of-Information Age”. Canadian Tax Journal, 2002, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 1869–1912.Bentley D. Taxpayers’ Rights: Theory, Origin and Implementation / D. Bentley. – Kluwer Law International, 2007. – 492 р. – (Series on International Taxation. Vol. 31).Bentley D. Taxpayers’ Rights: Theory, Origin and Implementation, Series on International Taxation, vol. 31. Kluwer Law International Publ., 2007. 492 p.Pistone P. General Report / P. Pistone, P. Baker // The Practical Protection of Taxpayers’ Fundamental Rights. – IFA, 2015. – Vol. 100B. – P. 1–99.Pistone P., Baker P. General Report: The Practical Protection of Taxpayers’ Fundamental Rights, vol. 100B, IFA Publ., 2015, pp. 1–99.Cadesky M. Towards Greater Fairness in Taxation: A Model Taxpayer Charter / M. Cadesky, I. Hayes, D. Russell. – IBFD, 2016. – 220 р.Cadesky M., Hayes I., Russell D. Towards Greater Fairness in Taxation: A Model Taxpayer Charter. IBFD Publ., 2016. 220 p.Kokott R. J. Public International Law and Tax Law. Taxpayers’ Rights : The International Law Association’s Project on International Tax Law – Phase 1 : Study Group International Tax Law Final Report Kyoto 2020 / R. J. Kokott, P. Pistone, R. Miller. – 48 p. – URL: https://globtaxgov.weblog.leidenuniv.nl/files/2021/08/Study-Group-International-Tax-Law-Final-Report-Kyoto-2020-final.pdf.Kokott R.J., Pistone P., Miller R. Public International Law and Tax Law: Taxpayers’ Rights. The International Law Association’s Project on International Tax Law – Phase 1, Study Group International Tax Law Final Report Kyoto 48 p. Available at: https://globtaxgov.weblog.leidenuniv.nl/files/2021/08/Study-Group-International-TaxLaw-Final-Report-Kyoto-2020-final.pdf.Ковлер А. И. Европейская конвенция: проблемы толкования и имплементации : моногр. / А. И. Ковлер. – М. : Ин-т законодательства и сравнит. правоведения при Правительстве Рос. Федерации : Норма : ИНФРА-М, 2019. – 400 с.Kovler А.I. European Convention: Issues of Interpretation and Implementation, Monograph. Мoscow, Institute of Legistation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation Publ., Norma Publ., INFRA-M Publ., 2019. 400 p. (In Russ.).Lowell C. H. Adequacy of international dispute resolution mechanisms / C. H. Lowell, P. L. Briger // George Mason Law Review. – 2001–2002. – Vol. 10. – P. 725–777.Lowell C.H., Briger P.L. Adequacy of international dispute resolution mechanisms. George Mason Law Review, 2001–2002, vol. 10, pp. 725–777.Martin P. Courts and tax treaties in civil law countries / P. Martin // Courts and tax treaty law / Ed. G. Maisto. – IBFD, 2007. – P. 81–100. – (IBFD: EC and International Tax Law Series).Martin P. Courts and tax treaties in civil law countries, in: Maisto G. (ed.). Courts and tax treaty law, IBFD: EC and International Tax Law Series, IBFD Publ., 2007, pp. 81–100.Oliver J. D. B. Treaty override and the construction of consolidated legislation – Case comment / J. D. B. Oliver // British Tax Review. – 2001. – P. 220–227.Oliver J.D.B. Treaty override and the construction of consolidated legislation – Case comment. British Tax Review, 2001, pp. 220–227.Van Raad K. International Coordination of tax treaty interpretation and application / K. van Raad // Intertax. – 2001. – Vol. 29. – P. 216–220.Van Raad K. International Coordination of tax treaty interpretation and application. Intertax, 2001, vol. 29, pp. 216–220.Карташкин В. А. Права человека в международном и внутригосударственном праве / В. А. Карташкин. – М. : Изд-во ИГиП РАН, 1995. – 135 c.Kartashkin V.А. Human Rights in International and National Law. Мoscow, Institute of State and Law of the RAS Publ., 1995. 135 p. (In Russ.).Borm-Reid M. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments / M. Borm-Reid // International and Comparative Law Quarterly. – 1954. – Vol. 3. – P. 49–92.Borm-Reid M. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1954, vol. 3, pp. 49–92.Шостранд Е. Признание и исполнение иностранных решений российскими судами и решений российских судов судами Англии и Уэльса: проблемы и тенденции / Е. Шостранд, Г. Д. Улетова // Современное право. – 2015. – № 8. – С. 125–130.Shostrand Е., Uletova G.D. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Decisions by Russian Courts and Decisions of Russian Courts by the Courts of England and Wales: Issues and Trends. Sovremennoe pravo, 2015, no. 8, pp. 125–130. (In Russ.).Park W. W. Income Tax Treaty Arbitration / W. W. Park, D. R. Tillinghast. – Amersfoort : Sdu Fiscale & Financiële Uitgevers, 2004. – 126 p.Park W.W., Tillinghast D.R. Income Tax Treaty Arbitration. Amersfoort, Sdu Fiscale & Financiële Uitgevers Publ., 2004. 129 p.Altman Z. D. Dispute resolution under tax treaties / Z. D. Altman. – IBFD, 2005. – 512 p. – (IBFD Doctoral Series).Altman Z.D. Dispute resolution under tax treaties, IBFD Doctoral Series. IBFD Publ., 2005. 512 p.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.