pravoПравоприменениеLaw Enforcement Review2542-15142658-4050Dostoevsky Omsk State University10.52468/2542-1514.2024.8(2).120-129pravo-930Research ArticleПРИМЕНЕНИЕ НОРМ ПРАВА СУДЕБНЫМИ ОРГАНАМИTHE LAW ENFORCEMENT BY THE JUDGESО развитии российской судебной практики применения соглашений об избежании двойного налогообложенияOn the development of Russian tax treaty case lawhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1262-1448КилинкароваЕ. В.KilinkarovaE. V.

Килинкарова Елена Васильевна – кандидат юридических наук, доцент, доцент кафедры административного и финансового права; Scopus AuthorID: 57219343210; SPIN-код РИНЦ: 7515-4090; AuthorID: 508242

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

Elena V. Kilinkarova – PhD in Law, Associate Professor; Associate Professor, Department of Administrative and Financial Law; Scopus AuthorID: 57219343210; SPIN-код РИНЦ: 7515-4090; AuthorID: 508242

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

e.kilinkarova@spbu.ruСанкт-Петербургский государственный университетРоссияSt. Petersburg UniversityRussian Federation20242206202482120129Copyright © Килинкарова Е.В., 20242024Килинкарова Е.В.Kilinkarova E.V.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/930

Анализируется практика применения соглашений об избежании двойного налогообложения арбитражными судами округов и Верховным Судом РФ за последние три года. Дается общая характеристика проанализированной судебной практики. Центральное внимание уделяется трем ключевым аспектам практики правоприменения – концепции фактического права на доход, вопросам квалификации платежей для целей применения соглашения и спорам между налоговым агентом и налогоплательщиком.

The research subject

The research subject. This study focuses on recent developments (2021-2023) in Russian tax treaty case law.

The purpose of the research. The objective of this research is to analyze the key trends and developments in tax treaty case law in Russia for the last three years.

Methodology

Methodology. The research is based on the analysis of cases where the commercial courts

of circuits and the Supreme court of Russian Federation in 2021-2023 applied Russian double tax treaties (total number – 38 cases).

Main results of the research. The analysis of the tax treaty case law allowed to make a general overview of the relevant judicial practice and identify three strategic areas of law enforcement – development of the beneficial owner concept, issues if qualification of income for the purposes of the application of tax treaties and disputes between withholding agents and taxpayers.

Conclusion

Conclusion. An analysis of judicial practice allows us to conclude that Russia is quite successful in implementing the task of deoffshorization of the Russian economy – this is noticeable both in the geography of the applied agreements and in the content of the issues under consideration. The tax treaty case law is heterogeneous – it includes both simple issues (for example, with obvious mistakes of a withholding agent) and issues on which judicial practice as a whole has already been established (for example, in relation to the beneficial owner concept), as well as quite extraordinary and sometimes difficult questions. It should be admitted that fundamentally new issues of application of double taxation agreements are sometimes not easy for the courts. An analysis of tax treaty case law puts forward the question of the role and risks of a withholding agent – currently the practice does not seem sufficiently balanced in terms of ensuring a balance of private and public interests. For application of double tax treaties procedural issues remain of great importance. Analysis of judicial practice shows that they are crucial both for the withholding agent and the taxpayer.

Международное налогообложениемониторинг правоприменениясоглашения об избежании двойного налогообложенияфактическое право на доходдивидендыInternational taxationmonitoring of law enforcementdouble tax treatiesbeneficial ownershipdividendsReferencesVinnitskiy D.V. Russian double tax conventions: investment opportunities and anti-avoidance provisions / D.V. Vinnitskiy // Intertax. – 2008. – № 10. – P. 450–454.Vinnitskiy D.V. Russian double tax conventions: investment opportunities and anti-avoidance provisions. Intertax, 2008, no. 10, pp. 450–454.Vinnitskiy D. V. Russia: Beneficial Owner/“Actual Owner” and Thin Capitalization / D. V. Vinnitskiy // Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2021. – IBFD, 2022. – P. 149–160.Vinnitskiy D.V. Russia: Beneficial Owner/“Actual Owner” and Thin Capitalization, in: Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2021, IBFD Publ., 2022, pp. 149–160.Vinnitskiy D. V. Test for meeting the beneficial owner requirement under Art. 10 of DTCs / D. V. Vinnitskiy // Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2019. – IBFD, 2020. – P. 245–258.Vinnitskiy D.V. Test for meeting the beneficial owner requirement under Art. 10 of DTCs, in: Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2019, IBFD Publ., 2020, pp. 245–258.Vinnitskiy D. V. Russia: Thin Capitalization, Recharacterization of Interest as Dividends and the Non-Discrimination Article / D. V. Vinnitskiy // Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2017. – IBFD, 2018. – P. 399–415.Vinnitskiy D.V. Russia: Thin Capitalization, Recharacterization of Interest as Dividends and the Non-Discrimination Article, in: Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2017, IBFD Publ., 2018, pp. 399–415.Vinnitskiy D. V. Russia: Withholding Tax on Agency Fees under the Russia-Germany Tax Treaty (Articles 14, 15 and 21) / D. V. Vinnitskiy // Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2015. – IBFD, 2016. – P. 257–268.Vinnitskiy D.V. Russia: Withholding Tax on Agency Fees under the Russia-Germany Tax Treaty (Articles 14, 15 and 21), in: Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2015, IBFD Publ., 2016, pp. 257–268.Vinnitskiy D. V. Russia: Thin Capitalization Rules between Sister Companies under Luxembourg-Russia DTC / D. V. Vinnitskiy // Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2014. – IBFD, 2015. – P. 305–314.Vinnitskiy D.V. Russia: Thin Capitalization Rules between Sister Companies under Luxembourg-Russia DTC, in: Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2014, IBFD Publ., 2015, pp. 305–314.Килинкарова Е. В. Устранение двойного налогообложения после частичного приостановления Россией международных налоговых соглашений / Е. В. Килинкарова // Налоговед. – 2024. – № 1. – С. 21–29.Kilinkarova E.V. Avoidance of double taxation after Russia partially suspended international double tax treaties. Nalogoved, 2024, no. 1, pp. 21–29. (In Russ.).Мачехин В. А. Применение международных налоговых соглашений в РФ: процессуальные проблемы / В. А. Мачехин // Финансовое право. – 2011. – № 7. – С. 36–40.Machekhin V.А. Application of international tax treaties in the RF: procedural problems. Finansovoe pravo = Financial Law, 2011, no. 7, pp. 36–40. (In Russ.).Савицкий А. И. От сертификата резидентства к политике международного налогообложения / А. И. Савицкий // Закон. – 2015. – № 6. – С. 166–180.Savitskiy A.I. From tax residency certificate towards international tax policy. Zakon, 2015, no. 6, pp. 166–180. (In Russ.).Мачехин В. А. Фактическое право на доход: российские фискальные органы развивают концепцию / В. А. Мачехин // Налоги. – 2015. – № 4. – С. 32–35.Machekhin V.A. Beneficial ownership of the income: Russian fiscal authorities develop the concept. Nalogi = Taxes (Journal), 2015, no. 4, pp. 32–35. (In Russ.).Анищенко Д. Е. Концепция «фактического права на доходы» в российской судебной практике / Д. Е. Анищенко // Налоги. – 2016. – № 4. – С. 26–29.Anishchenko D.E. Conception of "actual right to incomes" in the Russian judicial practice. Nalogi = Taxes (Journal), 2016, no. 4, pp. 26–29. (In Russ.).Аракелов С. А. Развитие концепции фактического права на доход: подходы ФНС России с учетом сформировавшейся судебной практики / С. А. Аракелов // Закон. – 2017. – № 5. – С. 45–56.Arakelov S.A. Developing the concept of beneficial ownership for income: approaches of Federal Tax Service considering relevant court decisions. Zakon, 2017, no. 5, pp. 45–56. (In Russ.).Tasalov K. Identifying conduit companies: a Russian perspective on the beneficial ownership concept / K. Tasalov // European Taxation. – 2020. – Vol. 60, no. 12. – P. 536–545.Tasalov K. Identifying conduit companies: a Russian perspective on the beneficial ownership concept. European Taxation, 2020, vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 536–545.Ахметшин Р. И. Фактическое право на доход: уроки ушедшего года / Р. И. Ахметшин, Н. А. Васильев // Налоговед. – 2022. – № 3. – С. 24–34.Ahmetshin R.I., Vasiliev N.A. Beneficial ownership of income: last year’s lessons. Nalogoved, 2022, no. 3, pp. 24–34. (In Russ.).Демин А. В. Доктрина бенефициарного собственника в налоговом праве / А. В. Демин, А. В. Николаев. – М. : Проспект, 2023. – 296 с.Dyomin A.V., Nikolaev A.V. Doctrine of beneficial owner in tax law. Moscow, Prospekt Publ., 2023. 296 p. (In Russ.).Тасалов К. А. Критерии кондуитных компаний в российской концепции бенефициарной собственности / К. А. Тасалов, М. С. Волков // Закон. – 2023. – № 11. – С. 32–39. – DOI: 10.37239/0869-4400-2023-20-11-32-39.Tasalov K.A., Volkov M.S. Criteria of conduit companies in the Russian beneficial ownership concept. Zakon, 2023, no. 11, pp. 32–39. DOI: 10.37239/0869-4400-2023-20-11-32-39. (In Russ.).Винницкий Д. В. Развитие судебной практики по делам о недостаточной капитализации в Российской Федерации в 2011–2016 гг. / Д. В. Винницкий // Электронное приложение к «Российскому юридическому журналу». – 2017. – № 6. – С. 141–153.Vinnitsky D. The development of court practice in cases of inadequate capitalization in the Russian Federation in 2011-2016. Elektronnoe prilozhenie k «Rossiiskomu yuridicheskomu zhurnalu» = Electronic supplement to “Russian Juridical Journal”, 2017, no. 6, pp. 141–153. (In Russ.).Akhonina Y. Thin capitalization in Russia: rules, trends and changes / Y. Akhonina, M. Mikhaylova // Intertax. – 2016. – № 11. – P. 853–858.Akhonina Y., Mikhaylova M. Thin capitalization in Russia: rules, trends and changes. Intertax, 2016, no. 11, pp. 853–858.Пономарева К. А. Влияние интернационализации налогового права на российское правоприменение в сфере корпоративного налогообложения / К. А. Пономарева // Правоприменение. – 2017. – T. 1, № 4. – С. 66–74. – DOI: 10.24147/2542-1514.1(4).66-74.Ponomareva K.A. Influence of internationalization of tax law on Russian tax law enforcement in the area of corporate taxation. Pravoprimenenie = Law Enforcement Review, 2017, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 66–74. DOI: 10.24147/2542-1514.1(4).66-74.Бачилова Е. М. Налогообложение морской транспортировки российской нефти. Актуальные вопросы / Е. М. Бачилова // Налоговед. – 2023. – № 10. – С. 25–36.Bachilova E.M. Taxation of sea transportation of Russian oil. Nalogoved, 2023, no. 10, pp. 25–36. (In Russ.).Klaus Vogel on Double Taxation Conventions / ed. by E. Reimer, A. Rust. – 5th ed. – Wolters Kluwer, 2022. – 2556 p.Reimer E., Rust A. (eds.). Klaus Vogel on Double Taxation Conventions, 5th ed. Wolters Kluwer Publ., 2022. 2556 p.Курочкин Д. А. Проблемы разграничения доходов от активной и пассивной экономической деятельности в России в контексте трансграничного налогообложения / Д. А. Курочкин // Налоги и налогообложение. – 2017. – № 4. – С. 20–30. – DOI: 10.7256/2454-065X.2017.4.22696.Kurochkin D.A. Issues of Differentiation of Active and Passive Economic Activity Income in Russia in Terms of Cross-Border Taxation. Nalogi i nalogooblozhenie = Taxes and Taxation, 2017, no. 4, pp. 20–30. DOI: 10.7256/2454-065X.2017.4.22696. (In Russ.).Хаванова И. А. «Иные доходы»: непростая логика статьи 21 налоговых конвенций / И. А. Хаванова // Финансовое право. – 2022. – № 12. – С. 27–29.Khavanova I.A. Other income: complicated logic of Article 21 of Tax Conventions. Finansovoe pravo = Financial Law, 2022, no. 12, pp. 27–29. (In Russ.).Брук Б. Я. Вопросы методологии использования и применения международных налоговых договоров (часть 1) / Б. Я. Брук // Закон. – 2023. – № 11. – С. 101–111. – DOI: 10.37239/0869-4400-2023-20-11-101-111.Bruk B.Ya. Methodological issues in the use and application of international tax treaties (part 1). Zakon, 2023, no. 11, pp. 101–111. DOI: 10.37239/0869-4400-2023-20-11-101-111. (In Russ.).Анищенко Д. Е. Распределение негативных налоговых последствий между налоговым агентом и иностранной организацией – налогоплательщиком / Д. Е. Анищенко // Налоговед. – 2022. – № 12. – С. 37–47.Anischenko D.E. Distribution of adverse tax consequences between a tax agent and a foreign company taxpayer. Nalogoved, 2022, no. 12, pp. 37–47. (In Russ.).

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