Dos prejuízos no regime de participation exemption: a relação entre estabelecimento estável e filial

Mestrado em Fiscalidade

A tributação dos residentes não habituais: o caso português

No ano de 2009, foi introduzido no ordenamento jurídico português um regime de tributação privilegiado com vista a atrair estrangeiros de elevado valor acrescentado, promovendo o investimento e aumentando a qualificação da mão-de-obra. Apesar de não se tratar de uma experiência pioneira no domínio da tributação, assume-se verdadeiramente competitivo face aos restantes regimes em vigor na União Europeia, nomeadamente quanto ao âmbito e critérios de aplicação, bem como quanto à sua duração. A inevitável interação deste regime com as Convenções para evitar a Dupla Tributação e com o princípio da não discriminação, conduz-nos numa análise transversal que permita efetuar uma avaliação global e sistematizada dos benefícios que lhe estão subjacentes. Verifica-se que os eventuais constrangimentos com as Convenções para evitar a Dupla Tributação apesar de reais e de difícil eliminação resultam, por vezes, em situações bastante favoráveis para os seus beneficiários, como acontece com a dupla isenção concedida às pensões de fonte estrangeira. Complementarmente, consideramos que o facto de configurar um verdadeiro benefício fiscal, promovendo uma derrogação do regime regra da tributação em IRS, não compromete o princípio constitucional da não discriminação.

The Proposed Financial Transaction Tax – Extraterritorial Effect, Tax Evasion and Other Legal Problems Facing the Proposal

The main topic of this master’s thesis is the proposed EU directive on a financial transaction tax. Ten Member States which want to enact the directive by using enhanced cooperation are currently negotiating the contents of the proposal. This tax would be levied on specific products which are traded on the financial markets. As an example the transaction of stocks would be taxed at a percentage of 0.1 percent, and the transaction of derivatives at a percentage of 0.01 percent. The proposed financial transaction tax would enter into force in said ten countries but it would still have effects on those countries, which are not planning on participating in this taxation system. This is one of the main reasons why this tax has faced a lot of opposition in several European Union countries. The main legal problems the tax is predicted to have are tax evasion, double taxation, and extraterritorial effect. The Commission has stated that it is aiming to reach certain objectives with the financial transaction tax. These objectives are for example to stabilise the financial markets following the financial crisis, and to deter tax evasion. Commission has defended the planning of the financial transaction tax by stating that the tax is likely to reach its objectives. The planning of the financial transaction tax began already in 2011 when the Commission published the first draft of the proposal. Following this the proposal was last amended in 2013, but the participating Member States are currently still negotiating the contents of the proposal. The participating Member States published a statement in December 2015 in which they promised that there will be a decision made about the financial transaction tax by the end of June 2016.

The allocation of taxing rights of ship and aircraft leasing profits under Australia's tax treaties

The Australian Federal Commissioner of Taxation recently released Draft Taxation Ruling TR 2008/D3 with the stated purpose of clarifying ‘what profits derived from the leasing of ships or aircraft fall within the ship and aircraft articles of each of Australia’s tax treaties’. In particular, TR 2008/D3 explains the taxing rights over different types of leasing profits, such as a full basis lease in respect of any transport by a ship operated in international traffic and bareboat leases which are ancillary to the lessor transport operations of ships in international traffic. This article outlines the Commissioner’s views on the application of the standard ships and aircraft articles in the tax treaties to which it is a party as well as considering the major variations on the standard adoption. In doing so, guidance is provided as to the allocation of taxing rights of ship and aircraft leasing profits under Australia’s tax treaties.

The taxation of international maritime leasing profits : has the commissioners ship come in?

In light of McDermott Industries (AUST) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation, and Draft Taxation Ruling TR 2006/D8, this article considers the current Australian taxation position of profits arising from the cross-border leasing of vessels in the maritime industry. It focuses on the tax treaties to which Australia is a party, in particular the application of the business profits provisions of those treaties, and the deemed existence of a permanent establishment where substantial equipment, owned by a fiscal non-resident, is used within Australian waters.

Taxation determinations as de facto regulation : private equity exits in Australia

The Australian Taxation Office (AT)) attempted to challenge both the private equity fund reliance on double tax agreements and the assertion that profits were capital in nature in its dispute with private equity group TPG. Failure to resolve the dispute resulted in the ATO issuing two taxation determinations: TD 2010/20 which states that the general anti-avoidance provisions can apply to arrangements designed to alter the intended effect of Australia's international tax agreements net; and TD 2010/21 which states that the profits on the sale of shares in a company group acquired in a leveraged buyout is assessable income. The purpose of this article is to determine the effectiveness of the administrative rulings regime as a regulatory strategy. This article, by using the TPG-Myer scenario and subsequent tax determinations as a case study, collects qualitative data which is then analysed (and triangulated) using tonal and thematic analysis. Contemporaneous commentary of private equity stakeholders, tax professionals, and media observations are analysed and evaluated within a framework of responsive regulation and utilising the current ATO compliance model. Contrary to the stated purpose of the ATO rulings regime to alleviate complexities in Australian taxation law and provide certainty to taxpayers, and despite the de facto law status afforded these rulings, this study found that the majority of private equity stakeholders and their advisors perceived that greater uncertainty was created by the two determinations. Thus, this study found that in the context of private equity fund investors, a responsive regulation measure in the form of taxation determinations was not effective.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Os conflitos tributários internacionais e sua possível solução pela via arbitral

O fenômeno da globalização teve o condão de aproximar os diversos povos, cada um com seus interesses e culturas próprios. A existência de um consenso internacional na definição de princípios a serem seguidos quando das relações externas não consegue impedir, contudo, o surgimento de possíveis conflitos e divergências, tendo em vista a pluralidade cultural das diversas nações mundiais, fato que induziu a sociedade internacional a desenvolver meios que pudessem dirimir pacificamente as controvérsias, porventura, surgidas entre elas. A adoção dos meios para solução pacífica dos conflitos internacionais encontra-se incentivada pela Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil (art. 4., incisos VI e VII) e sua utilização não importa qualquer renúncia ao exercício da soberania, nem tampouco à imunidade de jurisdição. Para que se tenha uma eficácia maior da submissão dos conflitos surgidos no âmbito externo aos meios admitidos para resolvê-los, é importante que os países envolvidos no litígio possuam orientação interna no sentido de privilegiar o Direito Internacional frente à sua legislação infraconstitucional doméstica. A eventual primazia do direito interno pode resultar na inocuidade da adoção dos meios pacíficos de solução de controvérsias internacionais, uma vez que as autoridades dos países litigantes poderão se esquivar do cumprimento do acordo ou decisão alegando uma possível contrariedade com os ditames legais domésticos. Nesse contexto, a seara tributária tem despertado constantes divergências internacionais. As diferentes interpretações conferidas pelas diversas nações, dentre elas o Brasil, quando da aplicação dos tratados por elas firmados e que tenham vertente fiscal, em especial aqueles que visam evitar a dupla imposição fiscal da renda, ou garantir o livre trânsito de bens, pessoas e serviços, acaba trazendo grande insegurança àqueles investidores que possuem operações conectadas a dois ou mais sistemas tributários diferentes. Assim, ganham cada vez mais corpo, os debates em torno da extensão dos mecanismos pacíficos para resolução de divergências, também ao âmbito de aplicação de todo e qualquer tratado que verse sobre a matéria tributária. Tal fato propicia a busca de uma possível uniformização dos métodos hermenêuticos aplicáveis àqueles fatos geradores tributáveis que se encontrem vinculados a dois ou mais entes soberanos. É nesse contexto que se apresenta o presente estudo, o qual aborda a possibilidade de a República Federativa do Brasil submeter ao procedimento arbitral aquelas controvérsias de cunho tributário que eventualmente decorram da interpretação divergente das convenções internacionais das quais seja parte e que tratem de matéria fiscal.

L’observance du traitement psychosocial chez des détenus fédéraux présentant un double diagnostic de schizophrénie et de trouble de la personnalité antisociale

Ce rapport de stage porte sur l’observance du traitement psychosocial chez des détenus fédéraux présentant un double diagnostic de schizophrénie et de trouble de la personnalité antisociale. Après une recension des écrits, le milieu de stage est présenté, ainsi que la méthodologie, trois études de cas et, enfin, une analyse de celles-ci. L’observance du traitement et les problématiques de santé mentale ici traitées sont exposées de façon descriptive, assez précise et critique. Suite à l’analyse des trois études de cas dans un centre correctionnel communautaire (SCC), il semble que la clientèle judiciarisée, schizophrène et antisociale ne reçoive pas des services entièrement adaptés à ses déficits au niveau des compétences sociales. De même, le personnel du SCC présente certaines lacunes face à l’intervention préconisée avec ces individus. Dans ce sens, il est noté que les intervenants sont généralement insuffisamment disponibles, formés et disposés à réellement envisager la réadaptation sociale du détenu tel que perçue dans ce stage. Souvent, les suivis étant discontinus, l’alliance thérapeutique peine à s’installer. Or ce n’est qu’en instaurant une relation de confiance qu’un travail clinique profitable peut subsister. En somme, avant d’être remis en liberté, il serait souhaitable que ces hommes reçoivent du soutien quant à l’acquisition des savoir-faire et savoir-être nécessaires à toute socialisation.