1318
IRCF v Duke of Westminster (1936) AC 1, 19.
1319
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Spotless Services Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 404, 418.
1320
DFCT v. Chant (1991) 24 NSWLR 352, 356.
1321
Tax avoidance schemes. URL: www.ato.gov.au/General/Tax-planning/Tax-avoidance-schemes.
1322
Гидирим В., Исаков А. Противодействие налоговым злоупотреблениям: опыт Германии и Франции // Налоговая политика и практика. 2011. № 10 (106). С. 54–57.
1323
Judgment of June 10, 1981, № 19,079, Conseil d’État, Lebon 248; Judgment of Apr. 19, 1988, № 86.19079, Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, Revue de jurisprudence fiscale 1989, № 2, at 47; также см.: Cyrille David et al. Les grands arrêts de la jurisprudence fiscale. Thème 9. 106 et seq. (2d ed. 1991).
1324
Req. 3 August 1915, Clément Bayard, D.P. 1917 I 79; S. 1920, I, 300.
1325
Amos & Walton’s Introduction to French Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. 3rd edition. P. 219; David Ward et al. The Business Purpose Test and Abuse of Rights. British Tax Review, 1985. P. 68; Maurice Cozian. Les grands principes de la fiscalité des entreprises Litec, 4th édition.
1326
John Prebble. Abus de droit and the General anti-avoidance rule of Income tax law: A comparison of the laws of seven jurisdictions and the European Community. Working paper series. 2008. Working Paper № 56. P. 20. URL: www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/centres-and-institutes/cagtr/working-papers/WP56.pdf.
1327
Article L64 of the Livre de Procédure Fiscale.
1328
Administrative Tribunal of Versailles 13/12/2005 5e ch., № 0404909, RJF 6/06 № 750; Droit et Patrimoine, May 2006 & RJF 6/06 № 750.
1329
CE, 18 February 2004, № 247729, min. c/ Sté Pléiade: Dr. fisc. 2004, № 47; RJF 5/04, № 510.
1330
Judgment of Apr. 14, 1976, Conseil d’Etat, 1976 Lebon, № 97.260, at 202; Judgment of Apr. 30, 1980, Conseil d’Etat, 1980 Lebon, № 16.253, at 206.
1331
Reichsabgabenordnung of 1919 § 4; Steueranpassungsgesetz of 1934 § I/II.
1332
Abgabenordnung. Zweiter Teil – Steuerschuldrecht (§ 33–77). Zweiter Abschnitt – Steuerschuldverhältnis (§ 37–50). § 42. Missbrauch von rechtlichen Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten. «(1) Durch Missbrauch von Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten des Rechts kann das Steuergesetz nicht umgangen werden. Ist der Tatbestand einer Regelung in einem Einzelsteuergesetz erfüllt, die der Verhinderung von Steuerumgehungen dient, so bestimmen sich die Rechtsfolgen nach jener Vorschrift. Anderenfalls entsteht der Steueranspruch beim Vorliegen eines Missbrauchs im Sinne des Absatzes 2 so, wie er bei einer den wirtschaftlichen Vorgängen angemessenen rechtlichen Gestaltung entsteht. (2) Ein Missbrauch liegt vor, wenn eine unangemessene rechtliche Gestaltung gewählt wird, die beim Steuerpflichtigen oder einem Dritten im Vergleich zu einer angemessenen Gestaltung zu einem gesetzlich nicht vorgesehenen Steuervorteil führt. Dies gilt nicht, wenn der Steuerpflichtige für die gewählte Gestaltung außersteuerliche Gründe nachweist, die nach dem Gesamtbild der Verhältnisse beachtlich sind». URL: https://dejure.org/gesetze/AO/42.html.
1333
John Prebble. Abus de droit and the General anti-avoidance rule of Income tax law: A comparison of the laws of seven jurisdictions and the European Community. Working paper series. 2008. Working Paper № 56. P. 6.
1334
BFH (19.06.1991) IX R 134/86, BStBl II 1991, 904.
1335
BFH (19.01.2000) I R 94/97, DStR 2000, 511.
1336
GAAR rising. Mapping tax enforcement’s evolution. Ernst & Young, February 2013. URL: www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Mapping_tax_enforcement%E2%80%99s_evolution/$FILE/GAAR.pdf.
1337
General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 91b. Attribution of Profit to Permanent Establishments. 2006. P. 25.
1338
Ibid. P. 43.
1339
Tax treaties and tax avoidance: application of anti-avoidance provisions, Vol. 95A. IFA Cahiers 2010. Canada Branch Report. P. 175.
1340
Paul Antle and Renee Marquis-Antle Spousal Trust v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 465 (TCC). URL: decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/2009/2009tcc465/2009tcc465.html.
1341
MIL (Investments) SA v. The Queen (2006) 5 CTC 2552 (TCC).
1342
Garron Family Trust (Trustee of) v. R., 2009 TCC 450 (TCC).
1343
General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 95a. Tax treaties and tax avoidance: application of anti-avoidance provisions. 2010. P. 26.
1344
Например, Конвенция ООН по морскому праву 1982 г., ст. 300; Европейская конвенция о защите прав человека и основных свобод, ст. 17 и 27.
1345
Luc De Broe, Nathalie Goyette, Philippe Martin, Roy Rohatgi, Stef van Weeghel and Phil West. Tax Treaties and Tax Avoidance: Application of Anti-Avoidance Provisions. Bulletin for International Taxation. July 2011. P. 375.
1346
Improper use of the Convention: «Having regard to paragraphs 7 to 12 of the Commentary to Article 1 of the OECD model tax convention, it is understood that this Convention shall not be interpreted to mean that a Contracting State is prevented from applying its domestic legal provisions on the prevention of tax evasion or tax avoidance where those provisions are used to challenge arrangements which constitute an abuse of the Convention».
1347
Такие же положения входят в налоговые соглашения Германии, заключенные с Албанией, Болгарией, Казахстаном, Македонией, Малайзией, Мальтой, Республикой Корея, Румынией, Словенией и др.
1348
«1. This Agreement shall not be interpreted to mean that (a) a Contracting State is prevented from applying its domestic legal provisions, on the prevention of tax evasion or tax avoidance as long as those provisions are in accordance with the principles contained in this Agreement…».
1349
«(e) Nothing in the Convention shall be construed as restricting, in any manner, the application of any provision of the laws of a Contracting State which is designed to prevent the avoidance or evasion of taxes».
1350
«The provisions of this Agreement shall in no case prevent a Contracting State from the application of the provisions of its domestic laws aiming at the prevention of fiscal evasion and avoidance, provided that the taxation in that State on the income concerned is not contrary to this Agreement».
1351
General Report. IFA Cahiers. Vol. 95a. Tax treaties and tax avoidance: application of anti-avoidance provisions. 2010. P. 43.
1352
Ibid. P. 46.
1353
Brian J. Arnold and Stefan van Weeghel. Chapter 5: The Relationship between Tax Treaties and Domestic Anti-abuse Measures in Tax Treaties and Domestic Law. EC and International Tax Law Series. Vol. 2. P. 95.
1354
United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries (2011 Update). Commentary on Chapter I. Article 1. § 36. P. 49: «Benefits provided for by this Convention shall not be available where it may reasonably be considered that a main purpose for entering into transactions or arrangements has been to obtain these benefits and obtaining the benefits in these circumstances would be contrary to the object and purpose of the relevant provisions of this Convention». («Выгоды, предоставленные настоящей Конвенцией, не должны быть предоставлены, когда есть разумные основания полагать, что основной целью совершения транзакции или схемы было получение
