The meaning of the principal purpose test: One ring to bind them all?

ResearchSpace/Manakin Repository

Show simple item record Elliffe, Craig en 2019-02-28T02:19:41Z en 2019 en
dc.identifier.citation World Tax Journal 11(1):47-76 2019 en
dc.identifier.issn 1878-4917 en
dc.identifier.uri en
dc.description.abstract Due to the introduction of the Multilateral Convention (MLI), an ever-growing number of the world's international tax treaties will contain a treaty-based anti-avoidance rule known as the principal purpose test (PPT). These PPT provisions will almost certainly play an extremely important role in preventing international tax avoidance. With the introduction of such broad and powerful anti-avoidance rules comes the risk of individual countries, through their revenue authorities and their courts, developing divergent and state-centric views as to the interpretation of the PPT. This risk is quite considerable, and there are many reasons why a harmonized basis of interpretation may not, in reality, emerge. If courts pursue an individual and diverse approach to the interpretation of the PPT, the same transaction will be viewed as being effective in one jurisdiction and ineffective in another. From a broader perspective, this is undesirable, and it should not occur for policy and interpretative reasons. Why is the case for interpreting the PPT consistently, with a common meaning, so compelling? There is one major reason, and it is an obvious one: the PPT can now be found in thousands of treaties, and it is exactly the same test in all of these. It is clear that an international autonomous meaning is intended to be introduced through the uniform adoption of the PPT. A universal interpretation may be possible if courts and revenue authorities apply a consistent approach to interpretation. The approach, detailed in this article, suggests that international tax treaties should be interpreted in accordance with (i) the ordinary meaning of the text of the PPT; (ii) due consideration of the context and the MLI's object and purpose; and (iii) consideration of how the MLI, as a successive treaty, relates to the covered tax agreement (CTA) that it amends. This article analyses the PPT rule from a normative position and sets out an appropriate basis for the approach to interpreting the PPT. Using all available sources and reports, including examples of the application of the test, this article provides a comprehensive framework for interpreting the PPT and answers the following questions, amongst others: (i) How is the PPT designed to override other provisions in the CTA (including other general anti-avoidance rules)? (ii) Is the substantive test based on an objective assessment of the arrangement or transaction or on the subjective position/mind of the taxpayer? (iii) Does the proviso place an onus of proof upon the taxpayer? en
dc.publisher International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation (IBFD) en
dc.relation.ispartofseries World Tax Journal en
dc.rights Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. en
dc.rights.uri en
dc.rights.uri en
dc.title The meaning of the principal purpose test: One ring to bind them all? en
dc.type Journal Article en
pubs.issue 1 en
pubs.begin-page 47 en
pubs.volume 11 en
dc.rights.holder Copyright: IBFD en en
pubs.end-page 76 en
dc.rights.accessrights en
pubs.subtype Article en
pubs.elements-id 761166 en Law en Faculty Administration Law en
pubs.record-created-at-source-date 2019-02-11 en 2019-01-21 en

Full text options

Find Full text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Search ResearchSpace

Advanced Search