Tantangan Pengaturan Anti-treaty Shopping di Indonesia Setelah Berlakunya Multilateral Instrument
Keywords:Anti-treaty Shopping, Certainty, Interpretation, Multilateral Instrument, Principal Purpose Test, Tax Dispute
This paper reviews the rapidly growing empirical literature on anti-treaty shopping arrangements after the adoption of multilateral instruments, especially those relating to the application of the Principal Purpose Test (PPT). The absence of a Principal Purpose Test definition in the agreement, or an international understanding of how the PPT should be interpreted means that various parties may act differently and provide different interpretations of a transaction or arrangement. In addition, the inequalities of evidence between the tax authorities and taxpayers on the justification of transaction motives or arrangements solely for the benefit of the agreement raises the potential for tax disputes that are getting bigger because of the different perspectives built by the tax authorities and taxpayers. The purpose of this study is to examine the theoretical and empirical aspects of the challenges and obstacles in implementing the PPT arrangement in Indonesia, as well as to see the development of the arrangement from a global perspective. The research approach used in this study is to use qualitative methods with data collection techniques through documentation and literature review or literature study by providing an understanding of a social phenomenon related to the implications of implementing the Principal Purpose Test. The results and conclusions of this study lead to the urgency that the Tax Authority increasingly needs to issue regulations related to the implementation of the Principal Purpose Test in order to create legal certainty for taxpayers.
Arnold, B. J. (2016). International Tax Primer Third Edition. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110327571.7
Bammen, N., & Maast, A. Van Der. (2018). Treaty shopping in ontwikkelingslanden: BEPS-actie 6 en het VN-Modelverdrag. 549–560.
Chand, V. (2017). The Guiding Principle and the Principal Purpose Test. SSRN Electronic Journal, 12(June), 484–490. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2833193
Chand, V. (2018). The Principal Purpose Test in the Multilateral Convention: An in-depth Analysis. http://www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/beps-mli-signatories-and-parties.pdf.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage publications.
Da Silva, B. (2016). Reconsidering the Application and Interpretation of Anti-treaty Shopping Rules in the Context of Developing Countries.
Danon, J. R. (2018). Treaty Abuse in the Post-BEPS World: Analysis of the Policy Shift and Impact of the Principal Purpose Test for MNE Groups. Bulletin for International Taxation, 72(1), 31–55.
Darussalam, J. H., & Septriadi, D. (2010). Konsep dan Aplikasi Perpajakan Internasional. Danny Darussalam Tax Center.
DDTC. (2020). Penyelesaian Sengketa Jadi Sumber Ketidakpastian Pajak? https://news.ddtc.co.id/penyelesaian-sengketa-jadi-sumber-ketidakpastian-pajak-20534
Gomes, M. L. (2018). Implementation in practice of the Principal Purpose Test in the Multilateral Convention. Intertax, 46(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2018005
Gomes, M. L. (2019). The DNA of the principal purpose test in the multilateral instrument. In Intertax (Vol. 47).
IMF/OECD. (2018). OECD/IMF Report on Tax Certainty – 2018 Update. July. https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/tax-certainty-update-oecd-imf-report-g20-finance-ministers-july-2018.pdf
Ku?niacki, B. (2018). Constitutional Issues Arising from the Principal Purpose Test: The Lesson from Poland. XXVII, 95–115. https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2018.27.2.95
Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
OECD. (2015). Preventing the Granting of Treaty Benefits in Inappropriate Circumstances, Action 6 - 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. In OECD Publication. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264241695-en
OECD. (2022). Prevention of Tax Treaty Abuse – Fourth Peer Review Report on Treaty Shopping?: Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 6, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/3dc05e6a-en
Rohatgi, R. (2005). Basic International Taxation Basic International Taxation Second Edition Volume I: Principles. https://doi.org/10.54648/5105711
Rosdiana, H., & Irianto, E. S. (2012). Pengantar Ilmu Pajak.pdf. PT Rajagrafindo Persada.
Setyowati, E. (2010). Analisis Ketentuan Anti Treaty Shopping Dalam Upaya Pencegahan Penyalahgunaan Persetujuan Penghindaran Pajak Berganda (P3B) Di Indonesia.
Taramountas, K. (2019). The PPT: The Introduction of a Uniform Standard with an Uncertain Application. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264239081-99-en.pdf?
Tooma, R. (2008). Legislating against tax avoidance. In IBFD.
Valderrama, I. J. M. (2020). BEPS principal purpose test and customary international law. Leiden Journal of International Law, 33(3), 745–766. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156520000278
Weber, D. (2018). The Reasonableness Test of the Principal Purpose Test Rule in OECD BEPS Action 6 (Tax Treaty Abuse) versus the EU Principle of Legal Certainty and the EU Abuse of Law Case Law. Erasmus Law Review, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.5553/elr.000081
Wikström, I.-M. (2020). The Principal Purpose Test (PPT) – Legal Consequences Of Applying The PPT In Finland (Issue November).
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 Agung Kurniawan, Ning Rahayu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.