Suchergebnisse

General renvoi clauses in DTAs based on article 3(2) of the OECD MTC provide that an undefined term in a DTA shall have the meaning that it has in the domestic law of the contracting state applying the DTA unless the context otherwise requires. All South African DTAs include such a clause. Many interpretational issues remain with regard to the application and interpretation of general renvoi clauses. This article considers four of these issues in the light of South African cases in which general renvoi clauses were referred to. The following cases are considered: ITC 789 (1954) 19 SATC 434, Baldwins (South Africa) Ltd v Commissioner for Inland Revenue (1961) 24 SATC 270 and Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Tradehold Ltd 2012 3 All SA 15 (SCA). The first of the issues considered in the article is relevant in those cases where a DTA includes a general renvoi clause based on the pre-1995 version of article 3(2) and where amendments were made to a relevant domestic meaning after the conclusion of the particular DTA. These clauses do not expressly state whether the relevant domestic meaning is the domestic meaning existing at the time of the conclusion of the DTA, or at the time of the application of the DTA. The second issue arises if the expression used in the domestic law is not identical to the undefined treaty term. The question is whether the expression in the domestic law can be used to give meaning to the treaty term under the general renvoi clause. Another interpretational issue considered in the article concerns deeming provisions in the domestic law. The issue is whether a meaning that a term is deemed to have under a provision in domestic legislation can be used under the general renvoi clause to give meaning to the undefined term in the DTA. The last issue deals with the meaning of the phrase "unless the context otherwise requires". The question raised is whether this phrase means that the domestic meaning should be given only as a "last resort", or whether it should apply unless "reasonably strong" arguments to the contrary are made.

General renvoi clauses in DTAs based on article 3(2) of the OECD MTC provide that an undefined term in a DTA shall have the meaning that it has in the domestic law of the contracting state applying the DTA unless the context otherwise requires. All South African DTAs include such a clause. Many interpretational issues remain with regard to the application and interpretation of general renvoi clauses. This article considers four of these issues in the light of South African cases in which general renvoi clauses were referred to. The following cases are considered: ITC 789 (1954) 19 SATC 434, Baldwins (South Africa) Ltd v Commissioner for Inland Revenue (1961) 24 SATC 270 and Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Tradehold Ltd 2012 3 All SA 15 (SCA). The first of the issues considered in the article is relevant in those cases where a DTA includes a general renvoi clause based on the pre-1995 version of article 3(2) and where amendments were made to a relevant domestic meaning after the conclusion of the particular DTA. These clauses do not expressly state whether the relevant domestic meaning is the domestic meaning existing at the time of the conclusion of the DTA, or at the time of the application of the DTA. The second issue arises if the expression used in the domestic law is not identical to the undefined treaty term. The question is whether the expression in the domestic law can be used to give meaning to the treaty term under the general renvoi clause. Another interpretational issue considered in the article concerns deeming provisions in the domestic law. The issue is whether a meaning that a term is deemed to have under a provision in domestic legislation can be used under the general renvoi clause to give meaning to the undefined term in the DTA. The last issue deals with the meaning of the phrase "unless the context otherwise requires". The question raised is whether this phrase means that the domestic meaning should be given only as a "last resort", or whether it should apply unless "reasonably strong" arguments to the contrary are made

The art. 3, paragraph 2, of The OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital provides the general renvoi clause, which establishes the reference to the internal legislation of Contracting States, to determinate the meaning of any term not defined in the text of the Convention; this reference is of subsidiary nature, because it just can be applied when it is not possible to derive the meaning from the text of the Convention itself, and unless the context does not require an alternative interpretation. The internal legislation to be used is the one of the Contracting State Which applies the Convention and which is in force when it is being applied. In case the general renvoi clause does not solve the lack of meaning of any terms of the Convention, it can used pacific means for solution of international conflicts as the Mutual Agreement Procedure and the international arbitration. The legislation in force of the CAN, does not anymore considerate the general renvoi clause, and problems of meanings should be understood in the context and in light of the object and purposes of the Convention, regarding that the principal object is avoiding double taxation. ; El art. 3, apartado 2, del Modelo de Convenio Tributario sobre la Renta y sobre el Patrimonio de la OCDE establece la "cláusula general de reenvío", la cual establece la remisión a la legislación interna de los Estados contratantes, para determinar el significado de términos y expresiones que no se encuentren definidas en el texto del Convenio. Esta remisión es de carácter subsidiario, ya que sólo puede darse cuando dicho significado no pueda ser extraído del texto del propio Convenio y siempre que su contexto no establezca una interpretación diferente. La legislación interna a ser utilizada es aquella del Estado contratante que aplique el Convenio y que se encuentre vigente al momento de aplicar éste. En caso de no lograr resolver el problema de la falta de significado de los términos o expresiones del Convenio aplicando la cláusula de reenvío, se puede hacer uso de los medios pacíficos de solución de controversias internacionales, como son el procedimiento amistoso y el arbitraje internacional. La legislación vigente de la CAN ha optado por dejar de lado el uso de la cláusula general de reenvío, de tal forma que los problemas de falta de significado deben ser entendidos en el contexto y a la luz de los objetivos e intenciones del Convenio, teniendo en cuenta que su principal objetivo es evitar la doble imposición.