The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors only. Hunter Davis Vol. 39 Notes Editor In the wake of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (“Brexit”), a challenge to British sovereignty over Gibraltar has emerged. On April 29, 2017, the European Council unanimously adopted the Framework for Negotiations Under Article 50 (“the Framework”).[1] While the bulk of the Framework lays out broad goals and timelines, the Framework also requires the UK to pre-clear with Spain any agreements relating to Gibraltar before taking them up with the EU.[2] This has been referred to as the “Spanish veto.” <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/gibraltar/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors only. Lukas Kutilek* The international tax regime as we know it today goes back to the beginning of the twentieth century. In 1923, the League of Nations reached a compromise on dividing the tax base between residence and source jurisdiction, which is usually called the Benefits Principle. Put simply, the Benefits Principle is the idea that active income should be taxed primarily at source and passive income should be taxed primarily at residency.[1] This principle is already embedded in the network of over 3,000 bilateral double tax treaties (“DTTs”). But the League of Nations also agreed on one other key principle of international tax regime. This second principle, sometimes called the Single Tax Principle, holds that although income should not be taxed twice, it should also not escape taxation altogether. The often-quoted language of the League of Nations states that: <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/lukaskutilek/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors only. Gianluca Darena* On June 7, 2017, seventy-one jurisdictions signed the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting ("MLI")[1] with the promise to thwart base erosion and profits shifting practices.[2] On October 13, 2017, academics, experts, and practitioners from all over the world gathered at the University of Michigan Law School to debate about these recent developments that could potentially redefine the international tax regime (“Conference”).[3] <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/gianlucadarena/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors only. Eran Levy* A summary and opinion on the session “Article 7 and Prevention of Treaty Abuse” by Mr. Richard Reinhold[1] and Prof. Reuven Avi-Yonah[2] as commentator (the “Session”), which took place at the “Perspective on the Multilateral Instrument” conference at the University of Michigan Law School on October 13, 2017. <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/eranlevy/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors only. Chul Hun Lee* Vol. 39 Associate Editor Article 7 of the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent BEPS (“MLI”) requires the signatories to adopt measures to meet the minimum standard to prevent treaty abuse. The baseline approach of Article 7 is the Principal Purpose Test (“PPT”), which denies tax treaty benefits if one of the principal purposes of a transaction was to obtain such benefit under the tax treaty.[1] Furthermore, Article 7 is not an elective provision; all signatories must implement the measures provided for in the Article.[2] However, this is not as onerous as it may sound. Although the PPT is the only test that can satisfy the minimum standard on its own, it is not the only approach permissible under the MLI. Instead, the signatories are permitted to either supplement the PPT with a simplified Limitations on Benefits rule (“LOB”), or to adopt a detailed LOB in lieu of the PPT.[3] Given these options, is the PPT a better option than the LOB, or is it an IED as Mr. Richard Reinhold[4] suggested? <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/chulhunlee/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
38 MJILDIGTIALSYMPOSIUM 1 On October 13, 2017, tax specialists and international law experts from universities, private practice, and global institutions explored the implications of the recently signed Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (MLI). The day-long conference was organized at the University of Michigan Law School by Professor Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, Irwin I. Cohn Professor of Law and Director of the International Tax LLM Program at Michigan Law. The conference was co-sponsored by the Michigan Journal of International Law. In this special digital issue, four emerging tax scholars share their perspectives on the issues and debates raised through the conference: <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/mli2017/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
Sara Stappert Vol. 39 Associate Editor June 27, 2017 was a dark day for tech giant Google as European Union (EU) antitrust officials fined the company “a record $2.7 billion for unfairly favoring some of its own services over those of rivals.”[1] The antitrust decision was specifically targeted at Google’s online shopping service. It is alleged that Google promoted Google Shopping in organic search results[2] while simultaneously demoting rival services in 13 of the 31 countries in the European Economic Area.[3] The Commission specifically objected to the fact that Google leveraged its marked dominance in general Internet search into a separate market: comparison-shopping.[4] <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/when-google-trends-on-google-eu-commission-slaps-search-engine-giant-with-antitrust-fine/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
Gianluca Scaglione Vol. 39 Associate Editor Now more than ever, privacy and its cybersecurity dimension demand increased attention. As digital technology and its uses expand rapidly, the amount of data generated about every individual is staggering: from our real-time movement location to texts and emails, almost everything we do is encapsulated on a daily basis in the devices we use. In the face of rapid technological development—situated as we are at the dawn of the Internet era—current legal protections have proven lackluster and adequate norms have yet to be conceived. <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/cybersecurity-privacy-legal-landscape/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
Peter Liu Vol. 39 Associate Editor China revealed in the 19th Party Congress the new members of the Politburo Standing Committee. This Congress heralds the beginning of President Xi Jinping’s second five-year term. During a president's first term, the members of this Committee are holdovers from the previous administration, appointed by the outgoing leader. It is during the second term that a president is fully empowered to pursue his own agenda, as he fills the Politburo Standing Committee with his own allies. <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/xi-jinpings-china/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
David Smellie & Zachary Simon Vol. 39 Associate Editors History and Overview of the TPP Signed in February 2016, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was meant to be a watershed moment for trade in the Pacific. The twelve signatories to the agreement, all of whom border the Pacific Ocean, collectively account for 40 percent of global GDP and one-third of global trade.[1] The goal of the agreement was straightforward: to strengthen economic ties between Pacific nations by slashing tariffs and boosting trade. In fact, it was crafted with the eventual goal of creating a single market between the signatory countries.[2] The TPP was also widely seen as a measure to counter the rising influence of China in the region. <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/the-future-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
