Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/2806
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-13T08:39:43Z-
dc.date.available2015-05-13T08:39:43Z-
dc.date.issued2009-
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar//handle/123456789/2806-
dc.descriptionB. ACCTY. (HONS)en_GB
dc.description.abstractThe notion of beneficial ownership is fundamental to the application of certain provisions of double taxation treaties based on the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital, curiously however, we have very little guidance as to the meaning of this term. The lack of a uniform and commonly accepted definition of the term has led to much uncertainty in determining when a recipient of certain items of income is indeed the beneficial owner thereof for the purposes of double taxation treaties. The only point of consensus reached, is that formal agents and nominees are not beneficial owners of income, however, there is no accord as to who else, if anyone, is excluded. Differences in opinion appear not only between different states but also been expressed by persons commenting on he same legal system. Treaties typically do not define beneficial ownership for the purpose of the treaty, however, the treaty itself normally provides guidance as to the reference that must be made to seek the meaning of the undefined term. For example, Article 3(2) of the treaty entered into between Malta and Germany states: ‘As regards the application of this Agreement by either of the States, any term not otherwise defined shall, unless the context otherwise requires, have the meaning which it has under the laws of that State relating to the taxes which are the subject of this Agreement.’ This work explores the different approaches to the interpretation of beneficial ownership by different countries and commentators as evidenced by decisions of the domestic courts and published material on the subject. Specifically the landmark cases namely the Indofood case and the Prévost case were analysed with a view to the drawing of conclusions concerning the meaning of this term which is of such fundamental relevance to the interpretation and application of tax treaties in practice.en_GB
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccessen_GB
dc.subjectOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmenten_GB
dc.subjectDouble taxation -- OECD countries -- Treatiesen_GB
dc.titleThe implications of the term beneficial ownership as used in the OECD model tax convention : in the light of the decision of the UK courts in the indofood caseen_GB
dc.typebachelorThesisen_GB
dc.rights.holderThe copyright of this work belongs to the author(s)/publisher. The rights of this work are as defined by the appropriate Copyright Legislation or as modified by any successive legislation. Users may access this work and can make use of the information contained in accordance with the Copyright Legislation provided that the author must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the prior permission of the copyright holder.en_GB
dc.publisher.institutionUniversity of Maltaen_GB
dc.publisher.departmentFaculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy. Department of Accountancyen_GB
dc.description.reviewedN/Aen_GB
dc.contributor.creatorSullivan, Jessica-
Appears in Collections:Dissertations - FacEma - 2009
Dissertations - FacEMAAcc - 2009

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
09BACC070.pdf
  Restricted Access
675.59 kBAdobe PDFView/Open Request a copy


Items in OAR@UM are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.