en pl
en pl

Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia nad Prawem

Show issue
Year 6/2022 
Volume 14 
Issue 2

E-commerce Taxation as an Example of Legal Deadlock

Krzysztof Lipka
Kozminski University

6/2022 14 (2) Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia nad Prawem

DOI 10.7206/kp.2080-1084.523

Article contents

Abstract

Many of the principles of taxation that were developed in the first half of the 20th century, such as the arm’s length principle and the definition of the term “permanent establishment” (PE) in determining the tax position of international business operations, when applied to the business models of the 21st century, often result in the under-taxation of businesses that are otherwise fully compliant with the laws as presently written and implemented. Compounding the problem is the fact that these rules and principles of taxation are broadly recognized and are enshrined in a wide network of tax treaties. This makes the task of modifying or updating these rules and principals extremely difficult. Using legal-dogmatic and legal-theoretical methods, the author will show that present attempts to tax e-commerce transactions unilaterally are not effective and that, under present conditions, even organizations such as the EU are unable to address the problem at hand. The OECD project, commissioned by the G-20, which seeks to create a set of international e-commerce taxation rules, faces some very serious difficulties – largely because a well-established “set in stone” complement of internationally accepted laws, rules, and regulations is serving to block the development of new, more appropriate rules. This phenomenon has become known as the lock-in effect or legal impossibilism. In order to effectively address this phenomenon, lawmakers on a global basis must understand the mechanisms that are blocking the effective evolution of business taxation.

References

  1. Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy, OECD Publishing, Paris 2014. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahrens L., Bothner F., The Big Bang: Tax Evasion After Automatic Exchange of Information Under FATCA and CRS, “New Political Economy” 2019, No. 6. [Google Scholar]
  3. Akhtar J., Grondona V., Tax Haven listing in multiple hues: Blind winking and conniving, “South Center Research Papers” 2019, No. 94. [Google Scholar]
  4. Atanassova A., Accounting problems in e-commerce, “Ekonomiczne Problemy Usług” 2018, No. 2. [Google Scholar]
  5. Azam R., The Political Feasibility of a Global E-commerce Tax, “University of Memphis Law Review” 2013, No. 43. [Google Scholar]
  6. Azam R., Ruling the World: Generating International Tax Norms in the Era of Globalization and BEPS, “Suffolk University Law Review” 2017, No. 4. [Google Scholar]
  7. Azam R., Global taxation of cross border e-commerce income, “Virginia Tax Review” 2011, No. 31. [Google Scholar]
  8. Baistrocchi E., The Use and Interpretation of Tax Treaties in the Emerging World: Theory and Implications, “British Tax Review” 2008, No. 4. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chaisse J., Ji X., Soft law in international law making: How soft law is reshaping international economic governance, “Asian Journal of WTO Law and Health Policy” 2018, No. 13. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chalimoniuk D., Rozwój internetu jako szansa dla przedsiębiorstw, „Zeszyty Naukowe UP-H w Siedlcach” 2011, No. 88. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cockfield J., The rise of the OECD as informal world tax organization through national responses to e-commerce tax challenges, “Yale Journal of Law and Technology” 2006, No. 8. [Google Scholar]
  12. Colle S., Bennett A., State-induced, Strategic, or Toxic? An Ethical Analysis of Tax Avoidance Practices, “Business and Professional Ethics Journal” 2014, No. 33. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cui W., The Superiority of the Digital Services Tax over Significant Digital Presence Proposals, “National Tax Journal” 2019, No. 4. [Google Scholar]
  14. Doligalski T., Internet Business Models and Types of Goods Offered, “Journal of Business Models” 2018, No. 2. [Google Scholar]
  15. Davidson S., Berg Ch., Submission to the Senate Inquiry into Corporate Tax Avoidance Institute of Public Affairs 2015, www.ipa.org.au. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dietsch P., Catching capital. The ethics of tax competition, New York 2015. [Google Scholar]
  17. E-commerce: many of the challenges of collecting VAT and customs duties remain to be resolved, 12/2009, European Court of Auditors. [Google Scholar]
  18. EU Parliament Report: Tax Challenges in Digital Economy. www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/579002/IPOL_STU%282016%29579002_EN.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  19. Friedlander L., Wilkie S., Policy forum: the history of tax treaties provisions and why it is important to know about it, https://www.uniheidelberg.de/institute/fak2/mussgnug/historyoftaxdocuments/schrifttum/aufsaetze/AUFS00020.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gadżo S., Nexus requirements for taxation of non-residents business income: a normative evaluation in the context of the global economy, Amsterdam 2018. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gałuszka J., How to Tax E-commerce – Global or National Problem?, “Studia Ekonomiczne” 2013, No. 150. [Google Scholar]
  22. Geurts M., Server as a permanent establishment?, “Intertax” 2000, No. 4. [Google Scholar]
  23. Giles Ch., Crow D., US threatens to slap tariffs on British cars, “FT” 2020, January 23, p. 2, paper issue. [Google Scholar]
  24. Greggi M., How Goes the Night, Commissioner? Some Considerations on the Digital Tax Proposal, Project for European Commission (2017-1-LI01-KA203-000088). [Google Scholar]
  25. Greggi M., Genuine Nexus or Perpetual Allegiance? (Some Considerations on the ‘Diverted Profit Tax’ Proposal), Draft for TRN Conference 2015. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hadzhieva E., Impact of Digitalisation on International Tax Matters, Report for Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the European Parliament. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hansen R., Taking More than They Give: MNE Tax Privateering and Apple’s “Ocean” Income, “German Law Journal” 2018, No. 4. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hewitt P., Lymer A., Oats L., History of International Business Taxation, [in:] The International Taxation System, eds. A. Lymer, J. Hasseldyne, New York 2002. [Google Scholar]
  29. Holmes D., E-commerce tax: A sober view of cyberspace, “OECD Observer” 2002, No. 230. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hybka M., Optymalizacja podatkowa z wykorzystaniem hybrydyzacji, „Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Finanse, Rynki Finansowe, Ubezpieczenia” 2014, No. 65. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jain N., Tax Evasion a Dark Side of E-Commerce, “International Journal of Engineering and Management Research” 2013, No. 5. [Google Scholar]
  32. Jamroży M., Zakład zagraniczny w kontekście planu BEPS, „Studia Ekonomiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach” 2016, No. 294. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kayis-Kumar A., Taxing cross-border intercompany transactions: Are financing activities fungible?, “Australian Tax Forum” 2015, No. 30. [Google Scholar]
  34. Krzemińska I., Propozycje opodatkowania znaczącej obecności cyfrowej w Unii Europejskiej, „Krytyka Prawa” 2019, No. 2. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kohler P., Asset-Centred Redistributive Policies for Sustainable Development, “12th International Post-Keynesian Conference Paper” 2014, 28 September. [Google Scholar]
  36. Liu D., Reyneveld J., Straatman C., International – OECD’s Work on the Digital Economy: Impact Far beyond the Digital Economy, “International Transfer Pricing Journal” 2019, No. 5. [Google Scholar]
  37. Makunike C., The Nexus between Tax Treaties, Transfer Pricing and BEPS. Lessons for African Tax Policy Makers and Administrators, “ATRN working paper” 2016, No. 5. [Google Scholar]
  38. Malicka M., Zalasiński A., Rola oficjalnego Komentarza do Modelu Konwencji OECD w interpretacji umów dotyczących unikania podwójnego opodatkowania opartych na tym Modelu, „Kwartalnik Prawa Podatkowego” 2005, No. 1. [Google Scholar]
  39. Martynkiewicz-Frank M., E-commerce Challenge within B2C Transactions inside EU Countries, “Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu” 2012, No. 515. [Google Scholar]
  40. Mason R., Parada L., Digital Battlefront in the Tax Wars, “Virginia Law and Economics Research Paper” 2018, No. 2018–16. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mosquera I., Lesage V., Lips W., Tax and Development: The Link between International Taxation, The Base Erosion Profit Shifting Project and the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, “Working Paper Series W-2018/4” 2018, United Nations University. [Google Scholar]
  42. Motala M., The New Global Politics of sovereign international tax: Space, time and why BEPS is not the final frontier, “Banking and Finance Law Review” 2018. [Google Scholar]
  43. Mwencha M., Taxation of electronic commerce – a commentary, https://www.academia.edu/40141032/TAXATION_OF_ELECTRONIC_COMMERCE_-A_COMMENTARY. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ngantung Y., Tax treaties and developing countries, [in:] Tax policy challenges in the 21st century, eds. R. Petruzzi, K. Spies, Vienna 2014. [Google Scholar]
  45. Pistone H.P., Blueprints for a New PE Nexus to Tax Business Income in the Era of the Digital Economy, “WU International Taxation Research Paper Series” 2015, No. 15. [Google Scholar]
  46. Quak E., Timmis H., Double Taxation Agreements and Developing Countries, Institute of Development Studies K4D Helpdesk Report 2018. [Google Scholar]
  47. Radvan M., Taxation of Instagram Influencers, “Studia Iuridica Lublinencia” 2021, No. 2. [Google Scholar]
  48. Readhead A., Preventing Tax Base Erosion in Africa: A Regional Study on Transfer Pricing Challenges in the Mining Sector, “Natural Resource Governance Institute” 2016, July. [Google Scholar]
  49. Report Fair Tax Mark: The Silicon Six and Their 100 billion Global Tax Gap Dollars, 2019, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/faang-stocks.asp [Google Scholar]
  50. Rocha S., The Other Side of BEPS: “Imperial Taxation” and “International Tax Imperialism”, [in:] Tax Sovereignty in the BEPS Era, eds. S.A. Rocha, A. Christians, Alphen aan den Rijn 2017. [Google Scholar]
  51. Roin J., Can income from capital be taxed: An international perspective, [in:] Taxing Capital Income, eds. H. Aaron, L. Burman, E. Struerle, Chicago 2007. [Google Scholar]
  52. Romm T., Tech giants led by Amazon, Facebook and Google spent nearly half a billion on lobbying over the past decade, new data shows, “The Washington Post” 2020, January 22. [Google Scholar]
  53. Rybiński K., Outsourcing i offshoring usług. Siatka pojęć, trendy i bariery rozwojowe, [in:] Globalizacja Usług. Outsourcing, offshoring i shared services centers, eds. A. Szymaniak, Poznań 2007. [Google Scholar]
  54. Schroger M., Next steps in international debate, [in:] Tax Policy Challenges in the 21st Century, eds. K. Spies, R. Petruzzi, L. Verlag, Vienna 2014. [Google Scholar]
  55. Solilova V., Nerudova D., Transfer Pricing in SMEs: Critical Analysis and Practical Solutions, Brno 2018. [Google Scholar]
  56. Siliafis K., Taxation of E-commerce – A Task for Jugglers, “Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology” 2014. [Google Scholar]
  57. Simkin M.G., Bartlett G.W., Shim J.P., Pros and Cons of E-commerce Taxation, “International Business &Economics Research Journal” 2011, No. 2. [Google Scholar]
  58. Skaar A., Erosion of the Concept of Permanent Establishment: Electronic Commerce, “Intertax” 2000, No. 5. [Google Scholar]
  59. Supporting the Development of More Effective Tax Systems. A Report to the G-20 Development Working Group by the IMF, OECD, UN and WORLD BANK, www.oecd.org/ctp/48993634.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  60. UN Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters Report on the Sixth Session (18–22 October 2010), Economic and Social Council Official Records, 2010 Supplement No. 25. [Google Scholar]
  61. Szwajdler P., Jurysdykcja Podatkowa w przypadku działalności gospodarczej w branży e-commerce, „Journal of Education, Health and Sport” 2017, No. 7. [Google Scholar]
  62. Vega A., International governance through soft law: The case of the OECD transfer pricing guidelines, “TranState Working Papers” 2012, No. 163. [Google Scholar]
  63. Ward T., Sipior J., To tax or not to tax e-commerce. A United States perspective, “Journal of Electronic Commerce Research” 2005, No. 5. [Google Scholar]
  64. Wyraz E., The application of international conventions and treaties to third states, “Czech Yearbook of International Law Volume” 2017, No. 7. [Google Scholar]
  65. Zajadło J., Pojęcie „imposybilizm prawny” a polityczność prawa i prawoznawstwa, „PiP” 2017, No. 3. [Google Scholar]
  66. Zhang K., Wang Q., Liang Q., Chen H., A bibliometric analysis of research on carbon tax from 1989 to 2014, “Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews” 2016, No. 58. [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Lipka, Krzysztof (2022). E-commerce Taxation as an Example of Legal Deadlock. (2022). E-commerce Taxation as an Example of Legal Deadlock. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, 14(2), 60-79. https://doi.org/ 10.7206/kp.2080-1084.523 (Original work published 6/2022AD)

MLA style

Lipka, Krzysztof. “E-Commerce Taxation As An Example Of Legal Deadlock”. 6/2022AD. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, vol. 14, no. 2, 2022, pp. 60-79.

Chicago style

Lipka, Krzysztof. “E-Commerce Taxation As An Example Of Legal Deadlock”. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia nad Prawem, 14, no. 2 (2022): 60-79. doi: 10.7206/kp.2080-1084.523.

Copyright info

copyright info

CC-BY

People also read: