Article 2 of Double Taxation Agreements and the Fate of Digital Service Taxes

Year 2024, , 29 - 44, 30.04.2024

Mustafa Cemil Kara

https://doi.org/10.37093/ijsi.1422044

Abstract

Article 2 of double taxation agreements (DTAs) is intended to ensure covered taxes under a DTA. Article 2 is significant since the legal protection provided by DTAs is limited only to the scope of DTAs. However, the wording of Article 2 may lead to confusion and uncertainty for taxpayers in terms of taxes within the scope of DTAs. In recent years, there has been a widespread trend of excluding digital service taxes (DSTs) from DTAs due to the lack of a global consensus on a common solution. This has refocused attention on Article 2. The fact that there is a scarcity of research on Article 2 raises concerns about what will happen if different types of taxes emerge over time. In this article, some important points and Türkiye’s approach related to Article 2 and Türkiye’s DST law which sometimes causes ambiguities and uncertainties for taxpayers were highlighted. This article also aimed to enhance a common understanding of the logic of the term "taxes covered." The research employed the descriptive research method, primarily utilizing the OECD Model Tax Convention (MTC) and its commentary, as well as prominent academic studies in the field and the Turkish DST law.

Keywords

Double Taxation Agreement, Contracting State, Taxes Covered, Digital Service Taxes

Ethical Statement

The author declares that this article complies with ethical standards and rules.

Supporting Institution

No financial support was received from any person or institution for the study.

References

• Ault, H. J. (1997). Part four: International taxation. In Comparative income taxation: A structural analysis (pp. 368−480). Kluwer Law International.
• Brandstetter, P. (2010). The substantive scope of double tax treaties- A study of Article 2 of the OECD Model conventions. (Unpublished doctoral thesis, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna-Austria). https://research.wu.ac.at/ws/portalfiles/portal/19842689/Brandstetter.pdf
• Collier, R., & Devereux, M. P. (2017). The destination-based cash flow tax and double tax treaties (Working Paper, Series 2017/06). Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation.
• Çelener, B. (2019a). Diğer dijital hizmet vergisi uygulamaları karşısında Türk Dijital Hizmet Vergisi Kanun Teklifine ilişkin bir değerlendirme [An evaluation of Turkish digital service tax bill compared to other digital service tax applications]. Legal Mali Hukuk Dergisi, 15(178), 2223−2248.
• Çelener, B. (2019b). Dijital ekonomiyi vergilendirme yolunda somut bir adım: Dijital hizmet vergisinde Fransa örneği [A concrete step towards taxing the digital economy: The French example of digital services tax]. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 16, 31−54. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/yuhfd/issue/66555/1041586
• Çifte Vergilendirmeyi Önleme Anlaşmaları Genel Tebliği Seri No 1. [General Communiqué No 1 on Double Taxation Agreements], May 15, 1996, https://www.gib.gov.tr/sites/default/files/uluslararasi_mevzuat/GENTEB_1_CV.htm
• Demirhan, H. (2020). Dijital hizmet vergisinin dünyadaki uygulamaları ve Türkiye ile karşılaştırmalı analizi [Applications of digital service tax in the world and comparative analysis with Türkiye]. The Journal of Social Science, 4(7), 73−86. https://doi.org/10.30520/tjsosci.665390
• Dijital Hizmet Vergisi ile Bazı Kanunlarda ve 375 Sayılı Kanun Hükmünde Kararnamede Değişiklik Yapılması Hakkında Kanun. [The law on the digital service tax]. (2019, December 07). Law No. 7194. Turkish Republic Official Gazette. 30971.
• Durdu, M. (2020). Avrupa Birliği’nde dijital hizmet vergisi ve Türkiye uygulaması [Digital service tax in the European Union and its application in Türkiye]. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, 78(4), 1959−1988. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2020.78.4.0008
• Ekmekçi, E., Güneş, G., & Kaşıkçı, M. (2020). Kurucu ve yönteme ilişkin vergisel temel ögeler bağlamında Türk Hukukunda dijital hizmet vergisine eleştirel bakış [A critical view of digital service tax in Turkish Law in the context of founding and procedural basic tax elements]. In Prof. Dr. Türkan Rado’nun Anısına Armağan (pp. 107−172). On İki Levha Yayıncılık.
• Erdem, T. (2016). Kaydırılmış kazanç vergisi [Diverted profit tax]. Vergi Sorunları, 330, 111−119.
• Ferhatoğlu, E. (2018). BEPS Eylem 1: Dijital ekonomi [BEPS Action 1: Digital economy]. In B. Yaltı (Ed.), Vergilendirmede matrah aşındırma ve kâr kaydırma (BEPS) [Base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) in taxation]. Beta Yayınları.
• Grapperhaus, F. H. M. (2009). Tax tales from the Second Millennium: Taxation in Europe (1000-2000), the United States of America (1765 to 1801) and India (1526 to 1709); Taxes through the Ages: A pictorial history. International Bureau of Fiscal Document.
• Helminen, M. (2016). The notion of tax and the elimination of double taxation or double non-taxation: General report (Vol. 101b). IFA Cahiers.
• Ismer, R., & Jescheck, C. (2017). The substantive scope of tax treaties in a post BEPS World: Article 2 OECD MC (taxes covered) and the rise of new taxes. Intertax, 45(5), 382−390. https://doi.org/10.54648/TAXI2017030
• Ismer, R., & Jescheck, C. (2018). Taxes on digital services and the substantive scope of application of tax treaties: Pushing the boundaries. Intertax, 46(6&7), 573−578. https://doi.org/10.54648/TAXI2018059
• Işık, H. (2014). Uluslararası vergilendirme [International Taxation]. On İki Levha Yayınları.
• Jiménez, A. M. (2018). Controversial issues about the concept of tax in income and capital tax. In B. J. Arnold (Ed.), Treaties and the post BEPS World- A tribute to Jacques Sasseville (pp. 163−190). Canadian Tax Foundation.
• Kara, M. C. (2022). Dijital ekonominin vergilendirilmesinde yeni rabıta ve kâr tahsisi kuralları [New nexus and profit allocation rules in taxation of the digital economy]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 49, 291−308. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.953067
• Kara, M. C., & Öz, E. (2016). Dijital vergilendirmeye küresel bir bakış [A global perspective on digital taxation]. Vergi Dünyası, 424, 30−37.
• Karabulut, Ş. (2020). Dijital çağın mali yansımaları: Dijital hizmet vergisi [Fiscal repercussions of the digital age: Digital service tax]. Maliye Dergisi, 178, 263−288.
• Karnosh, K. E. (2021). The application of international tax treaties to digital services taxes. Chicago Journal of International Law, 21(2), 513−547. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol21/iss2/8
• Kılıçer, E., & Peker, İ. (2021). Dijital ekonomide vergilendirme [Taxation on the digital economy]. (2. bs.). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Lang, M. (2005). Taxes covered-what is a ‘tax’ according to Article 2 of the OECD Model? Bulletin-Tax Treaty Monitor, 59(6), 216−223.
• Mutlu Kaya, Ö. (2020). Dijital hizmet vergisi ve Türkiye uygulaması [Digital service tax and Türkiye application]. Maltepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, (2), 447−478. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/mhfd/issue/64869/994243
• Nadaroğlu, H. (1998). Kamu maliyesi teorisi [Public finance theory]. Beta Basım Yayın.
• OECD Model Tax Convention. (2014). Commentary on Article 2.
• OECD Model Tax Convention. (2017). Commentary on Article 2.
• OECD. (2021, October 08). Statement on the two-pillar solution to address the tax challenges arising from the digitalisation of the economy. OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/statement-on-a-two-pillar-solution-to-address-the-tax-challenges-arising-from-the-digitalisation-of-the-economy-october-2021.pdf
• Oguttu, A. W. (2020). A critique from a developing country perspective of the proposals to tax the digital economy. World Tax Journal, 12(4), 799−828. https://doi.org/10.59403/3y6ybja
• Oktay, C. (2020). Dijital ekonominin boyutu, vergilendirilmesine yönelik OECD çalışmaları, öneriler, örnek ülke uygulamaları ve Türkiye’de yapılan düzenlemeler ve dijital hizmet vergisi [Dimension of the digital economy, OECD studies on taxation, recommendations, sample country practices and regulations made in Türkiye and the digital service tax]. Vergi Sorunları, (376), 95−116.
• Öz, E., & Çavdar, F. (2012). Çifte vergilendirmenin önlenmesine yönelik OECD ve Türkiye Uygulamaları [OECD and Türkiye practices for preventing double taxation]. Vergi Dünyası, (371), 51−66.
• Petruzzi, R., & Buriak, S. (2018). Addressing the tax challenges of the digitalization of the economy – A possible answer in the proper application of the transfer pricing rules? Bulletin for International Taxation, 72(4a-Special Issue). https://doi.org/10.59403/1gh0kxn
• Pires, M. (1989). International juridical double taxation of income. Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.
• Postler, S. (2020). The OECD’s work on profit allocation and nexus rules for a digitalized economy – A potential improvement of the international taxation framework? Bulletin for International Taxation, 74(2), 76−87. https://doi.org/10.59403/334r6d0
• Sağır, H. (2022). Dijital hizmetlerin vergilendirilmesinin tarihsel süreci ve geleceği [Historical process and future of taxation of digital services]. Vergi Dünyası, (495), 53−67.
• Saraçoğlu, F., & Kahraman, B. (2020). Dijital hizmet vergisi üzerine değerlendirmeler [Evaluations on digital service tax]. Vergi Sorunları, (376), 9−17.
• Şen, H., & Sağbaş, İ. (2016). Vergi teorisi ve politikası [Tax theory and policy]. (2. bs.). Kalkan Matbaacılık.
• Tenore, M. (2012). “Taxes Covered”: The OECD Model (2010) versus EU Directives. Bulletin for International Taxation, 66(6). https://doi.org/10.59403/3jt94se
• Turkish Revenue Administration’s tax ruling, August 05, 2014, No. 22246361-030.01[86-724.01.02/MK[2]]-80048).
• U.S. Department of Treasury. (2021, October 21). Joint statement from the United States, Austria, France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom, regarding a compromise on a transitional approach to existing unilateral measures during the interim period before pillar 1 is in effect [Press Release]. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0419
• U.S. Department of Treasury Press Releases. (2021, November 22). Joint statement from the United States and Turkey regarding a compromise on a transitional approach to existing unilateral measures during the interim period before pillar 1 is in effect [Press Release]. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0500
• UNCTAD. (2019). Digital economy report. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/der2019_en.pdf
• van den Hurk, H. (2020). Tax and the digital economy-will pillar one be the solution? EC Tax Journal, 18(9), 131−167.
• Yaltı Soydan, B. (1995). Uluslararası vergi anlaşmaları [International tax treaties]. Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım A. Ş.
• Yaltı, B. (2003). Elektronik ticarette vergilendirme [Taxation in electronic trade]. Der Yayınları.