Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

ÇİFTE VERGİLENDİRMEYİ ÖNLEME ANLAŞMALARI KAYNAKLI İHTİLAFLARIN ÇÖZÜMÜNDE TAHKİM: TÜRK HUKUKU PERSPEKTİFİNDEN BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Yıl 2024, , 267 - 296, 23.08.2024

Ahmet Çömlekçioğlu

https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1482230

Öz

Gelişmekte olan ülkeler çifte vergilendirmeyi önleme anlaşmalarından kaynaklanan ihtilafların çözümüne dair sistemlerini iyileştirmeye çabalarken önemli zorluklarla karşılaşmaktadırlar. Bu ihtilaflarda bazen akit devlet yetkili makamlarının çabaları, bir karşılıklı anlaşma elde etmekte yetersiz kalmaktadır. Karşılıklı anlaşma usulü tahkimi ise kesin çözüm sağlayan bir yöntem olarak ekseriyetle gelişmiş ülkeler tarafından kabul edilmektedir. Buna karşılık gelişmekte olan ülkeler karşılıklı anlaşma usulü tahkimini kabul etmekle aleyhe sonuçlara maruz kalabilirler. Türkiye, bir gelişmekte olan ülke olarak, karşılıklı anlaşma usulü tahkimini kabul etmekle aynı aleyhe sonuçlara maruz kalabileceğinden bu konu hakkında bir çözüm aranmalıdır. Çalışmamızda karşılıklı anlaşma
usulünün kesin çözüm sunmadaki eksikliğini gidermeyi ve diğer zorlukları hafifletmeyi hedefleyen bir ulusal vergi tahkimi önerisi geliştirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çifte Vergilendirmeyi Önleme Anlaşmaları İhtilaf Çözüm Yolları Karşılıklı Anlaşma Usulü Karşılıklı Anlaşma Usulü Tahkimi Vergi Tahkimi

Kaynakça

  • Arslan, D. (2021). Çifte Vergilendirmeyi Önleme Anlaşmaları Bakımından OECD’nin Tahkim Önerisi ve Türkiye Açısından Değerlendirilmesi. İstanbul: 12 Levha Yayınları.
  • Avi-Yonah, R. S. (2000). Commentary. Tax Law Review, 53(2), 167-176.
  • Avi-Yonah, R. S. (2007). International Tax as International Law an Analysis of the International Tax Regime. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brauner, Y. (2019). The Latin American Opposition to Mandatory Arbitration in Tax Treaties: Origins, The Calvo Doctrine, and a Reappraisal. Florida Tax Review, 22(3), 866-884.
  • Chaisse, J. (2016). Investor-State Arbitration in International Tax Dispute Resolution: A Cut above Dedicated Tax Dispute Resolution. Virginia Tax Review, 35(2), 149-222.
  • Christians, A. (2015). Karşılıklı Anlaşma Usulüne Eklenen Tahkim Hükmü: Yeni BM Vergi Anlaşması Hakkında Düşünceler. (çev.) Ateş, L. Küresel Bakış Dergisi, 5(16), 1-5.
  • Dominguez Gonzales, A. E. (2018). The Need for Arbitration in Tax Treaties: Deficiencies of the Mutual Agreement Procedure under the OECD and UN Model Conventions. OECD Arbitration in Tax Treaty Law (Ed.) Majdanska, A., Turcan, L. Vienna: Linde Verlag.
  • Ferhatoğlu, E. (2010). Uluslararası Vergi Uyuşmazlıklarının Çözümlenmesinde Tahkim Yolu Avrupa Birliği Tahkim Anlaşması. İstanbul: Beta.
  • GİB (2019). Çifte Vergilendirmeyi Önleme Anlaşmalarında Yer Alan Karşılıklı Anlaşma Usulüne İlişkin Rehber. https://www.gib.gov.tr/sites/default/files/fileadmin/CifteVergilendirme/KAU_Kilavuzu2019.pdf, (12.02.2024).
  • GİB (2024). Yürürlükte Bulunan Çifte Vergilendirmeyi Önleme Anlaşmaları. https://www.gib.gov.tr/sites/default/files/uluslararasimevzuat/Turkiyenin_Sonuclandirdigi_Vergi_ Anlasmalari_Listesi.pdf, (25.02.2024).
  • Godolphin, J. (2018). Resolution of Tax Disputes in International Arbitration. Mcgill Journal of Dispute Resolution, 4(1), 86-104.
  • Kara, M. C. (2022). Gözden Geçirilmiş Karşılıklı Anlaşma Usulü ve Türkiye’deki Son Gelişmeler. Vergi Raporu Dergisi, 277(Ekim), 11-22.
  • Lennard, M. (2015) Tax Arbitration and Developing Countries. International Arbitration in Tax Matters. (Ed.) Lang, M., Owens, J. Amsterdam: IBDF.
  • Lieb, J. (2015). Introduction: Taking the Debate Forward. International Arbitration in Tax Matters. (Ed.) Lang, M., Owens, J. Amsterdam: IBDF.
  • Markham, M. (2018). Litigation, Arbitration and Mediation in International Tax Disputes: An Assessment of Whether this Results in Competitive or Collaborative Relations.
  • Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal (CAA Journal), 10(2), 277-304.
  • McIntyre, M. J. (2006). Comments on the OECD Proposal for Secret and Mandatory Arbitration of International Tax Disputes. Florida Tax Review, 7(9), 622-650.
  • Mulvihill, P., Wrappe, S. (2012). Arbitration in Tax Treaties: The Canada-United States Income Tax Convention. Corporate Business Taxation Monthly, 13(6), 25-32.
  • Nas, A. (2019). Tax Resolution of Tax Treaty Disputes and Arbitration, Law & Justice Review, 10(18), 1-26.
  • Nair, R. (2014). India Opposes Global Plan to Make Tax Arbitration Binding. https://www.livemint.com/Politics/rutMHggqQOm2htzcrI9K7I/India-opposes-global-plan-tomake- tax-arbitration-binding.html, (01.02.2024).
  • OECD (2007) Improving the Resolution of Tax Treaty Disputes ((Report adopted by the Committee on Fiscal Affairs on 30 January 2007). Paris: Centre for Tax Policy and Administration.
  • OECD (2013). Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2015a). OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project Making Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective, Action 14 - 2015 Final Report. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2015b). Public Discussion Draft - BEPS Action 14: Make Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective 18 December 2014 – 16 January 2015. https://webarchive.oecd.org/2014-12-18/332555-discussion-draft-action-14-make-disputeresolution-mechanisms-more-effective.pdf, (16.02.2023).
  • OECD (2017a). Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (MLI). https://www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/multilateral-convention-to-implement-tax-treaty-related-measures-to-prevent-BEPS.pdf, (12.01.2024).
  • OECD (2017b). Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2021a). Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – MAP Peer Review Report, Brazil (Stage 2): Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2021b). Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – MAP Peer Review Report, People’s Republic of China (Stage 2): Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2021c). Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – MAP Peer Review Report, India (Stage 2): Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2021ç). Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – MAP Peer Review Report, Russian Federation (Stage 2): Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2021d). Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – MAP Peer Review Report, Turkey (Stage 2): Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2022). OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations 2022. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2023a). International Collaboration to End Tax Avoidance. https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/,(23.03.2024).
  • OECD (2023b). Mutual Agreement Procedure Statistics per jurisdiction Germany 2006-2015 (pre-MAP Statistics Reporting Framework) and 2016-2022 (post-MAP Statistics Reporting Framework). https://www.oecd.org/tax/dispute/mapstatistics-germany.pdf, (02.04.2024).
  • OECD (2023c). Mutual Agreement Procedure Statistics per jurisdiction Türkiye 2006-2015 (pre-MAP Statistics Reporting Framework) and 2016-2022 (post-MAP Statistics Reporting Framework). https://www.oecd.org/tax/dispute/map-statistics-turkiye.pdf, (02.04.2024).
  • OECD (2024a). Signatories and Parties to the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Status As of 29 February 2024. https://www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/beps-mli-signatories-and-parties.pdf, (12.02.2024).
  • OECD (2024b). Mutual Agreement Procedure Profiles. https://www.oecd.org/tax/dispute/country-map-profiles.htm, (20.03.2024).
  • OECD (2024c). Action 14 Mutual Agreement Procedure. https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-actions/action14/#:~:text=For%20the%2082%20jurisdictions%20reviewed,the%20implementation%20of%20MAP%20agreements, (25.03.2024).
  • Özgenç, A. S. (2022). Vergide Uluslararası Tahkimin Gerekliliği. https://www.dunya.com/kose-yazisi/vergide-uluslararasi-tahkimin-gerekliligi/679593, (27.03.2024).
  • Park, W. W. (2002). Income Tax Treaty Arbitration. George Mason Law Review, 10(4), 803-874.
  • Pazarcı, H. (2013). Uluslararası Hukuk (12. Baskı). Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi.
  • Pistone, P. (2015). From Mutual Agreement Procedures to Arbitration in Tax Treaties: Reconciling Protection of Taxpayers’ Rights with the Interest to Collect Taxes. Vergi Uyuşmazlıklarının Çözümü: Barışçıl Mekanizmalar. (Ed.) Yaltı, B. İstanbul: Beta.
  • Saluja, J. S., Jain, Y. (2021). Mutual Agreement Procedure vs. Mandatory Binding Arbitration: India’s Stance on Non-Judicial Remedies in DTAAs. https://tclf.in/2021/09/19/mutual-agreement-procedure-vs-mandatory-binding-arbitration-indias-stanceon-non-judicial-remedies-in-dtaas/#Indias_Stand_On_Mandatory_Binding_Arbitration, (01.03.2024).
  • Sevinçhan, E. (2016). Uluslararası Vergi Hukukuna İlişkin Uyuşmazlıklarda Tahkim Yolu. Ankara Üni. Hukuk Fak. Dergisi, 65(2), 449-472.
  • Shonk, K. (2024). International Arbitration: What it is and How it Works. Harvard Law School Daily Blog, https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/international-negotiation-daily/international-arbitration-what-it-is-and-how-it-works/, (07.06.2024).
  • Sur, M. (2018). Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları (12. Baskı). İstanbul: Beta.
  • Terzi, G. (2018). Uluslararası Çifte Vergilendirmeyi Önlemeye Yönelik Model Vergi Anlaşmaları ve Anlaşmazlıkların Çözüm Yöntemleri. Gümrük Ticaret Dergisi, 5(12), 30-41.
  • USSC (1985). Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/473/614/, (12.02.2024).
  • UN (2014). UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration. New York: United Nations.
  • UN (2021). United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention Between Developed and Developing Countries. New York: United Nations.
  • Xueliang, J. (2020). The Changing Paradigm of International Tax Dispute Settlement: What Are the Promises and Challenges of Mandatory Arbitration for China?. Oregon Review of International Law, 21, 117-154.
  • Yaltı Soydan, B. (1995). Uluslararası Vergi Anlaşmaları. İstanbul: Beta.
  • Yusufoğlu, A. (2021). Uluslararası Vergi Uyuşmazlıklarında Tahkim. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları.

Yıl 2024, , 267 - 296, 23.08.2024

Ahmet Çömlekçioğlu

https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1482230

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Arslan, D. (2021). Çifte Vergilendirmeyi Önleme Anlaşmaları Bakımından OECD’nin Tahkim Önerisi ve Türkiye Açısından Değerlendirilmesi. İstanbul: 12 Levha Yayınları.
  • Avi-Yonah, R. S. (2000). Commentary. Tax Law Review, 53(2), 167-176.
  • Avi-Yonah, R. S. (2007). International Tax as International Law an Analysis of the International Tax Regime. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brauner, Y. (2019). The Latin American Opposition to Mandatory Arbitration in Tax Treaties: Origins, The Calvo Doctrine, and a Reappraisal. Florida Tax Review, 22(3), 866-884.
  • Chaisse, J. (2016). Investor-State Arbitration in International Tax Dispute Resolution: A Cut above Dedicated Tax Dispute Resolution. Virginia Tax Review, 35(2), 149-222.
  • Christians, A. (2015). Karşılıklı Anlaşma Usulüne Eklenen Tahkim Hükmü: Yeni BM Vergi Anlaşması Hakkında Düşünceler. (çev.) Ateş, L. Küresel Bakış Dergisi, 5(16), 1-5.
  • Dominguez Gonzales, A. E. (2018). The Need for Arbitration in Tax Treaties: Deficiencies of the Mutual Agreement Procedure under the OECD and UN Model Conventions. OECD Arbitration in Tax Treaty Law (Ed.) Majdanska, A., Turcan, L. Vienna: Linde Verlag.
  • Ferhatoğlu, E. (2010). Uluslararası Vergi Uyuşmazlıklarının Çözümlenmesinde Tahkim Yolu Avrupa Birliği Tahkim Anlaşması. İstanbul: Beta.
  • GİB (2019). Çifte Vergilendirmeyi Önleme Anlaşmalarında Yer Alan Karşılıklı Anlaşma Usulüne İlişkin Rehber. https://www.gib.gov.tr/sites/default/files/fileadmin/CifteVergilendirme/KAU_Kilavuzu2019.pdf, (12.02.2024).
  • GİB (2024). Yürürlükte Bulunan Çifte Vergilendirmeyi Önleme Anlaşmaları. https://www.gib.gov.tr/sites/default/files/uluslararasimevzuat/Turkiyenin_Sonuclandirdigi_Vergi_ Anlasmalari_Listesi.pdf, (25.02.2024).
  • Godolphin, J. (2018). Resolution of Tax Disputes in International Arbitration. Mcgill Journal of Dispute Resolution, 4(1), 86-104.
  • Kara, M. C. (2022). Gözden Geçirilmiş Karşılıklı Anlaşma Usulü ve Türkiye’deki Son Gelişmeler. Vergi Raporu Dergisi, 277(Ekim), 11-22.
  • Lennard, M. (2015) Tax Arbitration and Developing Countries. International Arbitration in Tax Matters. (Ed.) Lang, M., Owens, J. Amsterdam: IBDF.
  • Lieb, J. (2015). Introduction: Taking the Debate Forward. International Arbitration in Tax Matters. (Ed.) Lang, M., Owens, J. Amsterdam: IBDF.
  • Markham, M. (2018). Litigation, Arbitration and Mediation in International Tax Disputes: An Assessment of Whether this Results in Competitive or Collaborative Relations.
  • Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal (CAA Journal), 10(2), 277-304.
  • McIntyre, M. J. (2006). Comments on the OECD Proposal for Secret and Mandatory Arbitration of International Tax Disputes. Florida Tax Review, 7(9), 622-650.
  • Mulvihill, P., Wrappe, S. (2012). Arbitration in Tax Treaties: The Canada-United States Income Tax Convention. Corporate Business Taxation Monthly, 13(6), 25-32.
  • Nas, A. (2019). Tax Resolution of Tax Treaty Disputes and Arbitration, Law & Justice Review, 10(18), 1-26.
  • Nair, R. (2014). India Opposes Global Plan to Make Tax Arbitration Binding. https://www.livemint.com/Politics/rutMHggqQOm2htzcrI9K7I/India-opposes-global-plan-tomake- tax-arbitration-binding.html, (01.02.2024).
  • OECD (2007) Improving the Resolution of Tax Treaty Disputes ((Report adopted by the Committee on Fiscal Affairs on 30 January 2007). Paris: Centre for Tax Policy and Administration.
  • OECD (2013). Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2015a). OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project Making Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective, Action 14 - 2015 Final Report. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2015b). Public Discussion Draft - BEPS Action 14: Make Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective 18 December 2014 – 16 January 2015. https://webarchive.oecd.org/2014-12-18/332555-discussion-draft-action-14-make-disputeresolution-mechanisms-more-effective.pdf, (16.02.2023).
  • OECD (2017a). Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (MLI). https://www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/multilateral-convention-to-implement-tax-treaty-related-measures-to-prevent-BEPS.pdf, (12.01.2024).
  • OECD (2017b). Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2021a). Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – MAP Peer Review Report, Brazil (Stage 2): Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2021b). Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – MAP Peer Review Report, People’s Republic of China (Stage 2): Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2021c). Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – MAP Peer Review Report, India (Stage 2): Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2021ç). Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – MAP Peer Review Report, Russian Federation (Stage 2): Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2021d). Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – MAP Peer Review Report, Turkey (Stage 2): Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2022). OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations 2022. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2023a). International Collaboration to End Tax Avoidance. https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/,(23.03.2024).
  • OECD (2023b). Mutual Agreement Procedure Statistics per jurisdiction Germany 2006-2015 (pre-MAP Statistics Reporting Framework) and 2016-2022 (post-MAP Statistics Reporting Framework). https://www.oecd.org/tax/dispute/mapstatistics-germany.pdf, (02.04.2024).
  • OECD (2023c). Mutual Agreement Procedure Statistics per jurisdiction Türkiye 2006-2015 (pre-MAP Statistics Reporting Framework) and 2016-2022 (post-MAP Statistics Reporting Framework). https://www.oecd.org/tax/dispute/map-statistics-turkiye.pdf, (02.04.2024).
  • OECD (2024a). Signatories and Parties to the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Status As of 29 February 2024. https://www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/beps-mli-signatories-and-parties.pdf, (12.02.2024).
  • OECD (2024b). Mutual Agreement Procedure Profiles. https://www.oecd.org/tax/dispute/country-map-profiles.htm, (20.03.2024).
  • OECD (2024c). Action 14 Mutual Agreement Procedure. https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-actions/action14/#:~:text=For%20the%2082%20jurisdictions%20reviewed,the%20implementation%20of%20MAP%20agreements, (25.03.2024).
  • Özgenç, A. S. (2022). Vergide Uluslararası Tahkimin Gerekliliği. https://www.dunya.com/kose-yazisi/vergide-uluslararasi-tahkimin-gerekliligi/679593, (27.03.2024).
  • Park, W. W. (2002). Income Tax Treaty Arbitration. George Mason Law Review, 10(4), 803-874.
  • Pazarcı, H. (2013). Uluslararası Hukuk (12. Baskı). Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi.
  • Pistone, P. (2015). From Mutual Agreement Procedures to Arbitration in Tax Treaties: Reconciling Protection of Taxpayers’ Rights with the Interest to Collect Taxes. Vergi Uyuşmazlıklarının Çözümü: Barışçıl Mekanizmalar. (Ed.) Yaltı, B. İstanbul: Beta.
  • Saluja, J. S., Jain, Y. (2021). Mutual Agreement Procedure vs. Mandatory Binding Arbitration: India’s Stance on Non-Judicial Remedies in DTAAs. https://tclf.in/2021/09/19/mutual-agreement-procedure-vs-mandatory-binding-arbitration-indias-stanceon-non-judicial-remedies-in-dtaas/#Indias_Stand_On_Mandatory_Binding_Arbitration, (01.03.2024).
  • Sevinçhan, E. (2016). Uluslararası Vergi Hukukuna İlişkin Uyuşmazlıklarda Tahkim Yolu. Ankara Üni. Hukuk Fak. Dergisi, 65(2), 449-472.
  • Shonk, K. (2024). International Arbitration: What it is and How it Works. Harvard Law School Daily Blog, https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/international-negotiation-daily/international-arbitration-what-it-is-and-how-it-works/, (07.06.2024).
  • Sur, M. (2018). Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları (12. Baskı). İstanbul: Beta.
  • Terzi, G. (2018). Uluslararası Çifte Vergilendirmeyi Önlemeye Yönelik Model Vergi Anlaşmaları ve Anlaşmazlıkların Çözüm Yöntemleri. Gümrük Ticaret Dergisi, 5(12), 30-41.
  • USSC (1985). Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/473/614/, (12.02.2024).
  • UN (2014). UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration. New York: United Nations.
  • UN (2021). United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention Between Developed and Developing Countries. New York: United Nations.
  • Xueliang, J. (2020). The Changing Paradigm of International Tax Dispute Settlement: What Are the Promises and Challenges of Mandatory Arbitration for China?. Oregon Review of International Law, 21, 117-154.
  • Yaltı Soydan, B. (1995). Uluslararası Vergi Anlaşmaları. İstanbul: Beta.
  • Yusufoğlu, A. (2021). Uluslararası Vergi Uyuşmazlıklarında Tahkim. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları.
Toplam 53 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Kamu Hukuku (Diğer)
Bölüm Araştırma Makaleleri
Yazarlar

Ahmet Çömlekçioğlu 0000-0001-9312-2725

Yayımlanma Tarihi 23 Ağustos 2024
Gönderilme Tarihi 11 Mayıs 2024
Kabul Tarihi 4 Temmuz 2024
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2024

Kaynak Göster

APA Çömlekçioğlu, A. (2024). ÇİFTE VERGİLENDİRMEYİ ÖNLEME ANLAŞMALARI KAYNAKLI İHTİLAFLARIN ÇÖZÜMÜNDE TAHKİM: TÜRK HUKUKU PERSPEKTİFİNDEN BİR DEĞERLENDİRME. Sayıştay Dergisi(133), 267-296. https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1482230