• Login
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    Tax treaty interpretation 
    •   QMRO Home
    • Queen Mary University of London Theses
    • Theses
    • Tax treaty interpretation
    •   QMRO Home
    • Queen Mary University of London Theses
    • Theses
    • Tax treaty interpretation
    ‌
    ‌

    Browse

    All of QMROCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    ‌
    ‌

    Administrators only

    Login
    ‌
    ‌

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Tax treaty interpretation

    View/Open
    EDWARDES-KERTaxTreaty1994.pdf (29.50Mb)
    Publisher
    Queen Mary University of London
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    This thesis analyses which principles should govern the interpretation of tax treaties. This field is complex - because tax treaties have a dual status. Tax treaties are treaties between States - which are governed by public international law, the principles of which have been codified in the 1980 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Tax treaties are also laws which can affect the domestic rights of taxpayers (and States). Different, and possibly conflicting, principles of interpretation may apply in public international, and in (different) domestic, contexts. This thesis seeks to reconcile these different principles, recognising that tax treaties should be interpreted uniformly. Only if this is done can double taxation (and double non-taxation) be avoided - and reciprocity achieved. This thesis analyses why, and when, the Vienna Convention is relevant in interpreting a tax treaty in a domestic context. It seeks to describe a uniform approach to tax treaty interpretation - which could be applied by domestic courts worldwide. It reaches four main conclusions. Firstly, a textual approach (endorsed as the starting point of interpretation at a public international level by Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention) should (also) be the starting point of interpretation in a domestic context. Secondly, the proper approach in a domestic context cannot be the mirror image of the Vienna Convention approach. Thirdly, a uniform domestic approach cannot be identical to any one particular State's approach to the interpretation of its domestic tax statutes. Fourthly, a uniform domestic approach should be autonomous - and neutral as between all States. It should recognise a tax treaty's dual status - yet be independent of any interpretative principles which are appropriate only in a purely public international, or a purely domestic, context.
    Authors
    Edwardes-Ker, Michael
    URI
    http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/1679
    Collections
    • Theses [3600]
    Copyright statements
    The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author
    Twitter iconFollow QMUL on Twitter
    Twitter iconFollow QM Research
    Online on twitter
    Facebook iconLike us on Facebook
    • Site Map
    • Privacy and cookies
    • Disclaimer
    • Accessibility
    • Contacts
    • Intranet
    • Current students

    Modern Slavery Statement

    Queen Mary University of London
    Mile End Road
    London E1 4NS
    Tel: +44 (0)20 7882 5555

    © Queen Mary University of London.