Interpreting Tax Treaties After Nat

Interpreting Tax Treaties After NatWest

INTRODUCTION
The growth in cross-border trade, investment, and migration that we have learned to call ‘‘globalization’’ inevitably increases the importance of tax treaties as a factor in multinational tax planning and controversy resolution. Because cross-border economic flows have been a smaller part of the total U.S.
economy than of the economies of other countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (‘‘OECD’’), the United States has a less extensive
tax treaty network and a less developed
corpus of tax treaty interpretation than some of
our trading partners. The United States has no
generally applicable treaty regulations,1 no tradition
of granting treaty rulings, and relatively
few decided cases to guide the interpretation of
tax treaties. Indicative of our tax authorities’
occasionally insular attitude towards international
tax conventions is the comparatively
Herculean effort they have invested in the
drafting of regulations to implement legislation
that overrides the application of tax treaties.2
Because there are so few court decisions that
interpret U.S. tax treaties, last January’s decision
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit in National Westminster Bank, PLC
(‘‘NatWest’’) v. U.S.,3 and the three decisions of
the Court of Federal Claims that were affirmed
by that decision,4 ought to be of interest to all
international tax practitioners. On April 21,
2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Menafsirkan perjanjian perpajakan setelah NatWestPENGENALANPertumbuhan perdagangan lintas perbatasan, investasi, dan migrasi yang telah kita pelajari untuk memanggil '' globalisasi '' pasti meningkatkan pentingnya perjanjian pajak sebagai faktor dalam resolusi multinasional pajak perencanaan dan kontroversi. Karena aliran pelintas perbatasan ekonomi telah menjadi bagian yang lebih kecil dari total USekonomi daripada ekonomi dari negara-negara lain milik organisasi untuk kerjasama ekonomi dan pembangunan ('' OECD''), Amerika Serikat memiliki kurang ekstensifJaringan perjanjian pajak dan kurang dikembangkanCorpus interpretasi perjanjian pajak dari beberapamitra dagang kami. Amerika Serikat tidak memilikiperaturan umumnya berlaku perjanjian, 1 ada tradisipemberian hukum Perjanjian, dan relatifbeberapa memutuskan kasus untuk memandu interpretasiperjanjian perpajakan. Indikasi dari aparat pajak kamikadang-kadang picik sikap internasionalKonvensi pajak adalah relatifHercules usaha mereka telah berinvestasi dalampenyusunan peraturan untuk melaksanakan undang-undangyang menimpa penerapan pajak treaties.2Karena ada begitu beberapa lapangan keputusanmenafsirkan US perjanjian perpajakan, keputusan Januarioleh US pengadilan banding untuk FederalSirkuit di National Westminster Bank, PLC('' NatWest'') v. U.S.,3 dan keputusan tigaPengadilan Federal menyatakan bahwa itu menegaskanMenurut keputusan itu, 4 harus menarik bagi semuapraktisi pajak internasional. Pada April 212008, US pengadilan banding untuk Federal