Bibliographie sélective OHADA

In the Australian case of Bywater Investments Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation; Hua Wang Bank Berhad v Commissioner of Taxation (the Bywater case) the Australian High Court dealt with the question of whether certain companies were resident in Australia for income tax purposes. The majority answered this question by applying Australian domestic law. In a separate but concurring judgement, Gordon J also discussed the interpretation and application of the relevant double taxation treaty. This contribution analyses Gordon J's judgment to extract guidance from it for the South African courts on their interpretation of double taxation treaties. It is submitted that South African courts should also follow the "first step" proposed by Gordon J when interpreting double taxation treaties. South African courts may find Gordon J's judgment "instructive" when dealing with the interpretation of the "place of effective management" concept in both domestic law and double taxation treaties. In his judgment Gordon J favours the goal of common interpretation and it is argued that South African courts should follow this example and explicitly support this notion in applicable cases. From Gordon J's judgment and the judgement in Krok v Commissioner, South African Revenue Service, it is deduced that the positions in South Africa and Australia are similar in that the courts in both countries will be bound by the principles of Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties when interpreting double taxation treaties. Moreover, Gordon J's judgment indicates that the domestic principles of interpretation should not be used in the interpretation of double taxation treaties. Recent South African cases have suggested that there are no differences between the South African domestic principles of interpretation and those contained in Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This contribution submits that there are many similarities between the two, but that the rules are not exactly the same. South African courts should be aware of these differences and rather apply the rules of public international law, including those contained in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, when they interpret double taxation treaties. Gordon J specifically identifies the category of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in which he places the Commentary on the OECD Model Tax Convention, to rely on it for his interpretation of the relevant double taxation treaty. South African courts may well learn from this approach, to create more certainty in the process of interpreting a double taxation treaty.

ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Trusts are used for a variety of purposes, both in South Africa and abroad. Like so many other entities, trusts often do not function only in one jurisdiction and may therefore be exposed to international double taxation. South Africa, like most other states, enters into bi-lateral double taxation treaties, to limit the effects of international double taxation. Most of these treaties are based on the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (the OECD MTC). The South African trust is a unique creature. It is not based on the dual ownership concept on which most common law trusts are based, yet, it is not a juristic person either. The question that this research aims to address is how South Africa will interpret and apply certain provisions of the OECD MTC to trusts. Although the South African position is investigated, it is compared to the positions of the United Kingdom, Canada and the Netherlands. The dissertation starts with an analysis of the trust law in each of the relevant states, followed by an overview of the taxation regime governing trusts (and the parties thereto) in each state. The status of double taxation treaties and their interpretation are examined before certain critical provisions of the OECD MTC are analysed to determine how South Africa will apply these provisions to trusts. Hence it is explored whether a trust will be regarded as a person, whether it may be a resident and a beneficial owner for purposes of the OECD MTC. Furthermore, possible solutions for conflicts of attribution in the application of double tax conventions to trusts are investigated. The dissertation concludes that South Africa will regard a trust as a person for purposes of the OECD MTC. Moreover, some types of trusts may be viewed as residents and as beneficial owners for purposes of the OECD MTC. The solution proposed in the OECD’s Partnership Report should be applied to resolve conflicts of attribution involving trusts.