Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Law in China

ISSN 1673-3428

ISSN 1673-3541(Online)

CN 11-5742/D

Postal Subscription Code 80-981

Front. Law China    2017, Vol. 12 Issue (4) : 501-523    https://doi.org/10.3868/s050-006-017-0028-5
Orginal Article
EVOLUTION OF THE BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP CONCEPT: MORE THAN HALF OF CENTURY OF UNCERTAINTY AND WHAT HISTORY CAN TELL US
Bruno da Silva()
Ph.D. in International Tax Law, Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Tax lawyer at Loyens & Loeff N.V.; Lecturer, University of Amsterdam/Amsterdam Centre for Tax Law, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
 Download: PDF(324 KB)  
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

The beneficial ownership concept has constituted for more than half a century one of the most fundamental and debated issues in the application of tax treaties. This article goes back to routes of this term explaining the reason of its original inclusion in the OECD Model Tax Convention and why ultimately such inclusion may have not been necessary. Then it analyses the historical developments of beneficial ownership in the OECD Model Tax Convention. For that purpose it considers different interpretations adopted by jurisdictions (particularly in China) and local courts delving into some of the landmark cases on the subject. Finally it provides a detailed analysis of the current meaning of beneficial ownership considering the most recent developments in the Commentary to the OECD Model Tax Convention.

Keywords beneficial ownership      OECD Model Tax Convention Commentary      interpretation      case-law      China     
Issue Date: 22 December 2017
 Cite this article:   
Bruno da Silva. EVOLUTION OF THE BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP CONCEPT: MORE THAN HALF OF CENTURY OF UNCERTAINTY AND WHAT HISTORY CAN TELL US[J]. Front. Law China, 2017, 12(4): 501-523.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/flc/EN/10.3868/s050-006-017-0028-5
https://academic.hep.com.cn/flc/EN/Y2017/V12/I4/501
[1] ZHANG Lin, AN Jingjing. The Legal Infrastructure for Creativity in China: A Perspective of Venture Capital[J]. Front. Law China, 2020, 15(4): 452-480.
[2] NA Heya. Between Tradition and Modernity: The Re-trial System of the Beiyang Period in the Early Republic of China (1912-1928)[J]. Front. Law China, 2020, 15(1): 59-83.
[3] HAI Dan. Institutional Reform and Social Changes in Northeast China During the Late Qing: A Case Study of Appeal Trials[J]. Front. Law China, 2020, 15(1): 38-58.
[4] LU Haina. Adding a Gender Perspective to China’s Belt and Road Initiative as an International Human Rights Obligation[J]. Front. Law China, 2019, 14(4): 445-477.
[5] HOU Peng. Using Shields as Weapons: Third-Party Funding Assisting China-Related Arbitration under Belt and Road Investment[J]. Front. Law China, 2019, 14(2): 274-303.
[6] Yuko Nishitani. Coordination of Legal Systems by the Recognition of Foreign Judgments — Rethinking Reciprocity in Sino-Japanese Relationships[J]. Front. Law China, 2019, 14(2): 193-230.
[7] ZHANG Wenxian. Forty Themes on the Innovation and Development of Chinese Legal Research in the Reform and Opening Up Era[J]. Front. Law China, 2019, 14(1): 2-38.
[8] ZHANG Wenliang. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN NON-MONETARY JUDGMENTS IN CHINA[J]. Front. Law China, 2018, 13(2): 218-240.
[9] Yasuhiro OKUDA. UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF RECIPROCITY REQUIREMENT FOR RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN JAPAN[J]. Front. Law China, 2018, 13(2): 159-170.
[10] Philip Ebow Bondzi-Simpson, Felix Awuah. A REVIEW OF THE CHINA–GHANA BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY, 1989[J]. Front. Law China, 2017, 12(3): 372-383.
[11] JIANG Dong. DOES CHINA NEED AN ANTI-FOREIGN BRIBERY STATUTE? SOME LESSONS FROM THE FCPA OF US[J]. Front. Law China, 2017, 12(3): 355-371.
[12] JIN Meirong. ANTI-MONOPOLY PERSPECTIVES OF CHINESE PUBLIC AIR TRANSPORT MARKET[J]. Front. Law China, 2017, 12(1): 138-156.
[13] FU Xin. DOING FIELDWORK ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN CHINA[J]. Front. Law China, 2017, 12(1): 114-137.
[14] Razeen Sappideen. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE WITH CHINESE CHARACTERISTICS: THE CASE OF STATE OWNED ENTERPRISES[J]. Front. Law China, 2017, 12(1): 90-113.
[15] DU Huanfang, XU Chuanlei. THE AVAILABILITY OF CLASS ARBITRATION FOR SILENT AGREEMENTS: CONTRACT INTERPRETATION THEORY OR ARBITRABILITY DOCTRINE?[J]. Front. Law China, 2017, 12(1): 76-89.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed