National tax regulation, voluntary international standards and the GATS: Argentina – financial services

Panagiotis Delimatsis, Bernard Hoekman

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

    Abstract

    Can a WTO Member discriminate against foreign suppliers of services located in jurisdictions that refuse to share information with a government to permit it to determine if its nationals engage in tax evasion? Does it matter if the Member uses standards developed by an international body as the criterion for deciding whether to impose measures? In Argentina–Financial Services, the WTO Appellate Body held that services from jurisdictions that share financial tax information may be different from services provided by jurisdictions that do not cooperate in supplying such information. It overruled a Panel finding that measures to increase taxes on financial transactions with non-cooperative jurisdictions were discriminatory. We argue that the AB reached the right conclusion on the basis of the wrong arguments; that it missed an important opportunity to clarify what WTO Members are permitted to do to enforce their domestic regulatory regimes; and increased the scope for confusion and future litigation by considering that the likeness of services and service suppliers may be a function of prevailing domestic regulatory regimes.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)265-290
    Number of pages26
    JournalWorld Trade Review
    Volume17
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2018

    Fingerprint

    GATS
    financial service
    taxes
    Argentina
    regulation
    jurisdiction
    WTO
    supplier
    tax evasion
    tax increase
    transaction
    Financial services
    International standards
    Tax
    Jurisdiction

    Cite this

    @article{0a5ef768582a43969fda0633600e120d,
    title = "National tax regulation, voluntary international standards and the GATS: Argentina – financial services",
    abstract = "Can a WTO Member discriminate against foreign suppliers of services located in jurisdictions that refuse to share information with a government to permit it to determine if its nationals engage in tax evasion? Does it matter if the Member uses standards developed by an international body as the criterion for deciding whether to impose measures? In Argentina–Financial Services, the WTO Appellate Body held that services from jurisdictions that share financial tax information may be different from services provided by jurisdictions that do not cooperate in supplying such information. It overruled a Panel finding that measures to increase taxes on financial transactions with non-cooperative jurisdictions were discriminatory. We argue that the AB reached the right conclusion on the basis of the wrong arguments; that it missed an important opportunity to clarify what WTO Members are permitted to do to enforce their domestic regulatory regimes; and increased the scope for confusion and future litigation by considering that the likeness of services and service suppliers may be a function of prevailing domestic regulatory regimes.",
    author = "Panagiotis Delimatsis and Bernard Hoekman",
    year = "2018",
    doi = "10.1017/S1474745617000635",
    language = "English",
    volume = "17",
    pages = "265--290",
    journal = "World Trade Review",
    issn = "1474-7456",
    publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
    number = "2",

    }

    National tax regulation, voluntary international standards and the GATS : Argentina – financial services. / Delimatsis, Panagiotis; Hoekman, Bernard.

    In: World Trade Review, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2018, p. 265-290.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - National tax regulation, voluntary international standards and the GATS

    T2 - Argentina – financial services

    AU - Delimatsis, Panagiotis

    AU - Hoekman, Bernard

    PY - 2018

    Y1 - 2018

    N2 - Can a WTO Member discriminate against foreign suppliers of services located in jurisdictions that refuse to share information with a government to permit it to determine if its nationals engage in tax evasion? Does it matter if the Member uses standards developed by an international body as the criterion for deciding whether to impose measures? In Argentina–Financial Services, the WTO Appellate Body held that services from jurisdictions that share financial tax information may be different from services provided by jurisdictions that do not cooperate in supplying such information. It overruled a Panel finding that measures to increase taxes on financial transactions with non-cooperative jurisdictions were discriminatory. We argue that the AB reached the right conclusion on the basis of the wrong arguments; that it missed an important opportunity to clarify what WTO Members are permitted to do to enforce their domestic regulatory regimes; and increased the scope for confusion and future litigation by considering that the likeness of services and service suppliers may be a function of prevailing domestic regulatory regimes.

    AB - Can a WTO Member discriminate against foreign suppliers of services located in jurisdictions that refuse to share information with a government to permit it to determine if its nationals engage in tax evasion? Does it matter if the Member uses standards developed by an international body as the criterion for deciding whether to impose measures? In Argentina–Financial Services, the WTO Appellate Body held that services from jurisdictions that share financial tax information may be different from services provided by jurisdictions that do not cooperate in supplying such information. It overruled a Panel finding that measures to increase taxes on financial transactions with non-cooperative jurisdictions were discriminatory. We argue that the AB reached the right conclusion on the basis of the wrong arguments; that it missed an important opportunity to clarify what WTO Members are permitted to do to enforce their domestic regulatory regimes; and increased the scope for confusion and future litigation by considering that the likeness of services and service suppliers may be a function of prevailing domestic regulatory regimes.

    U2 - 10.1017/S1474745617000635

    DO - 10.1017/S1474745617000635

    M3 - Article

    VL - 17

    SP - 265

    EP - 290

    JO - World Trade Review

    JF - World Trade Review

    SN - 1474-7456

    IS - 2

    ER -