Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:39:13.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2014

Michael Lang
Affiliation:
Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria
Pasquale Pistone
Affiliation:
Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria
Josef Schuch
Affiliation:
Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria
Claus Staringer
Affiliation:
Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria
Get access

Summary

The importance of the OECD and UN Model Conventions and their Commentaries for the interpretation of German tax treaties

The importance of the OECD Model Conventions

Germany's treaties to avoid double taxation with respect to taxes on income and on capital to a large extent replicate the model tax conventions that have been issued by the OECD since 1963 as far as their structure and their wording are concerned. However, the common base of the German tax treaties and the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (OECD Model) lies long before 1963. The gradual development of a modern global network of tax treaties can be traced to 1925, when Germany concluded an agreement with Italy. This treaty was inspired by scientific findings of the Committee on Fiscal Affairs of the League of Nations, which had significantly influenced the development of law in this field since the early 1920s. This expertise of the League of Nations formed the basis of the further development of international tax law in the 1940s which eventually led to the 1963 OECD Model. The close relationship today between German tax treaties and the activities of the OECD shows that they have a common base.

One of the first German treaties that was influenced by the OECD Model was the revised tax treaty with the UK concluded in 1964. Indeed, the first OECD Model of 1963 had not yet been published when the German–British treaty negotiations came to an end in 1960; however, the contracting parties took into account those parts of the forthcoming Model that had already been published. Subsequently, the German treaties that were concluded after the mid-1960s followed the 1963 OECD Model, although the treaties between Germany and developing countries included some elements of the United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries (UN Model), which was issued in 1980. Some of these treaties, for example, allow for crediting notional taxes on capital income. Even today numerous treaties that follow the 1963 OECD Model are still in force. As the majority of German treaties were negotiated and renegotiated after the release of the 1977 OECD Model and subsequently the 1992 OECD Model, most of them are broadly in accordance with these models.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Menck‚, T.‘Grundlagen 2. Abschnitt’Gosch, D.Kroppen, H.-K.Grotherr, S.DBA-Kommentar, loose-leaf commentary as updated 2008HerneNWB 2008Google Scholar
Dorn, H.‘Der deutsch-italienische Doppelbesteuerungsvertrag’Steuer und Wirtschaft (STuW) 1 1926Google Scholar
Hirscher, B.‘Art. 1 Slowenien’Debatin, H.Wassermeyer, F.Doppelbesteuerung, loose-leaf commentary as updated 2008MunichC. H. Beck 2008Google Scholar
Vogel, K.‘Einleitung’Vogel, K.Lehner, M.DoppelbesteuerungsabkommenMunichC. H. Beck 2008Google Scholar
Matteotti, R.‘Interpretation of Tax Treaties and Domestic General Anti-Avoidance Rules – A Sceptical Loook at the 2003 Update to the OECD-Commentary’Intertax 8/9 2005 336Google Scholar
Wassermeyer, F.‘Vor Art. 1 MA’Debatin, H.Wassermeyer, F.DoppelbesteuerungMunichC. H. Beck 2008Google Scholar
Schaumburg, H.Internationales SteuerrechtCologneO. Schmidt 2011 647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluge, V.Das Internationale SteuerrechtMunichC. H. Beck 2000 667Google Scholar
Vogel, K.‘Auslegung von Doppelbesteuerungsabkommen’Haarmann, W.Auslegung und Anwendung von DoppelbesteuerungsabkommenCologneO. Schmidt 2004 15Google Scholar
Vogel, K.‘Transnationale Auslegung von Doppelbesteuerungsabkommen’Internationales Steuerrecht (IStR) 15 2003 523Google Scholar
Günkel, M.Lieber, B.‘Abkommensrechtliche Qualifikation von Sondervergütungen’Finanz Rundschau (FR) 16 2000 853Google Scholar
Lampert, S.Doppelbesteuerungsrecht und LastengleichheitBaden-BadenNomos 2010 82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, M.‘Later Commentaries of the OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs. Not to Affect the Interpretation of Previously Concluded Tax Treaties’Intertax 1 1997 7Google Scholar
Seidl-Hohenveldern, I.Stein, T.VölkerrechtCologneC. Heymanns 2000Google Scholar
Schmidt, C.‘Personengesellschaften im internationalen Steuerrecht nach dem OECD-Bericht “The Application of the OECD Model Tax Convention to Partnerships” und der Änderung im OECD-MA und im OECD-Kommentar im Jahre 2000’IStR 16 2001 489Google Scholar
Krabbe, H.‘Abkommensrechtliche Behandlung von Sondervergütungen – Eine Replik’FR 3 2001 129Google Scholar
Bernhardt, R.Isensee, J.Kirchhof, P.Handbuch des StaatsrechtsHeidelbergC. F. Müller 1992Google Scholar
Wassermeyer, F.‘Art. 4’Debatin, H.Wassermeyer, F.DoppelbesteuerungMunichC. H. Beck 2008
Wagner, A.‘Art. 4 Belarus’Debatin, H.Wassermeyer, F.DoppelbesteuerungMunichC. H. Beck 2008Google Scholar
Schmidt, C.‘Anwendung der Doppelbesteuerungsabkommen (DBA) auf Personengesellschaften’IStR 10 2010 413Google Scholar
Herlinghaus, A.‘Art. 4 Spanien’Debatin, H.Wassermeyer, F.Doppelbesteuerung, loose-leaf commentary as updated 2009MunichC. H. Beck 2009Google Scholar
Wolff, U.Eimermann, D.‘Änderungsprotokoll vom 1.6.2006 zum DBA USA 1989 und dem Protokoll dazu’IStR 24 2006 837Google Scholar
Wittchen, F.‘Art. 2 Südafrika’Debatin, H.Wassermeyer, F.Doppelbesteuerung, loose-leaf commentary as updated 2001MunichC. H. Beck 2001Google Scholar
Eimermann, D.‘Art. 2 USA’Debatin, H.Wassermeyer, F.Doppelbesteuerung, loose-leaf commentary as updated 2009MunichC. H. Beck 2009Google Scholar
Siegers, D.‘Art. 5 Luxembourg’Debatin, H.Wassermeyer, F.DoppelbesteuerungMunichC. H. Beck 2008Google Scholar
Wolff, U.‘Art. 7 USA’Debatin, H.Wassermeyer, F.DoppelbesteuerungMunichC. H. Beck 2009Google Scholar
Kroppen, H.-K.‘Art. 7’Gosch, D.Kroppen, H.-K.Grotherr, S.DBA-Kommentar, loose-leaf commentary as updated 2002HerneNWB 2002Google Scholar
Wassermeyer, F.‘Art. 7 MA’Debatin, H.Wassermeyer, F.Doppelbesteuerung, loose-leaf commentary as updated 2009MunichC. H. Beck 2009Google Scholar
Wassermeyer, F.‘Art. 14 MA’Debatin, HWassermeyer, FDoppelbesteuerung, loose-leaf commentary as updated 2002MunichC. H. Beck 2002Google Scholar
Vogel, K.‘Vor Arts. 10–12’Vogel, Lehner, DoppelbesteuerungsabkommenMN 26
Grützner, D.‘Vor Arts. 10–12 OECD-MA’Gosch, D.Kroppen, H.-K.Grotherr, S.DBA-Kommentar, loose-leaf commentary as updated 2004HerneNWB 2004Google Scholar
Tischbirek, W.‘Art. 10’Vogel, Lehner, DoppelbesteuerungsabkommenMN 67
Teufel, T.Hasenberg, R.‘Keine DBA-Schachtelfreistellung für Einkünfte aus typisch stiller Beteiligung an Luxemburger AG – Anmerkungen zum Urteil des BFH vom 4. 6. 2008, I R 62/06’IStR 20 2008 724Google Scholar
von Beckerath, H.-J.Kirchhof, P.EinkommensteuergesetzHeidelbergC. F. Müller 2010Google Scholar
Jacobs, O.Internationale UnternehmensbesteuerungMunichC. H. Beck 2007 252Google Scholar
Röhrnbein, J.Eicker, K.‘Verlustberücksichtigung über die Grenze – Aktuelle Rechtslage’Betriebs-Berater (BB) 9 2005 465Google Scholar
Lampert, ‘The Compensation of Losses Incurred in a PE within the EU’Lang, M.Tax Treaty Case Law around the Globe – 2011ViennaLinde 2011Google Scholar
Krabbe, H.‘Art. 24 Brasilien’Debatin, H.Wassermeyer, F.Doppelbesteuerung, loose-leaf commentary as updated 2006MunichC. H. Beck 2006Google Scholar
Schaumburg, H.Schulz, M.‘Die Kündigung des Doppelbesteuerungsabkommens Deutschland-Brasilien und ihre Konsequenzen nach nationalem deutschen Steuerrecht’IStR 23 2005 794Google Scholar
Henkel, U.‘Grundlagen 4. Abschnitt’Gosch, D.Kroppen, H.-K.Grotherr, S.DBA-Kommentar, loose-leaf commentary as updated 2005HerneNWB 2005Google Scholar
Menck, T.‘A. Grundlagen’Mössner, J. M.Steuerrecht international tätiger UnternehmenCologneO. Schmidt 2005Google Scholar
Stein, T.‘Völkerrecht und nationales Steuerrecht im Widerstreit?’IStR 13 2006 505Google Scholar
Linn, A.‘Germany’Tax Treaties and Tax Avoidance: Application of Anti-avoidance Provisions, IFA Cahiers de droit fiscal internationalRotterdamInternational Fiscal Association 2010 333Google Scholar
Gosch, D.‘Über das Treaty Overriding – Bestandsaufnahme – Verfassungsrecht – Europarecht’IStR 12 2008 413Google Scholar
Rosenthal, M.‘Die steuerliche Beurteilung von Auslandssachverhalten im Spannungsfeld zwischen Abkommensrecht und Europarecht – zugleich Besprechung des Urteils des FG Hamburg vom 22. 8. 2006 zur Veräußerung von Anteilen an einer spanischen Personengesellschaft’IStR 17 2007 610Google Scholar
Eilers, S.‘Art. 25’Debatin, H.Wassermeyer, F.DoppelbesteuerungMunichC. H. Beck 2008Google Scholar
Seer, R.‘§ 110 FGO’Tipke, K.Kruse, H. W.Abgabenordnung/Finanzgerichtsordnung, loose-leaf commentary as updated 2010CologneO. Schmidt 2010Google Scholar
Ostendorf, H.‘Gekaufte Strafverfolgung’Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik (ZIS) 4 2010 301Google Scholar
Trüg, G.Habetha, J.‘Beweisverwertung trotz rechtswidriger Beweisgewinnung – insbesondere mit Blick auf die “Liechtensteiner Steueraffäre”’Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht (NVwZ) 2008 481Google Scholar
Trüg, G.Habetha, J.‘Die “Liechtensteiner Steueraffäre” – Strafverfolgung durch Begehung von Straftaten?’Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 13 2008 887Google Scholar
Hecht, S. A.Lampert, S.Schulz, K. A.‘Das Auskunftsabkommen zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und dem Fürstentum Liechtenstein – Implikationen aus steuerrechtlicher Sicht’BB 45 2010 2727Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Germany
  • Edited by Michael Lang, Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria, Pasquale Pistone, Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria, Josef Schuch, Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria, Claus Staringer, Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria
  • Book: The Impact of the OECD and UN Model Conventions on Bilateral Tax Treaties
  • Online publication: 05 November 2014
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139095686.017
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Germany
  • Edited by Michael Lang, Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria, Pasquale Pistone, Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria, Josef Schuch, Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria, Claus Staringer, Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria
  • Book: The Impact of the OECD and UN Model Conventions on Bilateral Tax Treaties
  • Online publication: 05 November 2014
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139095686.017
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Germany
  • Edited by Michael Lang, Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria, Pasquale Pistone, Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria, Josef Schuch, Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria, Claus Staringer, Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria
  • Book: The Impact of the OECD and UN Model Conventions on Bilateral Tax Treaties
  • Online publication: 05 November 2014
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139095686.017
Available formats
×