OECD's GloBE-forslag i et EU-perspektiv

Abstract

This thesis examines the Global Anti-Base Erosion Proposal (“GloBE”), which is a part of the “BEPS 2.0”-project. The purpose of the GloBE Proposal is to address the remaining base erosion and profit shifting issues and to curb international tax competition. This thesis explores the GloBE Proposal focusing on the income inclusion rule from an EU perspective, and the compatibility of the Income inclusion rule with EU Primary Law. This thesis is divided into four main sections. Section 2 explores the compatibility of the Income inclusion rule with EU Primary Law, based on EU case law. Section 3 presents an example of the use of the income inclusion rule. In section 4, the economic consequences of the GloBE Proposal, including the income inclusion rule are deduced. Section 5 explores possible implementations of the income inclusion rule in EU law, with respect to what is considered to be efficient from a social welfare perspective. This thesis finds that the income inclusion rule – in its current form – may present a restriction on the fundamental freedoms, specifically the freedom of establishment in Articles 49 TFEU, by treating comparable situations differently, as the income inclusion rule treats cross-border situation in a less favorable manner than a comparable domestic situation. There are great economic benefits to be expected from the GloBE Proposal, mainly substantial tax revenue gains, based on direct revenue gains, and additional gains from reduced profit shifting. Though this seems beneficial for all OECD Members, the economic analysis suggests that not all jurisdictions will be interested in implementing the GloBE Proposal, based on the lack of incentive to coordinate with other jurisdiction, and therefore increase tax competition. Against this background, the thesis finds that the most efficient implementation of the GloBE Proposal, including the income inclusion rule is by means of an EU directive, to ensure a uniformed implementation which is efficient from a social welfare perspective. Other possible implementations are assessed, and found either potentially incompatible with EU law, or not efficient from the perspective of maximizing social welfare within the EU territory