Is There Any International Fundamental Right Against an International General Anti-avoidance Rule?

  • João Dácio RolimEmail author


This chapter discusses the role and main aspects of International Human Rights in the light of justifications for general anti-avoidance rules in international taxation. It analyses whether or not an international GAAR, such as the PPT (principal purpose test) of the OECD Multilateral Instrument may be against some international fundamental rights under International Conventions on Human Rights. It also argues what type of GAAR or specific rules would fit more properly as a legal tool to counteract tax avoidance and analyses its consequences in relation to taxpayers’ rights.


  1. Abi-Saab, Georges, et al. 2006. The Appellate Body and Treaty Interpretation. In The WTO at Ten: The Contribution of the Dispute Settlement System, ed. Giorgio Sacerdoti. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Airs, Graham. 2003. Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH: Thin Capitalisation Rules and the EC Treaty. British Tax Review 4: 268–275.Google Scholar
  3. Alexy, Robert. 2000. On the Structure of Legal Principles. Ratio Juris 13 (3): 294–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexy, Robert. 2002. A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, Philip. 2013. Improper Use of Tax Treaties, Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion. In United Nations Handbook on Selected Issues in Administration of Double Tax Treaties for Developing Countries, ed. A. Trepelkov, H. Tonino, and D. Halka. New York: United Nations. Scholar
  6. Baker, Philip. 2005. Retrospective Tax Legislation and the European Convention on Human Rights. British Tax Review: 1–9.Google Scholar
  7. Baker, Philip. 2014. Tax Avoidance, Tax Mitigation and Tax Evasion. Available online at
  8. Baker, Philip. 2017. The Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. British Tax Review: 281–284.Google Scholar
  9. Barret, Edward and Maikel Evers. 2018. OECD Report. 103(1) Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International 103(1): 97–113.Google Scholar
  10. Braithwaite, John. 2002. Rules and Principles: A Theory of Legal Certainty. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 27: 47–82.Google Scholar
  11. Chand, Vikram. 2018. The Principal Purpose Test in the Multilateral Convention: An in-depth Analysis. Intertax 46 (1): 18–44.Google Scholar
  12. Cordewener, Axel. 2017. Anti-Abuse Measures in the Area of Direct Taxation: Towards Converging Standards under Treaty Freedoms and EU Directives? EC Tax Review 26 (2): 60–66.Google Scholar
  13. Danon, Robert. 2017. Tax treaty disputes in Switzerland. In A Global Analysis of Tax Treaties Disputes, ed. E. Baistrocchi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dourado, Ana Paula. 2016. The EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Package: Moving Ahead of BEPS. Intertax 44 (6/7): 440–446.Google Scholar
  15. Duff, David. 2010. Responses to Treaty Shopping: A Comparative Evaluation. In Tax Treaties: Building Bridges between Law and Economics, ed. Michael Lang et al., 75–102. Amsterdam: IBFD Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Dworkin, Ronald. 1978. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Franck, Thomas M. 2001. Are Human Rights Universal? Foreign Affairs 80 (1): 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freedman, Judith. 2010. Improving (Not Perfecting) Tax Legislation: Rules and Principles Revisited. British Tax Review: 717–736.Google Scholar
  19. Gammie, Malcolm. 2013. Moral Taxation, Immoral Avoidance—What Role for the Law? British Tax Review: 577–590.Google Scholar
  20. Gammie, Malcolm. 1997. Tax Avoidance and the Rule of Law: A Perspective from the United Kingdom. In Tax Avoidance and the Rule of Law, ed. Graeme S. Cooper, 185. Amsterdam: IBFD Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Gomes, Marcus Livio. 2018. The DNA of the Principal Purpose Test in the Multilateral Instrument. Intertax 47 (1): 66–90.Google Scholar
  22. Hattingh, Johann 2017. The Multilateral Instrument from a Legal Perspective: What May Be the Challenges? Bulletin of International Taxation 71(3–4).Google Scholar
  23. Holmes, Kevin. 2014. International Tax Policy and Double Tax Treaties: An Introduction to Principles and Application. Amsterdam: IBFD Publications.Google Scholar
  24. International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. 2013. Task Force on Illicit Financial Flows, Poverty and Human Rights. Tax Abuses, Poverty and Human Rights. London: International Bar Association.Google Scholar
  25. James, Simon, and Christopher Nobes. 2000. The Economics of Taxation: Principles, Policy and Practice. New York: Financial Times-Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Jones, John Avery. 1996. Tax Law: Rules or Principles? British Tax Review: 580.Google Scholar
  27. Jung, Marcel R. 2011. Trends and Developments in Swiss Anti-Treaty Shopping Legislation and Treaty Shopping Case Law. European Taxation 51 (6): 230–244.Google Scholar
  28. Kaplow, Louis. 1992. Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 Duke Law Journal 42: 557–629. Available at: Scholar
  29. Kommers, Donald. 1997. The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  30. OECD. 2013. Key Tax Principles and Opportunities for Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. Addressing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. OECD. 2017. Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at:
  32. Orow, Nabil. 2000. General Anti-avoidance Rules: A Comparative International Analysis. Bristol: Jordan Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  33. Palmitessa, Elio Andrea. 2018. Interplay Between the Principal Purpose Test in the Multilateral BEPS Convention and the Beneficial Ownership Clause as Treaty Anti-Avoidance Tool Targeting Holding Structures. Intertax 46 (1): 58–67.Google Scholar
  34. Picciotto, Sol. 1992. International Business Taxation: A Study in the Internationalization of Business Regulation. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
  35. Prats, Francisco Alfredo García et al. 2018. EU Report. Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International 103(1): 59–93.Google Scholar
  36. Rolim, João Dácio. 2014. Proportionality and Fair Taxation. The Netherlands: Kluwer International.Google Scholar
  37. Roxan, Ian. 1998. General Anti-Avoidance in Action: News from Canada. British Tax Review: 140.Google Scholar
  38. Shipwright, Adrian (ed.). 1997. Tax Avoidance and the Law: Sham, Fraud or Mitigation? Key Haven Publications Plc.Google Scholar
  39. Sunstein, Cass R. 1995. Problems with Rules. California Law Review 83 (4): 953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thuronyi, Victor. 2003. Comparative Tax Law. The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  41. Tiley, John. 2005. Revenue Law, 5th ed. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Vanistendael, Frans. 2016. Is Tax Avoidance the Same Thing under the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Action Plan, National Tax Law and EU Law? Bulletin for International Taxation 70 (3): 163–172.Google Scholar
  43. Vanistendael, Frans. 1997. Judicial Interpretation and the Role of Anti-Abuse Provisions. In Tax Avoidance and the Rule of Law, ed. Graeme S. Cooper. Amsterdam: IBFD Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Ward, David. 2008. Access to Tax Treaty Benefits. Report for the Advisory Panel on Canada’s System of International Taxation, September 2008. Available at:
  45. Weber, Dennis. 2017. The Reasonableness Test of the Principal Purpose Test Rule in the OECD BEPS Action 6 (Tax Treaty Abuse) versus the EU Principle of Legal Certainty and the EU Abuse of Law Case Law, Erasmus L. Rev. 10(1).Google Scholar
  46. Weisbach, David A. 1998. Line Drawing, Doctrine, and Efficiency in the Tax Law. University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 62. Available at:

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IBDTSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations