Worldwide Tax Daily Quotes David Rosenbloom on Arbitration in International Tax Matters

Worldwide Tax Daily quoted H. David Rosenbloom regarding a workshop on the mutual agreement procedure and arbitration as tools for dispute resolution hosted by the Global Tax Policy Center at the Vienna University of Economics and Business. For the complete article, please visit Worldwide Tax Daily's website (subscription required).

Excerpt taken from the article, "Arbitration in International Tax Matters" Jasmin Kollmann, Petra Koch, Alicja Majdanska, and Laura Turcan for Worldwide Tax Daily.

MAP and Arbitration

The subsequent discussion centered on the underlying reasons for the deviations of MAP statistics between countries, such as the different approaches of the competent authorities and the budgetary constraints, as well as the question of which type of arbitration would be most suitable. Brown, Daniel Gutmann (University of Paris I), and David Rosenbloom (Caplin & Drysdale Chtd.) expressed support for baseball arbitration, while Michael Lennard (International Tax Cooperation, U.N.) voiced concerns that this would put developing countries at a disadvantage.

Constitutional Issues

The second session launched an in-depth discussion of the most suitable type of arbitration as well as the shortcomings of this means of dispute resolution. Rosenbloom, Louis Eduardo Schoueri (University of São Paulo), and Stig Sollund (Ministry of Finance, Norway) led this debate.

Rosenbloom presented the U.S. perspective on arbitration based on the Canada-U.S. tax treaty, under which several cases have already been resolved.8 While the Canada-U.S. experience is unique because of the historic, geographic, and economic relationship of the two countries, as well as the specific treaty provisions pertaining to arbitration, it is decidedly positive and may thus help countries overcome their initial reservations. Moreover, the United States had many of the same concerns now voiced by other countries, such as the issue of fiscal sovereignty, the confidentiality requirement, and the potential bias of arbitrators. These concerns seem to have been placated by the introduction of the baseball arbitration provisions.