Article 5. The Decision of Tax Arbitration 1. The arbitration Panel shall hear the dispute within a period not exceeding 1 year from the date of its formation in accordance with the rules of procedure.2. The decision of the arbitration Panel shall be final and binding on the competent authorities of the Contracting states and the applicant. The decision of the arbitration Panel may be regarded as a precedent should the competent authorities of the Contracting states mutually express such an intention.3. The arbitration Panel's decision shall not apply if the judicial authority of one of the Contracting states participating in the dispute has made a final decision on the same subject and with respect to the same applicant or has found the arbitration Panel's decision void.The competent authorities of the Contracting states shall independently implement the decision of the arbitration Panel, and, if necessary, determine the procedure for its implementation in the course of the mutual agreement procedure provided for in the Covered Conventions within a reasonable time. Article 6. Arbitration CostsThe Contracting states participating in the dispute shall bear the costs associated with the hearing of the tax dispute in the arbitration Panel, including the organization and maintenance of the dispute settlement procedure, the remuneration of arbitrators, etc., in equal shares. Article 7. Relation to Other Conventions and International Agreements1. This Convention modifies the provisions of international agreements concluded between the Contracting states relating to the same subject.2. The provisions of previous international agreements relating to the same issues that are affected by this Convention shall apply only to the extent that they are compatible with the provisions of this Convention. Article 8. TermThis Convention shall be valid for five years after its effective date. upon the expiry of that period, this Convention shall be automatically extended, each time for another five-year term.Article 9. Done on ____________ 2018 at ____________, in five counterparts, in the russian, english, Chinese and Portuguese languages, all texts being equally authentic. in case of divergence of interpretation, the english text shall prevail.

The subject. The article analyzes the legal rules of the Eurasian Economic Union (hereinafter ‘EAEU’) Member States that may potentially create barriers for access to the single market for services in the field of scientific research through establishing requirements for state registration (accreditation, licensing, etc.) of a scientific research participant. These procedures of registration (accreditation, licensing, etc.) may be relevant for the purposes of receiving the preferential tax treatment. The authors consider possible ways to overcome these obstacles. The aim of this paper is to identify typical obstacles remaining at the level of EAEU Member States’ national legislation and preventing respective participants from an access to the scientific research single market. The authors dare to identify the appropriate means of overcoming these obstacles. The methodology. The authors apply formal logical and comparative legal methods as well as analysis, literal and systematic interpretation of the domestic legal rules of the EAEU Member States and the EAEU legal framework. The main results, scope of application. The results of a comparative legal analysis of the EAEU Member States’ legislation illustrate that certain obstacles to access to the market of research services still remain within the framework of the legal systems of the EAEU Member States. Such obstacles in particular, are related to the requirements for research subjects to undergo the registration or accreditation procedure in order to receive recognition of their activities as scientific ones. Moreover, there are interconnected barriers, which consist, for example, in the requirement to not just incorporate a scientific research subject in the jurisdiction where the services should be provided, but also to register the results of the respective research activities, in particular, for the purpose of exempting these activities from VAT taxation. These barriers impede cross-border research services performance and in some circumstances do not comply with the principles of the EAEU single market of services. Conclusions. The identified barriers to cross-border scientific research can usually be overcome by directly applying the EAEU Treaty, in particular, the provisions defining the rules of the services’ single market (paragraph 38 of Annex 16 to the Treaty). The EAEU Member States’ national legislative provisions require clarification in terms of extending the national regime to scientific research subjects incorporated within other EAEU Member States.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: this article reviews the cross-border tax disputes resolution practice in Russia and evaluates the prospects for the development of new mechanisms for the resolution of tax disputes arising from cross-border relations, including tax arbitration. In recent years, the development of international instruments for eliminating double taxation and resolving tax disputes within OECD and G20 multilateral formats as well as bilateral agreements on avoidance of double taxation have led to the growing interest in this paper’s topic. The purpose of this paper is to determine / identify an optimal mechanism for the cross-border tax disputes resolution in Russia, taking into account the current domestic legal regulation and international commitments in the field of cross-border taxation. Methods: given the nature of this research, we have used the general scientific and individual scientific research methods. We have also used legal research methods such as comparative legal and formal legal methods, logical, systemic, and functional interpretation. The recent academic literature on the particular aspects of this research has been investigated too. Analysis: the practice in the application of international tax agreements in Russia demonstrates that the cross-border tax disputes are mainly resolved within the framework of domestic judicial procedures. Mutual agreement procedures and tax arbitration are not common mechanisms for resolving cross-border tax disputes in Russia. Meanwhile, the international investment disputes affecting particular aspects of taxation are often dealt through international arbitration institutions. Results: as a part of the commitments made under the Multilateral Instrument (MLI), Russian Federation considers arbitration and mutual agreement procedures only as possible alternative ways to settle cross-border tax disputes arising from international tax agreements. Based on the well-known cross-border tax disputes resolution practice, we conclude that none of the states could completely isolate itself from the international arbitration procedures in the current circumstances. This is true even if such state did not include the arbitration clause in its tax agreements and did not make the commitments on tax arbitration under the Multilateral Instrument (MLI).