Art. 23 B MA Anrechnungsmethode

Inhaltsübersicht

• A. Musterkommentar

• B. Eigene Kommentierung

  • I. Allgemeines

    • 1. Regelungsinhalt und Abgrenzung der Vorschrift

      • a) Regelungsinhalt.

      • b) Deutsche Abkommenspraxis.

      • c) Vor- und Nachteile der Freistellungsmethode.

      • d) Anrechnungsmethode und Gleichheitssatz.

      • e) Abgrenzung der Vorschrift.

    • 2. Vergleich zwischen MA 1963, 1977, 1992 und 2000

      • a) Allgemeines.

      • b) Absatz 1.

      • c) Absatz 2.

  • II. Absatz 1

    • 1. In einem Vertragsstaat ansässige Person

      • a) Person.

      • b) Ansässigkeit.

      • c) Vertragsstaat.

    • 2. Einkünfte

      • a) Einkünfte, Einkommen.

      • b) Begriff.

      • c) Ermittlung der Einkünfte.

      • d) Anwendung des innerstaatlichen Rechts des Anwendestaates.

      • e)

    • 3. Das Beziehen von Einkünften

      • a)

      • b)

    • 4. Das Halten von Vermögen

      • a)

      • b)

      • c)

      • d)

    • 5. Besteuerung nach dem Abkommen im anderen Vertragsstaat

      • a) Einkünftebesteuerung.

      • b) Vermögenbesteuerung.

      • c)

    • 6. Die Anrechnung durch den Ansässigkeitsstaat

      • a)

      • b) Ermittlung der Einkünfte.

      • c) Uneingeschränkte oder gewöhnliche Anrechnung.

    • 7. Die im anderen Staat gezahlte Steuer

      • a) Steuer.

      • b)

      • c)

      • d)

    • 8. Die Anrechnung auf die im Ansässigkeitsstaat zu erhebende Steuer

      • a) Anrechnung.

      • b)

      • c)

      • d)

    • 9. Höchstbetragsberechnung

      • a)

      • b) § 34 c Abs. 1 S. 4 EStG.

      • c)

      • d)

      • e)

      • f)

      • g)

      • h)

  • III. Absatz 2

    • 1. Allgemeines

    • 2. Regelungsinhalt

  • IV. Anrechnung fiktiver Steuern und Anwendung einer Abzugsmethode

Bearbeiter: Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Franz Wassermeyer

A. Musterkommentar

I. Preliminary remarks

A. The scope of the Articles

1. These Articles deal with the so-called juridical double taxation where the same income or capital is taxable in the hands of the same person by more than one State.

2. This case has to be distinguished especially from the so-called economic double taxation, i. e. where two different persons are taxable in respect of the same income or capital. If two States wish to solve problems of economic double taxation, they must do so in bilateral negotiations.

3. International juridical double taxation may arise in three cases:

1. where each Contracting State subjects the same person to tax on his worldwide income or capital (concurrent full liability to tax, see paragraph 4 below);

2. where a person is a resident of a Contracting State (R) and derives income from, or owns capital in, the other Contracting State (S or E) and both States impose tax on that income or capital (see paragraph 5 below);

3. where each Contracting State subjects the same person, not being a resident of either Contracting State to tax on income derived from, or capital owned in, a Contracting State; this may result, for instance, in the case where a non-resident person has a permanent establishment in one Contracting State (E) through which he derives income from, or owns capital in, the other Contracting State (S) (concurrent limited tax liability, see paragraph 11 below). (Geändert am 29. April 2000)

4. The conflict in case a) is reduced to that of case b) by virtue of Article 4. This is because that Article defines the term “resident of a Contracting State” by reference to the liability to tax of a person under domestic law by reason of his domicile, residence, place of management or any other criterion of a similar nature (paragraph 1 of Article 4) and by providing special rules for the case of double residence to determine which of the two States is the State of residence (R) within the meaning of the Convention (paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 4). (Geändert am 21. November 2017 )

4.1 Article 4, however, only deals with cases of concurrent full liability to tax. The conflict in case a) may therefore not be solved if the same item of income is subject to the full liability to tax of two countries but at different times. The following example illustrates that problem. Assume that a resident of State R1 derives a taxable benefit from an employee stock-option that is granted to that person. State R1 taxes that benefit when the option is granted. The person subsequently becomes a resident of State R2, which taxes the benefit at the time of its subsequent exercise. In that case, the person is taxed by each State at a time when he is a resident of that State and Article 4 does not deal with the issue as there is no concurrent residence in the two States. (Eingefügt am 15. Juli 2005)

4.2 The conflict in that situation will be reduced to that of case b) and solved accordingly to the extent that the employment services to which the option relates have been rendered in one of the Contracting States so as to be taxable by that State under Article 15 because it is the State where the relevant employment is exercised. Indeed, in such a case, the State in which the services have been rendered will be the State of source for purposes of elimination of double taxation by the other State. It does not matter that the first State does not levy tax at the same time (see paragraph 32.8). It also does not matter that that State considers that it levies tax as a State of residence as opposed to a State of source (see the last sentence of paragraph 8). (Eingefügt am 15. Juli 2005)

4.3 Where, however, the relevant employment services have not been rendered in either State, the conflict will not be one of source-residence double taxation and, as confirmed by the phrase “except to the extent that these provisions allow taxation by that other State solely because the income is also income derived by a resident of that State” found in paragraph 1 of Articles 23 A and 23 B, any resulting double taxation will be outside the scope of these Articles. The mutual agreement procedure provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 25 could be used to deal with such a case. One possible basis to solve the case would be for the competent authorities of the two States to agree that each State should provide relief as regards the residence-based tax that was levied by the other State on the part of the benefit that relates to services rendered during the period while the employee was a resident of that other State. Thus, in the above example, if the relevant services were rendered in a third State before the person became a resident of State R2, it would be logical for the competent authority of State R2 to agree to provide relief (either through the credit or exemption method) for the State R1 tax that has been levied on the part of the employment benefit that relates to services rendered in the third State since, at the time when these services were rendered, the taxpayer was a resident of State R1 and not of State R2 for purposes of the convention between these two States. (Eingefügt am 15. Juli 2005; geändert am 21. November 2017 )

5. The conflict in case b) may be solved by allocation of the right to tax between the Contracting States. Such allocation may be made by renunciation of the right to tax either by the State of source or situs (S) or of the situation of the permanent establishment (E), or by the State of residence (R), or by a sharing of the right to tax between the two States. The provisions of the Chapters III and IV of the Convention, combined with the provisions of Article 23 A or 23 B, govern such allocation. (Geändert am 29. April 2000)

6. For some items of income or capital, an exclusive right to tax is given to one of the Contracting States, and the relevant Article states that the income or capital in question “shall be taxable only” in a Contracting State. The words “shall be taxable only” in a Contracting State preclude the other Contracting State from taxing, thus double taxation is avoided. The State to which the exclusive right to tax is given is normally the State of which the taxpayer is a resident within the meaning of Article 4, that is State R, but in Article 19 the exclusive right may be given to the other Contracting State (S) of which the taxpayer is not a resident within the meaning of Article 4. (Geändert am 21. November 2017 )

7. For other items of income or capital, the attribution of the right to tax is not exclusive, and the relevant Article then states that the income or capital in question “may be taxed” in the Contracting State (S or E) of which the taxpayer is not a resident within the meaning of Article 4. In such case the State of residence (R) must give relief so as to avoid the double taxation. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 A and paragraph 1 of Article 23 B are designed to give the necessary relief.

8. Articles 23 A and 23 B apply to the situation in which a resident of State R derives income from, or owns capital in, the other Contracting State E or S (not being the State of residence within the meaning of the Convention) and that such income or capital, in accordance with the Convention, may be taxed in such other State E or S. The Articles, therefore, apply only to the State of residence and do not prescribe how the other Contracting State E or S has to proceed.

9. Where a resident of the Contracting State R derives income from the same State R through a permanent establishment which he has in the other Contracting State E, State E may tax such income (except income from immovable property situated in State R) if it is attributable to the said permanent establishment (paragraph 1 of Article 7 and paragraph 2 of Article 21). In this instance too, State R must give relief under Article 23 A or Article 23 B for income attributable to the permanent establishment situated in State E, notwithstanding the fact that the income in question originally arises in State R (see also paragraph 5 of the Commentary on Article 21). However, where the Contracting States agree to give to State R a limited right to tax as the State of source of dividends or interest within the limits fixed in paragraph 2 of the Article 10 or 11, then the two States should also agree upon a credit to be given by State E for the tax levied by State R, along the lines of paragraph 2 of Article 23 A or of paragraph 1 of Article 23 B. (Geändert am 29. April 2000 und am 21. November 2017 )

9.1 Where, however, State R applies the exemption method, a problem may arise as regards the taxation of dividends and interest in the State of residence as the State of source: the combination of Articles 7 and 23 A prevents that State from levying tax on that income, whereas if it were paid to a resident of the other State, State R, being the State of source of the dividends or interest, could tax such dividends or interest at the rates provided for in paragraph 2 of Articles 10 and 11 notwithstanding the fact that it applies the exemption method. Contracting States which find this position unacceptable may include in their conventions a provision according to which the State of residence would be entitled, as State of source of the dividends or interest, to levy a tax on such income at the rates provided for in paragraph 2 of Articles 10 and 11. The State where the permanent establishment is situated would give a credit for such tax on the lines of the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 23 A or of paragraph 1 of Article 23 B; of course, this credit would not be given in cases where the State in which the permanent establishment is situated does not tax the dividends or interest attributed to the permanent establishment, in accordance with its domestic laws. (Eingefügt am 21. November 2017 )

10. Where a resident of State R derives income from a third State through a permanent establishment which he has in State E, such State E may tax such income (except income from immovable property situated in the third State) if it is attributable to such permanent establishment (paragraph 1 of Article 7 and paragraph 2 of Article 21). State R must give relief under Article 23 A or Article 23 B in respect of income attributable to the permanent establishment in State E. There is no provision in the Convention for relief to be given by Contracting State E for taxes levied in the third State where the income arises; however, under paragraph 3 of Article 24 any relief provided for in the domestic laws of State E (double taxation conventions excluded) for residents of State E is also to be granted to a permanent establishment in State E of an enterprise of State R (see paragraphs 67 to 72 of the Commentary on Article 24). (Geändert am 23. Juli 1992, am 29. April 2000 und am 21. November 2017 )

11. The conflict in case c) of paragraph 3 above is outside the scope of the Convention as, under Article 1, it applies only to persons who are residents of one or both of the States. It can, however, be settled by applying the mutual agreement procedure (see also paragraph 10 above).

11.1 In some cases, the same income or capital may be taxed by each Contracting State as income or capital of one of its residents. This may happen where, for example, one of the Contracting States taxes the worldwide income of an entity that is a resident of that State whereas the other State views that entity as fiscally transparent and taxes the members of that entity who are residents of that other State on their respective share of the income. The phrase “(except to the extent that these provisions allow taxation by that other State solely because the income is also income derived by a resident of that State or because the capital is also capital owned by a resident of that State)” clarifies that in such cases, both States are not reciprocally obliged to provide relief for each other's tax levied exclusively on the basis of the residence of the taxpayer and that each State is therefore only obliged to provide relief of double taxation to the extent that taxation by the other State is in accordance with provisions of the Convention that allow taxation of the relevant income or capital as the State of source or as a State where there is a permanent establishment to which that income or capital is attributable, thereby excluding taxation that would solely be the result of the residence of a person in that other State. Whilst this result would logically follow from the wording of Articles 23 A and 23 B even in the absence of that phrase, the addition of the phrase removes any doubt in this respect. (Eingefügt am 21. November 2017 )

11.2 The principles put forward in the preceding paragraph are illustrated by the following examples:

• Example A: An entity established in State R constitutes a resident of State R and is therefore taxed on its worldwide income in that State. State S treats that entity as fiscally transparent and taxes the members of the entity on their respective share of the income derived through the entity. All the members of the entity are residents of State S. All the income of the entity constitutes business profits attributable to a permanent establishment situated in State R. In that case, in determining the tax payable by the entity, State R will not be obliged to provide relief under Articles 23 A or 23 B with respect to the income of the entity as the only reason why State S may tax that income in accordance with the provisions of the Convention is because of the residence of the members of the entity. State S, on the other hand, will be required to provide relief under Articles 23 A or 23 B with respect to the entire income of the entity as that income may be taxed in State R in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 regardless of the fact that State R considers that the income is derived by an entity resident of State R. In determining the amount of income tax paid in State R for the purposes of providing relief from double taxation to the members of the entity under Article 23 B, State S will need to take account of the tax paid by the entity in State R.

• Example B: Same facts as in example A except that 30 per cent of the income derived through the entity is interest arising in State S that is attributable to a permanent establishment in State R, the rest of the income being business profits attributable to the same permanent establishment. In that case, relief of double taxation with respect to the business profits other than the interest will be provided as described in example A. In the case of the interest, however, State R will be required to provide a credit to the entity under paragraph 2 of Article 23 A or paragraph 1 of Article 23 B for the amount of tax on the interest paid in State S by all the members of the entity without exceeding the lower of 10% of the gross amount of interest (which is the maximum amount of tax that may be paid in State S in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 11) or the tax payable in State R on that interest (last part of paragraph 2 of Article 23 A and of paragraph 1 of Article 23 B). State S, on the other hand, will also be required to provide relief under Articles 23 A or 23 B to the members of the entity that are residents in State S because that income may be taxed by State R in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 7. If State S applies the exemption method of Article 23 A, that suggests that State S will need to exempt the share of the interest attributable to the members that are residents of State S (see paragraph 5 of the Commentary on Article 21 and paragraph 9 of the Commentary on Article 23 A and 23 B). If State S applies the credit method of Article 23 B, the credit should only be applicable against the part of the tax payable in State S that exceeds the amount of tax that State S would be entitled to levy under paragraph 2 of Article 11 and that credit should be given for the amount of tax paid in State R after deduction of the credit that State R itself must grant for the tax payable in State S under paragraph 2 of Article 11.

• Example C: Same facts as in example A except that all the income of the entity is derived from immovable property situated in State S. In that case, in determining the tax payable by the entity, State R will be required to provide relief under Articles 23 A or 23 B with respect to the entire income of the entity as that income may be taxed in State S in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 regardless of the fact that State S considers that the income is derived by the members who are residents of State S. State S, on the other hand, is not required to provide relief under Articles 23 A and 23 B because the only reason why State R may tax the income in accordance with the provisions of the Convention is because of the residence of the entity (the result would be the same even if the income were attributable to a permanent establishment situated in State R: see the first sentence of paragraph 9 of the Commentary on Articles 23 A and 23 B).

• Example D: Same facts as in example A except that all the income of the entity is interest arising in State S which is not attributable to a permanent establishment. In that case, in determining the tax payable by the entity, State R will be required to provide a credit to the entity under paragraph 2 of Article 23 A or paragraph 1 of Article 23 B for the amount of tax on the interest paid in State S by all the members of the entity without exceeding the lower of 10 per cent of the gross amount of the interest (which is the maximum amount of tax that may be paid in State S in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 11) or the tax payable in State R on that interest (last part of paragraph 2 of Article 23 A and of paragraph 1 of Article 23 B). State S, on the other hand, will not be obliged to provide relief under Article 23 A or 23 B with respect to the income of the entity since that income does not arise in State R and is not attributable to a permanent establishment in State R and the only reason why State R may tax the income is because the income is also income derived by a resident of State R. Paragraph 1 of Article 11 confirms State R's taxing right of the interest as income derived by an entity resident of State R.

• Example E: Same facts as in example D except that all the income of the entity is interest arising in State R. In that case, in determining the tax pay-able by the entity, State R will not be obliged to provide relief under Articles 23 A or 23 B with respect to the income of the entity as the only reason why State S may tax that income in accordance with the provisions of the Convention is because of the residence of the members of the entity. State S, on the other hand, will be required to provide a credit to the members under paragraph 2 of Article 23 A or paragraph 1 of Article 23 B for the amount of tax on the interest paid in State R by the entity without exceeding the lower of 10 per cent of the gross amount of the interest (which is the maximum amount of tax that may be paid in State R in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 11) or the tax payable in State S on that interest (last part of paragraph 2 of Article 23 A and of paragraph 1 of Article 23 B). State S, however, will not be obliged to provide relief under Article 23 A or 23 B with respect to tax paid in State R in excess of the maximum amount of tax that may be paid in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 11 since the interest is not attributable to a permanent establishment in State R and the only reason why State R may levy such additional tax is because the income is also income derived by a resident of State R. Paragraph 1 of Article 21 confirms State R's right to tax the interest as income derived by an entity resident of State R.

• Example F: Same facts as in example D except that all the income of the entity is interest arising in a third State. In that case, in determining the tax payable by the entity, State R will not be obliged to provide relief under Articles 23 A or 23 B with respect to the income of the entity as the only reason why State S may tax that income in accordance with the provisions of the Convention is because of the residence of the members of the entity. State S will also not be obliged to provide relief under Article 23 A or 23 B with respect to the income of the entity since that income does not arise in State R and is not attributable to a permanent establishment in State R and the only reason why State R may tax the income is because the income is also income derived by a resident of State R. Paragraph 1 of Article 21 confirms State R's right to tax the interest as income derived by an entity resident of State R. Paragraph 1 of Article 21 also confirms State S' taxing right of the interest as income derived by the entity's members who are residents of State S. (Eingefügt am 21. November 2017 )

B. Description of methods for elimination of double taxation

12. In the existing conventions, two leading principles are followed for the elimination of double taxation by the State of which the taxpayer is a resident. For purposes of simplicity, only income tax is referred to in what follows; but the principles apply equally to capital tax.

1. The principle of exemption

13. Under the principle of exemption, the State of residence R does not tax the income which according to the Convention may be taxed in State E or S (nor, of course, also income which shall be taxable only in State E or S; see paragraph 6 above).

14. The principle of exemption may be applied by two main methods:

1. the income which may be taxed in State E or S is not taken into account at all by State R for the purposes of its tax; State R is not entitled to take the income so exempted into consideration when determining the tax to be imposed on the rest of the income; this method is called “full exemption”;

2. the income which may be taxed in State E or S is not taxed by State R, but State R retains the right to take that income into consideration when determining the tax to be imposed on the rest of the income; this method is called “exemption with progression”.

2. The principle of credit

15. Under the principle of credit, the State of residence R calculates its tax on the basis of the taxpayer's total income including the income from the other State E or S which, according to the Convention, may be taxed in that other State (but not including income which shall be taxable only in State S; see paragraph 6 above). It then allows a deduction from its own tax for the tax paid in the other State.

16. The principle of credit may be applied by two main methods:

1. State R allows the deduction of the total amount of tax paid in the other State on income which may be taxed in that State, this method is called “full credit”;

2. the deduction given by State R for the tax paid in the other State is restricted to that part of its own tax which is appropriate to the income which may be taxed in the other State; this method is called “ordinary credit”.

17. Fundamentally, the difference between the methods is that the exemption methods look at income, while the credit methods look at tax.

C. Operation and effects of the methods

18. An example in figures will facilitate the explanation of the effects of the various methods. Suppose the total income to be 100,000, of which 80,000 is derived from one State (State of residence R) and 20,000 from the other State (State of source S). Assume that in State R the rate of tax on an income of 100,000 is 35 per cent and on an income of 80,000 is 30 per cent. Assume further that in State S the rate of tax is either 20 per cent – case (i) – or 40 per cent – case (ii) – so that the tax payable therein on 20,000 is 4,000 in case (i) or 8,000 in case (ii), respectively.

19. If the taxpayer's total income of 100,000 arises in State R, his tax would be 35,000. If he had an income of the same amount, but derived in the manner set out above, and if no relief is provided for in the domestic laws of State R and no conventions exists between State R and State S, then the total amount of tax would be, in case (i): 35,000 plus 4,000 = 39,000, and in case (ii): 35,000 plus 8,000 = 43,000.

1. Exemption methods

20. Under the exemption methods, State R limits its taxation to that part of the total income which, in accordance with the various Articles of the Convention, it has a right to tax, i. e. 80,000.

a) Full exemption

State R imposes tax on 80,000 at the rate of tax applicable to 80,000, i. e. at 30 per cent.

b) Exemption with progression

State R imposes tax on 80,000 at the rate of tax applicable to total income wherever it arises (100,000), i. e. at 35 per cent.

21. In both cases, the level of tax in State S does not affect the amount of tax given up by State R. If the tax on the income from State S is lower in State S than the relief to be given by State R – cases a (i), a (ii), and b (i) – then the taxpayer will fare better than if his total income were derived solely from State R. In the converse case – case b (ii) – the taxpayer will be worse off.

22. The example shows also that the relief given where State R applies the full exemption method may be higher than the tax levied in State S, even if the rates of tax in State S are higher than those in State R. This is due to the fact that under the full exemption method, not only the tax of State R on the income from State S is surrendered (35 per cent of 20,000 = 7,000; as under the exemption with progression), but that also the tax on remaining income (80,000) is reduced by an amount corresponding to the differences in rates at the two income levels in State R (35 less 30 = 5 per cent applied to 80,000 = 4,000).

2. Credit methods

23. Under the credit methods, State R retains its right to tax the total income of the taxpayer, but against the tax so imposed, it allows a deduction.

a) Full credit

State R computes tax on total income of 100,000 at the rate of 35 per cent and allows the deduction of the tax due in State S on the income from S.

b) Ordinary credit

State R computes tax on total income of 100,000 at the rate of 35 per cent and allows the deduction of the tax due in State S on the income from S, but in no case it allows more than the portion of tax in State R attributable to the income from S (maximum deduction). The maximum deduction would be 35 per cent of 20,000 = 7,000.

24. A characteristic of the credit methods compared with the exemption methods is that State R is never obliged to allow a deduction of more than the tax due in State S.

25. Where the tax due in State S is lower than the tax of State R appropriate to the income from State S (maximum deduction), the taxpayer will always have to pay the same amount of taxes as he would have had to pay if he were taxed only in State R, i. e. as if his total income were derived solely from State R.

26. The same result is achieved, where the tax due in State S is the higher while State R applies the full credit, at least as long as the total tax due to State R is as high or higher than the amount of the tax due in State S.

27. Where the tax due in State S is higher and where the credit is limited (ordinary credit), the taxpayer will not get a deduction for the whole of the tax paid in State S. In such event the result would be less favourable to the taxpayer than if his whole income arose in State R, and in these circumstances the ordinary credit method would have the same effect as the method of exemption with progression.

Table 23–1: Total amount of tax in the different cases illustrated above

Table 23–2: Amount of tax given up by the state of residence

D. The methods proposed in the Articles

28. In the conventions concluded between OECD member countries both leading principles have been followed. Some States have a preference for the first one, some for the other. Theoretically a single principle could be held to be more desirable, but, on account of the preferences referred to, each State has been left free to make its own choice.

29. On the other hand, it has been found important to limit the number of methods based on each leading principle to be employed. In view of this limitation, the Articles have been drafted so that member countries are left free to choose between two methods:

• the exemption method with progression (Article 23 A), and

• the ordinary credit method (Article 23 B).

30. If two Contracting States both adopt the same method, it will be sufficient to insert the relevant Article in the convention. On the other hand, if the two Contracting States adopt different methods, both Articles may be amalgamated in one, and the name of the State must be inserted in each appropriate part of the Article, according to the method adopted by that State.

31. Contracting States may use a combination of the two methods. Such combination is indeed necessary for a Contracting State R which generally adopts the exemption method in the case of income which under Articles 10 and 11 may be subjected to a limited tax in the other Contracting State S. For such case, Article 23 A provides in paragraph 2a credit for the limited tax levied in the other Contracting State S (adjustments to paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 A may, however, be required in the case of distributions from Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) where provisions similar to those referred to in paragraphs 67.1 to 67.7 of the Commentary on Article 10 have been adopted by the Contracting States). Moreover, States which in general adopt the exemption method may wish to exclude specific items of income from exemption and to apply to such items the credit method. In such case, paragraph 2 of Article 23 A could be amended to include these items of income. (Geändert am 18. Juli 2008)

31.1 One example where paragraph 2 could be so amended is where a State that generally adopts the exemption method considers that that method should not apply to items of income that benefit from a preferential tax treatment in the other State by reason of a tax measure that has been introduced in that State after the date of signature of the Convention. In order to include these items of income, paragraph 2 could be amended as follows:

• 2. Where a resident of a Contracting State derives an item of income which

  1. may be taxed in the other Contracting State in accordance with the provisions of Articles 10 and 11, (except to the extent that these provisions allow taxation by that other State solely because the income is also income derived by a resident of that State), or

  2. may be taxed in the other Contracting State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention (except to the extent that these provisions allow taxation by that other State solely because the income is also income derived by a resident of that State) but which benefits from a preferential tax treatment in that other State by reason of a tax measure

     1. that has been introduced in the other Contracting State after the date of signature of the Convention, and

     2. in respect of which that State has notified the competent authorities of the other Contracting State, before the item of income is so derived and after consultation with that other State, that this paragraph shall apply,

• the first-mentioned State shall allow as a deduction from the tax on the income of that resident an amount equal to the tax paid in that other State. Such deduction shall not, however, exceed that part of the tax, as computed before the deduction is given, which is attributable to such item of income derived from that other State.

(Eingefügt am 28. Januar 2003 und geändert am 21. November 2017 )

32. The two Articles are drafted in a general way and do not give detailed rules on how the exemption or credit is to be computed, this being left to the domestic laws and practice applicable. Contracting States which find it necessary to settle any problem in the Convention itself are left free to do so in bilateral negotiations.

E. Conflicts of qualification

32.1 Both Articles 23 A and 23 B require that relief be granted, through the exemption or credit method, as the case may be, where an item of income or capital may be taxed by the State of source in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. Thus, the State of residence has the obligation to apply the exemption or credit method in relation to an item of income or capital where the Convention authorises taxation of that item by the State of source. (Eingefügt am 29. April 2000)

32.2 The interpretation of the phrase “may be taxed in the other Contracting State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention”, which is used in both Articles, is particularly important when dealing with cases where the State of residence and the State of source classify the same item of income or capital differently for purposes of the provisions of the Convention. (Eingefügt am 29. April 2000, geändert am 21. November 2017 )

32.3 Different situations need to be considered in that respect. Where, due to differences in the domestic law between the State of source and the State of residence, the former applies, with respect to a particular item of income or capital, provisions of the Convention that are different from those that the State of residence would have applied to the same item of income or capital, the income is still being taxed in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, as interpreted and applied by the State of source. In such a case, therefore, the two Articles require that relief from double taxation be granted by the State of residence notwithstanding the conflict of qualification resulting from these differences in domestic law. (Eingefügt am 29. April 2000)

32.4 This point may be illustrated by the following example. A business is carried on through a permanent establishment in State E by a partnership established in that State. A partner, resident in State R, alienates his interest in that partnership. State E treats the partnership as fiscally transparent whereas State R treats it as taxable entity. State E therefore considers that the alienation of the interest in the partnership is, for the purposes of its Convention with State R, an alienation by the partner of the underlying assets of the business carried on by the partnership, which may be taxed by that State in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 of Article 13. State R, as it treats the partnership as a taxable entity, considers that the alienation of the interest in the partnership is akin to the alienation of a share in a company, which could not be taxed by State E by reason of paragraph 5 of Article 13. In such a case, the conflict of qualification results exclusively from the different treatment of partnerships in the domestic laws of the two States and State E must be considered by State R to have taxed the gain from the alienation “in accordance with the provisions of the Convention” for purposes of the application of Article 23 A or Article 23 B. State R must therefore grant an exemption pursuant to Article 23 A or give a credit pursuant to Article 23 B irrespective of the fact that, under its own domestic law, it treats the alienation gain as income from the disposition of shares in a corporate entity and that, if State E's qualification of the income were consistent with that of State R, State R would not have to give relief under Article 23 A or Article 23 B. No double taxation will therefore arise in such a case. (Eingefügt am 29. April 2000)

32.5 Article 23 A and Article 23 B, however, do not require that the State of residence eliminate double taxation in all cases where the State of source has imposed its tax by applying to an item of income a provision of the Convention that is different from that which the State of residence considers to be applicable. For instance, in the example above, if, for purposes of applying paragraph 2 of Article 13, State E considers that the partnership carried on business through a fixed place of business but State R considers that paragraph 5 applies because the partnership did not have a fixed place of business in State E, there is actually a dispute as to whether State E has taxed the income in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. The same may be said if State E, when applying paragraph 2 of Article 13, interprets the phrase “forming part of the business property” so as to include certain assets which would not fall within the meaning of that phrase according to the interpretation given to it by State R. Such conflicts resulting from different interpretation of facts or different interpretation of the provisions of the Convention must be distinguished from the conflicts of qualification described in the above paragraph where the divergence is based not on different interpretations of the provisions of the Convention but on different provisions of domestic law. In the former case, State R can argue that State E has not imposed its tax in accordance with the provisions of the Convention if it has applied its tax based on what State R considers to be a wrong interpretation of the facts or a wrong interpretation of the Convention. States should use the provisions of Article 25 (Mutual Agreement Procedure), and in particular paragraph 3 thereof, in order to resolve this type of conflict in cases that would otherwise result in unrelieved double taxation. (Eingefügt am 29. April 2000)

32.6 The phrase “in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, may be taxed” must also be interpreted in relation to possible cases of double non-taxation that can arise under Article 23 A. Where the State of source considers that the provisions of the Convention preclude it from taxing an item of income or capital which it would otherwise have had the right to tax, the State of residence should, for purposes of applying paragraph 1 of Article 23 A, consider that the item of income may not be taxed by the State of source in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, even though the State of residence would have applied the Convention differently so as to have the right to tax that income if it had been in the position of the State of source. Thus the State of residence is not required by paragraph 1 to exempt the item of income, a result which is consistent with the basic function of Article 23 which is to eliminate double taxation. (Eingefügt am 29. April 2000; geändert am 18. Juli 2008)

32.7 This situation may be illustrated by reference to a variation of the example described above. A business is carried on through a fixed place of business in State E by a partnership established in that State and a partner, resident in State R, alienates his interest in that partnership. Changing the facts of the example, however, it is now assumed that State E treats the partnership as a taxable entity whereas State R treats it as fiscally transparent; it is further assumed that State R is a State that applies the exemption method. State E, as it treats the partnership as a corporate entity, considers that the alienation of the interest in the partnership is akin to the alienation of a share in a company, which it cannot tax by reason of paragraph 5 of Article 13. State R, on the other hand, considers that the alienation of the interest in the partnership should have been taxable by State E as an alienation by the partner of the underlying assets of the business carried on by the partnership to which paragraph 1 or 2 of Article 13 would have been applicable. In determining whether it has the obligation to exempt the income under paragraph 1 of Article 23 A, State R should nonetheless consider that, given the way that the provisions of the Convention apply in conjunction with the domestic law of State E, that State may not tax the income in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. State R is thus under no obligation to exempt the income. (Eingefügt am 29. April 2000)

F. Timing mismatch

32.8 The provisions of the Convention that allow the State of source to tax particular items of income or capital do not provide any restriction as to when such tax is to be levied (see, for instance, paragraph 2.2 of the Commentary on Article 15). Since both Articles 23 A and 23 B require that relief be granted where an item of income or capital may be taxed by the State of source in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, it follows that such relief must be provided regardless of when the tax is levied by the State of source. The State of residence must therefore provide relief of double taxation through the credit or exemption method with respect to such item of income or capital even though the State of source taxes it in an earlier or later year. Some States, however, do not follow the wording of Article 23 A or 23 B in their bilateral conventions and link the relief of double taxation that they give under tax conventions to what is provided under their domestic laws. These countries, however, would be expected to seek other ways (the mutual agreement procedure, for example) to relieve the double taxation which might otherwise arise in cases where the State of source levies tax in a different taxation year. (Eingefügt am 15. Juli 2005)

II. Commentary on the provisions of Article 23 A (exemption method) (Nummern 33–56.3; vgl. Art. 23 A)

III. Commentary on the provisions of Article 23 B (credit method)

Paragraph 1

A. Methods

57. Article 23 B, based on the credit principle, follows the ordinary credit method: the State of residence (R) allows, as a deduction from its own tax on the income or capital of its resident, an amount equal to the tax paid in the other State E (or S) on the income derived from, or capital owned in, that other State E (or S), but the deduction is restricted to the appropriate proportion of its own tax.

58. The ordinary credit method is intended to apply also for a State which follows the exemption method but has to give credit, under paragraph 2 of Article 23 A, for the tax levied at limited rates in the other State on dividends and interest (see paragraph 47 above). The possibility of some modification as mentioned in paragraphs 47 and 48 above (full credit) could, of course, also be of relevance in the case of dividends and interest paid to a resident of a State which adopted the ordinary credit method (see also paragraph 63 below).

59. The obligation imposed by Article 23 B on a State R to give credit for the tax levied in the other State E (or S) on an item of income or capital depends on whether this item may be taxed by the State E (or S) in accordance with the Convention. Paragraphs 32.1 to 32.7 above discuss how this condition should be interpreted. Items of income which according to subparagraph a) of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 19 “shall be taxable only” in the other State, are from the outset exempt from tax in State R (see paragraph 6 above), and the Commentary on Article 23 A applies to such exempted income. As regards progression, reference is made to paragraph 2 of the Article (and paragraph 79 below). (Geändert am 23. Juli 1992, am 29. April 2000 und am 21. November 2017 )

60. Article 23 B sets out the main rules of the credit method, but does not give detailed rules on the computation and operation of the credit. This is consistent with the general pattern of the Convention. Experience has shown that many problems may arise. Some of them are dealt with in the following paragraphs. In many States, detailed rules on credit for foreign tax already exist in their domestic laws. A number of conventions, therefore, contain a reference to the domestic laws of the Contracting States and further provide that such domestic rules shall not affect the principle laid down in Article 23 B. Where the credit method is not used in the domestic laws of a Contracting State, this State should establish rules for the application of Article 23 B, if necessary after consultation with the competent authority of the other Contracting State (paragraph 3 of Article 25).

61. The amount of foreign tax for which a credit has to be allowed is the tax effectively paid in accordance with the Convention in the other Contracting State (excluding the amount of tax paid in that other State solely because the income or capital is also income derived by a resident of that State or capital owned by a resident of that State). Problems may arise, e. g. where such tax is not calculated on the income of the year for which it is levied but on the income of a preceding year or on the average income of two of more preceding years. Other problems may arise in connection with different methods of determining the income or in connection with changes in the currency rates (devaluation or revaluation). However, such problems could hardly be solved by an express provision in the Convention. (Geändert am 21. November 2017 )

62. According to the provisions of the second sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 23 B, the deduction which the State of residence (R) is to allow is restricted to that part of the income tax which is appropriate to the income derived from the State S, or E (so-called “maximum deduction”). Such maximum deduction may be computed either by apportioning the total tax on total income according to the ratio between the income for which credit is to be given and the total income, or by applying the tax rate for total income to the income for which credit is to be given. In fact, in cases where the tax in State E (or S) equals or exceeds the appropriate tax of State R, the credit method will have the same effect as the exemption method with progression. Also under the credit method, similar problems as regards the amount of income, tax rate, etc. may arise as are mentioned in the Commentary on Article 23 A (see especially paragraphs 39 to 41 and 44 above). For the same reasons mentioned in paragraphs 42 and 43 above, it is preferable also for the credit method not to propose an express and uniform solution in the Convention, but to leave each State free to apply its own legislation and technique. This is also true for some further problems which are dealt with below.

63. The maximum deduction is normally computed as the tax on net income, i. e. on the income from State E (or S) less allowable deductions (specified or proportional) connected with such income (see paragraph 40 above). For such reason, the maximum deduction in many cases may be lower than the tax effectively paid in State E (or S). This may especially be true in the case where, for instance, a resident of State R deriving interest from State S has borrowed funds from a third person to finance the interest-producing loan. As the interest due on such borrowed money may be offset against the interest derived from State S, the amount of net income subject to tax in State R may be very small, or there may even be no net income at all. As explained in paragraph 7.1 of the Commentary on Article 11, the problem, in that case, cannot be solved by State R, since little or no tax will be levied in that State. One solution would be to exempt such interest from tax in State S, as is proposed in paragraphs 7 to 7.12 of the Commentary on Article 11. (Geändert am 15. Juli 2014 )

64. If a resident of State R derives income of different kinds from State S, and the latter State, according to its tax laws imposes tax only on one of these items, the maximum deduction which State R is to allow will normally be that part of its tax which is appropriate only to that item of income which is taxed in State S. However, other solutions are possible, especially in view of the following broader problem: the fact that credit has to be given, e. g. for several items of income on which tax at different rates is levied in State S, or for income from several States, with or without conventions, raises the question whether the maximum deduction or the credit has to be calculated separately for each item of income, or for each country, or for all foreign income qualifying for credit under domestic laws and under conventions. Under an “overall credit” system, all foreign income is aggregated, and the total of foreign taxes is credited against the domestic tax appropriate to the total foreign income.

65. Further problems may arise in case of losses. A resident of State R, deriving income from State E (or S), may have a loss in State R, or in State E (or S) or in a third State. For purposes of the tax credit, in general, a loss in a given State will be set off against other income from the same State. Whether a loss suffered outside State R (e. g. in a permanent establishment) may be deducted from other income, whether derived from State R or not depends on the domestic laws of State R. Here similar problems may arise, as mentioned in the Commentary on Article 23 A (paragraph 44 above). When the total income is derived from abroad, and no income but a loss not exceeding the income from abroad arises in State R, then the total tax charged in State R will be appropriate to the income from State S, and the maximum deduction which State R is to allow will consequently be the tax charged in State R. Other solutions are possible.

66. The aforementioned problems depend very much on domestic laws and practice, and the solution must, therefore, be left to each State. In this context, it may be noted that some States are very liberal in applying the credit method. Some States are also considering or have already adopted the possibility of carrying over unused tax credits. Contracting States are, of course, free in bilateral negotiations to amend the Article to deal with any of the aforementioned problems.

67. In so-called “thin capitalisation” situations, the Model Convention allows the State of the borrower company, under certain conditions, to treat an interest payment as a distribution of dividends in accordance with its domestic legislation; the essential condition is that the contributor of the loan should effectively share the risks run by the borrower company. This gives rise to two consequences:

• the taxing at source of such “interest” at the rate for dividends (paragraph 2 of Article 10);

• the inclusion of such “interest” in the taxable profits of the lender company.

(Eingefügt am 23. Juli 1992)

68. If the relevant conditions are met, the State of residence of the lender would be obliged to give relief for any juridical or economic double taxation of the interest as if the payment was in fact a dividend. It should then give credit for tax effectively withheld on this interest in the State of residence of the borrower at the rate applicable to dividends and, in addition, if the lender is the parent company of the borrower company, apply to such “interest” any additional relief under its parent/subsidiary regime. This obligation may result:

1. from the actual wording of Article 23 of the Convention, when it grants relief in respect of income defined as dividends in Article 10 or of items of income dealt with in Article 10;

2. from the context of the Convention, i. e. from a combination of Articles 9, 10, 11, and 23 and if need be, by way of the mutual agreement procedure:

   • where the interest has been treated in the country of residence of the borrower company as a dividend under rules which are in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 9 or paragraph 6 of Article 11 and where the State of residence of the lender agrees that it has been properly so treated and is prepared to apply a corresponding adjustment;

   • when the State of residence of the lender applies similar thin capitalisation rules and would treat the payment as a dividend in a reciprocal situation, i. e. if the payment were made by a company established in its territory to a resident in the other Contracting State;

   • in all other cases where the State of residence of the lender recognises that it was proper for the State of residence of the borrower to treat the interest as a dividend.

(Eingefügt am 23. Juli 1992)

69. As regards dividends from a substantial holding by a company, reference is made to paragraphs 49 to 54 above. (Umnummeriert am 23. Juli 1992)

69.1 Problems may arise where Contracting States treat entities such as partnerships in a different way. Assume, for example, that the State where a partnership is established treats that partnership as a company and the State of residence of a partner treats it as fiscally transparent. The State of the partnership may, subject to the applicable provisions of the Convention, tax the partnership on its income when that income is realised and, subject to the limitations of paragraph 2 of Article 10, may also tax the distribution of profits by the partnership to its non-resident partners. The State of residence of the partner, however, will only tax the partner on his share of the partnership's income when that income is realised by the partnership. (Eingefügt am 29. April 2000; geändert am 21. November 2017 )

69.2 The first issue that arises in this case is whether the State of residence of the partner, which taxes the partner on his share in the partnership's income, is obliged, under the Convention, to give credit for the tax that is levied on the partnership in the State of the partnership, which that latter State treats as a separate taxable entity. The answer to that question must be affirmative to the extent that the income may be taxed by the State of the partnership in accordance with the provisions of the Convention that allow taxation of the relevant income as the State of source or as a State where there is a permanent establishment to which that income is attributable (see also paragraphs 11.1 and 11.2 above). To the extent that the State of residence of the partner flows through the income of the partnership to the partner for the purpose of taxing that partner, it must adopt a coherent approach and flow through to the partner the tax paid by the partnership (but only to the extent that such tax is paid in accordance with the provisions of the Convention that allow source taxation) for the purposes of eliminating double taxation arising from its taxation of the partner. In other words, if the corporate status given to the partnership by the State of source is ignored by the State of residence for purposes of taxing the partner on his share of the income, it should likewise be ignored for purposes of the foreign tax credit. (Eingefügt am 29. April 2000; geändert am 21. November 2017 )

69.3 A second issue that arises in this case is the extent to which the State of residence of the partner must provide credit for the tax levied by the State of the partnership on the distribution, which is not taxed in the State of residence. The answer to that question lies in that last fact. Since the distribution is not taxed in the State of residence of the partner, there is simply no tax in that State against which to credit the tax levied by the State of the partnership upon the distribution. A clear distinction must be made between the generation of profits and the distribution of those profits and the State of residence of the partner should not be expected to credit the tax levied by the State of the partnership upon the distribution against its own tax levied upon generation (see the first sentence of paragraph 64 above). (Eingefügt am 29. April 2000)

B. Remarks concerning capital tax

70. As paragraph 1 is drafted, credit is to be allowed for income tax only against income tax and for capital tax only against capital tax. Consequently, credit for or against capital tax will be given only if there is a capital tax in both Contracting States. (Umnummeriert am 23. Juli 1992)

71. In bilateral negotiations, two Contracting States may agree that a tax called a capital tax is of a nature closely related to income tax and may, therefore, wish to allow credit for it against income tax and vice versa. There are cases where, because one State does not impose a capital tax or because both States impose capital taxes only on domestic assets, no double taxation of capital will arise. In such cases it is, of course, understood that the reference to capital taxation may be deleted. Furthermore, States may find it desirable, regardless of the nature of the taxes under the convention, to allow credit for the total amount of tax in the State of source or situs against the total amount of tax in the State of residence. Where, however, a convention includes both real capital taxes and capital taxes which are in their nature income taxes, the States may wish to allow credit against income tax only for the latter capital taxes. In such cases, States are free to alter the proposed Article so as to achieve the desired effect. (Umnummeriert am 23. Juli 1992)

C. Tax sparing

72. Some States grant different kinds of tax incentives to foreign investors for the purpose of attracting foreign investment. When the State of residence of a foreign investor applies the credit method, the benefit of the incentive granted by a State of source may be reduced to the extent that the State of residence, when taxing income that has benefited from the incentive, will allow a deduction only for the tax actually paid in the State of source. Similarly, if the State of residence applies the exemption method but subject the application of that method to a certain level of taxation by the State of source, the granting of a tax reduction by the State of source may have the effect of denying the investor the application of the exemption method in his State of residence. (Umnummeriert am 23. Juli 1992; Text ersetzt am 29. April 2000)

73. To avoid any such effect in the State of residence, some States that have adopted tax incentive programmes wish to include provisions, usually referred to as “tax sparing” provisions, in their conventions. The purpose of these provisions is to allow non-residents to obtain a foreign tax credit for the taxes that have been “spared” under the incentive programme of the source State or to ensure that these taxes will be taken into account for the purposes of applying certain conditions that may be attached to exemption systems. (Umnummeriert am 23. Juli 1992; Text ersetzt am 29. April 2000)

74. Tax sparing provisions constitute a departure from the provisions of Articles 23 A and 23 B. Tax sparing provisions may take different forms, as for example:

1. the State of residence will allow as a deduction the amount of tax which the State of source could have imposed in accordance with its general legislation or such amount as limited by the Convention (e. g. limitations of rates provided for dividends and interest in Articles 10 and 11) even if the State of source has waived all or part of that tax under special provisions for the promotion of its economic development;

2. as a counterpart for the tax reduction by the State of source, the State of residence agrees to allow a deduction against its own tax of an amount (in part fictitious) fixed at a higher rate;

3. the State of residence exempts the income which has benefited from tax incentives in the State of source.

(Umnummeriert am 23. Juli 1992; Text ersetzt am 29. April 2000)

75. A 1998 report by the Committee of Fiscal Affairs, entitled “Tax Sparing: a Reconsideration”, analyses the tax policy considerations that underlie tax sparing provisions as well as their drafting. The report identifies a number of concerns that put into question the overall usefulness of the granting of tax sparing relief. These concerns relate in particular to:

• the potential for abuse offered by tax sparing;

• the effectiveness of tax sparing as an instrument of foreign aid to promote economic development of the source country; and

• general concerns with the way in which tax sparing may encourage States to use tax incentives.

(Umnummeriert am 23. Juli 1992; Text ersetzt am 29. April 2000)

76. Experience has shown that tax sparing is very vulnerable to taxpayer abuse, which can be very costly in terms of lost revenue to both the State of residence and the State of source. This kind of abuse is difficult to detect. In addition, even where it is detected, it is difficult for the State of residence to react quickly against such abuse. The process of removing or modifying existing tax sparing provisions to prevent such abuses is often slow and cumbersome. (Umnummeriert am 23. Juli 1992; Text ersetzt am 29. April 2000)

77. Furthermore, tax sparing is not necessarily an effective tool to promote economic development. A reduction or elimination of the benefit of the tax incentive by the State of residence will, in most cases, only occur to the extent that profits are repatriated. By promoting the repatriation of profits, tax sparing may therefore provide an inherent incentive to foreign investors to engage in short-term investment projects and a disincentive to operate in the source State on a long-term basis. Also, foreign tax credit systems are usually designed in a way that allows a foreign investor, in computing its foreign tax credit, to offset to some extent the reduction of taxes resulting from a particular tax incentive with the higher taxes paid in that or other country so that, ultimately, no additional taxes are levied by the State of residence as a result of the tax incentive. (Umnummeriert am 23. Juli 1992; Text ersetzt am 29. April 2000)

78. Finally, the accelerating integration of national economies has made many segments of the national tax bases increasingly geographically mobile. These developments have induced some States to adopt tax regimes that have as their primary purpose the erosion of the tax bases of other countries. These types of tax incentives are specifically tailored to target highly mobile financial and other services that are particularly sensitive to tax differentials. The potentially harmful effects of such regimes may be aggravated by the existence of ill-designed tax sparing provisions in treaties. This is particularly so where a State adopts a tax regime subsequent to the conclusion of treaties and tailors this regime so as to ensure that it is covered by the scope of the existing tax sparing provision. (Umnummeriert am 23. Juli 1992; Text ersetzt am 29. April 2000)

78.1 The Committee concluded that member States should not necessarily refrain from adopting tax sparing provisions. The Committee expressed the view, however, that tax sparing should be considered only in regard to States the economic level of which is considerably below that of OECD member States. Member States should employ objective economic criteria to define States eligible for tax sparing. Where States agree to insert a tax sparing provision, they are therefore encouraged to follow the guidance set out in section VI of the tax sparing report. The use of these “best practices” will minimise the potential for abuse of such provisions by ensuring that they apply exclusively to genuine investments aimed at developing the domestic infrastructure of the source State. A narrow provision applying to real investment would also discourage harmful tax competition for geographically mobile activities. (Eingefügt am 29. April 2000)

Paragraph 2

79. This paragraph has been added to enable the State of residence to retain the right to take the amount of income or capital exempted in that State into consideration when determining the tax to be imposed on the rest of the income or capital. The right so retained extends to income or capital which “shall be taxable only” in the other State. The principle of progression is thus safeguarded for the State of residence, not only in relation to income or capital which “may be taxed” in the other State, but also for income or capital which “shall be taxable only” in that other State. The Commentary on paragraph 3 of Article 23 A in relation to the State of source also applies to paragraph 2 of Article 23 B. (Umnummeriert am 23. Juli 1992)

Observations on the Commentary

80. The Netherlands in principle is in favour of solving situations of both double taxation and double non-taxation due to conflicts of qualification between Contracting States, since in the Netherlands view such situations are not intended by the Contracting States and moreover go against the object and purpose of a tax treaty. However, the Netherlands does not agree with the interpretation given in paragraphs 32.4 and 32.6 to the phrase “in accordance with the provisions of this Convention” in Articles 23 A and 23 B of the Convention that in cases of conflicts of qualification that are due to differences in domestic law between the State of source and the State of residence as a rule the qualification given by the State of source would prevail for purposes of the application by the State of residence of Article 23 A or 23 B. The Netherlands wishes to preserve its right to subject a solution and its modalities for a certain conflict of qualification to the circumstances of the cases at hand and to the relationship with the Contracting State concerned. The Netherlands therefore will adhere to said interpretation in paragraphs 32.4 and 32.6 only, and to the extent which, it is explicitly so confirmed in a specific tax treaty, as a result of mutual agreement between competent authorities as meant in Article 25 of the Convention or as unilateral policy. (Eingefügt am 29. April 2000)

81. Switzerland reserves its right not to apply the rules laid down in paragraph 32.3 in cases where a conflict of qualification results from a modification to the internal law of the State of source subsequent to the conclusion of a Convention. (Eingefügt am 29. April 2000; geändert am 15. Juli 2014 )

82. The United States does not agree with the final sentence of paragraph 11.1 of the Commentary. (Gestrichen am 18. Juli 2008; neu eingefügt am 21. November 2017 )

Reservations on the Article

83. Consistent with its reservations on paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 1, France reserves the right not to include in paragraph 1 of Articles 23 A and 23 B the modifications provided by the 2017 update of the Model Tax Convention relative to the elimination of double taxation in the presence of a fiscally transparent entity. (Eingefügt am 21. November 2017 )

84. Luxembourg reserves the right not to include in paragraph 1 the modifications provided by the 2017 update of the Model Tax Convention. (Eingefügt am 21. November 2017 )

85. The United States reserves its right not to include in paragraph 1 the parenthetical phrase “(except to the extent that these provisions allow taxation by that other State solely because the income is also income derived by a resident of that State or because the capital is also capital owned by a resident of that State)”. Furthermore, the United States wishes to express the opinion that paragraph 1, which has been added to address so-called “economic double taxation” is inconsistent with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Commentary, which explain that Article 23 deals only with so called “juridical double taxation”. (Eingefügt am 21. November 2017 )

B. Eigene Kommentierung (Wassermeyer)

I. Allgemeines

1. Regelungsinhalt und Abgrenzung der Vorschrift

a) Regelungsinhalt.

1 Art. 23A und 23B bilden zusammen den sog. Methodenartikel, der sich an den Ansässigkeitsstaat richtet und dessen Besteuerungsrecht regelt (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 4). Während die von Dtl. nach dem Jahre 1963 abgeschlossenen Abk. sich in den Art. 1–22 und 24 ff. weitgehend an dem MA orientieren, gilt dieser Grundsatz für den Methodenartikel nicht. In allen abgeschlossenen Abk. ist der Inhalt der Art. 23A und 23B zu einem Artikel zusammengefasst. Es wird absatzweise danach unterschieden, ob Dtl. oder der andere Vertragsstaat der Ansässigkeitsstaat ist. Dtl. wendet als Ansässigkeitsstaat teilweise die Befreiungs- und iÜ die Anrechnungsmethode an (vgl. Rz. 2). So gesehen ist die in Art. 23B vorgeschlagene Regelung nur als ein Angebot an die Vertragsstaaten zu verstehen, zur Anrechnungsmethode zu optieren. Die Freistellungs- und die Anrechnungsmethode dürfen nicht als etwas verstanden werden, was sich wechselseitig ausschließt. Richtigerweise ergänzen sie einander (vgl. Ismer in V/L⁶, Art. 23 Rz. 9). Die beide Vertragsstaaten müssen in ihrem Anwendungsbereich nicht jeweils die gleiche Methode zur Vermeidung der DBest. anwenden (vgl. Art. 23A und 23B Nr. 30 MK; Ismer in V/L⁶, Art. 23 Rz. 32). Viele Abk. sehen vor, dass der Vertragsstaat A vornehmlich die Freistellungsmethode und der Vertragsstaat B vornehmlich die Anrechnungsmethode verwenden. Die kontinentaleurop. Staaten wenden eher die Freistellungs- und die angelsächs. Staaten eher die Anrechnungsmethode an (vgl. Schaumburg Internationales Steuerrecht³, Rz. 16.517). Dies steht dem Ziel nicht entgegen, die DBest. zu vermeiden. Fast alle Abk. sehen für jeden der beiden Vertragsstaaten die Anwendung von im Detail unterschiedl. Regelungen vor. Dies ist der Grund, weshalb die Abk.-Praxis die Vermeidung der DBest. in den beiden Vertragsstaaten jeweils in unterschiedl. Absätzen des Methodenartikels regelt. Theoretisch ist es denkbar, dass sie sich auf die Anwendung einer einzigen Methode zur Vermeidung der DBest. in den beiden Staaten einigen. Dann könnten sie eine Regelung dahin vereinbaren, dass die DBest. im jeweiligen Ansässigkeitsstaat nach einer bestimmten Methode vermieden wird. Dies würde eine Regelung in getrennten Absätzen überflüssig machen.

2 Steuerbefreiungs- oder -ermäßigungsnorm. Versteht man den Methodenartikel als die Vorschrift, die regelt, wie der Ansässigkeitsstaat die DBest. zu vermeiden hat, so stellt sich wiederum die Frage nach dem Grundverständnis der Norm. Für Art. 23B gilt insoweit in besonderer Weise, dass die Vorschrift als Steuerermäßigungsnorm und weder als Schranken- noch als Verteilungs- noch als Verzichts- oder Kollisionsnorm zu verstehen ist (vgl. MA Art. 1 Rz. 9; Vor Art. 6–22 Rz. 1). Die Norm hat die Aufgabe, einen nach dem innerstaatl. Steuerrecht des Ansässigkeitsstaates bestehenden Steueranspruch zu ermäßigen (vgl. BFH v. 21.5.97 I R 79/96, BStBl II 1998, 113). Sie ist in ihrer Rechtsfolgewirkung mit § 34 c EStG vergleichbar. Sie vermeidet nur die jurist. und nicht die wirtschaftl. DBest. (vgl. Grotherr in G/K/G, OECD-MA, Art. 23A/23B Rz. 6). Art. 23B lässt die nach innerstaatl. Steuerrecht des Ansässigkeitsstaates bestehende persönl. Stpfl. einer Person unberührt. Denkbar ist, dass sich die Steuerermäßigung lt. Abk.-Recht auf im Ansässigkeitsstaat nicht steuerbare oder ohnehin sachlich steuerfreie Einkünfte (Vermögen) bezieht. Dann geht die Steuerermäßigung lt. Abk.-Recht ins Leere.

b) Deutsche Abkommenspraxis.

3 Deutschland vermeidet in den von ihm abgeschlossenen Abk. über Art. 23B hinaus die DBest. nicht nur nach einer bestimmten Methode. Es wendet vielmehr nur teilweise die Anrechnungsmethode und iÜ die Steuerbefreiungsmethode an. Abkommensrechtlich wird weder die Steuerpauschalierung noch der Steuerabzug angewendet, wie sie aus dem dt. innerstaatl. Recht (§ 34 c Abs. 2, 3 und 5 EStG) bekannt sind (vgl. Schaumburg Internationales Steuerrecht³, Rz. 16.513). Die Steuerbefreiungsmethode wird idR auf Einkünfte aus unbewegl. Vermögen, auf Unternehmensgewinne, auf Veräußerungsgewinne iSd. Art. 13 sowie auf Einkünfte aus selbständiger und aus unselbständiger Arbeit angewendet. Ihre Anwendung steht häufig unter einem Aktivitätsvorbehalt (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 54, 156 ff.). Für alle übrigen Einkünfte gilt idR die Anrechnungsmethode. Eine Ausnahme von diesem Grundsatz gilt für Gewinnanteile und Bezüge aus Schachtelbeteiligungen. Dtl. gewährt auch in diesen Fällen eine Steuerbefreiung. Abkommensrechtl. steht auch diese Steuerbefreiung häufig unter einem Aktivitätsvorbehalt (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 54, 156 ff.), der allerdings spätestens seit dem 1.1.2002 von § 8 b Abs. 1 KStG überlagert wird. Dies gilt auch für den Bereich der VSt, die heute nicht mehr erhoben wird. Soweit Dtl. die Steuerbefreiungsmethode anwendet, ist dies idR mit einem sog. Progressionsvorbehalt verbunden (vgl. Rz. 71 ff.). Zunehmend werden sog. Switch over-Klauseln (Möglichkeit des Übergangs von der Freistellungs- zur Anrechnungsmethode; vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 162) und/oder Rückfallklauseln (Subject to Tax-Klauseln; vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 161) vereinbart. Letztere sollen eine doppelte Nichtbesteuerung von Einkünften vermeiden. Außerdem ist die in § 20 Abs. 2 AStG enthaltene „Treaty overriding“-Klausel zu beachten (vgl. Wassermeyer/Schönfeld in FWBS, § 20 AStG Rz. 119 ff.; Seer IStR 1997, 481 ff., 520 ff.).

c) Vor- und Nachteile der Freistellungsmethode.

4 Art. 23A und 23B Nr. 12 ff. MK umschreiben eingehend die Vor- und Nachteile der Freistellungs- und der Anrechnungsmethode (vgl. Grotherr in G/K/G, Art. 23A/23B Rz. 34 ff.; Schmidt/Blöchle in S/K/K, Art. 23 A/B OECD-MA, Rz. 13; Schönfeld/Häck in S/D, Art. 23A/B Rz. 3). In Art. 23A und 23B Nrn. 33 ff. bzw. 57 ff. MK werden Einzelfragen zu beiden Methoden abgehandelt. Die Anwendung der Freistellungsmethode bewirkt grundsätzlich eine Besteuerung auf dem Steuerniveau des Quellenstaates. Damit wird der Steuerausländer im Quellenstaat vergleichbaren Bedingungen ausgesetzt, denen auch ein dort ansässiger bzw. ein aus einem Drittstaat stammender Wettbewerber ausgesetzt ist. Der Besteuerung im Quellenstaat wird ein gewisser Vorrang eingeräumt. Die Besteuerung im Ansässigkeitsstaat wird eingeschränkt. Die Freistellungsmethode entspricht dem Gedanken der Kapitalimportneutralität (vgl. Ismer in V/L⁶, Art. 23 Rz. 7). Die Anrechnungsmethode bewirkt dagegen, dass die Steuerbelastung stets auf das im Verhältnis zw. den beiden Vertragsstaaten höhere Niveau heraufgeschleust wird. Steuervorteile, die der Quellenstaat gewährt, gehen durch die Besteuerung im Ansässigkeitsstaat verloren. Investitionen im In- und Ausland werden steuerlich gleichbehandelt. Deshalb sehen sich va. die Entwicklungsländer durch die Anwendung der Anrechnungsmethode benachteiligt (vgl. Widmer RIW/AWD 1976, 569). Allerdings kann die Anwendung der Anrechnungsmethode in den sog. Verlustfällen günstiger sein, weil sie die Berücksichtigung von Verlusten nicht ausschließt. Dies wirft die allgemeine Frage auf, inwieweit es mit dem Sinn und Zweck eines Abk. zu vereinbaren ist, dass der Steuerpfl. ggü. den innerstaatl. Regelungen zur Vermeidung der DBest. schlechter gestellt wird (vgl. Rz. 32). Die Frage, ob im Einzelfall zweckmäßigerweise die Freistellung oder die Anrechnung vereinbart wird, sollte va. unter den Gesichtspunkten des Wettbewerbes für den Steuerpfl. und des volkswirtschaftl. Nutzens seiner Tätigkeit gesehen werden. Deutschland hat ein volkswirtschaftl. Interesse daran, dass im Inland ansässige Personen ausländ. Einkünfte erzielen und im Ausland einem Wettbewerb ausgesetzt sind, der mit den Bedingungen vergleichbar ist, unter denen gleichartige ausländ. Personen arbeiten. Die Anwendung der Freistellungsmethode ist deshalb davon abhängig, ob die im Ausland ausgeübte Tätigkeit volkswirtschaftl. förderungswürdig erscheint (vgl. Lechner in Gassner/Lang/Lechner, Die Methoden zur Vermeidung der Doppelbesteuerung, 13 ff.). Für die Anwendung der Freistellungsmethode können dagegen Vereinfachungsgründe idR nicht geltend gemacht werden, weil die freizustellenden Einkünfte aus Gründen ihrer Freistellung bzw. aus Gründen des Progressionsvorbehaltes ohnehin nach dem Recht des Ansässigkeitsstaates zu ermitteln sind.

d) Anrechnungsmethode und Gleichheitssatz.

5 Nach dem DBA Österreich/Liechtenstein findet die Anrechnungsmethode auf fast alle Einkünfte Anwendung. Nur Einkünfte aus selbständiger Arbeit und aus öffentl. Funktionen werden idR ausschließl. im Quellenstaat besteuert und im Ansässigkeitsstaat steuerfrei gestellt. Soweit Liechtenstein der Quellenstaat ist, führt dies zu einer erheblichen steuerl. Entlastung dieser Einkünfte. Der österr. VwGH sah hierin eine unsachl. Privilegierung der genannten Einkünfte und eine Ungleichbehandlung von Gewerbetreibenden und Arbeitnehmern. Durch Beschluss vom 24. 10. 13 A 2013/0010 beantragte der österr. VwGH deshalb beim österr. VfGH die Feststellung der Verfassungswidrigkeit von Art. 14 DBA Österreich/Liechtenstein (vgl. Sutter SWI 2013, 514; Loukota SWI 2014, 2; Beiser SWI 2014, 52; Jirousek ÖStZ 2014, 64). Durch Entscheidung vom 23. 6. 14 SV 2/2013 hat der österr. VfGH diesen Antrag zwar als zulässig behandelt, jedoch als unbegründet abgewiesen. Der österr. VfGH war der Auffassung, dass das Abweichen eines Abk. von einem internat. Standard (OECD-MA, UN-MA) keine Verletzung des Gleichheitsgrundsatzes begründe. Er bejaht insbes. für Unternehmensgewinne einen Trend zur Einkommens- und Vermögensverlagerung in Niedrigsteuerstaaten, was das Interesse an der Anwendung der Anrechnungsmethode begründe. Der Trend bestehe nicht in vergleichbarer Weise für Einkünfte aus selbständiger Arbeit. Als Ergebnis ist festzuhalten, dass auch abkommensrechtl. Normen sich an der Verfassung messen lassen müssen. Insoweit besteht kein Unterschied zum innerstaatl. Recht. Andererseits hat der Gesetzgeber ein weites Ermessen, ob er die Freistellungs- oder die Anrechnungsmethode vorsieht. Das Abweichen von einem internat. Standard bzw. von anderen Abk. begründet für sich genommen noch keine Verletzung von Art. 3 GG. Es bleibt abzuwarten, ob die Anrufung des Österr. VfGH eine Verfassungsjagd auf DBA eröffnet (vgl. Loukota SWI 2014, 2).

e) Abgrenzung der Vorschrift.

6 Art. 23B regelt nur die Vermeidung der DBest. im sog. Ansässigkeitsstaat. Dieser ist gewissermaßen einziger Adressat der Vorschrift (vgl. Schuch in Gassner/Lang/Lechner, Die Methoden zur Vermeidung der Doppelbesteuerung, 11 ff., 19). Soweit die Abk. Vorschriften enthalten, die den Ansässigkeitsstaat zwingen, die Steuerbefreiungsmethode anzuwenden, haben diese Vorschriften lex specialis-Charakter ggü. Art. 23B. Es ist denkbar, dass ein Abk. anderweitige Vorschriften enthält, die dem Methodenartikel vorgehen und die ggfs. zu beachten sind. Dies gilt zB für Art. 4 Abs. 3 DBA-Schweiz.

2. Vergleich zwischen MA 1963, 1977, 1992 und 2000

a) Allgemeines.

7 Art. 23B bestand idF des MA 1963 nur aus einem Absatz. Der zweite Absatz wurde erst mit dem MA 1977 angefügt. IÜ wurden nur die Formulierungen, jedoch nicht die Regelungen in ihrem Kernbereich verändert.

b) Absatz 1.

8 Art. 23B Abs. 1 erster HS MA 1963 ist mit der Fassung des MA 1977 fast wortgleich. Es wurden lediglich die Worte „in dem anderen Vertragsstaat“ (MA 1963) durch „im anderen Vertragsstaat“ (MA 1977/92) ersetzt. Zwischen Art. 23B Abs. 1 MA 1977, 1992 und 2000 besteht wörtl. Übereinstimmung.

c) Absatz 2.

9 Art. 23B Abs. 2 wurde erst mit dem MA 1977 angefügt. Im MA 1963 war eine entspr. Regelung nicht enthalten. Die Einfügung des Art. 23B Abs. 2 MA 1977 muss in einem Zusammenhang mit der Einfügung des Art. 23A Abs. 3 MA 1977 gesehen werden. Die Formulierung von Art. 23B Abs. 2 MA 1977/92 weicht allerdings von der Fassung des Art. 23A Abs. 1 zweiter HS MA 1963 wesentlich ab, ohne dass der Regelungsinhalt verändert worden wäre. Ein Vergleich der beiden Fassungen bringt keine weitergehenden Erkenntnisse. In allen Fassungen ist der Progressionsvorbehalt nur eine dem Ansässigkeitsstaat vorbehaltene Besteuerungsmöglichkeit, von der er Gebrauch machen kann, jedoch nicht Gebrauch machen muss. Zwischen Art. 23B Abs. 2 besteht in den Fassungen der MA 1977, 1992 und 2000 wörtl. Übereinstimmung.

10, 11 einstweilen frei

II. Absatz 1

1. In einem Vertragsstaat ansässige Person

a) Person.

12 Der Personenbegriff des Art. 23B Abs. 1 ist mit dem des Art. 23A Abs. 1 identisch. Deshalb wird auf MA Art. 23A Rz. 16 und 81 verwiesen. Anrechnungsberechtigt ist grds. die Person, die Schuldner der ausländ. Steuer ist. Aus dem insoweit anzuwendenden innerstaatl. Recht der Vertragsstaaten können sich jedoch Qualifikationskonflikte ergeben, die den Ansässigkeitsstaat dazu zwingen, eine Steuer, die im Ausland zB ggü. einer PersGes. festgesetzt wurde, anteilig als Steuer ihrer Mitunternehmer zu behandeln (vgl. Schönfeld/Häck in S/D, Art. 23A/B Rz. 54).

b) Ansässigkeit.

13 Der in Art. 23B verwendete Ausdruck „Ansässigkeit einer Person in dem einen Vertragsstaat“ entspricht dem in Art. 23A Abs. 1 gleichlautend verwendeten Ausdruck. Deshalb wird auf MA Art. 23A Rz. 17 und 81 verwiesen. Grundsätzlich wird die Anrechnung ausländ. Steuern nur einer ansässigen Person gewährt. Die Person muss in dem Vertragsstaat ansässig sein, der die Anrechnung gewähren soll. Die Ansässigkeit muss zu dem Zeitpunkt bestehen, zu dem die Einkünfte nach dem innerstaatl. Recht des Ansässigkeitsstaates als erzielt gelten. Die Vertragsstaaten sind allerdings nicht gehindert, die Anrechnung ausländ. Steuern (ausnahmsweise) auch Personen zu gewähren, die in keinem Vertragsstaat ansässig sind. Insoweit bedarf es allerdings einer ausdrückl. Regelung. Sie ist zB in Art. 24 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 DBA-Schweiz sowie in Abschn. 12 Nr. 2 Buchst. a Schlussprot. zum DBA-Belgien enthalten. Danach wird der Abk.-Schutz auch Personen gewährt, die nicht in Dtl. ansässig, jedoch an einer dt. PersGes. beteiligt sind (vgl. § 50 Abs. 6 EStG), wenn die PersGes. Einkünfte aus der Schweiz bzw. aus Belgien erzielt.

c) Vertragsstaat.

14 Die die Rechtsfolge des Art. 23B Abs. 1 in Anspruch nehmende Person (vgl. Rz. 12) muss in dem einen Vertragsstaat ansässig sein. Insoweit bestimmt sich der Inhalt des Ausdrucks „Vertragsstaat“ entsprechend den Ausführungen zu MA Art. 1 Rz. 40 (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 18 und 81).

15 einstweilen frei

2. Einkünfte

a) Einkünfte, Einkommen.

16 Art. 23B verwendet bewusst den Einkünfte- und nicht den Einkommensbegriff. Dies gilt unbeschadet der Tatsache, dass Art. 2 von den „Steuern vom Einkommen“ spricht. Art. 23B baut gewissermaßen auf Art. 6–21 auf (vgl. Schaumburg Internationales Steuerrecht³, Rz. 16.531). Die Art. 6–21 unterteilen das Einkommen in verschiedene Einkunftsarten, die sich jede als Teil des Einkommens verstehen. Die Art. 6–21 regeln für jede einzelne Einkunftsart, ob und inwieweit dem Quellenstaat ein Besteuerungsrecht zusteht. Von diesem Besteuerungsrecht hängt es letztlich ab, ob und inwieweit es Sache des Ansässigkeitsstaates ist, die DBest. zu vermeiden. Dennoch ist nur Art. 23B und sind nicht die Art. 6–22 Rechtsgrundlage für die Steuerermäßigung (vgl. Kluge Das Internationale Steuerrecht, S 324; aA: Ismer in V/L⁶, Art. 23 Rz. 36, wonach sich dies aus Art. 6–22 ergeben soll). Aus dem Zusammenhang folgt, dass der Ausdruck „Einkünfte“ iSd. Art. 6–21, dh. nach Abk.-Recht und nicht nach dem innerstaatl. Recht des Anwendestaates auszulegen ist. Art. 3 Abs. 2 findet insoweit keine Anwendung.

b) Begriff.

17 Der Streit um den Inhalt des Ausdrucks „Einkünfte“ stellt sich aus der Sicht des Art. 23B Abs. 1 etwas anderes als die gleiche Frage zu Art. 23A Abs. 1 (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 14). Zwar ist der Ausdruck hier wie dort abkommensrechtl. auszulegen. Dazu folgt aus den Art. 6–21, dass der Ausdruck Oberbegriff für Gewinne, Dividenden, Zinsen, Lizenzgebühren, Gehälter, Löhne und ähnliche Vergütungen, Aufsichtsrats- und Verwaltungsratsvergütungen, Ruhegehälter und Zahlungen an Studenten, Praktikanten und Lehrlinge ist. Der Methodenartikel, der von „Einkünften“ spricht, gilt zwangsläufig für alle Einkünfte iSd. Art. 6 bis 21. Die unter Art. 6 bis 21 zu subsumierenden Einkünfte sind teils als Nettobetrag (vgl. Art. 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 und 17) und teils als Bruttobetrag (Art. 10 bis 12, 15, 16, 18, 19 und 20) definiert. In Einzelfällen können sowohl Bruttobeträge als auch Nettobeträge unter eine Vorschrift fallen (vgl. Art. 21 MA; Art. 12 Abs. 2 S. 1 DBA-USA 2008: „Vergütungen“; Art. 12 Abs. 2 S. 2 DBA-USA 2008: „Gewinne aus der Veräußerung“). Daraus folgt, dass der Ausdruck „Einkünfte“ je nach der in Betracht zu ziehenden abkommensrechtl. Einkunftsart auszulegen ist. Es ist mit Hilfe der Art. 6 bis 21 für den Einzelfall zu bestimmen, ob der Ausdruck „Einkünfte“ als Brutto- oder Nettobetrag zu verstehen ist (vgl. BFH v. 29.5.96 I R 167/94, BStBl. II 1997, 60). Insoweit wird sich für Einkünfte iSd. Art. 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, und 17 idR ein Nettobetrag ergeben. Die Einkünfte iSd. Art. 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19 und 20 sind idR als Bruttobeträge zu verstehen. Einkünfte iSd. Art. 21 können sowohl Brutto- als auch Nettobeträge sein. Zu beachten ist jedoch, dass auch dann, wenn unter Einkünften ein Bruttobetrag zu verstehen ist, der Ansässigkeitsstaat nach seinem innerstaatl. Recht häufig nur einen Nettobetrag besteuert. In diesem Fall kann er die ausländ. Steuer auch nur auf die vom Nettobetrag (Einkommen oder stpfl. Vermögen) erhobene inländ. Steuer anrechnen. Daraus folgt, dass sich nach dem innerstaatl. Steuerrecht des Anwendestaates richtet, welche inländ. Steuer auf die Einkünfte im abkommensrechtl. Sinne erhoben wurde. Dies bedeutet keinen Widerspruch zu der zu Art. 23A Abs. 1 vertretenen Rechtsauffassung (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 21). Auch dort wurde die Auffassung vertreten, dass der Ausdruck abkommensrechtl. nach dem Zusammenhang auszulegen ist, in den er jeweils gestellt ist. Rechtssystematisch gesehen können sowohl Einkünfte (vgl. § 8 b Abs. 2 KStG) als auch Einnahmen (vgl. § 3 EStG) von der Besteuerung im Ansässigkeitsstaat freigestellt werden. Ausländische Steuern können jedoch auch auf die inländ. Steuer angerechnet werden, die nach innerstaatl. Recht vom Einkommen (stpfl. Vermögen) oder von den Einkünften (Vermögensarten), dh. von einem Nettobetrag erhoben wird.

c) Ermittlung der Einkünfte.

18 Innerhalb des Art. 23B Abs. 1 verlagert sich die unter Rz. 17 aufgeworfene Frage dahin, welche Einnahmen und welche Aufwendungen in den abkommensrechtl. Ausdruck „Einkünfte“ eingehen. Dazu ist von dem Grundsatz auszugehen, dass die Abk. bestimmen, ob unter „Einkünften“ ein Brutto- oder ein Nettobetrag zu verstehen ist. Soweit ein Abk. dem Ansässigkeitsstaat die Besteuerung eines Bruttobetrages erlaubt, kann sich dieser dennoch mit der Besteuerung nur eines Nettobetrages begnügen. Er bestimmt dann nach seinem eigenen innerstaatl. Recht, welche Aufwendungen von dem Bruttobetrag abzusetzen sind. Dies ist vorrangig nach dem Veranlassungsgrundsatz zu bestimmen. Es stellt sich allerdings die Frage, ob § 34 c Abs. 1 Satz 4 EStG die Zuordnung von Betriebsausgaben/Betriebsvermögensminderungen zu ausländ, Einnahmen erweitert (vgl. dazu Rz. 55 und FG Münster vom 17.9.14 10 K 1310/12 K, EFG 2015, 303). Die vom BFH in seinem Urteil v. 16.3.94 I R 42/93, BStBl. II 1994, 799, vertretene und im Urteil v. 9 .4. 97 I R 178/94, BStBl. II 1997, 657 bestätigte Auffassung, dass sich dann Einschränkungen ergeben, wenn eine bestimmte abkommensrechtl. Einkunftsart nach innerstaatl. Recht sowohl Gewinneinkünfte (§ 2 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 EStG) als auch Überschusseinkünfte (§ 2 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 EStG) umfasst (zB Dividenden, Zinsen und Lizenzgebühren), sollte durch die Einfügung des § 34 c Abs. 1 Satz 4 EStG im StVergAbG v. 16.5.03 (BGBl. I 2003, 660; BStBl. I 2003, 321) überholt sein. Es bleibt abzuwarten, wie der BFH über die Revision gegen das Urteil des FG Münster entscheiden wird.

d) Anwendung des innerstaatlichen Rechts des Anwendestaates.

19 IÜ findet das innerstaatl. Steuerrecht des Anwendestaates (Ansässigkeitsstaates) bei der Ermittlung der der Anrechnung zugrunde zu legenden Einkünfte (Nettobetrag) ergänzende Anwendung (BFH v. 13.9.89 I R 117/87, BStBl. II 1990, 57). In die dt. Bemessungsgrundlage können nur im Inland stpfl. Einkünfte einbezogen werden. Soweit Dtl. der Anwendestaat ist, gelten das allg. Veranlassungsprinzip, die im EStG oder KStG verankerten Abzugsverbote und für natürl. Personen und Personengesellschaften auch § 12 Nr. 1 EStG. Die Anrechnungsmethode schließt einen Verlustausgleich nicht aus. Allerdings sind §§ 2 a, § 15 a, § 15 b und § 34 c Abs. 1 S. 4 EStG zu beachten (vgl. Schönfeld/Häck in S/D, Art. 23A/B Rz. 52).

e)

20 Teilwertabschreibung, Währungsgewinne und -verluste (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 28 und 29).

21, 22 einstweilen frei

3. Das Beziehen von Einkünften

a)

23 Begriff (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 32 und 84).

b)

24 Zeitpunkt des Beziehens (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 33 und 84).

25, 26 einstweilen frei

4. Das Halten von Vermögen

a)

27 Vermögensbegriff (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 36).

b)

28 Negatives Vermögen (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 37). Im Bereich der Anrechnungsmethode ist negatives Vermögen, das in dem anderen Vertragsstaat belegen ist und für das auch dieser ein Besteuerungsrecht hat, stets zu berücksichtigen, soweit das innerstaatl. Steuerrecht des Anwendestaates der Berücksichtigung nicht entgegensteht.

c)

29 Zuordnung von Schulden zu Vermögensteilen (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 38).

d)

30 Vermögensstichtag (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 40).

31, 32 einstweilen frei

5. Besteuerung nach dem Abkommen im anderen Vertragsstaat

a) Einkünftebesteuerung.

33 Die Verpflichtung des Ansässigkeitsstaates, die Steuern des anderen Vertragsstaates auf die eigene Steuer anzurechnen, greift nur ein, wenn die Einkünfte nach dem Abk. in dem anderen Vertragsstaat besteuert werden können. Ob dies der Fall ist, bestimmt sich nur nach den Art. 6 bis 21 und nicht nach dem innerstaatl. Steuerrecht des anderen Vertragsstaates. Insoweit geltend die Ausführungen in MA Art. 23A Rz. 46 und 88 mit der Maßgabe entsprechend, dass eine Nichtbesteuerung im anderen Vertragsstaat faktisch die Anrechnung ausländ. Steuern im Ansässigkeitsstaat ausschließt. Dabei ist es irrelevant, aus welchem Grunde der andere Vertragsstaat von seinem Besteuerungsrecht keinen Gebrauch macht.

b) Vermögenbesteuerung.

34 Die Ausführungen in Rz. 33 und in MA Art. 23A Rz. 46, 47 gelten entsprechend.

c)

35 Im anderen Vertragsstaat (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 48 und 88).

36, 37 einstweilen frei

6. Die Anrechnung durch den Ansässigkeitsstaat

a)

38 Allgemeine Ermittlungspflichten (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 91).

b) Ermittlung der Einkünfte.

39 Die Ausführungen in MA Art. 23A Rz. 92 gelten im Bereich des Art. 23B Abs. 1 sinngem. für alle unter die Vorschrift fallenden Einkünfte und nicht nur für Dividenden und Zinsen.

c) Uneingeschränkte oder gewöhnliche Anrechnung.

40 Art. 23B Nr. 23 MK unterscheidet zw. der uneingeschränkten und der gewöhnl. Anrechnung. Unter der uneingeschränkten Anrechnung wird die volle Anrechnung der ausländ. Steuer ohne Berücksichtigung eines Höchstbetrages verstanden. Gewöhnlich ist dagegen eine Steueranrechnung unter Berücksichtigung eines Höchstbetrages.

41 einstweilen frei

7. Die im anderen Staat gezahlte Steuer

a) Steuer.

42 Die Ausführungen in MA Art. 23A Rz. 67 gelten mit der Maßgabe entsprechend, dass der Ausdruck „Steuer“ in Art. 23B Abs. 1 auch die VSt umfasst. Während Art. 23A Abs. 2 nur im anderen Vertragsstaat erhobene Quellensteuern betrifft, erfasst Art. 23B Abs. 1 auch die durch Veranlagung erhobene ausländ. Steuer. Dazu verweist Art. 23A und 23B Nr. 61 MK auf Probleme, die sich ergeben können, wenn in dem anderen Vertragsstaat die Steuer nicht unter Zugrundelegung des Einkommens für das Jahr, für das sie erhoben wird, sondern des Einkommens eines früheren Jahres oder des Durchschnittseinkommens mehrerer vorhergehender Jahre berechnet wird. Für diese Probleme ließen sich kaum ausdrückl. Abk.-Regelungen finden. Die ausländ. Steuer muss in Übereinstimmung mit dem Abk. erhoben worden sein. Fehlt es an dieser Voraussetzung, ist der Ansässigkeitsstaat nicht zur Anrechnung der ausländ. Steuer verpflichtet. Eine DBest. kann allerdings im Verständigungsverfahren beseitigt werden. Anrechenbar ist iÜ nur eine solche ausländ. Steuer, die nach Art. 2 in den Schutzbereich des Abk. fällt. Der BFH hat über die Rechtsfrage in seinem Urteil v. 31.7.91 I R 51/89, BStBl. II 1991, 922, zur schweiz. Praenumerando-Besteuerung entschieden, dass nach dem ausländ. Steuerrecht zu bestimmen sei, welche Einkünfte in welchem Zeitraum besteuert werden. Dabei kommt es nur auf den Zeitpunkt des Bezuges nach dem Steuerrecht des anderen Vertragsstaates, dh. auf die Besteuerung im formellen Sinne und nicht auf den tatsächl. Ansatz der Einkünfte in einer Bemessungsgrundlage an. Werden allerdings Einkünfte, die tatsächl. erst im Jahre 02 bezogen werden, in dem anderen Vertragsstaat (fälschlicherweise) schon für das Jahr 01 besteuert, so muss der anrechnende Ansässigkeitsstaat diesen „Fehler“ nachvollziehen und die anteilige Steuer des Jahres 01 anrechnen, wenn der im anderen Vertragsstaat erlassene Bescheid bestandskräftig ist. Die jeweils maßgebenden VZ müssen nicht in den beiden Vertragsstaaten übereinstimmen.

b)

43 Keine Umrechnung auf eine ausländische Steuer vom Nettobetrag (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 96).

c)

44 Zahlungs- und Anrechnungszeitpunkt (vgl. MA Art. 23 Rz. 97).

d)

45 Zahlung (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 98).

46, 47 einstweilen frei

8. Die Anrechnung auf die im Ansässigkeitsstaat zu erhebende Steuer

a) Anrechnung.

48 Die Ausführungen in MA Art. 23A Rz. 101 gelten mit der Maßgabe entsprechend, dass sie auch eine VSt erfassen.

b)

49 Berechnung des Anrechnungsbetrages (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 102).

c)

50 Per-Country-Limitation (vgl. Art. 23A Rz. 103).

d)

51 Keine Anrechnung auf die Gewerbeertragsteuer (vgl. Art. 23A Rz. 104; aA: Schönfeld/Häck in S/D, Art. 23A/B Rz. 111).

52, 53 einstweilen frei

9. Höchstbetragsberechnung

a)

54 Verhältnis zu § 34 c Abs. 1 S. 2 EStG (vgl. Art. 23A Rz. 107). Es ist damit zu rechnen, dass der Gesetzgeber § 34 c Abs. 1 S. 2 und 3 EStG im ZollkodexAnpG geändert hat. Die Änderung gilt rückwirkend für alle noch nicht bestandskräftigen Veranlagungen. Ausgangspunkte sind das EuGH-Urteil v. 28. 2. 13 C-168/11, IStR 2013, 470 und das BFH-Urteil vom 18.12.13 I R 71/10, IStR 2014, 302 (vgl. Art. 23A Rz. 102). Unbeschränkt Steuerpfl., die auch ausländ. Einkünfte erzielen, wurden nach der bisherigen Regelung ggü. anderen unbeschr. Steuerpfl., die nur inländ. Einkünfte erzielen, benachteiligt, weil bei den ausländ. Einkünften die Kosten der persönl. Lebensführung und andere personen- und familienbezogenen Aufwendungen im ESt-Tarif nicht berücksichtigt wurden. Künftig sollen ausländ. Steuern höchstens mit der durchschnittl. auf die ausländ. Einkünfte entfallenden tarifl. dt. ESt angerechnet werden.

b) § 34 c Abs. 1 S. 4 EStG.

55 Der dt. Gesetzgeber hat im StVergAbG vom 16.5.03 (BGBl. I 2003, 660, BStBl I 2003, 321) § 34 c Abs. 1 S. 4 EStG eingefügt. Die dt. FinVerw. leitet aus der Gesetzesänderung ab, dass ab dem VZ 2003 von bestimmten ausländ. Einkünften Betriebsausgaben/Betriebsvermögensminderungen in größerem Umfang abgesetzt werden müssen. Ein Veranlassungszusammenhang zw. Aufwendungen und Einnahmen iSv. § 4 Abs. 4 EStG soll nicht mehr erforderlich sein. Es reiche ein mittelbarer Kausalzusammenhang zw. Aufwendungen und Einnahmen aus. Letztlich geht es um die Auslegung des in § 34 c Abs. 1 S. 4 EStG verwendeten Begriffes des „wirtschaftlichen Zusammenhanges“. Es geht auch um die Frage, ob der Zusammenhang nur zu den Einnahmen oder aber zu der Einnahmeerzielung bestehen muss. Das FG Münster hat durch Urteil v. 17.9.14 10 K 1310/12 K (EFG 2015, 303) die Auffassung der FinVerw. als richtig bestätigt. Gegen die Entscheidung wurde Revision eingelegt. Das FG Köln hat durch Urteil v. 1.10.14 10 K 3593/12, EFG 2015, 151 allerdings zu § 8 b Abs. 2 S. 2 KStG anders entschieden. Nach der hier vertretenen Auffassung steht die Entscheidung im Widerspruch zu den EuGH-Urteilen v. 28.2.13 C-168/11, IStR 2013, 470, und v. 11.9.14 C-489/13, SWI 2014, 489, sowie zu dem BFH-Urteil v. 18.12.13 I R 71/10, IStR 2014, 302 (vgl. Rz. 18).

c)

56 Höchstbetragsformel (vgl. Art. 23A Rz. 108).

d)

57 Summe der Einkünfte (vgl. Art. 23A Rz. 109).

e)

58 Ausländische Einkünfte (vgl. Art. 23A Rz. 110).

f)

59 Inländische Gesamtsteuer (vgl. Art. 23A Rz. 111).

g)

60 Währungsumrechnungen (vgl. Art. 23A Rz. 112).

h)

61 Die auf die im Veranlagungszeitraum bezogenen Einkünfte entfallenden Steuern (vgl. Art. 23A Rz. 113).

62–70 einstweilen frei

III. Absatz 2

1. Allgemeines

71 Identität mit Art. 23A Abs. 3. Art. 23B Abs. 2 und Art. 23A Abs. 3 stimmen wörtlich überein. Deshalb kann auf die allg. Ausführungen zum Progressionsvorbehalt in MA Art. 23A Rz. 121 bis 124 Bezug genommen werden.

72, 73 einstweilen frei

2. Regelungsinhalt

74 Identität mit Art. 23A Abs. 3 (vgl. MA Art. 23A Rz. 127 ff.).

IV. Anrechnung fiktiver Steuern und Anwendung einer Abzugsmethode

75 Anrechnung fiktiver Steuern. Im MA ist die Anrechnung fiktiver Steuern nicht vorgesehen. Deutschland hat jedoch in der Vergangenheit mit Staaten wie Ägypten, Argentinien, Bangladesch, Bolivien, China, Ecuador, Elfenbeinküste, Griechenland, Indien, Indonesien, Iran, Irland, Israel, Jamaika, Kenia, Liberia, Malaysia, Malta, Marokko, Mauritius, Mexiko, Mongolei, Philippinen, Papua-Neuguinea, Portugal, Simbabwe, Sri Lanka, Trinidad und Tobago, Türkei, Tunesien, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam und Zypern immer wieder entspr. Vereinbarungen getroffen. Die Vereinbarungen betrafen idR nur den Bezug von Dividenden, Zinsen und Lizenzgebühren aus dem jeweils anderen Vertragsstaat. Überwiegend war der Zeitraum der fiktiven Anrechnung unbegrenzt. Teilweise wurde die fiktive Anrechnung nur auf die Dauer von 10 Jahren gewährt (zB DBA-Malta). In Abk., die in jüngerer Zeit neu abgeschlossen wurde, ist die Anrechnung fiktiver Steuern nicht mehr vorgesehen (vgl. DBA-Mexiko 2008, DBA-Türkei 2011, DBA-Zypern 2011). Es muss damit gerechnet werden, dass die Anrechnung fiktiver Steuern künftig nicht mehr von Dtl. vereinbart wird. Soweit die Anrechnung fiktiver Steuern möglich ist, richtet sie sich nach dem einschlägigen Abk. iVm. § 34 c Abs. 1 S. 2 und 3 EStG.

76 Abzugsmethode. § 34 c Abs. 2 EStG und § 26 Abs. 6 KStG sehen die Möglichkeit vor, auf Antrag des Steuerpfl. statt der Anrechnung ausländ. Steuern deren Abzug bei der Ermittlung der Einkünfte zu beantragen. Diese Möglichkeit wird durch die Abk. nicht eingeschränkt. Der Antrag ist sinnvoll, wenn aus Gründen eines Verlustausgleichs, eines Verlustvortrags oder eines Verlustrücktrags keine inländ. Steuer anfällt, auf die die gezahlte ausländ. Steuer angerechnet werden könnte.