Rule against foreign revenue enforcement

Last updated

The rule against foreign revenue enforcement, often abbreviated to the revenue rule, is a general legal principle that the courts of one country will not enforce the tax laws of another country. [1] [2] [3] The rule is part of the conflict of laws rules developed at common law, and forms part of the act of state doctrine.

Contents

In State of Colorado v. Harbeck, 133 N.E. 357, 360 (N.Y. 1921) the court referred to

The ... well-settled principle of private international law which precludes one state from acting as a collector of taxes for a sister state and from enforcing its penal or revenue laws as such. The rule is universally recognized that the revenue laws of one state have no force in another. [4]

In England, Lord Denning MR said in Att-Gen of New Zealand v Ortiz [1984] AC 1 at 20:

No one has ever doubted that our courts will not entertain a suit brought by a foreign sovereign, directly or indirectly, to enforce the penal or revenue laws of that foreign state. We do not sit to collect taxes for another country or to inflict punishments for it. [5]

The rule has been repeatedly applied in the United Kingdom, [6] the United States, [7] Canada, [8] Australia, [9] Ireland, [10] Singapore, [11] and other countries. [12] [13] It has also been codified into statute in various countries. [14]

History of the rule

The earliest reported case on the rule is believed to be Attorney General v Lutwydge (1729) Bumb 280, 145 ER 674. In that case, the English courts refused to enforce a bond for Scottish tobacco duties. In 1775 Lord Mansfield CJ pronounced in Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341 at 343, 98 ER 1120 at 1121 that "no country ever takes notice of the revenue laws of another". In 1779 he repeated that position in Planche v Fletcher (1779) 1 Douglas 251, 99 ER 164. [15]

English law

Although the rule had been referred to an applied in a number of English cases from as early as 1729, [16] the rule itself was not considered beyond doubt in England until the decision of the House of Lords in Government of India v Taylor [1955] AC 491. [17] In that case the House of Lords unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal (who had in turn unanimously upheld the trial judge) that the liquidator of an English company could not pay out sums to a foreign government because the tax claim was not justiciable in England.

The rule as it applies under English law is summarised in Dicey Morris & Collins at Rule 3:

RULE 3 - English courts have no jurisdiction to entertain an action (1) for the enforcement, either directly or indirectly, of a penal, revenue or other public law of a foreign State; or (2) founded upon an act of state. [18]

In Re State of Norway's Application (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 723 the Norwegian government sought assistance from the English courts in collecting evidence in relation to a tax claim. The respondent resisted the application on the basis that it violated the revenue rule, but the House of Lords held that assisting with the collection of evidence would not violate the rule. Lord Goff said "It is of importance to observe that that rule is limited to cases of direct or indirect enforcement in this country of the revenue laws of a foreign state. It is plain that the present case is not concerned with the direct enforcement of the revenue laws of the State of Norway. Is it concerned with their indirect enforcement? I do not think so." [19]

In QRS 1 Aps v Frandsen [1999] 1 WLR 2169 it was held that to uphold a contractual provision between two private contracting parties for an indemnity against the payment of foreign taxes would not constitute an indirect enforcement of a foreign tax claim, and so was enforceable.

United States

The revenue rule has been repeatedly applied by courts in the United States. [20] The rule was first applied in the United States in 1806 in Ludlow v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. R. 94 (N.Y. 1806). [1]

Initially the rule was also applied to claims for taxes made by other states within the US. In Maryland v. Turner, 132 N.Y. 173, 174 (1911) the courts of New York state refused to enforce a judgment debt relating to taxes due in Maryland. In Colorado v. Harbeck, 133 N.E. 357, 360 (N.Y. 1921) it was held that there was a "well-settled principle of private international law which precludes one state from acting as a collector of taxes for a sister state and from enforcing its penal or revenue laws as such. The rule is universally recognized that the revenue laws of one state have no force in another." [1] However, in Moore v. Mitchell, 30 F.2d 600, 600 (2d Cir. 1929) the U.S. Supreme Court limited the application of the rule in the interstate context.

In Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 268 (1935) the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether revenue laws of other states should be enforced under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Supreme Court declined to extend the full faith and credit provision to revenue statutes themselves, but limited its ruling to enforcement of tax judgments handed down in the courts of other states. [1]

Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld and applied the revenue rule in United States v. Harden [1963] SCR 366. [21]

Civil law jurisdictions

Civil law (as opposed to common law) jurisdictions will not generally entertain foreign tax claims on the basis that they are public laws, and therefore cannot be enforced outside of the state or territory. [22] In the Swedish case of Bulgariska Staten v Takvorian (NJA 1954 s.268) [23] the court held "a state cannot use a Swedish court to collect taxes or to have other contributions made to a foreign state". [22]

European Union

The rule has been partially abrogated within the European Union by article 39 of the Insolvency Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000).

Any creditor who has his habitual residence, domicile or registered office in a Member State other than the State of the opening of proceedings, including the tax authorities and social security authorities of Member States, shall have the right to lodge claims in the insolvency proceedings in writing (emphasis added). [24]

Criticism

The rule has been subjected to criticism. Professor Adrian Briggs of Oxford University has criticised it on the basis that it promotes the evasion of tax liabilities. [25] Another commentator has called it "anachronistic and destructive". [20] But other commentators have defended it, both as a matter of practice and principle. [1] [26]

Abrogation

Nations can, and do, abrogate the rule on a bilateral basis by treaty. In Ben Nevis (Holdings) Limited v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 578 the English courts enforced a claim for South African taxes under a bilateral treaty between the countries.

However, whilst treaties to share information relating to taxable liabilities are common, or for relief from double taxation, treaties empowering nations to enforce each other's tax law are relatively uncommon. Brenda Mallinak records that in 2006 the United States had only five such treaties, despite having a large number of international treaties for tax information exchange. [1] On 28 January 2003, the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and Capital was modified to include a new Article 27 as a model for comprehensive collection assistance in treaty negotiations. [27]

Related Research Articles

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to law:

Conflict of laws is the set of rules or laws a jurisdiction applies to a case, transaction, or other occurrence that has connections to more than one jurisdiction. This body of law deals with three broad topics: jurisdiction, rules regarding when it is appropriate for a court to hear such a case; foreign judgments, dealing with the rules by which a court in one jurisdiction mandates compliance with a ruling of a court in another jurisdiction; and choice of law, which addresses the question of which substantive laws will be applied in such a case. These issues can arise in any private-law context, but they are especially prevalent in contract law and tort law.

Personal jurisdiction is a court's jurisdiction over the parties, as determined by the facts in evidence, which bind the parties to a lawsuit, as opposed to subject-matter jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction over the law involved in the suit. Without personal jurisdiction over a party, a court's rulings or decrees cannot be enforced upon that party, except by comity; i.e., to the extent that the sovereign which has jurisdiction over the party allows the court to enforce them upon that party. A court that has personal jurisdiction has both the authority to rule on the law and facts of a suit and the power to enforce its decision upon a party to the suit. In some cases, territorial jurisdiction may also constrain a court's reach, such as preventing hearing of a case concerning events occurring on foreign territory between two citizens of the home jurisdiction. A similar principle is that of standing or locus standi, which is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.

Extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) is the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal boundaries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Government of India</span> Legislative, executive and judiciary authority of India

The Government of India, also known as the Central Government or simply the Centre, is the national authority of the Republic of India, a federal democracy located in South Asia, consisting of 28 union states and eight union territories.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of India</span> Legal system of India

The legal system of India consists of civil law, common law, customary law, religious law and corporate law within the legal framework inherited from the colonial era and various legislation first introduced by the British are still in effect in modified forms today. Since the drafting of the Indian Constitution, Indian laws also adhere to the United Nations guidelines on human rights law and the environmental law.

<i>R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport</i> UK-Spanish legal case

R v Secretary of State for Transport was a judicial review case taken against the United Kingdom government by a company of Spanish fishermen who claimed that the United Kingdom had breached European Union law by requiring ships to have a majority of British owners if they were to be registered in the UK. The case produced a number of significant judgements on British constitutional law, and was the first time that courts held that they had power to restrain the application of an Act of Parliament pending trial and ultimately to disapply that Act when it was found to be contrary to EU law.

Characterisation, or characterization, in conflict of laws, is the second stage of the procedure to resolve a lawsuit that involves foreign law. The process is described in English law as Characterisation, or classification within the English judgments of the European Court of Justice. It is alternatively known as qualification in French law.

In law, the enforcement of foreign judgments is the recognition and enforcement in one jurisdiction of judgments rendered in another ("foreign") jurisdiction. Foreign judgments may be recognized based on bilateral or multilateral treaties or understandings, or unilaterally without an express international agreement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Income tax in the United States</span> Form of taxation in the United States

The United States federal government and most state governments impose an income tax. They are determined by applying a tax rate, which may increase as income increases, to taxable income, which is the total income less allowable deductions. Income is broadly defined. Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and trusts may be taxable on undistributed income. Partnerships are not taxed, but their partners are taxed on their shares of partnership income. Residents and citizens are taxed on worldwide income, while nonresidents are taxed only on income within the jurisdiction. Several types of credits reduce tax, and some types of credits may exceed tax before credits. Most business expenses are deductible. Individuals may deduct certain personal expenses, including home mortgage interest, state taxes, contributions to charity, and some other items. Some deductions are subject to limits, and an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) applies at the federal and some state levels.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brussels Regime</span> Rules regulating jurisdiction of courts

The Brussels Regime is a set of rules regulating which courts have jurisdiction in legal disputes of a civil or commercial nature between individuals resident in different member states of the European Union (EU) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). It has detailed rules assigning jurisdiction for the dispute to be heard and governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

The act-of-state doctrine is a principle in international law whereby acts done by a state in its own territory cannot be challenged by the national courts of another state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arbitration</span> Method of dispute resolution

Arbitration is a formal method of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) involving a neutral third party who makes a binding decision. The dispute will be decided by one or more persons, which renders the 'arbitration award'. An arbitration decision or award is legally binding on both sides and enforceable in the courts, unless all parties stipulate that the arbitration process and decision are non-binding.

Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the recognition and enforceability of a foreign judgment rested on the "comity of nations," namely whether there would be any reciprocity and mutual recognition by the foreign jurisdiction from which the judgment was issued.

The rule of the shorter term, also called the comparison of terms, is a provision in international copyright treaties. The provision allows that signatory countries can limit the duration of copyright they grant to foreign works under national treatment to no more than the copyright term granted in the country of origin of the work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Primacy of European Union law</span> Legal principle

The primacy of European Union law is a legal principle establishing precedence of European Union law over conflicting national laws of EU member states.

Smith v. Turner; Norris v. Boston, 48 U.S. 283 (1849), were two similar cases, argued together before the United States Supreme Court, which decided 5–4 that states do not have the right to impose a tax that is determined by the number of passengers of a designated category on board a ship and/or disembarking into the State. The cases are sometimes called the Passenger Case or Passenger Cases.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law. However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution; that is, they must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers, and not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights—of particular interest is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that the federal government has only those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution.

<i>Government of India v Taylor</i>

Government of India v Taylor [1955] AC 491 is a judicial decision of the House of Lords relating to the enforceability of foreign tax claims under English law. The House of Lords unanimously upheld the general rule at common law that foreign tax claims are non-justiciable in England under the Act of state doctrine. Accordingly, a claim with respect to foreign taxes was not an admissible claim in the liquidation of a United Kingdom company. The English courts may not, directly or indirectly, enforce the tax claims of another sovereign state.

Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a plot to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue violates the federal wire fraud statute.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mallinak, Brenda (2006). "The Revenue Rule: A Common Law Doctrine for the Twenty First Century". Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law. 16 (1): 79–124. Retrieved 16 August 2017.
  2. ↑ Curl, Joseph (2010). "A purposive approach to the rule against foreign revenue enforcement" (PDF). International Corporate Rescue. 7 (2): 137–139. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
  3. ↑ A.N. Sack (1933). "(Non-)Enforcement of Foreign Revenue Laws, in International Law and Practice". University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 82 (5): 559–585. doi:10.2307/3308175. JSTOR   3308175. S2CID   154023631 . Retrieved 17 August 2017.
  4. ↑ "Colorado v. Harbeck". Uniset. Retrieved 18 August 2017.
  5. ↑ Cited with approval in Iran v Barakat Galleries Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1374 at para [104].
  6. ↑ Government of India v Taylor [1955] AC 491
  7. ↑ Moore v. Mitchell, 30 F.2d 600, 600 (2d Cir. 1929)
  8. ↑ United States v. Harden [1963] SCR 366
  9. ↑ Jamieson v Commissioner for Internal Revenue [2007] NSWSC 324
  10. ↑ Peter Buchanan Ltd v McVey [1954] Ir 89
  11. ↑ Relfo Limited v Varsani [2008] SGHC 105
  12. ↑ "Court Clarifies Treatment of Foreign Tax Liabilities in Bankruptcy". Maples and Calder. 7 May 2014. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
  13. ↑ Webb v Webb [2020] UKPC 22 (Cook Islands)
  14. ↑ "Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, section 1(2)(b)" . Retrieved 14 August 2017.
  15. ↑ "Planche v Fletcher". Uniset. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
  16. ↑ Cases where the rule was applied or referred to include: Municipal Council of Sydney v Bull [1909] 1 KB 7; King of the Hellenes v Brostrom [1923] 16 Lloyd's List LR 190; Queen of Holland v Drukker [1928] 1 Ch 877 and Re Visser [1928] Ch 877.
  17. ↑ North, P. M.; Fawcett, J. J. (1992). Cheshire & North's Private International Law (12th ed.). Butterworths. p. 114. ISBN   0406530815. Although it has been generally accepted, at any rate since the time of Lord Mansfield, that no action lies in England for the enforcement of a foreign revenue law, authority for the proposition long remained a little nebulous ... All doubts were, however, stilled in 1955 by the decision of the House of Lords in Government of India v Taylor
  18. ↑ Dicey Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws (14th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. 2006. para 5R-019. ISBN   978-0-421-88360-4.
  19. ↑ "Re State of Norway's Application (No 2)". Uniset. Retrieved 18 August 2017.
  20. 1 2 Silver, Barbara (1933). "Modernizing the Revenue Rule: The Enforcement of Foreign Tax Judgments". Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law. 22 (3): 609–633. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
  21. ↑ "United States v. Harden". Lexum. January 2001. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
  22. 1 2 Sumitha Krishnan. "The Revenue Rule and International Taxation". Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
  23. ↑ "FOLKRÄTTSFRÅGOR I DEN INOMSTATLIGA RÄTTSSKIPNINGEN" . Retrieved 18 August 2017.
  24. ↑ "Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000". Lex Europa. Retrieved 14 February 2024.
  25. ↑ Briggs, Adrian (2001). "The Revenue Rule in the Conflict of Laws: Time for a Makeover". Singapore Journal of Legal Studies. 96: 280–295.
  26. ↑ Baker, Philip (2002). "Changing the Norm on Cross-border Enforcement of Debts". Intertax. 30 (6/7): 216–218. doi:10.1023/A:1016077020210.
  27. ↑ "Commentary on Article 27: Concerning the Assistance in the Collection of Taxes". Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital 2017 (Full Version). Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (Full Version). 2019. doi:10.1787/4d723bbd-en. ISBN   9789264303782. S2CID   242846356.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.