Mutual Agreement Procedure as Mechanism for the Settlement of International Tax Disputes

Postopek skupnega dogovora je poseben postopek v skladu z mednarodnim pravom, rezultat katerega je dogovor med dvema državama, bodisi v zvezi z davčno obravnavo konkretnega davčnega zavezanca bodisi v zvezi z razlago posameznega člena mednarodne pogodbe oziroma v zvezi z odpravo dvojnega obdavčevanja v primerih, ki z mednarodno pogodbo ni eksplicitno predvidena. Namen postopka skupnega dogovora kot posebnega pravnega sredstva po mednarodnem pravu je preizkus pravilnosti in zakonitosti obdavčitve v davčnih razmerjih z mednarodnim elementom. Je temeljna oblika reševanja mednarodnih davčnih sporov, ki davčnim zavezancem zagotavlja obdavčitev v skladu z mednarodno pogodbo o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja, zaradi česar je njegova učinkovitost bistvenega pomena. Iz ključnih ugotovitev izhaja, da je postopek skupnega dogovora v osnovi neobvezen, saj je v domeni posamezne države, da presodi, ali bo postopek z drugo državo začela ali ne, in nezavezujoč, saj se državi z mednarodno pogodbo zavežeta zgolj, da si bosta prizadevali rešiti sporna vprašanja v zvezi z uporabo oziroma razlago konkretne pogodbe. Rezultat v obliki skupnega dogovora in s tem garancija pravnega varstva davčnega zavezanca tako ni nujna posledica začetega postopka.The mutual agreement procedure is a special procedure granted under the international law, the result of which is an agreement between two states - either in connection to the tax treatment of an individual taxpayer or in the interpretation of a specific article of the international agreement - as well as the elimination of double taxation in cases, where such elimination is not explicitly foreseen in the international agreement. The purpose of the mutual agreement procedure as a special legal remedy under the international law is to establish the correctness and legality of taxation that includes an international element. It is considered as the basic method of resolving international tax disputes, granting taxpayers taxation in accordance with the international agreement on avoidance of double taxation, therefore its effectiveness is of utmost importance. The final conclusions show that the mutual agreement procedure is non-mandatory, since every state has the capacity to determine, whether it will initiate the procedure, as well as it is not binding, since following the agreement the states only undertake to resolve issues pertaining to the application or interpretation of the agreement. The result in the form of a mutual agreement and thereby the guarantee of legal protection granted to a taxpayer is not necessarily the consequence of the initiated procedure