Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-gctlb Total loading time: 0.255 Render date: 2022-07-01T18:10:32.378Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

United States – Tax treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement (WT/DS108/ARB) A Comment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

Robert Howse
Affiliation:
University of Michigan Law School
Damien J. Neven
Affiliation:
Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Extract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Some of the legal analysis in this study derives from joint work between Robert Howse and Susan Esserman on this ruling, “Trade disputes quire fairer arbitration,” FT.com, Sep 12, 2002

This chapter discusses the decision by the arbitrator on suspension of concessions (“retaliation”) in the dispute between the US and the EU regarding the tax treatment of offshore corporate income under US legislation. By way of background, the first part of the chapter (section 2) describes the operation of the US scheme, including as revised after the first round of WTO rulings.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

References

Bernheim, D. and Whinston, M., (1986), Common Agency, Econometrica, 54 (4), 923942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, E., (1996), Competition Policy in Customs Unions: a Natural Experiment using State Level Antitrust Enforcement, mimeo, Pen State.Google Scholar
Cannizzaro, E., (2001), The Role of Proportionality in the Law of International Countermeasures, European Journal of International Law, 12.Google Scholar
Crawford, J., (2002), The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text, and Commentaries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mavroidis, P., (2000), Remedies in the WTO Legal System: between a Rock and a Hard Place, European Journal of International Law, 11 (4), 763813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauwellyn, J., (2002), “The Nature of WTO Obligations”, Jean Monnet Working Paper, at http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org, p. 8.Google Scholar
Schwartz, W. and Sykes, A., (2002), The Economic Structure of Renegotiation and Dispute Resolution in the World Trade Organisation, The Journal of Legal Studies, 31J.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have Access
1
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

United States – Tax treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement (WT/DS108/ARB) A Comment
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

United States – Tax treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement (WT/DS108/ARB) A Comment
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

United States – Tax treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement (WT/DS108/ARB) A Comment
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *