Reuven S. Avi-Yonah (Michigan; Google Scholar) has posted three worldwide tax papers on SSRN:

Unitary Taxation After Pillar One:

Pillar One of many G20/OECD/IF BEPS 2.0 effort is unlikely to succeed for 3 causes. First, it requires a multilateral tax conference (MTC) to be applied as a result of Quantity A requires overriding Articles 5 (Everlasting Institution, PE), 7 (Enterprise Income) and 9 (Related Enterprises) of each tax treaty to abolish the PE and Arm’s Size Precept (ALP) limits enshrined therein. 

After Pillar One:

Pillar One is unlikely to succeed for 3 causes. First, it requires an MTC to be applied. However negotiating an MTC is tough, particularly when over 100 international locations are concerned and there are basic disagreements amongst them.

Second, as a result of Pillar One continues to be aimed primarily at taxing the US digital giants (Massive Tech), it’s exhausting to envisage it being applied with out the USA. However regardless of the assist of the Biden administration, for the reason that Republicans are adamantly opposed, an MTC implementing Pillar One can’t be ratified by the Senate.

Third, Pillar One is premised on all of the international locations which have adopted DSTs repealing them. However DSTs are common politically and, in some circumstances introduced in important income. The one cause international locations agreed to droop DSTs was US strain, and now that the US can not ratify an MTC, there isn’t a cause for these international locations to not implement their DSTs as scheduled in January 2024.

What is going to occur then?

This text first discusses what choices international locations should tax Massive Tech with out Pillar One, after which addresses the US response (Half I). However since “solely fools and infants could prophesy” , the article additionally discusses the choice of what could occur if Pillar One does come into power with out the US (like many different multilateral treaties together with just lately the MLI and the MAATM/CRS) (Half II).

Nothing New Underneath the Solar? The Historic Origins of the Advantages Precept:

The advantages precept (that the supply jurisdiction ought to tax energetic (enterprise) revenue and the residence jurisdiction ought to tax passive (funding) revenue) is key to the worldwide tax regime. The 4 economists in 1923 based mostly it on financial idea but additionally on the pre-1914 treaties. However the place did the pre-1914 treaties derive the advantages precept from? The reply isn’t the theoretical concerns that influenced the 4 economists. On this case a web page of historical past is price a quantity of economics. Within the medieval and early trendy custom, a distinction was made between in personam and in rem taxes. In personam taxes may solely be levied by the sovereign that a person was topic to. The implication was that a person may solely be topic to in personam taxation by his nation of citizenship, however that not like trendy residence-based taxation this tax could possibly be utilized wherever the citizen resided (like the trendy US rule). In rem taxes, however, had been imposed on the property itself, not on the person, and subsequently could possibly be levied by the supply jurisdiction.

This custom would have been acquainted to the drafters of the pre-World Warfare I treaties as a result of they had been mirrored in nineteenth century German and Swiss guidelines designed to forestall intra-federal double taxation. So, it’s believable to attribute the origins of the advantages precept to a a lot older custom than the Austria-Prussia treaty of 1899. The truth is, Andreas Thier has proven that the Swiss constitutional prohibition of inter-cantonal double taxation (1874) stems instantly from the medieval and early trendy custom.

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2023/05/avi-yonah-posts-three-international-tax-papers-on-ssrn.html