This study clarifies the meaning and application of Article 3(2) of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital. It maps the entire historical debate on the provision, illuminates flawed assumptions and misunderstandings in its course, and outlines how these continue to fuel the current controversies. In addition, it provides a comprehensive analysis of German case law concerning the interpretation of tax treaties and examines the extent to which the German Federal Fiscal Court has been influenced by views developed in doctrine. Finally, it clarifies the relationship between Article 3(2) and the rules on treaty interpretation codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the meaning of 'context', and how the condition 'unless the context otherwise requires' is to be applied. Thereby, an approach is submitted that is firmly based on public international law principles and transcends the current controversies into a holistic synthesis.

This study clarifies the meaning and application of Article 3(2) of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital. It maps the entire historical debate on the provision, illuminates flawed assumptions and misunderstandings in its course, and outlines how these continue to fuel the current controversies. In addition, it provides a comprehensive analysis of German case law concerning the interpretation of tax treaties and examines the extent to which the German Federal Fiscal Court has been influenced by views developed in doctrine. Finally, it clarifies the relationship between Article 3(2) and the rules on treaty interpretation codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the meaning of 'context', and how the condition 'unless the context otherwise requires' is to be applied. Thereby, an approach is submitted that is firmly based on public international law principles and transcends the current controversies into a holistic synthesis.

RICHARD X. RESCH THE INTERPRETATION OF PLURILINGUAL TAX TREATIES Based on an analysis of 3,844 tax treaties, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and its Commentaries (VCLT), and case law of various domestic and international courts. The current orthodoxy maintains that courts are not required to compare all language texts of a plurilingual treaty but may rely on a single one for cases of routine interpretation. This view is erroneous, in violation of the VCLT, and the source of treaty misapplication; taxpayers are ill-advised to pay attention only to the text in their own language. In daily practice, the issue is of great relevance: almost three-quarters of the well over 3,000 concluded tax treaties are plurilingual. The BEPS MLI escalates complexity because it modifies a large number of treaties having texts in various languages. This study aims to (1) help diminish treaty misapplication through abandonment of the current orthodoxy, (2) show that sole reliance on prevailing texts is available as a pragmatic alternative in line with the VCLT, and (3) provide policy recommendations how residual cases may be eliminated. To support these goals, this study seeks to provide conclusive arguments and useful data to policy makers, treaty negotiators, judges, practitioners, and scholars. Its analysis of all tax treaty final clauses is intended to help both taxpayers and courts interpreting tax treaties in practice. The general arguments presented in this book are however not limited to tax treaties, since similar issues play a role in the interpretation of other treaties, for example, in the field of foreign investment regulation.