The Beat and Treaty Overrides: A Brief Response to Rosenbloom and Shaheen

2 Pages Posted: 17 Aug 2018 Last revised: 3 Oct 2018

See all articles by Bret Wells

Bret Wells

University of Houston Law Center

Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

University of Michigan Law School

Date Written: August 16, 2018

Abstract

In a recent paper posted on SSRN, Profs. David Rosenbloom and Fadi Shaheen argue that the Base Erosion Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT) (IRC section 59A), as enacted in 2017, is a potential violation of Articles 23 and 24 of US tax treaties. In addition, they argue that the BEAT does not override those treaties and therefore the treaties can be relied upon to overcome the effects of the BEAT. In our opinion, this conclusion is wrong, for two reasons. First, we believe that the BEAT is not a treaty violation. Second, we believe that even if the BEAT were found to violate treaties, it is a treaty override.

Keywords: Section 59A, BEAT, Base Erosion Anti-Abuse Tax, Alternative Minimum Tax, Treaty Override

Suggested Citation

Wells, Bret and Avi-Yonah, Reuven S., The Beat and Treaty Overrides: A Brief Response to Rosenbloom and Shaheen (August 16, 2018). U of Houston Law Center Research Paper; U of Michigan Law & Econ Research Paper No. 18-019; U of Michigan Public Law Research Paper No. 617. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3232974 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3232974

Bret Wells (Contact Author)

University of Houston Law Center ( email )

4604 Calhoun Road
Houston, TX 77204-6060
United States

Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

University of Michigan Law School ( email )

625 South State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
United States
734-647-4033 (Phone)

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
165
rank
168,903
Abstract Views
514
PlumX