In cases where a tax treaty does not regulate the length of the consultation process, the Netherlands endeavours to meet the LMM deadlines as outlined above. When an application is made at a time when taxation contrary to tax law is imminent but has not yet been processed, the competent Dutch authority, after consultation with the taxpayer, will consider whether the application can be processed. In order to assess the existence of an imposition contrary to the convention, it is necessary to be sufficiently plausible for a tax to be applied in violation of the tax treaty. In this case, the other competent authority may consider that this is not yet the case and any proceedings initiated may conclude by concluding that no tax to the contrary is (yet) contrary to the convention. When a mutual consultation procedure is implemented on the basis of the European Union Arbitration Agreement, the merger procedure with the opposition procedure applies in the same way as to procedures implemented on the basis of a tax treaty. This decision is cited as follows: Map-tiebreaker Decision If an application has been made under the CEF, the deadlines for the decision to accept the application and the deadlines for the decision of the case will not begin until the end of this national procedure by an irrevocable judgment, or will be withdrawn or suspended. – The POP-Tiebreaker provisions that have already come into force only take place if the relevant authorities have given their consent. Therefore, the authorization does not apply where a Tiebreaker is in force but no application has been made by a subject for the inclusion of the mutual consultation procedure on the basis of this Tiebreaker provision. A request to the IZV Board of Directors to initiate a consultation procedure under the CEF contains at least the following information. Within the EU, the EU Arbitration Convention came into force on 1 January 1995 as an instrument that promised to allow the elimination of double taxation between Member States. It is important that it provides for a binding and binding arbitration mechanism that eliminates double taxation, with the advice of an independent advisory body, if the competent authorities fail to reach an agreement after two years.
This went beyond the bilateral agreements in force at the time, which simply obliged the competent authorities to make their “best efforts” to eliminate double taxation.