IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/prodev/v9y2009i4p339-348.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should the WTO deal with e-trade taxation issues?

Author

Listed:
  • John-ren Chen

    (Centre for the Study of International Institutions (CSI), University of Innsbruck, Universitaetsstr. 15, A6020 Innsbruck)

  • Christian Smekal

    (Centre for the Study of International Institutions (CSI), University of Innsbruck, Universitaetsstr. 15, A6020 Innsbruck)

Abstract

Electronic commerce may be a great equalizer that helps to reduce, or even to eliminate, distance-related barriers to trade, but it can also exacerbate a so-called ‘digital dividend’ vis-à -vis countries with technological and infrastructural deficiencies, especially developing countries. In the following we concentrate on trade distortion caused by taxation of e-trade in intangible goods. We believe this will have a particular ramification for the developing world. General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) provisions may be relevant to many concerns with respect to the regulations of e-commerce, such as online privacy protection, illegal or illicit content, cyber crime and fraud, en-forcement of contracts, consumer protection, and taxation. In this paper, we will focus our debate mainly on the issues of taxation of e-trade with respect to the two basic principles of the WTO, that is. the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) and the National Treatment (NT) principles.

Suggested Citation

  • John-ren Chen & Christian Smekal, 2009. "Should the WTO deal with e-trade taxation issues?," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 9(4), pages 339-348, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:prodev:v:9:y:2009:i:4:p:339-348
    DOI: 10.1177/146499340900900407
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/146499340900900407
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/146499340900900407?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jones, Kent, 2004. "Who's Afraid of the WTO?," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195166163.
    2. Homburg, Stefan, 2000. "Das einkommensteuerliche Ehegattensplitting," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 261-268.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eichfelder, Sebastian, 2006. "Ehegattensplitting und ALG II: Nettoeinkommensoptimierung bei Erwerbslosigkeit," Discussion Papers 2006/12, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    2. Bergs Christian & Fuest Clemens & Peichl Andreas & Schaefer Thilo, 2007. "Reformoptionen der Familienbesteuerung: Aufkommens-, Verteilungs- und Arbeitsangebotseffekte," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 58(1), pages 1-27, April.
    3. Schlick, Gregor, 2005. "Das Splitting-Verfahren bei der Einkommensteuerveranlagung von Ehegatten," Wirtschaftsdienst – Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik (1949 - 2007), ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 85(5), pages 312-319.
    4. Beznoska, Martin & Hentze, Tobias, 2017. "Steuerklassenwahl beim Ehegattensplitting," IW-Kurzberichte 41.2017, Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW) / German Economic Institute.
    5. Beznoska, Martin & Hentze, Tobias, 2017. "Ehegattensplitting auf dem Prüfstand," IW-Kurzberichte 59.2017, Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW) / German Economic Institute.
    6. Viktor Steiner & Katharina Wrohlich, 2006. "Introducing Family Tax Splitting in Germany: How Would It Affect the Income Distribution and Work Incentives," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 612, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    7. Homburg, Stefan, 2010. "Allgemeine Steuerlehre: Kapitel 1. Grundbegriffe der Steuerlehre," EconStor Books, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 92547, September.
    8. Hermann Buslei & Katharina Wrohlich, 2014. "Besteuerung von Paaren: das Ehegattensplitting und seine Alternativen," DIW Roundup: Politik im Fokus 21, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    9. Hackmann, Johannes, 2009. "Ungereimtheiten Der Traditionell In Deutschland Vorherrschenden Rechtfertigungsansaetze Fuer Das Ehegattensplitting," Working Paper 93/2009, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg.
    10. Schock, Matthias Malte, 2019. "Steuerreformvorschläge des Mirrlees Committee und der Stiftung Marktwirtschaft [Tax Reform Proposals of the Mirrlees Committee and the Stiftung Marktwirtschaft]," MPRA Paper 96689, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Viktor Steiner & Katharina Wrohlich, 2004. "Household Taxation, Income Splitting and Labor Supply Incentives – A Microsimulation Study for Germany," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 50(3), pages 541-568.
    12. Maiterth Ralf, 2004. "Verteilungswirkungen alternativer Konzepte zur Familienförderung / Distributional Effects of Alternative Concepts of Family Support: Eine empirische Analyse auf Grundlage der Einkommensteuerstatistik ," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 224(6), pages 696-730, December.
    13. Schätzlein, Uwe, 2019. "Ehegattensplitting und negative Arbeitsanreize: Ein mikroökonomischer Ansatz zur Negation der steuerrechtlichen Relevanz," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 244, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    14. Cay Folkers, 2003. "Ehegattensplitting und Leistungsfähigkeitsprinzip," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 4(4), pages 413-424, November.
    15. Dräther, Hendrik & Rothgang, Heinz, 2004. "Die Familienversicherung für Ehepaare in der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung: Problemanalyse und Lösungsvorschläge," Working papers of the ZeS 09/2004, University of Bremen, Centre for Social Policy Research (ZeS).
    16. Bechara, Peggy & Beimann, Boris & Kambeck, Rainer & Schaffner, Sandra & von den Driesch, Ellen, 2013. "Gutachten zur Reform des Ehegattensplittings," RWI Projektberichte, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, number 111424.
    17. Viktor Steiner & Katharina Wrohlich, 2008. "Introducing Family Tax Splitting in Germany: How Would It Affect the Income Distribution, Work Incentives, and Household Welfare?," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 64(1), pages 115-142, March.
    18. Jörg Althammer, 2002. "Familienbesteuerung - Reformen ohne Ende?," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 71(1), pages 67-82.
    19. Bofinger, Peter & Buch, Claudia M. & Feld, Lars P. & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Wieland, Volker, 2013. "Gegen eine rückwärtsgewandte Wirtschaftspolitik. Jahresgutachten 2013/14 [Against a backward-looking economic policy. Annual Report 2013/14]," Annual Economic Reports / Jahresgutachten, German Council of Economic Experts / Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, volume 127, number 201314, February.
    20. Maiterth, Ralf, 2005. "Familienpolitik und deutsches Einkommensteuerrecht: empirische Ergebnisse und familienpolitische Schlussfolgerungen," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 7, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:prodev:v:9:y:2009:i:4:p:339-348. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.