Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

President's Message

President's Message The global competition for the "best" place of arbitration is a topic that has occupied the international arbitration community for quite a while. Usually, the features emphasized in support of the attractiveness of a specific jurisdiction or place are an arbitration-friendly national legislation ensuring that the local courts support arbitral proceedings instead of interfering with them, and such practical advantages as a central geographic location and easy accessibility for potential users, a functioning hospitality infrastructure and perhaps the availability of a sufficiently large pool of experienced arbitrators known for conducting proceedings at the respective location in a predictable and efficient manner. Lately, however, the competition for the "best" arbitration place has reached a new level. Singapore has with effect from 1 February 2008 introduced a special tax exemption scheme for law practices with income derived from international arbitration cases held in Singapore. The scheme is introduced for an initial period of five years. Qualifying law practices include both local and foreign law firms cited in Singapore. It remains to be seen if this innovative move will inspire similar projects elsewhere and expand the tax competition between jurisdictions beyond the usual addressees, i.e. highnet-worth individuals and international corporate headquarters to include also arbitration firms. In Switzerland, I doubt there is room for special arbitration tax breaks beyond the exemption of Swiss based arbitrators from Value Added Tax (VAT) on their arbitrator's fees. On the contrary, there was some concern that this exemption would disappear as part of the contemplated overhaul of the Swiss VAT system. The Swiss Arbitration Association has intervened and argued against the lifting of the exemption not the least for reasons of maintaining the competitiveness of the Swiss arbitration place. I am pleased to report that our intervention appears to have been well received. The most recent legislative project appears to continue exempting Swiss based arbitrators from having to charge and pay VAT on their fees. Zurich, July 2008 Dr. Markus Wirth 26 ASA BULLETIN 3/2008 (SEPTEMBRE) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png ASA Bulletin Kluwer Law International

President's Message

ASA Bulletin , Volume 26 (3) – Sep 1, 2008

Loading next page...
 
/lp/kluwer-law-international/president-s-message-4KfRQ9hScW

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Kluwer Law International
Copyright
Copyright © Kluwer Law International
ISSN
1010-9153
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The global competition for the "best" place of arbitration is a topic that has occupied the international arbitration community for quite a while. Usually, the features emphasized in support of the attractiveness of a specific jurisdiction or place are an arbitration-friendly national legislation ensuring that the local courts support arbitral proceedings instead of interfering with them, and such practical advantages as a central geographic location and easy accessibility for potential users, a functioning hospitality infrastructure and perhaps the availability of a sufficiently large pool of experienced arbitrators known for conducting proceedings at the respective location in a predictable and efficient manner. Lately, however, the competition for the "best" arbitration place has reached a new level. Singapore has with effect from 1 February 2008 introduced a special tax exemption scheme for law practices with income derived from international arbitration cases held in Singapore. The scheme is introduced for an initial period of five years. Qualifying law practices include both local and foreign law firms cited in Singapore. It remains to be seen if this innovative move will inspire similar projects elsewhere and expand the tax competition between jurisdictions beyond the usual addressees, i.e. highnet-worth individuals and international corporate headquarters to include also arbitration firms. In Switzerland, I doubt there is room for special arbitration tax breaks beyond the exemption of Swiss based arbitrators from Value Added Tax (VAT) on their arbitrator's fees. On the contrary, there was some concern that this exemption would disappear as part of the contemplated overhaul of the Swiss VAT system. The Swiss Arbitration Association has intervened and argued against the lifting of the exemption not the least for reasons of maintaining the competitiveness of the Swiss arbitration place. I am pleased to report that our intervention appears to have been well received. The most recent legislative project appears to continue exempting Swiss based arbitrators from having to charge and pay VAT on their fees. Zurich, July 2008 Dr. Markus Wirth 26 ASA BULLETIN 3/2008 (SEPTEMBRE)

Journal

ASA BulletinKluwer Law International

Published: Sep 1, 2008

There are no references for this article.