| | ISSUE 1 |  |
'Savings Taxation: Is Automatic Exchange of Information Becoming a Panacea?', Michel Aujean, Issue 1, pp. 2–3 |
infoMichel Aujean, 'Savings Taxation: Is Automatic Exchange of Information Becoming a Panacea?' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 1, pp. 2–3 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010001 | 
|
|  | |
'Avoidance of Double Taxation and Its Interaction with European Triangular Arrangements', Eric C.C.M. Kemmeren, Hans-Peter Peeters, Issue 1, pp. 4–18 |
infoEric C.C.M. Kemmeren, Hans-Peter Peeters, 'Avoidance of Double Taxation and Its Interaction with European Triangular Arrangements' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 1, pp. 4–18 | | In this article, the authors discuss triangular situations similar to Saint-Gobain. The focus is on the interaction between double tax convention law and EC law. The position of the permanent establishment state, the residence state, and the source state will be studied. Central in this article Company X established in state R with a PE situated in state P that acts as a ‘recipient’ of passive income paid by company Y from state S. The authors conclude that, in the first place, state R has been designated to prevent double taxation by means of an exemption or a credit. Secondly, if state R uses the exemption method, the responsibility switches over to state P and state S together. Not only must state P (as a Member State) treat a PE as a resident for treaty application, but also state S (as a Member State) has this obligation if a remaining juridical double taxation is caused by neither state R nor state P. This conclusion is not negatively affected by Damseaux. Thirdly, if state R uses the credit method both for PE profits and for passive income, it is obliged to apply the credit method in accordance with both the R-P Double Tax Convention (DTC) and the R-S DTC. Then, there is no European obligation for state S to mitigate the source state taxation. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010002 |
|
| | |
'Freedom of Establishment or Free Movement of Capital: Is There an Order of Priority? Conflicting Visions of National Courts and the ECJ', Sigrid Hemels, Joost Rompen, Patrick Smet, Isabelle De Waele, Steffan Adfeldt, Gottfried Breuninger, Markus Ernst, Viviane Carpentier, Siamak Mostafavi, Issue 1, pp. 19–31 |
infoSigrid Hemels, Joost Rompen, Patrick Smet, Isabelle De Waele, Steffan Adfeldt, Gottfried Breuninger, Markus Ernst, Viviane Carpentier, Siamak Mostafavi, 'Freedom of Establishment or Free Movement of Capital: Is There an Order of Priority? Conflicting Visions of National Courts and the ECJ' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 1, pp. 19–31 | | Where a parent company owns a controlling interest in a subsidiary resident in another Member State the question arises whether Article 43 EC Treaty (the freedom of establishment), Article 56 EC Treaty (the free movement of capital), or both articles may be relied upon by the taxpayer to challenge domestic law for breach of the EC Treaty. That is, is there a mandatory order of priority between these freedoms in such cases? This question has wide relevance since the freedom of establishment cannot be relied upon in third-country situations whereas the free movement of capital can. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) and several national courts have ruled on this question. However, the ECJ case law does not give clear guidance and national courts have come to opposite conclusions. This article gives an overview of the ECJ case law against the background of which the decisions of the national courts are analysed. We come to the conclusion that the question of which freedom takes priority is not an acte clair/acte éclairé. Given the current status of the question of the dominance of the freedoms, with opposite conclusions from national courts and the ECJ having adopted inconsistent approaches in its decisions, national courts should, in our view, no longer decide such questions without seeking a preliminary ruling from the ECJ. We urge the ECJ to deliver clear and consistent rules regarding this question. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010003 |
|
| | |
'Taxation of Cross-Border Dividends in Greece: In Line with EC Law Requirements', Georgios Elmalis, Issue 1, pp. 32–44 |
infoGeorgios Elmalis, 'Taxation of Cross-Border Dividends in Greece: In Line with EC Law Requirements' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 1, pp. 32–44 | | Using as a motive the infringement procedure of the European Commission against Greece for discriminatory tax treatment of inbound dividends and the subsequent judgment of the ECJ in Case C-406/07, Commission v. Greece, which formed the causa of a radical legislative reform of the Greek regime governing taxation of dividends, the author conducts, in this article, a detailed examination of the Greek dividend tax rules, under the perspective of Community law requirements in this field. In that respect, the author performs an analysis of the extensive case law of the ECJ on dividend taxation, and draws case law principles which, together with the Parent-Subsidiary Directive provisions, constitute the point of reference of the inquiry undertaken. With the example of the Greek dividend tax systems as a tool, the author displays how exemption, imputation and final withholding tax systems are applied in practice and how EC law affects their function and interaction in cases of crossborder dividend distributions. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010004 |
|
| | |
'The Netherlands, UK', Mark Persoff, Dennis Weber, Alexander Fortuin, Issue 1, pp. 45–51 |
infoMark Persoff, Dennis Weber, Alexander Fortuin, 'The Netherlands, UK' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 1, pp. 45–51 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010005 |
|
| | |
'Italy, Germany', Carla Calcagnile, Marcus Sauer, Lena Raesch, Issue 1, pp. 52–57 |
infoCarla Calcagnile, Marcus Sauer, Lena Raesch, 'Italy, Germany' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 1, pp. 52–57 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010006 |
|
| | | |
ISSUE 2 | |
'Editorial – Exit Taxes: Separation of Powers?', Henk P.A.M. van Arendonk, Issue 2, pp. 60–61 |
infoHenk P.A.M. van Arendonk, 'Editorial – Exit Taxes: Separation of Powers?' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 2, pp. 60–61 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010007 |
|
| | |
'Share Disposals and the Right of Deduction of Input VAT', Ad van Doesum, Herman van Kesteren, Gert-Jan van Norden, Issue 2, pp. 62–73 |
infoAd van Doesum, Herman van Kesteren, Gert-Jan van Norden, 'Share Disposals and the Right of Deduction of Input VAT' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 2, pp. 62–73 | | The European Court of Justice (ECJ)’s ruling in the SKF case is a milestone in the development of the doctrine on the VAT treatment of disposals of shares by a ‘controlling active parent company’, such as AB SKF. The first question in this case was whether the disposal of shares was an economic activity and if so, whether it constituted a VAT exempt supply of services. The second question was whether input VAT incurred on costs made in connection to a share disposal can be deducted. Although the ECJ ruled that the disposal of the shares was a VAT exempt supply of services, the ECJ created routes to deduct input VAT on costs related to the disposal of the shares. Focusing on the right to deduction of input VAT, the authors investigate the implications of the ECJ’s judgment and test whether the EC VAT Directive (ECVD) and settled ECJ case law provide solid legal arguments to validate both the outcome and the implications of the SKF case. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010008 |
|
| | |
'Taxation of Cross-Border Dividends in the European Union from Past to Future', Mario Tenore, Issue 2, pp. 74–84 |
infoMario Tenore, 'Taxation of Cross-Border Dividends in the European Union from Past to Future' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 2, pp. 74–84 | | The article aims at achieving consistency in the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the taxation of dividends from the perspective of the Home State and that of the Host State. Based on the assumption that EU Member States are obliged to ensure the neutrality with regard to inbound dividends and outbound dividends, the author demonstrates that schedular tax systems are nowadays the ones that comply with EU Law while keeping its effective exercise of national taxing rights upon dividends. The article also deals with the application of the pan-European approach (also known as ‘overall approach’), which, in the author’s view, is by far the most controversial current issue in relation to the taxation of dividends. The ECJ in Commission v. Italy correctly limited the application of the pan-European approach though without entirely removing the uncertainties that derive from its application to the taxation of cross-border dividends. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010009 |
|
| | |
'Abuse of Tax Law across Europe', Sébastien de Monès, Pierre-Henri Durand, Jean-Florent Mandelbaum, Martin Klein, Alice Niemann, Andrea Manzitti, Guillermo Canalejo Lasarte, Gloria Marín Benítez, Graham J. Airs, Issue 2, pp. 85–96 |
infoSébastien de Monès, Pierre-Henri Durand, Jean-Florent Mandelbaum, Martin Klein, Alice Niemann, Andrea Manzitti, Guillermo Canalejo Lasarte, Gloria Marín Benítez, Graham J. Airs, 'Abuse of Tax Law across Europe' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 2, pp. 85–96 | | Abuse of tax law is both a complex and an ambiguous concept per se. Each country having developed its own approach, which entails differing consequences as regards domestic, EU and international tax law, abuse of tax law across Europe is a real puzzle. A thorough analysis of this concept requires both to bring out the common features shared by all domestic approaches of the countries chosen for this analysis – that is, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom – but also to describe the theoretical and practical specificities of each domestic approach. The first part of this article, which details the French and the German approaches, gives a taste of the similarities and of the differences of interpretation and practical implementation of the abuse of law concept viewed through two domestic prisms. For example, on the one hand, France and Germany both use a general concept of fraud, together with a certain number of specific anti-avoidance rules, and they both share a mostly statutory approach of the notion. On the other hand, however, the French and German approaches greatly differ on the penalty as well as on the proceedings which are applicable, whenever an abuse of law is characterized. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010010 |
|
| | |
'Portuguese Legislation: Discriminatory Taxation of Foreign Pension Funds', Diogo Ortigão Ramos, Issue 2, pp. 97–99 |
infoDiogo Ortigão Ramos, 'Portuguese Legislation: Discriminatory Taxation of Foreign Pension Funds' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 2, pp. 97–99 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010011 |
|
| | |
'The Netherlands, UK', Mark Persoff, Dennis Weber, Alexander Fortuin, Issue 2, pp. 100–105 |
infoMark Persoff, Dennis Weber, Alexander Fortuin, 'The Netherlands, UK' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 2, pp. 100–105 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010012 |
|
| | | |
ISSUE 3 | |
'Tax Priorities of the Spanish Presidency', Carlos Ocaña Pérez de Tudela, Issue 3, pp. 108–108 |
infoCarlos Ocaña Pérez de Tudela, 'Tax Priorities of the Spanish Presidency' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 3, pp. 108–108 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010013 |
|
| | |
'European Arbitration Convention: Thoughts on Its Principles, Procedures and First Experience', Luc Hinnekens, Issue 3, pp. 109–116 |
infoLuc Hinnekens, 'European Arbitration Convention: Thoughts on Its Principles, Procedures and First Experience' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 3, pp. 109–116 | | Some may feel that too much attention is being given to the European Arbitration Convention (AC), its basis in Article 293 second indent EC (in the meantime repealed), and its present place in the multinational enterprise tax practice (just a fig leaf). The finding itself that arbitration decisions are so scanty (and the pipeline of cases is still growing) invites more attention and thoughts about its open legal issues of principle and effective implementation in the light of the first AC experience. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010014 |
|
| | |
'Double Taxation of Foreign Dividends: The Damseaux Case Aiming at the Wrong Target! Criticism Should Be Directed towards France and Not Belgium', Marc Dassesse, Issue 3, pp. 117–122 |
infoMarc Dassesse, 'Double Taxation of Foreign Dividends: The Damseaux Case Aiming at the Wrong Target! Criticism Should Be Directed towards France and Not Belgium' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 3, pp. 117–122 | | The Damseaux judgment of 16 July 2009 (Case C-128/08) marks the unsuccessful end of the efforts deployed by Belgian taxpayers and by the European Commission (Case C-307/08, Commission v. Belgium, presumably to be dropped shortly) to have Belgium shoulder responsibility (by way of the grant of a foreign tax credit) for the French withholding tax on outbound dividends received by Belgian taxpayers. We will review these efforts hereinafter, and the factors that appear to have led to their unsuccessful outcome. We will also argue that Mr Damseaux might have been more successful in his efforts to avoid the double taxation of his French dividends if he had, instead, lodged a claim against the French tax authorities: He could have argued that the French withholding tax is levied in breach of European law following the end of the reimbursement by the French tax authorities to Belgian resident shareholders of the French ‘Avoir Fiscal’. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010015 |
|
| | |
'Abuse of Tax Law across Europe (Part Two)', Sébastien de Monès, Pierre-Henri Durand, Jean-Florent Mandelbaum, Martin Klein, Alice Niemann, Andrea Manzitti, Guillermo Canalejo Lasarte, Gloria Marín Benítez, Graham J. Airs, Bredin Prat, Hengeler Mueller, Bonelli Erede Pappalardo, Uría Menéndez, Slaughter, May, Issue 3, pp. 123–137 |
infoSébastien de Monès, Pierre-Henri Durand, Jean-Florent Mandelbaum, Martin Klein, Alice Niemann, Andrea Manzitti, Guillermo Canalejo Lasarte, Gloria Marín Benítez, Graham J. Airs, Bredin Prat, Hengeler Mueller, Bonelli Erede Pappalardo, Uría Menéndez, Slaughter, May, 'Abuse of Tax Law across Europe (Part Two)' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 3, pp. 123–137 | | Abuse of tax law is both a complex and ambiguous concept per se. Added to the fact that each country has its own approach, which entails differing consequences as regards domestic, European community and international tax law, abuse of tax law across Europe may become a real puzzle. A thorough analysis of such concept requires both to bring out common features, shared by all domestic approaches of the countries at stake – i.e., France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK – but also to describe the theoretical and practical specificities of each approach. The second part of this article, which apprehends the Italian, Spanish and British approaches, completes the first scan of the similarities and dissimilarities of the same concept, viewed through varied domestic prisms (for the French and German approaches, see EC Tax Review 2010-2). For example, on the one hand, Italy, Spain and the UK all have a prior ruling procedure, and apply no specific penalty to abusive schemes – as France does for example. On the other hand however, their approaches differ on a certain number of topics: the obligation of disclosure, for example, is compulsory in some cases in the UK whereas there is no such obligation in Italy or in Spain. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010016 |
|
| | |
'The Netherlands, UK', Dennis Weber, Alexander Fortuin, Mark Persoff, Issue 3, pp. 138–141 |
infoDennis Weber, Alexander Fortuin, Mark Persoff, 'The Netherlands, UK' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 3, pp. 138–141 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010017 |
|
| | |
'UK', Mark Persoff, Issue 3, pp. 142–143 |
infoMark Persoff, 'UK' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 3, pp. 142–143 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010018 |
|
| | | |
ISSUE 4 | |
'Group Interest Tax Regimes and State Aid: EC on the Wrong Track', Eric C.C.M. Kemmeren, Issue 4, pp. 146–148 |
infoEric C.C.M. Kemmeren, 'Group Interest Tax Regimes and State Aid: EC on the Wrong Track' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 4, pp. 146–148 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010019 |
|
| | |
'Distinction between State Aid and General Tax Measures', Michael Sánchez Rydelski, Issue 4, pp. 149–155 |
infoMichael Sánchez Rydelski, 'Distinction between State Aid and General Tax Measures' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 4, pp. 149–155 | | The application of tax measures may have effects that could bring them within the scope of the State aid provision of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). However, only selective measures, that is, measures that favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, may constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. General measures that benefit all undertakings in a Member State do not qualify as State aid. How wide has the circle of beneficiaries to be in order to escape the State aid notion? This article will try to shed some light on the question on where the Commission has drawn the line between State aid measures and general measures in the area of taxation. So far, the Commission has only adopted a handful of decisions in which it took the view that the tax measures at stake qualified as general measures and consequently did not constitute State aid. The threshold of convincing the Commission that a certain tax measure qualifies as general measures is very high. However, recent Commission decisions indicate that the Commission might now take a more flexible approach on this issue. These recent Commission decisions are summarized in this article. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010020 |
|
| | |
'Tax Aid and Non-profit Organizations', Stan Stevens, Issue 4, pp. 156–169 |
infoStan Stevens, 'Tax Aid and Non-profit Organizations' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 4, pp. 156–169 | | Many services and goods are supplied by non-profit organizations. These social enterprises have a hybrid character, because they possess characteristics of governmental and commercial organizations. Therefore, these social enterprises are also called private-public sector enterprises (PPSEs). Very often PPSEs will qualify as an undertaking within the meaning of the European Union (EU) Treaty, and as a consequence, the EU completion rules will be applicable. On grounds of the non-profit character and/or the activities of the PPSE in the general interest, PPSEs also often benefit from a special tax regime: (partial) exemption or other tax provision. The question arises then whether that regime qualifies as a preferential tax measure that constitutes fiscal State aid. In this analysis, special attention must be paid to the fact that in many cases PPSEs will operate a service of general economic interest, which could justify tax aid. However, in this article, it will be argued that it is very difficult to design tax measure in a way that they are compatible with the strict conditions that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) applies. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010021 |
|
| | |
'On X Holding and the ECJ’s Ambiguous Approach towards the Proportionality Test', Maarten F. de Wilde, Issue 4, pp. 170–182 |
infoMaarten F. de Wilde, 'On X Holding and the ECJ’s Ambiguous Approach towards the Proportionality Test' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 4, pp. 170–182 | | On 25 February 2010, the Court of Justice rendered its decision in the X Holding case. The Court ruled that the Dutch tax consolidation regime is compatible with the freedom of establishment. The territoriality principle justifies the limitations on the regime’s scope of application in an intra-European Union (EU) context. Accordingly, today, it seems clear that the Dutch tax consolidation regime in its current design may be kept in place. However, the Court of Justice did not provide a clear answer to the underlying question of how the proportionality test should be interpreted under primary EU law where EU Member States raise the territoriality principle as a justification for an obstacle imposed. In this article, I address the question of how the proportionality test should be interpreted in this respect. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010022 |
|
| | |
'The Netherlands', Dennis Weber, Alexander Fortuin, Issue 4, pp. 183–184 |
infoDennis Weber, Alexander Fortuin, 'The Netherlands' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 4, pp. 183–184 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010023 |
|
| | | |
ISSUE 5 | |
'VAT Fraud with Emission Allowances Trading', Han Kogels, Issue 5, pp. 186–187 |
infoHan Kogels, 'VAT Fraud with Emission Allowances Trading' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 5, pp. 186–187 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010024 |
|
| | |
'Limiting Benefit Shopping: Measures of Four Large EU Member States to Counter Erosion of Their Dividend Tax', Maikel Evers, Arnaud de Graaf, Issue 5, pp. 188–198 |
infoMaikel Evers, Arnaud de Graaf, 'Limiting Benefit Shopping: Measures of Four Large EU Member States to Counter Erosion of Their Dividend Tax' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 5, pp. 188–198 | | Triptych: Shopping for tax advantages: what can (and cannot) be done to prevent it. This article forms part of a triptych, each panel of which is independent of but also complements the other two. The theme of the triptych is what measures are possible – and impossible – in combating conduit arrangements under EU law. The first panel was published in EC Tax Review 2009/6 and deals with the issue of when Member States – specifically in their capacity as source state – can deny advantages to conduit companies under EU law. In this second panel, we outline the measures that four large Member States have introduced in order to combat dividend tax-saving arrangements involving conduit companies. In the third and final panel to be published in EC Tax Review 2010/6, the authors will make recommendations to the Member States as regards the tools that they can use to combat conduit arrangements. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010025 |
|
| | |
'The Impact of European Law on Domestic Procedural Tax Law: Wrongfully Underestimated?', Arjo van Eijsden, Janco van Dam, Issue 5, pp. 199–209 |
infoArjo van Eijsden, Janco van Dam, 'The Impact of European Law on Domestic Procedural Tax Law: Wrongfully Underestimated?' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 5, pp. 199–209 | | CJ case law reveals that European law is having an increasing influence on procedural tax law. In this article, an overview of the influence of European law on procedural tax law will be depicted. Procedural tax law is here defined as the totality of rules regarding the manner in which material tax liabilities should be expressed in the actual payment of tax. The authors will describe the above-mentioned influence in two articles. In part 1, the authors first outline the European law framework against which domestic procedural tax law should be tested. Subsequently, they discuss in more detail the notable influence of European Community (EC) law to several specific domestic rules and concepts of procedural tax law, such as entitlement to compensation for EC infringements, unlawful administration of justice, rules of evidence, and fixed payment of procedural costs. In part 2, the authors discuss whether national time limits, the impossibilities for an administrative body to re-examine an earlier decision, procedural legal effect, and the principle of res judicata, are compatible with European law. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010026 |
|
| | |
'VAT Fraud and Emission Allowances', Iñaki Bilbao Estrada, Jesús Rodríguez Márquez, Issue 5, pp. 210–227 |
infoIñaki Bilbao Estrada, Jesús Rodríguez Márquez, 'VAT Fraud and Emission Allowances' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 5, pp. 210–227 | | The absence of Community legislation on the value-added tax (VAT) treatment of allowances has meant that, after the detection of suspected cases of fraud, several Member States have departed from the guidelines adopted unanimously by the VAT Committee. While this situation has produced a swift reaction from the European Union (EU) through the Proposal for a Directive to amend the VAT Directive aimed at giving a unified response to the phenomenon of the plots of fraud in general, it is surprising its voluntary nature. In addition, this article will show how, given the urgency of adopting a solution, the special characteristics of the emission rights market to arbitrate other measures have not been taken into account. Likewise, it also tries to show that the general answer is, of course, forgetting the inclusion of the tax treatment of allowances in the proposed directive to prevent Member States adopt different treatments that may distort the functioning of the allowance. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010027 |
|
| | |
'VAT Applicability to Employee Retail Vouchers', Kevin A. Diehl, Issue 5, pp. 228–230 |
infoKevin A. Diehl, 'VAT Applicability to Employee Retail Vouchers' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 5, pp. 228–230 | | While the European Court of Justice issues many important rulings with respect to competition, transportation, free movement of capital, and other policies, its contributions to tax policy sometimes get overlooked. Too many view taxation as just an issue of national import. However, the European Court of Justice has made some extraordinarily important contributions in the area of taxation. The recently discussed case of Astra Zeneca UK LTD v. HMRC (C-40/09, <curia.europa.eu>) proves this notion. The following discusses the facts, governing guidance, issues, resolutions, drawbacks, and future applications. On appeal from the VAT and Duties Tribunal of Manchester, United Kingdom, this case addresses whether UK tax law with regard to value-added taxes (VATs) is correct. The judgment considers whether VAT applies to fringe benefits beyond cash (retail vouchers) from an employer to an employee. For global context here, the US tax system’s treatment of fringe benefits can be considered. In the United States then, there is no VAT. However, for income tax purposes, fringe benefits result in the best possible treatment. As the employers deduct the fringe benefits provided, the employees exclude the fringe benefits from their gross income. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010028 |
|
| | |
'The Netherlands, UK', Dennis Weber, Alexander Fortuin, Mark Persoff, Issue 5, pp. 231–233 |
infoDennis Weber, Alexander Fortuin, Mark Persoff, 'The Netherlands, UK' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 5, pp. 231–233 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010029 |
|
| | | |
ISSUE 6 | |
'Tax Sovereignty of EU Member States in View of the Global Financial and Economic Crisis', Bruno Peeters, Issue 6, pp. 236–237 |
infoBruno Peeters, 'Tax Sovereignty of EU Member States in View of the Global Financial and Economic Crisis' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 6, pp. 236–237 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010030 |
|
| | |
'Limiting Benefit Shopping: Outline of a Measure to Counter Erosion of the Dividend Tax Base in the EU', Maikel Evers, Arnaud de Graaf, Issue 6, pp. 238–246 |
infoMaikel Evers, Arnaud de Graaf, 'Limiting Benefit Shopping: Outline of a Measure to Counter Erosion of the Dividend Tax Base in the EU' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 6, pp. 238–246 | | Triptych: Shopping for tax advantages: what can (and cannot) be done to prevent it. The following article is the final part of a triptych, each panel of which is independent of but also complements the other two. The theme of the triptych is what measures are possible – and impossible – in combating conduit arrangements under EU law. The first panel was published in EC Tax Review 2009/6 and deals with the issue of when Member States – specifically in their capacity as source state – can deny advantages to conduit companies under the EU freedom of establishment. The second panel, which was published in EC Tax Review 2010/5, examines the measures applied by four large Member States to combat dividend tax-saving arrangements involving EU conduit companies. In this third and final panel, the authors make recommendations to the Member States as regards the tools they can use to combat such arrangements. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010031 |
|
| | |
'Possibilities and Impossibilities for Challenging Final Tax Assessments and Decisions in Tax Cases that Contravene EC Law', Arjo van Eijsden, Janco van Dam, Issue 6, pp. 247–258 |
infoArjo van Eijsden, Janco van Dam, 'Possibilities and Impossibilities for Challenging Final Tax Assessments and Decisions in Tax Cases that Contravene EC Law' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 6, pp. 247–258 | | When tax authorities infringe the European rights of a taxpayer, there is usually the possibility to challenge such infringement by filing an objection or appeal. However, in doing so, the taxpayer typically has to comply with domestic time limitations. Failure to do so will result in the respective decision of the tax authorities becoming final. A decision can also become final if the taxpayer did use the possibility to file an objection and appeal but his case was declined by the national highest court. As a rule, final decisions can no longer be disputed before a national court. It is, however, not uncommon that after a decision has become final, the Court of Justice (CJ) issues a ruling in a particular case, based on which the mentioned final decision turns out to be in conflict with European law. In this respect, the question arises which possibilities does EC law offer to a taxpayer to dispute a final decision of the tax authorities or a national court. In this article, the authors will analyse this question in detail and will describe the options taxpayers have in this regard. This analysis includes the validity of national time limits, obligations for administrative bodies to revisit a final decision, the impact of procedural legal effect of a decision, and the influence of the res judicata principle Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010032 |
|
| | |
'Contributions to Partnerships from a European VAT Law Perspective', Ad van Doesum, Issue 6, pp. 259–271 |
infoAd van Doesum, 'Contributions to Partnerships from a European VAT Law Perspective' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 6, pp. 259–271 | | Since the KapHag case, it is clear that contributions in cash to partnerships take place outside the scope of Value Added Tax (VAT). However, it is still unclear whether a contribution in kind (goods, use of goods, intangibles, labour) by a partner who is a taxable person is a taxable supply, a remuneration for a taxable supply, or an activity that is not subject to VAT at all. The consequences of this lack of clarity are legal uncertainty and unequal treatment of similar transactions. The different VAT treatment of contributions in kind in the European Union (EU) Member States shows that these negative consequences are not purely hypothetical. Since cooperation through partnerships is not necessarily restricted to partners located in one Member State, the problems may even transcend the borders of the Member States. In this article, the author first investigates whether, under EU VAT law as it stands, contributions to partnerships are subject to VAT. Second, the author investigates what the preferred VAT treatment of contributions to partnerships is under European VAT law, when testing it against the fundamental principles of EU VAT law. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010033 |
|
| | |
'Italy: Recent Measures to Fight Tax Evasion through the Use of ‘Tax Havens’', Marco Vergani, Issue 6, pp. 272–275 |
infoMarco Vergani, 'Italy: Recent Measures to Fight Tax Evasion through the Use of ‘Tax Havens’' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 6, pp. 272–275 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010034 |
|
| | |
'The Netherlands', Dennis Weber, Alexander Fortuin, Issue 6, pp. 276–278 |
infoDennis Weber, Alexander Fortuin, 'The Netherlands' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 6, pp. 276–278 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010035 |
|
| | |
'Italy: New Rules on VAT Refund for Resident and Non-resident Taxpayers', Carla Calcagnile, Issue 6, pp. 279–281 |
infoCarla Calcagnile, 'Italy: New Rules on VAT Refund for Resident and Non-resident Taxpayers' (2010) 19 EC Tax Review, Issue 6, pp. 279–281 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0928-2750
ID: ECTA2010036 |
|
| |
 You need Acrobat Reader version 6.0 or later to read PDF files. DOWNLOAD HERE »
|
