Not Just Business as Usual in the EU: A Comprehensive Analysis of Immigration and Tax Issues Related to Business Trips in 17 Schengen Countries

Marco Mazzeschi, Clayton E. Cartwright Jr
{"title":"Not Just Business as Usual in the EU: A Comprehensive Analysis of Immigration and Tax Issues Related to Business Trips in 17 Schengen Countries","authors":"Marco Mazzeschi, Clayton E. Cartwright Jr","doi":"10.5430/IJBA.V9N2P46","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article undertakes a comparative analysis of doing business in the European Union’s Schengen Bloc vis-a-vis working in the Schengen Bloc. Through a critical review of what may constitute business activities vs. work in all 17 Schengen member states, the article establishes how international companies can minimize unintentional exposure to immigration noncompliance as well as possible tax liabilities. As the article observes, there is a general absence of a standard EU legal definition of ‘work’ vs. ‘business activities’ that international companies can apply when sending employees for business purposes to the Schengen Bloc. In the absence of specific criteria, the article outlines what characterizes business activities in 17 Schengen countries and then several international standards, which concerned parties can use a reference point. By examining various sources including EU, OECD and ILO frameworks, the article’s research indicates general terms of reference in distinguishing business activities from work, and how that distinction confers the need for a business visa or a work permit in the European Union’s Schengen Bloc.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"167 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5430/IJBA.V9N2P46","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article undertakes a comparative analysis of doing business in the European Union’s Schengen Bloc vis-a-vis working in the Schengen Bloc. Through a critical review of what may constitute business activities vs. work in all 17 Schengen member states, the article establishes how international companies can minimize unintentional exposure to immigration noncompliance as well as possible tax liabilities. As the article observes, there is a general absence of a standard EU legal definition of ‘work’ vs. ‘business activities’ that international companies can apply when sending employees for business purposes to the Schengen Bloc. In the absence of specific criteria, the article outlines what characterizes business activities in 17 Schengen countries and then several international standards, which concerned parties can use a reference point. By examining various sources including EU, OECD and ILO frameworks, the article’s research indicates general terms of reference in distinguishing business activities from work, and how that distinction confers the need for a business visa or a work permit in the European Union’s Schengen Bloc.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧盟不只是照常营业:对17个申根国家与商务旅行相关的移民和税收问题的综合分析
本文对在欧盟申根区开展业务与在申根区开展业务进行了比较分析。通过对所有17个申根成员国的商业活动与工作构成的批判性审查,本文确定了国际公司如何最大限度地减少无意中违反移民规定的风险以及可能的纳税义务。正如文章所指出的那样,国际公司在派遣员工到申根集团从事商业活动时,普遍缺乏标准的欧盟法律对“工作”与“商业活动”的定义。在没有具体标准的情况下,文章概述了17个申根国家的商业活动的特征,然后是几个国际标准,有关各方可以使用参考点。通过研究包括欧盟、经合组织和国际劳工组织框架在内的各种来源,本文的研究指出了区分商业活动和工作的一般职权范围,以及这种区分如何赋予欧盟申根集团对商务签证或工作许可的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Misdirected Recipients of Tax Reform: Section 199A, its True Beneficiaries, and Application to Low- and Middle- Income Residents Consistent Taxation in a Cashless Society Is It Time to Eliminate Federal Corporate Income Taxes? Brief of Amici Curiae Former Government Officials in Support of Respondents, CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service Allocating COVID-19 State Aid Equitably – The Case of Denmark
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1