The Case for an EU Cap on Interest on Underpaid Tax: Protecting the Internal Market

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW Intertax Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.54648/taxi2024002
Jeroen Lammers
{"title":"The Case for an EU Cap on Interest on Underpaid Tax: Protecting the Internal Market","authors":"Jeroen Lammers","doi":"10.54648/taxi2024002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines whether the differences in the calculation of interest on underpaid taxes among EU Member States could conflict with or impact the functioning of the EU internal market. The analysis indicates that such a conflict exists, and that an EU minimum standard protecting taxpayers’ rights is justified to remedy this while harmonizing the rules on interest accrual entirely would likely exceed the limits of the proportionality principle. The article’s starting point is the recent Danish Supreme Court ruling on beneficial ownership which recommends that the Danish legislator review national rules on interest accrual in cases of prolonged tax proceedings and consider a remedy that allows disputed amounts to be deposited with tax authorities. It evaluates the international and EU legal frameworks addressing this issue and compares interest accrual rules between Member States. The article finds that these legal frameworks offer insufficient guidance. It also discusses the Danish Supreme Court’s suggested remedy and asserts that it is ineffective and inefficient. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that it is not suitable as an EU minimum standard, and the latter should instead be designed as a maximum percentage of the disputed amount. This relatively simple approach is a suitable manner for realizing the intended objective as it would incentivize taxpayers to pay their tax bills on time while safeguarding their fundamental human rights wherever they are established in the EU. Moreover, it would prevent placing undue administrative burdens on either taxpayers or tax administrations and would not impede Member States’ abilities to design their tax administrative procedures to fit their national tax systems and practices.\nTax surcharges, tax penalties, Interest, EU, Internal Market, taxpayers’ rights","PeriodicalId":45365,"journal":{"name":"Intertax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intertax","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2024002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines whether the differences in the calculation of interest on underpaid taxes among EU Member States could conflict with or impact the functioning of the EU internal market. The analysis indicates that such a conflict exists, and that an EU minimum standard protecting taxpayers’ rights is justified to remedy this while harmonizing the rules on interest accrual entirely would likely exceed the limits of the proportionality principle. The article’s starting point is the recent Danish Supreme Court ruling on beneficial ownership which recommends that the Danish legislator review national rules on interest accrual in cases of prolonged tax proceedings and consider a remedy that allows disputed amounts to be deposited with tax authorities. It evaluates the international and EU legal frameworks addressing this issue and compares interest accrual rules between Member States. The article finds that these legal frameworks offer insufficient guidance. It also discusses the Danish Supreme Court’s suggested remedy and asserts that it is ineffective and inefficient. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that it is not suitable as an EU minimum standard, and the latter should instead be designed as a maximum percentage of the disputed amount. This relatively simple approach is a suitable manner for realizing the intended objective as it would incentivize taxpayers to pay their tax bills on time while safeguarding their fundamental human rights wherever they are established in the EU. Moreover, it would prevent placing undue administrative burdens on either taxpayers or tax administrations and would not impede Member States’ abilities to design their tax administrative procedures to fit their national tax systems and practices. Tax surcharges, tax penalties, Interest, EU, Internal Market, taxpayers’ rights
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
欧盟对少缴税款利息设定上限的理由:保护内部市场
本文探讨了欧盟成员国在计算少缴税款利息方面的差异是否会与欧盟内部市场的运作产生冲突或影响。分析表明,这种冲突是存在的,欧盟保护纳税人权利的最低标准有理由对此进行补救,而完全统一应计利息的规则很可能会超出比例原则的限制。这篇文章的出发点是丹麦最高法院最近关于受益所有权的裁决,该裁决建议丹麦立法者审查关于在税务诉讼旷日持久的情况下应计利息的国家规则,并考虑采取补救措施,允许将有争议的金额交存税务机关。文章评估了解决这一问题的国际和欧盟法律框架,并比较了成员国之间的应计利息规则。文章认为这些法律框架提供的指导不够充分。文章还讨论了丹麦最高法院建议的补救措施,并断言该措施无效且效率低下。此外,本研究还表明,它不适合作为欧盟的最低标准,而应将后者设计为争议金额的最大百分比。这种相对简单的方法是实现预期目标的合适方式,因为它既能激励纳税人按时缴纳税款,又能保障他们的基本人权,无论他们身处欧盟何处。此外,它还可以避免给纳税人或税务管理部门带来不必要的行政负担,也不会妨碍成员国设计适合本国税收制度和实践的税务管理程序的能力。 税收附加费、税务处罚、利息、欧盟、内部市场、纳税人权利
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
Intertax
Intertax LAW-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
50.00%
发文量
45
期刊最新文献
(In)congruence Between Taxation, Spending, and Representation: The Ambiguous Character of Tax-based Contributions Taxing Powers of the European Union Judicial Review of the EU Own Resources Decision by the ECJ Protecting EU Financial Interests in the Collection of Tax-Based Own Resources Article: Conflicts between Directives that Require Taxation of Income and Tax Treaties: The Effectiveness of the EU Primacy-based Conflict Rule
×
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