Are the OECD/G20 Pillar Two GloBE-Rules Compliant with the Fundamental Freedoms?

Pub Date : 2021-05-01 DOI:10.54648/ecta2021011
L. D. Broe, Mélanie Massant
{"title":"Are the OECD/G20 Pillar Two GloBE-Rules Compliant with the Fundamental Freedoms?","authors":"L. D. Broe, Mélanie Massant","doi":"10.54648/ecta2021011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article the authors focus on whether the Global Anti-Base Erosion (‘GloBE’) rules, as set out in an Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (‘OECD’) Blueprint of October 2020, comply with the EU fundamental freedoms. This compatibility is tested in two distinct scenario’s. In the first scenario the assumption is taken that the GloBE-rules will be implemented directly by the Members States and in the second scenario the assumption is taken that the GloBE-rules will be implemented indirectly through an EU Directive. It is clear from the analysis of the first scenario that the GloBE-rules collide with the freedom of establishment. For the GloBE-rules to be fully in line with this freedom, it is recommended that they include a substance-based carve-out such like the one foreseen in Article 7(2) of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD). The analysis of the second scenario, which focuses on the EU principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, shows that, even though the GloBE-rules might collide with the freedom of establishment, they could still be successfully implemented given the broad discretion that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) leaves to the Union legislature. Nonetheless, also here recommendations are made to reduce disproportionate frictions.\nPillar II – GloBE – OECD – BEPS – Minimum taxation – Tax competition – European Law – Freedom of Establishment – Subsidiarity – Proportionality","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2021011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In this article the authors focus on whether the Global Anti-Base Erosion (‘GloBE’) rules, as set out in an Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (‘OECD’) Blueprint of October 2020, comply with the EU fundamental freedoms. This compatibility is tested in two distinct scenario’s. In the first scenario the assumption is taken that the GloBE-rules will be implemented directly by the Members States and in the second scenario the assumption is taken that the GloBE-rules will be implemented indirectly through an EU Directive. It is clear from the analysis of the first scenario that the GloBE-rules collide with the freedom of establishment. For the GloBE-rules to be fully in line with this freedom, it is recommended that they include a substance-based carve-out such like the one foreseen in Article 7(2) of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD). The analysis of the second scenario, which focuses on the EU principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, shows that, even though the GloBE-rules might collide with the freedom of establishment, they could still be successfully implemented given the broad discretion that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) leaves to the Union legislature. Nonetheless, also here recommendations are made to reduce disproportionate frictions. Pillar II – GloBE – OECD – BEPS – Minimum taxation – Tax competition – European Law – Freedom of Establishment – Subsidiarity – Proportionality
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
经合组织/二十国集团第二支柱全球规则是否符合基本自由?
在本文中,作者关注的是经济合作与发展组织(OECD) 2020年10月蓝图中规定的全球反税基侵蚀(“GloBE”)规则是否符合欧盟的基本自由。这种兼容性在两个不同的场景中进行了测试。在第一个场景中,假设全球规则将由成员国直接实施,而在第二个场景中,假设全球规则将通过欧盟指令间接实施。从对第一种情况的分析可以清楚地看出,global规则与建制自由发生了冲突。为了使全球规则完全符合这种自由,建议它们包括基于物质的分割,如反避税指令(ATAD)第7(2)条所预见的那样。第二种情况的分析侧重于欧盟的辅助性和相称性原则,结果表明,尽管全球规则可能与建立自由发生冲突,但鉴于欧盟法院(CJEU)将广泛的自由裁量权留给欧盟立法机构,它们仍然可以成功实施。尽管如此,这里也提出了减少不成比例摩擦的建议。支柱二-全球-经合组织- BEPS -最低税率-税收竞争-欧洲法-设立自由-辅助-比例
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
×
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