Article: Shades of Transparency: DAC6 and the Client- Attorney Privilege

Pub Date : 2023-02-01 DOI:10.54648/ecta2023012
M. Greggi
{"title":"Article: Shades of Transparency: DAC6 and the Client- Attorney Privilege","authors":"M. Greggi","doi":"10.54648/ecta2023012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Tax Law has become more and more a data-centric discipline through the years. The struggle against international tax avoidance and evasion has pushed the European union to pass a number of directives regulating the exchange of information and the taxpayers’ duty to disclose information and data concerning their business and investments.\nThe article considers DAC6 (Directive on Administrative Cooperation, Council Directive 2018/822) a qualitative change in this scenario, as it appears to erode the client-attorney privilege. It imposes, for the first time, a duty of transparency to intermediaries such as consultants and (potentially) lawyers which is in collision with fundamental rights, eventually casting a shadow on the due process clause and (indirectly) the rule of law.\nThe central part of the article focuses on the extension of the privilege in tax law, trying to strike a balance between the need to curb tax avoidance and to preserve the due process clause. The findings are that the client-attorney relationship is one of the pillars the rule of law is built on, it should be preserved in the field of taxation too and eventually that no directive or regulation have the power to waive it.\nThe conclusion is that DAC6 is to be considered a step in the wrong direction by the European legislator as the first ruling of the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) seems to confirm.\nMerger directive, 2009/133/EC, 90/434/EEC, shareholder, allotment of shares, merger, demerger, exchange of shares","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2023012","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

Tax Law has become more and more a data-centric discipline through the years. The struggle against international tax avoidance and evasion has pushed the European union to pass a number of directives regulating the exchange of information and the taxpayers’ duty to disclose information and data concerning their business and investments. The article considers DAC6 (Directive on Administrative Cooperation, Council Directive 2018/822) a qualitative change in this scenario, as it appears to erode the client-attorney privilege. It imposes, for the first time, a duty of transparency to intermediaries such as consultants and (potentially) lawyers which is in collision with fundamental rights, eventually casting a shadow on the due process clause and (indirectly) the rule of law. The central part of the article focuses on the extension of the privilege in tax law, trying to strike a balance between the need to curb tax avoidance and to preserve the due process clause. The findings are that the client-attorney relationship is one of the pillars the rule of law is built on, it should be preserved in the field of taxation too and eventually that no directive or regulation have the power to waive it. The conclusion is that DAC6 is to be considered a step in the wrong direction by the European legislator as the first ruling of the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) seems to confirm. Merger directive, 2009/133/EC, 90/434/EEC, shareholder, allotment of shares, merger, demerger, exchange of shares
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
文章:透明度的阴影:DAC6和客户-律师特权
多年来,税法越来越成为一门以数据为中心的学科。反对国际避税和逃税的斗争促使欧盟通过了一系列指令,规范信息交换以及纳税人披露与其业务和投资有关的信息和数据的义务。文章认为DAC6(行政合作指令,理事会指令2018/822)在这种情况下是一个质的变化,因为它似乎侵蚀了客户律师的特权。它首次向顾问和(潜在的)律师等中介机构规定了透明度义务,这与基本权利相冲突,最终给正当程序条款和(间接的)法治蒙上了阴影。文章的核心部分集中在税法中特权的延伸,试图在遏制避税的必要性和保留正当程序条款之间取得平衡。研究结果表明,委托-代理关系是法治的支柱之一,它也应该在税收领域得到保留,最终没有任何指令或法规有权放弃它。结论是,DAC6将被欧洲立法者视为朝着错误方向迈出的一步,欧盟法院的第一项裁决似乎证实了这一点。合并指令,2009/133/EC,90/434/EEC,股东,股份分配,合并,分拆,股份交换
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