{"title":"Critical comment regarding the application of the stand-still clause","authors":"D. Jensen, Henrik Stensgaard","doi":"10.5235/20488432.2.1.56","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5235/20488432.2.1.56","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":114680,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of VAT/GST Law","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128985704","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This judgment favours a narrow interpretation of terms in Council Decisions that authorise a derogation from the VAT Directives (here: ‘construction work’ contained in Council Decision 2004/290/EC). The Court also ruled that a Member State is not obliged to fully apply the authorisation, but may instead apply it only in part, provided the requirements of fiscal neutrality, proportionality and legal certainty are met. It is the task of the courts of the Member States to ascertain whether this is the case.
{"title":"On the meaning of the term ‘construction work’ and on VAT harmonisation in the EU","authors":"R. Ismer, D. Endres","doi":"10.5235/20488432.2.1.65","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5235/20488432.2.1.65","url":null,"abstract":"This judgment favours a narrow interpretation of terms in Council Decisions that authorise a derogation from the VAT Directives (here: ‘construction work’ contained in Council Decision 2004/290/EC). The Court also ruled that a Member State is not obliged to fully apply the authorisation, but may instead apply it only in part, provided the requirements of fiscal neutrality, proportionality and legal certainty are met. It is the task of the courts of the Member States to ascertain whether this is the case.","PeriodicalId":114680,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of VAT/GST Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125421467","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The taxation of cross-border transactions within federal or common markets presents significant challenges to the efficient and fair application of VAT. This article discusses the interstate tax jurisdiction and collection rules applied in the European Union, the United States and Canada. The analysis finds that while the destination principle is dominant, there are very important differences in law and in practice between the three jurisdictions. In the EU, the cost of following the destination principle appears to be significant complexity and fraud. In the US, the absence of a VAT places a significant barrier to achieving the principle since the use tax is unable to effectively fix the problems. In contrast, the system in place in Canada, while complex, seems to do a good job at protecting the sales tax base in relation to interprovincial cross-border transactions.
{"title":"The taxation of cross-border interstate sales in federal or common markets","authors":"Robert F. van Brederode, Pierre-Pascal Gendron","doi":"10.5235/20488432.2.1.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5235/20488432.2.1.1","url":null,"abstract":"The taxation of cross-border transactions within federal or common markets presents significant challenges to the efficient and fair application of VAT. This article discusses the interstate tax jurisdiction and collection rules applied in the European Union, the United States and Canada. The analysis finds that while the destination principle is dominant, there are very important differences in law and in practice between the three jurisdictions. In the EU, the cost of following the destination principle appears to be significant complexity and fraud. In the US, the absence of a VAT places a significant barrier to achieving the principle since the use tax is unable to effectively fix the problems. In contrast, the system in place in Canada, while complex, seems to do a good job at protecting the sales tax base in relation to interprovincial cross-border transactions.","PeriodicalId":114680,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of VAT/GST Law","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115768532","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Taxpayers can raise money needed to provide taxable supplies by issuing shares. The issue of shares is a non-economic activity within the European VAT system and an input taxed supply within the Australian GST system. Both characterisations usually cause a denial of an input tax credit for acquisitions which are related to the issue of shares. In this paper, the author tests different mechanisms within the VAT/GST system which try to avoid unsatisfactory results caused by characterising the issue of shares as a non-taxable supply and ensure that only private consumption is subject to VAT/GST. The author will reveal that a general ‘lookthrough approach’ is the most appropriate mechanism because it harmonises the intended tax goal of the VAT/GST system and the concepts of non-economic, exempt and input taxed supplies.
{"title":"Issue of shares and partnership interests, and the look-through approach within the scope of VAT and GST","authors":"Caroline Heber","doi":"10.5235/20488432.2.1.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5235/20488432.2.1.24","url":null,"abstract":"Taxpayers can raise money needed to provide taxable supplies by issuing shares. The issue of shares is a non-economic activity within the European VAT system and an input taxed supply within the Australian GST system. Both characterisations usually cause a denial of an input tax credit for acquisitions which are related to the issue of shares. In this paper, the author tests different mechanisms within the VAT/GST system which try to avoid unsatisfactory results caused by characterising the issue of shares as a non-taxable supply and ensure that only private consumption is subject to VAT/GST. The author will reveal that a general ‘lookthrough approach’ is the most appropriate mechanism because it harmonises the intended tax goal of the VAT/GST system and the concepts of non-economic, exempt and input taxed supplies.","PeriodicalId":114680,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of VAT/GST Law","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128119817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Alain Charlet is an attorney-at-law. He is working as an independent expert for the IMF drafting VAT and mining codes in West African and Caribbean countries. He teaches at the Catholic University of Lyon (France) and is working on tax policy issues in collaboration with the Université de Sherbrooke (Canada). He is a member of the OECD Technical Advisory Group on Consumption Taxes and of the BIAC (Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD). Prior to that, he worked for two and a half years in the Consumption Taxes Unit of the OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration. From 2002 to 2008 he worked as a tax lawyer for Arthur Andersen International and Landwell & Associés, the correspondent law firm of PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Stéphane Buydens is VAT Policy Advisor at the Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, OECD. He also teaches VAT at the Catholic University of Lyon (France). He is the author of the OECD biennial publication Consumption Tax Trends. Any views expressed in this article are those of the authors only and should not be taken as representing the position of the OECD.
{"title":"The OECD International VAT/GST Guidelines: past and future developments","authors":"A. Charlet, S. Buydens","doi":"10.5235/WJOVL.1.2.175","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5235/WJOVL.1.2.175","url":null,"abstract":"Alain Charlet is an attorney-at-law. He is working as an independent expert for the IMF drafting VAT and mining codes in West African and Caribbean countries. He teaches at the Catholic University of Lyon (France) and is working on tax policy issues in collaboration with the Université de Sherbrooke (Canada). He is a member of the OECD Technical Advisory Group on Consumption Taxes and of the BIAC (Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD). Prior to that, he worked for two and a half years in the Consumption Taxes Unit of the OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration. From 2002 to 2008 he worked as a tax lawyer for Arthur Andersen International and Landwell & Associés, the correspondent law firm of PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Stéphane Buydens is VAT Policy Advisor at the Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, OECD. He also teaches VAT at the Catholic University of Lyon (France). He is the author of the OECD biennial publication Consumption Tax Trends. Any views expressed in this article are those of the authors only and should not be taken as representing the position of the OECD.","PeriodicalId":114680,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of VAT/GST Law","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125545914","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Austrian Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof, VwGH) presented a pending case to the ECJ by asking for a preliminary ruling. The question was whether the running of a photovoltaic plant on or adjacent to a private house constitutes a taxable activity under the VAT Directive, if the energy produced by this plant is fed into the public power grid for consideration. In return, the private household that owns this plant has its energy supplied by this public supplier. The consideration paid by the public supplier to the household for feeding into the grid is equal to the price the private household pays for the supply of energy. Although the private household’s photovoltaic system produces less energy than the household needs for its own purposes, this energy is fed into the public power grid. According to the VwGH this might be due to the fact that the photovoltaic plant in question is not equipped with a storage system. The private household considering carrying out an economic activity applied for the input VAT on the acquisition of the photovoltaic system to be refunded. The tax administration refused, and the Court of Appeal (Unabhänigiger Finanzsenat, UFS) granted the deduction, affirming the existence of an economic activity in accordance with Article 9 RVD. The tax administration lodged an appeal. Although the German Tax Supreme Court (BFH) consistently considers the feeding of privately produced energy into the public power grid as constituting an economic activity under the RVD, the Austrian Supreme Court remains doubtful.
{"title":"Does the running of a photovoltaic installation without a power storage facility on or adjacent to a private dwelling constitute an ‘economic activity’ within the VAT Directive?","authors":"Tina Ehrke-Rabel, Barbara Gunacker-Slawitsch","doi":"10.5235/WJOVL.1.2.198","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5235/WJOVL.1.2.198","url":null,"abstract":"The Austrian Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof, VwGH) presented a pending case to the ECJ by asking for a preliminary ruling. The question was whether the running of a photovoltaic plant on or adjacent to a private house constitutes a taxable activity under the VAT Directive, if the energy produced by this plant is fed into the public power grid for consideration. In return, the private household that owns this plant has its energy supplied by this public supplier. The consideration paid by the public supplier to the household for feeding into the grid is equal to the price the private household pays for the supply of energy. Although the private household’s photovoltaic system produces less energy than the household needs for its own purposes, this energy is fed into the public power grid. According to the VwGH this might be due to the fact that the photovoltaic plant in question is not equipped with a storage system. The private household considering carrying out an economic activity applied for the input VAT on the acquisition of the photovoltaic system to be refunded. The tax administration refused, and the Court of Appeal (Unabhänigiger Finanzsenat, UFS) granted the deduction, affirming the existence of an economic activity in accordance with Article 9 RVD. The tax administration lodged an appeal. Although the German Tax Supreme Court (BFH) consistently considers the feeding of privately produced energy into the public power grid as constituting an economic activity under the RVD, the Austrian Supreme Court remains doubtful.","PeriodicalId":114680,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of VAT/GST Law","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128895669","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article the author examines a recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 1 June 2012 upholding an appeal from the Tax Court, Cape Town with costs. The Tax Court had to determine whether the services acquired by De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd (DBCM) from NM Rothschild and Sons Ltd (NMR) were imported services as defined in section 1 the Value-Added Tax Act 89 of 1991 and subject to VAT and whether the VAT incurred by DBCM in respect of the local advisory services acquired by DBCM constituted input tax as defined in the Act. The Tax Court found largely in favour of DBCM, in that the foreign services did not constitute imported services. In respect of the VAT paid by DBCM for the local advisory services it acquired, which relate inter alia to an offer to purchase the shares in DBCM, except insofar as the services rendered by the law firm Webber Wentzel Bowens (WWB) were allowed as deductible input tax, the Tax Court found that the services were otherwise not deductible as input tax as they related to the rendering of non-taxable supplies and that they did not relate to DBCM’s enterprise activities. On appeal, two judgments were written for the court: a lengthy judgment written jointly by Navsa and van Heerden JJA (the minority), and a separate concurring judgment written by Southwood AJA (Leach JA and Maclaren AJA concurring with that separate judgment) (the majority). The minority and majority judgments reached the same conclusion—albeit for different reasons: the foreign advisory services constituted taxable ‘imported services’ and no deduction for input tax was allowed in respect of the local services acquired by DBCM.
在本文中，作者审查了最高上诉法院(SCA)最近于2012年6月1日作出的一项判决，维持了开普敦税务法院关于诉讼费的上诉。税务法院必须确定戴比尔斯联合矿业有限公司(DBCM)从NM罗斯柴尔德父子有限公司(NMR)获得的服务是否属于1991年《增值税法案89》第1节中定义的进口服务，并需缴纳增值税，以及DBCM就其获得的本地咨询服务产生的增值税是否构成该法案中定义的进项税。税务法庭在很大程度上支持DBCM，因为外国服务不构成进口服务。关于支付的增值税DBCM当地收购咨询服务,与尤其在DBCM出价购买股票,除非服务呈现的律师事务所韦伯Wentzel鲍恩(WWB)被允许扣除进项税,税务法院发现服务不扣除进项税的相关非税供应呈现,他们没有与DBCM的企业活动。上诉时，法院为法院写了两份判决书:一份由Navsa和van Heerden JJA(少数人)共同撰写的长篇判决书，以及一份由Southwood AJA (Leach JA和Maclaren AJA同意该单独判决)撰写的单独的同意判决书(多数人)。少数派和多数派的判决得出了相同的结论——尽管理由不同:外国咨询服务构成应税的“进口服务”，DBCM获得的本地服务不允许扣除进项税。
{"title":"There be dragons: the VAT implications arising from the De Beers SCA judgment","authors":"Carmen Moss-Holdstock","doi":"10.5235/WJOVL.1.2.211","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5235/WJOVL.1.2.211","url":null,"abstract":"In this article the author examines a recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 1 June 2012 upholding an appeal from the Tax Court, Cape Town with costs. The Tax Court had to determine whether the services acquired by De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd (DBCM) from NM Rothschild and Sons Ltd (NMR) were imported services as defined in section 1 the Value-Added Tax Act 89 of 1991 and subject to VAT and whether the VAT incurred by DBCM in respect of the local advisory services acquired by DBCM constituted input tax as defined in the Act. The Tax Court found largely in favour of DBCM, in that the foreign services did not constitute imported services. In respect of the VAT paid by DBCM for the local advisory services it acquired, which relate inter alia to an offer to purchase the shares in DBCM, except insofar as the services rendered by the law firm Webber Wentzel Bowens (WWB) were allowed as deductible input tax, the Tax Court found that the services were otherwise not deductible as input tax as they related to the rendering of non-taxable supplies and that they did not relate to DBCM’s enterprise activities. On appeal, two judgments were written for the court: a lengthy judgment written jointly by Navsa and van Heerden JJA (the minority), and a separate concurring judgment written by Southwood AJA (Leach JA and Maclaren AJA concurring with that separate judgment) (the majority). The minority and majority judgments reached the same conclusion—albeit for different reasons: the foreign advisory services constituted taxable ‘imported services’ and no deduction for input tax was allowed in respect of the local services acquired by DBCM.","PeriodicalId":114680,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of VAT/GST Law","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128872047","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The European Quick Reaction Mechanism against VAT fraud","authors":"B. Terra","doi":"10.5235/WJOVL.1.2.185","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5235/WJOVL.1.2.185","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":114680,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of VAT/GST Law","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116869822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-12-01DOI: 10.1080/20488432.2012.11420894
Ole Gjems-Onstad
{"title":"VAT: best bet against international tax planning","authors":"Ole Gjems-Onstad","doi":"10.1080/20488432.2012.11420894","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20488432.2012.11420894","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":114680,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of VAT/GST Law","volume":"30 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134012501","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The sine qua non of the right to deduct VAT is that expenses are allocated to taxable operations or to exports. For every single expense, one has to determine whether it contributes to the realisation of a specific, taxed supply of goods or services or to export. This question is particularly difficult when it concerns expenses linked to the sale of shares. A sale of shares may fall outside the scope of VAT or fall inside and be exempt. It falls outside the scope if the seller is not involved, habitually, in the activity of sale of shares or if the sale is not linked to an economic activity falling within the scope of VAT. It falls within the scope and is exempt if it relates to an economic activity. When the sale of shares falls outside the scope or falls within the scope and is exempt, a priori, there is no right to deduct input VAT. This was the solution adopted by the ECJ from the BLP Group case of 6 April 1995 until the AB SKF case of 29 October 2009. In respect of financial operations, the ECJ found a solution on 8 June 2000: namely, the notion of ‘overheads’. If expenditures relate to a non-taxable financial operation and constitute overhead costs linked to taxable economic activities, they give rise to the right to deduct input VAT. This solution was adopted by the ECJ in the Midland Bank case, which related not to a sale of shares but to an attempt to buy shares, and this solution has had an impact on both practitioners and the ECJ. The solution regarding overheads was reaffirmed in the Abbey National case, dated 22 February 2001. That case concerned the transfer of a totality of assets, which was ‘neutralised’ for VAT purposes, ie it did not trigger any tax liability or an obligation to adjust input VAT. The Cibo Participations case of 27 September 2001 dealt with the acquisition of shares and not with the sale of such shares. On 23 October 2001, the French tax authorities authorised the deduction of VAT for activities relating to capital. However, the interpretive guidelines do not mention sale of shares. They deal with activities relating to the introduction of shares on a regulated market, capital increases, acquisition of holdings in subsidiaries (with or without participation in the management of the company), mergers, demergers, and contributions of a business or part of a business. The same guidelines deal with the calculation of the deductible proportion. It should be stressed that the guidelines deal with the acquisition of a substantial holding (meaning investment for a long-term period granting an influence in the management of the company, referred to below as ‘substantial participation’) and not portfolio investments.
{"title":"Application of the AB SKF case in France","authors":"Yolande Sérandour","doi":"10.5235/WJOVL.1.2.205","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5235/WJOVL.1.2.205","url":null,"abstract":"The sine qua non of the right to deduct VAT is that expenses are allocated to taxable operations or to exports. For every single expense, one has to determine whether it contributes to the realisation of a specific, taxed supply of goods or services or to export. This question is particularly difficult when it concerns expenses linked to the sale of shares. A sale of shares may fall outside the scope of VAT or fall inside and be exempt. It falls outside the scope if the seller is not involved, habitually, in the activity of sale of shares or if the sale is not linked to an economic activity falling within the scope of VAT. It falls within the scope and is exempt if it relates to an economic activity. When the sale of shares falls outside the scope or falls within the scope and is exempt, a priori, there is no right to deduct input VAT. This was the solution adopted by the ECJ from the BLP Group case of 6 April 1995 until the AB SKF case of 29 October 2009. In respect of financial operations, the ECJ found a solution on 8 June 2000: namely, the notion of ‘overheads’. If expenditures relate to a non-taxable financial operation and constitute overhead costs linked to taxable economic activities, they give rise to the right to deduct input VAT. This solution was adopted by the ECJ in the Midland Bank case, which related not to a sale of shares but to an attempt to buy shares, and this solution has had an impact on both practitioners and the ECJ. The solution regarding overheads was reaffirmed in the Abbey National case, dated 22 February 2001. That case concerned the transfer of a totality of assets, which was ‘neutralised’ for VAT purposes, ie it did not trigger any tax liability or an obligation to adjust input VAT. The Cibo Participations case of 27 September 2001 dealt with the acquisition of shares and not with the sale of such shares. On 23 October 2001, the French tax authorities authorised the deduction of VAT for activities relating to capital. However, the interpretive guidelines do not mention sale of shares. They deal with activities relating to the introduction of shares on a regulated market, capital increases, acquisition of holdings in subsidiaries (with or without participation in the management of the company), mergers, demergers, and contributions of a business or part of a business. The same guidelines deal with the calculation of the deductible proportion. It should be stressed that the guidelines deal with the acquisition of a substantial holding (meaning investment for a long-term period granting an influence in the management of the company, referred to below as ‘substantial participation’) and not portfolio investments.","PeriodicalId":114680,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of VAT/GST Law","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128869744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：