Legal certainty is one of the general principles of European Union law. It is common to the Member States’ constitutional orders. It is of utmost importance in the spheres of tax and customs law where the application of legal rules entails financial consequences. The understanding and significance of this principle have been developed since the early case-law of the Court of Justice. Delineating its precise scope of application reveals certain inconsistencies that are worthy of analysis. general principles, legal certainty, legitimate expectations, directive, linguistic interpretation, multilingualism, vacation legis, retroactivity, abuse of law, fraud
{"title":"Article: Legal Certainty in Tax and Customs Judgments of the Court of Justice","authors":"Krzysztof Lasinski-Sulecki","doi":"10.54648/ecta2024008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2024008","url":null,"abstract":"Legal certainty is one of the general principles of European Union law. It is common to the Member States’ constitutional orders. It is of utmost importance in the spheres of tax and customs law where the application of legal rules entails financial consequences. The understanding and significance of this principle have been developed since the early case-law of the Court of Justice. Delineating its precise scope of application reveals certain inconsistencies that are worthy of analysis.\u0000general principles, legal certainty, legitimate expectations, directive, linguistic interpretation, multilingualism, vacation legis, retroactivity, abuse of law, fraud","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140762863","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}
It is well established that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has taken a strict approach in construing the payment VAT exemption laid down in Article 135(1)(d) of the VAT Directive 2006/112/EC (VAT directive). After more than twenty years of jurisprudence in this space, the CJEU held in DPAS Limited (Case C-5/17) (DPAS) that an instruction to make a payment, albeit essential, was not enough to satisfy the legal requirements for VAT exemption. The impact of this judgment cannot be overlooked. In the UK, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Target Group Limited on 11 October 2023 (Target SC) (Target Group Ltd v. HMRC [2023] UKSC 35) in which it fully endorsed the DPAS doctrine, resulting in a disappointing but widely expected outcome. At its core, it was held that, even if a supplier causes a transfer by sending a binding instruction, such activity does not meet the bar for exemption regardless of whether such causal effect inevitably results, without alteration, in a transfer of funds between the parties. This interpretation represents a landmark shift in interpretation under UK VAT law towards a more restrictive approach. In the author’s view, although the conclusion seems sensible as applied to the facts in Target SC, the Supreme Court did not take the opportunity to distinguish mere administrative tasks taking place outside a typical payment supply chain from a payment instruction made by a financial intermediary, thereby putting any type of instruction on equal footing. This contribution considers the judgment in Target SC in detail and examines whether the legal interpretation of the UK Supreme Court aligns with previous judgments of the CJEU. VAT, Payment Exemption, Outsourcing, Functionality Test, Causal Effect, Restrictive Interpretation, SDC
{"title":"Article: Perspective on the Payment VAT Exemption Following the Decision of the UK Supreme Court in Target","authors":"Philippe Gamito","doi":"10.54648/ecta2024009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2024009","url":null,"abstract":"It is well established that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has taken a strict approach in construing the payment VAT exemption laid down in Article 135(1)(d) of the VAT Directive 2006/112/EC (VAT directive). After more than twenty years of jurisprudence in this space, the CJEU held in DPAS Limited (Case C-5/17) (DPAS) that an instruction to make a payment, albeit essential, was not enough to satisfy the legal requirements for VAT exemption. The impact of this judgment cannot be overlooked. In the UK, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Target Group Limited on 11 October 2023 (Target SC) (Target Group Ltd v. HMRC [2023] UKSC 35) in which it fully endorsed the DPAS doctrine, resulting in a disappointing but widely expected outcome. At its core, it was held that, even if a supplier causes a transfer by sending a binding instruction, such activity does not meet the bar for exemption regardless of whether such causal effect inevitably results, without alteration, in a transfer of funds between the parties. This interpretation represents a landmark shift in interpretation under UK VAT law towards a more restrictive approach. In the author’s view, although the conclusion seems sensible as applied to the facts in Target SC, the Supreme Court did not take the opportunity to distinguish mere administrative tasks taking place outside a typical payment supply chain from a payment instruction made by a financial intermediary, thereby putting any type of instruction on equal footing. This contribution considers the judgment in Target SC in detail and examines whether the legal interpretation of the UK Supreme Court aligns with previous judgments of the CJEU.\u0000VAT, Payment Exemption, Outsourcing, Functionality Test, Causal Effect, Restrictive Interpretation, SDC","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140792576","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 article discusses the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) by tax authorities in the European Union, the resulting benefits and risks, and the necessity for an appropriate legal framework. Tax administrations employ AI systems for various tasks, from risk detection to legal analysis. While automation offers efficiency, there are also risks, such as violations of fundamental rights and discrimination, illustrated by examples like the Dutch childcare benefits scandal. It deals with two relevant EU regulations, namely the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the proposed European AI regulation (AI Act), emphasizing the need for more clarity and protection for taxpayers. The GDPR imposes a principled ban on fully automated decisions but allows exceptions if appropriate measures are in place. The AI Act introduces a right to human intervention for high-risk AI systems, but the author argues that the regulations are not clear enough, especially in view of the upcoming ‘tax administration 3.0ʹ model of the OECD further reducing human intervention. In short, specific guidelines and regulations are needed to ensure the fundamental rights of taxpayers in an increasingly automated tax environment. Artificial Intelligence (AI), Tax authorities, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), European Union Artificial Intelligence Regulation (AI Act), Fundamental rights, Tax collection process, Human intervention, Risk detection, Taxpayer assistance, Tax administration 3.0 model (OECD)
{"title":"Editorial: European Law Restrictions on Tax Authorities’ Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems: Reflections on Some Recent Developments","authors":"","doi":"10.54648/ecta2024006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2024006","url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) by tax authorities in the European Union, the resulting benefits and risks, and the necessity for an appropriate legal framework. Tax administrations employ AI systems for various tasks, from risk detection to legal analysis. While automation offers efficiency, there are also risks, such as violations of fundamental rights and discrimination, illustrated by examples like the Dutch childcare benefits scandal. It deals with two relevant EU regulations, namely the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the proposed European AI regulation (AI Act), emphasizing the need for more clarity and protection for taxpayers. The GDPR imposes a principled ban on fully automated decisions but allows exceptions if appropriate measures are in place. The AI Act introduces a right to human intervention for high-risk AI systems, but the author argues that the regulations are not clear enough, especially in view of the upcoming ‘tax administration 3.0ʹ model of the OECD further reducing human intervention. In short, specific guidelines and regulations are needed to ensure the fundamental rights of taxpayers in an increasingly automated tax environment.\u0000Artificial Intelligence (AI), Tax authorities, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), European Union Artificial Intelligence Regulation (AI Act), Fundamental rights, Tax collection process, Human intervention, Risk detection, Taxpayer assistance, Tax administration 3.0 model (OECD)","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140786774","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}
On 1 February 2020, the United Kingdom (UK) left the European Union (EU). After a transition period that ended on 31 December 2020, EU law instruments that applied to the UK, generally no longer applied. These legal instruments include directives such as the EU Dispute Resolution Directive. The EU and the UK have taken the position that the same applies to the EU Arbitration Convention, which is an instrument of international law entered into between Member States, but not an instrument of EU law. The authors analyse what the consequences of Brexit were for the EU Arbitration Convention and whether the joint position taken by the European Council and the UK can be supported under EU and international law. EU Arbitration Convention, dispute resolution, Brexit, United Kingdom
{"title":"Article: The UK and the EU Arbitration Convention after Brexit","authors":"","doi":"10.54648/ecta2024007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2024007","url":null,"abstract":"On 1 February 2020, the United Kingdom (UK) left the European Union (EU). After a transition period that ended on 31 December 2020, EU law instruments that applied to the UK, generally no longer applied. These legal instruments include directives such as the EU Dispute Resolution Directive. The EU and the UK have taken the position that the same applies to the EU Arbitration Convention, which is an instrument of international law entered into between Member States, but not an instrument of EU law. The authors analyse what the consequences of Brexit were for the EU Arbitration Convention and whether the joint position taken by the European Council and the UK can be supported under EU and international law.\u0000EU Arbitration Convention, dispute resolution, Brexit, United Kingdom","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140787377","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}
Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC8) extends its scope to non-EU operators to improve the effectiveness of the exchange of information on crypto-asset transactions. Nonetheless, it is still for the Member States to determine the nature and size of the penalties for non-compliance and address their extraterritorial enforcement. Starting from this assumption, the present article aims to explore what penalties the Member States can adopt against non-compliant operators based in third countries. Furthermore, this study focuses on the multilateral, bilateral, and unilateral instruments for the extraterritorial enforcement of such penalties. To this scope, the author conducts doctrinal research followed by a conceptual analysis of the existing literature as well as interdisciplinary research focusing on the effectiveness of DAC8 for decentralized crypto-assets. The conclusions underline that the Member States should introduce a combined set of monetary and non-monetary penalties, including internet content blocking and a ban on cryptoasset transactions with blacklisted non-EU operators assisted by a sanctions program. Besides, to ensure their extraterritorial enforcement, Member States should adopt a broader definition of tax claim within the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (CMAAT) and the OECD Model Tax Convention as well as appropriate dissuasive measures against noncooperative jurisdictions in the area of recovery assistance. Administrative cooperation, Tax transparency, Exchange of information, DAC8, Crypto-assets, Monetary penalties, Nonmonetary penalties, Internet content blocking, Extraterritorial enforcement, Non-EU operators
{"title":"DAC8 and Extraterritoriality: How to Enforce Compliance for non-EU Operators","authors":"Claudio Cipollini","doi":"10.54648/ecta2024003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2024003","url":null,"abstract":"Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC8) extends its scope to non-EU operators to improve the effectiveness of the exchange of information on crypto-asset transactions. Nonetheless, it is still for the Member States to determine the nature and size of the penalties for non-compliance and address their extraterritorial enforcement. Starting from this assumption, the present article aims to explore what penalties the Member States can adopt against non-compliant operators based in third countries. Furthermore, this study focuses on the multilateral, bilateral, and unilateral instruments for the extraterritorial enforcement of such penalties. To this scope, the author conducts doctrinal research followed by a conceptual analysis of the existing literature as well as interdisciplinary research focusing on the effectiveness of DAC8 for decentralized crypto-assets. The conclusions underline that the Member States should introduce a combined set of monetary and non-monetary penalties, including internet content blocking and a ban on cryptoasset transactions with blacklisted non-EU operators assisted by a sanctions program. Besides, to ensure their extraterritorial enforcement, Member States should adopt a broader definition of tax claim within the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (CMAAT) and the OECD Model Tax Convention as well as appropriate dissuasive measures against noncooperative jurisdictions in the area of recovery assistance.\u0000Administrative cooperation, Tax transparency, Exchange of information, DAC8, Crypto-assets, Monetary penalties, Nonmonetary penalties, Internet content blocking, Extraterritorial enforcement, Non-EU operators","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140526917","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}
Differentiations in value added tax (VAT) rates and VAT exemptions are used to pursue environmental policy goals, among other things. This article analyses the compatibility of such environmental VAT measures with European Union (EU) state aid law. It is found that the criteria for the granting of a fiscal advantage to (certain) undertakings and the liability to (threaten to) distort competition and affect intra-Union trade are typically fulfilled in these situations. Conversely, the qualification of the relevant advantage as ‘state’ aid (as opposed to Union aid) essentially depends on the (voluntary or mandatory) character of the advantage according to the EU VAT Directive. In any case, one could argue that aligning the VAT legal framework with the European Green Deal is now an additional objective of EU VAT law. Such a reading would speak against the selectivity of these environmental measures pursuant to the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU’s) established three-stage assessment. Value added tax (VAT), rate reductions, rate differentiation, exemptions, state aid, Union aid, selectivity, distortion of competition, environmental policy, European Green Deal.
{"title":"Reconciling Environmental VAT Differentiations With EU State Aid Law","authors":"Stefanie Geringer","doi":"10.54648/ecta2024002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2024002","url":null,"abstract":"Differentiations in value added tax (VAT) rates and VAT exemptions are used to pursue environmental policy goals, among other things. This article analyses the compatibility of such environmental VAT measures with European Union (EU) state aid law. It is found that the criteria for the granting of a fiscal advantage to (certain) undertakings and the liability to (threaten to) distort competition and affect intra-Union trade are typically fulfilled in these situations. Conversely, the qualification of the relevant advantage as ‘state’ aid (as opposed to Union aid) essentially depends on the (voluntary or mandatory) character of the advantage according to the EU VAT Directive. In any case, one could argue that aligning the VAT legal framework with the European Green Deal is now an additional objective of EU VAT law. Such a reading would speak against the selectivity of these environmental measures pursuant to the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU’s) established three-stage assessment.\u0000Value added tax (VAT), rate reductions, rate differentiation, exemptions, state aid, Union aid, selectivity, distortion of competition, environmental policy, European Green Deal.","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140517739","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}
Following the judgment Hedqvist in 2015, it appeared settled that cryptocurrencies fall within the same (Value Added Tax) VAT exemption as their more traditional counterparts. Discussions however have recently emerged around Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), for which an exemption appears not to be in reach. The article argues that a re-evaluation is now necessary. Most crypto-assets have proven themselves to be useful, and in fact used, predominantly for speculative purposes only, i.e., as high risk investments which might generate significant returns or losses. As such, the paper argues that cryptocurrencies and other volatile NFTs should be placed on the same footing, and discusses whether they are not in fact properly classified as ‘other securities’. VAT, Crypto, Bitcoin, Ethereum, NFT, Exemption, Financial Services
{"title":"Forum Contribution: Speculative Crypto-Assets and VAT: Why It Is (Almost) All Exempt.","authors":"Fabian Barth","doi":"10.54648/ecta2024005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2024005","url":null,"abstract":"Following the judgment Hedqvist in 2015, it appeared settled that cryptocurrencies fall within the same (Value Added Tax) VAT exemption as their more traditional counterparts. Discussions however have recently emerged around Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), for which an exemption appears not to be in reach. The article argues that a re-evaluation is now necessary. Most crypto-assets have proven themselves to be useful, and in fact used, predominantly for speculative purposes only, i.e., as high risk investments which might generate significant returns or losses. As such, the paper argues that cryptocurrencies and other volatile NFTs should be placed on the same footing, and discusses whether they are not in fact properly classified as ‘other securities’.\u0000VAT, Crypto, Bitcoin, Ethereum, NFT, Exemption, Financial Services","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140516162","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 European Union relies increasingly on non-binding international agreements as a blueprint for its legislation on direct taxation. This implies converting a flexible soft law instrument into hard law that is subsequently difficult to amend due to the unanimity principle. A nascent trend to ensure that such Union legislation nevertheless stays in sync with future developments of the underlying soft law agreement are dynamic references to the latter. However, the scope for this approach is limited by the requirements of sufficient democratic legitimacy and legality of taxation, and respect for the institutional balance of the Union. Dynamic references to international soft law standards should therefore primarily be used as a source of interpretation or illustration for the concretization of already executable rules in the relevant EU legal act. They do not normally allow to incorporate also amendments and supplements of the original soft law agreement, unless additional safeguards exist that ensure compliance with the aforementioned Union law principles – at the expense of the desired flexibility, however. In this regard, the better approach would be the conferral of delegated powers upon the Commission to ensure a timely yet controlled alignment of the relevant Union tax legislation with new soft law standards. soft law, dynamic reference, democratic legitimacy, legality of taxation, institutional balance
{"title":"Dynamic References To International Soft Law Agreements: Flexibility With Limits","authors":"J. Englisch","doi":"10.54648/ecta2024001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2024001","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union relies increasingly on non-binding international agreements as a blueprint for its legislation on direct taxation. This implies converting a flexible soft law instrument into hard law that is subsequently difficult to amend due to the unanimity principle. A nascent trend to ensure that such Union legislation nevertheless stays in sync with future developments of the underlying soft law agreement are dynamic references to the latter. However, the scope for this approach is limited by the requirements of sufficient democratic legitimacy and legality of taxation, and respect for the institutional balance of the Union. Dynamic references to international soft law standards should therefore primarily be used as a source of interpretation or illustration for the concretization of already executable rules in the relevant EU legal act. They do not normally allow to incorporate also amendments and supplements of the original soft law agreement, unless additional safeguards exist that ensure compliance with the aforementioned Union law principles – at the expense of the desired flexibility, however. In this regard, the better approach would be the conferral of delegated powers upon the Commission to ensure a timely yet controlled alignment of the relevant Union tax legislation with new soft law standards.\u0000soft law, dynamic reference, democratic legitimacy, legality of taxation, institutional balance","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140522645","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}
Rafaela Pardete, Márcia C. Santos, Francisco Leote
This study sought to address the challenges of formulating the European Union’s value-added tax (VAT) reform for the financial services sector and implementing the proposed changes. The concerns and suggestions submitted by this sector’s stakeholders during the European Commission’s 2021 public consultation are used as inputs. The research included automated computer-assisted content analysis of fifty-two position papers, using up-to-date text mining techniques to define four cluster containing the most salient terms. An in-depth critical review highlighted the most significant concerns and suggested alterations to the current VAT framework. The results include a three-layered discussion model that goes well beyond a straightforward one-shot discussion of whether financial services should charge VAT. First, the technical rationality view of not charging VAT when providing financial services is no longer applicable. Second, intermediary and cost-sharing groups are characteristic of these services, which puts into question the tax’s neutrality principle if the current VAT exemption regime remains in place. Last, abolishing the VAT exemption for these services could put an especially heavy burden on end consumers and small businesses, thereby implying extra measures will be needed to avoid a strongly negative socioeconomic impact. Significant implications for theory, practice and policy are presented. Value-added tax (VAT), Financial service, Insurance service, Tax policy, Public consultation, European Commission, Data mining, VOSviewer
{"title":"Future VAT Regime for Financial Services from a Stakeholder Perspective: Analysis of the European Commission 2020 Public Consultation’s Position Papers","authors":"Rafaela Pardete, Márcia C. Santos, Francisco Leote","doi":"10.54648/ecta2024004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2024004","url":null,"abstract":"This study sought to address the challenges of formulating the European Union’s value-added tax (VAT) reform for the financial services sector and implementing the proposed changes. The concerns and suggestions submitted by this sector’s stakeholders during the European Commission’s 2021 public consultation are used as inputs. The research included automated computer-assisted content analysis of fifty-two position papers, using up-to-date text mining techniques to define four cluster containing the most salient terms. An in-depth critical review highlighted the most significant concerns and suggested alterations to the current VAT framework. The results include a three-layered discussion model that goes well beyond a straightforward one-shot discussion of whether financial services should charge VAT. First, the technical rationality view of not charging VAT when providing financial services is no longer applicable. Second, intermediary and cost-sharing groups are characteristic of these services, which puts into question the tax’s neutrality principle if the current VAT exemption regime remains in place. Last, abolishing the VAT exemption for these services could put an especially heavy burden on end consumers and small businesses, thereby implying extra measures will be needed to avoid a strongly negative socioeconomic impact. Significant implications for theory, practice and policy are presented.\u0000Value-added tax (VAT), Financial service, Insurance service, Tax policy, Public consultation, European Commission, Data mining, VOSviewer","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140520059","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 its recent judgment inW AG the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) fundamentally departed in substance from earlier case-law concerning the treatment of ‘final losses’ incurred by foreign permanent establishments. However, like in other tax cases before, the Court did not clarify that previous decisions (in particular, Lidl Belgium) are ‘overruled’ now. This causes unnecessary damage to legal certainty in the area of EU tax law, and the CJEU should reconsider this approach towards ‘overruling’ in future cases. Furthermore, situations of ‘overruling’ also deserve special attention within the framework of the current reform of the preliminary ruling system. overruling, legal certainty, direct taxation, final losses, Marks & Spencer doctrine, preliminary ruling, Court of Justice, General Court, Grand Chamber, CJEU Statute, CJEU Rules of Procedure
{"title":"Editorial: We Need to Know When Previous Case-Law Has Been ‘Overruled’! - A Plea for More Legal Certainty in EU Tax","authors":"Axel Cordewener","doi":"10.54648/ecta2023019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2023019","url":null,"abstract":"In its recent judgment inW AG the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) fundamentally departed in substance from earlier case-law concerning the treatment of ‘final losses’ incurred by foreign permanent establishments. However, like in other tax cases before, the Court did not clarify that previous decisions (in particular, Lidl Belgium) are ‘overruled’ now. This causes unnecessary damage to legal certainty in the area of EU tax law, and the CJEU should reconsider this approach towards ‘overruling’ in future cases. Furthermore, situations of ‘overruling’ also deserve special attention within the framework of the current reform of the preliminary ruling system.\u0000overruling, legal certainty, direct taxation, final losses, Marks & Spencer doctrine, preliminary ruling, Court of Justice, General Court, Grand Chamber, CJEU Statute, CJEU Rules of Procedure","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44998557","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：