Bart van der Doef, Madeleine Merkx, John Gruson, Naomie Verbaan
{"title":"VAT in the Digital Age Package: Singling Out the Single VAT Registration","authors":"Bart van der Doef, Madeleine Merkx, John Gruson, Naomie Verbaan","doi":"10.54648/ecta2023022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2023022","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135762291","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 an opinion of 4 May 2023 in Case C-454/21 P, Engie, Advocate General Kokott proposes a new standard of state aid review of individual tax measures such as the tax rulings, based on a manifestly erroneous application of tax law (favourable to the taxpayer) by the national tax administration. Considering that, in order to assess the selective nature of tax rulings, only national law must constitute the frame of reference and that in any event, only tax rulings that are manifestly erroneous with regard to national law can constitute a selective advantage, Advocate General Kokott has called on the Court to annul the Commission’s decision finding that Luxembourg granted the Engie group unlawful state aid in the form of tax advantages, as well as the judgment of the General Court. State aid control, direct taxation, notion of selective advantage, Commission practice, aggressive tax planning, individual tax rulings, tax system of reference, comparability, Union Courts review, annulment of Commission decision
{"title":"Forum: AG Kokott Tries to Bring Clarity to the Selectivity Test for Individual Tax Rulings","authors":"Pierpaolo Rossi-Maccanico","doi":"10.54648/ecta2023023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2023023","url":null,"abstract":"In an opinion of 4 May 2023 in Case C-454/21 P, Engie, Advocate General Kokott proposes a new standard of state aid review of individual tax measures such as the tax rulings, based on a manifestly erroneous application of tax law (favourable to the taxpayer) by the national tax administration. Considering that, in order to assess the selective nature of tax rulings, only national law must constitute the frame of reference and that in any event, only tax rulings that are manifestly erroneous with regard to national law can constitute a selective advantage, Advocate General Kokott has called on the Court to annul the Commission’s decision finding that Luxembourg granted the Engie group unlawful state aid in the form of tax advantages, as well as the judgment of the General Court.\u0000State aid control, direct taxation, notion of selective advantage, Commission practice, aggressive tax planning, individual tax rulings, tax system of reference, comparability, Union Courts review, annulment of Commission decision","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":"48509495","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}
As from 2023 the Directive 2021/514/EU adopted on 22 March 2021 (DAC7) require platform operators to comply with due diligence and reporting obligations on the sellers offering goods or services via digital platforms. The article discusses the different roles that the platform operators may play from a business standpoint and reflects on the implications of such different roles for the purpose of appropriately defining the scope of DAC7 reporting obligations. In the author’s opinion, such scope should be defined attributing crucial relevance to the income reporting obligation with the platform operators for (accounting and) tax purposes. In this sense, in all cases where the platform operator is already required to disclose the overall consideration paid by the customer in its income tax return the reporting obligations laid under the DAC7 should not apply, as there would not be any risk of tax evasion. DAC7, platforms, platform operators, principal, intermediary, tax evasion, disclosed agent, undisclosed agent
{"title":"DAC7: Some Thoughts on the Different Roles of Platform Operators and the Appropriate Definition of the Scope of Reporting Obligations","authors":"Alessio Persiani","doi":"10.54648/ecta2023021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2023021","url":null,"abstract":"As from 2023 the Directive 2021/514/EU adopted on 22 March 2021 (DAC7) require platform operators to comply with due diligence and reporting obligations on the sellers offering goods or services via digital platforms. The article discusses the different roles that the platform operators may play from a business standpoint and reflects on the implications of such different roles for the purpose of appropriately defining the scope of DAC7 reporting obligations. In the author’s opinion, such scope should be defined attributing crucial relevance to the income reporting obligation with the platform operators for (accounting and) tax purposes. In this sense, in all cases where the platform operator is already required to disclose the overall consideration paid by the customer in its income tax return the reporting obligations laid under the DAC7 should not apply, as there would not be any risk of tax evasion.\u0000DAC7, platforms, platform operators, principal, intermediary, tax evasion, disclosed agent, undisclosed agent","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":"47820145","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 paper aims at explaining why the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) might play a key role in building a more coherent legal framework intended to face the several legal challenges that are likely to emerge from recent measures adopted at European and national levels regarding the consistent involvement of private third parties in the direct taxation process. These measures, wished-for combat against tax fraud and facing the ‘permanent’ economic crisis, are aimed either to collect and exchange taxpayers’ data from new sources (i.e., at EU level Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC6, 7 and 8)) or to facilitate ‘tax just happening’ and pave the way for the implementation of a Tax Administration 3.0 model, as suggested by the OECD’s Forum on Tax Administration (FTA) (e.g., at national level the involvement of digital platforms as withholder or joint liable person). Currently, while the analysis of the involvement of digital platforms in the indirect taxation process is fast growing, less attention is devoted to the potentialities and risks deriving from their involvement as third parties in the direct taxation process. Therefore, starting from a recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (SS SIA, C-175/20) and the stimulating opinion raised by the Advocate General, the present paper contributes to open a debate to fill this literature gap on a topic that is proving crucial from both a scientific and societal perspectives.This paper aims at explaining why the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) might play a key role in building a more coherent legal framework intended to face the several legal challenges that are likely to emerge from recent measures adopted at European and national levels regarding the consistent involvement of private third parties in the direct taxation process. These measures, wished-for combat against tax fraud and facing the ‘permanent’ economic crisis, are aimed either to collect and exchange taxpayers’ data from new sources (i.e., at EU level Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC6, 7 and 8)) or to facilitate ‘tax just happening’ and pave the way for the implementation of a Tax Administration 3.0 model, as suggested by the OECD’s Forum on Tax Administration (FTA) (e.g., at national level the involvement of digital platforms as withholder or joint liable person). Currently, while the analysis of the involvement of digital platforms in the indirect taxation process is fast growing, less attention is devoted to the potentialities and risks deriving from their involvement as third parties in the direct taxation process. Therefore, starting from a recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (SS SIA, C-175/20) and the stimulating opinion raised by the Advocate General, the present paper contributes to open a debate to fill this literature gap on a topic that is proving crucial from both a scientific and societal perspectives. CJEU, Advocate General opinion, third p
{"title":"Tax Information, Third Parties and GDPR: Legal Challenges and Hints from the Court of Justice","authors":"A. Tomo","doi":"10.54648/ecta2023020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2023020","url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims at explaining why the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) might play a key role in building a more coherent legal framework intended to face the several legal challenges that are likely to emerge from recent measures adopted at European and national levels regarding the consistent involvement of private third parties in the direct taxation process. These measures, wished-for combat against tax fraud and facing the ‘permanent’ economic crisis, are aimed either to collect and exchange taxpayers’ data from new sources (i.e., at EU level Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC6, 7 and 8)) or to facilitate ‘tax just happening’ and pave the way for the implementation of a Tax Administration 3.0 model, as suggested by the OECD’s Forum on Tax Administration (FTA) (e.g., at national level the involvement of digital platforms as withholder or joint liable person). Currently, while the analysis of the involvement of digital platforms in the indirect taxation process is fast growing, less attention is devoted to the potentialities and risks deriving from their involvement as third parties in the direct taxation process. Therefore, starting from a recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (SS SIA, C-175/20) and the stimulating opinion raised by the Advocate General, the present paper contributes to open a debate to fill this literature gap on a topic that is proving crucial from both a scientific and societal perspectives.This paper aims at explaining why the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) might play a key role in building a more coherent legal framework intended to face the several legal challenges that are likely to emerge from recent measures adopted at European and national levels regarding the consistent involvement of private third parties in the direct taxation process. These measures, wished-for combat against tax fraud and facing the ‘permanent’ economic crisis, are aimed either to collect and exchange taxpayers’ data from new sources (i.e., at EU level Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC6, 7 and 8)) or to facilitate ‘tax just happening’ and pave the way for the implementation of a Tax Administration 3.0 model, as suggested by the OECD’s Forum on Tax Administration (FTA) (e.g., at national level the involvement of digital platforms as withholder or joint liable person). Currently, while the analysis of the involvement of digital platforms in the indirect taxation process is fast growing, less attention is devoted to the potentialities and risks deriving from their involvement as third parties in the direct taxation process. Therefore, starting from a recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (SS SIA, C-175/20) and the stimulating opinion raised by the Advocate General, the present paper contributes to open a debate to fill this literature gap on a topic that is proving crucial from both a scientific and societal perspectives.\u0000CJEU, Advocate General opinion, third p","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":"45051559","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}
Basically, a company can be financed by debt or equity. The general national tax systems are that interest, the compensation paid for funds put at disposal by means of a loan, are deductible and that the compensation for funds put at disposal by means of equity is not. In this context, the question often arises of whether this different treatment is justified. Or should they be treated (more) the same? The European Commission has proposed a directive to tackle to debt-equity bias by introducing a notional allowance on equity, on the one hand, and a new limitation on interest deduction, on the other hand (DEBRA). This editorial raises the questions of whether the tax treatment of the remuneration paid on loans (interest) by companies and the remuneration on their equity (profits) as proposed in DEBRA is sufficiently based on principles to contribute to a sustainable tax system with regard to company financing, and if not, what an alternative would be that better complies with those principles. The author concludes that DEBRA is another stopgap for flaws in the current tax systems, which has the potential to further distort the capital markets. He suggests an alternative system based on the principle of origin to remove the debt-equity bias. debt-equity bias, capital markets, tax neutrality, ability-to-pay, direct benefit principle, principle of origin, territorial principle, territoriality principle, taxation of interest, distortion of competition, sustainability
{"title":"Editorial: Taxing Interest in the Debtor State as an Alternative to DEBRA","authors":"E. Kemmeren","doi":"10.54648/ecta2023010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2023010","url":null,"abstract":"Basically, a company can be financed by debt or equity. The general national tax systems are that interest, the compensation paid for funds put at disposal by means of a loan, are deductible and that the compensation for funds put at disposal by means of equity is not. In this context, the question often arises of whether this different treatment is justified. Or should they be treated (more) the same? The European Commission has proposed a directive to tackle to debt-equity bias by introducing a notional allowance on equity, on the one hand, and a new limitation on interest deduction, on the other hand (DEBRA). This editorial raises the questions of whether the tax treatment of the remuneration paid on loans (interest) by companies and the remuneration on their equity (profits) as proposed in DEBRA is sufficiently based on principles to contribute to a sustainable tax system with regard to company financing, and if not, what an alternative would be that better complies with those principles. The author concludes that DEBRA is another stopgap for flaws in the current tax systems, which has the potential to further distort the capital markets. He suggests an alternative system based on the principle of origin to remove the debt-equity bias.\u0000debt-equity bias, capital markets, tax neutrality, ability-to-pay, direct benefit principle, principle of origin, territorial principle, territoriality principle, taxation of interest, distortion of competition, sustainability","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46066532","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}
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
{"title":"Article: Shades of Transparency: DAC6 and the Client- Attorney Privilege","authors":"M. Greggi","doi":"10.54648/ecta2023012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2023012","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.\u0000The 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.\u0000The 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.\u0000The 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.\u0000Merger directive, 2009/133/EC, 90/434/EEC, shareholder, allotment of shares, merger, demerger, exchange of shares","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48817047","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 provisions of the Excise Directive 2020/262 to be applied as from 13 February 2023 aim to link excise and customs law more closely and to further advance the digitalization of excise processes. The authors argue that, notwithstanding the recast of the Directive, harmonization has not yet reached its full potential due to numerous options granted to the Member States. Furthermore, the linkage between excise and customs law raises fundamental questions regarding the justification of an automated incurrence of an excise duty debt in cases of a customs debt incurred through non-compliance. Finally, the authors show that the Excise Directive 2020/262 does not conflict with the planned recast of the Energy Tax Directive presented as part of the Green Deal in July 2021. Customs Law; Digitalization; Directive 2020/262; Directive 2003/96/EC; Excise Law; Excise Duty Directive; Energy Taxation Directive
{"title":"Article: Excise Duty Directive 2020/262: Towards a Digitalized and Customs Oriented Excise Law","authors":"Thomas Bieber, Denise Schmaranzer","doi":"10.54648/ecta2023013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2023013","url":null,"abstract":"The provisions of the Excise Directive 2020/262 to be applied as from 13 February 2023 aim to link excise and customs law more closely and to further advance the digitalization of excise processes. The authors argue that, notwithstanding the recast of the Directive, harmonization has not yet reached its full potential due to numerous options granted to the Member States. Furthermore, the linkage between excise and customs law raises fundamental questions regarding the justification of an automated incurrence of an excise duty debt in cases of a customs debt incurred through non-compliance. Finally, the authors show that the Excise Directive 2020/262 does not conflict with the planned recast of the Energy Tax Directive presented as part of the Green Deal in July 2021.\u0000Customs Law; Digitalization; Directive 2020/262; Directive 2003/96/EC; Excise Law; Excise Duty Directive; Energy Taxation Directive","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48775170","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 concerns the compatibility with the merger directive of Polish regulations introduced as of 1 January 2022, according to which a restructuring (merger, demerger or exchange of shares) is not tax neutral for a given shareholder if it involves allotment of shares in exchange of shares which were obtained as a result of a prior restructuring. For the purpose of this analysis, the authors take a deep look at the nature of deferral provided in Article 8 of the merger directive and summarize the case law and the doctrine views. While they acknowledge many areas of dispute around the concept of the deferral, they conclude that irrespective of the approach adopted, taxation of shareholders solely because they exchange shares granted to them as a result of a previous restructuring is not in line with the directive. Regardless of the above, the authors also discuss whether Article 8(6) of the directive provides for a right of a Member State to tax gain which arose until the moment of the restructuring if, as a result of the restructuring, the taxing right under a double taxation treaty (DTT) is transferred to another Member State. Merger directive, 2009/133/EC, 90/434/EEC, shareholder, allotment of shares, merger, demerger, exchange of shares
{"title":"Article: May a Country Tax a Subsequent Restructuring Under the Merger Directive?","authors":"Mikołaj Kondej, Mateusz Wicher","doi":"10.54648/ecta2023011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2023011","url":null,"abstract":"The article concerns the compatibility with the merger directive of Polish regulations introduced as of 1 January 2022, according to which a restructuring (merger, demerger or exchange of shares) is not tax neutral for a given shareholder if it involves allotment of shares in exchange of shares which were obtained as a result of a prior restructuring. For the purpose of this analysis, the authors take a deep look at the nature of deferral provided in Article 8 of the merger directive and summarize the case law and the doctrine views. While they acknowledge many areas of dispute around the concept of the deferral, they conclude that irrespective of the approach adopted, taxation of shareholders solely because they exchange shares granted to them as a result of a previous restructuring is not in line with the directive. Regardless of the above, the authors also discuss whether Article 8(6) of the directive provides for a right of a Member State to tax gain which arose until the moment of the restructuring if, as a result of the restructuring, the taxing right under a double taxation treaty (DTT) is transferred to another Member State. Merger directive, 2009/133/EC, 90/434/EEC, shareholder, allotment of shares, merger, demerger, exchange of shares","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49084186","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 Brexit, the United Kingdom (UK) legislature is in principle free to amend UK Value Added Tax (VAT) law as it deems appropriate, without having to have regard to European Union (EU) Directives. Using the ‘debt collection’ carveout of the VAT exemption for financial services as an example, the author explores whether there is a case for Post-Brexit ‘VAT Quick Fixes’ in the UK. VAT, Exemptions, Brexit, Debt Collection, Financial Services
{"title":"Forum: A New Scope for the ‘Debt Collection’ Carveout as a Post-Brexit VAT Quick Fix?","authors":"Fabian Barth","doi":"10.54648/ecta2023005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2023005","url":null,"abstract":"Following Brexit, the United Kingdom (UK) legislature is in principle free to amend UK Value Added Tax (VAT) law as it deems appropriate, without having to have regard to European Union (EU) Directives. Using the ‘debt collection’ carveout of the VAT exemption for financial services as an example, the author explores whether there is a case for Post-Brexit ‘VAT Quick Fixes’ in the UK.\u0000VAT, Exemptions, Brexit, Debt Collection, Financial Services","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46042164","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 aim of the study was to select tax-related cases from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law in the years 1959 – 2020 and analyse all such cases using empirical legal studies method, focusing mostly on separate opinions. This analysis led to the selection of research material covering 176 tax-related cases (179 judgments, sixty-nine separate opinions). The most important research findings include, e.g., small number of ECtHR judgments in tax matters, low frequency at which they are issued, the fact that judges submit separate opinion more frequently in a situation when a judgment finding no violation is delivered rather than when a judgment finding violation is delivered. Moreover, the article contains an extensive review of the literature with regard to the undertaken subject. separate opinion, dissenting opinion, concurring opinion, tax-related cases, empirical legal studies
{"title":"Article: Statistical Picture of the European Court of Human Rights’ Tax-Related Cases Containing Separate Opinions","authors":"Patryk Kowalski","doi":"10.54648/ecta2023004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2023004","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of the study was to select tax-related cases from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law in the years 1959 – 2020 and analyse all such cases using empirical legal studies method, focusing mostly on separate opinions. This analysis led to the selection of research material covering 176 tax-related cases (179 judgments, sixty-nine separate opinions). The most important research findings include, e.g., small number of ECtHR judgments in tax matters, low frequency at which they are issued, the fact that judges submit separate opinion more frequently in a situation when a judgment finding no violation is delivered rather than when a judgment finding violation is delivered. Moreover, the article contains an extensive review of the literature with regard to the undertaken subject.\u0000separate opinion, dissenting opinion, concurring opinion, tax-related cases, empirical legal studies","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45209289","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：