Since the Eurogate II and DHL decision (CJEU, Judgment of 2 June 2016, EU:C:2016:405), it has been clear that importation in the VAT context means ‘the entry of goods into the economic network’ of the Union. However, it is problematic that neither the EU VAT Directive nor the CJEU provide a distinct definition of what is meant by this term. This article deals with the main existing theories on the interpretation of this indeterminate legal concept in the German-language literature and by the German fiscal courts. It is concluded that these theories unfortunately ignore the exposed consumption tax character of (import) VAT and therefore deliver inconsistent results in contradiction to the recent decisions of the CJEU. importation, import VAT, customs, economic network, economic cycle, consumption tax, EU VAT Directive
{"title":"Forum: Case C-368/21: A New Definition of Importation in the Sense of VAT Law?","authors":"Sven Ojak","doi":"10.54648/ecta2022027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2022027","url":null,"abstract":"Since the Eurogate II and DHL decision (CJEU, Judgment of 2 June 2016, EU:C:2016:405), it has been clear that importation in the VAT context means ‘the entry of goods into the economic network’ of the Union. However, it is problematic that neither the EU VAT Directive nor the CJEU provide a distinct definition of what is meant by this term. This article deals with the main existing theories on the interpretation of this indeterminate legal concept in the German-language literature and by the German fiscal courts. It is concluded that these theories unfortunately ignore the exposed consumption tax character of (import) VAT and therefore deliver inconsistent results in contradiction to the recent decisions of the CJEU.\u0000importation, import VAT, customs, economic network, economic cycle, consumption tax, EU VAT Directive","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42860074","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}
Relations between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) have been shaped by various (bilateral) agreements. This contribution discusses one of the most important agreements between Switzerland and the EU; the agreement on the free movement of persons (AFMP). The AFMP does not have its own dispute settlement mechanism or supervisory body. Dispute resolution is now left to independent Swiss courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). On 23 November 2018, a first draft of an institutional framework agreement between Switzerland and the EU was published. The aim of this proposed framework agreement was partly to simplify the complex relations between Switzerland and the EU. In May 2021 the Swiss government pulled the plug on the institutional framework agreement because of concerns about migration, labour rights, and worries about the judicial authority the institutional agreement would give to the ECJ. The EC is however clear about what it wants. Amongst others, the dynamic alignment of Swiss law to EU law and a functioning dispute settlement mechanism are issues the EC wants to see solved. In this article the author explores, among other things, what the consequences could be for Swiss fiscal autonomy if Switzerland would follow the EC. The author also reflects in more detail on the ECJ’s case law on frontier workers and the final settlement on capital gains from shareholdings upon emigration to Switzerland. Free movement of persons, Switzerland, taxation, bilateral agreements, Wächtler judgment.
{"title":"Article: Free Movement of Persons Between the EU and Switzerland: Quo Vadis?","authors":"E. Ros","doi":"10.54648/ecta2022023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2022023","url":null,"abstract":"Relations between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) have been shaped by various (bilateral) agreements. This contribution discusses one of the most important agreements between Switzerland and the EU; the agreement on the free movement of persons (AFMP). The AFMP does not have its own dispute settlement mechanism or supervisory body. Dispute resolution is now left to independent Swiss courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). On 23 November 2018, a first draft of an institutional framework agreement between Switzerland and the EU was published. The aim of this proposed framework agreement was partly to simplify the complex relations between Switzerland and the EU. In May 2021 the Swiss government pulled the plug on the institutional framework agreement because of concerns about migration, labour rights, and worries about the judicial authority the institutional agreement would give to the ECJ. The EC is however clear about what it wants. Amongst others, the dynamic alignment of Swiss law to EU law and a functioning dispute settlement mechanism are issues the EC wants to see solved. In this article the author explores, among other things, what the consequences could be for Swiss fiscal autonomy if Switzerland would follow the EC. The author also reflects in more detail on the ECJ’s case law on frontier workers and the final settlement on capital gains from shareholdings upon emigration to Switzerland.\u0000Free movement of persons, Switzerland, taxation, bilateral agreements, Wächtler judgment.","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49291359","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 recent years, many have mused on whether substantive EU VAT rules are sufficiently versatile to adapt to technological innovations that disrupt traditional business models. Some national courts applying those rules are apparently not: For instance, the German Federal Tax Court recently decided that the rental of virtual land cannot, in itself, attract VAT, because such transactions do not happen in the ‘real’ economy and therefore allegedly cannot imply a supply of any consumable benefit. The wisdom (and the correctness) of such a decision may be questioned – considering the efforts currently made to develop a ‘metaverse’, such reasoning might well become the new Watson anecdote of future generations of VAT practitioners. But admittedly, in some respects the current EU VAT system clearly was or still is in need of modernization, not only regarding the tax collection procedures, but indeed also with respect to substantive law issues. Examples are the recent reform on the place of supply rules for a virtual provision of certain services, the late and piecemeal inclusion of electronically supplied services in the list of supplies eligible for reduced rates, or the need to clarify and, possibly, amend the treatment of crowdfunding in the light of its increasing tokenization. Notwithstanding the above, it should be acknowledged that in many cases, the harmonized VAT rules are future-proof enough to ‘go virtual’ and produce consistent and reasonable results. Arguably, one such area are blockchain-based innovations in the field of financial instruments, i.e., so-called security tokens or investment tokens. This editorial discusses how they fit into established concepts of EU VAT and how to adequately address some peculiarities in line with established VAT doctrine.
{"title":"Editorial: VAT Goes Virtual: Security Tokens","authors":"J. Englisch","doi":"10.54648/ecta2022022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2022022","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, many have mused on whether substantive EU VAT rules are sufficiently versatile to adapt to technological innovations that disrupt traditional business models. Some national courts applying those rules are apparently not: For instance, the German Federal Tax Court recently decided that the rental of virtual land cannot, in itself, attract VAT, because such transactions do not happen in the ‘real’ economy and therefore allegedly cannot imply a supply of any consumable benefit. The wisdom (and the correctness) of such a decision may be questioned – considering the efforts currently made to develop a ‘metaverse’, such reasoning might well become the new Watson anecdote of future generations of VAT practitioners. But admittedly, in some respects the current EU VAT system clearly was or still is in need of modernization, not only regarding the tax collection procedures, but indeed also with respect to substantive law issues. Examples are the recent reform on the place of supply rules for a virtual provision of certain services, the late and piecemeal inclusion of electronically supplied services in the list of supplies eligible for reduced rates, or the need to clarify and, possibly, amend the treatment of crowdfunding in the light of its increasing tokenization. Notwithstanding the above, it should be acknowledged that in many cases, the harmonized VAT rules are future-proof enough to ‘go virtual’ and produce consistent and reasonable results. Arguably, one such area are blockchain-based innovations in the field of financial instruments, i.e., so-called security tokens or investment tokens. This editorial discusses how they fit into established concepts of EU VAT and how to adequately address some peculiarities in line with established VAT doctrine.","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41419354","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 24 February 2022 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in the case Viva Telecom Bulgaria EOOD v. Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika – Sofia (Case C-257/20) (ECJ, 24 February 2022, Case C-257/20, Viva Telecom Bulgaria EOOD v. Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika – Sofia, ECLI:EU: C:2022:125), inter alia, that fictitious interest payments do not enjoy withholding tax (WHT) exemption neither under the Interest and Royalties Directive (2003/49) (Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States, OJ L 157, 26 June 2003) (IRD) nor under the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (2011/96) (Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, OJ L 345, 29 December 2011) (PSD) (together referred to as the directives). This article questions this finding and argues that fictitious interest and dividends should fall under the IRD and PSD respectively. IRD, PSD, EU corporate taxation, fictitious interest, fictitious dividends, CFC, tax avoidance, transfer pricing adjustment
2022年2月24日，欧洲法院(ECJ)就Viva Telecom Bulgaria EOOD诉direcrektsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika - Sofia一案(案件C-257/20)作出裁决(欧洲法院，2022年2月24日，案件C-257/20，保加利亚Viva Telecom EOOD诉direcrektsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika - Sofia, ECLI:EU):C:2022:125)，除其他外，根据利息和特许权使用费指令(2003/49)(2003年6月3日关于适用于不同成员国关联公司之间支付的利息和特许权使用费的共同税收制度的理事会指令2003/49/EC, OJ L 157)，虚构的利息支付不享受预扣税豁免。2003年6月26日)(IRD)或根据母子指令(2011/96)(2011年11月30日理事会指令2011/96/EU, OJ L 345, 2011年12月29日)(PSD)(统称为指令)。本文对这一发现提出质疑，并认为虚拟利息和股息应分别属于IRD和PSD。IRD, PSD，欧盟公司税，虚构利息，虚构股息，CFC，避税，转让定价调整
{"title":"Article: Fictitious Interest and Dividends Under Tax Treaties and the EU Directives","authors":"Savvas Kostikidis, Florian Striefler","doi":"10.54648/ecta2022024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2022024","url":null,"abstract":"On 24 February 2022 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in the case Viva Telecom Bulgaria EOOD v. Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika – Sofia (Case C-257/20) (ECJ, 24 February 2022, Case C-257/20, Viva Telecom Bulgaria EOOD v. Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika – Sofia, ECLI:EU: C:2022:125), inter alia, that fictitious interest payments do not enjoy withholding tax (WHT) exemption neither under the Interest and Royalties Directive (2003/49) (Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States, OJ L 157, 26 June 2003) (IRD) nor under the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (2011/96) (Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, OJ L 345, 29 December 2011) (PSD) (together referred to as the directives). This article questions this finding and argues that fictitious interest and dividends should fall under the IRD and PSD respectively.\u0000IRD, PSD, EU corporate taxation, fictitious interest, fictitious dividends, CFC, tax avoidance, transfer pricing adjustment","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43371041","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}
When Member States design tax measures, they have to comply with EU law. In this article the question is discussed whether a Member State has the liberty to intentionally design a domestic rule so that it falls outside the scope of the freedom of capital and prevent scrutiny in respect of third states by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This question is investigated by using two Dutch rules as a case study. The author argues that the legislature walks a thin line. On the one hand there is a risk that the legislature is circumventing the application of the fundamental freedoms in an abusive way while on the other hand using an arbitrary criterion in a rule to distinguish between comparable cases could lead to the conclusion that a Member State has implemented a selective tax measure and thus granted state aid. The author concludes that the Dutch liquidation loss rule infringes EU law. Abuse of law, Liquidation loss, Withholding tax, State aid, Sincere cooperation, Freedom of capital
{"title":"Article: Abuse of Law by a Member State When Designing a Tax Measure","authors":"S. Stevens","doi":"10.54648/ecta2022025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2022025","url":null,"abstract":"When Member States design tax measures, they have to comply with EU law. In this article the question is discussed whether a Member State has the liberty to intentionally design a domestic rule so that it falls outside the scope of the freedom of capital and prevent scrutiny in respect of third states by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This question is investigated by using two Dutch rules as a case study. The author argues that the legislature walks a thin line. On the one hand there is a risk that the legislature is circumventing the application of the fundamental freedoms in an abusive way while on the other hand using an arbitrary criterion in a rule to distinguish between comparable cases could lead to the conclusion that a Member State has implemented a selective tax measure and thus granted state aid. The author concludes that the Dutch liquidation loss rule infringes EU law.\u0000Abuse of law, Liquidation loss, Withholding tax, State aid, Sincere cooperation, Freedom of capital","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45856117","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 recent years, there has been a significant increase in the activity of states and international organizations (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), EU) when it comes to solutions that prevent tax frauds and limit tax evasion. The split payment is one of the mechanisms in the field of value added tax. In the European Union, this solution is still used to an extremely limited extent, in only a few Member States. This article analyses the effects of a big-scale implementation of the Split Payment Mechanism in Poland from the perspective of application of tax principles (primarily in the form of reducing the Value Added Tax (VAT) gap) as well as the compliance costs to this model of settling the value added tax. The aim of this article is to ascertain whether the split payment (SP) Mechanism is an effective tool to counteract VAT fraud and whether it can be recommended as a systemic tax solution in the European Union. EU VAT system, split payment, VAT Collection, Tax gap, VAT fraud, Poland, European Commission, bank transfers, VAT account, financial liquidity.
{"title":"Article: Split Payment Mechanism as a VAT Collection Method: Evidence from Poland","authors":"Rafał Lipniewicz","doi":"10.54648/ecta2022021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2022021","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the activity of states and international organizations (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), EU) when it comes to solutions that prevent tax frauds and limit tax evasion. The split payment is one of the mechanisms in the field of value added tax. In the European Union, this solution is still used to an extremely limited extent, in only a few Member States. This article analyses the effects of a big-scale implementation of the Split Payment Mechanism in Poland from the perspective of application of tax principles (primarily in the form of reducing the Value Added Tax (VAT) gap) as well as the compliance costs to this model of settling the value added tax. The aim of this article is to ascertain whether the split payment (SP) Mechanism is an effective tool to counteract VAT fraud and whether it can be recommended as a systemic tax solution in the European Union.\u0000EU VAT system, split payment, VAT Collection, Tax gap, VAT fraud, Poland, European Commission, bank transfers, VAT account, financial liquidity.","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42098897","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 algorithmic governance has surged from a handful of Member States a decade ago, to a majority of tax administrations in the European Union (EU) integrating artificial intelligence (AI) systems. In light of the ever-increasing volume of tax returns and tax documentation to be processed, the digital transformation of the administration has become an imperative. Yet, cases such as system risico indicatie (SyRI), the toeslagenaffaire and eKasa show that automation poses risks to taxpayers. These cases cast doubts on the secretive nature of the tax administration’s prerogatives and the information and communications technology (ICT) tools used to perform its missions, begging the question of what lies behind the administrations’ one-way mirror. Section 2 presents the current state of use of AI tax systems on the basis of a synthesized literature review of publicly available data, mapping how many and what EU States have integrated AI systems. Section 3 examines compliance of the AI systems identified with the principle of legality. This research finds that while EU Member States have heavily invested into the integration of AI tax systems, very few have adopted specific norms to mitigate the risks to taxpayers’ fundamental rights. As a result, tax algorithmic governance is creating a noticeable gap in the protection of taxpayers’ rights. Fiscal algorithmic governance, taxpayers’ rights, artificial intelligence, tax secrecy, digital constitutionalism
{"title":"Peer Reviewed Articles: ‘Behind the One-Way Mirror: Reviewing the Legality of EU Tax Algorithmic Governance’","authors":"David Hadwick","doi":"10.54648/ecta2022019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2022019","url":null,"abstract":"Tax algorithmic governance has surged from a handful of Member States a decade ago, to a majority of tax administrations in the European Union (EU) integrating artificial intelligence (AI) systems. In light of the ever-increasing volume of tax returns and tax documentation to be processed, the digital transformation of the administration has become an imperative. Yet, cases such as system risico indicatie (SyRI), the toeslagenaffaire and eKasa show that automation poses risks to taxpayers. These cases cast doubts on the secretive nature of the tax administration’s prerogatives and the information and communications technology (ICT) tools used to perform its missions, begging the question of what lies behind the administrations’ one-way mirror. Section 2 presents the current state of use of AI tax systems on the basis of a synthesized literature review of publicly available data, mapping how many and what EU States have integrated AI systems. Section 3 examines compliance of the AI systems identified with the principle of legality. This research finds that while EU Member States have heavily invested into the integration of AI tax systems, very few have adopted specific norms to mitigate the risks to taxpayers’ fundamental rights. As a result, tax algorithmic governance is creating a noticeable gap in the protection of taxpayers’ rights.\u0000Fiscal algorithmic governance, taxpayers’ rights, artificial intelligence, tax secrecy, digital constitutionalism","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48884965","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":"Editorial: A Zebra or a Donkey? the European Commission’s Proposal for a Debt-Equity Bias Reduction Allowance (DEBRA)","authors":"R. Ismer","doi":"10.54648/ecta2022017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2022017","url":null,"abstract":"Allowance on corporate equity, ACE, notional interest deduction, debt-equity bias, DEBRA, ATAD, interest deductibility, CBIT, Comprehensive Business Income Tax","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42688130","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}
Three-party business models in which a platform operator intermediates between a supplier providing a service and a customer buying a service have become an important part of our daily lives. For purposes of European Value Added Tax (VAT), each transaction occurring as part of a three-party business model must be attributed to a ‘taxable’ person responsible for the VAT. Generally, suppliers may provide their services for VAT purposes as proprietary traders, undisclosed agents or disclosed agents, with varying VAT consequences. While there is little explicit case law specifying how to identify the two forms of agency, this article provides a framework for a distinction by building upon the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), taking into consideration the economic and commercial reality of each case and placing particular emphasis on the view of the average consumer. To contribute to a more uniform approach in attributing supplies in three-party, platform-based business models, specifically, this article develops indicators for assessing the relevant facts and ascertaining the economic reality of a case. Lastly, this article provides a method for differentiating agents from providers of electronically supplied services under current EU VAT law. EU VAT law, Attribution of services, Platform economy, Three-party business models, Disclosed agency, Undisclosed agency, Electronically supplied services, ECJ’s ‘economic approach, View of the average consumer, Uniform interpretation of VAT law
{"title":"Peer Reviewed Articles: Understanding VAT in Three-Party, Platform-Based Business Models: Which Party Is Supplying Which Service?","authors":"L. Zechner","doi":"10.54648/ecta2022018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2022018","url":null,"abstract":"Three-party business models in which a platform operator intermediates between a supplier providing a service and a customer buying a service have become an important part of our daily lives. For purposes of European Value Added Tax (VAT), each transaction occurring as part of a three-party business model must be attributed to a ‘taxable’ person responsible for the VAT. Generally, suppliers may provide their services for VAT purposes as proprietary traders, undisclosed agents or disclosed agents, with varying VAT consequences. While there is little explicit case law specifying how to identify the two forms of agency, this article provides a framework for a distinction by building upon the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), taking into consideration the economic and commercial reality of each case and placing particular emphasis on the view of the average consumer. To contribute to a more uniform approach in attributing supplies in three-party, platform-based business models, specifically, this article develops indicators for assessing the relevant facts and ascertaining the economic reality of a case. Lastly, this article provides a method for differentiating agents from providers of electronically supplied services under current EU VAT law.\u0000EU VAT law, Attribution of services, Platform economy, Three-party business models, Disclosed agency, Undisclosed agency, Electronically supplied services, ECJ’s ‘economic approach, View of the average consumer, Uniform interpretation of VAT law","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44378877","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}
From 1 July 2021, platforms must deal with VAT (Value Added Tax) reporting and record-keeping obligations under the VAT Directive. As of 1 January 2023, these platforms will also have to deal with a set of information obligations under the new DAC7 Directive. This article seeks to address the impact of this combined legislation for platforms by analysing the differences and similarities of the legislation and proposing possible improvements for the application of this combined legislation to avoid overlap and create more efficiency and effectiveness of those rules. DAC7, VAT, platform, record-keeping, reporting, obligations, exchange of information, sharing economy, e-commerce, alignment
{"title":"Articles: Platforms, a Convenient Source of Information Under DAC7 and the VAT Directive: A Proposal for More Alignment and Efficiency","authors":"Madeleine Merkx, A. Janssen, Maxime Leenders","doi":"10.54648/ecta2022020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2022020","url":null,"abstract":"From 1 July 2021, platforms must deal with VAT (Value Added Tax) reporting and record-keeping obligations under the VAT Directive. As of 1 January 2023, these platforms will also have to deal with a set of information obligations under the new DAC7 Directive. This article seeks to address the impact of this combined legislation for platforms by analysing the differences and similarities of the legislation and proposing possible improvements for the application of this combined legislation to avoid overlap and create more efficiency and effectiveness of those rules.\u0000DAC7, VAT, platform, record-keeping, reporting, obligations, exchange of information, sharing economy, e-commerce, alignment","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47183599","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：