The new European regulatory framework for crypto-assets contains strict reporting requirements for EU-based crypto service providers, which will give tax authorities and law enforcement agencies better insights into a significant segment of the cryptoasset space. The article first outlines how this will inevitably lead to the creation of a parallel crypto-asset market focused on offline wallets and peer-to-peer services outside the supervision of EU and national tax authorities. The article then highlights the important role that the so-called Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) will play in this environment. The differences between CBDCs and crypto-assets are examined from a tax assessment perspective in order to show that true anonymity is considerably less of an issue with (price stable) CBDCs than with (volatile) crypto-assets. The authors argue that a truly anonymous digital euro wallet for small transactions on the consumer side could not only allow the effective monitoring of businesses, but would actually increase tax compliance. If consumers have access to an anonymous cash-equivalent digital means of payment, they will be less likely to use cash or virtual currency. This in turn will cause a significant increase in available transaction data, while simultaneously granting a much better protection of taxpayers’ rights to privacy in the EU. cryptocurrency, crypto-asset, AML, taxation, CBDC, digital euro, privacy, taxpayer rights, tax assessment, wallet, reporting standards
{"title":"Tax Compliance in the Era of Cryptocurrencies and CBDCs: The End of the Right to Privacy or No Reason for Concern?","authors":"Stjepan Gadžo, Šime Jozipović, Marko Perkušić","doi":"10.54648/ecta2022003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2022003","url":null,"abstract":"The new European regulatory framework for crypto-assets contains strict reporting requirements for EU-based crypto service providers, which will give tax authorities and law enforcement agencies better insights into a significant segment of the cryptoasset space. The article first outlines how this will inevitably lead to the creation of a parallel crypto-asset market focused on offline wallets and peer-to-peer services outside the supervision of EU and national tax authorities. The article then highlights the important role that the so-called Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) will play in this environment. The differences between CBDCs and crypto-assets are examined from a tax assessment perspective in order to show that true anonymity is considerably less of an issue with (price stable) CBDCs than with (volatile) crypto-assets. The authors argue that a truly anonymous digital euro wallet for small transactions on the consumer side could not only allow the effective monitoring of businesses, but would actually increase tax compliance. If consumers have access to an anonymous cash-equivalent digital means of payment, they will be less likely to use cash or virtual currency. This in turn will cause a significant increase in available transaction data, while simultaneously granting a much better protection of taxpayers’ rights to privacy in the EU.\u0000cryptocurrency, crypto-asset, AML, taxation, CBDC, digital euro, privacy, taxpayer rights, tax assessment, wallet, reporting standards","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42386898","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 article examines some of the salient legal features of the new post-Brexit relationship between the UK and the EU with the focus on corporate taxation. It reviews the status of EU corporate tax legislation in UK law at the time of writing, as well as the soft law obligations that have been agreed. The author questions whether the overall set up has the potential to generate more tax competition between the EU and the UK, rather than less, and whether the EU’s impending implementation of the OECD/G20’s Pillar Two will exacerbate this. Brexit, corporate taxation, retained EU law, soft law, competitiveness, case study
{"title":"Brexit and Corporate Taxation: New Perspectives","authors":"C. Panayi","doi":"10.54648/ecta2022005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2022005","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines some of the salient legal features of the new post-Brexit relationship between the UK and the EU with the focus on corporate taxation. It reviews the status of EU corporate tax legislation in UK law at the time of writing, as well as the soft law obligations that have been agreed. The author questions whether the overall set up has the potential to generate more tax competition between the EU and the UK, rather than less, and whether the EU’s impending implementation of the OECD/G20’s Pillar Two will exacerbate this.\u0000Brexit, corporate taxation, retained EU law, soft law, competitiveness, case study","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49410495","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article, the authors discuss the unprecedented alternative line of reasoning of the European Commission and the General Court in the Engie-case, according to which the non-application of the Luxembourg General Anti-Abuse Rule (‘GAAR’) is considered state-aid. Engie had set up a complex intra-group financing structure between Engie-companies located in Luxembourg, which was endorsed by tax rulings issued by the Luxembourg tax authorities. The European Commission found the structure abusive on the basis of the GAAR and decided that the Luxembourg tax authorities had granted state aid to Engie by not applying the GAAR and endorsing the abusive structure in the tax rulings. The General Court agreed. The article starts with an overview of the facts (section 2) and then discusses the decision of the European Commission (section 3) and the judgement of the General Court (section 4), focusing on the alternative line of reasoning, i.e., the non-application of the GAAR. In the last section some observations are made on the General Court’s judgement. Engie-case – State aid – non-application GAAR – tax avoidance – tax rulings – selective advantage – General Court – Commission Decision – ZORA – national mismatch
{"title":"The General Court’s Judgment in Engie: The Non-application of a National GAAR Confers State Aid","authors":"L. D. Broe, Mélanie Massant","doi":"10.54648/ecta2022002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2022002","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, the authors discuss the unprecedented alternative line of reasoning of the European Commission and the General Court in the Engie-case, according to which the non-application of the Luxembourg General Anti-Abuse Rule (‘GAAR’) is considered state-aid. Engie had set up a complex intra-group financing structure between Engie-companies located in Luxembourg, which was endorsed by tax rulings issued by the Luxembourg tax authorities. The European Commission found the structure abusive on the basis of the GAAR and decided that the Luxembourg tax authorities had granted state aid to Engie by not applying the GAAR and endorsing the abusive structure in the tax rulings. The General Court agreed. The article starts with an overview of the facts (section 2) and then discusses the decision of the European Commission (section 3) and the judgement of the General Court (section 4), focusing on the alternative line of reasoning, i.e., the non-application of the GAAR. In the last section some observations are made on the General Court’s judgement.\u0000Engie-case – State aid – non-application GAAR – tax avoidance – tax rulings – selective advantage – General Court – Commission Decision – ZORA – national mismatch","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42741599","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 ‘EU arm’s length principle’ gradually evolved into an ‘EU arm’s length tool’ in the Starbucks, Fiat, Apple, and Amazon judgments of the General Court of the European Union (‘GC’). This contribution analyzes in detail why a ‘principle’ progressed into a ‘tool’ in these judgments. For this matter, it considers the arm’s length standard from the point of view of the regulation strategy of states (i.e., a reflexive regulation strategy) to govern the taxation of multinational companies. The author maintains that the regulatory design of the arm’s length standard entails a choice for ‘reflexive transfer pricing law’ and subsequently relies on that perspective for analyzing the judgments of the GC. This angle meticulously illustrates that the abuse of discretionary powers by the tax authorities in the process of monitoring the residual profit allocation of the taxpayer constitutes the relevant state aid problem. The contribution concludes that the GC eventually devised a rather toothless ‘tool’ that does not properly address this issue. At the same time, it also concludes that it should be relatively straightforward for the Court of Justice EU to finetune the ‘EU arm’s length tool’ in order to establish an effective and foreseeable reconciliation of EU state aid law and transfer pricing law. For this matter, the contribution puts forward a concrete recommendation. EU fiscal state aid control, EU state aid law, EU arm’s length principle, EU arm’s length tool, transfer pricing, residual profit allocation, APA, Apple
{"title":"Critical Analysis of the General Court’s ‘EU Arm’s Length Tool’: Beware of the Reflexivity of Transfer Pricing Law!","authors":"Cees Peters","doi":"10.54648/ecta2022004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2022004","url":null,"abstract":"The ‘EU arm’s length principle’ gradually evolved into an ‘EU arm’s length tool’ in the Starbucks, Fiat, Apple, and Amazon judgments of the General Court of the European Union (‘GC’). This contribution analyzes in detail why a ‘principle’ progressed into a ‘tool’ in these judgments. For this matter, it considers the arm’s length standard from the point of view of the regulation strategy of states (i.e., a reflexive regulation strategy) to govern the taxation of multinational companies. The author maintains that the regulatory design of the arm’s length standard entails a choice for ‘reflexive transfer pricing law’ and subsequently relies on that perspective for analyzing the judgments of the GC. This angle meticulously illustrates that the abuse of discretionary powers by the tax authorities in the process of monitoring the residual profit allocation of the taxpayer constitutes the relevant state aid problem. The contribution concludes that the GC eventually devised a rather toothless ‘tool’ that does not properly address this issue. At the same time, it also concludes that it should be relatively straightforward for the Court of Justice EU to finetune the ‘EU arm’s length tool’ in order to establish an effective and foreseeable reconciliation of EU state aid law and transfer pricing law. For this matter, the contribution puts forward a concrete recommendation.\u0000EU fiscal state aid control, EU state aid law, EU arm’s length principle, EU arm’s length tool, transfer pricing, residual profit allocation, APA, Apple","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44076886","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":"Good Intentions and a Call for Higher Speed on the Bumpy Road to Carbon Neutrality","authors":"H. Kogels","doi":"10.54648/ecta2022001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2022001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44923687","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 contribution addresses the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the issue of the use of unlawfully obtained evidence by the tax authorities in an administrative procedure. In 2015 in the value added tax (VAT) case WebMindLicences the CJEU has set the conditions for excluding evidence in an administrative procedure if that evidence was obtained or used in violation of the law. The highest courts of the neighbouring European Union (EU) Member States Belgium and the Netherlands had already developed in their case-law before the CJEU’s judgment in WebMindlicenses their own legal standard on the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence in tax cases. The author contributes to the discussion on whether national courts can maintain their own viewpoint or have to conform to the CJEU’s legal standard for excluding evidence in administrative procedures concerning tax, for the harmonized VAT as well as for the non-harmonized taxes. unlawfully obtained evidence, VAT fraud, fundamental rights, rights of the defence
{"title":"Unlawfully Obtained Evidence: Follow the Court of Justice of the European Union if You Please","authors":"Mirugia Richardson","doi":"10.54648/ecta2021027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2021027","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution addresses the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the issue of the use of unlawfully obtained evidence by the tax authorities in an administrative procedure. In 2015 in the value added tax (VAT) case WebMindLicences the CJEU has set the conditions for excluding evidence in an administrative procedure if that evidence was obtained or used in violation of the law. The highest courts of the neighbouring European Union (EU) Member States Belgium and the Netherlands had already developed in their case-law before the CJEU’s judgment in WebMindlicenses their own legal standard on the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence in tax cases. The author contributes to the discussion on whether national courts can maintain their own viewpoint or have to conform to the CJEU’s legal standard for excluding evidence in administrative procedures concerning tax, for the harmonized VAT as well as for the non-harmonized taxes.\u0000unlawfully obtained evidence, VAT fraud, fundamental rights, rights of the defence","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49561257","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}
To cover the large financial spending caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, countries worldwide are forced to take substantial fiscal actions. This contribution takes a closer look at the extent to which EU law has an influence (restrictive or otherwise) on the freedom of Member States to opt for (additional) taxes and/or social contributions as a means to finance the (additional) deficits in their social security system. First, a brief numerical overview will be given of the various sources of financing and expenditures of social security in the European Union (II). Subsequently, the question will be addressed to which extent the concept of social security contributions under European Union law interferes with the national definition of taxes (III). The most relevant rulings of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in this respect will be discussed (IV) followed by a number of final considerations (V). Covid-19 Recovery Contributions, Concept of tax, Social Security Contribution, Wealth Tax, Tax on (Real) Estate, Financing of Social Security, Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, Double Tax Convention, National (Tax) Sovereignty, Annual Tax on Securities Accounts
为了弥补Covid-19大流行造成的巨额财政支出，世界各国被迫采取实质性财政行动。这篇文章更仔细地研究了欧盟法律对成员国选择(额外)税收和/或社会缴款作为资助其社会保障体系(额外)赤字的手段的自由的影响程度(限制性或非限制性)。首先，将对欧洲联盟社会保障的各种资金来源和支出作一个简短的数字概述(二)。将讨论欧盟法律下的社会保障缴款概念在多大程度上干扰国家税收定义的问题(III)。将讨论(IV)欧洲法院(CJEU)在这方面最相关的裁决，然后讨论(V)一些最终考虑因素。covid -19恢复缴款、税收概念、社会保障缴款、财富税、(房地产)税、社会保障融资、法规(EC) No 883/2004。双重征税公约，国家(税收)主权，证券账户年度税
{"title":"The Design of Covid-19 Recovery Contributions: Taxes or Social Security Contributions?","authors":"Bruno Peeters","doi":"10.54648/ecta2021024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2021024","url":null,"abstract":"To cover the large financial spending caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, countries worldwide are forced to take substantial fiscal actions. This contribution takes a closer look at the extent to which EU law has an influence (restrictive or otherwise) on the freedom of Member States to opt for (additional) taxes and/or social contributions as a means to finance the (additional) deficits in their social security system. First, a brief numerical overview will be given of the various sources of financing and expenditures of social security in the European Union (II). Subsequently, the question will be addressed to which extent the concept of social security contributions under European Union law interferes with the national definition of taxes (III). The most relevant rulings of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in this respect will be discussed (IV) followed by a number of final considerations (V).\u0000Covid-19 Recovery Contributions, Concept of tax, Social Security Contribution, Wealth Tax, Tax on (Real) Estate, Financing of Social Security, Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, Double Tax Convention, National (Tax) Sovereignty, Annual Tax on Securities Accounts","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42835770","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}
Article 6 Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) provides a General anti-abuse rule (GAAR), applicable to all taxpayers subject to corporate tax in one ormore EUMember States.TheGAAR refers to ‘non-genuine’ arrangements.However, it is unclear whether ‘non-genuineness’ describes real and/or simulated arrangements. The article aims to analyse this issue, in light of a literal, multilingual approach and through a teleological and historical-systematic interpretation of the provision. ATAD, Corporate tax, GAAR, Tax avoidance, Simulation Test, Reporting, BEPS, Union concepts, quasi-Union concepts, autonomy of Member States, Interpretation of Directives, EU Guidance
{"title":"Article 6 ATAD and ‘Non-genuineness’ of Arrangements","authors":"Roberto Iaia","doi":"10.54648/ecta2021025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2021025","url":null,"abstract":"Article 6 Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) provides a General anti-abuse rule (GAAR), applicable to all taxpayers subject to corporate tax in one ormore EUMember States.TheGAAR refers to ‘non-genuine’ arrangements.However, it is unclear whether ‘non-genuineness’ describes real and/or simulated arrangements. The article aims to analyse this issue, in light of a literal, multilingual approach and through a teleological and historical-systematic interpretation of the provision.\u0000ATAD, Corporate tax, GAAR, Tax avoidance, Simulation Test, Reporting, BEPS, Union concepts, quasi-Union concepts, autonomy of Member States, Interpretation of Directives, EU Guidance","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47949835","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}
DAC6 concerns the spontaneous exchange of information on potentially aggressive tax arrangements. With the implementation of DAC6 into the national laws of the Member States comes a lot of uncertainty, along with diverging interpretations among Member States. In this article, the authors analyze the autonomy of Member States in the definition and interpretation of the concepts used in DAC6. The authors also analyze the relevant sources of the interpretation of DAC6, such as the relevant BEPS reports. The authors argue that DAC6 lays down a uniform framework for the spontaneous exchange of information of potentially aggressive tax arrangements. Member States do not have a margin of discretion regarding the interpretation of the concepts that are essential to the uniform framework. Other concepts may leave a margin of discretion for the Member States, such as several concepts used in the Hallmarks. In their margin of discretion, the Member States must ensure the full effectiveness of Union law. On the basis of that, the concepts must be defined (and interpreted) in line with the object and purpose of the Directive. Member States should use BEPS Action 12 as a source of interpretation and illustration insofar DAC6 is based on this report. DAC6, Directive 2018/822, Main Benefit Test, Reporting, BEPS, Union concepts, quasi-Union concepts, autonomy of Member States, Interpretation of Directives, EU Guidance.
{"title":"The (Absence of) Member State Autonomy in the Interpretation of DAC6: A Call for EU Guidance","authors":"D. Weber, J. Steenbergen","doi":"10.54648/ecta2021026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2021026","url":null,"abstract":"DAC6 concerns the spontaneous exchange of information on potentially aggressive tax arrangements. With the implementation of DAC6 into the national laws of the Member States comes a lot of uncertainty, along with diverging interpretations among Member States. In this article, the authors analyze the autonomy of Member States in the definition and interpretation of the concepts used in DAC6. The authors also analyze the relevant sources of the interpretation of DAC6, such as the relevant BEPS reports. The authors argue that DAC6 lays down a uniform framework for the spontaneous exchange of information of potentially aggressive tax arrangements. Member States do not have a margin of discretion regarding the interpretation of the concepts that are essential to the uniform framework. Other concepts may leave a margin of discretion for the Member States, such as several concepts used in the Hallmarks. In their margin of discretion, the Member States must ensure the full effectiveness of Union law. On the basis of that, the concepts must be defined (and interpreted) in line with the object and purpose of the Directive. Member States should use BEPS Action 12 as a source of interpretation and illustration insofar DAC6 is based on this report.\u0000DAC6, Directive 2018/822, Main Benefit Test, Reporting, BEPS, Union concepts, quasi-Union concepts, autonomy of Member States, Interpretation of Directives, EU Guidance.","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48757418","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 article focuses on the complex challenges affecting the relationship between different tax systems (national, international and EU) within a context, like the current GloBE project, which is looking for appropriate tax measures applying on a global scale. In fact, the need of developing tax measures with a global character requires specific attention to be given to issues concerning the effectiveness of these measures in light of the relationship between the relevant tax systems. More specifically, within the framework of this article, the analysis aimed at evaluating the possibilities of guaranteeing a fully effective application of the GloBE income inclusion rule has been conducted on the basis of two crucial factors, i.e. (1) the compliance of the income inclusion rule with international tax treaty law and with EU tax law, and (2) the coordination between international tax treaty law and EU tax law. Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) project, Pillar Two, Income Inclusion Rule, BEPS, CFC legislation, Abuse, OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework, Saving Clause.
{"title":"The GloBE Income Inclusion Rule and Its Global Character: Complexities Underlying Its Fully Effective Application","authors":"Carla De Pietro","doi":"10.54648/ecta2021023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2021023","url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on the complex challenges affecting the relationship between different tax systems (national, international and EU) within a context, like the current GloBE project, which is looking for appropriate tax measures applying on a global scale. In fact, the need of developing tax measures with a global character requires specific attention to be given to issues concerning the effectiveness of these measures in light of the relationship between the relevant tax systems.\u0000More specifically, within the framework of this article, the analysis aimed at evaluating the possibilities of guaranteeing a fully effective application of the GloBE income inclusion rule has been conducted on the basis of two crucial factors, i.e. (1) the compliance of the income inclusion rule with international tax treaty law and with EU tax law, and (2) the coordination between international tax treaty law and EU tax law.\u0000Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) project, Pillar Two, Income Inclusion Rule, BEPS, CFC legislation, Abuse, OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework, Saving Clause.","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46943022","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：