{"title":"Designing a Harmonized EU-GloBE in Compliance with Fundamental Freedoms","authors":"J. Englisch","doi":"10.54648/ecta2021015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2021015","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45622403","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: The Future of Digital Services Taxes","authors":"G. Kofler","doi":"10.54648/ecta2021006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2021006","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48425967","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’s ambition is to achieve a fully circular economy by 2050. The aim of a circular economy is to generate as little waste as possible. A circular organization of the production and distribution chain does not fit well within the European VAT system, which takes the linear production and distribution chain as its starting point. A special VAT regime, the special arrangement for secondhand goods, is necessary to deal with the return of products from the consumer sphere to the productive sphere. Since within a circular economy goods return more often from the consumer sphere to the productive sphere, the special arrangement for secondhand goods is likely to become more important. In this article the author addresses the special arrangement for second-hand goods both in a domestic and an international situation. The author addresses issues within the current arrangement and discusses solutions to improve the special arrangement to make it a better fit for the circular economy. second-hand goods, circular economy, special arrangement, accumulation, movable property, distance sales, intra-Community acquisition, taxable dealer, profit margin, one Stop Shop
{"title":"A New (Circular) Economy: A New Special Arrangement for Second-Hand Goods!","authors":"Madeleine Merkx","doi":"10.54648/ecta2021008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2021008","url":null,"abstract":"The EU’s ambition is to achieve a fully circular economy by 2050. The aim of a circular economy is to generate as little waste as possible. A circular organization of the production and distribution chain does not fit well within the European VAT system, which takes the linear production and distribution chain as its starting point. A special VAT regime, the special arrangement for secondhand goods, is necessary to deal with the return of products from the consumer sphere to the productive sphere. Since within a circular economy goods return more often from the consumer sphere to the productive sphere, the special arrangement for secondhand goods is likely to become more important. In this article the author addresses the special arrangement for second-hand goods both in a domestic and an international situation. The author addresses issues within the current arrangement and discusses solutions to improve the special arrangement to make it a better fit for the circular economy.\u0000second-hand goods, circular economy, special arrangement, accumulation, movable property, distance sales, intra-Community acquisition, taxable dealer, profit margin, one Stop Shop","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43422780","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 first retraces the history of the standards adopted under the EU abuse of law doctrine to identify abusive conduct executed by the taxpayer. Then, the authors progress from the differences between the rules contained in the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) and the findings of the CJEU in the Danish Cases, which constitute the last steps of that history, and elaborate on some proposals in order to update the former in light of the judges’ findings. They propose shifting the focus from non-genuine arrangements to single (potentially abusive) transactions, also taking into consideration the criteria relied upon in transfer pricing and controlled foreign company (CFC) legislation to ascertain whether economic substance is present. abuse of law, ATAD, Danish Cases, GAAR, arrangement, transaction, fundamental freedoms, genuinity, artificiality, transfer pricing.
{"title":"The Development of the Doctrine of Abuse of Law and the Danish Cases: Time to Shift the Focus from Non-Genuine Arrangements to Single (Abusive) Transactions?","authors":"Francesco Cannas, Andrea Ballancin","doi":"10.54648/ecta2021009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2021009","url":null,"abstract":"The article first retraces the history of the standards adopted under the EU abuse of law doctrine to identify abusive conduct executed by the taxpayer. Then, the authors progress from the differences between the rules contained in the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) and the findings of the CJEU in the Danish Cases, which constitute the last steps of that history, and elaborate on some proposals in order to update the former in light of the judges’ findings. They propose shifting the focus from non-genuine arrangements to single (potentially abusive) transactions, also taking into consideration the criteria relied upon in transfer pricing and controlled foreign company (CFC) legislation to ascertain whether economic substance is present.\u0000abuse of law, ATAD, Danish Cases, GAAR, arrangement, transaction, fundamental freedoms, genuinity, artificiality, transfer pricing.","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43290667","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 provides a brief summary of the EU General Court’s decision in the joined state aid cases T-778/16 and T-892/16 (‘Apple case’) and explores the main reasonings provided by the Court. In particular, it analyses the arguments related to the use of the arm’s length standard as an ‘allocation benchmark’ and the use of the OECD TP Guidelines for this purpose, including also issues of comparability and burden of proof. Finally, the commentary elaborates upon two more general implications with regard to this Court’s decision, namely the use of state aid law as a tool to tackle tax avoidance both within and outside the internal market, as well as the general approach towards ‘stateless income’. Apple case, state aid, arm’s length, profit allocation, TNMM, selectivity, comparability, TP guidelines, stateless income, tax avoidance
{"title":"Between Apples and Oranges: The EU General Court’s Decision in the ‘Apple Case’","authors":"L. Parada","doi":"10.54648/ecta2021007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2021007","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution provides a brief summary of the EU General Court’s decision in the joined state aid cases T-778/16 and T-892/16 (‘Apple case’) and explores the main reasonings provided by the Court. In particular, it analyses the arguments related to the use of the arm’s length standard as an ‘allocation benchmark’ and the use of the OECD TP Guidelines for this purpose, including also issues of comparability and burden of proof. Finally, the commentary elaborates upon two more general implications with regard to this Court’s decision, namely the use of state aid law as a tool to tackle tax avoidance both within and outside the internal market, as well as the general approach towards ‘stateless income’.\u0000Apple case, state aid, arm’s length, profit allocation, TNMM, selectivity, comparability, TP guidelines, stateless income, tax avoidance","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42042574","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}
During 2020, the OECD and the EU Commission have separately unveiled two proposals both laying down new rules for reporting of tax information by sharing and gig economy platforms. Although the template used for tax reporting by sharing and gig economy platforms is nearly the same, some differences can be noted by a close reading and comparison of the text under the two initiatives. In this article, the author analyses the new rules for reporting by sharing and gig economy platforms that the OECD and the EU have separately released in the first half of 2020, retraces the common rationale behind the proposed introduction of the new rules, and explains similarities and differences existing between the two initiatives. Tax information reporting, Digital platform, Sharing economy, Gig economy, OECD, European Commission
{"title":"The New Rules for Reporting by Sharing and Gig Economy Platforms Under the OECD and EU Initiatives","authors":"G. Beretta","doi":"10.54648/ecta2021004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2021004","url":null,"abstract":"During 2020, the OECD and the EU Commission have separately unveiled two proposals both laying down new rules for reporting of tax information by sharing and gig economy platforms. Although the template used for tax reporting by sharing and gig economy platforms is nearly the same, some differences can be noted by a close reading and comparison of the text under the two initiatives. In this article, the author analyses the new rules for reporting by sharing and gig economy platforms that the OECD and the EU have separately released in the first half of 2020, retraces the common rationale behind the proposed introduction of the new rules, and explains similarities and differences existing between the two initiatives.\u0000Tax information reporting, Digital platform, Sharing economy, Gig economy, OECD, European Commission","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43572352","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 the extent to which the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) takes into account the privileged nature of tax claims in enforced collection proceedings. Conducted within the framework of the right to property, the aim is to find a response to this question: Does the ECtHR case law allow for a special regime in enforced debt collection proceedings? A definitive answer to such a question requires a comparison between Court judgments on tax debts and non-tax debts. Under both the lawfulness and legitimate aims tests, no distinction appears between these two types of debt. On the other hand, under the proportionality test, the Court generally grants a wide margin of appreciation to States Parties. In this respect, two different dimensions are encountered, namely, the tax collector versus tax debtor and the tax collector versus other creditors. While the ECtHR does not allow differences between the collection regimes of non-tax debts in the former relationship, it appears that in the latter, the Court maintains the privileged status granted to the tax collector in domestic law. However, this privileged status is not unique to tax debts. Therefore, the article concludes that there is no special status for the tax debt enforcement regime under a comparison with non-tax debts. Tax information reporting, Digital platform, Sharing economy, Gig economy, OECD, European Commission
{"title":"Is There a Special Enforced Tax Collection Regime Under the ECtHR Case Law?","authors":"Barış Bahçeci","doi":"10.54648/ecta2021005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2021005","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the extent to which the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) takes into account the privileged nature of tax claims in enforced collection proceedings. Conducted within the framework of the right to property, the aim is to find a response to this question: Does the ECtHR case law allow for a special regime in enforced debt collection proceedings? A definitive answer to such a question requires a comparison between Court judgments on tax debts and non-tax debts. Under both the lawfulness and legitimate aims tests, no distinction appears between these two types of debt. On the other hand, under the proportionality test, the Court generally grants a wide margin of appreciation to States Parties. In this respect, two different dimensions are encountered, namely, the tax collector versus tax debtor and the tax collector versus other creditors. While the ECtHR does not allow differences between the collection regimes of non-tax debts in the former relationship, it appears that in the latter, the Court maintains the privileged status granted to the tax collector in domestic law. However, this privileged status is not unique to tax debts. Therefore, the article concludes that there is no special status for the tax debt enforcement regime under a comparison with non-tax debts.\u0000Tax information reporting, Digital platform, Sharing economy, Gig economy, OECD, European Commission","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41932888","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 15 July 2020, the EU Commission published a proposal for a directive amending, for the sixth time, Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation. The DAC7 Proposal extends EU tax transparency rules to digital platforms. It is proposed that EU Member States will automatically exchange information on income generated by sellers on digital platforms. The authors discuss the content of the DAC7 proposal and try to assess whether it is necessary and proportionate. With respect to proportionality, the authors look in particular at the administrative costs and privacy aspects of the proposal but also consider the consequences for a level playing field for companies. Throughout the article, the authors examine whether the proposal is sufficiently clear. DAC7, online, platforms, e-commerce, automatic information exchange, EU legislation, Platform Operators, Reportable Seller, GDPR, level playing field, digitalization
{"title":"The DAC7 Proposal and Reporting Obligation for Online Platforms","authors":"S. Stevens, J.T. van Wamelen","doi":"10.54648/ecta2021003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2021003","url":null,"abstract":"On 15 July 2020, the EU Commission published a proposal for a directive amending, for the sixth time, Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation. The DAC7 Proposal extends EU tax transparency rules to digital platforms. It is proposed that EU Member States will automatically exchange information on income generated by sellers on digital platforms. The authors discuss the content of the DAC7 proposal and try to assess whether it is necessary and proportionate. With respect to proportionality, the authors look in particular at the administrative costs and privacy aspects of the proposal but also consider the consequences for a level playing field for companies. Throughout the article, the authors examine whether the proposal is sufficiently clear.\u0000DAC7, online, platforms, e-commerce, automatic information exchange, EU legislation, Platform Operators, Reportable Seller, GDPR, level playing field, digitalization","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47599407","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}
Kemmeren offers insights whether the condition of making COVID-19 State aid dependent on the absence of links to tax havens be tested against fundamental freedoms The author adheres to a traditional legal methodology This methodology makes it possible to acquire a more complete understanding of the possible impact of fundamental freedoms on conditions to provide COVID-19 State aid, more specifically on tax haven conditions For the descriptions, analyses, and evaluations, the author has used sources of law, including national tax law, treaties, global issues (e g global principles in redistributive justice), legislative history, technical explanations, case law, decisions, statements of practice, public rulings, and literature
{"title":"‘Tax Haven’ Conditions Included in COVID-19 State Aid Schemes: Can They Be Tested?","authors":"E. Kemmeren","doi":"10.54648/ecta2021001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2021001","url":null,"abstract":"Kemmeren offers insights whether the condition of making COVID-19 State aid dependent on the absence of links to tax havens be tested against fundamental freedoms The author adheres to a traditional legal methodology This methodology makes it possible to acquire a more complete understanding of the possible impact of fundamental freedoms on conditions to provide COVID-19 State aid, more specifically on tax haven conditions For the descriptions, analyses, and evaluations, the author has used sources of law, including national tax law, treaties, global issues (e g global principles in redistributive justice), legislative history, technical explanations, case law, decisions, statements of practice, public rulings, and literature","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42861628","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 2018/822 (‘DAC6’) aims at ensuring the exchange of information between Member States of potentially tax-aggressive arrangements. To do so, the European legislator has entrusted intermediaries across the European Union with the task of gathering and reporting a number of potentially aggressive tax arrangements to improve tax transparency and stifle tax avoidance. Unfortunately, a closer analysis of the text has revealed multiple issues that may threaten the well-functioning of the system and could impede the action of the intermediaries. From missing definitions and a lack of guidance to new concepts in dire need of proper interpretation, intermediaries are left with a daunting task to tackle. Risks of delays and over-disclosure, arising from the inconsistencies and uncertainties left by the text of the instrument, may not only undermine the effectiveness of the reporting obligation, but also that of the rest of the system altogether. DAC6, Directive 2018/822, Disclosure, Reporting, Intermediaries, Arrangement, Tax-aggressive, Main Benefit Test, Hallmarks, Oversharing
{"title":"DAC6 and the Challenges Arising from Its Disclosure Obligation","authors":"Arthur Bianco","doi":"10.54648/ecta2021002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2021002","url":null,"abstract":"Directive 2018/822 (‘DAC6’) aims at ensuring the exchange of information between Member States of potentially tax-aggressive arrangements. To do so, the European legislator has entrusted intermediaries across the European Union with the task of gathering and reporting a number of potentially aggressive tax arrangements to improve tax transparency and stifle tax avoidance. Unfortunately, a closer analysis of the text has revealed multiple issues that may threaten the well-functioning of the system and could impede the action of the intermediaries. From missing definitions and a lack of guidance to new concepts in dire need of proper interpretation, intermediaries are left with a daunting task to tackle. Risks of delays and over-disclosure, arising from the inconsistencies and uncertainties left by the text of the instrument, may not only undermine the effectiveness of the reporting obligation, but also that of the rest of the system altogether.\u0000DAC6, Directive 2018/822, Disclosure, Reporting, Intermediaries, Arrangement, Tax-aggressive, Main Benefit Test, Hallmarks, Oversharing","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41903585","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：