In recent tax policy trends, the introduction of turnover-based progressive taxes can be observed. However, the structure of these taxes raise various legal concerns under EU law. These taxes can be challenged under both EU State aid rules and the fundamental freedoms. Both the State aid and fundamental freedom questions are swirling around a similar issue: whether the different treatment of undertakings, caused by the progressive rate structure of those taxes, on the grounds of the level of their turnover can be justified by the ability to pay principle. This article will point out the problems of the application of this principle in the field of turnover-based taxation. In addition, under the fundamental freedoms, it must also be ascertained that the differentiation based on the level of turnover indirectly disadvantages foreign-owned undertakings. In this contribution, the author argues in favour of a stricter indirect discrimination test than the one that can be currently inferred from the CJEU’s case law. The compatibility of turnover-based business taxes with Article 401 of the VAT Directive has been confirmed by the CJEU, however, such a stance should also be questioned in light of the objective of this provision of the VAT Directive, namely to safeguard the goals of the common VAT system from interference by other domestic taxes.
{"title":"Progressive Turnover-Based Taxes and Their Legal Repercussions Under EU Law","authors":"Balázs Károlyi","doi":"10.54648/ecta2020055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2020055","url":null,"abstract":"In recent tax policy trends, the introduction of turnover-based progressive taxes can be observed. However, the structure of these taxes raise various legal concerns under EU law. These taxes can be challenged under both EU State aid rules and the fundamental freedoms. Both the State aid and fundamental freedom questions are swirling around a similar issue: whether the different treatment of undertakings, caused by the progressive rate structure of those taxes, on the grounds of the level of their turnover can be justified by the ability to pay principle. This article will point out the problems of the application of this principle in the field of turnover-based taxation.\u0000In addition, under the fundamental freedoms, it must also be ascertained that the differentiation based on the level of turnover indirectly disadvantages foreign-owned undertakings. In this contribution, the author argues in favour of a stricter indirect discrimination test than the one that can be currently inferred from the CJEU’s case law.\u0000The compatibility of turnover-based business taxes with Article 401 of the VAT Directive has been confirmed by the CJEU, however, such a stance should also be questioned in light of the objective of this provision of the VAT Directive, namely to safeguard the goals of the common VAT system from interference by other domestic taxes.","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42684357","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 23 July 2020, the European Commission launched public consultations on two tax related proposals, namely a revision of the Energy Taxation Directive and the creation of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. These proposals are part of the European Green Deal, a strategy that aims, amongst other things, to put the well-being of citizens at the centre of economic policy. In this article, the well-being aims put forward in the Green Deal are considered in connection with the Commission’s tax related proposals in that regard as included in the public consultations of July 2020. It is concluded that, while taking on board well-being aims may be valuable in that it obliges to consider in a broad way what is good for people, the current references to well-being by the Commission in the Green Deal lack clarity and raise a number of important questions. Recommendations are provided, also with respect to the envisaged role of taxation in tackling environmental issues.
{"title":"The Green Deal Consultations: Well-Being Aims and Tax Related Reforms","authors":"Mart van Hulten","doi":"10.54648/ecta2020054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2020054","url":null,"abstract":"On 23 July 2020, the European Commission launched public consultations on two tax related proposals, namely a revision of the Energy Taxation Directive and the creation of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. These proposals are part of the European Green Deal, a strategy that aims, amongst other things, to put the well-being of citizens at the centre of economic policy.\u0000In this article, the well-being aims put forward in the Green Deal are considered in connection with the Commission’s tax related proposals in that regard as included in the public consultations of July 2020. It is concluded that, while taking on board well-being aims may be valuable in that it obliges to consider in a broad way what is good for people, the current references to well-being by the Commission in the Green Deal lack clarity and raise a number of important questions. Recommendations are provided, also with respect to the envisaged role of taxation in tackling environmental issues.","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46319855","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":"The COVID-19 Crisis: An Opportunity for EU Budget and Tax Reform","authors":"Axel Cordewener","doi":"10.54648/ecta2020053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2020053","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44648344","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}
Ever since the change in the place of supply rules in the EU VAT Directive in 2010, the outline of the concept of the fixed establishment in EU Value Added Tax (‘EU VAT’) has been unclear and cause for confusion. The recent Dong Yang-case, in which the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) ruled that a subsidiary may well qualify as a fixed establishment for VAT purposes, can be seen to propel this conceptual obscurity to new heights. Based on an analysis of the CJEU’s judgment in the Dong Yang-case in light of the Council Implementing Regulation and previous judgments, the authors substantiate in what way the fixed establishment lacks conceptual clarity and thus gives rise to consequences that are directly contrary to its purpose: to prevent jurisdictional disputes between Member States.
{"title":"The Unsettled Business of the Fixed Establishment in EU VAT","authors":"S. Cornielje, Peter Slegtenhorst","doi":"10.54648/ecta2020056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2020056","url":null,"abstract":"Ever since the change in the place of supply rules in the EU VAT Directive in 2010, the outline of the concept of the fixed establishment in EU Value Added Tax (‘EU VAT’) has been unclear and cause for confusion. The recent Dong Yang-case, in which the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) ruled that a subsidiary may well qualify as a fixed establishment for VAT purposes, can be seen to propel this conceptual obscurity to new heights. Based on an analysis of the CJEU’s judgment in the Dong Yang-case in light of the Council Implementing Regulation and previous judgments, the authors substantiate in what way the fixed establishment lacks conceptual clarity and thus gives rise to consequences that are directly contrary to its purpose: to prevent jurisdictional disputes between Member States.","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43165817","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":"Excise Duties on Flavoured Beers: The Bitter-sweet Taste of Directive 2020/1151","authors":"Thomas Bieber","doi":"10.54648/ecta2020057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2020057","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45466633","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":"Energy Taxes and Emissions Trading on the Bumpy Road to a Climate Neutral EU","authors":"H. Kogels","doi":"10.54648/ecta2020047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2020047","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49083879","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 the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) era, direct taxes such as corporate income tax and withholding tax increasingly require taxpayers to align shareholding and financing activities with economic reality. As a result, it is expected that such activities will more often be performed by entities that also have ‘regular’ operating activities. For VAT, shareholding activities may be considered noneconomic activities and financing activities are typically exempt from VAT, with both activities therefore potentially leading to a limitation of the input VAT recovery right. As entities with regular operating activities are expected to incur more costs (which may be subject to VAT), any VAT recovery limitation resulting from non-economic or VAT exempt activities may have more impact for such entities. The shift towards economic reality in direct taxes can therefore lead to an increase in irrecoverable VAT. This article discusses the treatment of shareholding and financing activities under the EU VAT Directive in light of current developments in direct taxes such as the OECD BEPS project and the ‘Danish cases’ issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The authors use an example of a multinational group to illustrate that developments in direct taxes may indirectly lead to adverse VAT consequences. The article provides taxpayers, their advisors, and policy makers with recommendations from a VAT perspective in light of the changes in direct taxes. The authors also recommend that the interaction between direct taxes and VAT receives more attention in the legislative process, especially in the context of further European harmonization. VAT, BEPS, anti-abuse, VAT recovery, economic reality, PPT, Multilateral Instrument, Danish cases, economic activity, Brexit
{"title":"BEPS Developments in Direct Taxes in Light of the EU VAT Treatment of Shareholding and Financing Activities","authors":"Max Velthoven, Michel Zeegers","doi":"10.54648/ecta2020050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2020050","url":null,"abstract":"In the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) era, direct taxes such as corporate income tax and withholding tax increasingly require taxpayers to align shareholding and financing activities with economic reality. As a result, it is expected that such activities will more often be performed by entities that also have ‘regular’ operating activities. For VAT, shareholding activities may be considered noneconomic activities and financing activities are typically exempt from VAT, with both activities therefore potentially leading to a limitation of the input VAT recovery right. As entities with regular operating activities are expected to incur more costs (which may be subject to VAT), any VAT recovery limitation resulting from non-economic or VAT exempt activities may have more impact for such entities. The shift towards economic reality in direct taxes can therefore lead to an increase in irrecoverable VAT. This article discusses the treatment of shareholding and financing activities under the EU VAT Directive in light of current developments in direct taxes such as the OECD BEPS project and the ‘Danish cases’ issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The authors use an example of a multinational group to illustrate that developments in direct taxes may indirectly lead to adverse VAT consequences. The article provides taxpayers, their advisors, and policy makers with recommendations from a VAT perspective in light of the changes in direct taxes. The authors also recommend that the interaction between direct taxes and VAT receives more attention in the legislative process, especially in the context of further European harmonization.\u0000VAT, BEPS, anti-abuse, VAT recovery, economic reality, PPT, Multilateral Instrument, Danish cases, economic activity, Brexit","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44866112","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 author scrutinizes the current state of CJEU case law about VAT deduction on the purchase of goods and services by businesses, where third parties (also) benefit from these purchases. He also discusses case law about the VAT consequences of business funding transactions between two unrelated parties, where they have a financial interest in funding those transactions because they can lead to, for example, an increase of the turnover generated with their own taxed activities. The author comes to the conclusion that under the current provisions of the EU VAT Directive and CJEU case law, VAT deduction is not always allowed where, based on the principles of neutrality and economic reality, it should. He also offers a suggestion for adjusting the current rules in order to solve the issues that were highlighted in this article. EU VAT, Deduction, Benefit, Third-party-payments, Economic activities, Neutrality, Business promotions, Necessary costs
{"title":"VAT Deduction: The Relevance of Being ‘The Recipient’ of a Supply and the Use of the Supply","authors":"Jeroen Bijl","doi":"10.54648/ecta2020049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2020049","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, the author scrutinizes the current state of CJEU case law about VAT deduction on the purchase of goods and services by businesses, where third parties (also) benefit from these purchases. He also discusses case law about the VAT consequences of business funding transactions between two unrelated parties, where they have a financial interest in funding those transactions because they can lead to, for example, an increase of the turnover generated with their own taxed activities. The author comes to the conclusion that under the current provisions of the EU VAT Directive and CJEU case law, VAT deduction is not always allowed where, based on the principles of neutrality and economic reality, it should. He also offers a suggestion for adjusting the current rules in order to solve the issues that were highlighted in this article.\u0000EU VAT, Deduction, Benefit, Third-party-payments, Economic activities, Neutrality, Business promotions, Necessary costs","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42230846","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}
Rule of Law, Taxation and Human Rights, ECHR, ECtHR, Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR, Article 13 ECHR, Effective Remedy, Right to Property, Final Judgments, Credit for Input VAT
{"title":"The Rule of Law in Taxation, Two Recent ECtHR Judgments on Failure to Respect Final Judicial Decisions","authors":"R. Attard","doi":"10.54648/ecta2020051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2020051","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Rule of Law, Taxation and Human Rights, ECHR, ECtHR, Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR, Article 13 ECHR, Effective Remedy, Right to Property, Final Judgments, Credit for Input VAT","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46623833","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}
abusive tax planning, anti abuse rule, economic substance, accounting and financial statements
滥用税收规划、反滥用规则、经济实质、会计和财务报表
{"title":"An Accounting and Financial Note about the Economic Substance Test","authors":"António Martins","doi":"10.54648/ecta2020052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2020052","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000abusive tax planning, anti abuse rule, economic substance, accounting and financial statements","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42295148","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：