The new Pillar I Amount A system aims to reallocate a portion of in-scope MNEs’ residual profits to market countries. This said, there could be many instances when an MNE already reports residual profits in the market country under the current system, for example, when it operates with a substantial physical presence (which is entrepreneurial in nature) in the market country. In order to avoid the double taxation/double counting of what is known as ‘residual profits’, a Marketing and Distribution Safe Harbour (MDSH) mechanism was first developed in the 2020 Blueprint and redesigned in the 2022 Progress Report. The purpose of this article is to address the question as to whether the MDSH as designed in the Progress Report meets its objective, particularly after briefly describing it as drafted in both reports. The authors analyse whether it does so by testing it against two commonly found MNE business models, i.e., a licensed manufacturer (LM) in the market and a centralized business model with limited risk distributors (LRD) in the market. A technical analysis is undertaken which is then illustrated with numerical case studies. The analysis leads to the conclusion that the MDSH as designed in the Progress Report does not necessarily meet its policy objective of preventing double counting under both the LM and the centralized business models. Thus, one possible policy option is to redraft it and return to the test as originally conceived in the Blueprint. A second possibility is to further reflect on some of the MDSH components, in particular, the manner in which jurisdictional routine and residual profits are calculated with the overall aim of achieving simplicity as well as accuracy. With respect to determining jurisdictional routine profits, our main recommendation is to deem a certain percentage of jurisdictional elimination profits (EPs) to represent routine profits (e.g., 25%). Such a mechanism would be simpler than the existing mechanism to determine jurisdictional routine profits, which seems to be rather complicated. With respect to jurisdictional residual profits, our recommendation is to support the Y% with a facts and circumstances analysis to achieve accurate results (at least, in certain cases). For instance, the Y% will be deemed to be 100% in a country when the MNE group operates with a fully or partly decentralized business model such as a LM (or similar business models such as franchise models). It will be regarded as being 0% in a country when it operates with limited risk sales structures or/and structures that have access to the simplification offered by the Amount B project. In all other cases, the Y% could be considered to be, for example, 25% in a country (which would be a compromise). Moreover, our recommendation with respect to withholding taxes (WHT) (if they are taken into account) is to restrict its scope to selected payments (e.g., royalties or service fees) and to provide a downward adjustment in the residence jurisd
{"title":"Pillar I: The Marketing and Distribution Safe Harbour (MDSH) as Applicable to Licensed Manufacturers and Centralized Business Models: Does It Fulfil Its Policy Objective?","authors":"V. Chand, Camille Vilaseca","doi":"10.54648/taxi2023053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2023053","url":null,"abstract":"The new Pillar I Amount A system aims to reallocate a portion of in-scope MNEs’ residual profits to market countries. This said, there could be many instances when an MNE already reports residual profits in the market country under the current system, for example, when it operates with a substantial physical presence (which is entrepreneurial in nature) in the market country. In order to avoid the double taxation/double counting of what is known as ‘residual profits’, a Marketing and Distribution Safe Harbour (MDSH) mechanism was first developed in the 2020 Blueprint and redesigned in the 2022 Progress Report. The purpose of this article is to address the question as to whether the MDSH as designed in the Progress Report meets its objective, particularly after briefly describing it as drafted in both reports. The authors analyse whether it does so by testing it against two commonly found MNE business models, i.e., a licensed manufacturer (LM) in the market and a centralized business model with limited risk distributors (LRD) in the market. A technical analysis is undertaken which is then illustrated with numerical case studies. The analysis leads to the conclusion that the MDSH as designed in the Progress Report does not necessarily meet its policy objective of preventing double counting under both the LM and the centralized business models. Thus, one possible policy option is to redraft it and return to the test as originally conceived in the Blueprint. A second possibility is to further reflect on some of the MDSH components, in particular, the manner in which jurisdictional routine and residual profits are calculated with the overall aim of achieving simplicity as well as accuracy. With respect to determining jurisdictional routine profits, our main recommendation is to deem a certain percentage of jurisdictional elimination profits (EPs) to represent routine profits (e.g., 25%). Such a mechanism would be simpler than the existing mechanism to determine jurisdictional routine profits, which seems to be rather complicated. With respect to jurisdictional residual profits, our recommendation is to support the Y% with a facts and circumstances analysis to achieve accurate results (at least, in certain cases). For instance, the Y% will be deemed to be 100% in a country when the MNE group operates with a fully or partly decentralized business model such as a LM (or similar business models such as franchise models). It will be regarded as being 0% in a country when it operates with limited risk sales structures or/and structures that have access to the simplification offered by the Amount B project. In all other cases, the Y% could be considered to be, for example, 25% in a country (which would be a compromise). Moreover, our recommendation with respect to withholding taxes (WHT) (if they are taken into account) is to restrict its scope to selected payments (e.g., royalties or service fees) and to provide a downward adjustment in the residence jurisd","PeriodicalId":45365,"journal":{"name":"Intertax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48911108","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":"Literature Review: The United Nations In Global Tax Coordination, Nikki J. Teo. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 2023","authors":"John Avery Jones","doi":"10.54648/taxi2023054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2023054","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45365,"journal":{"name":"Intertax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136161964","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 constitutional character of the Union legal order based on the rule of law requires that secondary sources of Union law are not infringing the primary sources, including the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR). The latter’s importance as a valid instrument to be invoked against measures that are excessive in their interference with the fundamental rights has recently been reinforced by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the judgments in cases such as C-694/20, Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others, and joined cases C-37/20 and C-601/20, Luxembourg Business Registers and Sovim. The CJEU invalidated provisions of the Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC6) and 5AMLD which reminded that this is the case even when rules are motivated by important collective interests. These include the combat against tax evasion and tax fraud and enhancing broadly understood transparency and are agreed upon and are ‘validated’ by a Union’s legislature. The lessons to be learned are not to be underestimated. Understanding where the limits lie is decisive for valid law making and law enforcement as well as for effectively invoking the rights of individuals and businesses. Charter of the Fundamental Rights, taxpayers’ rights, DAC6, AMLD, EU constitutional order, transparency, proportionality, compatibility with primary Union law, right to privacy, right to fair trial
基于法治的欧盟法律秩序的宪法性质要求欧盟法律的次要来源不侵犯主要来源，包括《欧盟基本权利宪章》。欧盟法院最近在C-694/20、Orde van Vlamse Balies和其他案件的判决中，以及在C-37/20和C-601/20、卢森堡商业登记和Sovim案件中，加强了后者作为对抗过度干涉基本权利的措施的有效工具的重要性。欧盟法院宣布《行政合作指令》（DAC6）和5AMLD的条款无效，该指令提醒说，即使规则是出于重要的集体利益，情况也是如此。这些措施包括打击逃税和税务欺诈，提高人们普遍理解的透明度，并得到欧盟立法机构的同意和“验证”。要吸取的教训不容低估。了解限制在哪里对于有效的法律制定和执法以及有效地援引个人和企业的权利至关重要。基本权利宪章、纳税人权利、DAC6、AMLD、欧盟宪法秩序、透明度、相称性、与欧盟主要法律的兼容性、隐私权、公平审判权
{"title":"Case Law Trend: The End Does Not Justify the Means: On How the Secondary EU Law Infringes the Primary EU Law in the Light of the Recent Judgments of the CJEU","authors":"Marta Papis-Almansa","doi":"10.54648/taxi2023055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2023055","url":null,"abstract":"The constitutional character of the Union legal order based on the rule of law requires that secondary sources of Union law are not infringing the primary sources, including the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR). The latter’s importance as a valid instrument to be invoked against measures that are excessive in their interference with the fundamental rights has recently been reinforced by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the judgments in cases such as C-694/20, Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others, and joined cases C-37/20 and C-601/20, Luxembourg Business Registers and Sovim. The CJEU invalidated provisions of the Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC6) and 5AMLD which reminded that this is the case even when rules are motivated by important collective interests. These include the combat against tax evasion and tax fraud and enhancing broadly understood transparency and are agreed upon and are ‘validated’ by a Union’s legislature. The lessons to be learned are not to be underestimated. Understanding where the limits lie is decisive for valid law making and law enforcement as well as for effectively invoking the rights of individuals and businesses.\u0000Charter of the Fundamental Rights, taxpayers’ rights, DAC6, AMLD, EU constitutional order, transparency, proportionality, compatibility with primary Union law, right to privacy, right to fair trial","PeriodicalId":45365,"journal":{"name":"Intertax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47856489","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As part of Vision 2030, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has begun implementing broad economic and legal reforms to improve its tax environment and create an amicable setting for international investors. However, there are challenges to this endeavour, which are not limited to Saudi rules. Digitalization is one such challenge in income taxation at the global level. This study investigates the challenges in taxation arising from digitalization that can potentially affect base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) mechanisms both internationally and in Saudi Arabia. One major problem in the Saudi tax judiciary is the interpretation of international tax treaties to determine the existence of a permanent establishment (PE) for the purpose of Saudi income tax for a non-resident providing remote services within Saudi territory. By examining contradictory decisions related to two typical digital services, namely online travel companies (OTCs) and international telecommunication, this study highlights the complexity involved in digitalization, withholding tax, and PE. By analysing Saudi practices against the context of international rules, this research also highlights the need to clearly define the meaning of a ‘permanent digital establishment’. Finally, it underscores the necessity of establishing a permanent higher chamber in the tax judiciary, which will make decisions on stable judicial tax principles. This will improve the Saudi legal tax environment and ensure its consistency with international practices. Saudi tax law, foreign income, digitalization, withholding tax, permanent establishment
{"title":"Challenges in Applying Saudi Arabian Tax Treaties: Digitalization, Withholding Tax, and Permanent Establishment of Non-residents","authors":"Ahmed A. Altawyan","doi":"10.54648/taxi2023052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2023052","url":null,"abstract":"As part of Vision 2030, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has begun implementing broad economic and legal reforms to improve its tax environment and create an amicable setting for international investors. However, there are challenges to this endeavour, which are not limited to Saudi rules. Digitalization is one such challenge in income taxation at the global level. This study investigates the challenges in taxation arising from digitalization that can potentially affect base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) mechanisms both internationally and in Saudi Arabia. One major problem in the Saudi tax judiciary is the interpretation of international tax treaties to determine the existence of a permanent establishment (PE) for the purpose of Saudi income tax for a non-resident providing remote services within Saudi territory. By examining contradictory decisions related to two typical digital services, namely online travel companies (OTCs) and international telecommunication, this study highlights the complexity involved in digitalization, withholding tax, and PE. By analysing Saudi practices against the context of international rules, this research also highlights the need to clearly define the meaning of a ‘permanent digital establishment’. Finally, it underscores the necessity of establishing a permanent higher chamber in the tax judiciary, which will make decisions on stable judicial tax principles. This will improve the Saudi legal tax environment and ensure its consistency with international practices.\u0000Saudi tax law, foreign income, digitalization, withholding tax, permanent establishment","PeriodicalId":45365,"journal":{"name":"Intertax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43372596","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 objective of this contribution is to analyse the legitimacy of the OECD’s work on Pillar Two. The starting point is that the effectiveness of the new global minimum tax is clearly based on its so-called ‘devilish logic’. As such the project relies heavily on expert knowledge that is supposed to guarantee output legitimacy. At the same time, the consensus reached in the Inclusive Framework (IF) is supposed to bless the global minimum tax with a form of input legitimacy. Nevertheless, the contribution comes to the conclusion that the legitimacy of the OECD’s work on Pillar Two is falling short. The central point is that the governance process of the OECD should meet burdensome standards of ‘good’ governance including accountability (i.e., throughput legitimacy). Unfortunately, the political accountability and the technical accountability of the work on Pillar Two were clearly insufficient. The OECD, and the Centre for Tax Policy and Administration (CTPA) in particular, was not appropriately operating ‘in the shadow of politics’ and the ingenious solutions of the global minimum tax were not sufficiently scrutinized by independent technical experts. As a result of these shortcomings, the legitimacy of the work on Pillar Two eventually relied too strongly on expert knowledge (the ‘devilish logic’) and therefore on output legitimacy only. This conclusion illustrates once more the urgent need to rethink the legitimacy of international tax governance in general and the role of the OECD in particular. Pillar Two, global minimum tax, legitimacy, expert knowledge, accountability, OECD, international tax governance, United Nations
{"title":"The Legitimacy Of The Oecd’S Work On Pillar Two: An Analysis Of The Overconfidence In A ‘Devilish Logic","authors":"Cees Peters","doi":"10.54648/taxi2023057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2023057","url":null,"abstract":"The objective of this contribution is to analyse the legitimacy of the OECD’s work on Pillar Two. The starting point is that the effectiveness of the new global minimum tax is clearly based on its so-called ‘devilish logic’. As such the project relies heavily on expert knowledge that is supposed to guarantee output legitimacy. At the same time, the consensus reached in the Inclusive Framework (IF) is supposed to bless the global minimum tax with a form of input legitimacy. Nevertheless, the contribution comes to the conclusion that the legitimacy of the OECD’s work on Pillar Two is falling short. The central point is that the governance process of the OECD should meet burdensome standards of ‘good’ governance including accountability (i.e., throughput legitimacy). Unfortunately, the political accountability and the technical accountability of the work on Pillar Two were clearly insufficient. The OECD, and the Centre for Tax Policy and Administration (CTPA) in particular, was not appropriately operating ‘in the shadow of politics’ and the ingenious solutions of the global minimum tax were not sufficiently scrutinized by independent technical experts. As a result of these shortcomings, the legitimacy of the work on Pillar Two eventually relied too strongly on expert knowledge (the ‘devilish logic’) and therefore on output legitimacy only. This conclusion illustrates once more the urgent need to rethink the legitimacy of international tax governance in general and the role of the OECD in particular.\u0000Pillar Two, global minimum tax, legitimacy, expert knowledge, accountability, OECD, international tax governance, United Nations","PeriodicalId":45365,"journal":{"name":"Intertax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43451976","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 is devoted to the principle of in dubio pro tributario (the principle of resolving doubts in favour of the taxpayer) as a rule of legal reasoning. The article points out its following two aspects: (1) the evidential aspect whereby it is concerned with resolving uncertainties regarding the proof of facts that are relevant to the determination of the amount of tax and (2) the interpretative aspect whereby it is used to resolve doubts related to the ambiguity of a legal regulation. The article focuses on the second aspect. The authors present how various legal systems have developed different ways of understanding this principle. They point out that it is not a universally applied principle in tax law and that it has been rejected in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). interpretation, in dubio pro tributario, in dubio mitius, tax law, tax avoidance, EU law
它致力于将in dubio pro tributario原则(有利于纳税人解决疑问的原则)作为法律推理的规则。该条款指出了其以下两个方面:(1)证据方面，即它涉及解决与确定税额有关的事实证明方面的不确定性;(2)解释方面，即它用于解决与法律规定的模糊性有关的疑问。本文的重点是第二个方面。作者介绍了不同的法律体系如何发展出理解这一原则的不同方式。他们指出，这不是一项普遍适用的税法原则，在欧盟法院(CJEU)的判例法中，解释，在可疑性，在可疑性，税法，避税，欧盟法中都被拒绝了
{"title":"In Dubio Pro Tributario/In Dubio Mitius as a Rule of Reasoning in Tax Law Interpretation","authors":"W. Morawski, R. Boháč","doi":"10.54648/taxi2023041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2023041","url":null,"abstract":"The is devoted to the principle of in dubio pro tributario (the principle of resolving doubts in favour of the taxpayer) as a rule of legal reasoning. The article points out its following two aspects: (1) the evidential aspect whereby it is concerned with resolving uncertainties regarding the proof of facts that are relevant to the determination of the amount of tax and (2) the interpretative aspect whereby it is used to resolve doubts related to the ambiguity of a legal regulation. The article focuses on the second aspect. The authors present how various legal systems have developed different ways of understanding this principle. They point out that it is not a universally applied principle in tax law and that it has been rejected in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).\u0000interpretation, in dubio pro tributario, in dubio mitius, tax law, tax avoidance, EU law","PeriodicalId":45365,"journal":{"name":"Intertax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43243769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper critically analyses recent developments in the CJEU’s case law regarding withholding taxes (WHT) and the constraints that fundamental freedoms impose on Member States in this area. It argues that both resident and non-resident taxpayers are universally comparable from a source state perspective, regardless of whether a double tax treaty (DTT) precludes a specific form of domestic taxation in the source state. Furthermore, it asserts that the net taxation obligation should be accessible not only as an ex-post refund but also as an ex-ante option for nonresident taxpayers to file a tax return under the same conditions as resident taxpayers. EU direct tax law, withholding taxes, restriction, net taxation, refund mechanism, impact of double tax treaties
{"title":"Case Law Trends: Case Law Trend: Withholding Taxation Under the Fundamental Freedoms","authors":"I. Lazarov","doi":"10.54648/taxi2023047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2023047","url":null,"abstract":"This paper critically analyses recent developments in the CJEU’s case law regarding withholding taxes (WHT) and the constraints that fundamental freedoms impose on Member States in this area. It argues that both resident and non-resident taxpayers are universally comparable from a source state perspective, regardless of whether a double tax treaty (DTT) precludes a specific form of domestic taxation in the source state. Furthermore, it asserts that the net taxation obligation should be accessible not only as an ex-post refund but also as an ex-ante option for nonresident taxpayers to file a tax return under the same conditions as resident taxpayers.\u0000EU direct tax law, withholding taxes, restriction, net taxation, refund mechanism, impact of double tax treaties","PeriodicalId":45365,"journal":{"name":"Intertax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49613117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper reviews the EU Solidarity Contribution that was recently introduced by the Council Regulation on Emergency Intervention to Address High Energy Prices and proposes a more proportional alternative. It is argued that the legitimacy of the EU Solidarity Contribution might be disputed. The role that Member States have played in driving up energy prices by filling their natural gas storages much more than the EU’s filling trajectory prescribes raises questions as to whether the EU Solidarity Contribution could be in conflict with the proportionality principle and whether all formal requirements of Article 122(1) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) have been fulfilled. Furthermore, it is argued that the EU Solidarity Contribution may compromise protection of investments under international investment agreements (IIAs) as the current design might entail elements that violate fair and equitable treatment (FET). As an alternative to the EU Solidarity Contribution, the article proposes the following. First, a legal commitment should be introduced for fossil fuel companies to invest 100% of their realized excess profit for decarbonizing the economy under the threat of taxing away those excess profits in their entirety should it become apparent that the investments are not actually realized. Second, in lieu of the EU Solidarity Contribution, the incidental financial support measures for vulnerable households could be financed with the excess (windfall) revenue collected from Value Added Tax (VAT) and excise due to the high inflation in the EU in 2022. EU tax policy, EU law, international investment law, EU solidarity contribution, proportionality, emergency intervention, energy prices, fair and equitable treatment
{"title":"The EU Solidarity Contribution and a More Proportional Alternative: A Study Under EU and International Investment Law","authors":"Błażej Kuźniacki, J. Lammers","doi":"10.54648/taxi2023040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2023040","url":null,"abstract":"This paper reviews the EU Solidarity Contribution that was recently introduced by the Council Regulation on Emergency Intervention to Address High Energy Prices and proposes a more proportional alternative. It is argued that the legitimacy of the EU Solidarity Contribution might be disputed. The role that Member States have played in driving up energy prices by filling their natural gas storages much more than the EU’s filling trajectory prescribes raises questions as to whether the EU Solidarity Contribution could be in conflict with the proportionality principle and whether all formal requirements of Article 122(1) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) have been fulfilled. Furthermore, it is argued that the EU Solidarity Contribution may compromise protection of investments under international investment agreements (IIAs) as the current design might entail elements that violate fair and equitable treatment (FET). As an alternative to the EU Solidarity Contribution, the article proposes the following. First, a legal commitment should be introduced for fossil fuel companies to invest 100% of their realized excess profit for decarbonizing the economy under the threat of taxing away those excess profits in their entirety should it become apparent that the investments are not actually realized. Second, in lieu of the EU Solidarity Contribution, the incidental financial support measures for vulnerable households could be financed with the excess (windfall) revenue collected from Value Added Tax (VAT) and excise due to the high inflation in the EU in 2022.\u0000EU tax policy, EU law, international investment law, EU solidarity contribution, proportionality, emergency intervention, energy prices, fair and equitable treatment","PeriodicalId":45365,"journal":{"name":"Intertax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48575994","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: Pillar Two and the Principles of Ability-to-Pay, Legality, and Symmetry","authors":"A. P. Dourado","doi":"10.54648/taxi2023049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2023049","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45365,"journal":{"name":"Intertax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45432924","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":"Literature Review: Taxation, Data and Destination: An Analysis of Destination-Based Taxation from the Perspective of Tax Principles and Data Protection Regulation, J. Sinnig. IBFD. 2022","authors":"Stjepan Gadžo","doi":"10.54648/taxi2023032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2023032","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45365,"journal":{"name":"Intertax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45461344","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：