苹果和橙子之间:欧盟普通法院对“苹果案”的裁决

IF 0.9 Q2 LAW EC Tax Review Pub Date : 2021-03-01 DOI:10.54648/ecta2021007
L. Parada
{"title":"苹果和橙子之间:欧盟普通法院对“苹果案”的裁决","authors":"L. Parada","doi":"10.54648/ecta2021007","DOIUrl":null,"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’.\nApple 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":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Between Apples and Oranges: The EU General Court’s Decision in the ‘Apple Case’\",\"authors\":\"L. Parada\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/ecta2021007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"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’.\\nApple 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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EC Tax Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2021007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EC Tax Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2021007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文简要概述了欧盟普通法院在合并国家援助案件T-778/16和T-892/16(“苹果案”)中的裁决,并探讨了法院提供的主要原因。特别是,它分析了与使用公平标准作为“分配基准”以及为此目的使用经合组织TP指南有关的论点,包括可比性和举证责任问题。最后,评注阐述了与本法院裁决有关的两个更普遍的影响,即利用国家援助法作为解决国内市场内外避税问题的工具,以及处理“无国籍收入”的一般方法。苹果案、国家援助、公平、利润分配、TNMM、选择性、可比性、TP指南、无国籍收入、避税
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Between Apples and Oranges: The EU General Court’s Decision in the ‘Apple Case’
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
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
33.30%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Editorial: We Need to Know When Previous Case-Law Has Been ‘Overruled’! - A Plea for More Legal Certainty in EU Tax Tax Information, Third Parties and GDPR: Legal Challenges and Hints from the Court of Justice DAC7: Some Thoughts on the Different Roles of Platform Operators and the Appropriate Definition of the Scope of Reporting Obligations Forum: AG Kokott Tries to Bring Clarity to the Selectivity Test for Individual Tax Rulings VAT in the Digital Age Package: Singling Out the Single VAT Registration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1