欧盟内部贸易的税收壁垒:美国的“联邦制”,欧洲的“国际主义”?

R. Schütze
{"title":"欧盟内部贸易的税收壁垒:美国的“联邦制”,欧洲的“国际主义”?","authors":"R. Schütze","doi":"10.1093/yel/yew013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The task of creating a ‘common’ market is one of the central tasks of many unions. When the Philadelphia Convention drafted the 1787 US Constitution, there was little argument that the new Union had to become an economic union.1 And the objective to create a common market lay equally at the heart of the original European Union. The 1957 Rome Treaty was to establish a European Economic Community, whose central aim was the creation of a European ‘common market’.2 This market was primarily a common market in goods, but the Rome Treaty was equally committed to ‘the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital’.3 In order to create a common market in goods, the European Treaties thereby made a fundamental distinction between regulatory barriers and fiscal barriers to intra-state trade. While the former were to be negatively removed by Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),4 fiscal barriers were subject to a different constitutional regime. And a closer look back at the US constitutional order also reveals that the Supreme Court, too, has ‘long subjected taxation to other limits and has long treated taxation differently from other kinds of regulation’.5 This differential treatment here partly stemmed—as in the case of the European Union—from the text of the US Constitution itself; yet, even for provisions that equally captured regulatory as well as fiscal charges, a fiscal ‘exceptionalism’ soon developed.","PeriodicalId":41752,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","volume":"12 1","pages":"382-409"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tax Barriers to Intra-Union Trade: American ‘Federalism’, European ‘Internationalism’?\",\"authors\":\"R. Schütze\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/yel/yew013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The task of creating a ‘common’ market is one of the central tasks of many unions. When the Philadelphia Convention drafted the 1787 US Constitution, there was little argument that the new Union had to become an economic union.1 And the objective to create a common market lay equally at the heart of the original European Union. The 1957 Rome Treaty was to establish a European Economic Community, whose central aim was the creation of a European ‘common market’.2 This market was primarily a common market in goods, but the Rome Treaty was equally committed to ‘the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital’.3 In order to create a common market in goods, the European Treaties thereby made a fundamental distinction between regulatory barriers and fiscal barriers to intra-state trade. While the former were to be negatively removed by Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),4 fiscal barriers were subject to a different constitutional regime. And a closer look back at the US constitutional order also reveals that the Supreme Court, too, has ‘long subjected taxation to other limits and has long treated taxation differently from other kinds of regulation’.5 This differential treatment here partly stemmed—as in the case of the European Union—from the text of the US Constitution itself; yet, even for provisions that equally captured regulatory as well as fiscal charges, a fiscal ‘exceptionalism’ soon developed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41752,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"382-409\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yew013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yew013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

创建一个“共同”市场是许多工会的核心任务之一。当费城会议起草1787年美国宪法时,几乎没有人认为新联邦必须成为一个经济联盟建立一个共同市场的目标同样是最初欧盟的核心。1957年的《罗马条约》旨在建立一个欧洲经济共同体,其中心目标是建立一个欧洲“共同市场”这个市场主要是商品的共同市场,但《罗马条约》同样致力于“在成员国之间废除阻碍人员、服务和资本自由流动的障碍”为了建立一个共同的货物市场,《欧洲条约》因此对国内贸易的管制壁垒和财政壁垒作出了根本的区分。虽然前者将由《欧洲联盟运作条约》第34条消极地消除,但四项财政障碍则受不同的宪法制度的约束。更仔细地回顾美国宪法秩序也会发现,最高法院也“长期以来一直将税收置于其他限制之下,并长期将税收与其他类型的监管区别对待”与欧盟的情况一样,美国的这种差别待遇部分源于美国宪法本身;然而,即使是对监管费用和财政费用同样适用的条款,一种财政“例外论”很快就形成了。
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
Tax Barriers to Intra-Union Trade: American ‘Federalism’, European ‘Internationalism’?
The task of creating a ‘common’ market is one of the central tasks of many unions. When the Philadelphia Convention drafted the 1787 US Constitution, there was little argument that the new Union had to become an economic union.1 And the objective to create a common market lay equally at the heart of the original European Union. The 1957 Rome Treaty was to establish a European Economic Community, whose central aim was the creation of a European ‘common market’.2 This market was primarily a common market in goods, but the Rome Treaty was equally committed to ‘the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital’.3 In order to create a common market in goods, the European Treaties thereby made a fundamental distinction between regulatory barriers and fiscal barriers to intra-state trade. While the former were to be negatively removed by Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),4 fiscal barriers were subject to a different constitutional regime. And a closer look back at the US constitutional order also reveals that the Supreme Court, too, has ‘long subjected taxation to other limits and has long treated taxation differently from other kinds of regulation’.5 This differential treatment here partly stemmed—as in the case of the European Union—from the text of the US Constitution itself; yet, even for provisions that equally captured regulatory as well as fiscal charges, a fiscal ‘exceptionalism’ soon developed.
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
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
The unified patent court Corporate tax reform in the European Union: are the stars finally aligned? Rescuing transparency in the digital economy: in search of a common notion in EU consumer and data protection law The impact of the Digital Content Directive on online platforms’ Terms of Service The European Union’s Preferential Trade Agreements: between convergence and differentiation
×
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