References of "Kofler, Georg"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
See detailTax and the Digital Economy: Challenges and Proposals for Reform
Haslehner, Werner UL; Kofler, Georg; Pantazatou, Aikaterini UL et al

Book published by Wolters Kluwer (2019)

Detailed reference viewed: 115 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion Statement ECJ-TF 3/2018 on the ECJ Decision of 12 June 2018 in Bevola (Case C-650/16), Concerning the Utilization of “Definitive Losses” Attributable to a Foreign Permanent Establishment
Garía Prats, Alfredo; Haslehner, Werner UL; Heydt, Volker et al

in European Taxation (2019), 59(2/3), 113-119

This CFE Opinion Statement, submitted to the European Institutions in November 2018, discusses the ECJ’s decision in Bevola (Case C-650/16), which reaffirms that the concept of “definitive losses” first ... [more ▼]

This CFE Opinion Statement, submitted to the European Institutions in November 2018, discusses the ECJ’s decision in Bevola (Case C-650/16), which reaffirms that the concept of “definitive losses” first established in Marks & Spencer (Case C-446/03) and refined, inter alia, in Commission v. United Kingdom (Case C-172/13) is still applicable to permanent establishments and that the standard for testing comparability continues to be related to the aim pursued by the national provision at issue. Further, the CFE invites the EU to consider harmonizing measures that will introduce immediate loss utilization with a recapture mechanism. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 58 (0 UL)
Full Text
See detailTime and Tax – Issues in International, EU, and Constitutional Law
Haslehner, Werner UL; Kofler, Georg; Rust, Alexander

Book published by Kluwer Law International (2019)

Time is a crucial dimension in the application of any law. In tax law, however, where an environment characterized by rapid change on the national, European, and international levels complicates the ... [more ▼]

Time is a crucial dimension in the application of any law. In tax law, however, where an environment characterized by rapid change on the national, European, and international levels complicates the provision of accurate legal advice, timing is particularly sensitive. This book is the first to analyse the relationship between time and three key areas of tax: treaties, EU law, and constitutional law issues, such as legal certainty and individual rights. The issues arising from the interplay of these various areas are analysed from a both academic and practical angle, providing important insights independent of the concrete national framework within which tax rules are applied. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 121 (8 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailEqualization Taxes and the EU's 'Digital Services Tax'
Kofler, Georg; Sinnig, Julia UL

in Intertax, International Tax Review (2019), 47(2), 176-200

Equalization taxes have a number of potential disadvantages and shortcomings, including their negative impact on growth, innovation and productivity, non-neutrality, double taxation, and problems in ... [more ▼]

Equalization taxes have a number of potential disadvantages and shortcomings, including their negative impact on growth, innovation and productivity, non-neutrality, double taxation, and problems in compliance and administration. However, some also view them as a politically feasible way to address perceived ‘unfairness’ in the territorial allocation of taxing rights in a digitalized economy. In any event, however, there are also certain technical features any such tax should comply with, including, e.g. compliance with international obligations (e.g. EU and tax treaty law), administrative simplicity, and a scope that is not overreaching. This contribution will address the general background of ‘equalization taxes’, the fundamental objections raised against it, and the relevant design features, both on a general level and specifically with regard to the proposal for an EU ‘Digital Services Tax’. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 138 (5 UL)
Full Text
See detailEqualization Taxes and the EU's 'Digital Services Tax'
Kofler, Georg; Sinnig, Julia UL

in Haslehner, Werner; Kofler, Georg; Pantazatou, Aikaterini (Eds.) et al Tax and the Digital Economy - Challenges and Proposals for Reform (2019)

Detailed reference viewed: 48 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailQualification of the Digital Services Tax Under Tax Treaties
Hohenwarter, Daniela; Kofler, Georg; Mayr, Gunter et al

in Intertax, International Tax Review (2019), 47(2), 140-147

Detailed reference viewed: 51 (2 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion Statement ECJ-TF 2/2018 on the ECJ Decision of 7 September 2017 in Eqiom (Case C-6/16), concerning the Compatibility of the French Anti-Abuse Rule Regarding Outbound Dividends with the EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive (2011/96) and the Fundamental Freedoms
García Prats, Alfredo; Haslehner, Werner UL; Heydt, Volker et al

in European Taxation (2018)

This is an Opinion Statement prepared by the CFE ECJ Task Force on Eqiom (Case C-6/16), in respect of which the Sixth Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) delivered its decision on ... [more ▼]

This is an Opinion Statement prepared by the CFE ECJ Task Force on Eqiom (Case C-6/16), in respect of which the Sixth Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) delivered its decision on 7 September 2017. The CFE welcomes the Eqiom decision. In an international context where the fight against tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning is intensifying, it is important to preserve the fundamental principles of a balanced tax system: Free choice of the least taxed route, legal certainty, respect for principles concerning burden of proof, etc. In this respect, the Court appears to be the guardian of these rights. In line with its previous decisions and upholding the fundamental ideas of the Internal Market, the ECJ in Eqiom and Deister and Juhler clearly confirms that Member States may neither employ general presumptions of abuse nor define any tax planning or structuring as abusive in light of secondary EU law or the fundamental freedoms. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 21 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion Statement ECJ-TF 1/2018 on the Compatibility of Limitation-on-Benefits Clauses with the EU Fundamental Freedoms
García Prats, Alfredo; Haslehner, Werner UL; Heydt, Volker et al

in European Taxation (2018)

This Opinion Statement was prepared by the CFE ECJ Task Force and concerns the compatibility of limitation-on-benefits (LoB) clauses with the EU fundamental freedoms, based on decisions of the European ... [more ▼]

This Opinion Statement was prepared by the CFE ECJ Task Force and concerns the compatibility of limitation-on-benefits (LoB) clauses with the EU fundamental freedoms, based on decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The context of this statement is the Commission’s infringement procedure against the Netherlands with regard to the LoB clause in the Japan- Netherlands Income Tax Treaty (2010) and the inclusion of a simplified optional LoB clause in the BEPS Multilateral Instrument. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 22 (2 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailGeneral Anti-Avoidance Rules in EU Law (EU Report IFA Congress 2018)
Haslehner, Werner UL; García Prats, Alfredo; Heydt, Volker et al

in IFA (Ed.) Cahiers de droit fiscal international, Volume 103A (2018)

While the EU Treaties do not contain a general anti-abuse rule, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) uses the concept of abuse of law when interpreting the EU Treaties in multiple substantive ... [more ▼]

While the EU Treaties do not contain a general anti-abuse rule, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) uses the concept of abuse of law when interpreting the EU Treaties in multiple substantive areas of law, including direct taxation. Current EU mechanisms for protection against abusive practices have that case law as a common root. This Report therefore starts by evaluating the emergence of the concept of abuse in the case law of the ECJ with regard to the fundamental freedoms. In this respect, the Court has accepted that discriminatory anti-avoidance rules can be justified by overriding reasons in the general interest but only where such rule specifically relates to wholly artificial arrangements aimed at circumventing the application of the legislation of the Member State concerned. Moreover, general and special anti-abuse provisions are enshrined in secondary EU law instruments. This concerns the general anti-avoidance rule for the area of corporate taxation, which was introduced by the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) and will be effective from 1 January 2019, and the more specific rules in the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (PSD), the Merger Directive (MD) and the Interest-Royalty Directive (IRD). This Report explains the scope of these provisions, their interpretation and application, and their relationship with primary EU law, tax treaties and national law. Finally, this Report provides a brief outlook on the impact of EU law on domestic tax systems in this field, stressing that general anti-abuse measures might create tensions with fundamental taxpayers’ rights, such as the right to legal certainty and the freedom to arrange one’s economic affairs. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 272 (8 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion Statement ECJ-TF 4/2017 on the Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 9 February 2017 in X (Case C-283/15 “Pro-Rata Personal Deductions”), Concerning Personal and Family Tax Benefits in Multi-State Situations
Haslehner, Werner UL; García Prats, Alfredo; Heydt, Volker et al

in European Taxation (2018)

The CFE welcomes the pro-rata approach to personal and family deductions developed in the X decision. In doing so, the Court contributes to the establishment of the internal market. Indeed, the pro-rata ... [more ▼]

The CFE welcomes the pro-rata approach to personal and family deductions developed in the X decision. In doing so, the Court contributes to the establishment of the internal market. Indeed, the pro-rata approach supports an open market economy with free competition, an efficient allocation of production factors, tax neutrality, a level playing field, international tax neutrality, the ability-to-pay principle, the direct benefit principle and origin-based taxation. The CFE, however, also notes that implementation of the principles established by X will pose a number of technical and policy issues for domestic legislators that have not yet been addressed by the Court. These include the calculation of the relevant proportions of income and possible mechanisms to avoid “cherry picking” by non-residents. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 54 (6 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion Statement ECJ-TF 3/2017 on the Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 May 2017 in Berlioz Investment Fund SA (Case C-682/15), Concerning the Right to Judicial Review under Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in Cases of Cross-Border Mutual Assistance in Tax Matters
Haslehner, Werner UL; García Prats, Alfredo; Heydt, Volker et al

in European Taxation (2018)

The CFE welcomes this decision in that it marks a new page in the protection of taxpayer rights. In line with the principle “wherever there is a right, there is a remedy”, it shows that EU law may ... [more ▼]

The CFE welcomes this decision in that it marks a new page in the protection of taxpayer rights. In line with the principle “wherever there is a right, there is a remedy”, it shows that EU law may reconcile the interest in securing an effective protection of tax collection with that in respecting fundamental rights. The CFE wonders whether the threshold of “manifest irrelevance” can effectively secure the protection of the relevant persons’ rights. It also wonders whether this offers an effective protection against fishing expeditions or requests for information that is unlikely to be relevant to the tax affairs of a given taxpayer. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 77 (3 UL)
Full Text
See detailEU Tax Law and Policy in the 21st Century
Haslehner, Werner UL; Kofler, Georg; Rust, Alexander

Book published by Kluwer Law International (2017)

Major changes in EU tax law demand an analysis of not just the current state of the field, but also forthcoming EU-level policy initiatives and their likely implications for taxpayers, regulators, and ... [more ▼]

Major changes in EU tax law demand an analysis of not just the current state of the field, but also forthcoming EU-level policy initiatives and their likely implications for taxpayers, regulators, and national legislatures alike. This book, the first in-depth commentary and analysis of such developments, offers exactly that. Twenty EU tax and policy experts examine the impact of EU Treaty provisions and recent ECJ case law on EU tax law, and provide well-informed assessments of current and anticipated EU tax policy initiatives and their potential impacts. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 244 (13 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion Statement ECJ-TF 2/2017 on the ECJ Decision of 21 December in World Duty Free Group and Others (Joined Cases C-20/15 P and C-21/15 P), Concerning the Requirements of Selective Aid in the Sense of Article 107 of the TFEU
Haslehner, Werner UL; García Prats, Alfredo; Heydt, Volker et al

in European Taxation (2017)

The Confédération Fiscale Européenne welcomes the clarification of the notion of selectivity in the World Duty Free Group decision. It is now clear that a tax measure that derogates from the normal tax ... [more ▼]

The Confédération Fiscale Européenne welcomes the clarification of the notion of selectivity in the World Duty Free Group decision. It is now clear that a tax measure that derogates from the normal tax scheme can constitute State aid even if the tax measure appears to be general in nature and does not lead to a benefit for a specific predefined group of undertakings. Given the variety of tax rules in each Member State, however, further clarification on the determination of the reference framework, the comparability test and the scope of potential justifications will be necessary. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 42 (4 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion Statement ECJ-TF 1/2017 on the Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in SECIL (Case C-464/14) Concerning the Free Movement of Capital in Third Countries
Haslehner, Werner UL; García Prats, Alfredo; Heydt, Volker et al

in European Taxation (2017)

The Confédération Fiscale Européenne welcomes the precise and instructive decision in SECIL. The decision clarifies the application of article 63 of the TFEU on the free movement of capital to tax ... [more ▼]

The Confédération Fiscale Européenne welcomes the precise and instructive decision in SECIL. The decision clarifies the application of article 63 of the TFEU on the free movement of capital to tax legislation that denies tax benefits to dividends originating in non-EU Member States and demonstrates that Member States may not rely on article 64(1) of the TFEU, i.e. the “grandfathering clause”, if the logic of their tax legislation changed after 31 December 1993, which change can also be brought about through the conclusion of directly applicable international agreements (for example, Euro-Mediterranean Agreements). The Confédération Fiscale Européenne appreciates the further clarification that provisions with direct effect in EU international agreements with third countries, such as the Euro-Mediterranean Agreements, can create economic rights that can be relied upon by taxpayers. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 32 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion Statement ECJ-TF 2/2016 on the Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 13 July 2016 in Brisal and KBC Finance Ireland (Case C-18/15), on the Admissibility of Gross Withholding Tax of Interest
Haslehner, Werner UL; García Prats, Alfredo; Heydt, Volker et al

in European Taxation (2017)

The CFE welcomes the clarification made by the Court regarding the operation of withholding tax on interest paid to non-residents. It is now unambiguous that, despite authorizing the application of such a ... [more ▼]

The CFE welcomes the clarification made by the Court regarding the operation of withholding tax on interest paid to non-residents. It is now unambiguous that, despite authorizing the application of such a method (if justified and proportional), the Court considers that resident and non-resident service providers are comparable and that a deduction for expenses granted to residents should be made available to non-residents. The CFE stresses that Member States wishing to keep (or to introduce) withholding tax systems need to take into account not only the substantive tax result of allowing a deduction but also need to ensure that non-residents are not discriminated against with regard to proving the expenses. The CFE also welcomes the fact that the taxpayer is being given the option of whether or not to apply such a system because this allows it to take into account compliance costs in making this decision. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 45 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion Statement ECJ-TF 1/2016 on the Decision of the European Court of Justice in Joined Cases Miljoen (Case C-10/14), X (Case C-14/14) and Société Générale (Case C-17/14) on the Netherlands Dividend Withholding Tax
Haslehner, Werner UL; García Prats, Alfredo; Heydt, Volker et al

in European Taxation (2016)

The Confédération Fiscale Européenne welcomes the ECJ’s decision in the case, which strongly affirms the right of non-resident taxpayers not to be taxed at a higher overall level than resident ... [more ▼]

The Confédération Fiscale Européenne welcomes the ECJ’s decision in the case, which strongly affirms the right of non-resident taxpayers not to be taxed at a higher overall level than resident taxpayers, even where the systems of taxation differ between both types of taxpayers in other respects. This will lead to significant improvement of the situation for cross-border portfolio investors, who continue to suffer from withholding taxes imposed by several Member States. The Confédération Fiscale Européenne further welcomes the various clarifications in this respect, particularly concerning the meaning of the Truck Center decision, the definition of personal allowances within the scope of the Schumacker decision and its case law on the possible neu- tralization of disadvantages by way of bilateral tax treaties. The Confédération Fiscale Européenne notes that, despite these clarifications, uncertainty continues to persist with regard to the significance of a credit carry-forward granted by a residence state for a possible neutralization of disadvantages, which the ECJ did not directly address, and with respect to the need for reimbursement of withhold- ing taxes where (only) a partial offset in the residence state is available. The Confédération Fiscale Européenne wishes to take the opportunity to urge the Member States and the European Institutions to continue to work on improving procedures with regard to relief from withholding taxation in the source state under tax treaties and EU law. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 33 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion Statement ECJ-TF 4/2015 on the Decision of the European Court of Justice in Groupe Steria SCA (Case C-386/14) on the French Intégration Fiscale
Haslehner, Werner UL; García Prats, Alfredo; Gutmann, Daniel et al

in European Taxation (2016)

The Confédération Fiscale Européenne welcomes the Court’s clarification that cross-border company structures may not automatically be excluded from all the benefits of group taxation regimes but that ... [more ▼]

The Confédération Fiscale Européenne welcomes the Court’s clarification that cross-border company structures may not automatically be excluded from all the benefits of group taxation regimes but that rather, in general, a case-by-case assessment has to be made. This resolves concerns arising from the X Holding case, which, it is now clear, only addresses cross-border loss relief and perhaps tax-neutral intra-group transactions. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 36 (0 UL)
Full Text
See detailLandmark Decisions of the ECJ in Direct Taxation
Haslehner, Werner UL; Kofler, Georg; Rust, Alexander

Book published by Kluwer Law International (2015)

This book is the result of a conference held at the University of Luxembourg on 23 January 2014, which aimed to analyse the Court of Justice’s most important decisions on direct taxation and their ... [more ▼]

This book is the result of a conference held at the University of Luxembourg on 23 January 2014, which aimed to analyse the Court of Justice’s most important decisions on direct taxation and their transformative impact on direct taxation in the EU over the last three decades. Each chapter in this book is based on the authors’ presentations at the conference, in which they focused on a particular landmark decision of the Court of Justice as a starting point for the development of a specific doctrine and followed its development through decisions in later years, critically assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the Luxembourg Court’s reasoning and its path through the complex field of cross-border income taxation. Due to the nature of this project, the individual chapters’ topics, such as the Schumacker doctrine, the Marks & Spencer exception, or the impact of Cadbury Schweppes, will seem familiar to readers who are well versed in EU tax law. Yet, the depth of the analysis of each landmark case, which is explored from its historic roots and original reasoning, allows the reader to gain an unparalleled understanding of the development and minute changes in the relevant subsequent jurisprudence as the authors chart a way through the nuances of the Court’s arguments. Necessarily a snapshot of the current state of the law, it allows this book to remain relevant as the jurisprudence develops further over the years to come. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 332 (23 UL)
Full Text
See detailAuslandsverluste und ausländisches Steuerrecht: Neuregelung durch das 1. StabG 2012
Haslehner, Werner UL; Kofler, Georg

in Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht und angrenzendes Steuerrecht (2012), (7), 9-26

Durch das 1. StabG wurde die Hereinnahme von „befreiten“ Betriebsstättenverlusten und von Verlusten ausländischer Gruppenmitglieder mit dem nach ausländischem Steuerrecht ermittelten Verlustbetrag ... [more ▼]

Durch das 1. StabG wurde die Hereinnahme von „befreiten“ Betriebsstättenverlusten und von Verlusten ausländischer Gruppenmitglieder mit dem nach ausländischem Steuerrecht ermittelten Verlustbetrag gedeckelt. Dadurch soll schon auf Ebene der Verlusthereinnahme das Problem der bisherigen unzureichenden Nachversteuerung gelöst werden, das dadurch entstand, dass der hereinzunehmende Verlust zwar nach inländischem Steuerrecht ermittelt wurde, die Nachversteuerung aber auf die Verlustverwertung nach ausländischem Steuerrecht rekurrierte. Die Neuregelung begegnet allerdings systematischen Bedenken und stellt durch seine Bindung an das ausländische Steuerrecht weiterhin einen Fremdkörper im Ertragsteuersystem dar. Nach einer Vorstellung der bisherigen Problemlage und der Neuregelung soll daher in diesem Beitrag der Versuch unternommen werden, als mögliche Alternative zur nunmehrigen Einschränkung der Verlusthereinnahme eine Nachversteuerungssystem zu entwickeln, das durch das ausschließliche Abstellen auf österreichisches Steuerrecht die bisherigen Probleme sachgerecht und systematisch korrekt lösen würde. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 95 (3 UL)