Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 1/2022 on the ECJ Decision of 25 November 2021 in État Luxembourgeois v. L (Case C-437/19) on the Conditions for Information Requests and Taxpayer Remedies

in European Taxation (2022), 62(4), 219-223

In the judgment commented on in this article, the Court of Justice clarified the conditions for the identification of a taxpayer in group requests under the DAC (Directive 2011/16) and confirmed that ... [more ▼]

In the judgment commented on in this article, the Court of Justice clarified the conditions for the identification of a taxpayer in group requests under the DAC (Directive 2011/16) and confirmed that article 47 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights requires the information holder to be given the necessary information to assess the request’s legality. [less ▲]

Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 2/2021 on the ECJ Decision of 25 February 2021 in Société Générale (Case C-403/19) on the Calculation of the Maximum Amount of a Foreign Direct Tax Credit

in European Taxation (2022)

The Court’s decision in Société Générale reinforces established case law that EU law neither prohibits juridical double taxation nor does it impose an obligation on the residence Member State to prevent ... [more ▼]

The Court’s decision in Société Générale reinforces established case law that EU law neither prohibits juridical double taxation nor does it impose an obligation on the residence Member State to prevent the disadvantages that could arise from the exercise of competence thus attributed by the two Member States. The parallel existence of taxing jurisdiction, however, must be distinguished from the exercise of such jurisdiction by each Member State. While Member States are free to determine the connecting factors for the allocation of taxing jurisdiction in tax treaties, in exercising the “power of taxation, so allocated by bilateral conventions for the avoidance of double taxation, the Member States must comply with EU rules and, more particularly, observe the principle of equal treatment”. It is generally accepted in the Court’s case law that both the ordinary credit and exemption (including exemption with progression) methods are permissible to avoid double taxation. In Société Générale, this position was confirmed, specifically as regards the “maximum deduction” under the ordinary credit method in tax treaties, even though this treatment can result in a disadvantage for cross-border income as compared with domestic income. As the disadvantage in Société Générale was due to the difference between gross-basis taxation of dividends in the source Member States (Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and net-basis taxation of those foreign-sourced dividends in the residence state (France), it remains to be seen whether or not future cases will bring clarity in light of the Seabrokers decision of the EFTA Court, which examined how expenses can be lawfully allocated to foreign income from the perspective of the residence Member State. [less ▲]

Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 3/2020 on the General Court Decisions of 15 July 2020 in Ireland v. Commission and Apple v. Commission (Joined Cases T-778/16 and T-892/16) on State Aid Granted under Tax Rulings Fixing the Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments in Ireland

in European Taxation (2021), 61(2/3), 109-116

This CFE Opinion Statement, submitted to the EU Institutions on 2 December 2020, addresses the General Court decisions in Ireland v. Commission and Apple v. Commission (Joined Cases T-778/16 and T-892/16 ... [more ▼]

This CFE Opinion Statement, submitted to the EU Institutions on 2 December 2020, addresses the General Court decisions in Ireland v. Commission and Apple v. Commission (Joined Cases T-778/16 and T-892/16) on 15 July 2020. [less ▲]

Reconstructing the Treaty Network – the EU law perspective (EU report IFA Congress 2020)

in Duff, David; Gutmann, Daniel (Eds.) Cahiers de droit fiscal international 2020: Reconstructing the treaty network (2020)

European Union law overlaps and interacts with both the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project (BEPS) and its implementation and the member states’ tax treaties between them and with third ... [more ▼]

European Union law overlaps and interacts with both the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project (BEPS) and its implementation and the member states’ tax treaties between them and with third countries, and there is also an area where all three fields meet. This intersection of EU law, BEPS and member states’ (mostly) bilateral tax treaties is the subject of this report. [less ▲]

Opinion Statement ECJ TF 4/2019 on the ECJ Decision of 26 February 2019 in X-GmbH (Case C-135/17), Concerning the Application of the German CFC Legislation in Relation to Third Countries

in European Taxation (2020), 60(4), 152-157

This CFE Opinion Statement, submitted to the EU institutions on 12 December 2019, comments on the decision in X-GmbH (Case C-135/17), in respect of which the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand ... [more ▼]

This CFE Opinion Statement, submitted to the EU institutions on 12 December 2019, comments on the decision in X-GmbH (Case C-135/17), in respect of which the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) (ECJ) delivered its decision on 26 February 2019. In general terms, the ECJ largely followed the Opinion given by Advocate General Mengozzi on 5 December 2018. [less ▲]

Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 2/2019 on the ECJ Decisions of 26 February 2019 inN Luxembourg I et al.(Joined Cases C-115/16, C-118/16, C-119/16 and C-299/16) andT Danmark et al.(Joined Cases C-116/16 and C-117/17)

in European Taxation (2019), 59(10), 487502

The article acknowledges that the “Danish beneficial ownership cases” address a number of important and timely issues, especially with regard to the concept of abuse in EU law. These include (i) the ... [more ▼]

The article acknowledges that the “Danish beneficial ownership cases” address a number of important and timely issues, especially with regard to the concept of abuse in EU law. These include (i) the expansion of the general anti-abuse principle enshrined in EU law to areas of tax law that are subject to minimal harmonization, (ii) the use of the OECD materials to define the beneficial ownership concept, (iii) the conflation of the beneficial ownership concept with the general anti-abuse principle and the Court’s attempt to give the notion of “abuse” workable contours, and (iv) the reading of an effective subject-to-tax clause with regard to interest income into the definition of a “company” laid down in the IRD. The article also, however, predicts that domestic courts will struggle to translate the abstract guidance of the “Danish beneficial ownership cases” into concrete decisions, that practitioners and academics alike will have to discuss building blocks and nuances of the Grand Chamber’s decisions for some time to come, and that consideration needs to be given to the impact these cases will have on current tax structures. [less ▲]

Opinion 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

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 ▲]

General Anti-Avoidance Rules in EU Law (EU Report IFA Congress 2018)

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 ▲]

Opinion 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

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 ▲]

Opinion 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

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 ▲]