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 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

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 ▲]

Opinion 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

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 ▲]

Opinion 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

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 ▲]

Auslandsverluste und ausländisches Steuerrecht: Neuregelung durch das 1. StabG 2012

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 ▲]