Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 2/2020 on the ECJ Decision of 3 March 2020 in Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zrt. (Case C-75/18) on Progressive Turnover Taxes

in European Taxation (2020), 60(12), 555-564

This CFE Opinion Statement discusses the decision of the Grand Chamber of the ECJ in Vodafone. The Court held that the imposition of the Hungarian progressive turnover-based tax on the telecommunications ... [more ▼]

This CFE Opinion Statement discusses the decision of the Grand Chamber of the ECJ in Vodafone. The Court held that the imposition of the Hungarian progressive turnover-based tax on the telecommunications sector did not infringe the EU fundamental freedoms or article 401 of the VAT Directive (2006/112), and that the question regarding the prohibition of State aid was inadmissible. Vodafone is especially important in respect of the current debate regarding turnover-based digital services taxes. [less ▲]

Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 1/2020 on the General Court Decisions of 24 September 2019 in "Starbucks" and "Fiat" on State Aid Granted by Transfer Pricing Rulings

in European Taxation (2020), 60(5), 222-230

This CFE Opinion Statement, submitted to the EU Institutions on 28 January 2020, discusses the General Court decisions of 24 September 2019 in The Netherlands v. Commission (Starbucks) (Joined Cases C-760 ... [more ▼]

This CFE Opinion Statement, submitted to the EU Institutions on 28 January 2020, discusses the General Court decisions of 24 September 2019 in The Netherlands v. Commission (Starbucks) (Joined Cases C-760/15 and T-636/16) and Luxembourg v. Commission (Fiat Finance and Trade) (Joined Cases T-755/15 and T-759/15), on State aid granted by transfer pricing rulings. [less ▲]

Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 3/2019 on the ECJ Decision of 22 November 2018 in Sofina (Case C-575/17) on Withholding Taxes, Losses, and Territoriality

in European Taxation (2020), 60(2/3), 91-97

This CFE Opinion Statement, submitted to the EU Institutions on 10 October 2019, comments on the Decision in Sofina (Case C-575/17), in respect of which the Fifth Chamber of the ECJ delivered its decision ... [more ▼]

This CFE Opinion Statement, submitted to the EU Institutions on 10 October 2019, comments on the Decision in Sofina (Case C-575/17), in respect of which the Fifth Chamber of the ECJ delivered its decision on 22 November 2018. The Court held that the imposition of French dividend withholding tax violated the freedom of capital movement in light of the non- resident’s overall loss situation. [less ▲]

Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 1/2019 on the ECJ Decision of 31 May 2018 in Hornbach-Baumarkt (Case C-382/16)

in European Taxation (2019), 59(9), 446-452

In this Opinion Statement, submitted in April 2019, the CFE discusses the ECJ decision in Hornbach-Baumarkt (Case C-382/16) concerning the application of transfer pricing rules to transactions between ... [more ▼]

In this Opinion Statement, submitted in April 2019, the CFE discusses the ECJ decision in Hornbach-Baumarkt (Case C-382/16) concerning the application of transfer pricing rules to transactions between resident and non-resident associated enterprises. [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 ▲]

Opinion 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

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 ▲]

Tax treaties with developing countries and the allocation of taxing rights

in European Journal of Law and Economics (2014)

Worldwide income taxation in the country of residence is a legal dogma of international taxation. We question this dogma from the perspective of relations between developed and developing countries from ... [more ▼]

Worldwide income taxation in the country of residence is a legal dogma of international taxation. We question this dogma from the perspective of relations between developed and developing countries from legal and economic perspectives, and make a modern and fair proposal for tax treaties. We show under which conditions a developing and a developed country will voluntarily sign a tax treaty where the developing country is more inclined to share the information with the developed country and whether they should share revenues. Moreover, we demonstrate how the conclusion of a tax treaty can assist in the implementation of a tax audit system in the developing country. [less ▲]