References of "Rust, Alexander"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
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: 393 (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: 166 (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: 126 (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: 153 (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: 246 (1 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: 478 (23 UL)