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 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 ▲]

A Guide to the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive

Book published by Edward Elgar (2020)

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 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

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 ▲]

Equalization Taxes and the EU's 'Digital Services Tax'

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 ▲]

Equalization Taxes and the EU's 'Digital Services Tax'

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