References of "Kofler, Georg"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion Statement ECJ-TF 3/2021 on the ECJ Decision of 19 March 2021 in MK v. Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Case C-388/19) on the Option of Taxpayers to Avoid Discriminatory Taxation of Capital Gains
Kofler, Georg; Garcia Prats, Alfredo; Haslehner, Werner UL et al

in European Taxation (2022)

In this case note, the CFE ECJ Task Force comments on the ECJ decision in MK v. Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Case C-388/19) of 18 March 2021. The Court confirmed its previous case law and held that ... [more ▼]

In this case note, the CFE ECJ Task Force comments on the ECJ decision in MK v. Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Case C-388/19) of 18 March 2021. The Court confirmed its previous case law and held that the Portuguese (optional) regime for taxation of capital gains from immovable property of non-residents was contrary to the free movement of capital under article 63 of the TFEU since non-residents were taxed less favourably than residents. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 17 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion 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
Kofler, Georg; Garcia Prats, Alfredo; Haslehner, Werner UL et al

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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 19 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion 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
Haslehner, Werner UL; García Prats, Alfredo; Heydt, Volker et al

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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 87 (2 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion 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
García Prats, Alfredo; Haslehner, Werner UL; Heydt, Volker et al

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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 85 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailReconstructing the Treaty Network – the EU law perspective (EU report IFA Congress 2020)
Haslehner, Werner UL; García Prats, Alfredo; Heydt, Volker et al

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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 135 (5 UL)
See detailA Guide to the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive
Haslehner, Werner UL; Pantazatou, Aikaterini UL; Kofler, Georg et al

Book published by Edward Elgar (2020)

Detailed reference viewed: 262 (5 UL)
Full Text
See detailA Guide to the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive
Haslehner, Werner UL; Kofler, Georg; Pantazatou, Katerina et al

Book published by Edward Elgar (2020)

This book provides a concise, practical guide to the European Union’s Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD). Presenting unique insights into the ATAD’s five specific anti-avoidance rules, its chapters ... [more ▼]

This book provides a concise, practical guide to the European Union’s Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD). Presenting unique insights into the ATAD’s five specific anti-avoidance rules, its chapters explain the background of those rules, the directive’s interactions with relevant jurisprudence, and the challenges posed to the ATAD’s interpretation and implementation in domestic law. Key features include: • critical, article-by-article analysis of the ATAD • contextual information on the legislative environment in which the ATAD operates, embedding it in the wider landscape of CJEU jurisprudence • insights into the day-to-day application of the ATAD rules in practice • contributions from leading academics and practitioners in the field of tax law • examples of the challenges to the interpretation and implementation of ATAD, taken from a range of EU Member States. European and international tax advisors, along with policy makers in the field of tax law, will find this book to be a comprehensive yet accessible guide to the ATAD and its correct application. Those who carry out research in European tax law can also benefit from this book’s critical approach to the ATAD and the questions that surround anti-tax avoidance legislation in the European Union. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 219 (11 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion 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
Haslehner, Werner UL; Garcia Prats, Alfredo; Heydt, Volker et al

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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 53 (2 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion 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
Haslehner, Werner UL; García Prats, Alfredo; Heydt, Volker et al

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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 69 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion 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
Haslehner, Werner UL; Garcia Prats, Alfredo; Heydt, Volker et al

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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 74 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion 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)
García Prats, Alfredo; Haslehner, Werner UL; Heydt, Volker et al

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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 249 (7 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion Statement ECJ-TF 1/2019 on the ECJ Decision of 31 May 2018 in Hornbach-Baumarkt (Case C-382/16)
Garcia Prats, Alfredo; Haslehner, Werner UL; Kofler, Georg et al

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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 68 (3 UL)
Full Text
See detailTax and the Digital Economy: Challenges and Proposals for Reform
Haslehner, Werner UL; Kofler, Georg; Pantazatou, Aikaterini UL et al

Book published by Wolters Kluwer (2019)

Detailed reference viewed: 520 (4 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion 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
Garía Prats, Alfredo; Haslehner, Werner UL; Heydt, Volker et al

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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 165 (4 UL)
Full Text
See detailTime and Tax – Issues in International, EU, and Constitutional Law
Haslehner, Werner UL; Kofler, Georg; Rust, Alexander

Book published by Kluwer Law International (2019)

Time is a crucial dimension in the application of any law. In tax law, however, where an environment characterized by rapid change on the national, European, and international levels complicates the ... [more ▼]

Time is a crucial dimension in the application of any law. In tax law, however, where an environment characterized by rapid change on the national, European, and international levels complicates the provision of accurate legal advice, timing is particularly sensitive. This book is the first to analyse the relationship between time and three key areas of tax: treaties, EU law, and constitutional law issues, such as legal certainty and individual rights. The issues arising from the interplay of these various areas are analysed from a both academic and practical angle, providing important insights independent of the concrete national framework within which tax rules are applied. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 253 (10 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailEqualization Taxes and the EU's 'Digital Services Tax'
Kofler, Georg; Sinnig, Julia UL

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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 396 (10 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailQualification of the Digital Services Tax Under Tax Treaties
Hohenwarter, Daniela; Kofler, Georg; Mayr, Gunter et al

in Intertax, International Tax Review (2019), 47(2), 140-147

Detailed reference viewed: 169 (6 UL)
Full Text
See detailEqualization Taxes and the EU's 'Digital Services Tax'
Kofler, Georg; Sinnig, Julia UL

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

Detailed reference viewed: 229 (2 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion 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
García Prats, Alfredo; Haslehner, Werner UL; Heydt, Volker et al

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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 104 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion Statement ECJ-TF 1/2018 on the Compatibility of Limitation-on-Benefits Clauses with the EU Fundamental Freedoms
García Prats, Alfredo; Haslehner, Werner UL; Heydt, Volker et al

in European Taxation (2018)

This Opinion Statement was prepared by the CFE ECJ Task Force and concerns the compatibility of limitation-on-benefits (LoB) clauses with the EU fundamental freedoms, based on decisions of the European ... [more ▼]

This Opinion Statement was prepared by the CFE ECJ Task Force and concerns the compatibility of limitation-on-benefits (LoB) clauses with the EU fundamental freedoms, based on decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The context of this statement is the Commission’s infringement procedure against the Netherlands with regard to the LoB clause in the Japan- Netherlands Income Tax Treaty (2010) and the inclusion of a simplified optional LoB clause in the BEPS Multilateral Instrument. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 92 (2 UL)