References of "Lüdicke, Jürgen"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
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: 135 (3 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: 27 (2 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: 81 (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: 55 (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: 55 (2 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailGeneral Anti-Avoidance Rules in EU Law (EU Report IFA Congress 2018)
Haslehner, Werner UL; García Prats, Alfredo; Heydt, Volker et al

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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 363 (11 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion Statement ECJ-TF 4/2017 on the Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 9 February 2017 in X (Case C-283/15 “Pro-Rata Personal Deductions”), Concerning Personal and Family Tax Benefits in Multi-State Situations
Haslehner, Werner UL; García Prats, Alfredo; Heydt, Volker et al

in European Taxation (2018)

The CFE welcomes the pro-rata approach to personal and family deductions developed in the X decision. In doing so, the Court contributes to the establishment of the internal market. Indeed, the pro-rata ... [more ▼]

The CFE welcomes the pro-rata approach to personal and family deductions developed in the X decision. In doing so, the Court contributes to the establishment of the internal market. Indeed, the pro-rata approach supports an open market economy with free competition, an efficient allocation of production factors, tax neutrality, a level playing field, international tax neutrality, the ability-to-pay principle, the direct benefit principle and origin-based taxation. The CFE, however, also notes that implementation of the principles established by X will pose a number of technical and policy issues for domestic legislators that have not yet been addressed by the Court. These include the calculation of the relevant proportions of income and possible mechanisms to avoid “cherry picking” by non-residents. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 92 (6 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion 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
Haslehner, Werner UL; García Prats, Alfredo; Heydt, Volker et al

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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 105 (3 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: 68 (4 UL)