Browsing
     by title


0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

or enter first few letters:   
OK
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpiate- and Cocaine-Related Fatal Overdoses in Luxembourg from 1985 to 2011: A study on Gender differences
Origer, Alain UL; Lopes da Costa, S; Baumann, Michèle UL

in European Addiction Research (2014), 20

We analyzed gender differences in national Fatal OverDose (FOD) cases related to opiates and cocaine use between 1985 and 2011 (n=340). Methods Cross-examination of national data from law enforcement and ... [more ▼]

We analyzed gender differences in national Fatal OverDose (FOD) cases related to opiates and cocaine use between 1985 and 2011 (n=340). Methods Cross-examination of national data from law enforcement and drug use surveillance sources and of forensic evidence. Bi-variate and logistic regression analysis of male/female differences according to socio-demographics, forensic evidence and drug use trajectories. Results The burden of deaths caused by FOD on the general national mortality was higher for men (PMR/100 = 0.55) compared with women (PMR/100 = 0.34). Compared with their male peers, women were younger at the time of death (t=3.274; p=.001) and showed shorter drug use careers (t=2.228; p=.028). Heroin use was recorded more frequently in first drug offences of female victims [AOR=6.59 (95% CI 2.97–14.63)] and according to forensic evidence, psychotropic prescription drugs were detected to a higher degree in females [AOR=2.019 (95% CI 1.065–3.827)]. Conclusion The time window between the onset of illicit drug use and its fatal outcome revealed to be shorter for women versus men included in our study. Early intervention in female drug users, routine involvement of first line general health care providers and increased attention to poly and psychotropic prescription drugs’ use might contribute to prevent premature drug-related death and reduce gendered specificities. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 224 (4 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: 83 (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: 301 (1 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: 135 (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: 100 (2 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: 76 (3 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: 58 (2 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion 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
Kofler, Georg; García Prats, Alfredo; Haslehner, Werner UL et al

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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 22 (0 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: 156 (1 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: 175 (4 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: 118 (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: 267 (7 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: 95 (1 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: 28 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOpinion Statement ECJ-TF 2/2022 on the Decision of 27 January 2022 in European Commission v. Kingdom of Spain (Form 720) (Case C-788/19)
Kofler, Georg; García Prats, Alfredo; Haslehner, Werner UL et al

in European Taxation (2022), 62(7), 304-310

In this CFE Opinion Statement, the CFE ECJ Task Force comments on the decision of 27 January 2022 in European Commission v. Kingdom of Spain (Form 720) (Case C-788/19) on the lack of proportionality of ... [more ▼]

In this CFE Opinion Statement, the CFE ECJ Task Force comments on the decision of 27 January 2022 in European Commission v. Kingdom of Spain (Form 720) (Case C-788/19) on the lack of proportionality of the consequences derived from the failure to provide information concerning assets or rights held in other Member States of the European Union or the European Economic Area. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 23 (0 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: 213 (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: 195 (4 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: 85 (1 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: 94 (2 UL)
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: 24 (0 UL)