Article: Is the Symmetrical Classification Method EU Proof?

IF 0.9 Q2 LAW
EC Tax Review Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.54648/ecta2022030
T. Stevens, Mart van Hulten
{"title":"Article: Is the Symmetrical Classification Method EU Proof?","authors":"T. Stevens, Mart van Hulten","doi":"10.54648/ecta2022030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One way to solve classification conflicts involving hybrid entities is for states to apply a so-called symmetrical classification method, whereby a state adopts for its domestic tax purposes the tax classification applied to an entity by another state. The outcome of applying such a method can be that a state classifies foreign entities differently from domestic entities, raising potential issues from an EU law perspective when EU Member States are involved. For instance, in case a cross-border situation leads to more burdensome taxation compared to the domestic situation, a violation of the EU fundamental freedoms can be present, whereas if the classification leads to a lower tax burden for certain enterprises, a violation of EU State aid rules can be the result.\nIn this article, we assess the conformity with primary EU law of tax classification methods, and especially of the symmetrical classification method. It is concluded that the risk of incompatibility with the EU fundamental freedoms and EU State aid rules should typically be limited when EU Member States align their tax classification rules with those of other states to alleviate risks of double (non-)taxation. Risks can increase, however, for instance if nationality is used as a distinguishing criterion, or where under- or overkill occurs.\nTaxation, Hybrid Entities, Mismatches, Classification, Symmetrical Method, EU Law, Fundamental Freedoms, State Aid","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EC Tax Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2022030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One way to solve classification conflicts involving hybrid entities is for states to apply a so-called symmetrical classification method, whereby a state adopts for its domestic tax purposes the tax classification applied to an entity by another state. The outcome of applying such a method can be that a state classifies foreign entities differently from domestic entities, raising potential issues from an EU law perspective when EU Member States are involved. For instance, in case a cross-border situation leads to more burdensome taxation compared to the domestic situation, a violation of the EU fundamental freedoms can be present, whereas if the classification leads to a lower tax burden for certain enterprises, a violation of EU State aid rules can be the result. In this article, we assess the conformity with primary EU law of tax classification methods, and especially of the symmetrical classification method. It is concluded that the risk of incompatibility with the EU fundamental freedoms and EU State aid rules should typically be limited when EU Member States align their tax classification rules with those of other states to alleviate risks of double (non-)taxation. Risks can increase, however, for instance if nationality is used as a distinguishing criterion, or where under- or overkill occurs. Taxation, Hybrid Entities, Mismatches, Classification, Symmetrical Method, EU Law, Fundamental Freedoms, State Aid
文章:对称分类法是欧盟的证明吗?
解决涉及混合实体的分类冲突的一种方法是,各州采用所谓的对称分类方法,即一个州为其国内税收目的采用另一个州适用于一个实体的税收分类。应用这种方法的结果可能是,一个国家对外国实体的分类与国内实体的分类不同,这在涉及欧盟成员国时,从欧盟法律的角度提出了潜在的问题。例如,与国内情况相比,如果跨境情况导致税收负担更重,则可能存在对欧盟基本自由的侵犯,而如果这种分类导致某些企业的税收负担降低,则可能导致违反欧盟国家援助规则。在本文中,我们评估了税收分类方法,特别是对称分类方法是否符合欧盟主要法律。结论是,当欧盟成员国将其税收分类规则与其他国家的税收分类规则相一致,以减轻双重(非)税收的风险时,与欧盟基本自由和欧盟国家援助规则不兼容的风险通常应该受到限制。然而,风险可能会增加,例如,如果国籍被用作区分标准,或者在杀人不足或杀人过度的情况下。税收、混合实体、不匹配、分类、对称方法、欧盟法律、基本自由、国家援助
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
33.30%
发文量
16
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信