Article: The Fundamental Freedoms and the Taxation of Dividends Received by Non-resident Investment Funds: Some Thoughts on Non-discrimination With a Special Focus on Recent ECJ Case Law

IF 1.2 Q2 LAW
Intertax Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI:10.54648/taxi2022046
Moritz Scherleitner
{"title":"Article: The Fundamental Freedoms and the Taxation of Dividends Received by Non-resident Investment Funds: Some Thoughts on Non-discrimination With a Special Focus on Recent ECJ Case Law","authors":"Moritz Scherleitner","doi":"10.54648/taxi2022046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This objective of this article is to discuss outbound cases involving investment funds focusing particularly on the issue of discrimination. The motivation to engage in this inquiry is two-fold. On the one hand, the fund taxation systems in Fidelity and Köln-Aktie Deka Funds include requirements not found in those fund taxation regimes subject to ECJ scrutiny long ago. It is of interest to analyse to what extent this can make a difference. Secondly, the opinions of AG Saugmandsgaard Øe in A SCPI and AG Kokott in Allianzgi merit a closer examination. In the case of the former, it is the AG’s unique approach to comparability that necessitates analysis. In the latter case, it is the variety of far-reaching questions raised by this complex case.\nEU law, comparability, ECJ, investment funds, fundamental freedoms, Allianzgi, A SCPI, Fidelity, Köln-Aktie Deka Funds.","PeriodicalId":45365,"journal":{"name":"Intertax","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intertax","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2022046","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

This objective of this article is to discuss outbound cases involving investment funds focusing particularly on the issue of discrimination. The motivation to engage in this inquiry is two-fold. On the one hand, the fund taxation systems in Fidelity and Köln-Aktie Deka Funds include requirements not found in those fund taxation regimes subject to ECJ scrutiny long ago. It is of interest to analyse to what extent this can make a difference. Secondly, the opinions of AG Saugmandsgaard Øe in A SCPI and AG Kokott in Allianzgi merit a closer examination. In the case of the former, it is the AG’s unique approach to comparability that necessitates analysis. In the latter case, it is the variety of far-reaching questions raised by this complex case. EU law, comparability, ECJ, investment funds, fundamental freedoms, Allianzgi, A SCPI, Fidelity, Köln-Aktie Deka Funds.
文章:非居民投资基金股息的基本自由和税收:关于非歧视的一些思考,特别是最近的欧洲法院判例法
本文的目的是讨论涉及投资基金的境外案件,特别关注歧视问题。参与这项调查的动机有两方面。一方面,富达基金和Köln Aktie-Deka基金的基金税收制度包含了很久以前受到欧洲法院审查的基金税收体制中没有的要求。我们有兴趣分析一下这能在多大程度上产生影响。其次,AG Saugmandsgaardæe在《SCPI》和AG Kokott在《Allianzgi》中的观点值得进一步研究。在前者的情况下,需要分析的是AG独特的可比性方法。在后一种情况下,这是这一复杂案件提出的各种影响深远的问题。欧盟法律、可比性、欧洲法院、投资基金、基本自由、安联保险、SCPI、富达、Köln Aktie Deka基金。
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
Intertax
Intertax LAW-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
50.00%
发文量
45
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信