Definition of Tax Planning in the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ)

Ja Zelmenis
{"title":"Definition of Tax Planning in the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ)","authors":"Ja Zelmenis","doi":"10.25143/socr.23.2022.2.132-144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The objective of the study is to analyse the current and past case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) regarding tax disputes based on the modern legislation of the EU countries and applicable international law to determine the concept and criteria for legal tax planning. This article provides an in-depth study of the well-known Cadbury Schweppes case (2006), including the decision of the ECJ, which laid the foundation for a new concept of examination and interpretation of tax disputes on the merits in general. The introduction of the concept of “wholly artificial arrangements” and their characteristics stipulated and determined the development of the entire field of tax planning for years to come. Other rulings of the ECJ following the case of Cadbury Schweppes have described in greater detail and more specifically the concept of “wholly artificial arrangements” under the influence of the practice of tax planning itself, determining what tax planning is legitimate and how exactly it should be distinguished from tax evasion and tax avoidance. Several research methods have been used in this study: comparative method, historical method, analytic method, inductive method. Keywords: European Court of Justice, freedom of establishment, notion of economic substance, tax disputes, tax planning, wholly artificial arrangements, tax evasion","PeriodicalId":34542,"journal":{"name":"Socrates","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Socrates","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25143/socr.23.2022.2.132-144","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objective of the study is to analyse the current and past case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) regarding tax disputes based on the modern legislation of the EU countries and applicable international law to determine the concept and criteria for legal tax planning. This article provides an in-depth study of the well-known Cadbury Schweppes case (2006), including the decision of the ECJ, which laid the foundation for a new concept of examination and interpretation of tax disputes on the merits in general. The introduction of the concept of “wholly artificial arrangements” and their characteristics stipulated and determined the development of the entire field of tax planning for years to come. Other rulings of the ECJ following the case of Cadbury Schweppes have described in greater detail and more specifically the concept of “wholly artificial arrangements” under the influence of the practice of tax planning itself, determining what tax planning is legitimate and how exactly it should be distinguished from tax evasion and tax avoidance. Several research methods have been used in this study: comparative method, historical method, analytic method, inductive method. Keywords: European Court of Justice, freedom of establishment, notion of economic substance, tax disputes, tax planning, wholly artificial arrangements, tax evasion
欧盟法院判例法中税收筹划的定义
该研究的目的是分析当前和过去的判例法的欧洲法院(ECJ)关于税收纠纷基于欧盟国家的现代立法和适用的国际法,以确定概念和标准的法律税收筹划。本文对著名的吉百利史威士案(2006)进行了深入研究,包括欧洲法院的决定,该决定为一般情况下审查和解释税收纠纷的新概念奠定了基础。“完全人为安排”概念的引入及其特点规定并决定了今后几年整个税收筹划领域的发展。在吉百利史威士一案之后,欧洲法院的其他裁决更详细、更具体地描述了在税收筹划实践本身影响下的“完全人为安排”的概念,确定了哪些税收筹划是合法的,以及如何准确地将其与逃税和避税区分开来。本研究采用了几种研究方法:比较法、历史法、分析法、归纳法。关键词:欧洲法院,设立自由,经济实体概念,税收纠纷,税收筹划,完全人为安排,逃税
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
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