条款:成员国在制定税收措施时滥用法律

IF 0.9 Q2 LAW
EC Tax Review Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.54648/ecta2022025
S. Stevens
{"title":"条款:成员国在制定税收措施时滥用法律","authors":"S. Stevens","doi":"10.54648/ecta2022025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When Member States design tax measures, they have to comply with EU law. In this article the question is discussed whether a Member State has the liberty to intentionally design a domestic rule so that it falls outside the scope of the freedom of capital and prevent scrutiny in respect of third states by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This question is investigated by using two Dutch rules as a case study. The author argues that the legislature walks a thin line. On the one hand there is a risk that the legislature is circumventing the application of the fundamental freedoms in an abusive way while on the other hand using an arbitrary criterion in a rule to distinguish between comparable cases could lead to the conclusion that a Member State has implemented a selective tax measure and thus granted state aid. The author concludes that the Dutch liquidation loss rule infringes EU law.\nAbuse of law, Liquidation loss, Withholding tax, State aid, Sincere cooperation, Freedom of capital","PeriodicalId":43686,"journal":{"name":"EC Tax Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Article: Abuse of Law by a Member State When Designing a Tax Measure\",\"authors\":\"S. Stevens\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/ecta2022025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"When Member States design tax measures, they have to comply with EU law. In this article the question is discussed whether a Member State has the liberty to intentionally design a domestic rule so that it falls outside the scope of the freedom of capital and prevent scrutiny in respect of third states by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This question is investigated by using two Dutch rules as a case study. The author argues that the legislature walks a thin line. On the one hand there is a risk that the legislature is circumventing the application of the fundamental freedoms in an abusive way while on the other hand using an arbitrary criterion in a rule to distinguish between comparable cases could lead to the conclusion that a Member State has implemented a selective tax measure and thus granted state aid. The author concludes that the Dutch liquidation loss rule infringes EU law.\\nAbuse of law, Liquidation loss, Withholding tax, State aid, Sincere cooperation, Freedom of capital\",\"PeriodicalId\":43686,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EC Tax Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"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/ecta2022025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EC Tax Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2022025","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

摘要

当成员国设计税收措施时,他们必须遵守欧盟法律。本文讨论的问题是,一个成员国是否有自由故意设计一项国内规则,使其不属于资本自由的范围,并防止欧盟法院(CJEU)对第三国的审查。这个问题是通过使用两个荷兰规则作为案例研究来调查的。作者认为,立法机关走钢丝。一方面,有一种危险,即立法机关以滥用的方式规避基本自由的适用,而另一方面,在一项规则中使用武断的标准来区分可比较的情况,可能导致会员国执行了一项有选择的税收措施,从而给予国家援助的结论。笔者认为,荷兰的清算损失规则违反了欧盟法律。滥用法律,清算损失,代扣代缴税款,国家援助,真诚合作,资金自由
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Article: Abuse of Law by a Member State When Designing a Tax Measure
When Member States design tax measures, they have to comply with EU law. In this article the question is discussed whether a Member State has the liberty to intentionally design a domestic rule so that it falls outside the scope of the freedom of capital and prevent scrutiny in respect of third states by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This question is investigated by using two Dutch rules as a case study. The author argues that the legislature walks a thin line. On the one hand there is a risk that the legislature is circumventing the application of the fundamental freedoms in an abusive way while on the other hand using an arbitrary criterion in a rule to distinguish between comparable cases could lead to the conclusion that a Member State has implemented a selective tax measure and thus granted state aid. The author concludes that the Dutch liquidation loss rule infringes EU law. Abuse of law, Liquidation loss, Withholding tax, State aid, Sincere cooperation, Freedom of capital
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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