国际法和欧盟法之间的浪漫和离婚:对欧洲直接税权限的影响

IF 1 4区 社会学
Khan Niazi, U. Shafi
{"title":"国际法和欧盟法之间的浪漫和离婚:对欧洲直接税权限的影响","authors":"Khan Niazi, U. Shafi","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2685021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates European constitutional competence to harmonize those provisions of direct taxes of Member States which are incidental to the functioning of the single European market. Explicitly, the EU law, since its inception to date, does not confer powers to the Union to harmonize income taxation of Member States. The sole express reference to income taxes in EU law was an Article of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Article 293 EC) that was repealed during the Lisbon revision. The repealed provision urged the Member States to abolish double taxation by using tools of public international law, that is, outside the EU legal framework. The study explores the potential implications this repeal may have for EU tax mandate: (a) whether it implies an end to the EU tax powers at all in the realm of direct taxes? (b) Whether it is a neutral amendment with no consequences to what-so-ever EU tax authority was already put in place? Or, (c) whether the deletion of the sole income tax reference meant for Member States to proceed under the public international law in effect enhances implicit “federal” competence of the Union to intervene in national tax codes for establishment of a true European economic market? The article analyses the demise of the clause in a legal evolutionary paradigm at the interface of international law and EU law. In metaphor, I describe the changing evolutionary relationship between the European and international law regimes as a tale of romance and divorce. The two laws meet curiously during the 1950s; feelings grow and a bond develops between the two regimes; the romance between the two legal regimes attains its peak during the Maastricht phase; strains appear in their relationship after the Amsterdam revision; the split goes deeper after the Nice amendments and the two finally divorce at the Lisbon revision. Based on this ever-changing relationship framework between the two legal regimes, the article concludes (a) that the deletion of Article 293 EC indicates growing reliance of the integration project on European legal order rather than trusting inter-state treaties based on public international law and (b) an inherent growth in the European “federal” mandate to take broad-range actions to harmonize direct taxes in single market during the post-repeal period.","PeriodicalId":44155,"journal":{"name":"Stanford Journal of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Romance and Divorce between International Law and EU Law: Implications for European Competence on Direct Taxes\",\"authors\":\"Khan Niazi, U. Shafi\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2685021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article investigates European constitutional competence to harmonize those provisions of direct taxes of Member States which are incidental to the functioning of the single European market. Explicitly, the EU law, since its inception to date, does not confer powers to the Union to harmonize income taxation of Member States. The sole express reference to income taxes in EU law was an Article of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Article 293 EC) that was repealed during the Lisbon revision. The repealed provision urged the Member States to abolish double taxation by using tools of public international law, that is, outside the EU legal framework. The study explores the potential implications this repeal may have for EU tax mandate: (a) whether it implies an end to the EU tax powers at all in the realm of direct taxes? (b) Whether it is a neutral amendment with no consequences to what-so-ever EU tax authority was already put in place? Or, (c) whether the deletion of the sole income tax reference meant for Member States to proceed under the public international law in effect enhances implicit “federal” competence of the Union to intervene in national tax codes for establishment of a true European economic market? The article analyses the demise of the clause in a legal evolutionary paradigm at the interface of international law and EU law. In metaphor, I describe the changing evolutionary relationship between the European and international law regimes as a tale of romance and divorce. The two laws meet curiously during the 1950s; feelings grow and a bond develops between the two regimes; the romance between the two legal regimes attains its peak during the Maastricht phase; strains appear in their relationship after the Amsterdam revision; the split goes deeper after the Nice amendments and the two finally divorce at the Lisbon revision. Based on this ever-changing relationship framework between the two legal regimes, the article concludes (a) that the deletion of Article 293 EC indicates growing reliance of the integration project on European legal order rather than trusting inter-state treaties based on public international law and (b) an inherent growth in the European “federal” mandate to take broad-range actions to harmonize direct taxes in single market during the post-repeal period.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44155,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stanford Journal of International Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stanford Journal of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2685021\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stanford Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2685021","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文探讨了欧洲的宪法权限,以协调成员国的直接税的规定,这是偶然的欧洲单一市场的运作。明确地说,欧盟法律,自其成立至今,并没有赋予联盟协调成员国所得税的权力。欧盟法律中唯一明确提到所得税的是《欧洲共同体条约》的一条条款(第293条),该条款在里斯本修订期间被废除。被废除的条款敦促成员国利用国际公法的工具,即在欧盟法律框架之外,废除双重征税。该研究探讨了这一废除可能对欧盟税收授权产生的潜在影响:(a)它是否意味着欧盟在直接税领域的税收权力的终结?(二)该修正案是否中立,不会对已经实施的欧盟税务机关产生任何影响?或者(c)删除单一所得税参考意味着成员国根据国际公法行事,是否实际上增强了欧盟干预国家税法以建立真正的欧洲经济市场的隐性“联邦”权限?本文在国际法和欧盟法的交汇处,从法律演化的范式分析了该条款的消亡。在比喻中,我把欧洲和国际法制度之间不断变化的演化关系描述为一个浪漫和离婚的故事。这两条定律在20世纪50年代奇怪地相遇;两国政权之间的感情不断加深,纽带不断发展;两种法律制度之间的浪漫关系在马斯特里赫特条约阶段达到顶峰;阿姆斯特丹修订后,他们的关系出现紧张;尼斯修正案后,两人的分歧进一步加深,最终在里斯本修正案中离婚。基于这两种法律制度之间不断变化的关系框架,本文得出结论:(a)欧共体第293条的删除表明一体化项目越来越依赖于欧洲法律秩序,而不是信任基于国际公法的国家间条约;(b)欧洲“联邦”授权的内在增长,即在废除后的时期采取广泛行动来协调单一市场的直接税。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Romance and Divorce between International Law and EU Law: Implications for European Competence on Direct Taxes
This article investigates European constitutional competence to harmonize those provisions of direct taxes of Member States which are incidental to the functioning of the single European market. Explicitly, the EU law, since its inception to date, does not confer powers to the Union to harmonize income taxation of Member States. The sole express reference to income taxes in EU law was an Article of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Article 293 EC) that was repealed during the Lisbon revision. The repealed provision urged the Member States to abolish double taxation by using tools of public international law, that is, outside the EU legal framework. The study explores the potential implications this repeal may have for EU tax mandate: (a) whether it implies an end to the EU tax powers at all in the realm of direct taxes? (b) Whether it is a neutral amendment with no consequences to what-so-ever EU tax authority was already put in place? Or, (c) whether the deletion of the sole income tax reference meant for Member States to proceed under the public international law in effect enhances implicit “federal” competence of the Union to intervene in national tax codes for establishment of a true European economic market? The article analyses the demise of the clause in a legal evolutionary paradigm at the interface of international law and EU law. In metaphor, I describe the changing evolutionary relationship between the European and international law regimes as a tale of romance and divorce. The two laws meet curiously during the 1950s; feelings grow and a bond develops between the two regimes; the romance between the two legal regimes attains its peak during the Maastricht phase; strains appear in their relationship after the Amsterdam revision; the split goes deeper after the Nice amendments and the two finally divorce at the Lisbon revision. Based on this ever-changing relationship framework between the two legal regimes, the article concludes (a) that the deletion of Article 293 EC indicates growing reliance of the integration project on European legal order rather than trusting inter-state treaties based on public international law and (b) an inherent growth in the European “federal” mandate to take broad-range actions to harmonize direct taxes in single market during the post-repeal period.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Founded in 1966, the Stanford Journal of International Law is one of the oldest and most reputable international law journals in the United States. Publishing two regular issues each year, the journal seeks to promote scholarship of the highest quality through timely, innovative, and important pieces on international and comparative legal topics. The journal invites contributions from professors, practitioners, legislators, judges, and Stanford Law School students.
×
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