Download Free Aggressive Tax Planning In Eu Law And In The Light Of Beps Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Aggressive Tax Planning In Eu Law And In The Light Of Beps and write the review.

The purpose of this article is to critically assess the meaning of aggressive tax planning and its scope in the current international move to fight against base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS). In the context of the BEPS initiative, aggressive tax planning has been broadly used in severalOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and EU soft law instruments. However, it is not clear what new features aggressive tax planning does bring to the settled legal concepts of tax avoidance and tax evasion, and whether it is a legal or merely a tax policyconcept. In order to find the meaning of aggressive tax planning in the BEPS context, some of the recommendations put forward in BEPS actions 2 and 6 and in the EC Recommendation on Aggressive Tax planning are analysed and compared in this article.The article also aims to illustrate some of the reciprocal influences and interaction between EU law and OECD recommendations and tax treaties. For example, the EC Recommendation on ATP, proposing the introduction of a General Anti-Abuse Rules (GAAR) in the Member States' legislation, and the BEPS Action 6 proposal to introduce a GAAR (a Principal Purposes Test Rule or PPT Rule) in tax treaties illustrate the same spirit and a holistic approach. Moreover, a PPT Rule in tax treaties concluded by EU Member States will have to be compatible with the EUfundamental freedoms and the principle of abuse in EU law. The GAAR amending the EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive and approved by the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) on 9 December 2014 illustrates how EU Member States could introduce a GAAR in theirtreaties compatible with EU law. These reciprocal influences among domestic, international and EU law and practices lead to an acquis communautaire and to international standards which may be justified as products of global identity and related to a global sense of fairness andunfairness and ultimately of a global tax morale calling for global solutions and global tax standards.
This book discusses the legal meaning of tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning in 23 EU and non-EU jurisdictions and analyses the repercussions of the BEPS initiatives on those concepts. It further discusses (i) whether there is a supranational meaning of tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning, both at the OECD/G20 and EU levels; (ii) the role played by transfer pricing rules in tax avoidance; and (iii) consistency and hierarchy among the BEPS initiatives. National reports examine the response to tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning in individual jurisdictions, taking into account the OECD/G20 BEPS recommendations and the European Union's reactions. They also give notice of general anti-avoidance rules, special anti-avoidance rules and transfer pricing rules in force in each jurisdiction, analyse their meaning and scope, and trace the interactions among them. The national reports are accompanied by a general report, along with four thematic reports covering the main topics discussed during the 2016 EATLP Congress, held in Munich.
The article aims to demonstrate how EU law and the OECD are establishing a unifying conceptual framework in which the two different seminal phenomena, "tax abuse" and "aggressive tax planning", can be acknowledged in the new (global) operating environment. The purpose of this article is to critically assess the meaning of these concepts, broadly used in several EU and OECD soft law instruments. These concepts cannot be completely formalized or objectified, but the resulting uncertainty of their application can be reduced to an acceptable level. In the search for a useful reference point to delimit tax abuse from aggressive tax planning, particular attention is paid to the definitions conveyed (and the wording used) by EU institutions and the OECD. Indeed, the purpose of this article is also to establish a starting point for the discussion on linguistic discrepancies that can arise, and it provides for a preliminary categorization of them. Further to the analysis of these discrepancies, the article explains the reciprocal influences between the European Union and the OECD, and highlights how the promotion of a theoretical understanding and careful empirical handling of the relevant practices should enrich the discussion and foster consistent implications. In particular, how consensus on the development of a linguistic and conceptual framework could enhance the resolution of some issues is emphasized and, more specifically, to what extent EU law allows the base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) Project to be applied in the EU area, knowing that EU institutions cannot provide for any ex ante guarantee on the compliance of BEPS with EU law. To ensure that the important goals of global tax coordination - that the implementation of the BEPS Project implies - are achieved, this contribution aims to delineate preliminary clarifications in these areas.
The article aims to demonstrate how EU law and the OECD are establishing a unifying conceptual framework in which the two different seminal phenomena, "tax abuse" and "aggressive tax planning", can be acknowledged in the new (global) operating environment. The purpose of this article is to critically assess the meaning of these concepts, broadly used in several EU and OECD soft law instruments. These concepts cannot be completely formalized or objectified, but the resulting uncertainty of their application can be reduced to an acceptable level. In the search for a useful reference point to delimit tax abuse from aggressive tax planning, particular attention is paid to the definitions conveyed (and the wording used) by EU institutions and the OECD. Indeed, the purpose of this article is also to establish a starting point for the discussion on linguistic discrepancies that can arise, and it provides for a preliminary categorization of them. Further to the analysis of these discrepancies, the article explains the reciprocal influences between the European Union and the OECD, and highlights how the promotion of a theoretical understanding and careful empirical handling of the relevant practices should enrich the discussion and foster consistent implications. In particular, how consensus on the development of a linguistic and conceptual framework could enhance the resolution of some issues is emphasized and, more specifically, to what extent EU law allows the base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) Project to be applied in the EU area, knowing that EU institutions cannot provide for any ex ante guarantee on the compliance of BEPS with EU law. To ensure that the important goals of global tax coordination - that the implementation of the BEPS Project implies - are achieved, this contribution aims to delineate preliminary clarifications in these areas.Full-text Paper.
This book examines recent developments and high-profile debates that have arisen in the field of international tax law and European tax law. Topics such as international tax avoidance, corporate social responsibility, good governance in tax matters, harmful tax competition, state aid, tax treaty abuse and the financial transaction tax are considered. The OECD/G20 project on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) features prominently in the book. The interaction with the European Union's Action Plan to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion is also considered. Particular attention is paid to specific BEPS deliverables, exploring them through the prism of European Union law. Can the two approaches be aligned or are there inherent conflicts between them? The book also explores whether, when it comes to aggressive tax planning, there are internal conflicts between the established case law of the Court of Justice and the emerging policy of the European institutions. By so doing it offers a review of issues which are of constitutional importance to the European Union. Finally, the book reflects on the future of international and European tax law in the post-BEPS world.
Document from the year 2014 in the subject Business economics - Law, grade: Overall Degree 1,3, University of Linz, language: English, abstract: This work focuses on the Commission Recommendation of 06.12.2012 on aggressive tax planning C(2012) 8806 final. It aims to analyse the concepts and definitions underlying the Recommendation, its legal basis and its impact on the EU, international, academic and professional debate about aggressive tax planning. The discussion works through a thorough literature review covering primary and secondary EU law, ECJ jurisprudence, political announcements of the OECD and other international organisations. Detailed tables summarise the key issues discovered. The Recommendation has been neither unanimously adopted, nor rejected by the public. It provides broad definitions already addressed in a more precise manner in other official publications. Its approach against double non-taxation is similar to that of the ECJ and its GAAR proposal has gained ground with regard to the recent OECD announcements. The main criticism arises from the academia: the Recommendation is considered to be too general and to deviate widely from the established methodologies. The scope of the Recommendation lies on direct taxation of business activity which precludes analysis of indirect taxes as well as statutory wrongs like harmful tax competition or state aid. The study enriches the academic publicity on the Recommendation that has experienced only modest coverage by the taxation scholarship following its release.
The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that the introduction of legal definition of aggressive tax planning (ATP) together with anti-ATP rules by the European Commission under the Securing the Activity Framework of Enablers (SAFE) initiative is an example of legislative inflation of the anti-tax avoidance rules in the degradation phase of EU legal development in the area of direct taxation. The article aims to show that the legal use of ATP would add another factor for further disorder in an interpretation and application of existing concepts and anti-abusive rules in the EU law as well as triggers risk of over-reaction. The analysis of relevant contextual materials on the ATP will help to positively verify that hypothesis. The article will also lead to the conclusion that the Commission could propose new specific anti-avoidance rules (SAARs) based on the economic substance criteria in concert with references to activities that artificially exploit inconsistencies and mismatches between at least two systems of tax law without legally defining ATP. The introduction of such a new SAAR, however, is subject to two caveats. First, it would have to be placed within the boundaries of the rule of law, thereby causing only taxpayers engaging in international tax avoidance to suffer from uncertainty, i.e. the necessary degree of vagueness to effectively prevent tax avoidance by means of artificial exploitation of inconsistencies and mismatches between at least two systems of tax law. Second, proposing a new SAAR would be justified only insofar the Commission would present a robust analysis which confirms that recently introduced legislation against tax avoidance is not effective enough to target the mentioned exploitation. Otherwise, the inflation of anti-tax avoidance rules in the EU law would be guaranteed for the short-sighted benefit of politicians and at the cost of society and economy at large in the long term.Full-text paper.
This national report has been prepared as a contribution to the Conference of the European Association of Tax Law Professors entitled 'Tax Avoidance Revisited: Exploring the Boundaries of Anti-Avoidance Rules in the EU BEPS Context. The conference is to be held in Munich, Germany, on 2-4 June 2016. The national report - quite comprehensively - deals with the phenomena of tax avoidance and tax planning by multinationals and the addressing of these in the Netherlands' corporation tax system. Topics addressed include: • General observations on tax avoidance, tax planning and aggressive tax planning;• National GAAR (fraus legis), and accompanying case law including case law on mismatches;• Tax Base Calculation/Transfer Pricing, and accompanying case law (e.g. “Non-Businesslike Loans”, “Umbrella guarantee”, “Mauritius” and “Italian Listed Company”);• SAARS (interest deduction limitations - 10a, 10b, 13l, and 15ad CITA) including case law;• SAARS (other than interest deduction limitations - 13(17), 13a, 13aa, 17(3)(b), 20(4), 20a CITA, 4(7) DWTA) and accompanying case law;• Case law on corporate interrelationships anti-abuse; • OECD BEPS impacts;• EU BEPS/EU interrelationships (soft law/hard law; both primary/secondary law - e.g. Freedoms, Parent-Subsidiary Directive);• Rulings practices;• Netherlands international tax policy aspects involving BEPS measures.
Présentation de l'éditeur : "This book discusses the legal meaning of tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning in 23 EU and non-EU jurisdictions and analyses the repercussions of the BEPS initiatives on those concepts. It further discusses (i) whether there is a supranational meaning of tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning, both at the OECD/G20 and EU levels; (ii) the role played by transfer pricing rules in tax avoidance; and (iii) consistency and hierarchy among the BEPS initiatives. National reports examine the response to tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning in individual jurisdictions, taking into account the OECD/G20 BEPS recommendations and the European Union's reactions. They also give notice of general anti-avoidance rules, special anti-avoidance rules and transfer pricing rules in force in each jurisdiction, analyse their meaning and scope, and trace the interactions among them. The national reports are accompanied by a general report, along with four thematic reports covering the main topics discussed during the 2016 EATLP Congress, held in Munich."
Tax law is one of the legal fields with the most subtle influence on European integration and EU law. The European economic cooperation project emerged with the customs union, essentially a tax law concept, and evolved alongside other topics of tax harmonization. Still, the existence of the EU tax law is disputed. The research on the topic is significant, as the integration of national economies and markets has increased substantially, both within the EU and globally. This has put a strain on domestic tax rules, which are subject to the demands of the international taxation requirements. This book explores the relationship between tax avoidance regulation and sovereignty within the European Union, analyzing the impact of the effective regulatory methods for limiting and eliminating aggressive tax planning by multinational companies. Focusing on analyzing good practice in fiscal regulation efficiency and the results generated by the tax jurisprudence both at national and European level, its main objective is to present the argument for inter-dependency between taxation and the current changes in the concept of sovereignty. It highlights where fiscal regulation has led to uniform, yet flexible, solutions for the actual fight against companies’ abusive fiscal conduct, when taking advantage of tax competition. This text will be of value to academics, researchers, and advanced students in tax law and tax avoidance regulation and their intersection with sovereignty in the context of the European Union.