1 / 23

RECENT TRENDS IN ECJ CASE LAW IN THE AREA OF THE FREEDOMS AND DIRECT TAXATION

RECENT TRENDS IN ECJ CASE LAW IN THE AREA OF THE FREEDOMS AND DIRECT TAXATION. PROF. DR. DR. H.C. MICHAEL LANG IBDT JUNE 10, 2010. ECJ DEVELOPMENTS. 1986 – 2005 VERSUS 2005 - … SCOPE OF THE FREEDOMS COMPARABILTY JUSTIFICATIONS PROPORTIONALITY. 1986 – 2005: FIRST PERIOD.

bernad
Télécharger la présentation

RECENT TRENDS IN ECJ CASE LAW IN THE AREA OF THE FREEDOMS AND DIRECT TAXATION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RECENT TRENDS IN ECJ CASE LAW IN THE AREA OF THE FREEDOMS AND DIRECT TAXATION PROF. DR. DR. H.C. MICHAEL LANG IBDT JUNE 10, 2010

  2. ECJ DEVELOPMENTS • 1986 – 2005 VERSUS 2005 - … • SCOPE OF THE FREEDOMS • COMPARABILTY • JUSTIFICATIONS • PROPORTIONALITY

  3. 1986 – 2005: FIRST PERIOD • BEFORE 1986: PRACTICALLY NO TAX CASES • “LANDMARK DECISIONS“: • COMMISSION VERSUS FRANCE („AVOIR FISCAL“): 1986 • BIEHL: 1990 • BACHMANN: 1992 • SCHUMACKER: 1995 • SAINT-GOBAIN: 1999 • BAARS AND VERKOOIJEN: 2000 • GERRITSE: 2003 • LASTERYIE DU SAILLANT: 2004

  4. SCOPE OF THE FREEDOMS • SCOPE OF THE FREEDOMS WAS NOT IN THE FOCUS OF ECJ • EXAMPLE: LASTERYIE DU SAILLANT • EXCEPTION: WERNER

  5. COMPARABILITY I • RESTRICTION VERSUS DISCRIMINATION? • HIDDEN (COVERT) DISCRIMINATION • BIEHL • PAIR OF COMPARISONS: • RESIDENT AND NON-RESIDENT TAXPAYERS • TWO RESIDENT TAXPAYERS, ONE IN INTERNAL SITUATION, THE OTHER IN CROSSBORDER SITUATION (BACHMANN) • TWO NON-RESIDENT TAXPAYERS IN DIFFERENT CROSS BORDER SITUATIONS (AVOIR FISCAL, SCHUMACKER)

  6. COMPARABILITY II • LEGAL COMPARABILITY: QUICKLY ACCEPTED • AVOIR FISCAL • SAINT GOBAIN • FACTUAL COMPARABILITY: • SCHUMACKER: RESIDENTS AND NON-RESIDENTS ARE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES COMPARABLE • IDENTICAL TREATMENT OF DIFFERENT SITUATIONS • FUTURA? • LIP SERVICE

  7. JUSTIFICATIONS: RESTRICTIVE APPROACH • LACK OF HARMONISATION • LOSS OF TAX REVENUES • RECIPROCITY • PREVENTION OF TAX EVASION (SLIGHT CHANGE ALREADY IN ICI [1998]) • COMPENSATION OF DISADVANTAGE (TENSIONS TO BACHMANN [1992]: COHERENCE) • NEED FOR FISCAL SUPERVISION: MUTUAL ASSISTANCE DIRECTIVE

  8. PROPORTIONALITY: LITTLE DISCUSSION • PREVENTION OF ABUSE AND EVASION: • WHOLLY ARTIFICIAL ARRANGEMENTS (ICI 1998) • NEED FOR FISCAL SUPERVISION • MUTUAL ASSISTANCE DIRECTIVE (FUTURA 1997) • TAXPAYER HAS TO CONTRIBUTE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE (BENT VERSTERGAARD 1999) • COHERENCE • TAKEN AWAY BY OTHER RULES (WIELOCKX 1995)

  9. 2005 – … : SECOND PERIOD • “LANDMARK DECISIONS“: • D (2005) • SCHEMPP (2005) • MARKS & SPENCER (2005) • N (2006) • CADBURY SCHWEPPES (2006) • SCORPIO (2006)

  10. 2005 – …: SEC0ND PERIOD • “ LANDMARK DECISIONS“ – CONT.: • OY AA (2007) • AMURTA (2007) • Columbus Container (2007) • A (2007) • DEUTSCHE SHELL (2008) • LIDL (2008) • BLOCK (2009)

  11. SCOPE OF THE FREEDOMS • N (2006): MORE EFFORT ON DETERMINING THE NECESSARY INTRA-UNION SITUATION (VERSUS LASTERYIE DU SAILLANT [2004]) • FIDIUM FINANZ (2007): MORE EMPHASIS ON DRAWING THE BORDER LINE BETWEEN FREEDOMS – NARROWING THE SCOPE OF FREE MOVEMENT OF CAPITAL AND PAYMENTS • BURDA (2008) VERSUS GLAXO WELLCOME (2009): IS THE DOMESTIC RULE OR ARE THE FACTS RELEVANT?

  12. COMPARABILITY I • JUSTIFICATION ARGUMENTS NOW USED AT COMPARABILITY LEVEL • COHESION (BLANCKAERT [2005] • RECIPROCITY (D [2005]) • LEGAL SITUATION ABROAD (SCHEMPP [2005]) • WITHOUT REAL ARGUMENTS (TRUCK CENTER [2008]) • CHANGING CASE LAW WITHOUT ADMITTING • NO PROPORTIONALITY

  13. COMPARABILITY II • TWO NON-RESIDENT TAXPAYERS IN DIFFERENT CROSS BORDER SITUATIONS • D (2005), CLT UFA (2006), CADBURY (2006), DENKAVIT INTERNATIONAL (2006), AMURTA (2007), A (2007), OESF (2008), COMMISSION VERSUS NETHERLANDS (2009) • BUT: COLUMBUS CONTAINER (2007)

  14. COMPARABILITY III • EQUAL TREATMENT IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS • VAN HILTEN (2006) • TRUCK CENTER (2008) • BUT: DEUTSCHE SHELL (2008) • LEGAL COMPARABILITY • ECKELKAMP (2008), ARENS-SIKKEN (2008) • FACTUAL COMPARABILITY • TURPEINEN (2006), LAKEBRINK (2007), RENNEBERG (2008)

  15. JUSTIFICATIONS I • ALLOCATION OF TAXING POWERS • THREE JUSTIFICATIONS TAKEN TOGETHER (MARKS & SPENCER [2005] • TWO JUSTIFICATIONS TOGETHER (OY AA [2007], LIDL [2008]) • SYMMETRY (LIDL [2008]; TENSIONS TO WIELOCKX [1995])

  16. JUSTIFICATIONS II • PREVENTION OF DOUBLE UTILIZATION OF LOSSES • MARKS & SPENCER (2005), LIDL (2008) • CONSEQUENCE: LOOKING INTO SITUATION ABROAD AT LEVEL OF JUSTIFICATION • BUT: BLOCK (2009): DOUBLE TAXATION IS PERMITTED • COHESION • SYMMETRY (WANNSEE [2008])

  17. PROPORTIONALITY I • MORE EMPHASIS ON THE OBLIGATION OF THE TAXPAYER TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROCEDURE (JAEGER [2008]) • „HELPING“ THE TAXPAYER: REQUIRING TO DECLARE THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS AT THIME OF EXIT (N [2006]) • RECAPTURE OF LOSSES NOT NECESSARY (MARKS & SPENCER [2005]) • CASH FLOW DISADVANTAGES ACCEPTABLE (LIDL [2008], TRUCK CENTER [2008]; CONTRADICTING HOECHST [2001])

  18. PROPORTIONALITY II • TAKING ACCOUNT SITUATION ABROAD (OY AA [2007]) • DEVELOPING THE CONCEPT OF “WHOLLY ARTIFICIAL ARRANGEMENTS“ (CADBURY [2006]) • DIFFERENT LEGAL CONTEXT IN RELATION TO THIRD COUNTRIES (A [2007])

  19. CONCLUSIONS: CONTINUITY IN CASE LAW I • COMPARABILITY: • STILL DIFFERENT PAIRS OF COMPARISONS (IN PARTICULAR COMPARING TWO NON-RESIDENTS WITH EACH OTHER) • CONTINUED AMBIVALENCE IN RESPECT OF EQUAL TREATMENT OF DIFFERENT SITUATIONS • JUSTIFICATIONS: • STILL REJECTING MANY JUSTIFICATIONS

  20. CONCLUSIONS: CONTINUITY IN CASE LAW II • PROPORTIONALITY: • DEVELOPING THE CONCEPT OF “WHOLLY ARTIFICIAL ARRANGEMENTS“ • DEVELOPING STANDARDS FOR THIRD COUNTRY SITUATIONS (NO CASE LAW BEFORE)

  21. CONCLUSIONS: CHANGES IN CASE LAW I • SCOPE OF FREEDOMS: • MORE EMPHASIS ON DRAWING THE BORDER LINE • NARROWING THE SCOPE OF FREE MOVEMENT OF CAPITAL AND PAYMENTS • COMPARABILITY • PREVIOUSLY REJECTED JUSTIFICATIONS NOW AT COMPARABILITY LEVEL ACCEPTED

  22. CONCLUSIONS: CHANGES IN CASE LAW II • NEW JUSTIFICATIONS ACCEPTED • NEW STANDARDS OF PROPORTIONALITY • MORE GOVERNMENT-FRIENDLY • ECJ MAY CHANGE CASE LAW, HOWEVER, ECJ SHALL MAKE IT EXPLICITE

  23. INSTITUTE FOR AUSTRIAN AND INTERNATIONAL TAX LAW Althanstr. 39–45, 1090 Vienna, Austria UNIV.PROF. DR. MICHAEL LANG T +43-1-313 36-4182 F +43-1-313 36-730 Michael.lang@wu.ac.at www.wu.ac.at/taxlaw

More Related