1 / 15

Recent EU tax cases Daniel Jowell

Recent EU tax cases Daniel Jowell. February 2010. Traditional 3 stage test . Restriction i.e. Is the exercise of the freedom impeded or made more onerous by the measure? Justification i.e. Is the measure aimed at serving an “overriding reason of public interest”?

olwen
Télécharger la présentation

Recent EU tax cases Daniel Jowell

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 EU tax cases Daniel Jowell February 2010

  2. Traditional 3 stage test • Restriction i.e. Is the exercise of the freedom impeded or made more onerous by the measure? • Justification i.e. Is the measure aimed at serving an “overriding reason of public interest”? • Proportionality i.e. Is the measure appropriate to the objective in question; was there a less restrictive alternative?

  3. Restriction • Exercise “less attractive” • Capable of restricting: no need to show actual effect of deterring the exercise: Eg.Case C-231/05 Oy AA, [39] – [42] • No de minimis exception Eg.Case C-170/05 Denkavit at [50]

  4. Overriding justifications • Balanced allocation of the powers to impose taxes between Member States • Preventing tax evasion: purely artificial arrangements • Fiscal cohesion: direct link • Preventing double use of losses: stand alone? • Fiscal supervision: still available?

  5. Combinations of justifications • Case C-446/03 M&S: balanced allocation; double use of losses and preventing tax evasion • Case C-231/05 Oy AA: balanced allocation and preventing tax evasion • Case C-414/06 Lidl Belgium: balanced allocation

  6. Geelhoed’s approach • No ‘true restriction’ where disadvantage stems purely from disparities or the division of tax jurisdiction between Member States’ different tax systems • Home state: to treat foreign-source income of its residents consistently with the way it has divided its tax base. If it has divided its tax base to include this foreign-source income – treating it as taxable income – it must not discriminate between foreign-source and domestic income • Source State: must not discriminate between residents and non-residents (insofar as latter fall within its tax jurisdiction)

  7. Case C-418/07 Papillon (27/11/08) • Restriction • Justification: • No balanced allocation justification • Yes, fiscal coherence • Disproportionate

  8. Case C-377/07 Finanzamt Speyer(22/01/09) • Restriction • No justification: • Transitional provision irrelevant • Fiscal coherence – no direct link • Fiscal control (assuming a justification, not applicable)

  9. Case C-303/07 Aberdeen Property (18/06/09) • AG Mazak (Geelhoed approach): host state case and discrimination – hence infringement • Court (traditional 3 step analysis): • Restriction • No justification: • Prevention of tax evasion: not solely aimed at wholly artificial arrangements • Balanced allocation – chose not to tax • Fiscal coherence – no direct link

  10. Case C-182/08 Glaxo(09/07/2009) • Restriction • Justifications: • Fiscal coherence rejected • Balanced allocation accepted • Prevention of tax evasion accepted • Proportionality – left to national court to determine

  11. Case C-540/07 Commission v Italy (16/07/09) • Restriction: rejects comparison between individuals and companies • No justification in either fiscal coherence or balanced allocation (for same reason) • No justification in preventing tax evasion – not aimed only at wholly artificial arrangements and mutual assistance directive available

  12. Case C‑569/07 HSBC, Vidacos(1/10/09) • Prohibited as a tax on issue under Article 11(a) of the Capital Duty Directive; not a tax on ‘transfer’ within the meaning of Article 12(1)(a) • Free movement of capital: • AG: was a restriction and not justified by need for effective fiscal supervision • Court: fully harmonised at Community level – hence not considered.

  13. Case C-311/08 SGI (21/01/10) • Restriction • Justified by balanced allocation of power and preventing tax evasion • Proportionate • NB Advocate General: balanced allocation not restricted to cases preventing tax evasion.

  14. Some notable domestic cases • Vodafone II [2009] EWCA Civ 446 • Test Claimants in Thin Cap [2009] EWHC 2908 • Phillips Electronics [2009] UKFTT 226 (TC) • F J Chalke Ltd [2009] EWHC 952 (Ch) • John Wilkins [2009] UKUT 175 (TCC) • Test Claimants in FII [2010] EWCA Civ 103

  15. Thank you

More Related