C. The Determination of Taxable Income: A Comparison of the CCCTB Proposal and Current Practice in the EU Member States, Switzerland and the United States

2012 ◽  
pp. 17-84
Author(s):  
Christoph Spengel ◽  
York Zöllkau
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Member States ◽  
Taxable Income ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

The New EU Rules on Insurance Customer/Policyholder Protection Viewed against the NAIC Model Acts

Global Jurist ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Paul Martinez ◽  
Pierpaolo Marano
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
List Type ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
Distribution Services ◽  
The Eu

AbstractEffective October 1, 2018, the Member States of the European Union had to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of January 20, 2016 on insurance distribution (IDD). The IDD arose out of a desire to give insurance customers equal protection regardless of the type of distributor from which they obtained insurance. Essentially, the IDD seeks to level the playing field of protections for insurance customers by simplifying, consolidating, and expanding customer protections when needed. The IDD has the stated goal of focusing on “the area of the disclosure of information” to customers. The directive is intentionally broad and applies “to persons whose activity consists of providing insurance or reinsurance distribution services to third parties.”Although it is much too early to predict the course of the IDD within the European Union, a comparison can be drawn with the Model Acts promulgated by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in the United States to glean an inkling as to where the IDD might be headed. Parts of the Model Acts have been in place for a number of years and, while the legal regimes they cover are modestly different, there are nonetheless broad lessons that can be drawn in the comparison of the two. Whether the path of the IDD follows the arc of the Model Acts, or not, will perhaps be attributed to three instrumental aspects: 1.The IDD is unquestionably focused on customer protection. The NAIC is more nearly concerned with uniformity. It may be that the IDD’s focus will contribute to better traction among the EU Member States then Model Acts have experienced in the United States.2.Unlike the IDD, the NAIC Model Acts are not comprehensive with respect to customer protection.3.The NAIC Model Acts have seen inconsistent adoption by the states, a factor that has contributed to a lack of uniformity and constancy across any number of insurance products. While the IDD should not suffer from spotty adoption, the relative flexibility of the EU Member States in adopting more stringent rules may lead to a lack of uniformity and consistency similar to that of the Model Acts. Thus, the IDD may very well face the same headwinds faced by the Model Acts in the United States.Accurate predictions are always elusive when dealing with the implementation of regulation and legislation. Accordingly, we will watch with curiosity whether the IDD, which takes a much more global approach in customer protection, will see more success.

Unequal unions? A comparative decomposition of income inequality in the European Union and United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 545-563 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Filauro ◽  
Zachary Parolin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Income Inequality ◽  
Household Income ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Relative Significance ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

This study applies improved household income data to measure and decompose trends in pan-European income inequality from 2006 to 2014. To contrast the relative significance of economic homogeneity versus the efficacy of welfare state and labour market institutions in shaping income distributions, we compare the structure of inequality in the 28 Member States of the European Union (EU-28) to that of the 50 United States. This comparison stands in contrast to the standard practice of evaluating the United States against individual EU Member States. Despite the greater relative heterogeneity of the EU-28 and our corrections for the underreporting of household income in the United States, post-fisc income inequality in the EU-28 remains lower than that of the United States from 2006 onward. Moreover, inequality appears to be rising in the United States, while it has remained stagnant since 2008 in the EU-28. In both unions, and particularly the United States, within-state income differences contribute more to union-wide inequality than between-state differences. In a counterfactual analysis, we find that if the EU-28 matched the between-state homogeneity of the United States, but maintained its relative within-country inequalities, pan-European inequality would fall by only 20 percent. Conversely, inequality in the United States would fall by 34 percent if it matched the within-country inequality of the EU-28. Our findings suggest that the strengthening of egalitarian institutions within the 28 Member States is more consequential than economic convergence in reducing pan-European income inequality. We highlight institutional challenges towards achieving a ‘more equal’ Europe and discuss implications for future EU policymaking.

The West’s Belated Response

2019 ◽  
pp. 47-79
Author(s):  
Mitchell A. Orenstein
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Member States ◽  
Hybrid War ◽  
The Eu

Western leaders and institutions did not fully realize that they were under attack from Russia between 2007 and 2012. Yet when they slowly realized that Russia had launched an all-out hybrid war against Western institutions, a determined response emerged. The United States and EU imposed several rounds of economic sanctions on Russia, punishing key individuals and sectors of the economy. The EU also sought to prevent Russia from using energy blackmail against its member states. It took measures to reduce Gazprom’s influence by ending discriminatory contract provisions and building interconnectors between countries. NATO shored up its defenses in Eastern Europe to prevent another Russian invasion. All the while, the EU and NATO continued the project of creating a “Europe whole and free,” including the lands in between, setting the stage for a deepening geopolitical confrontation with Russia.

scholarly journals Regulation of the food waste measuring in the EU in the light of the need of counteracting the food wastage

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Sylwia Łaba ◽  
Mikołaj Niedek ◽  
Krystian Szczepański ◽  
Robert Łaba ◽  
Anna Kamińska-Dwórznicka
Keyword(s):  
Food Waste ◽  
Current Data ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Uniform System ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Common ◽  
Different Characteristics ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The paper presents the analysis of the guidelines of the European Union, adopted in May, 2019, on the common methodology and quality requirements for the uniform system of measuring the food waste levels in the EU Member States. The Waste Framework Directive obliges the Member States to monitor the generation of food waste and to take measures to limit their production; however, a lack of uniform, reliable method for measuring the food waste levels in the EU causes that it is difficult to evaluate the scale of the problem, its sources and the related tendencies in time. The food waste is generated across the whole food supply chain; so, it is especially troublesome to determine the level of the discussed waste. The food waste with different characteristics, different source and different reasons for its generation is produced in each stage of the chain. The current data on the food wastes do not specify their quantities. In connection with this fact, a separate legal act was developed, that is, the Commission Delegated Decision (EU) dated 3 May 2019, focusing on the measuring of food waste, which is harmonized with the existing systems of data collection and provides a framework for further measures of the Member States in respect of the quantitative determination of the food waste that is generated.

scholarly journals The Concept Of Unfair Contract Terms

2021 ◽  
pp. 3-13
Author(s):  
I.M. Harhat
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
Commercial Code ◽  
Unfair Terms ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Contractual Rights ◽  
The Eu

The article explores the concept of «unfair terms contract terms» through the analysis of its origin and fixing in the legislation and legal literature of the European Union, Ukraine and the United States. Comparisons of interpretations of this concept according to Directive 93/13/EEC, Model Rules of European Private Law, The Uniform Commercial Code, as well as the Law of Ukraine «On Consumer Protection». In the article author notes that the definition of unfair terms of the contract is a complex symbiosis of material and procedural, a combination of justice and dishonesty, comparison of signs of «imbalance of interests» and «significantly disadvantaged» and therefore at this stage of civil law is not can be defined unambiguously. It is investigated that the modern civil legislation of Ukraine is still in solidarity with the legislation of most EU member states in terms of introducing this concept primarily to protect consumer rights. Regarding the definition of «unfair terms», author notes that Ukrainian legislation follows common legal trends and recognizes unfair terms when they violate the principle of good faith and fairness, as well as when they lead to a significant imbalance of contractual rights and obligations of the parties and harm the consumer. As a result, it was found that in general the concept of «unfair terms» is evaluative and can not by its very nature reflect the motives laid down in the contract by one or another party. The Court of EU and the courts of the EU member states do not give general conclusions on a case-by-case basis, using the definitions contained in the text of Directive 93/13/EEC, which set out the conditions that may be considered unfair. Author proposes to use the sign «significantly unfavorable position» proposed by A.A.Leff to define the concept of «unfair terms of the contract», as it will improve the protection of the interests of the economically weaker party in the contract.

scholarly journals Closing the NAFTA Gap

2007 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Banks ◽  
Preeti Gill
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Economic Development ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
The United States ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
Member States ◽  
Job Opportunities ◽  
The Eu

The accession of Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal into the European Community was a significant move towards manifesting everlasting peace by means of a single market. The incorporation of these four weaker countries into the European Union (EU) marked a break from the EU’s traditional purview. The paradigm shift of the EU’s approach to enlargement placed Member States onto a path that would harness the full capabilities of a common market in improving civilians quality of life while simultaneously achieving individual Member States’ objectives including growth, employment, and trade. The regional effects of the EU’s single market are drastically different from the effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). A much newer trading bloc (NAFTA came into effect on January 1, 1994), it lacks the wisdom and fine tuning of the EU. The governments of the United States, Mexico, and Canada signed the treaty1while hailing how it would “fuel economic growth and dynamic trade, stimulate investment while creating productive partnerships, work for small and medium sized businesses and provide fairness and certainty. NAFTA partners promote environmental protection, and provide greater job opportunities in North America”.2 Yet the effects seem to be the exact opposite. NAFTA has been called “one of the most innovative, astounding documents of the 20th century by the stoic…”3, but this so-called “innovative depth” has reduced barriers to trade and investment, without the necessary checks and balances. For Mexico, NAFTA merely expedited and formalized “the silent integration” that had been occurring since the Border Industrialization Project of 1965— without adding anything new to the table.4 Unlike the EU, NAFTA is a rigid document that has not reformed itself as needed to address issues of border control, immigration policies, and uneven socioeconomic development. In spite of sincere hopes for free trade and economic integration to raise living standards across the continent, the reality is that the unfettered markets have permitted NAFTA to persistently ignore the uneven economic development, and vulnerabilities each country faces. In so doing, the United States has been a quiet bystander to the inequalities proliferating from unchecked free trade. Both countries have been left vulnerable to NAFTA backlash. Mexico’s vulnerability stems from unsound economic development policies and overall slow growth. These factors have increased the US’ vulnerability, to migration. Fed up with uneven development, lack of job opportunities, poor working conditions, and low wages, many Mexicans are taking matters into their own hands and crossing the border, often illegally. Militaristic efforts to “defend” the border have done nothing but increase political tensions and migrant death tolls. NAFTA does not address the immigration problem and its root cause of unequal development. This paper begins with the European Union’s initial experience with enlargements and the experimentation process it underwent to reduce economic and social disparities between regions to further facilitate their single market objectives. After considering how the EU’s cohesion policy strengthened its own single market while simultaneously curbing migration, we present the NAFTA scenario, specifically against the backdrop of Mexico and the United States, in order to highlight the impotent mechanisms the United States relies upon to quiet the waves of economic migrants.

Poluarea apelor de suprafata şi subterane cu compuşi ai azotului

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatiana Goreacioc ◽  
◽  
Maria Sandu ◽  
Raisa Nastas ◽  
Anatolie Tarita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nitrogen Compounds ◽  
Member States ◽  
Republic Of Moldova ◽  
Nitrate Ions ◽  
Methods Of Determination ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Eu

In this paper the situation of pollution with nitrogen compounds both in the EU member states and in the Republic of Moldova was analyzed. Also, the existing methods of determination of nitrate ions are analyzed and the necessity of elaborating the method for determination of the nitrate ions in the presence of nitrite ions.

The Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lay Hwee Yeo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
External Action ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Institution Building ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Global Economic Growth ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Main Factor

The Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) was launched in 1996 to provide a forum for East Asian and European Union (EU) leaders to meet and a platform to strengthen the links between Asia and Europe. It was conceived against a backdrop of optimism about regionalism and globalization and the belief in the necessity of international dialogue and cooperation and institution-building. The forum was also meant to close the missing link between Asia and Europe, two of the three engines of global economic growth (the other being the United States). Since its inaugural summit in March 1996, ASEM has developed to encompass various multilevel sectoral meetings—multilevel in that it involves ministers, senior officials, and technical experts—but is also multi-sectoral in that it has grown beyond diplomatic meetings overseen by the foreign affairs/external action service to those involving trade and finance, education, transport, and so on. It has also enlarged from 26 members to 53 members, and now comprises all 28 EU member states, 10 countries from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the ASEAN Secretariat, China, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Norway, and Switzerland. Yet, despite the enlargement in number of meetings and members, ASEM has been criticized for the lack of depth of its meetings, its dearth of tangible outcomes, and its poor visibility. The sense is that after 20 years, the dialogue within ASEM has broadened but not deepened. With its disparate membership, ASEM remains essentially a forum for scripted speeches and informal dialogue. While it has created a few initiatives that have become “institutionalized,” such as the Asia–Europe Foundation (ASEF), the general perception of ASEM as a less-important forum persists. Media coverage of ASEM meetings, and even of its summits, is usually rather low-key. However, ASEM continues to draw support from the EU and China in particular, for the very reason that it is one of the few multilateral forums that the United States is absent from and where it hence cannot dominate and drive the agenda. This is perhaps one main factor that has kept ASEM alive, and with an increasingly challenging global environment in the shape of an unpredictable, transactional, and unilateral America under Trump, the need to rethink the instrumentality of ASEM for its 53 members grows ever more important.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document