scholarly journals Corporate Tax in European Union and the Theory of Corporate Finance

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 66-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jolanta Iwin-Garzyńska

Abstract One of the main objectives to be accomplished by the European Union law is to eliminate barriers to the functioning of domestic market and in particular improve the competitiveness of enterprises. After several years of efforts, the European Commission approved a proposal for the directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base which is to remove obstacles to the functioning of internal market and increase tax harmonization. The article is aimed at presenting the essence of CCCTB in the theory of corporate finance and its importance for enterprises, based on the survey of Polish and EU companies. The paper addresses issues relating to tax in corporate finance. Canons of taxation will be discussed and special emphasis will be placed on principles behind formulating fiscal law provisions (including the EU law). Furthermore, the article presents the results of surveys into the importance of taxation cannons for Polish and EU companies.

2021 ◽  
pp. 124-141
Author(s):  
Colin Faragher

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the Treaty framework and sources of EU law as well as the institutions of the EU. It covers the legal background to the UK’s departure from the EU, the legal process through which the UK left the EU, the key provisions of the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (2020), and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. This chapter also discusses the effect of the UK’s departure from the EU on the status of the sources of EU law and the effect of leaving the EU on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms as well as failure to transpose a Directive into national law and the effect of leaving the EU on the Francovich principle.


2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Elschner ◽  
Jost H. Heckemeyer ◽  
Christoph Spengel

AbstractEU law demands that the allocation of factors and goods within the European Union shall not be distorted by taxes. Efforts to formally harmonize corporate tax regimes in Europe have, however, stalled in recent years. What is more, the source principle has prevailed over residence based taxation which is seen to be more in line with EU law. Tax induced distortions of cross-border investment decisions are supposed to be the consequence. Based on country-specific effective average tax rates from 1998 to 2009, this article shows that there is, however, non-coordinated convergence of tax burdens within the EU. Thus, distortions of cross-border investment decisions are limited and decreasing even without formal harmonization.


2020 ◽  
pp. 108-143
Author(s):  
Pavlos Eleftheriadis

This chapter examines the question of the relations between EU law and domestic law from the point of view of a political theory of the European Union. It is common to see EU law under ‘federalism’ or under a theory of ‘statism’. These two views are outlined at the start of this chapter by examining various arguments made for them. They are both rejected. The chapter defends a rival view, the ‘internationalist’ reading of the EU, according to which it is a branch of the law of nations. A careful look at the EU treaties and the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU shows that the EU endorses an internationalist model based on equality and reciprocity. The EU does not replace the relation between citizens and political power. It does not establish a new constitutional law that replaces the national ones. It is a new way of organizing the relations between the various member states whose equality it fully respects. The coherence of European Union law is therefore not provided by uniformity imposed by a single master or constitutional rule, but is given by the political coordination of the laws of the member states achieved under the treaties. Coherence is achieved because the member states have adopted similar, although not identical, constitutional principles.


Author(s):  
Dmytro Boichuk ◽  
Vitalii Hryhoriev

The article is devoted to the study of the legal nature of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights as a source of law of the European Union. Within the scope of the doctrinal sources and the existing case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, the authors substantiate the logic of including existing the European Court of Human Rights case law in the EU law sources, citing arguments based on the EU law and the case law.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Frau

This book analyses the legality of the Brexit agreement under European Union law. While the political debate has been highly publicised in recent months, a legal analysis was always lacking. This legal analysis deals with the interpretation and application of the draft withdrawal agreement, the ECJ’s responsibilities, EU citizenship for British citizens after Brexit, the framework within which British authorities can apply EU law, creating laws after Brexit as well as the law on movement of goods and customs. This monograph compares the agreement with other manifestations of integration and association throughout the European Union, and it deals with the ECJ’s jurisprudence extensively. Last but not least, it applies the agreement to the external economic law of the EU. Beyond Brexit, the monograph proposes a framework for the application of EU law by a non-member state.


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 964-983 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Binder

The Commission of the European Union (EU) sees intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (BITs) as incompatible with the overall structure of European Union law. Against this background, certain Member States have started to terminate their treaties. Also, some of the new Member States have, in their role as Respondents in intra-EU BIT arbitrations, asserted inter alia that the intra-EU BITs had been automatically terminated upon their accession to the EU and that BIT provisions were inapplicable because of the operation of EU law. This contribution deals with these questions from a treaty law perspective and examines the alleged conflict between EU law and intra-EU BITs in investment cases as well as the consensual termination of intra-EU BITs, including the sunset clauses incorporated therein. It argues that if intra-EU BITs are already ‘in action’, their protection usually persists. On the other hand, investors enjoy only limited protection when States agree to terminate an intra-EU BIT by consent.


2021 ◽  
Vol 61 (5) ◽  
pp. 277-286

The European Union law (EU law) and the international law are two different but complementary systems. The variety of cases, the dynamic matter, as well as the many legislative changes both from international and national perspective in the field of direct taxes, gives rise to the necessity to delineate the boundaries between the EU law and the international law. This would help to ensure the proper law enforcement and to limit the possible conflicts between them. In the present paper, through a comparative legal analysis of the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the scope of the EU law is derived, as well as its interaction with international law. This helps to draw conclusions about their relationship, and in particular in the observance of their hierarchy in practical cases.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 178-194
Author(s):  
К. A. Tasalov ◽  
S. G. Sokolova ◽  
D. M. Osina

The article contains the analysis of extensive CJEU practice regarding the issues of countering corporate tax avoidance, and legal framework, mostly the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Directives.The purpose of this paper is to conduct a comprehensive research of the issues of countering the corporate tax avoidance in the CJEU practice. For this reason the authors set the following tasks: (1) to consider the concept of abuse of law, developed by the CJEU practice, with respect to corporate tax avoidance; (2) to identify the interaction between national anti-avoidance rules and fundamental freedoms of the internal market as established by the CJEU practice; (3) to study the CJEU practice concerning the implementation of tax directives and the application of anti-avoidance measures; (4) to identify the main features of the Directives "Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive" (ATAD) in terms of their potential impact on the development of the CJEU practice.The research methodology includes the application of both general methods of formal logic (including analysis, synthesis, deduction and induction) and special legal methodology (formal legal and comparative legal methods).The main results of the study. The CJEU has repeatedly considered the problem of conflict of national anti-avoidance rules with the fundamental freedoms of the EU internal market. The conflict between these rules is resolved in different ways depending on the type of antiavoidance rules: (1) national rules aimed at countering the abuse of law, and (2) national rules developed to counter tax avoidance, which are strictly applied according to formal criteria, without any requirement to prove abuse of law in a particular situation. The application of national anti-avoidance rules may provide for the exemptions from the regime of fundamental freedoms of the internal market. Where national anti-avoidance rules are not aimed at combating wholly artificial arrangements, but are applied mechanically, due to formal criteria, such rules should apply subject to the legal regime of fundamental freedoms. The CJEU held that the concept of beneficial owner should be applied not only to interest and royalties, but also to the distribution of profits, despite the fact that the provisions of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive do not contain such a concept. EU law prohibits the granting of state aid. National anti-avoidance rules and law enforcement practice may be subject to such a prohibition in cases where they create positive discrimination.Conclusions. When implementing the provisions of the ATAD 1-2, the EU Member States committed numerous breaches of the EU law. It therefore can be expected that the CJEU practice regarding the proper implementation of the Directives may appear in the near future. The general prohibition of abuse of EU law shall apply, even in cases where the EU Member State has not implemented the anti-avoidance mechanisms of tax directives into its national law. The general prohibition of abuse of EU law shall apply despite the principle of legal certainty, which precludes directives from being able by themselves to create obligations for individuals, so the directives cannot be relied upon per se by the Member State as against individuals. Sections 1−2 were contributed by S.G. Sokolova, 3−4.1 by D.M. Osina (section 4.1 in collaboration with K.A. Tasalov), 4.1−7 by K.A. Tasalov (section 4.1 in collaboration with D.M. Osina).


Author(s):  
Pavlos Eleftheriadis

This book offers a legal and political theory of the European Union. Many political and legal philosophers compare the EU to a federal union. They believe that its basic laws should be subject to the standards of constitutional law. They thus find it lacking or incomplete. This book offers a rival theory. If one looks more closely at the treaties and the precedents of the European courts, one sees that the substance of EU law is international, not constitutional. Just like international law, it applies primarily to the relations between states. It binds domestic institutions directly only when the local constitutions allow it. The member states have democratically chosen to adapt their constitutional arrangements in order to share legislative and executive powers with their partners. The legal architecture of the European Union is thus best understood under a theory of dualism and not pluralism. According to this internationalist view, EU law is part of the law of nations and its distinction from domestic law is a matter of substance, not form. This arrangement is supported by a cosmopolitan theory of international justice, which we may call progressive internationalism. The EU is a union of democratic peoples, that freely organize their interdependence on the basis of principles of equality and reciprocity. Its central principles are not the principles of a constitution, but cosmopolitan principles of accountability, liberty, and fairness,


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document