Translate this page:
Nota Bene. Books, journals, publishing technologies.
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate ☒
Library
 Your profile
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Back to contents

Taxes and Taxation
Reference:

Ponomareva K.A. Prohibition of Discrimination in Tax Law: Experience of the European Union

Abstract: In her article Ponomareva analyzes prohibition of discrimination as one of the most important principles in tax law for intergration associations based on the example of the European Union. The author offers her own scheme for anaylzing tax proceedings with respect to discrimination. Ponomareva notes that evaluation of comparability is one of the main issues in the process of legal proceedings on direct taxation. The author shows an important role of the European Court of Justice in tax hearings with respect to discrimination. Most of the Court's decisions regarding compatibility of national tax rules to the basic freedoms are based on the discrimination analysis. The methodological basis of the research consists of both general research methods (dialectical-materialistic method, systems approach, induction, deduction, analysis and synthesis) and specific legal methods. The research is based on the research method of comparative law. The scientific novelty of the research is caused by the fact that based on the most recent legislation and judicial practice of the European Union the author carried out a complex comparative legal research of the financial legal regime in direct taxation. As a result of the research, the author makes conclusions regarding analysis of tax proceedings for discrimination. The fact of discrimination is checked by the court according to the following three stages: whether discrimination or limitation of rights of a member state violates at least one basic freedom; whether a member state can prove acceptable excuses, for example, it is allowed for a member state to limit rights of taxpayers under the founders agreement only if there is a certain legal purpose for that and this purpose complies with the legal provisions and international treaties and followed for reasonable grounds and public interests; whether the principle of proportionality is observed, i.e. measures undertaken at the national level should not be more than it is necessary for law and order maintenance. 

Keywords:

fundamental freedoms, European Court of Justice, integration, discrimination, direct taxes, OECD, European Union, resident, nonresident, taxation

This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article


References
1. Thömmes, Verbote der Diskriminierung von Steuerausländern und Steuerinländern, in: Lehner (Hrsg.), Steuerrecht im europäischen Binnenmarkt, 1996, S. 81.
2. Case C-279/93 Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt v Roland Schumacker, judgment of 14 February 1995.
3. Terra/Wattel, European Tax Law, 6th edition 2012, p. 45.
4. Case C-80/94 G.H.E.J. Wielockx v Inspecteur der Directe Belastingen, judgement of 11 August 1995.
5. Ponomareva K.A. Nalogovaya garmonizatsiya v sfere pryamykh nalogov na territorii Evropeyskogo Soyuza // Finansovoe pravo. 2015. № 7. S. 25.
6. Case C-279/93 Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt v Roland Schumacker, judgment of 14 February 1995; Case C-80/94 G.H.E.J. Wielockx v Inspecteur der Directe Belastingen, judgement of 11 August 1995.
7. Terra/Wattel, European Tax Law, 6th edition 2012, p. 48.
8. Case C-307/97 Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, Zweigniederlassung Deutschland v Finanzamt Aachen-Innenstadt, judgement of 21 September 1999.
9. Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer Pic v David Halsey (HM Inspector of Taxes), ECJ, 13 December 2005.
10. Hindelang S., The Free Movement of Capital and Foreign Direct Investment : The Scope of Protection in EU Law, 2009, 154 ff.
11. Savitskiy A.I. Rezhim nediskriminatsii v nalogovom prave Rossiyskoy Federatsii, Respubliki Belarus' i Respubliki Kazakhstan (sravnitel'no-pravovoe issledovanie): avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. Ekaterinburg, 2012. S. 9.
12. Kofler G. Doppelbesteuerungsabkommen und Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht. Linde Verlag. Wien, 2007. P. 764-808.
13. Dautzenberg N., Unternehmensbesteuerung im EG-Binnenmarkt, 1. Halbband. Josef Eul Verlag, 1997. P. 60.
14. Case C-298/05 Columbus Container Services, judgement of 6 December 2007.
15. Horizontal Tax Coordination (Ed. M. Lang, P. Pistone, J. Schuch, C. Staringer). IBFD, 2012. P. 35.
16. Dziurdz K./Marchgraber C., Non-Discrimination in European and Tax Treaty Law: An Overview, in: Dziurdz K./Marchgraber C.(Eds), Non-Discrimination in European and Tax Treaty Law // Linde Verlag, Series on International Tax Law. Volume 94. Vienna, 2015. P. 4.
17. EuGH v. 16.01.03, Rs. C-388/01, Rn. 13 f. Italienische Museen; EuGH v. 08.05.90, Rs. C-175/88, Rn. 13 – Biehl.
18. Ponomareva K.A. Delo Avoir Fiscal: aktual'naya klassika evropeyskogo nalogovogo prava // Nalogoved. 2016. № 3. S. 84-89.
19. Case C-270/83 Commission v France [1986] ECR 273, judgement of 28 January 1986.
20. Roche & Duffay, 2013. Reshenie Evropeyskogo Suda po delu Marks & Spencer. URL: http://www.roche-duffay.ru/news/137173232.shtml (data obrashcheniya 21.08.2015).
21. Ponomareva K.A. Transgranichnyy uchet ubytkov: novoe reshenie Suda ES // Nalogoved. 2015. № 5. S. 68.
22. Laroma P. Freedom of Establishment and EC Tax Law: The Case for ECJ consistency. Comparability: Consistent or not Consistent? // http://ials.sas.ac.uk/postgrad/courses/docs/MA_Tax_Working_papers/PHILIP_PUBBLICATION_FINA.pdf (data obrashcheniya 21.04.2016)
23. Case C-204/90 Hanns-Martin Bachmann v Belgian State, judgment of 28 January 1992.
24. Case C-307/97 Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, Zweigniederlassung Deutschland v Finanzamt Aachen-Innenstadt [2000] STC 854, ECJ, 21 September 1999.
25. Case C-300/90 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium, judgment of 28 January 1992.
26. OECD (2013), Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264202719-en
27. Rust A. in E. Reimer & A. Rust (eds.) Klaus Vogel on Double Taxation Conventions, 4th edition (Kluwer, 2015) Art. 24, m.nos. 5 and 16.
28. Yumashev Yu.M., Postnikova E.V. Ekonomicheskoe pravo Evropeyskogo soyuza: monografiya. M.: Norma, Infra-M, 2014. C. 98.
29. OECD Model Double Taxation Convention on Income and Capital 1963, 1977, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2014 // http://www.oecd.org/ctp/treaties/oecd-model-tax-convention-available-products.htm
30. Nalogovoe pravo: uchebnik dlya vuzov / Pod red. S.G. Pepelyaeva. M.: Al'pina Pablisher, 2015. S. 628.
Nota Bene
 
For authors
 
Other
 
Our sites
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.