721.8 kB - Poledna | Boss | Kurer

More documents

Recommendations

Info

that each transaction must be assessed separately,and that the transfer of a full company by a numberof shareholders does not qualify as a "transfer of atotality of assets".The ECJ ruled in conclusion that:"Articles 5(8) and/or 6(5) of Sixth Council Directive77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonizationof the laws of the Member States relatingto turnover taxes - Common system of valueadded tax: uniform basis of assessment must beinterpreted as meaning that the disposal of 30%of the shares in a company to which the transferrorsupplies services that are subject to VAT doesnot amount to the transfer of a totality of assetsor services or part thereof within the meaning ofthose provisions, irrespective of the fact that theother shareholders transfer all the other shares inthat company to the same person at practicallythe same time and that that disposal is closelylinked to management activities carried out forthat company."The judgment was delivered on May 30, 2013.http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=137829&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=65291European Court of Justice: Netherlands v. X BV(C-651/11)RomaniaThe European Court of Justice was asked for a preliminaryruling during proceedings at the OradeaCourt of Appeal where a company which had beendenied reimbursement of excise duties that it hadpaid in Romania argued that the law required therequest for reimbursement to be made after theproducts it had exported had arrived at their destination,due to the information that was necessaryfor the request to be made. The tax authority insistedthat it could not accept the request according toEU law precisely because the products had alreadyentered another Member State. The Court of Appealtherefore petitioned the ECJ for an interpretationof the law.The reimbursement of excise duties is allowed underEU law for the sake of harmonisation and toprevent double taxation by ensuring that excise dutiesare only levied in one Member State.Th e ECJ identified two different methods ofreimbursement under EU law, and found thatRomanian law appears to only incorporate oneof them; namely the method that requires therequest for reimbursement to be made beforethe goods are dispatched as part of a suspensionagreement, and before excise duties are paid inthe destination State.Th e second method however, does not impose atime for the request to be made; the requirementfor reimbursement is that the excise duties have96
een paid in the destination State. The ECJ statedthat the national court was responsible for decidingin which way EU law had been implementedin national law, and which provisions applied tothe present case.destination State, the request may be refused dueto a failure to follow the procedure required by thefirst method.The judgment was delivered on May 30, 2013.The conclusion from the ECJ was that when exciseduty has been paid in the destination State, therequest for reimbursement from the source Statecannot be refused simply because the request wasmade after the products were dispatched, accordingto the second method of reimbursement underEU law. When the duty has not been paid in thehttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=137825&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=107934European Court of Justice: Scandic Distilleries v.Romania (C-663/11)97
Page 1 and 2:
GLOBAL TAX WEEKLYa closer lookISSUE
Page 3 and 4:
GLOBAL TAX WEEKLYa closer lookISSUE
Page 5 and 6:
FEATURED ARTICLESISSUE 30 | JUNE 6,
Page 7 and 8:
taxation treaties concluded by Swit
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
UK, its offshore dependencies, and
Page 15 and 16:
financing and all forms of financia
Page 17 and 18:
Th e Government pointed out in part
Page 19 and 20:
Talks are now underway. The TIEA wi
Page 21 and 22:
through which they can clamber in o
Page 23 and 24:
fi nally, and most egregiously, the
Page 25 and 26:
office space, or own tangible asset
Page 27 and 28:
extended for 2 years in December 20
Page 29 and 30:
Financial transactions ( e.g. inter
Page 31 and 32:
OECD Section E - Redraft On Safe Ha
Page 33 and 34:
suggests that the following items m
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
State Interest And IntangibleExpens
Page 39 and 40:
States generally define "intangible
Page 41 and 42:
Code Sec. 1563(controlledgroup)Stat
Page 43 and 44:
ConnecticutGeorgiaIllinoisIndianaRe
Page 45 and 46: Rhode IslandTennesseeVirginiaWest V
Page 47 and 48: Table 4. Comprehensive Income Tax T
Page 49 and 50: include federal interest income, st
Page 51 and 52: Recurring IssuesRestructuring of th
Page 53 and 54: M&A. Nick has extensive experience
Page 55 and 56: and consumers." As Germany and Chin
Page 57 and 58: on many levels. The panel found tha
Page 59 and 60: equirements placed on the states, i
Page 61 and 62: NEWS ROUND-UP: COUNTRY FOCUS - ITAL
Page 63 and 64: NEWS ROUND-UP: REAL ESTATE AND PROP
Page 65 and 66: ates - such that, in 2014, the 4 pe
Page 67 and 68: NEWS ROUND-UP: FTTISSUE 30 | JUNE 6
Page 69 and 70: NEWS ROUND-UP: ENVIRONMENTAL TAXESI
Page 71 and 72: Finally, the Federal Council veheme
Page 73 and 74: Singapore Plugs Benefits For SMEsOf
Page 75 and 76: TAX TREATY ROUND-UPISSUE 30 | JUNE
Page 77 and 78: CONFERENCE CALENDARISSUE 30 | JUNE
Page 79 and 80: Key speakers: John Capasso (Alvarez
Page 81 and 82: Key speakers: TBA6/27/2013 - 6/27/2
Page 83 and 84: 6/14/2013 - 6/14/2013http://www.con
Page 85 and 86: THE CYPRUS BAIL-OUT ANDFOREIGN CLIE
Page 87 and 88: Chair: Jonathan Levy (Partner, Reyn
Page 89 and 90: IN THE COURTSISSUE 30 | JUNE 6, 201
Page 91 and 92: on including the profit from the do
Page 93 and 94: deduct VAT as a result of incomplet
Page 95: where the taxpayer had somehow offs
Page 99 and 100: that Spain has gone its own way fir
show all

721.8 kB - Poledna | Boss | Kurer

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?