Search

The ‘EU arm’s length principle’ gradually evolved into an ‘EU arm’s length tool’ in the Starbucks, Fiat, Apple, and Amazon judgments of the General Court of the European Union (‘GC’). This contribution analyzes in detail why a ‘principle’ progressed into a ‘tool’ in these judgments. For this matter, it considers the arm’s length standard from the point of view of the regulation strategy of states (i.e., a reflexive regulation strategy) to govern the taxation of multinational companies. The author maintains that the regulatory design of the arm’s length standard entails a choice for ‘reflexive transfer pricing law’ and subsequently relies on that perspective for analyzing the judgments of the GC. This angle meticulously illustrates that the abuse of discretionary powers by the tax authorities in the process of monitoring the residual profit allocation of the taxpayer constitutes the relevant state aid problem. The contribution concludes that the GC eventually devised a rather toothless ‘tool’ that does not properly address this issue. At the same time, it also concludes that it should be relatively straightforward for the Court of Justice EU to finetune the ‘EU arm’s length tool’ in order to establish an effective and foreseeable reconciliation of EU state aid law and transfer pricing law. For this matter, the contribution puts forward a concrete recommendation. EU fiscal state aid control, EU state aid law, EU arm’s length principle, EU arm’s length tool, transfer pricing, residual profit allocation, APA, Apple

This article focuses on the complex challenges affecting the relationship between different tax systems (national, international and EU) within a context, like the current GloBE project, which is looking for appropriate tax measures applying on a global scale. In fact, the need of developing tax measures with a global character requires specific attention to be given to issues concerning the effectiveness of these measures in light of the relationship between the relevant tax systems. More specifically, within the framework of this article, the analysis aimed at evaluating the possibilities of guaranteeing a fully effective application of the GloBE income inclusion rule has been conducted on the basis of two crucial factors, i.e. (1) the compliance of the income inclusion rule with international tax treaty law and with EU tax law, and (2) the coordination between international tax treaty law and EU tax law. Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) project, Pillar Two, Income Inclusion Rule, BEPS, CFC legislation, Abuse, OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework, Saving Clause.

On 23 July 2020, the European Commission launched public consultations on two tax related proposals, namely a revision of the Energy Taxation Directive and the creation of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. These proposals are part of the European Green Deal, a strategy that aims, amongst other things, to put the well-being of citizens at the centre of economic policy. In this article, the well-being aims put forward in the Green Deal are considered in connection with the Commission’s tax related proposals in that regard as included in the public consultations of July 2020. It is concluded that, while taking on board well-being aims may be valuable in that it obliges to consider in a broad way what is good for people, the current references to well-being by the Commission in the Green Deal lack clarity and raise a number of important questions. Recommendations are provided, also with respect to the envisaged role of taxation in tackling environmental issues.

The primary aim of this article is to question whether the general anti-abuse rule (GAAR) of Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) is an effective tool to tackle tax avoidance. By using a comparative technique as a method, other directives that include a GAAR will be analysed as a companion to the ATAD to identify whether there is a common understanding of the concept of abuse of tax laws within the EU legal order. Then the general consequences of the application of the GAAR of the ATAD will be exposed. The difficulties which could be encountered in the application procedure will be explained around some potential scenarios, based on simple models developed by the author. Tax Avoidance, Abusive Tax Practices, Artificial/Genuine Arrangement(s), Main Purpose(s) Test, Tax Advantage, General Anti-abuse Rule(s) (GAARs), Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD), Interest-Royalties Directive, Merger Directive, Parent- Subsidiary Directive.

The launching of the new tobacco products, namely e-cigarettes and heat-not-burn tobacco, poses a challenge to the current EU legal framework of the excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco, currently under the revision by EU Commission. This contribution grasps the tobacco example to question the EU legitimacy to harmonize within Article 113 Treaty of Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).