Highlights & Insights on European Taxation (H&I) bevat diepgaande informatie over actuele ontwikkelingen binnen het Europees belastingrecht zoals de omzetbelasting, douane, accijnzen en de winstbelasting. Een team van internationale experts becommentarieert jurisprudentie van het Europese Hof van Justitie, voorstellen van de Europese Commissie en andere Europese instanties.
Kijk hieronder voor de inhoudsopgave van de laatst verschenen aflevering.
Verschenen in Highlights & Insights
Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Commission v Netherlands on taxation of cross-border transfer of pension capital. The Dutch legislation concerning the transfer of pension capital accumulated in the so-called ‘second pillar’ is incompatible with the free of movement of workers.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário in the case Corner and Border.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Commission v Netherlands. Dutch requirements for pension capital transfer infringe free movement of workers.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék in the case ROSAS.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Lublinie. Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as meaning that, where an employee of a taxable person for VAT purposes has issued a fake invoice showing VAT using the employer’s identity as a taxable person, without that employer’s knowledge or consent, that employee must be considered to be the person who enters the VAT, within the meaning of Article 203, unless that taxable person did not exercise the due diligence reasonably required to monitor the conduct of that employee.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Valentina Heights. Article 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the reduced VAT rate for accommodation provided in hotels and similar establishments is subject to a requirement that such an establishment hold a categorisation certificate or a provisional categorisation certificate, in so far as that legislation does not limit the application of the reduced VAT rate to concrete and specific aspects of the category of provision of accommodation provided in hotels and similar establishments or, in the event that it limits the application of that rate to those concrete and specific aspects, it does not comply with the principle of fiscal neutrality.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case f6 Cigarettenfabrik. Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘other indirect taxes on excise goods for specific purposes’ covers a supplementary tax applicable to heated tobacco, the amount of which is 80% of the excise applicable to cigarettes, less the amount of excise duty applicable to such heated tobacco.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Commission v UK.
Opinion of Advocate General Collins in the case Keva.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council on pre-enlargement reforms and policy reviews. Extending the EU tax acquis would be clearly beneficial, as it would spur on cross-border activity and trade in the EU for citizens and companies, creating a level playing field. However, the existing unanimity requirement in the Council on tax matters will be even more challenging in a larger Union, inviting to consider qualified majority voting in...
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad in the case Zlakov.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Burgas in the case Beach and bar management.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad in the case Bulgarian Posts.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen in the case Högkullen.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Hauptzollamt Braunschweig. The first paragraph of Article 30, Article 60 and the second subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which Article 215(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, applies mutatis mutandis to import VAT as regards the determination of the place where that import VAT is incurred.
Hof 's-Hertogenbosch oordeelt dat de bedrijfsopvolgingsvrijstelling niet van toepassing is op X bv ten aanzien van de verkrijging van aandelen in Z bv. Er is weliswaar een materiële onderneming overgenomen, maar er is niet voldaan aan het verwantschapsvereiste.
Hof Arnhem-Leeuwarden oordeelt dat het verzet tegen de niet-ontvankelijkverklaring van het hoger beroep gegrond is, omdat het hogerberoepschrift tijdig ter post is bezorgd door een ander bedrijf dan PostNL.
Fiscaal partners kunnen samen slechts één eigen woning hebben ook al wonen zij ieder in een aparte woning. De Hoge Raad ziet geen reden om de uitspraak van Hof Amsterdam te vernietigen.