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 recent toegevoegde bijdragen.
Verschenen in Highlights & Insights
Judgment of the General Court in the case Nouwen/Council. Nouwen is a researcher who, inter alia, carries out research on the Tax Code of Conduct. Nouwen gets partial access to documents concerning the work of the Code of Conduct Group.
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in the case Žaidimų valiuta. Article 135(1)(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as meaning that it exempts only transactions concerning legal tender or non-legal tender that is accepted as a contractual direct means of payment between operators and that thus has no other purpose than to be a means of payment in legal transactions.
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in the case Lyko.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Arcomet Towercranes. Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the remuneration in respect of intra-group services, provided by a parent company to its subsidiary and contractually detailed, which is calculated in accordance with a method recommended by the Transfer Pricing Guidelines adopted by the OECD and corresponds to the part of the operating profit margin greater than 2.74% achieved by that subsidiary, constitutes the consideration for a supply of services for consideration falling within the scope of value added tax.
Action in the case Commission v Germany.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Modexel. Article 183, first paragraph, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that, where a taxable person ceases economic activity, that person may not carry excess VAT, declared at the time of that cessation of activity, forward to a following period and may recover that amount only by requesting a refund within 12 months from the date on which that activity ceased, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed.
The Constitutional Court of Belgium (Grondwettelijke Hof) is referring a preliminary question to the Court of Justice EU regarding the validity of one of the possible top-up taxes (the 'UTPR top-up tax') through which a minimum tax is imposed on groups of multinational enterprises and large domestic groups.
Opinion of Advocate General Emiliou in the case Chefquet.
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in the case Vaniz.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo in the case Swedish Match.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf in the case Brenntag.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny in the case Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Łodzi.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in the case Segelbootwartung. Does a means of transport enter the economic network of the European Union if it is not used as a means of transport in a Member State, but a service (maintenance and repair works) is performed on it?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie in the case A&P Deco.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof in the case Peckeger.
Staatssecretaris Heijnen van Financiën geeft nog geen duidelijkheid over de behandeling van mogelijke dubbele belastingheffing als gevolg van het pensioenartikel in het belastingverdrag met Duitsland van 2016. Dit volgt uit de beantwoording van Kamervragen van het Tweede Kamerlid Joseph (BBB).
Hof Amsterdam oordeelt dat sprake is van schending van de hoorplicht. Omdat X hierdoor niet is benadeeld kan de uitspraak op bezwaar in stand worden gelaten. De Hoge Raad verklaart het beroep in cassatie zonder nadere motivering ongegrond (art. 81 lid 1 Wet RO).
Hof ’s-Hertogenbosch oordeelt dat de inspecteur aannemelijk maakt dat de pensioen- en lijfrenteaanspraken in 2015 feitelijk voorwerp van zekerheid zijn geworden. Het hof wijst erop dat het privévermogen van X in 2015 is afgenomen met € 415.123. De Hoge Raad verklaart het beroep in cassatie zonder nadere motivering ongegrond (art. 81 lid 1 Wet RO).