- Details
On October 26, 2016 the Inland Revenue Authorities of Singapore issued a press release announcing that on October 25, 2016 the Competent Authorities of Singapore and Norway concluded an Agreement on the Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information to Improve International Tax Compliance (Hereafter: The Agreement).
- Details
On October 26, 2016 the Inland Revenue Authorities of Singapore issued a press release announcing that on October 24, 2016 the Competent Authorities of the Republic of Singapore and the Republic of South Africa concluded an Agreement on the Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information to Improve International Tax Compliance (Hereafter: The Agreement).
- Details
On October 26, 2016 on the website of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) the opinion of Advocate General Wahl in Case C‑679/15, Ultra-Brag AG versus Hauptzollamt Lörrach (ECLI:EU:C:2016:807) was published.
To what extent is an employer liable for a customs debt brought about as a result of one of its employees infringing customs obligations in the performance of the tasks entrusted to him? That is the issue on which the Court is called upon to rule in the present request for a preliminary ruling.
This request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Finance Court, Baden-Württemberg, Germany) turns on the proper construction of the term ‘debtor’ as defined in the first and second indents of Article 202(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, and more precisely on the parameters for holding a legal person liable for the conduct of its employees. In the same vein, the referring court also seeks guidance as to whether ‘obvious negligence’ within the meaning of Article 212a of the Customs Code includes the possible negligence of an employee.
- Details
On October 26, 2016 on the website of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) the opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in Case C-14/16, Euro Park Service, having assumed the rights and obligations of Cairnbulg Nanteuil versus Ministre des finances et des comptes publics (ECLI:EU:C:2016:806) was published.
This request for a preliminary ruling of December 16, 2015 by the Conseil d’État (Council of State) (France), lodged at the Court Registry on January 11, 2016, is concerned with the interpretation of Article 49 TFEU and Article 11 of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States.
The request was made in proceedings between the company governed by Luxembourg law Euro Park Service (‘Euro Park’), successor in law to the French company SCI Cairnbulg Nanteuil (‘SCI Cairnbulg Nanteuil’), and the French tax authority (‘the tax authority’) concerning the imposition of supplementary corporation tax assessments, the additional contribution for that tax and the corresponding penalties. According to the French tax authority, those taxes and penalties arise from the fact, first, that SCI Cairnbulg Nanteuil had not sought the ministerial approval provided for under French law in the case of transfers to a foreign company and, secondly, that, in any event, that approval would not have been granted to it since the company’s dissolution was not justified for commercial reasons, but had the objective of evading or avoiding tax.
The referring court considers that in order to resolve the dispute before it, it is necessary to ascertain, in particular, whether Article 49 TFEU precludes national legislation which, for the purpose of preventing tax evasion and avoidance, systematically imposes a condition that the use of the common system of taxation applicable to mergers and operations treated as such is to be subject to a process of prior approval only for transfers made to foreign legal persons.
- Details
On October 26, 2016 on the website of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) the opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona in Case C-448/15, Belgische Staat versus Wereldhave Belgium Comm. VA, Wereldhave International NV and Wereldhave NV (ECLI:EU:C:2016:808) was published.
Once again, the Court of Justice has before it a case in which dividends distributed by a subsidiary (in this case, a Belgian company) to its (Netherlands) parent company are subject to a withholding tax levied at source by the tax authorities of the Kingdom of Belgium, in respect of tax on income from investments.
The first of the questions on which the referring court seeks a preliminary ruling relates to the interpretation of Directive 90/435/EEC. In view of the particular status of the parent company in the Netherlands, it is necessary first of all to establish whether it should be treated as falling under ‘companies of a Member State’ to which the directive applies (Article 2).
If that is the case, then the question arises whether the withholding at source is compatible with Article 5 of Directive 90/435, which in principle exempts the profits distributed by a subsidiary to its parent company from such a withholding tax.
If, on the other hand, Directive 90/435 is not applicable in this case, then the referring court asks whether the Belgian legislation which renders the dividends in question subject to tax is consistent with Articles 49 and 63 TFEU.
Page 2 of 6
