July 10

(15.30 – 18.30)

Meeting of the European Parliament’s  Committee of Inquiry into Money Laundering Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion (PANA Committee)

During the meeting PANA will discuss the draft report on the inquiry on money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion and a draft motion for a recommendation to the Council and the Commission pursuant to the third subparagraph of Rule 198(10) of the Rules of Procedure following the inquiry on Money Laundering, Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion, which were both drafted by the co-rapporteurs Jeppe Kofod and Petr Ježek.

Further information on both the draft report and the draft motion, as well as links to both documents can be found in our article from July 1, 2017.

A live webstream of the hearing will be available here

July 11

EU - Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN)

(The Agenda for the meeting as made avalaible on the website of the European Council/Council of the European Union does not mention any tax topics)

July 11

(14.00 – 15.30)

Meeting of the European Parliament’s  Committee of Inquiry into Money Laundering Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion (PANA Committee)

During the meeting PANA will welcome Finance Ministers Wolfgang Schäubele (DE), Paschal Donohoe (IE), Pier Carlo Padoan (IT) and Jeroen Dijsselbloem to discuss the follow-up of the Panama Papers in their respective countries and to hear their take on the problems as well on the initiatives that are being undertaken by the Commission in the field of taxation and anti-money.

A live webstream of the hearing will be available here

July 13

Opinion of the Advocate General expected to be delivered in Case C-574/15, Scialdone (VAT –  interpretation of Article 4(3) TEU, in conjunction with Article 325 TFEU and Directive 2006/112/EC, which lay down for the Member States the duty of equal treatment so far as concerns policies relating to penalties)

Questions referred

May EU law, and more particularly Article 4(3) TEU, in conjunction with Article 325 TFEU and Directive 2006/112/EC, which lay down for the Member States the duty of equal treatment so far as concerns policies relating to penalties, be interpreted as precluding the enactment of a provision of national law providing that the penal consequences of failure to pay VAT follow once a financial threshold is crossed greater than the threshold provided for in the case of failure to pay income tax?

May EU law, and more particularly Article 4(3) TEU in conjunction with Article 325 TFEU and Directive 2006/112/EC, which oblige the Member States to provide effective, dissuasive and proportionate penalties to protect the financial interests of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding the enactment of a national provision which exempts the defendant (whether a director, legal representative, person to whom responsibility for fiscal matters has been delegated or an accessory to the offence) from liability to punishment, if the entity with legal personality concerned has made late payment both of the tax itself and of the administrative penalties owed in connection with VAT, even though the tax assessment has already been made, criminal proceedings and indictment initiated, and the establishment of inter partes proceedings duly confirmed, but before trial proceedings have been declared opened, in a system that does not impose on that director, legal representative, or delegate and accessory to the offence any other penalty, not even an administrative penalty?

Must the concept of fraud governed by Article 1 of the PFI Convention be interpreted as encompassing cases of failure to pay or of partial or late payment of VAT and, consequently, does Article 2 of that Convention require the Member State to punish with a term of imprisonment failure to pay or partial or late payment of VAT in relation to sums in excess of EUR 50 000?

If the answer is in the negative, it will be necessary to determine whether the rule under Article 325 TFEU, which requires the Member States to provide penalties, including criminal penalties, which are dissuasive, proportionate and effective, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which exempts from criminal and administrative liability the directors and legal representatives of legal persons, or the persons to whom the functions of those legal persons are delegated and persons who are accessories to the offence, for failure to pay or partial or late payment of VAT in relation to sums equivalent to three or five times the minimum threshold laid down in case of fraud, that is to say, EUR 50 000.

July 13

CJEU expected to judge in Case C-633/15, London Borough of Ealing (VAT – Exemptions – Supplies of services closely linked to sport)

Questions referred

(1)   Is the United Kingdom entitled, pursuant to the final paragraph of Article 133 of [Directive 2006/112], to impose the condition contained in [point] (d) of that article on bodies governed by public law, (i) in circumstances where the relevant transactions were treated by the United Kingdom as taxable on 1 January 1989, but other sporting services were subject to exemption on that date and (ii) in circumstances where the relevant transactions had not first been granted exemption under national law before the United Kingdom sought to impose the condition contained in [point (d) of the first paragraph of] Article 133 [of that directive]?

(2)   If the answer to [Question] (1) above is in the affirmative, is the United Kingdom entitled to impose the condition contained in [point] (d) of [the first paragraph of] Article 133 [of Directive 2006/112] on non-profit-making bodies governed by public law without also applying that condition to non-profit-making bodies which are not governed by public law?

(3)   If the answer to [Question] (2) above is in the affirmative, is the United Kingdom permitted to exclude all public non-profit-making bodies from the benefit of the exemption contained in Article 132(1)(m) [of Directive 2006/112] without having considered in each individual case whether the granting of exemption would be likely to cause distortion of competition to the disadvantage of commercial enterprises subject to VAT?

The Opinion as delivered by Advocate General Wathelet on December 21, 2016 can be found here

July 13

CJEU expected to judge in Case C-151/16, Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla  (excise duties – Use as fuel for the purposes of navigation)

Questions referred

1.     Should Article 14(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as last amended by Council Directive 2004/75/EC of 29 April 2004, be interpreted as meaning that excise duty may not be levied on the supply of energy products in circumstances, such as those in the present case, in which those products are supplied as fuel for a ship to be used in navigation within [European Union] waters with the objective, not involving direct consideration, of sailing that ship under its own power from the place where it was built to a port in another Member State for the purpose of taking on its first commercial cargo?

2.     Does Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2003/96 stand in the way of provisions of national legislation of Member States, such as those applicable in the present case, which preclude the benefit of the tax exemption provided for in that provision in the case where the supply of energy products was carried out in breach of the conditions laid down by the Member State, even though that supply satisfies the essential conditions for application of the exemption set out in that provision of Directive 2003/96?

The Opinion as delivered by Advocate General Kokott on March 2, 2017 can be found here

July 13

Opinion of the Advocate General expected to be delivered in Case C-292/16, A (Freedom of establishment – Taxation of a transfer of a business of a permanent establishment)

Questions referred

Does Article 49 TFEU preclude Finnish legislation under which, where a Finnish company by way of a transfer of business disposes of assets of a permanent establishment situated in another EU Member State to a company established in that State in return for new shares, the transfer of the assets is taxed immediately in the year of transfer, but in a corresponding national situation is not taxed until the time of realisation?

Is there indirect or direct discrimination if Finland levies tax immediately in the year of the transfer of business before the income has been realised, and in a domestic situation not until the time of realisation?

If the answer to Questions 1 and 2 is in the affirmative, may the restriction of the right of establishment be justified on grounds such as an overriding reason of the public interest or the preservation of the national power of taxation? Does the prohibited restriction comply with the principle of proportionality?