Allocation of the burden of proof under the anti-abuse rule of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive according to the most recent ECJ sase law Claudia Sanò
By: Sanò, Claudia
.
Material type: 
ArticlePublisher: 2018Subject(s): SOCIEDADES | SUCURSALES | IMPUESTOS | PRUEBA | PREVENCION | UNION EUROPEA | TRIBUNAL DE JUSTICIA DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS | JURISPRUDENCIA | ELUSION FISCAL
In:
EC Tax Review v. 27, Issue 5, October 2018, p. 267-279Summary: The author examines the judgment rendered by the ECJ in the Deister Holding and Juhler Holding cases and its implications, with special regard to the allocation of the burden of proof between the tax authorities and the taxpayer. The author aims to investigate whether and to what extent Member States - in light of the most recent ECJ case law - are entitled to enact domestic anti-abuse rules which presume that abuse occurred under the Parent-Subsidiary Directive, as well as under the other directives on the harmonization of company taxation.
| Item type | Current location | Home library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artículos | IEF | IEF | OP 2141-B/2018/5-5 (Browse shelf) | Available | OP 2141-B/2018/5-5 |
Browsing IEF Shelves Close shelf browser
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| OP 2141-B/2018/5-2 The European Commission proposal for a 3% 'call rate' as a new suggestion for a EUCIT | OP 2141-B/2018/5-3 Fiscal State aid to promote clean transport | OP 2141-B/2018/5-4 The Polbud-case and new EU company law proposal | OP 2141-B/2018/5-5 Allocation of the burden of proof under the anti-abuse rule of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive according to the most recent ECJ sase law | OP 2141-B/2018/6 EC Tax Review | OP 2141-B/2018/6-1 The State aid selectivity-test in corporate tax matters | OP 2141-B/2018/6-2 VAT and Brexit |
Resumen.
The author examines the judgment rendered by the ECJ in the Deister Holding and Juhler Holding cases and its implications, with special regard to the allocation of the burden of proof between the tax authorities and the taxpayer. The author aims to investigate whether and to what extent Member States - in light of the most recent ECJ case law - are entitled to enact domestic anti-abuse rules which presume that abuse occurred under the Parent-Subsidiary Directive, as well as under the other directives on the harmonization of company taxation.
Click on an image to view it in the image viewer
There are no comments for this item.