DAC6 some (potential) incompatibility profiles with article 6 ATAD Andrea Purpura
By: Purpura, Andrea
.
Material type: 







Item type | Current location | Home library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Artículos | IEF | IEF | OP 2141/2023/1-4 (Browse shelf) | Available | OP 2141/2023/1-4 |
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 2141/2023/12-5 Critical review of the atad implementation | OP 2141/2023/12-6 The 1963 OECD model tax convention | OP 2141/2023/1-3 Economic substance for holding companies in the post- BEPS world and after recent ECJ case-law | OP 2141/2023/1-4 DAC6 | OP 2141/2023/1-5 Taxation of bitcoins and similar cryptoassets in Scandinavia with special focus on Danish law | OP 2141/2023/2 Intertax | OP 2141/2023/2-1 What does Pillar two's global minimum tax mean for tax incentives? |
Resumen.
This article compares Article 6 of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) and the Directive on Administrative Cooperation DAC6, and finds that the disclosure requirements of DAC6 are consistent with the concept of tax avoidance introduced by the general clause of Article 6 ATAD. However, the article raises concerns about the compatibility of DAC6 with the ultimate purpose of anti-avoidance regulations and with the general anti-abuse clauses in some European legal systems, citing the Italian experience as an example. The comparison suggests that the reporting obligations of DAC6 are too broad and do not adequately consider "non-tax reasons" that may justify cross-border mechanisms, even if tax advantages may also result.
There are no comments for this item.