Critical review of the atad implementation electrónico the implementation of the ATAD in Finland Hannu Itälä, Reijo Knuutinen
By: Hannu Itäla
.
Contributor(s): Reijo Knuutinen.
Material type: 
ArticleSubject(s): ELUSION FISCAL | DERECHO COMUNITARIO EUROPEO | ATAD | EROSIÓN DE LA BASE IMPONIBLE Y TRASLADO DE BENEFICIOS | ABUSO DE TRATADOS | LIMITACIÓN DE BENEFICIOS | ASIMETRÍAS HÍBRIDAS | FINLANDIAOnline resources: Click here to access online
In:
Intertax v. 51, Issue 12, December 2023, p. 851-869Summary: In this article, the authors provide an assessment of the Finnish implementation of the European Union (EU) Anti–Tax Avoidance Directives (ATAD I and II) in consideration of the EU primary law and secondary law requirements. It is focused on examining the conformity between the Finnish implementation rules and the fundamental freedoms arising out of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Although Finland already had an extensive anti-avoidance framework in place before implementing the ATAD I and ATAD II, Finland had to make some adjustments in almost all areas covered by the Directives. What is perhaps most interesting is that the Finnish general anti-abuse rule (GAAR) in section 28 of the Act on Assessment Procedure has retained the exact same textual form that it had decades previously. The essential question is as follows: Has the actual content of the general clause changed based on ATAD Article 6 and, if affirmative, in what way?
| Item type | Current location | Home library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recursos electrónicos | IEF | IEF | OP 2141/2023/12-5 (Browse shelf) | Available | OP 2141/2023/12-5 |
In this article, the authors provide an assessment of the Finnish implementation of the European Union (EU) Anti–Tax Avoidance Directives (ATAD I and II) in consideration of the EU primary law and secondary law requirements. It is focused on examining the conformity between the Finnish implementation rules and the fundamental freedoms arising out of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Although Finland already had an extensive anti-avoidance framework in place before implementing the ATAD I and ATAD II, Finland had to make some adjustments in almost all areas covered by the Directives. What is perhaps most interesting is that the Finnish general anti-abuse rule (GAAR) in section 28 of the Act on Assessment Procedure has retained the exact same textual form that it had decades previously. The essential question is as follows: Has the actual content of the general clause changed based on ATAD Article 6 and, if affirmative, in what way?
There are no comments for this item.