| 000 | 01648nab#a2200277#c#4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | IEF | ||
| 005 | 20180219170111.0 | ||
| 008 | 171025s2017 NLD|| #####0 b|ENG|u | ||
| 040 | _aIEF | ||
| 041 | _aENG | ||
| 100 | 1 |
_aGroot, Isabella de _963841 |
|
| 245 |
_aCase X ( C-283/15 ) and the myth of Schumacker's 90% rule _c Isabella de Groot |
||
| 260 | _c2017 | ||
| 500 | _aAccesible también en línea a través de la Biblioteca del Instituto deEstudios Fiscales. Conclusión. Resumen. | ||
| 650 | 4 |
_aRESIDENCIA FISCAL _948282 |
|
| 650 | 4 |
_aNO RESIDENTES _947837 |
|
| 650 | 4 |
_aIMPUESTOS _947460 |
|
| 650 | 4 |
_aTRIBUNAL DE JUSTICIA DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS _948611 |
|
| 650 | 4 |
_aUNION EUROPEA _948644 |
|
| 650 | 4 |
_aJURISPRUDENCIA _947570 |
|
| 520 | _aCase law stemming from the Schumacker judgment, has confirmed thatthe Member State of employment does not, in principle, have to grantdeductions related to personal and family circumstances to a non-resident. However, the CJEU has allowed for an exception to this rule (the socalled .Schumacker-exception.). In its judgment of 9 February 2017 in the X case, the CJEU sheds more lighton the applicability of this exception and on the situation of multiple Member States of employment. In this article the author first analyses the relevant case law rendered before X that provides more clarity on when the Schumacker exception applies and follow this with an analysis of the X case and its consequences.She concludes by discussing some remaining issues. | ||
| 773 | 0 |
_tIntertax _gv. 45, n. 8-9, August / September 2017, p. 567-576 |
|
| 942 | _cART | ||
| 942 | _z148746 | ||
| 999 |
_c102966 _d102966 |
||