000			02051nab#a2200253#c#4500
003			IEF
005			20180219173418.0
008			170517s2017 NLD|| #####0 b|ENG|u
040			_aIEF
041			_aENG
100	1		_aMaitrot de la Motte, Alexandre _965374
245			_aThe recovery of the illegal fiscal state aids _b tax less to tax more _c Alexandre Maitrot de la Motte
260			_c2017
500			_aDisponible también en línea a través de la Biblioteca del Instituto de Estudios Fiscales. Resumen. Conclusión.
650		4	_aINCENTIVOS FISCALES _947462
650		4	_aGASTOS FISCALES _950212
650		4	_aAYUDA ESTATAL _932236
650		4	_aUNION EUROPEA _948644
520			_aThe Apple case has recently shown the tax community and the publicopinion that Member States may be forced to recover illegalfiscal State aids.Subject to various and sometimes complicated legal regimes, these illegal fiscal State aids designate the taxadvantages that have been granted to taxpayers without being notified to the Commission, the tax advantages that have been notified to the Commission but implemented before its authorization, and the tax advantages that have been maintained after a review that conducted the Commission todecide that they are no longer compatible with the internal market. As the goalpursued is to restore the ex-ante equilibrium and to act as if the aid violating Article 108 TFEU had never been granted, the calculation of the amount of the tax that has to be levied is sometimes complicated. And the recovery procedure can, at the very least, lead to enriching the State. Because European law recognizes few rights for the taxpayers, the financial consequences of the State.s infringement of Article 108 TFEU weigh heavily on companies that were supposed to besupported. It would be otherwise only if the Court of Justice granted them the possibility of incurring State responsibility.
773	0		_tEC Tax Review _w124968 _gv. 26, n. 2, April 2017, p. 75-88
942			_cART
942			_z147947
999			_c130275 _d130275