000			01814nab a2200265 c 4500
999			_c144498 _d144498
003			ES-MaIEF
005			20210805120934.0
007			ta
008			210805t2021 ne ||||| |||| 00| 0|eng d
040			_aES-MaIEF _bspa _cES-MaIEF
100	1		_9867 _aDeák, Daniel
245			_aCloaking Member State objectives through legislative instruments _c Daniel Deák
260			_c2021
500			_aDisponible también en formato electrónico.
500			_aResumen.
520			_aThis contribution discusses special sectoral taxes and analyses the European Court of Justice judgments that have been made on their compatibility with EU law. These taxes have aroused particular attention because they are levied on sales with progressive rates. As they mainly affect large businesses owned by non-domestic persons, the European Commission took action against suspected illegal State aid. The Commission has still failed to defend its position before the EU judicial authorities. The literature has extensively criticized the CJEU-judgments. To date, however, no author has argued that Member States' measures leading to covert State aid and indirect discrimination are a consequence of the populist state's abuse of power and that abuses are closely linked to the decline of political democracy and the rule of law in these jurisdictions. As things stand today, the EU legal instruments have not sufficiently unveiled the type of abuse.
650		4	_950141 _aIMPUESTO SOBRE EL VALOR AÑADIDO
650		4	_948680 _aVENTAS
650		4	_aIMPUESTOS _947460
650		4	_aARMONIZACION FISCAL _931085
650		4	_932236 _aAYUDA ESTATAL
650		4	_aUNION EUROPEA _948644
773	0		_9165343 _oOP 2141-B/2021/3 _tEC Tax Review _w(IEF)124968 _x 0928-2750 [print] _gv. 30, Issue 3, June 2021, p. 111-119 _s
942			_cART