000			01865nab a2200253 c 4500
999			_c145364 _d145364
003			ES-MaIEF
005			20220209172144.0
007			ta
008			220209t2021 ne ||||| |||| 00| 0|eng d
040			_aES-MaIEF _bspa _cES-MaIEF
100			_964088 _aRichardson, Mirugia
245		0	_aUnlawfully obtained evidence _bfollow the Court of Justice of the European Union if you please _c Mirugia Richardson
260			_c2021
500			_aResumen.
520			_aThis contribution addresses the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the issue of the use of unlawfully obtained evidence by the tax authorities in an administrative procedure. In 2015 in the value added tax (VAT) case WebMindLicences the CJEU has set the conditions for excluding evidence in an administrative procedure if that evidence was obtained or used in violation of the law. The highest courts of the neighbouring European Union (EU) Member States Belgium and the Netherlands had already developed in their case-law before the CJEU’s judgment in WebMindlicenses their own legal standard on the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence in tax cases. The author contributes to the discussion on whether national courts can maintain their own viewpoint or have to conform to the CJEU’s legal standard for excluding evidence in administrative procedures concerning tax, for the harmonized VAT as well as for the non-harmonized taxes.
650		4	_aADMINISTRACION TRIBUTARIA _97307
650		4	_aPROCEDIMIENTO ECONOMICO ADMINISTRATIVO _948140
650		4	_aPRUEBA _948177
650		4	_aTRIBUNAL DE JUSTICIA DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS _948611
650		4	_aUNION EUROPEA _948644
650		4	_aJURISPRUDENCIA _947570
773	0		_9166490 _oOP 2141-B/2021/5/6 _tEC Tax Review _w(IEF)124968 _x 0928-2750 [print] _gv. 30, n. 5-6, December 2021, p. 262-269
942			_cART