000			01714nab a2200241 c 4500
999			_c146654 _d146654
003			ES-MaIEF
005			20221031183205.0
007			ta
008			221028t2022 ne ||||| |||| 00| 0|eng d
040			_aES-MaIEF _bspa _cES-MaIEF
100			_958101 _aStevens, Stan
245		0	_aAbuse of law by a Member State when designing a tax measure _c by Stan Stevens
500			_aResumen.
520			_aWhen Member States design tax measures, they have to comply with EU law. In this article the question is discussed whether a Member State has the liberty to intentionally design a domestic rule so that it falls outside the scope of the freedom of capital and prevent scrutiny in respect of third states by the Court of Justice of the European Union. This question is investigated by using two Dutch rules as a case study. The author argues that the legislature walks a thin line. On the one hand there is a risk that the legislature is circumventing the application of the fundamental freedoms in an abusive way while on the other hand using an arbitrary criterion in a rule to distinguish between comparable cases could lead to the conclusion that a Member State has implemented a selective tax measure and thus granted state aid. The author concludes that the Dutch liquidation loss rule infringes EU law
650			_aDERECHO TRIBUTARIO _942375
650		4	_aDERECHO COMUNITARIO EUROPEO _941975
650		4	_aINCUMPLIMIENTO DEL DERECHO COMUNITARIO _953911
650		4	_aABUSO DEL DERECHO _954389
650		4	_aAYUDA ESTATAL _932236
650		4	_aUNION EUROPEA _948644
773	0		_9168246 _oOP 2141-B/2022/5 _tEC Tax Review _w(IEF)124968 _x 0928-2750 [print] _g v. 31, n. 5, October 2022, p. 260-272
942			_cART