Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium

Ed. by Avi-Yonah, Reuven S. / Biondi, Yuri / Sunder, Shyam

3 Issues per year

Online
ISSN
2152-2820
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Tax Avoidance through Controlled Foreign Companies under European Union Law with Specific Reference to Poland

Błażej KuźniackiORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3459-7656
Published Online: 2017-03-21 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2015-0018

Abstract

This article demonstrates that tax avoidance via controlled foreign companies (CFCs) established in the most favourable tax environments among EU Member States such as Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Cyprus, remains a considerable problem. Not only does it affect taxpaying residents in the Member States but, indirectly, all taxpayers regardless of their EU affiliation, US multinational enterprises (MNEs), for example. Focusing on the use Polish taxpayers make of CFCs, this study undertakes a detailed legal analysis of the problem of tax avoidance under EU law by examining empirical data and EU law on tax avoidance. The choice of this topic is largely justified by the exponential rise in tax avoidance schemes through CFCs involving Polish taxpayers since the country’s accession to the EU. The legal analysis brings to light a series of weaknesses in the current EU law that make it possible for both EU and non-EU taxpayers to avoid taxation. As a solution to this problem, the author suggests that CFC rules should be designed so as to tax only “tax avoidance income” from CFCs. This would ensure their compliance with EU law as well as an effective prevention of tax avoidance via CFCs within the framework of EU law. Interestingly, the solution follows from the author’s interpretation of the concept of “wholly artificial arrangements” in favour of the internal market rather than from Action 3 of Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project or Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive as adopted by the Council on 12 July 2016.

Keywords: tax avoidance; CFC; EU law; CJEU; OECD; BEPS

References

  • Anderson, J., & Jupp, A. United Kingdom – National Report: The taxation of foreign passive income for groups of companies. 2013 Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International, Vol. 98a, IFA Congress in Copenhagen.Google Scholar

  • Anker-Sørensen, L. Financial engineering as an alternative, invisible veil for the corporate group 2016 University of Oslo Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2016-01 Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2729112.

  • Antale M., et al. (2015). Slovak Republic – corporate taxation(pp. 7, 16). Amsterdam: IBFD Tax Research Platform. 1June2015 Last Reviewedpp.Google Scholar

  • Arnold, B. J. The taxation of controlled foreign companies: An international comparison Canadian Tax Foundation, 1986 Canadian Tax Paper No. 78 Toronto.Google Scholar

  • Arnold, B. J., & Dibout, P. General report limits on the use of low-tax regimes by multinational businesses: Current measures and emerging trends. 2001 Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International, Vol. 86b, IFA Congress in San Francisco.Google Scholar

  • Arora, J. (2014). Caterpillar, PwC under fire at Senate hearing. Tax Notes International, . April 7.Google Scholar

  • Avi-Yonah, R. S. (2007). International tax as international law: An analysis of the international tax regime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Avella, F. Italy – National Report: The taxation of foreign passive income for groups of companies. 2013 Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International, Vol. 98a, IFA Congress in Copenhagen.Google Scholar

  • Baker, Ph. (2013, May). Improper use of tax treaties, tax avoidance and tax evasion, In Papers on Selected Topics in Administration of Tax Treaties for Developing Countries, Paper No. 9-A, UN. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/20130530_Paper9A_Baker.pdf.

  • Baker, Ph. (2014). Double taxation conventions (3rd ed. ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell (loose-leaf format), November.Google Scholar

  • Bardini, Ch., & Lambio, M. (2015). Luxembourg – corporate taxation. Amsterdam: IBFD Tax Research Platform.Google Scholar

  • Barnard, C., & Deakin, S. (2002). Negative and positive harmonization of labor law in the European Union. Columbia Journal of European Law, 8, 395.Google Scholar

  • Báez, A., & Zornoza, J. Spain – Branch Report: The taxation of foreign passive income for groups of companies. 2013 Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International, Vol. 98a, IFA Congress in Copenhagen.Google Scholar

  • Bartosiewicz, A., & Kubacki, R. Komentarz do art.27(g) ustawy o podatku dochodowym od osób fizycznych 2015 In PIT. Komentarz, 5th edition, LEX 2015, electronic version via Lex Omega Intranet, No. 10145.Google Scholar

  • Biondi, Y. (2011). The pure logic of accounting: A critique of the fair value revolution. 1(1). http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ael.2011.1.1/ael.2011.1.1.1018/ael.2011.1.1.1018.xml.

  • Birk, D. (2000). Der Gleichheitssatz im deutschen Steuerrecht. In K. Tipke & N. Bozza (Eds.), Besteuerung von Einkommen–Rechtsvergleich Italien, Deutschland und Spanien als Beitrag zur Harmonisierung des Steuerrechts in Europa. Berlin: Duncker & Humbolt.Google Scholar

  • Blanchard, K. S. (2015). BEPS action 3: How not to engage with CFC rules. Premier International Tax Library,. 1 July. Access online:http://www.bna.com/beps-action-not-n17179928956/.Google Scholar

  • Boekhorst, T. P. (2015). Netherlands – corporate taxation. Amsterdam: IBFD Tax Research Platform. 23September2015 Last Reviewed:.Google Scholar

  • Booijink, L., & Weyzig, F. (2007, July). Identifying tax havens and offshore finance centres. Tax Justice Network. Retrieved from http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/Identifying_Tax_Havens_Jul_07.pdf.

  • Brewer, T. L., & Young, S. (1998). Multilateral investment system and multinational enterprises. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Brodziak, A. (2015). “LPP porzuca Cypr i wraca do Polski”. Retrieved from http://biznes.pl/kraj/lpp-porzuca-cypr-i-wraca-do-polski/yh83fm.

  • Brzeziński, B., & Kalinowski, M. Glosa do wyroku NSA z dnia 7 listopada 1991 r. SA/Po 1198/91 1993 OSP 1993, No. 10.Google Scholar

  • Brzeziński, B. (2007). Wstęp do nauki prawa podatkowego. Toruń: TNOiK.Google Scholar

  • Cordevener, A. (2006). The prohibitions of discrimination and restriction within the framework of the fully intergrated internal market. In Vanistendael, F.(Ed.), EU freedoms and taxation, EATLP international tax series. Amdsterdam: IBFD 2.Google Scholar

  • Cordewener, A., Kofler, G., & Schindler, C. Ph. (2007). Free movement of capital and third countries: Exploring the outer boundaries with Lasertec, A and B and Holböck. European Taxation, No. 9/10.Google Scholar

  • Dahlberg, M., & Wiman, B. General Report: The taxation of foreign passive income for groups of companies. 2013 Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International, Vol. 98a, IFA Congress in Copenhagen.Google Scholar

  • De Broe, L. International tax planning and prevention of abuse: A study under domestic tax law, tax treaties and EC law in relation to conduit and base companies IBFD, 2008 (Doctoral Series IBFD – Academic Council, Vol. 14) Amsterdam.Google Scholar

  • De Broe, L. (2016). Tax treaty and the EU Law aspects of the LOB and PPT provision proposed by BEPS Action 6. In Danon, R.(Ed.), Base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS): Impact for European and international tax policy. Zurich: Schulthess.Google Scholar

  • De Hosson, F. C. (2006). On the controversial role of the European Court in corporate tax cases. Intertax, 34(6/7), 294–307.Google Scholar

  • Departament Analiz i Prognoz Ministerstwa Gospodarki, Polskie Inwestycje Bezpośrednie w 2011 roku, March, 2013, Warsaw. Retrieved from http://www.mg.gov.pl/files/upload/8439/Polskie_inwest_bezp_2011.pdf.

  • Dumitrescu, L. (2015). Slovak Republic – individual taxation. Amsterdam: IBFD Tax Research Platform. 1June2015 Last Reviewed.Google Scholar

  • Eidenmüller, H. (2011). Abuse of law in the context of Euroepan insolvency law. In De La Feria, R., & Vogenauer, S.(Ed.), Prohibition of abuse of law: A new general principle of EU?. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Estageri, P. J. (2015). Luxembourg – individual taxation. Amsterdam: IBFD Tax Research Platform. 1March2015 Last reviewed:.Google Scholar

  • Evans, C. (2009). Containing tax avoidance: Anti-avoidance strategies. In Head, G. J., & Krever, R.(Ed.), Tax Reform in the 21st century. A volume in memory of Richard Musgrave, series on international taxation. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar

  • Fennelly, N. (1997). Legal interpretation at the European Court of Justice. Fordham International Law Journal, 20(20), 667.Google Scholar

  • Fuest, C., Spengel, C., Finke, K., Heckemeyer, J., & Nusser, H. (2013). Profit shifting and “aggressive” tax planning by multinational firms: Issues and options for reform. World Tax Journal, 5(10), 311.Google Scholar

  • Furuseth, E. The relationships between domestic anti-avoidance rules and tax treaties 2016 PhD thesis series, 2016 Oslo.Google Scholar

  • Góral, L. (2000). Formy ograniczania wolności gospodarczej przepisami prawa dewizowego. In A. Kostecki (Ed.), Prawo finansowe i nauka prawa finansowego na przełomie wieków. Kraków: Zakamycze.Google Scholar

  • Gerson, A. Sweden – Branch Report: The taxation of foreign passive income for groups of companies. 2013 Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International, Vol. 98a, IFA Congress in Copenhagen.Google Scholar

  • Gibbons, W. J. (1956). Tax effects of basing international business abroad. Harvard Law Review, 69.Google Scholar

  • Graetz, M. J., & O’Hear, M. (1997). The ‘original intent’ of U.S. International Taxation. Duke Law Journal, 47, 1076–1077.Google Scholar

  • Gueydi, S. (2015). United Arab Emirates – corporate taxation, country surveys. Amsterdam: IBFD Tax Research Platform. 1 March 2015.Google Scholar

  • Gupta, P. (2015). India – corporate taxation. Amsterdam: IBFD, Asia-Pacific Tax Research Platform. 1 January 2015.Google Scholar

  • Helminen, M. (1999). The dividend concept in international tax law: Dividend payments between corporate entities. London: Kluwer Law International Series on International Taxation.Google Scholar

  • Helminen, M. (2015). EU tax law – direct taxation. Amsterdam: IBFD, Online Books via IBFD Tax Research Platform. 13 July 2015.Google Scholar

  • House of Commons Public Accounts Committee – 19th Report. (2012, November 28). Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubacc/716/71602.htm.

  • IRS. 2015. Abusive tax shelters and transactions office of tax shelter analysis. Retrieved from https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/abusive-tax-shelters-and-transactions

  • Jacquot, N. France – National Report: The taxation of foreign passive income for groups of companies. 2013 Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International, Vol. 98a, IFA Congress in Copenhagen.Google Scholar

  • Jaworek, M. (2008). Stymulanty i destymulanty podejmowania inwestycji bezpośrednich za granicą przez polskie przedsiębiorstwa. In Karaszewski, W.(Ed.), Bezpośrednie inwestycje zagraniczne. Polska na tle świata, Toruń: TNOIK.Google Scholar

  • Jiménez, A. M. (2012). Towards a homogeneous theory of abuse in EU (direct) tax law. Bulletin for International Taxation, 66(4–5), 278.Google Scholar

  • Karaszewki, W. (2009). Polish Foreign Direct Investment. In Karaszewski, W.(Ed.), Foreign direct investments of polish companies: Its scale structure, determinants, influences on the competetivness. Toruń: TNOiK.Google Scholar

  • Karimeri, R. (2011). A critical review of the definition of tax avoidance in the case law of the European Court of Justice. Intertax, 39((6–7)), 309.Google Scholar

  • Kemmeren, E. C. C. M. (2001). Principle of origin in tax conventions, dissertation, Tilburg.Google Scholar

  • Kemmeren, E. C. C. M. (2008). The internal market approach should prevail over the single country approach. In Hinnekens, L., & Hinnekens, P.(Ed.), A vision of taxes within and outside european borders. Festschrift in honour of Prof. Dr Frans Vanistendael. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar

  • Kemmeren, E. C. C. M. (2014). Where is EU law in the OECD BEPS discussion? EC Tax Review, 23(4), 193. No. 4.Google Scholar

  • Kleinbard, E. D. (2013). Through a latte darkly: Starbucks’s stateless income planning. Tax Notes International, 1519–1531. June 24.Google Scholar

  • Koerver Schmidt, P. Denmark – Branch Report: The taxation of foreign passive income for groups of companies. 2013 Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International, Vol. 98a, IFA Congress in Copenhagen.Google Scholar

  • Kofler, G., & Tumpel, M. (2009). “Abuse” in direct and indirect community tax law: A convergence of standards. In Lang, P. M., & Kristofferson, E.(Ed.), Value added tax and direct taxation: Similarities and differences. Amsterdam: IBFD pp2009.Google Scholar

  • KPMG. (2015). Cyprus Tax Guide 2015. Available online at http://www.kpmg.com/CY/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesAndPublications/Documents/2015-documents/Tax-Guide-2015.pdf.

  • Kuźniacki, B. (2012). Sustainable development in poland and anti-avoidance provisions: The rationale for introducing CFC rules into the polish tax law system. In Social and Environmental Dimensions of Sustainable Development: Alternative Models in Central and Eastern Europe, Collection of papers from the 6th Forum of PhD Students International Seminar European Parliament, Brussels, October 15–17, 2012, Bratislava: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.Google Scholar

  • Kuźniacki, B. (2013). Dubious taxable status of polish tax capital groups. Tax Notes International, 9–21. 14 October.Google Scholar

  • Kuźniacki, B. (2014). Jak LPP unika podatków. Forbes,. 23 January. Available online at http://www.forbes.pl/jak-lpp-unika-podatkow-schemat,artykuly,169955,1,1.html.

  • Kuźniacki, B. CFC Rules, BEPS Action 3 (Draft), and EU Law. WU International Taxation Research Paper Series via SSRN 2015 Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2630943.

  • Kuźniacki, B. (2016). Strengthening CFC rules in a compatible way with EU law under BEPS action 3 in light of the European Commission’s proposal – a critical evaluation. In Danon, R.(Ed.), Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS): Impact for OECD and EU tax policy. Zürich: Schulthess.Google Scholar

  • Lang, M. (2010). Cadbury Schweppes’ line of case law from the member states’ perspective. In De La Feria, R., & Vogenauer, S.(Ed.), Prohibition of abuse of law: A new general principle of EU?. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Lang, M., & Heidenbauer, S. (2008). Wholly artificial arrangements. In Hinnekens, L., & Hinnekes, P.(Ed.), A vision of taxes within and outside european borders. Festschrift in honor of Prof. Dr. Frans Vanistendael. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar

  • Loureiro, C. M., & Rodrigues, P. Portugal – Branch Report: The taxation of foreign passive income for groups of companies. 2013 Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International, Vol. 98a, IFA Congress in Copenhagen.Google Scholar

  • Markle, K., & Robinson, L. (2012). Tax haven use across international tax regimes. June 2012 available online at http://faculty.tuck.dartmouth.edu/images/uploads/faculty/leslie-robinson/MarkleRobinson.pdf.

  • Mclaren, J. (2008). The distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion has become blurred in Australia: Why has it happened? Journal of the Australasian Tax Teachers Association, 3(2).Google Scholar

  • McCulloch, S., & Redington, M. New Zealand Branch Report: The taxation of foreign passive income for groups of companies. 2013 Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International, Vol. 98a, IFA Congress in Copenhagen.Google Scholar

  • Morawski, L. (2010). Zasady wykładni prawa. Toruń: TNOiK.Google Scholar

  • Mylonas, A. (2015). The cyprus alternative investment funds AIF law. available online at http://www.mylonaslawfirm.com/en/publications/the-cyprus-alternative-investment-funds-aif-law.

  • Neck, R., Wächter, J. U., & Schneider, F. (2012). Tax avoidance versus tax evasion: On some determinants of the shadow economy. International Tax Public Finance, 19(1).Google Scholar

  • Neocleous, E., & Aristotelous, P. (2013). Cyprus: The cyprus intellectual property rights ‘box’. Mondaqu,. 5 June. Available online at http://www.mondaq.com/cyprus/x/243428/Trademark/The±Cyprus±Intellectual±Property±Rights±x0027Box.

  • Orlov, M. (2004). The concept of tax haven: A legal analysis. Intertax, 32(2), 109.Google Scholar

  • O’Shea, T. (2007). Thin cap GLO and third-country rights: Which freedom applies? Tax Notes International, 373. 27 April.Google Scholar

  • Piach J., 2001. Bezpośrednie inwestycje zagraniczne w świetle bezpieczeństwa ekonomicznego na przykładnie Polski w latach dziewięćdziesiątych XX wieku, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii PedagogicznejGoogle Scholar

  • Piantavigna, P. (2011). Tax abuse in European Union Law: A theory? EC Tax Review, No. 3.Google Scholar

  • Piccioto, S. (1992). International business taxation. A study in the internationalization of business regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Pistone, P. (2011). Abuse of law in the context of indirect taxation: From (before) Emsland-Stärke 1 to Halifax (and Beyond). In R. De la Feria & S. Vogenauer (Eds.), Prohibition of abuse of law: A new general principle of EU? Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Pizarro-Suárez, J. I. V., & Revilla Martínez, E. Mexico – Branch Report: The taxation of foreign passive income for groups of companies. 2013 Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International, IFA Congress in Copenhagen.Google Scholar

  • Polish Department of Exchange. (1996). Polska Polityka Handlu zagranicznego 1995-1996, Warsaw.Google Scholar

  • Poulsen, M. (2013). Treaty/directive shopping and abuse of EU law. Intertax, 41(4).Google Scholar

  • Rapakko, A. (1989). Base company taxation. Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Reimer, E. (2014). Permanent establishment in the OECD model tax convention. In Reimer, E., Schmid, S., & Orell, M.(Ed.), Permanent establishments: A domestic taxation, bilateral tax treaty, and OECD perspective (3rd ed. ed.). Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.Google Scholar

  • Rienstra, J. G. (2015). United States – corporate taxation. Amsterdam: IBFD Tax Research Platform. 1July2015 Last reviewed:.Google Scholar

  • Rust, A. (2011). Business’ and ‘business profits’. In Maisto, G.(Ed.), The meaning of “enterprise”, “business” and “business profits” under tax treaties and EU tax law, EC and International Tax Law Series, Vol. 7. Amsterdam: IBFD.Google Scholar

  • Sandell, J. (2012). The double Irish and the Dutch sandwich: How some U.S. companies are flummoxing the tax code. Tax Notes International, 868–877. August 27.Google Scholar

  • SARS. (November 2005). Discussion Paper on Tax Avoidance and Section 103 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No. 58 of 1962), Law Administration, South African Revenue Service. Retrieved form http://www.ftomasek.com/DiscussionPaperGAAR20051103.pdf.

  • Saydé, A. (2014). Abuse of EU law and regulation of the internal market. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Schön, W. (2008). Abuse of rights and European tax law. In Avery Jones, J., Harris, P., & Oliver, D.(Ed.), Comparative perspectives on revenue law: Essays in honour of John Tiley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Selera, P. (2010). Międzynarodowe a unijne prawo podatkowe w kontekście opodatkowania zysków przedsiębiorstw. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer, electronic version LEX Omega, No. 118234.Google Scholar

  • Slaats, S., & Worndl, B. Canada – Branch Report: The taxation of foreign passive income for groups of companies. 2013 Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International, Vol. 98a, IFA Congress in Copenhagen.Google Scholar

  • Smit, D. (2012). EU freedoms, non EU-countries and company taxation. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business EUCOTAX Series on European Taxation.Google Scholar

  • Smit, D. S. (2014). Substance requirements for entities located in a harmful tax jurisdiction under CFC rules and the EU freedom of establishment. Derivatives & Financial Instruments, 16(11–12), 261.Google Scholar

  • Strasser, K. A., & Blumberg, P. (2011). Legal form and economic substance of enterprise groups: Implications for legal policy. Accounting, Economics, and Law, 1(1). Available online at http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ael.2011.1.1/ael.2011.1.1.1000/ael.2011.1.1.1000.xml2152-2820.

  • Stiglitz, J. E. (1985). The general theory of tax avoidance. National Tax Journal, No. 30.Google Scholar

  • Sullivan, M. A. (2012, February 27). Economic analysis: Should tech and drug firms pay more tax? Tax Notes International.Google Scholar

  • Svensen, C. Norway – Branch Report: The taxation of foreign passive income for groups of companies. 2013 Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International, Vol. 98a, IFA Congress in Copenhagen.Google Scholar

  • Taliotis, A. (2015). Cyprus – corporate taxation. Amsterdam: IBFD Tax Reasearch Platform. 1 June 2015.Google Scholar

  • Templemann, L. (1997). Tackling tax avoidance. In Shipwright, A.(Ed.), Tax avoidance and the law. Sham, fraud or mitigation?. Oxford: Key Haven Publications.Google Scholar

  • Thill, P.-S., & Mihac, E. (1999). French CFC regime examined. Tax Notes International, (11), 779. 3 March.Google Scholar

  • Thömmes, O., & Nakhai, K. (2005). New case law on anti-abuse provisions in Germany. Intertax, 33(2), 79.Google Scholar

  • Thuronyi, V. (2003). Comparative tax law. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar

  • Tickle, D. South Africa – Branch Report: The taxation of foreign passive income for groups of companies. 2013 Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International, Vol. 98a, IFA Congress in Copenhagen.Google Scholar

  • Ting, A. (2014). Old wine in a new bottle: Ireland’s revised definition of corporate residence and the war on BEPS. British Tax Review, (3), 42–55.Google Scholar

  • Ting, A. (2014). iTax—Apple’s international tax structure and the double non-taxation issue. British Tax Review, No. 1.Google Scholar

  • Ting, A. (2015). The politics of BEPS – Apple’s international tax structure and the US attitude towards BEPS. Bulletin for International Taxation, 69(6–7), 410–415.Google Scholar

  • Truijens, R. G. N. (2014). Curaçao – corporate taxation. Amsterdam: IBFD Tax Research Platform. 1 April 2014.Google Scholar

  • Torregiani, C. C. (2015). Malta – corporate taxation. Amsterdam: IBFD Tax Research Platform. 30 April 2015.Google Scholar

  • Umar, D. (2015). Singapore – corporate taxation. Amsterdam: IBFD Tax Research Platform. 1 January 2015.Google Scholar

  • Umar, N. (2015). Indonesia – corporate taxation. Amsterdam: IBFD Tax Research Platform. 1 February 2015.Google Scholar

  • U.S. Hearing Report. (2013). Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Offshore Profit Shifting and the U.S. Tax Code—Part 2 (Apple Inc.) Retrieved from http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/hearings/offshore-profit-shifting-and-the-us-tax-code_-part-2.

  • Valta, M. International Tax Law between efficiency, equity and development aid. 2013 Presenation of the PhD study awarded by Mitchell B. Carroll Prize at 67th IFA Congress Congress in Copenhagen in 2013, (Congress Documents – 2013).Google Scholar

  • Vanistendael, F. (1997). Judicial interpretation and the role of anti-abuse provisions in tax law. In Cooper, G. S.(Ed.), Tax avoidance and the rule of law. Amsterdam: IBFD.Google Scholar

  • Warner, P. J., & Schmitz, M. (2004). Luxembourg in international tax planning (2nd revised ed. ed.). Amsterdam: IBFD.Google Scholar

  • Weber, D. (2005). Tax avoidance and the EC treaty freedoms a study of the limitations under european law to the prevention of tax avoidance. The Hague: Kluwer Law International Eucotax Series on European Taxation, Vol. 11.Google Scholar

  • Weber, D. (2013). Abuse of law in European tax law: An overview and some recent trends in the direct and indirect tax case law of the ECJ – Part 1. European Taxation, 53(6), 523.Google Scholar

  • Zalasiński, A. (2008). Some basic aspects of the concept of abuse in the tax case law of the European court of justice. Intertax, 36(4).Google Scholar

  • Zalasiński, A. (2009). The limits of the EC concept of “Direct Tax Restrictions on Free Movement Rights”, the principles of equality and ability to pay, and the interstate fiscal equity. Intertax, 37(5), 287.Google Scholar

  • Zalewski, M. T. (1998). Obejście ustawy podatkowej. Przegląd Podatkowy, (7), 7–8.Google Scholar

  • Zarb, A., & Portelli, P. (2015). Malta – individual taxation. Amsterdam: IBFD Tax Research Platform. 27 August 2015.Google Scholar

  • Zimmer, F. General report: Form and substance in tax law. 2002 Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International, Vol. 87a, IFA Congress in Oslo.Google Scholar

  • Zweigert, K., & Kötz, H. (1998). An introduction to comparative law (3rd ed. ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-03-21


Citation Information: Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, Volume 7, Issue 1, 20150018, ISSN (Online) 2152-2820, ISSN (Print) 2194-6051, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2015-0018.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in