Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Asscher: the European Court and the power to destroy

Asscher: the European Court and the power to destroy decision in the liability of a particular individual; rather, it is a decision as to who pays the tax. If I pay less tax because I am making a pension payment, then you and the other members of the community have to pay cont. approach to social security funding which provides an aiternat~ve model to that used in France. For a full technical descnption of the UK approach see my National insurance Contributions Handbook (FT Law and Tax, loose-leaf). Specific examples of social security contributions which are undoubtedly such contributions but do not meet the Advocate-General's test are the Class 1A contributions paid by employers and the Class 4 contnbutions p a d by the self-employed in the United Kingdom. The second two states have adopted another contrasting approach as part of what is often called the Nordic model for social security. For a reflective recent account of thls approach, see Bmnn (ed.), Comparative Welfare Benefits, (1996). The Swedish system of income tax and social contributions is Integrated m a different way to the Netherlands system. For example, in Sweden, the employers of those under 6 5 pay over 30 per cent contribution on behalf of their employees http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png EC Tax Review Kluwer Law International

Asscher: the European Court and the power to destroy

Williams
EC Tax Review , Volume 6 (1) – Mar 1, 1997
Download PDF
7 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/kluwer-law-international/asscher-the-european-court-and-the-power-to-destroy-N1722Gu9sj
Publisher
Kluwer Law International
Copyright
Copyright © Kluwer Law International
ISSN
0928-2750
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

decision in the liability of a particular individual; rather, it is a decision as to who pays the tax. If I pay less tax because I am making a pension payment, then you and the other members of the community have to pay cont. approach to social security funding which provides an aiternat~ve model to that used in France. For a full technical descnption of the UK approach see my National insurance Contributions Handbook (FT Law and Tax, loose-leaf). Specific examples of social security contributions which are undoubtedly such contributions but do not meet the Advocate-General's test are the Class 1A contributions paid by employers and the Class 4 contnbutions p a d by the self-employed in the United Kingdom. The second two states have adopted another contrasting approach as part of what is often called the Nordic model for social security. For a reflective recent account of thls approach, see Bmnn (ed.), Comparative Welfare Benefits, (1996). The Swedish system of income tax and social contributions is Integrated m a different way to the Netherlands system. For example, in Sweden, the employers of those under 6 5 pay over 30 per cent contribution on behalf of their employees

Journal

EC Tax Review – Kluwer Law International

Published: Mar 1, 1997

There are no references for this article.