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

Learn More →

Corporate tax jurisdiction in the EU with respect to branches and subsidiaries;; dislocation distinguished from discrimination and disparity; a plea for territoriality

Corporate tax jurisdiction in the EU with respect to branches and subsidiaries;; dislocation... Articles ec 2003±4 TAX REVIEW Peter J. Wattel,1 Advocate-General with the Netherlands Supreme Court, Professor of EC tax law, University of Amsterdam Center for International Law 1. The issues This article addresses the questions whether EC law requires subsidiaries (residents for tax purposes) and branches (non-residents for tax purposes) of nonresident companies to be treated totally alike for corporate tax purposes in the host state and in the home state, and whether (groups of) taxpayers that expose themselves to different tax jurisdictions are in the same position as (groups of) taxpayers that expose themselves to only one taxing jurisdiction. Until now, the ECJ requires the host state to accord branches of non-resident companies the same tax treatment as resident companies (such as local subsidiaries of foreign parent companies), even if that means, as in the Saint Gobain case,2 granting benefits to the branch of a non-resident company which a tax treaty with a third state restricts explicitly to residents. Moreover, the ECJ until now requires origin states to treat taxpayers that go abroad in the same way as taxpayers that make a similar investment at home. Sooner or later, however, the Court will have to recognize that branches http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png EC Tax Review Kluwer Law International

Corporate tax jurisdiction in the EU with respect to branches and subsidiaries;; dislocation distinguished from discrimination and disparity; a plea for territoriality

Wattel
EC Tax Review , Volume 12 (4) – Jan 2, 2003
Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/kluwer-law-international/corporate-tax-jurisdiction-in-the-eu-with-respect-to-branches-and-mudlMHfky1
Publisher
Kluwer Law International
Copyright
Copyright © Kluwer Law International
ISSN
0928-2750
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Articles ec 2003±4 TAX REVIEW Peter J. Wattel,1 Advocate-General with the Netherlands Supreme Court, Professor of EC tax law, University of Amsterdam Center for International Law 1. The issues This article addresses the questions whether EC law requires subsidiaries (residents for tax purposes) and branches (non-residents for tax purposes) of nonresident companies to be treated totally alike for corporate tax purposes in the host state and in the home state, and whether (groups of) taxpayers that expose themselves to different tax jurisdictions are in the same position as (groups of) taxpayers that expose themselves to only one taxing jurisdiction. Until now, the ECJ requires the host state to accord branches of non-resident companies the same tax treatment as resident companies (such as local subsidiaries of foreign parent companies), even if that means, as in the Saint Gobain case,2 granting benefits to the branch of a non-resident company which a tax treaty with a third state restricts explicitly to residents. Moreover, the ECJ until now requires origin states to treat taxpayers that go abroad in the same way as taxpayers that make a similar investment at home. Sooner or later, however, the Court will have to recognize that branches

Journal

EC Tax Review – Kluwer Law International

Published: Jan 2, 2003

There are no references for this article.