EStAL - European State Aid Law Quarterly

«
1
»

Die Suche erzielte 2 Treffer.

Rita Szudoczky, Balázs Károlyi

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 19 (2020), Ausgabe 3, Seite 251 - 270

Turnover-based progressive taxes are increasingly popular among the Member States. However, these taxes raise concerns regarding their compatibility with the EU State aid rules. Although there are multiple State aid concerns that deserve attention depending on the actual design of such taxes, the core issue is whether the ability to pay principle can serve as a legitimate objective underpinning turnover taxes and thus justify the different treatment of high-turnover and low-turnover undertakings. This question requires the careful assessment of de facto selectivity because in the case of progressive turnover taxes potential selectivity could only arise from the general construct of the tax in the absence of a derogation from a reference system. This article proposes an alternative test for the de facto selectivity boiling down in essence to the examination of the consistency of the tax. Furthermore, it analyses digital turnover taxes for their consistency with their declared objectives. Finally, the article explores how the Court’s unnecessarily strict approach to the admissibility of State aid questions in preliminary ruling procedures when the main proceeding concerns an individual tax notice could be eased.

Rita Szudoczky

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 15 (2016), Ausgabe 3, Seite 357 - 380

This article demonstrates how the methods of analysis applied by the EU Courts for testing the compatibility of national tax measures with the EU free movement provisions, on the one hand, and the EU State aid rules, on the other, gradually converge. First, the concept of selectivity under the State aid rules is interpreted by the EU Courts (and the EU Commission) very similarly to the concept of discrimination insofar as it is considered to describe measures that treat objectively comparable situations differently. Second, the analysis under the State aid rules allows prima facie selective measures to be justified just like the free movement provisions admit the justification of discriminatory measures. Apart from this common basic pattern, the article points out further parallels between the methods of analysis under the two regimes, such as the choice of the comparability criterion, the multiple comparisons which are carried out at the different stages of the analysis, the nature of the accepted justification grounds and the role of the proportionality test. The purpose of highlighting these parallels is to identify the areas where similar conceptual problems require similar solutions under the two regimes and also those areas where the remaining differences between the two regimes necessitate different approaches. Keywords: Fiscal State aid; Free Movement Provisions; Tax Measures; Selectivity; Comparability; Public Interest; Proportionality.

«
1
»

News

Aktuelle Ausgabe