EU Tax Alert - Microsoft · Share the Expertise EU Tax Alert January 2013 - edition 113 The EU Tax Alert is an e-mail newsletter to inform you of recent developments in the EU that
Post on 08-Aug-2020
1 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Share the Expertise
January 2013 - edition 113EU Tax Alert
The EU Tax Alert is an e-mail newsletter to inform you of recent developments in the EU that are of interest for tax professionals. It includes recent case law of the European Court of Justice, (proposed) direct tax and VAT legislation, customs, state aid, developments in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg and more.
To subscribe (free of charge) see: www.eutaxalert.com
Please click here to unsubscribe from this mailing.
32
Highlights in this editionCJ rules that Italian rules on intra-Union transfers of assets are not in breach of the Merger Directive (3D I)On 19 December 2012, the CJ delivered its judgment in the 3D I case (C-207/11). The case deals with the compatibility of Italian provisions relating to the deferral of capital gains tax arising from an intra-Union transfer of assets with the Merger Directive
Commission adopts Communication clarifying EU rules on car taxes On 14 December 2012, the Commission presented a Communication clarifying EU rules on car taxation and recommending measures to strengthen the Single Market in this area accompanied by a Commission Staff Working Document giving an overview of the main legal issues that arise in the field of vehicle taxation and the level of protection available to EU citizens and businesses that can be derived from EU law and the Court of Justice’s case law.
3
Contents
Top News• CJ rules that Italian legislation on intra-Union
transfers of assets is not in breach of the Merger
Directive (3D I)
• Commission adopts Communication clarifying EU
rules on car taxes
State Aid• First modernization proposals for new State aid
Regulations launched
• Commission opens investigation into French tax
benefitting milk products
• Commission allows new Spanish scheme for early
depreciation of finance-leased assets
• Commission declares Italian municipal real estate
tax exemption to be illegal aid
Direct taxation• European Parliament gives consent to enhanced
cooperation on the Financial Transaction Tax
• Entry into force of stronger EU rules to help fight tax
evasion
• Developments in the Netherlands: District Court of
Haarlem rules that the 150 kilometre requirement
under the 30% ruling is in conflict with EU law
• Developments in the Netherlands: Advocate General
opines on entitlement of Finnish investment fund to
full refund of Netherlands dividend withholding tax
VAT• Council holds policy debate on ‘quick reaction
mechanism’ against VAT fraud
• Council authorises Poland to continue to apply a
higher threshold in respect of the scheme for small
businesses
• Entry into effect of new VAT rules
• CJ rules that VAT on acquired buildings that
are demolished with a view to construction of a
residential complex is deductible (SC Gran Via
Moineşti)
• CJ rules that right to deduction may be denied if the
taxable person knew or should have known that he
was involved in VAT fraud (Bonik)
• CJ clarifies meaning of the term ‘construction work’
in derogating measure (BLV)
• CJ rules on retrospective reduction of taxable
amount under the Second VAT Directive (Grattan)
• CJ rules on chargeable event in the case of supply
of construction services where consideration is
provided in kind in the form of building right (Orfey)
• Advocate General opines that non-taxable persons
may be a member of a VAT group (Commission v
Ireland)
• Advocate General opines that a VAT grouping
system may not be limited to specific sectors
(Commission v Sweden)
• Commission proposal for derogating measure
allowing Slovenia to apply a higher threshold in
respect of scheme for small businesses
• Commission ask France to tax luxury yacht hire
• Commission proposal regarding taxation of
telecommunications, broadcasting and electronic
services
Customs Duties, Excises and other Indirect Taxes• Commission adopts Communication on Customs
Union: boosting EU competitiveness, protecting EU
citizens in the 21st century
• EU and Canada move towards conclusion of trade
negotiations
• EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement: green light to start
negotiations
• EU requests WTO dispute settlement panel over
Argentina’s import restrictions
• EU and Singapore agree on landmark trade deal
• Commission proposes improved rules to enforce
EU rights under international trade agreements -
Updated with a Regulation
• EU welcomes bilateral deal on Bosnia and
Herzegovina’s WTO accession
4 5
in a transfer of assets. However, such requirement is
not unconditional. In particular, the receiving company
must compute any new depreciation and any gains or
losses in respect of the assets and liabilities transferred
according to the rules that would have applied to the
transferring company if the transfer of assets had not
taken place. While is true that the Merger Directive sets
conditions for the deferral at the level of the receiving
company as regards the valuation of the business
transferred, it is however silent on the valuation for
tax purposes by the Member State of residence of
the transferring company (Italy) of the shares that are
received in exchange for a transfer of assets. This is
further confirmed by the history of the Merger Directive,
as the Commission had attempted, on two occasions,
to ensure that the Merger Directive addressed the
valuation of shares received by transferring companies
in order to avoid economic double taxation of the ‘same’
capital gain. It did so in the 1969 proposal, which
included a provision according to which the shares
of the receiving company could be attributed in the
balance sheet of the transferring company with a value
corresponding to the real value of the transferred assets
without this leading to taxation. In 2003, the Commission
proposed a similar amendment to the Merger Directive
that has not been adopted. Therefore, the Merger
Directive imposes limited obligations on Member States
with respect to companies which transfer assets to a
company resident in another Member State and receive
shares in exchange. That limited obligation is that both
the transferring company and the receiving company
must have the option of taking advantage of fiscal
neutrality as guaranteed by the Directive. This, however,
is where the Member State’s obligations end. There
is no requirement for transferring companies to value
shares received in any particular way.
The CJ stressed that it is clear that the Italian legislation
would have allowed 3D I to attribute the value which
the business transferred had before that operation to
the securities received in exchange for that transfer of
assets and would thus have allowed it to benefit from
the deferral of taxation of the capital gains relating to
those securities, subject to a single condition which is
compatible with EU law. Therefore, it concluded that
the fact that the Italian legislation offers the transferring
Top News
CJ rules that Italian legislation on intra-Union transfers of assets is not in breach of the Merger Directive (3D I) On 19 December 2012, the CJ delivered its judgment
in the 3D I case (C-207/11). The case deals with the
compatibility of Italian provisions relating to the deferral
of capital gains tax arising from an intra-Union transfer
of assets with Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July
1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to
mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges
of shares concerning companies of different Member
States (‘Merger Directive’).
3D I is an Italian company which transferred a branch
of its business located in Italy to a company resident in
Luxembourg, receiving shares in return. Following this
transaction, the transferred branch became part of the
Luxembourg company as its permanent establishment
located in Italy.
3D I chose to attribute to its shares in the receiving
company a value that was higher than the value, for
tax purposes, of the branch that had been transferred.
3 D I elected to pay Italian substitution tax for the capital
gain resulting from the operation at a rate of 19%.
Therefore, it renounced the regime of fiscal neutrality
which would have exempted it from paying tax on the
capital gains arising at the time of the transfer. Under
the fiscal neutrality regime, the value of the shares
received must be the same as the last book value
which the transferred branch of activity had before the
transfer. When the shares are entered at a higher value
it is necessary under Italian law to constitute a reserve
between the book values of the transferred branch and
the shares received which would constitute taxable
income at the rate of 33% if distributed. 3 D I argued
that this accounting condition was incompatible with the
Merger Directive, this being the reason why it had opted
to pay the substitution tax.
The CJ started by recalling that the Merger Directive
imposes a fiscal neutrality requirement with regard to
the receiving and acquired companies which participate
5
fragmentation of national tax schemes, discrimination
and double taxation of cars transferred between
Member States persists.
As a short-term solution, in this Communication, the
Commission identifies and proposes to the Member
States to apply the following best practices:
• to ensure that taxpayers know their rights and
obligations when moving to another Member State,
Member States should provide adequate information
on their application of registration and circulation
taxes on vehicles in cross-border situations,
including information on how they have implemented
the EU legal framework described in the
Communication and the Staff Working Document. To
this end, a central contact point for taxpayers should
be designated, to which a link can be provided on
the website of the Commission.
• to avoid double taxation and ‘over-taxation’ where
citizens move a car permanently from one Member
State to another, Member States that initially applied
a registration tax should as a minimum grant a
partial refund of the tax taking into account the
depreciation of the car independently of whether
or not the Member State of destination provides an
exemption from registration tax, if any.
• Member States should make full use of the flexibility
offered by Directive 83/182/EEC to apply more
liberal arrangements allowing for the temporary use
of vehicles in Member States without application
of registration and circulation tax. This relates,
in particular, to rental cars registered in another
Member State, but also to other situations of
temporary or occasional use by a resident of a car
registered in another Member State.
• to take action to reduce the fragmentation of the EU
car market caused by the divergent application by
Member States of car registration and circulation
taxes. The upcoming Guidelines on financial
incentives for clean and energy-efficient vehicles
also need to be taken into account.
company the additional option of attributing a higher
value to those securities than the value of the business
transferred before that operation, corresponding, in
particular, to the value of the capital gain arising upon
that transfer, but makes the exercise of that option
conditional upon that company carrying over in its own
balance sheet a special reserve fund equivalent to
the capital gains thus arising, cannot be considered
incompatible with the Merger Directive.
Commission adopts Communication clarifying EU rules on car taxesOn 14 December 2012, the Commission presented a
Communication (COM(2012) 756) clarifying EU rules on
car taxation and recommending measures to strengthen
the Single Market in this area. The Communication is
accompanied by a Commission Staff Working Document
(SWD(2012) 429) giving an overview of the main legal
issues that arise in the field of vehicle taxation and
the level of protection available to EU citizens and
businesses that can be derived from EU law and the
Court of Justice’s (CJ) case law. This initiative is aimed
at minimizing the problems encountered by citizens and
businesses moving cars between Member States and
removing obstacles to cross-border rentals.
Car registration taxes and circulation taxes are not
harmonised in the EU. This can result in double taxation
in certain situations and cause the fragmentation of the
Single Market for passenger cars. The magnitude of
the problem is shown by the numerous questions and
complaints related to cross-border car taxation that the
Commission receives year by year.
The Commission had already tried to address the
problem when, in 2005, it put forward a proposal
aimed at abolishing registration taxes and replacing
them with annual ‘green’ circulation taxes. The
Member States, however, could not reach unanimous
agreement on this proposal. As a result, EU law
related to car taxation is mainly derived from the CJ’s
judgments. The Commission has also launched over
300 infringement procedures against Member States
related to discrimination in national car registration rules
and circulation taxes. Despite the case law of the CJ
and legal proceedings against the Member States, the
6 7
The Commission also proposed that it be granted the
authority to enforce the gathering of market information.
Upon opening a formal investigation, it may request
information with the possibility to apply a pecuniary
sanction if incorrect or misleading information is
provided (there would still be no obligation to reply) or
a pecuniary sanction for late or non-compliance with
a request for information. Member States and public
authorities would be exempt from such sanctions.
Secondly, the Council’s Enabling Regulation (Council
Regulation (EC) No 994/98) will be amended which
is the basis for the Commission’s General Block
Exemption Regulation (GBER). The latter allows
Member States to proceed with granting certain types of
aid – within strict limits – without first having to wait for a
decision by the Commission. In the proposal, the scope
of the Enabling Regulation will be extended to new
categories of aid in the following areas:
Culture and heritage conservation; damages caused
by natural disasters; damages caused by adverse
weather conditions in the fisheries sector; forestry and
the promotion of certain food products; conservation
or marine biological resources; amateur sports; aid of
a social character for transport of residents in remote
regions; coordination of transport or reimbursements
for the discharge of certain public service obligations;
certain broadband infrastructure and – most important
for the tax domain – innovation.
Once the Enabling Regulation has been adopted by
the Council and entered into force, the Commission will
adopt a gradual approach in changing its GBER, as
the latter spells out the strict conditions for each type
of aid in order to be exempt from the prior notification
and stand-still procedure. Only in areas where the
Commission has sufficient experience to define those
conditions will it be able to do so.
The Communication will be discussed by the European
Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee
and the Council. The Commission aims to use these
discussions, and the technical discussions with the
Member States, to give new momentum to its 2005
proposal on car taxation.
State AidFirst modernization proposals for new State aid Regulations launched In December 2012, the Commission launched its first
set of proposals for revision of State aid Regulations,
two of which are of particular interest to the tax field.
Firstly, if the proposals are adopted, the 1999
Procedural Regulation (Council Regulation No
659/1999) will be renewed with the objective to focus
State aid enforcement on the more distortive cases
in the internal market while speeding up the decision-
making process. Complainants must provide the
Commission with more complete and correct information
about the alleged aid and the complainant must
demonstrate how his interests would be affected by
the aid. As a result, the Commission could restrict itself
to dealing with well-founded complaints. Currently, the
Commission receives over 300 complaints per year,
many of which are either ‘not motivated by genuine
competition concerns or not sufficiently substantiated’
in the Commission’s view. The Commission, however,
must investigate every alleged infringement under
current rules.
The cooperation between the Commission and national
judges will be formalized and the Commission will be
requesting the authority to conduct parallel inquiries
about aid in a certain sector or of a certain type in
several Member States at once. The Commission
also proposed that it be allowed to submit its views in
national court proceedings as amicus curiae if the EU’s
public interest so requires.
7
It should be pointed out that this decision does not affect
the outcome of an ongoing investigation into a previous
tax lease depreciation scheme in Spain.
Commission declares Italian municipal real estate tax exemption to be illegal aid On 19 December 2012, the Commission ruled that an
Italian real estate tax exemption for non-commercial
entities led to incompatible State aid. Further to a 2006
amendment, carrying out activities on such premises
that were not exclusively of a commercial nature was
allowed. As a result, some commercial activities could
therefore profit from the exemption.
The Commission also found that ecclesiastic institutions
and amateur sport clubs did not profit from an alleged
‘perpetual non-commercial status’ as they were subject
to controls by the tax authorities in respect of the
activities carried out.
Recovery has not been ordered in this case due to
‘absolute impossibility’, a rather unique precedent. In the
Commission’s view, Italy had successfully argued that
it would be impossible to determine retroactively which
part of the real estate had been used exclusively for
non-economic activities and which part had not.
Direct TaxationEuropean Parliament gives consent to enhanced cooperation on the Financial Transaction Tax On 12 December 2012, the European Parliament
voted in favour of authorizing 11 Member States to go
ahead with the introduction of the Financial Transaction
Tax (FTT) via enhanced cooperation. The resolution
was adopted by 533 votes to 91, with 32 abstentions.
The text adopted by the Parliament stresses that the
ultimate goal should still be a worldwide FTT, and urges
the EU to continue campaigning for it. To this end, the
11 willing Member States, which together account for
90% of Eurozone GDP, should set an example of what
a geographically wider tax could achieve, added the
Parliament.
Commission opens investigation into French tax benefitting milk products On 10 October 2012, a formal investigation was
opened into a French tax the proceeds of which go to
the national organization of agriculture and fisheries
products (France regime, AgriMer) in order to finance
measures taken by it in favour of the milk production
market.
In its decision to open a formal investigation, the
Commission points out that there are certain rebates
allowed in respect of this tax that do not seem justified
in light of the stringent State aid rules in the agricultural
sector. As the tax is used to finance the partial or full
cessation of milk production, the Commission points
out that such aid can only be declared compatible if all
commercial farming activities are to be discontinued
by the producer applying for such benefit. As both
the levying of the tax and the aid aimed at cessation
of activities might be incompatible with the common
organization and operation of the EU’s milk market, the
Commission does point out that if the latter is indeed
confirmed during the investigation, it cannot declare
any such aid compatible. (Be advised that the latter
might also affect the validity of the tax itself if it has been
hypothecated towards financing such aid.)
Commission allows new Spanish scheme for early depreciation of finance-leased assets On 20 November 2012, the Commission approved
a new Spanish scheme that allows for the early
depreciation of the costs of certain assets acquired
through a financial lease scheme.
Taxpayers will be allowed to deduct the costs of leased
assets as soon as their production starts instead
of having to wait for the moment of first use. This
scheme can only be applied to those assets that are
manufactured according to a purchaser’s technical
specifications and whose production time spans more
than one year. Eligibility will be automatic and will not
be subject to approval up-front by the Spanish tax
authorities. As a result, the Commission found that this
regime did not meet the selectivity requirement and
hence was not State aid.
8 9
TFEU (see EU Tax Alert no. 111, December 2012), on
18 December 2012, the District Court of Haarlem ruled
to the contrary.
Under the 30% ruling, the employer may pay the
employees, who have been posted to the Netherlands
or recruited from abroad to work in the Netherlands,
a tax free allowance of 30% of the employee’s wage.
This 30% tax free allowance is intended to cover
extraterritorial expenses which the employee incurs
as a consequence of the fact that the employee works
outside his home country. On 1 January 2012, an
amendment to the 30% ruling came into force in order
to prevent its improper use. Under this amendment,
the 30% ruling is only applicable to employees who
have lived at a distance of more than 150 kilometres
from the Netherlands border for a period of more than
two-thirds of the twenty-four months period prior to the
commencement of employment in the Netherlands
(‘150 kilometre requirement’). Employees who do
not meet these criteria are only entitled to a tax free
reimbursement of the actual extraterritorial expenses.
The facts and the claims of the parties in this case are
similar to those in the case before the District Court of
Breda.
In the present case, the District Court of Haarlem stated
that the circumstance that the employee recruited
from abroad is in a better position than a resident of
the Netherlands does not mean that the 30% ruling
cannot be in conflict with the free movement of
workers. Referring to the Cadbury Schweppes case
(C-196/04) and the Orange European Smallcap Fund
case (C-194/06) the District Court reasoned that
unequal treatment of residents of different EU Member
States could constitute an infringement of the TFEU.
Furthermore, according to the District Court, there is
a horizontal discrimination in the underlying case as
the employee who is denied the 30% ruling is in an
objectively comparable situation to an EU resident who
has been living at a distance of 151 kilometres of the
Netherlands border and who would be entitled to the
30% ruling.
Having obtained Parliament’s consent, the Council now
needs to secure a qualified majority vote to allow the
Commission to initiate enhanced cooperation on the
FTT. Commissioner Šemeta urged the Finance Ministers
to make this matter a top priority in the Council in 2013
in order to give the green light needed for the FTT to
proceed. (For more on the procedure for enhanced
cooperation see EU Tax Alert no. 110, November 2012).
Entry into force of stronger EU rules to help fight tax evasion New EU rules which will improve Member States’
ability to assess and collect the taxes that they are due
entered into force on 1 January 2013. The Directive
on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation
(Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011)
lays the basis for stronger cooperation and greater
information exchange between tax authorities in the EU.
One of the key aspects of the Directive is that it brings
an end to bank secrecy: one Member State cannot
refuse to give information to another simply because it is
held by a financial institution.
The Directive sets out practical and effective
measures to improve administrative cooperation
on tax matters. Common forms and procedures for
exchanging information are provided, which will make
the transmission of data between national authorities
quicker and more efficient. Tax officials may be
authorised to participate in administrative enquiries in
another Member State. They will also be able to request
that their tax documents and decisions be notified
elsewhere in the EU. The scope of the Directive is wide,
covering all taxes except those already covered under
specific EU legislation (i.e. VAT and excise duties).
Developments in the Netherlands: District Court of Haarlem rules that the 150 kilometre requirement under the 30% ruling is in conflict with EU law After the District Court of Breda ruled, on 8 November
2012, that the amendment - i.e., the 150 kilometre
requirement - to the 30% ruling under Netherlands
law, effective from 1 January 2012, is in accordance
with the free movement of workers set out in Article 45
9
obtain a credit in Finland for the Netherlands dividend
tax withheld. Therefore, it requested a refund, which
was denied by both the Netherlands Tax Authorities
and the Lower Court of Breda. The Court of Appeals of
Den Bosch ruled, however, that the Fund was entitled
to a full refund based on EU law (see also EU Tax Alert
edition no. 104, April 2012).
The AG examined two legal grounds for the refund that
arose during the proceedings. First, in order to claim a
refund of Netherlands dividend withholding tax, certain
conditions must be satisfied. One is that the Fund
would not have been liable to Netherlands corporation
tax if it had been established in the Netherlands.
Parties agreed that this condition would not have
been fulfilled. The question, however, is whether such
condition constitutes a restriction to the free movement
of capital. The AG stated that, due to the absence of
harmonization within the EU, Member States have
the sovereignty in determining their taxing jurisdiction.
As a result, the Netherlands should not be obliged to
acknowledge the criteria for liability to tax under Finnish
law. Consequently, the Fund was – based on the facts
and circumstances – not comparable to a Netherlands
tax exempt investment fund and therefore, not entitled to
a refund of Netherlands dividend withholding tax.
Second, the Fund argued that it was comparable to
a Netherlands fiscal investment institution (fiscale
beleggingsinstelling) which is subject to tax in the
Netherlands at a rate of 0%. Such Netherlands fiscal
investment institutions are entitled to a refund of
(foreign) dividend tax by way of a Netherlands domestic
‘credit system’, provided they distribute their profits
within a period of eight months after the end of their
fiscal year. Due to the fact that the Fund had no such
distribution obligation, the AG opined that it could not be
compared to a Netherlands fiscal investment institution.
In addition, he stated that the domestic ‘credit system’
only applied if the Fund distributed dividends which were
subject to Netherlands dividend withholding tax, which
would have been possible only if the Fund had been
established in the Netherlands.
In the parliamentary history, it is stated that the 150
kilometre requirement is chosen as residents who live
within this zone are confronted less with extraterritorial
expenses than residents who live outside this zone.
The District Court stated that this reasoning had
not been substantiated and that the travel distance
between the place of residence of the employee outside
the Netherlands and the place of employment in the
Netherlands had not been taken into account. Therefore,
the 150 kilometre requirement could lead to arbitrary
results. According to the District Court, the intention of
the Netherlands legislature to curtail the unintended
use of the 30% ruling is understandable. However, the
fact that the 150 kilometre requirement does not take
into account the actual travel distance precludes the
difference in treatment of incoming employees from
different EU Member States from being justified and
results in the measure not being proportional.
Consequently, the District Court of Haarlem concluded
that the 150 kilometre requirement is not in accordance
with EU law.
Developments in the Netherlands: Advocate General opines on entitlement of Finnish investment fund to full refund of Netherlands dividend withholding tax On 28 November 2012, Advocate General Wattel (‘AG’)
issued his Opinion in the case pending before the
Netherlands Supreme Court over the question whether
a Finnish open ended collective investment fund without
legal personality (‘the Fund’) was entitled to a refund
of Netherlands dividend withholding tax on the basis
of the free movement of capital (Article 63 TFEU). The
AG advised to reverse the judgment of the Court of
Appeals of Den Bosch in favour of the Netherlands
Tax Authorities, i.e. to deny the refund of dividend
withholding tax.
The Fund invested, inter alia, in Netherlands portfolio
shares. Netherlands dividend tax was withheld on
dividends received from these shares. The Fund was
not subject to profit tax in Finland and as such, could not
10 11
The derogating measure, in principle, expired on
31 December 2012. However, on 4 December 2012,
the Council authorised Poland to continue to apply the
derogating measure until 31 December 2015.
Entry into effect of new VAT rules On 1 January 2013, new invoicing rules and a cash
accounting option for small businesses entered into
force, the Commission reminded in a press release of
17 December 2012.
The Commission indicated that the new invoicing rules,
on the basis of which electronic invoicing will have to be
treated the same as paper invoicing, enables companies
to choose what works best for them. According to the
Commission, this has the potential to save businesses
up to EUR 18 billion a year in reduced administration
costs.
Moreover, the Commission refers to the new rules, on
the basis of which Member States are allowed to offer
a cash accounting option to small businesses with a
turnover of less than EUR 2 million a year. According
to the Commission, this will provide companies with
relief in terms of cash flow, because under the cash
accounting scheme businesses are allowed to declare
and pay VAT when they receive or make payments,
rather than at the time of the invoices.
CJ rules that VAT on acquired buildings that are demolished with a view to construction of a residential complex is deductible (SC Gran Via Moineşti) On 29 November 2012, the CJ delivered its judgment in
the SC Gran Via Moineşti case (C-257/11).
SC Gran Via Moineşti SRL (‘GVM’) acquired a plot of
land and the buildings constructed on it in Bulgaria.
In the contract of sale, a demolition permit for those
buildings was also transferred to GVM. GVM carried
out the demolition works with a view to developing a
residential complex on the land. GVM deducted the VAT
relating to all of the land and buildings purchased. The
Romanian tax authorities decided, however, that GVM
had unlawfully deducted VAT for the purchase of the
In conclusion, the AG proposed to reverse the judgment
of the Court of Appeals of Den Bosch and to deny the
refund of dividend withholding tax. In view of the AG,
no preliminary questions were to be referred to the CJ.
Even if the Netherlands Supreme Court follows the
Opinion of the AG, we still advise tax exempt investment
funds resident in the EU and in third countries to file
claims for refund of Netherlands dividend withholding
tax with the Netherlands Tax Authorities in order to
safeguard their rights, given the fact that the CJ may
overrule the case law of the Netherlands Supreme
Court in the future. Please be informed that the statutory
limitation for such claims is, in principle, three years.
VAT Council holds policy debate on ‘quick reaction mechanism’ against VAT fraud In its meeting of 4 December 2012, the Economic
and Financial Affairs (ECOFIN) Council held a policy
debate on the Commission’s proposal for a directive
aimed at enabling immediate measures to be taken
in cases of sudden and massive VAT fraud. The
Commission’s proposal is aimed at speeding up the
procedure for authorizing Member States to derogate
from the provisions of the VAT Directive by providing
for implementing powers to be conferred on the
Commission under a ‘quick reaction mechanism’.
The Council debate focused on whether implementing
powers under the Directive should be conferred on the
Commission or on the Council. The Council asked the
Permanent Representatives Committee to oversee
further work on the proposal, exploring both alternatives,
with a view to enabling it to reach an agreement as soon
as possible.
Council authorises Poland to continue to apply a higher threshold in respect of the scheme for small businesses On the basis of a measure derogating from Article 287
of the EU VAT Directive, Poland was authorised to
apply a higher threshold (EUR 30,000) in respect to the
application of the VAT exemption for small enterprises.
11
sufficient quantity of goods to make the supplies to
Bonik and that no actual supplies had been made by
those suppliers. Consequently, the tax authorities issued
a VAT assessment in which they denied Bonik the right
to deduct VAT on the purchases of the wheat.
Bonik contested the VAT assessment before the
Administrative Court of Varna. This court noted that
the Bulgarian tax authorities did not dispute that Bonik
carried out supplies of goods of the same type and in
the same quantity, or that Bonik acquired those goods
from other suppliers. Furthermore, the court noted
that there was some evidence that direct supplies
were carried out and that the lack of evidence of the
preceding supplies could not support the conclusion that
those direct supplies were not carried out. Under those
circumstances, the court decided to refer preliminary
questions to the CJ in order to find out whether Bonik
was entitled to deduct the VAT.
According to the CJ, it is necessary to check whether
the supplies by Bonik had actually been carried out and
whether the goods in questions were used by Bonik for
the purposes of taxed transactions in order to be able
to establish whether there is a right to deduction. In this
regard, the CJ indicated that it is for the national court
to check and establish the factual circumstances of the
case. In the event the national court should find that
the supplies had actually been carried out and that the
goods had been used for Bonik’s taxed transactions, the
CJ ruled that Bonik cannot, in principle, be refused the
right to deduction.
In the case it would concern fraudulent transactions,
the CJ reminded the referring court that the prevention
of tax evasion, avoidance and abuse is an objective
recognized and encouraged by the EU VAT Directive.
According to the CJ, it is for national courts and judicial
authorities to refuse the right of deduction if that right
is being relied on for fraudulent or abusive ends. In
this regard, the CJ ruled that the right to deduct may
not be refused on the ground that, in view of fraud or
irregularities committed upstream or downstream of that
supply, the supply is considered not to have actually
taken place, when it has not been established on the
demolished buildings, because it had not purchased
them for the purposes of tax transactions, it had
only done so in order to demolish them. Eventually,
the matter ended up before the Court of Appeals of
Bucharest, which decided to refer preliminary questions
to the CJ in order to find out whether the VAT paid on
the buildings by GVM is deductible.
According to the CJ, it is clear that GVM purchased
the land and the buildings with the intention of the
construction of the residential complex on the land in the
course of GVM’s property development activities. The
CJ ruled that in such circumstances, a company has the
right to deduct VAT on the acquisition of the buildings
on the basis of Articles 167 and 168 of the EU VAT
Directive.
Moreover, the fact that the buildings had been
demolished with a view to developing the residential
complex in place of those buildings does not, according
to the CJ, result in an obligation to adjust the initial
deduction of VAT relating to the acquisition of the
buildings on the basis of Article 185 of the EU VAT
Directive.
CJ rules that right to deduction may be denied if the taxable person knew or should have known that he was involved in VAT fraud (Bonik) On 6 December 2012, the CJ delivered its judgment
in the Bonik case (C-284/11). Bonik EEOD (‘Bonik’) is
a Bulgarian company that declared intra-Community
supplies of wheat and sunflower. Following a tax
investigation, the Bulgarian tax authorities found that
there was no evidence of these intra-Community
supplies. Considering that the quantities of wheat and
sunflower quoted on the invoices issued by Bonik had
been taken out of its stock and were not there at the
time of the investigation, the Bulgarian tax authorities
concluded that taxable supplies of those quantities had
been made on Bulgarian territory.
Moreover, the tax authorities also carried out checks
in connection with Bonik’s wheat purchases. In this
regard, it found that Bonik’s suppliers did not have a
12 13
of these factors, the term ‘construction work’ should be
interpreted as covering not only the supply of services
but also the supply of goods.
Finally, the CJ ruled that Germany was allowed to
avail itself only partially of the authorization granted
by the derogating measure by using it only for certain
subcategories (such as particular types of construction
work) and in respect of supplies to certain recipients.
According to the CJ, Germany was required in this
regard to respect the principle of fiscal neutrality and
the general principles of EU law and, in particular, the
principles of proportionality and legal certainty when
establishing those subcategories. The CJ ruled that it
is for the referring court to determine whether those
principles have been respected in this case.
CJ rules on retrospective reduction of taxable amount under the Second VAT Directive (Grattan) On 19 December 2012, the CJ delivered its judgment in
the Grattan case (C-310/11).
Grattan, a UK company, put forward claims against the
UK tax authorities for repayment of VAT relating to the
years 1973 to 1977 in respect of the activities of several
mail order companies. The mail order companies
operated a special sales system that included ‘agents’
who held an account with the mail order company. The
agents received a credit amount of 10% in relation
to their own purchases of goods from the mail order
catalogue and in relation to purchases made by third
parties through them. The agents could claim the credit
amounts as a cheque payment or offset those amounts
against their outstanding debts to the mail order
companies.
The UK tax authorities treated the amounts credited
for third-party customers as payment for the agent’s
services in managing third-party customers. Grattan
objected to this VAT treatment on the ground that it
merely reduced the taxable amount for the supplies
made by the mail order company to the agents and,
therefore, that the mail order companies overpaid VAT.
basis of objective evidence that the taxable person knew
or should have known that the transaction relied on as a
basis for the right of deduction was connected with VAT
fraud committed upstream or downstream in the chain
of supply.
CJ clarifies meaning of the term ‘construction work’ in derogating measure (BLV) On 13 December 2012, the CJ delivered its judgment in
the BLV case (C-395/11).
BLV Wohn- und Gewerbebau GmbH (‘BLV’) engaged
a contractor to build a residential block of six flats at a
fixed price on land owned by BLV. The contractor issued
an invoice to BLV without VAT and referred to BLV as
liable for the VAT as recipient for the supply. BLV paid
the VAT to the tax authorities. Subsequently, BLV asked
for reimbursement of the VAT taking the position that
Germany was not permitted under EU VAT law to apply
the reverse charge mechanism to such a supply.
The application of the reverse charge mechanism was
based on a measure derogating from Article 21(1)(a) of
the Sixth EU VAT Directive, which allowed Germany to
apply the reverse charge mechanism, amongst others,
to the supply of construction work to a taxable person.
The Federal Finance Court was not sure, however,
whether the reverse charge mechanism should have
been applied and decided to refer preliminary questions
to the CJ.
The main question in the proceedings was whether
the term ‘construction work’ within the meaning of the
derogating measure encompassed not only the supply
of services but also the supply of goods. According to
the CJ, the Sixth EU VAT Directive is silent as to the
meaning of the term ‘works of construction’ and that
the meaning and scope of that term must, therefore, be
determined by reference to the general context in which
it is used and its usual meaning in everyday language.
In this regard, the CJ indicated that the objectives and
effectiveness of the legislation in question should be
taken into account. The CJ concluded that, on the basis
13
Orfey in which the open market value of the construction
services of the building was taken into account as
taxable amount. In this respect, the Bulgarian tax
authorities concluded on the basis of a provision in
national VAT law that the taxable event had taken place
on the date the building right was obtained even though,
at that date, the construction of the building had not
been completed and the building had not been put into
use.
Eventually, the matter ended up before the Bulgarian
Supreme Administrative Court which decided to refer
preliminary questions to the CJ. In particular, the
referring court inquired whether the national provision,
on the basis of which the chargeable event is regarded
to take place before completion of the transaction, is
compatible with the EU VAT Directive and whether the
open market value of the construction services should
be used to determine the taxable amount.
According to the CJ, Article 65 of the EU VAT Directive
makes clear that VAT on services becomes chargeable
at the time a payment on account is made provided
that, at that time, all the relevant information concerning
that future supply of services is already known and,
therefore, the services in question are precisely
identified. In this regard, the CJ ruled that, based on
the principle of equal treatment, this also applies if the
payment on account is made in kind as long as that
payment on account may be expressed in monetary
terms, which is for the referring court to identify.
Furthermore, the CJ ruled that Article 80(1) of the EU
VAT Directive, which allows Member States under
certain circumstances to take the open market value
into account as taxable amount, may only be applied
in the case of supplies involving family or other close
personal, management, ownership, membership or legal
ties. According to the CJ, Member States, therefore, are
not permitted to apply the open market value as basis of
assessment if transactions are not completed between
parties having such ties.
Article 8(a) of the Second EU VAT Directive, which was
in force at the time of the supplies, did not permit for
alteration of the taxable amount, or the output tax, after
the supply had taken place. Therefore, the CJ ruled
that taxable persons are not entitled on the basis of
this provision to treat the taxable amount of a supply
of goods as retrospectively reduced where, after the
time of that supply, an agent received a credit from the
supplier which the agent elected to take either as a
payment of money or as a credit against amounts owed
to the supplier in respect of supplies of goods that had
already taken place. According to the CJ, the principle of
fiscal neutrality and the continuation of the VAT system
(the Sixth EU VAT Directive does contain a provision
that in principle requires Member States to reduce the
taxable amount in case all or part of the consideration
has not been received) do not change this conclusion.
CJ rules on chargeable event in the case of supply of construction services where consideration is provided in kind in the form of building right (Orfey) On 19 December 2012, the CJ delivered its judgment
in the Orfey case (C-549/11). The case concerns
a Bulgarian company, Orfey Balgaria EOOD
(‘Orfey’),which had obtained a building right from four
natural persons (‘the owners’). In this regard, Orfey was
entitled to construct a building on the land belonging
to the owners and become sole owner of some of the
real property it had built. By way of consideration for
the building right, Orfey undertook to design the plans
for the building, to build it entirely at its own cost and to
deliver certain real property in that building on a turn-key
basis to the owners without any payments being made
by the owners. For its activities, Orfey sent an invoice
with VAT to each of the owners.
In the course of a tax audit, the Bulgarian tax authorities
found that the taxable amount of the transaction
had been determined based on the tax value of the
building right and not on the open market value of the
real property granted to the owners. Taking the view
that Orfey was supplying construction services to the
owners, the tax authorities issued a VAT assessment to
14 15
to specific sectors and, therefore, requested Sweden
to change its national legislation. Sweden maintained,
however, that the national legislation is in line with the
EU VAT Directive. Eventually, the Commission decided
to refer the matter to the CJ.
Based on a literal interpretation of Article 11 of the
EU VAT Directive, which refers to ‘any persons’
independently of the sector of economic activity in which
they are involved, the Advocate General has opined
that the provision excludes any restriction of its scope
to defined economic sectors. According to the Advocate
General, a Member State that has opted to introduce
a VAT grouping system may, therefore, not limit that
system to specific sectors.
In this regard, the Advocate General was of the opinion
that the purpose of VAT grouping does not support the
conclusion that Member States would nevertheless
have discretion with respect to the economic sectors
to which VAT grouping is available. According to the
Advocate General, limitations are only justified if there
is need to take action against potential abuse for clearly
identified transactions. The Advocate General, therefore,
proposed to declare that Sweden has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 11 of the EU VAT Directive by
restricting the availability of VAT grouping to the financial
and insurance sectors.
Commission proposal for derogating measure allowing Slovenia to apply a higher threshold in respect of scheme for small businesses On 16 November 2012, the Commission published a
proposal for a Council Decision that authorizes Slovenia
to apply a measure derogating from Article 287 of
the EU VAT Directive. On the basis of the derogating
measure Slovenia will be allowed to apply a higher
threshold (EUR 50,000) in respect of the application of
the VAT exemption for small enterprises. The aim of the
higher threshold is to simplify the VAT system for small
enterprises by significantly reducing the burdens on
those businesses. The proposed derogation will expire
on 31 December 2015.
Advocate General opines that non-taxable persons may be a member of a VAT group (Commission v Ireland) On 27 November 2012, Advocate General Jääskinen
delivered his Opinion in the case of Commission v
Ireland (C-85/11). The case concerns an infringement
procedure that the Commission has instituted against
Ireland. According to the Commission, Ireland incorrectly
permits non-taxable persons to be members of a VAT
group. Ireland, on the other hand, claims that non-
taxable persons may be members of a VAT group.
The Advocate General has indicated that the wording of
Article 11 of the EU VAT Directive, as has been pointed
out by Ireland, refers to a ‘person’ and not to a ‘taxable
person’. This contrary to other provisions in the EU
VAT Directive which clearly refer to a ‘taxable person’.
Consequently, the Advocate General has opined that
based on the wording of Article 11 of the EU VAT
Directive, non-taxable persons may be a member of a
VAT group as long as they meet the requirements of
having a financial, economic and organizational link with
the other members of the VAT group.
Finally, according to the Advocate General, the purpose
of VAT grouping within the VAT regime and the principle
of fiscal neutrality do not support the position that non-
taxable person cannot be included in a VAT group. As a
result, the Advocate General has proposed that the CJ
should dismiss the action brought by the Commission
against Ireland.
Advocate General opines that a VAT grouping system may not be limited to specific sectors (Commission v Sweden) On 27 November 2012, Advocate General Jääskinen
issued his Opinion in the case of Commission v Sweden
(C-480/10).
In its national legislation, Sweden has opted to introduce
a VAT grouping system that is limited to the financial
and insurance sectors. According to the Commission,
Member States are not permitted to limit VAT grouping
15
Customs Duties, Excises and other Indirect TaxesCommission adopts Communication on Customs Union: boosting EU competitiveness, protecting EU citizens in the 21st century On 21 December 2012, the Commission adopted a
Communication on the State of Customs Union. The
Communication takes stock of the current state of the
EU Customs Union, identifies the challenges that it
currently faces, and sets out priority actions for ensuring
its future evolution. The aim is to ensure that the EU
Customs Union is as modern, effective and efficient as
possible in the coming years, to continue its work in
ensuring a safe and competitive Europe.
Every year, EU customs process 2 billion tonnes of
goods worth EUR 3,300 billion, and collects EUR 16.6
billion in customs duties. Yet, EU customs today are
far more than simply revenue collectors. Over the past
four decades, the Customs Union has evolved into a
multi-functional service provider, delivering both for
businesses and for society as a whole. Customs not
only ensure smooth trade flows and protect against
security risks, they also help to enforce other policies
such as public health, consumer protection, intellectual
property rights, environment and agriculture.
A growing set of responsibilities and intensifying global
challenges such as greater trade flows, increasingly
complex supply chains, an ever faster pace of business
and the globalisation of terrorist risks have put a
mounting strain on customs. Meanwhile, the economic
crisis has squeezed public resources available to
perform these tasks. The Customs Union must do
increasingly more with increasingly less.
Therefore, Commission’s Communication sets out
a course of action to modernise, strengthen and
rationalise the Customs Union in the years ahead.
Commission ask France to tax luxury yacht hire On 21 November 2012, the Commission has formally
requested France to remove the VAT exemption applied
to the hire of yachts used for pleasure boating. The
Commission indicated that the VAT exemption of Article
148 of the EU VAT Directive for certain transactions
concerning vessels does not apply to luxury boats used
by individuals for recreational purposes, which has been
confirmed by the CJ in the Bacino Charter Company
case (C-116/10).
The Commission’s request takes the form of a
reasoned opinion (second stage of the infringement
procedure under Article 258 TFEU). In the absence
of a satisfactory response within two months, the
Commission may refer the matter to the CJ.
Commission proposal regarding taxation of telecommunications, broadcasting and electronic services On 18 December 2012, the Commission adopted the
final proposal in the package of measures concerning
the taxation of telecommunications, broadcasting
and electronic services. As of 1 January 2015, all
telecommunications, broadcasting and electronic
services will be taxed at the place where the customer
is established or resides. According to the Commission,
this will result in a fairer and more business friendly
system. By providing a level playing field for all business
in the sectors concerned, it is expected to contribute to
the development of e-commerce in the Single Market.
The new rules include the one-stop-shop-regime on the
basis of which the suppliers of the telecommunications,
broadcasting and electronic services will be able to
comply with their VAT obligations in the whole of the EU
by submitting a single VAT return in the Member State in
which they are established.
16 17
EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement: green light to start negotiations On 29 November 2012, the European Council decided
to give the Commission ‘the green light’ to start trade
negotiations with Japan. Now there is a clear mandate
– confirmed by all the Member States - which sets out
Europe’s objectives.
To give a few examples:
• the mandate sets out a strict and clear parallelism
between the elimination of duties and non-tariff
barriers;
• there is a safeguard clause to protect sensitive
European sectors;
• the right ‘to pull the plug’ on the negotiations
after one year if Japan does not live up to its
commitments on removing non-tariff barriers is
explicitly reserved.
EU requests WTO dispute settlement panel over Argentina’s import restrictions On 7 December 2012, the EU has requested the World
Trade Organisation (WTO) in Geneva to rule over a
dispute on Argentina’s import restrictions which are
damaging to European business. The EU is taking
this action, along with Japan and the United States, to
force Argentina to lift these measures which have been
harmful to European trade and investment for more than
18 months. These measures potentially affect all EU
exports to Argentina, worth EUR 8.3 billion in 2011. This
decision follows efforts by the EU to find a solution with
Argentina through WTO dispute settlement consultations
during the summer which ended without success.
Argentina’s import measures have been systematically
imposed with a view to pursuing Argentina’s stated
policy of import substitution and elimination of trade
balance deficits, which is inconsistent with WTO rules.
These measures take the form of the following:
1. As of February 2012, Argentina has subjected the
import of all goods to a pre-registration and pre-
approval regime called the ‘Declaración Jurada
Anticipada de Importación’;
First, the modernisation of the Customs Union, which
was started in 2003, must be completed as a priority.
The Commission calls on the Council and Parliament to
adopt and implement the Union Customs Code, which
will make procedures simpler, more efficient and better
fitted for modern trade needs.
Second, work to address identified gaps must be
accelerated. In January 2013, the Commission is to
publish a Communication outlining how to improve
customs risk management and security of the supply
chain. Other measures foreseen for 2013 include a
proposal on approximation of customs penalties, a
review of tariff suspensions/quota rules, implementing a
crisis management action plan and developing a toolbox
of procedures to improve the efficiency of customs in
enforcing health, safety and environment rules.
Finally, a review of governance of how the Customs
Union functions internally will be initiated. The review,
to be undertaken in close collaboration with Member
States, should address how to work better together, in a
more harmonised way, to provide high quality customs
services and improve resource efficiency across the EU.
EU and Canada move towards conclusion of trade negotiations On 23 November 2012, the EU Trade Commissioner
and the Canadian Trade Minister met in Brussels
to bring the negotiations on the EU-Canada
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
towards closure.
Commissioner De Gucht and Minister Fast had in-depth
discussions on the trade deal and made substantial
progress. Both sides will now instruct their negotiators to
narrow the gaps on the outstanding issues, aiming for a
deal in the coming weeks.
Canada is the EU’s eleventh most important trading
partner whereas the EU, with its 27 Member States,
is Canada’s second-largest trading partner after the
United States. An economic study jointly released by
the EU and Canada in October 2008 showed that a
comprehensive trade agreement could increase two-
way bilateral trade by EUR 25.7 billion.
17
potential for EU, industrial, agricultural and services
businesses. An EU-Singapore FTA will be the EU’s
second ambitious agreement with a key Asian trading
partner, after the EU-Korea FTA, which has been in
operation since July 2011.
It is expected that the FTA will create new opportunities
in many services sectors. For example, in banking,
insurance and other financial services industries as
well as in public tendering. It will also cut down on the
red tape and double-testing that makes life difficult for
business. The deal will facilitate the access of industrial
and agricultural products on an important export
market, through greater recognition of EU standards.
For example, Singapore will agree to import European
manufactured cars based on EU technical and safety
standards and approvals.
In addition, this agreement is a first when it comes
to promoting ‘green growth’ and has been especially
designed to meet the EU’s ‘2020 strategy’ for a
competitive economy. The deal will simplify rules
to boost trade and investment in environmental
technologies and promote green public tendering.
Both the EU and Singapore will now seek approval for
the deal from their respective political authorities, and
envisage initialling the draft agreement in spring 2013.
Talks between the two sides on investment will continue.
These discussions, which started later than the trade
negotiations, are based on the new EU competence
under the Lisbon Treaty.
Commission proposes improved rules to enforce EU rights under international trade agreements - Updated with a Regulation On 18 December 2012, the Commission proposed a
new framework to enhance the EU’s ability to enforce
its rights in the international trading system. Ensuring
that the EU’s trade partners respect the agreed trade
rules is essential to make trade agreements work for
the EU economy. The proposal covers the EU’s trade
responses in cases of illegal trade measures in other
countries, and it will allow effective action to safeguard
the interests of EU companies and workers. The
proposal is for a framework to enable the Commission
2. Hundreds of goods also need a non-automatic
import licence. On the pretence of this requirement,
imports are systematically delayed or refused on
non-transparent grounds. As of March 2011, more
than 600 product types have been affected by this
licensing regime.
3. Argentina also requires importers to balance
imports with exports; to increase the local content
of the products they manufacture in Argentina;
or not to transfer revenues abroad. This practice
is systematic, unwritten and non–transparent.
Acceptance by importers to undertake this practice
appears to be a condition for allowing them to import
their goods into Argentina. These measures delay or
block goods at the border and inflict major losses to
industry in the EU and worldwide.
The restrictions, which were in place in 2011, affected
about EUR 500 million of exports in the same year. As
of 2012, the extension of the measures to all products
raised the magnitude of the potentially affected trade to
all EU exports to Argentina, which amounted to EUR 8.3
billion in 2011. The long-term impact of a negative trade
and investment climate is significantly higher.
The EU, together with other major world trading
partners, has raised the issue with Argentina repeatedly
over the past years without success.
On 7 December 2012, also thanks to a close and
constructive co-operation, the EU decided to pursue
the dispute at the same time as the United States and
Japan. Mexico had already requested the establishment
of a panel over the same measures on 21 November
2012. All complainants aim at joint panel proceedings.
EU and Singapore agree on landmark trade deal On 16 December 2012, the EU Trade Commissioner
and Singapore’s Minister of Trade and Industry
completed final negotiations on a free trade agreement
(FTA) between the European Union and Singapore. The
agreement is one of the most comprehensive the EU
has ever negotiated and will create new opportunities for
companies from Europe and Singapore to do business
together. The growing Singaporean market offers export
18
The bilateral deal provides for the lowering of tariffs for
trade in goods and for the opening of services markets
upon accession. These commitments will then be
embodied in the future Protocol of Accession of Bosnia
and Herzegovina to the WTO.
to take executive action when the trade interests of
the EU are at stake, rather than reacting on a case
by case basis when the EU rights are not respected.
Today’s proposal would allow the EU to implement trade
responses in a more streamlined, efficient manner in
order to encourage the offending country to remove the
illegal measures.
The Commission is proposing a Regulation to establish
a clear and predictable framework for adopting
implementing acts following international trade disputes
that have a negative economic impact on the EU. In
cases of last resort, trade sanctions can be put in place
to encourage the offending country to remove illegal
measures.
Action could also be taken to compensate for import
restrictions that are imposed on EU products in
exceptional situations (so-called safeguard measures),
or to react to cases where a WTO member country
changes its trade regime in a way that negatively affects
EU trade (such as raising its import tariffs) without
adequate compensation.
Such implementing acts can only be taken under certain
well-defined conditions and might take the form of new
or increased customs duties or quotas on imports or
exports of goods, amongst other possible measures.
The proposal is for an EU Regulation of the Council and
the European Parliament and will now be discussed
by the Council and the European Parliament under the
ordinary legislative procedure.
EU welcomes bilateral deal on Bosnia and Herzegovina’s WTO accession On 19 December 2012, the EU Trade Commissioner
and the Minister of Foreign Trade and Economic
Relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina signed a deal on
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s accession to the World Trade
Organisation (WTO). This agreement is a key step for
Bosnia’s and Herzegovina’s path to becoming a Member
of the international trade body. Accession to the WTO is
expected to make a lasting contribution to the process
of economic reform and sustainable development in
Bosnia and Herzegovina.
19
Correspondents● Peter Adriaansen (Loyens & Loeff Luxembourg)
● Séverine Baranger (Loyens & Loeff Paris)
● Gerard Blokland (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam)
● Alexander Bosman (Loyens & Loeff Rotterdam)
● Kees Bouwmeester (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam)
● Almut Breuer (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam)
● Mark van den Honert (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam)
● Leen Ketels (Loyens & Loeff Brussel)
● Sarah Van Leynseele (Loyens & Loeff Brussel)
● Raymond Luja (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam;
Maastricht University)
● Arjan Oosterheert (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam)
● Lodewijk Reijs (Loyens & Loeff Eindhoven)
● Bruno da Silva (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam)
● Rita Szudoczky (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam)
● Patrick Vettenburg (Loyens & Loeff Eindhoven)
● Ruben van der Wilt (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam)
www.loyensloeff.com
About Loyens & LoeffLoyens & Loeff N.V. is the first firm where attorneys at
law, tax advisers and civil-law notaries collaborate on a
large scale to offer integrated professional legal services
in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.
Loyens & Loeff is an independent provider of
corporate legal services. Our close cooperation with
prominent international law and tax law firms makes
Loyens & Loeff the logical choice for large and medium-
size companies operating domestically or internationally.
Editorial boardFor contact, mail: eutaxalert@loyensloeff.com:
● René van der Paardt (Loyens & Loeff Rotterdam)
● Thies Sanders (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam)
● Dennis Weber (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam;
University of Amsterdam)
Editors● Patricia van Zwet
● Rita Szudoczky
Although great care has been taken when compiling this newsletter, Loyens & Loeff N.V. does not accept any responsibility whatsoever for
any consequences arising from the information in this publication being used without its consent. The information provided in the publication is
intended for general informational purposes and can not be considered as advice.
Share the Expertise www.loyensloeff.com
Amsterdam
Arnhem
Aruba
Brussels
Curaçao
Dubai
Eindhoven
Geneva
Hong Kong
London
Luxembourg
New York
Paris
Rotterdam
Singapore
Tokyo
Zurich
13-01-EN
-EU
TA
top related