Правоприменение (Oct 2021)
Countering the corporate tax avoidance in the Court of Justice of the European Union practice
Abstract
The article contains the analysis of extensive CJEU practice regarding the issues of countering corporate tax avoidance, and legal framework, mostly the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Directives.The purpose of this paper is to conduct a comprehensive research of the issues of countering the corporate tax avoidance in the CJEU practice. For this reason the authors set the following tasks: (1) to consider the concept of abuse of law, developed by the CJEU practice, with respect to corporate tax avoidance; (2) to identify the interaction between national anti-avoidance rules and fundamental freedoms of the internal market as established by the CJEU practice; (3) to study the CJEU practice concerning the implementation of tax directives and the application of anti-avoidance measures; (4) to identify the main features of the Directives "Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive" (ATAD) in terms of their potential impact on the development of the CJEU practice.The research methodology includes the application of both general methods of formal logic (including analysis, synthesis, deduction and induction) and special legal methodology (formal legal and comparative legal methods).The main results of the study. The CJEU has repeatedly considered the problem of conflict of national anti-avoidance rules with the fundamental freedoms of the EU internal market. The conflict between these rules is resolved in different ways depending on the type of antiavoidance rules: (1) national rules aimed at countering the abuse of law, and (2) national rules developed to counter tax avoidance, which are strictly applied according to formal criteria, without any requirement to prove abuse of law in a particular situation. The application of national anti-avoidance rules may provide for the exemptions from the regime of fundamental freedoms of the internal market. Where national anti-avoidance rules are not aimed at combating wholly artificial arrangements, but are applied mechanically, due to formal criteria, such rules should apply subject to the legal regime of fundamental freedoms. The CJEU held that the concept of beneficial owner should be applied not only to interest and royalties, but also to the distribution of profits, despite the fact that the provisions of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive do not contain such a concept. EU law prohibits the granting of state aid. National anti-avoidance rules and law enforcement practice may be subject to such a prohibition in cases where they create positive discrimination.Conclusions. When implementing the provisions of the ATAD 1-2, the EU Member States committed numerous breaches of the EU law. It therefore can be expected that the CJEU practice regarding the proper implementation of the Directives may appear in the near future. The general prohibition of abuse of EU law shall apply, even in cases where the EU Member State has not implemented the anti-avoidance mechanisms of tax directives into its national law. The general prohibition of abuse of EU law shall apply despite the principle of legal certainty, which precludes directives from being able by themselves to create obligations for individuals, so the directives cannot be relied upon per se by the Member State as against individuals. Sections 1−2 were contributed by S.G. Sokolova, 3−4.1 by D.M. Osina (section 4.1 in collaboration with K.A. Tasalov), 4.1−7 by K.A. Tasalov (section 4.1 in collaboration with D.M. Osina).
Keywords
