Search

Die Bachelorarbeit beschäftigt sich mit dem Verlust des Vorsteuerabzuges aufgrund der Bestimmung des § 12 Abs 14 UStG. Diese Bestimmung wurde anlässlich der Rechtsprechung des EuGH zum Verlust von Mehrwertsteuerbefreiung, wenn missbräuchliche Praktiken oder Steuerbetrug vorliegt, im UStG aufgenommen. Es werden die steuerlichen Auswirkungen bei Lieferungen an einen Missing Trader aufgezeigt. Ebenso wird die Funktionsweise von Mehrwertsteuerbetrug anhand des Missing Trader Betrugs erklärt und auf die Tatbestände des Finanzstrafgesetzes im Zusammenhang mit der Umsatzsteuer eingegangen, da der § 12 Abs 14 UStG auf solche Finanzvergehen verweist. Betreffend die Voraussetzung, dass der Unternehmer vom Betrug wusste oder wissen musste, wird auf die Judikatur des EuGH, VwGH und BFG eingegangen um darzulegen, wann die Rechtsprechung davon ausgeht, dass der Unternehmer davon hätte wissen müssen. Abschließend wird auf die Beweismittel und Beweiswürdigung der BAO und des FinStrG eingegangen um zu klären, ob ein Sachverhalt der § 12 Abs 14 UStG zur Folge hat, abgabenrechtlich und finanzstrafrechtlich unterschiedlich gewürdigt werden kann. This bachelor thesis deals with the loss of input VAT deduction, due to § 12 (14) UStG. This judicature was included in the UStG following the case law of the EuGH on the loss of VAT exemption in correlation of abusive practices or tax fraud. The paper shows the tax implications of deliveries to missing traders. Moreover it explains, the function of VAT fraud on the basis of missing trader fraud and shows the matter of facts related to VAT according to the FinStrG, as the § 12 (14) UStG refers to such crimes. Regarding the requirement that entrepreneurs knew or should have known about the VAT fraud, the thesis illustrates judicate cases from EuGH, VwGH and BFG. The cases discuss when the case law assumes that the entrepreneur knew or should have known about the VAT fraud. Finally the thesis refers to the evidence and assessment of evidence, referred to the BAO and FinStrG in order to clarify whether a case as in § 12 (14) UStG can be assessed differently due to tax law or fiscal penal law.

The complex interconnections characterizing the relationship between the international tax treaty law system and the EU tax law system increasingly require attention. Accordingly, within the framework of this article, the judgment of the EU Court of Justice concerning the Danish cases on interest has provided the concrete opportunity to evaluate the significant effects that a lack of coordination between these two systems may have.In fact, due to the broad economic concept of beneficial owner applied by the EU Court of Justice vis-à-vis the narrower OECD concept, there is no complete coordination between EU tax law and international tax treaty law. Even if, under the OECD approach, further conduit arrangements are covered under Article 7(1) of the MLI (or the anti-conduit mechanism), the different scope of the OECD and the EU concepts of abuse is an obstacle to complete coordination.Very significantly, this lack of coordination may concretely create situations of conflict between the international and the EU obligations held by the same EU Member State. The significant practical relevance of these conflicts, which cannot be solved on the basis of a common conflict rule, requires solutions in terms of global tax governance. Accordingly, the author has developed her theory on the basis of a legal pluralist approach.

As will be demonstrated in this article, the concepts of abuse adopted at EU and OECD level do not coincide completely. As a result of these differences, conflicts may concretely arise between the EU and international obligations held by the same EU Member State. Furthermore, due to legal pluralism (i.e. the fact that each legal system, in principle, is developed and, therefore, functions autonomously on a global level) very often, in case of conflict, different conflict rules will be applicable, without the possibility of guaranteeing coordination between international tax treaty law and EU tax law. In the absence of common coercive solutions, the author argues that coordination between international tax treaty law and EU tax law requires a dialectical approach through which conflicts can be managed. Therefore, conflicts become an opportunity for discussion and negotiation in order to pursue – step-by-step – solutions conciliating the international and the EU tax systems. Indeed, the achievement of complete coordination could not be immediate, but require intermediate steps. Any dialectical approach requires phases of compromise. This is implicit in the concept of managing conflicts on which legal pluralism is based.

Die Bachelorarbeit „Beweggründe für die globale Mindeststeuer“ behandelt die Motive für die aggressive Steuerplanung und die Auswirkungen der Digitalisierung, welche unter anderem zur globalen Steuerreform geführt haben. Die Steuerplanung an sich ist legal und steuerlich anerkannt, jedoch muss zwischen herkömmlicher und aggressiver Steuerplanung, sowie steuerlichen Missbrauch und Abgabenhinterziehung unterschieden werden. Durch die Digitalisierung der Wirtschaft ergeben sich steuerliche Herausforderungen, da Unternehmen ihre digitalen Dienstleistungen auch ohne physische Präsenz im jeweiligen Land der Wertschöpfung anbieten können. Um der aggressiven Steuergestaltung sowie den Auswirkungen der digitalen Wirtschaft entgegenzuwirken wurde die sogenannte „Zwei-Säulen-Lösung“ vorgestellt. Mit „Pillar One“ und „Pillar Two“ sollen die veralteten Steuerregeln an das digitale Zeitalter angepasst und dem Steuerwettbewerb zwischen den Staaten begrenzt werden. The thesis “Motives for the global tax reform” deals with the reasons for aggressive tax planning and the effects of digitalization, which led to the global tax reform. Tax planning in itself is legal and also accepted by the tax authority but it has to be differentiated between common and aggressive tax planning as well as tax abuse and tax evasion. The digitalization of economy causes challenges for the tax law since enterprises can provide their digital services without a physical presence in the country of value creation. To counteract aggressive tax planning and the effects of digital economy the “Two-Pillar Solution” was created. “Pillar One” and “Pillar Two” are supposed to adjust the outdated tax regulations and limit the tax competition between countries.

Die Steuervermeidung – wie von Internationalen Unternehmen praktiziert - ist in den letzten Jahren durch Veröffentlichung diverser Paper wie den Panama Paper immer wieder in den Fokus der Medienlandschaft und der Politik getreten. Die OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) entwickelte infolgedessen ein Projekt, auch BEPS (Base Erosion Profit Shifting) genannt, das den Ländern aufzeigt, wie sie gegen diese aggressive Steuerplanung vorgehen können. Ein Problem an BEPS ist jedoch, dass es für die Mitgliedstaaten der OECD keine Rechtsverbindlichkeit gibt dieses Projekt auch umzusetzen. Dies wiederum brachte die EU auf den Gedanken selbst ein verbindliches Recht zu schaffen. Ein halbes Jahr später wurde dann die ATAD (Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive) präsentiert. Diese Richtlinie hat nun für alle EU-Mitgliedstaaten einen rechtsverbindlichen Charakter mit einer Umsetzungsfrist. Sie besteht aus 13 Artikeln und umfasst sechs spezielle Maßnahmen gegen die Steuervermeidung. Diese Bachelorarbeit beschäftigt sich mit dem Thema des Steuermissbrauchs im Zusammenhang mit Zinsen und Lizenzen und mit den Auswirkungen der EuGH Urteile auf das österreichische Steuerrecht. Zunächst wird ein Überblick über den Missbrauchstatbestand nach Artikel 6 der ATAD gegeben und danach werden Zinsen und Lizenzen im Österreichischen Steuerrecht dargestellt. Des Weiteren wird dann auf die Änderungen der allgemeinen Missbrauchsbestimmung nach § 22 BAO mit dem Jahressteuergesetz 2018 eingegangen. Zuletzt werden die beiden wegweisenden Urteile Danmark und Lexel näher erläutert. Den Höhepunkt der Arbeit stellen die Auswirkungen der Urteile im Zusammenhang mit dem österreichischen Recht dar. Caused by various publications (e.g. the panama papers) in recent years, the avoidance of taxes of international corporations became more and more a public issue. To fight this problem the OECD came up with a plan consisting of 15 actions which showed the member states various opportunities how to fight tax avoidance. However, those actions are not legally binding for the member states. Consequently, half a year later the European Union took these actions and made a directive for their member states called ATAD. The difference between the actions from the OECD and the directive is that the second has an implementation deadline and is legally binding for all EU member states. ATAD includes 13 articles and six special actions against tax avoidance. This bachelor thesis deals with the topic of tax abuse in connection with interest and royalties and the impact of the EuGH rulings on Austrian tax law. First, an overview of the abuse provision under Article 6 of the ATAD is given and then interest and royalties in Austrian tax law are presented. Furthermore, the changes to the general abuse provision under Section 22 BAO with the Annual Tax Act 2018 will then be addressed. Finally, the two landmark rulings Danmark and Lexel are explained in more detail. The highlight of the bachelor thesis is the impact of the rulings in the context of the Austrian law.

As will be demonstrated in this article, the concepts of abuse adopted at EU and OECD level do not coincide completely. As a result of these differences, conflicts may concretely arise between the EU and international obligations held by the same EU Member State. Furthermore, due to legal pluralism (i.e. the fact that each legal system, in principle, is developed and, therefore, functions autonomously on a global level) very often, in case of conflict, different conflict rules will be applicable, without the possibility of guaranteeing coordination between international tax treaty law and EU tax law. In the absence of common coercive solutions, the author argues that coordination between international tax treaty law and EU tax law requires a dialectical approach through which conflicts can be managed. Therefore, conflicts become an opportunity for discussion and negotiation in order to pursue – step-by-step – solutions conciliating the international and the EU tax systems. Indeed, the achievement of complete coordination could not be immediate, but require intermediate steps. Any dialectical approach requires phases of compromise. This is implicit in the concept of managing conflicts on which legal pluralism is based. Tax Abuse, Legal Pluralism, Coordination, tax treaties, EU law, conflict rules, double taxation, fundamental freedoms, artificial arrangement, proportionality, legal certainty, dialectical approach, PPT rule

Corruption, Tax Abuse, and Financial Secrecy PhD Dissertation, Miroslav Palanský, IES CUNI, 2020 Abstract This dissertation is composed of three papers that focus on different aspects of the relationship between the public sector and individuals who do not comply with the norms and regulations set by the government. I classify the ways in which individuals do so into two categories - corruption and tax abuse. Corruption, defined as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain, results in individuals obtaining more benefits from the public sector than is intended. Tax abuse, on the other hand, is defined as contributing less to the public sector than is intended. The last chapter of the dissertation focuses on financial secrecy, which I argue is the key facilitator of the two channels. In Chapter 2, I show that companies that donate money to Czech political parties subsequently report abnormally high profits, pointing to preferential treatment that these firms enjoy as a result of their political connections: I conservatively estimate that the connected firms outperform their non-connected but otherwise similar competitors by 8 to 12% following the establishment of the connection, which is a higher effect than found previously for more developed economies. Importantly, however, I find that the effect...

In der behandelten Bachelorarbeit, zum gewählten Thema: „Anerkennung von Betriebsausgaben und eine Durchleuchtung unter dem Aspekt des § 23 BAO“, wird die Thematik der Absetzbarkeit von Betriebsausgaben und die Problematik von Scheingeschäften näher in den Fokus gerückt. Als Betriebsausgaben werden Aufwendungen bzw Ausgaben bezeichnet die durch den Betrieb getätigt werden. Der Begriff „Betriebsausgabe“ ist aber sehr weitläufig. Zunächst werden daher in der Bachelorarbeit die wesentlichen Merkmale, Voraussetzungen bzw. Aspekte von Betriebsausgaben ausgearbeitet werden. Wie eingangs erwähnt, wird in der Bachelorarbeit auch die Problematik von Scheingeschäften behandelt. Dabei soll sich die Arbeit der Darstellung von Scheingeschäften anhand der Judikatur des Verwaltungsgerichtshofes widmen. Auch auf das Wesen des Scheingeschäftes bzw. der Scheinhandlung wird ein Augenmerk zu legen sein. In der vorliegenden Bachelorarbeit werden auch jene Aspekte herausgearbeitet, die zur abgrenzenden Darstellung zwischen Scheingeschäften und Umgehungsgeschäften dient. Zuletzt soll in der behandelten Bachelorarbeit auch noch auf die Rechtsfolgen eines Scheingeschäftes im Sinne des § 23 BAO eingegangen werden. This thesis deals with business expenses and a screening under the aspect of § 23 BAO. Th issue of deductibility of business expenses and the problem of fictitious purchase are brought into focus. Firstly, the essential characteristics, requirements and aspects of business expenses will be worked out in this bachelor thesis. As mentioned at the beginning, the bachelor thesis also deals with the problems of fictitious purchases. The work should be devoted to the representation of bogus transactions based on the judicature of the Administrative Court.

This chapter focuses on corporate power and corruption, providing context for current debates around responsibility for and the consequences of tax abuse. In addition to the already discussed problems of tax avoidance and tax evasion, the bargaining power of large corporations over smaller states is also an outcome of structural problems that discourage developing countries from collecting taxes needed for human development. Here, a key problem is international tax competition, or more accurately tax wars between nations. This international pressure pushes decision makers in developing countries to turn a blind eye to corporate wrongdoings and to offer tax breaks and other sweeteners to large enterprises in exchange for investments. Ultimately, what is needed are more comprehensive frameworks for analyzing the reasons behind the obstacles to domestic resource mobilization, which pay close attention to both public and private factors that prevent the fulfillment of social rights and development goals.

Straipsnyje pateikiama kovos su mokesčių vengimu taisyklių samprata, tiriamas ES teisės poveikis nacionalinėms kovos su mokesčių vengimu (mokestiniu piktnaudžiavimu) taisyklėms tiesioginių mokesčių srityje. Esminis dėmesys skiriamas didėjančiam ES harmonizavimui tiesioginių mokesčių srityje, ypač – 2016 m. liepos 12 d. Tarybos direktyvai (ES) 2016/1164, įtvirtinančiai ES mastu privalomą bendrąją kovos su mokestiniu piktnaudžiavimu taisyklę, kurią visos ES valstybės narės privalo perkelti į savo nacionalinę teisę. Kadangi Lietuvos Respublikos mokesčių administravimo įstatyme jau yra įtvirtina nacionalinė bendroji kovos su mokesčių vengimu taisyklė, straipsnyje analizuojama, kuri – nacionalinė ar įtvirtintoji direktyvoje – taisyklė yra griežtesnė, ir siekiama atsakyti į klausimą, ar įgyvendinant minėtą direktyvą yra būtina keisti nacionalinę bendrąją kovos su mokesčių vengimu taisyklę. The article examines the impact of the recent major changes in EU direct taxation on the national anti-avoidance rules of Lithuania. It main ly focuses on the increasing EU harmonisation in the field of anti-tax avoidance, first-of-all on the Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016, introducing the general antiavoidance rule to be transposed by all EU member-states, including Lithuania. As far as Lithuania already has a national general anti-avoidance rule set by the Law on Tax Administration, it is considered whether the Lithuanian national general antiavoidance rule is stricter or softer than the EU-wide general anti-abuse rule indicated in Article 6 of the Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 and consequently, whether the national general anti-avoidance rule should or could be amended in transposing the beforementioned EU directive, and if so, in what manner it should be done. For comparing and evaluating the national and EU general anti-avoidance rules such criteria as scope of application, identification of special schemes and manner of defining tax purpose are taken into consideration. For the throughout examining of Part 1 of Article 69 of the Law on Tax Administration against Article 6 of the Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 linguistic, systematic, comparative, logic, historical, teleologic and other research methods are used. As a result, it is concluded that main uncertainties in national regulation and the difference between national and EU general anti-avoidance rule lies in formulation of tax purpose. In opposite to the EU rule, the national rule is formulated in a way it could be applied in any situation where tax purpose may be identified. Moreover, the wording of national rule indicates the objective element (aiming for tax benefit) but is silent about subjective element (tax benefit must be sought in contradiction to the aim of tax law, i.e. in abusing tax law) of the tax purpose, even though both elements are essential for applying general anti-avoidance rule. Although such questionable formulation of law is in practice mitigated by the court (both national and ECJ) practice, it nevertheless brings legal uncertainty. Furthermore, the EU general anti-abuse rule introduces stricter standard of the importance of tax purpose (tax abuse may be recognised not only in cases where tax benefit is not merely sole purpose but also when it is one of the main purposes). Therefore, it is proposed that the national legal regulation of general tax-avoidance rule should be amended both for transposing properly the EU anti-tax avoidance directive (EU) 2016/1164 and for taking a step towards ensuring better legal certainty in national tax law.

La elusión fiscal se define como la articulación de estrategias de minimización del pago de tributos que son conformes con la literalidad de la normativa pero no con una interpretación sistemática o teleológica, y ante las cuales el sistema tributario reacciona para, como mínimo, anular el beneficio fiscal obtenido. En el ámbito de la Unión Europea, el concepto de elusión – como todo lo tributario– se analiza desde la perspectiva de la promoción de un mercado interior en condiciones de libre competencia. La postura de las instituciones de la Unión ha variado, pasando de favorecer ante todo la libre circulación de bienes, capitales, servicios y trabajadores, permitiendo la aplicación de las medidas anti-elusión estatales sólo con carácter excepcional, a considerar que la elusión daña las condiciones de libre competencia empresarial y es necesaria una acción positiva y coordinada, cuyo exponente más elaborado es la Directiva (UE) 2016/1164, del Consejo, de 12 de julio de 2016, por la que se establecen normas contra las prácticas de elusión fiscal que inciden directamente en el funcionamiento del mercado interior. Tax avoidance is defined as the implementation of strategies of minimization of the tax burden that are in accordance with the literal wording of the regulations but not with their systematic or teleological interpretation. The tax system reacts to tax avoidance by, at least, supressing the benefit obtained by the taxpayer. Within the European Union, the concept of tax avoidance –like everything regarding tax matters– is analysed from the perspective of the promotion of an internal market under conditions of free competition. The stand taken by the Union institutions has shifted from promoting free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour while allowing the application of State anti-avoidance measures only on an exceptional basis, to consider that tax avoidance damages the conditions of free competition and positive and coordinated action is necessary. Here, a milestone has been the enaction of the Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market.

La elusión fiscal se define como la articulación de estrategias de minimización del pago de tributos que son conformes con la literalidad de la normativa pero no con una interpretación sistemática o teleológica, y ante las cuales el sistema tributario reacciona para, como mínimo, anular el beneficio fiscal obtenido. En el ámbito de la Unión Europea, el concepto de elusión – como todo lo tributario– se analiza desde la perspectiva de la promoción de un mercado interior en condiciones de libre competencia. La postura de las instituciones de la Unión ha variado, pasando de favorecer ante todo la libre circulación de bienes, capitales, servicios y trabajadores, permitiendo la aplicación de las medidas anti-elusión estatales sólo con carácter excepcional, a considerar que la elusión daña las condiciones de libre competencia empresarial y es necesaria una acción positiva y coordinada, cuyo exponente más elaborado es la Directiva (UE) 2016/1164, del Consejo, de 12 de julio de 2016, por la que se establecen normas contra las prácticas de elusión fiscal que inciden directamente en el funcionamiento del mercado interior. Tax avoidance is defined as the implementation of strategies of minimization of the tax burden that are in accordance with the literal wording of the regulations but not with their systematic or teleological interpretation. The tax system reacts to tax avoidance by, at least, supressing the benefit obtained by the taxpayer. Within the European Union, the concept of tax avoidance –like everything regarding tax matters– is analysed from the perspective of the promotion of an internal market under conditions of free competition. The stand taken by the Union institutions has shifted from promoting free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour while allowing the application of State anti-avoidance measures only on an exceptional basis, to consider that tax avoidance damages the conditions of free competition and positive and coordinated action is necessary. Here, a milestone has been the enaction of the Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market.

V današnjem globalnem in hitro razvijajočem svetu se pojavlja problem, da se davčna zakonodaja vedno težje prilagaja spreminjajočemu in kompleksnemu gospodarskemu sistemu. Mnogi zakoni ne sledijo več hitrim spremembam na globalnem trgu in tako nastajajo praznine v zakonih in zakoni ne delujejo, kot je bilo na začetku predvideno. Davkoplačevalci s svojo iznajdljivostjo in agresivnim davčnim načrtovanjem izkoriščajo te zakonske praznine v svojo korist, z zniževanjem davkov preko davčnega zaobida, ki dejansko ne krši zakonskih določb, je pa po svoji naravi v nasprotju z duhom oz. namenom zakona. Vse to zmanjšuje prihodke že tako osiromašenih davčnih blagajn. Splošno protizaobidno pravilo (GAAR) je uvedeno za preprečevanje takšnega zaobida in shem brez komercialne vsebine z glavnim ali enim izmed glavnih namenov pridobitve davčne ugodnosti. Evropska unija in razne organizacije, kot je OECD, se že leta borijo proti davčnim utajam in davčnim zaobidom, saj na podlagi teh, davčne blagajne izgubljajo milijarde evrov letno. GAAR je eden izmed orodij za preprečevanje agresivnega davčnega načrtovanja, ki je priljubljeno predvsem pri večjih mednarodnih podjetjih. In today’s global and rapidly developing world, the tax legislation has difficulties to adapt the complex economic system. Many laws do not follow the rapid changes in the global market and therefore they don't operate as it was originally intended. The taxpayers exploit these legal gaps in its favor with their ingenuity and aggressive tax planning. They avoid taxes in ways that tax administrators find as undesirable and abusive, when the legal steps are in contrary to the spirit of the law. This aggressive tax planning reduces the already low tax revenue. The general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) is designed to tackle tax avoidance with no commercial substance and with the main or one of the main purposes to gain tax benefit. The European Commission and other organizations like OECD fight the aggressive tax planning for years, because they lose billions of euros every year by tax abuse. GAAR is one of the tools to prevent aggressive tax planning, which is popular especially in big multinational companies.

Autori u ovom radu istražuju institut hrvatskoga općeg poreznog prava, zakonsko porezno jamstvo, s posebnim naglaskom na njegove izmjene, i materijalnopravne i postupovnopravne, po stupanju na snagu prve novele OPZ-a iz 2012. godine. Novelom se širi krug zakonskih jamaca za porezne obveze trgovačkih društava, i to na članove društva, članove uprave i izvršne direktore društva te s njima povezanih osoba, ako se u posebnom dijelu poreznog postupka utvrdi da su zloporabom svojih prava ili ovlasti uzrokovali nemogućnost naplate poreznog duga od društva kao glavnog poreznog dužnika. Prikazuju se i kritički preispituju novelirane odredbe kojima se uvodi tzv. „proboj pravne osobnosti“ u OPZ, s posebnim osvrtom na postupovna pitanja koja bi mogla izazvati probleme u njihovoj primjeni. Prikaz zakonskih odredbi koje uređuju postupak dokazivanja zloporabe prava u porezno-dužničkom odnosu bio je i povod preispitivanju alternativnog pristupa problemu zloporabe prava te mogućnosti uvođenja općeg pravila o zabrani zloporabe u hrvatsko porezno pravo., The authors of this paper examine the issue of statutory tax guarantee, as an institute of the Croatian general tax law. Particular attention is given to substantive and procedural changes following the first Amendments to the General Tax Act of 2012. The Amendments introduced new categories of statutory guarantors for tax liabilities of companies. This refers to company members, board members and executive directors and associated parties, whose abuse of rights and powers has resulted in the company’s inability to pay the tax debt. The liability of the above mentioned persons must be determined in a special form of tax procedure exhaustively regulated as part of the tax procedure. Likewise, the provisions of the General Tax Act that introduce the piercing of the corporate veil are reviewed, while taking into consideration procedural issues which may cause problems in their application. This gives cause for exploring an alternative approach to the tax abuse issues, namely the possibility of introducing general anti-abuse rule (GAAR) in Croatian tax law.

The purpose of my thesis is to analyze and characterize circumvention of the law, real content of legal acts and abuse of law in relation to tax planning. To combat tax abuse tax administrator has these three instruments available which in turn set limits of tax planning. The thesis is composed of four chapters. Chapter One differentiates between tax planning, tax abuse and tax evasion as different methods of lowering tax liability. Chapter Two consists of four subchapters, first three containing analysis and characteristic of circumvention of the law, real contents of legal acts and abuse of law. Each of these subchapters builds upon general definition which is then refined by case law of the Supreme Administrative Court and concludes with typical cases. The fourth subchapter deals with "tax evasion by other means" which some authors consider a similar instrument. The third chapter summarizes the current legislative state of these instruments and offers some thoughts de lege ferenda. The fourth chapter contains deeper analysis of the most important case law relating to individual instruments. Chapter Four should serve the reader as a reference while reading Chapter Two. Thesis illustrates the most typical cases of each individual instrument and concludes that the abuse of law doctrine is the most...

Este trabajo ha obtenido el Primer Premio Estudios Financieros 2010 en la modalidad de Tributación. Las consecuencias que el Derecho de la Unión Europea tiene para el establecimiento, interpretación y aplicación de las normas anti-abuso no sólo no pueden ignorarse sino que constituye la delimitación precisa actual de este tipo de normas, es decir, el único marco en el que pueden operar, salvo que se pretenda su aplicación a un contexto estrictamente interno. El objeto de este trabajo se limita a dos cuestiones generales: (i) determinar cuál es, en la hora actual, la noción de abuso de Derecho tributario en el Derecho de la Unión Euroea haciendo hincapié en la reciente modificación de la doctrina del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea y (ii) examinar las normas generales anti-abuso españolas, haciendo también referencia a algunas normas específicas anti-abuso (buena parte de las cuales proceden del Derecho tributario internacional) a la luz de dicha noción. El trabajo se centrará en la fiscalidad directa, aunque con necesarias referencias a la indirecta, por se aquel ambito donde más ha avanzado la jurisprudencia, precisamente en ausencia de un proceso de armonización en sentido estricto de la legislación tributaria en la Unión Europea, y por ser también éste el único ámbito cubierto, por el momento, por el Derecho tributario internacional. The consequences of European Union Law on the interpretation of anti-abuse rules cannot be ignored, for they shape the actual meaning of these type of rules. The purpose of this work is twofold: (i) to assess and establish the notion of abuse of tax law in the European Union Law, in particular by stressing the latest doctrine established by the European Court of Justice, and to (ii) assess the Spanish general anti-abuse rules, paying particular attention to some specific anti-avoidance rules (many of them originated in International Tax Law). The article will mainly focus on direct taxation, even if some references to indirect taxation need to be made. It is precisely in the area of direct taxation where the evolution of the European Court of Justice is most interesting, as this is an area that is not subject to formal tax harmonization in the EU, but is also the only taxation area covered by International Tax Law such as it is today. Trabajo realizado gracias a una Beca de Movilidad de Profesores, Programa Senior, del Ministerio de Educación, para desarrollar una estancia en la London School of Economics (abril-agosto 2010). A su vez este trabajo se enmarca en el proyecto de investigación de la Comunidad de Madrid titulado "Las medidas anti-elusión nacionales y su compatibilidad con el Derecho Comunitario y el Derecho Tributario Internacional"(2010-2011). Por último, la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid ha concedido una Ayuda de investigación que se enmarca dentro del Plan Integral de Igualdad de la Universidad para docentes que han disfrutado de una baja por maternidad. Publicado

It seems that offshoring is becoming a more and more significant reality today. Offshoring is at the center of a huge public policy debate, which has emerged among business people, politicians, public servants, blue-collar workers and others. Proponents of offshoring see it as bringing prosperity to third-world countries, as well as saving costs and boosting innovation and productivity in corporate high-tax countries. They believe that saving money on cheaper labor benefits consumers due to lower costs and also benefits shareholders because of increased value. Opponents see it as an ―assault on good paying jobs‖ in developed countries. According to them, the negative effect of offshoring is that many individuals lose their jobs, and this consequently hurts the economy of developed countries. This article analyzes offshoring through the legality of offshore enterprises and raises the question whether the business performed in the form of offshore enterprise and associated with the opportunity to maximize profits on the basis of tax reduction is legitimate, and, if so, what determines the legality of offshore enterprise. The paper also presents the understanding of offshore enterprises in the Lithuanian legal system, and examines whether offshore enterprises are legal within the Lithuanian legal system.