No description available.

With the ambition to reduce compliance costs for multinational enterprises within the European Union, but also in order to reduce the erosion of the tax base through transfer pricing and harmful tax competition among member states, the European Commission has promised to deliver a proposal for a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) by the end of 2008. A vast literature has since emerged on the advantages and disadvantages of a move towards formulary apportionment (CCCTB). Whilst no official proposal has yet been submitted by the European Union, several documents have since been released. It is the novel contribution of this paper to critically evaluate the proposal itself. We argue that the formula is overly complex and should be simplified to source and destination based revenue weights only. (author´s abstract) / Series: Discussion Papers SFB International Tax Coordination

This paper gives an overview on the research done in the fields of tax competition, coordination and harmonisation. The survey is divided in two main parts, in the first section we compare the standard tax competition literature that sees tax competition as a bad, to public choice contributions that advocate tax reductions. In the second part we consider theories of endogenous growth, which focus on analysing the taxation question. After introducing the fundamental contributions, we discuss extensions in the line of an open economy, an OLG setting and the transitional dynamics in greater detail. (author's abstract) / Series: Discussion Papers SFB International Tax Coordination

La coexistence de différents systèmes de revenus se confrontes structurellement à un ordonnancement qui promeut l'intégration économique. Est-ce que le droit européen, en accord avec ces exigences, prévoit des solutions pour la répartition du pouvoir impositif entre Etats membres ? En particulier, est ce que la coexistence de tels pouvoirs implique comme son homonyme (imposé par le droit communautaire), la reconnaissance nécessaire d'une priorité dans la taxation des revenustransnationaux, appartenant à l'un plutôt qu'à l'autre des Etats membres ? Les principes fondamentaux du droit européen – indiqués dans les Traités instituant les Communautés Européennes – n'offrent aucun appui certain pour affirmer l'existence de tels paramètres de répartition, et, de manière plus générale, il est bien plus difficile d'établir si ces mêmes principes de droit européen impliquent un ensemble de règles de coordination, auquel la prétention fiscale des Etats membres doit être conforme. / The coexistence of different income tax systems is structurally antithetic to a system – the EU one – which promotes economic integration. Does EU law, in accordance with these scopes, provide solutions for the distribution of tax powers between member states? In particular, does the coexistence of those tax powers imply the recognition of a “priority” in taxation of cross-border income, belonging to one rather than the other Member States? The fundamental principles of EU law – see the EU Treaties – offer no support to affirm the existence of such distribution parameters and, more generally, it is much more difficult to determine whether these same principles of European law involve a set of coordination rules, which the tax claim of the Member States must comply.

A new technology is a bold new combination of production factors that potentially yields a higher level of total factor productivity. The optimal combination of input factors is unknown when an innovation is pursued. A larger targeted innovation may require a greater change in the optimal combination of production factors employed and increases volatility alongside with economic growth. We show that economic policy can interfere in this relationship with by adjusting source based capital income taxes. / Series: Discussion Papers SFB International Tax Coordination

成立區域經濟聯盟除因政治因素之需要外，主要係因會員國可藉由經濟統合，消除彼此間貿易及競爭之障礙，而獲致經濟利益。經濟聯盟會員國間稅制之差異及差別課稅待遇亦會形咸貿易及競爭之障礙，因此有加以調和之必要。一般之經濟聯盟由於統合程度較低，僅有將關稅等間接稅加以調和，而歐洲共同體因致力於建立一個無內部邊界之單一市場，確保貨物、人員、勞務及資本之自由移動，其統合程度較高，故對直接稅亦加以調和。其調和直接稅之立論根據及處理情形，頗值其他區域經濟聯盟之參考，為本文之研究重點。 　　本文第一章為緒論。第二章則先就經濟統合之型式及利益加以介紹，為獲致這些利益，租稅所形成之障礙有必要加以消除。其次，對調和租稅之一般理論，按租稅調和之性質、方法、原則及動態等面加以說明。最後分析直接稅各別稅目之調和理論。在公司所得稅方面，分析不同之課稅主權主義對國際間效率面之影響，及其租稅調和之效果。在個人所得稅方面，資本所得課稅之效果與公司所得稅相同，勤勞所得部分，為兔租稅影響人民工作地點之選擇，各國之薪工稅應予一致，並採屬人主義課稅。不論就公司稅或個人稅，屬人主義在效率面之效果均優於屬地主義，惟因人民之國外所得不易掌握課稅，及聯盟內人員之跨國流動性提高，屬人主義下仍有其缺點，而有必要進行租稅調和。至於其他之直接稅，因多係對不動產加以課稅，稅基較不具流動性，扭曲效果較小，故其調和較不具迫切性。 　　歐體之直接稅應否調和，在其會員國問一直存在爭議，主要係因在經濟面，直接稅差異之扭曲效果及福利成本不易估計，故不易說服會員國採行調和法案。另在法律面，調和直接稅之法律依據亦不若間接稅明確。本文第三章就歐體公司稅之扭曲情形及共同體法之規定加以討論，以瞭解歐體調和直接稅之立論根據，並介紹直接稅調和之主要演進情形。 　　第四章則就歐體實務面調和直接稅之法案加以介紹，包括已獲採行及提案中之法案，分為與公司有關之直接稅調和、所得稅之稽徵業務、個人所得稅及其他直接稅、相關改革等四個部分加以說明。 　　第五章就歐體直接稅調和之現況加以評估，討論未來以租稅條約取代調和指令之可行性，及歐體會員國租稅條約應有之政策。因租稅條約尚無法完全取代調和指令，歐體直接稅採指令加以調和仍有必要。由於歐體直接稅調和尚在發展當中，其未來進一步調和的空間仍大。惟直接稅調和受歐體其他方面未來統合進展之影響頗大，故就其未來受經濟面、政治面、法律面、理論面影響之因素加以分析。並介紹歐體未來調和直接稅之計劃，以對直接稅調和有有一整體性之瞭解。 　　最後於第六章對本文做一結論，並就我國稅法之規定、對我國公司之影響及對國際組織之態度等方面提出建議。

The role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the process of direct tax integration in the European Union (EU) has been widely discussed in the academic literature, while another important actor, the European Commission, has attracted much less attention. The Commission’s input is commonly perceived to be limited to the right of legislative initiative. This study questions such an oversimplified interpretation and draws a more nuanced picture of EU tax harmonisation by integrating an analysis of the complex regulatory approaches adopted by the Commission for the establishment and smooth functioning of the Internal Market. It is argued that the past decade brought a notable change in the Court-dominated pattern of direct tax integration. This change is apparent first in the evolution of enforcement strategies under Articles 258 and 260 TFEU; and second, in the increased reliance upon non-binding regulatory measures. Both developments have strengthened the role of the Commission, supplying it with more possibilities for influencing national direct tax systems, despite the reluctance of Member States to agree upon legislative harmonisation. Against this background, the procedural and substantive problems associated with these instruments require closer examination. The normative scope of this research covers the key procedural problems related to the infringement procedure and non-binding regulatory measures. The empirical component explores the Commission’s enforcement and coordination practices, drawing particular attention to two case studies: the tax treatment of losses in cross-border situations and exit taxation. Following the analysis of enforcement and coordination in the field of direct taxation, the study argues the need and proposes potential solutions for (i) the developing of a more comprehensive procedural framework for the infringement procedure and non-binding regulatory acts; (ii) the strengthening of accountability mechanisms; and (iii) the enhancing of the effectiveness of their application.