The research investigated the impact of EU law and policies on direct taxation in REITs, and movement towards a harmonised EU-REIT with common direct taxation of REITs profits. It represents the first comparative study of EU member state REIT regimes to identify an emerging common understanding informed by European jurisprudence and Europeanization policy and theory. After identifying the fundamental elements of a REIT (following the original US model) within a context of Europeanization theory, the research examined EU policy mechanisms (such as goodness of fit and adaptational soft pressure) and the impact of relevant case law from the European Court of Justice. It then presented in-depth case studies of three member states: France (example of a well-established REIT regime), Bulgaria (a new accession state) and Spain (a recent REIT regime). The research found an emerging common understanding between member states’ REIT regimes, offering the prospect of a European harmonised REIT form distinguishable from the US model. It also found negative approaches to direct taxation in cross-border situations, and member state concerns about loss of sovereignty and tax base, which should be recognised within any harmonised direct tax regime. The research can claim to be the first comparative analysis of MS REIT regimes to address a common understanding, and thus is relevant to practitioners and academics in the fields of European law and international taxation. It has potential to contribute towards an improved common direct taxation approach and the harmonisation of European REITs within the wider processes of Europeanization. The research was limited to REIT regimes in EU member states, and further research could analyse relevant member state tax regimes outside the 'common understanding' REIT model, and further explores issues of loss of sovereignty and tax base in member states.

Despite England’s growing international trading wealth, an expanding secondary sector, and more productive agriculture the mid-seventeenth century state with its outdated tax system was politically and militarily weak. Civil war and its aftermath created the urgent and protracted supply need which instigated the creation and honing of radically new effective tax forms and processes which proved indispensable during the Restoration and beyond. Drawing on Kent, London and Bristol case studies this thesis explores how the land tax became a mainstay of an increasingly powerful early modern English state by considering its administration, processes and tax mechanics from its 1643 inception to the excise crisis. Economic development offered fiscal opportunity and whilst the excise exploited product supply chains, the land tax targeted rent and income generated from agricultural, commercial and domestic real estate. Occupiers and landlords shared immediate fiscal burdens. Land taxes exploited cashflows around financial and seasonal production cycles, particularly in the more commercialised South and East, where fresh attempts were made to value and tax land. Effective local governors had for decades bolstered their own authority by delivering national initiatives and now worked in partnership with legislators to nurture the new tax and create resilience. The state’s bargain was that parliament would determine deadlines and fixed tax amounts from each locale, but local governors had immediate process ownership to determine its detailed application. Continued fiscal success required fresh waves of innovation, adaption and involvement including: empowerment, delegation, the deployment of more experienced officials, simplification, and improved stakeholder oversight. As post-Revolutionary conflict drove fiscal burdens higher, land taxes became a permanent fiscal implement of the state, despite regular outbreaks of political angst at the tax’s power. The resulting coordinated collective commitment of tens of thousands of officials, across county, city and country, was the great fiscal achievement of the age; a picture long obscured by institutionalised state narratives.

Throughout this thesis three main factors have been identified that can be out of significance for transfer pricing in multinational companies if the proposal for Home State Taxation is adopted. These factors are rules for calculation of the tax base, rules for dividing costs over periods and the tax rate. The formula for sharing profits will also become a factor that can have an impact on the European companies'incentives for transfer pricing interacting with above-mentioned factors. The effects of transfer pricing aiming at reducing the total amount of the taxation burden for a group of companies will be strongly reduced in the future if the proposal is adopted. Incentives for transfer pricing will loose importance, though not disappear altogether. Nevertheless new incentives to evade the rules may arise, especially in terms of careful choices concerning the establishment of every company in the group. The most positive effect of the proposal will probably be that the uncertainty of determining which transfer pricing rules apply will disappear, as only the system of rules of one country will be used for the calculation of the base for taxation. The double taxation, which has caused problems in the past since different rules for transfer pricing gave been applied, will disappear resulting in less costs for companies.

Establishment in foreign countries can be achieved through a subsidiary company or a permanent establishment. Profit of a subsidiary company is normally taxed in accordance with the law of the country of where it is established, since a subsidiary company constitutes a separate legal entity. A permanent establishment on the other hand is not a separate legal entity, therefore profit in a permanent establishment is usually added on to the company’s total profit and taxed in accordance with the law of the country of where the company is established. Establishing business activities in foreign countries do normally not create problems, unless the business is carried on in a low tax jurisdiction. If that is the case, unlimited opportunities are created for companies to circumvent domestic taxation by transferring profit to the low tax jurisdiction, which in turn decreases the domestic tax base. In Sweden this kind of circumvention is precluded by chapter 39a ITA, in the meaning that a shareholder in a foreign company can be tax liable of low taxed profit in a foreign. The question that arises is whether chapter 39a ITA infringes on freedom of establishment. The outcome in the analysis is that there is a likeliness that chapter 39a ITA constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment. The escape provided in article 52 TFEU cannot justify the measure. Nor is it likely that the measure can be justified by the rule of reason. In the light of the assessment done in the analysis, it can be concluded that the chapter 39a ITA is applied in a non-discriminatory manner, satisfies a mandatory requirement (prevention of tax avoidance) and is regarded as appropriate in securing the achievement of the objectives. But there is a potential risk that measure will fail in the proportionality test.

<p>Throughout this thesis three main factors have been identified that can be out of significance for transfer pricing in multinational companies if the proposal for Home State Taxation is adopted. These factors are rules for calculation of the tax base, rules for dividing costs over periods and the tax rate. The formula for sharing profits will also become a factor that can have an impact on the European companies'incentives for transfer pricing interacting with above-mentioned factors. The effects of transfer pricing aiming at reducing the total amount of the taxation burden for a group of companies will be strongly reduced in the future if the proposal is adopted. Incentives for transfer pricing will loose importance, though not disappear altogether. Nevertheless new incentives to evade the rules may arise, especially in terms of careful choices concerning the establishment of every company in the group. The most positive effect of the proposal will probably be that the uncertainty of determining which transfer pricing rules apply will disappear, as only the system of rules of one country will be used for the calculation of the base for taxation. The double taxation, which has caused problems in the past since different rules for transfer pricing gave been applied, will disappear resulting in less costs for companies.</p>

Thesis (doctoral)--Technsche Universität Chemnitz, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references.

CFC legislation has become an instrument to protect national tax bases and minimize the abusive effects of international tax planning. The Swedish CFC legislation is found in chapter 39a of the ITA whereas it is established under what circumstances CFC taxation can arise. If a shareholder of a foreign legal entity is liable of CFC taxation in Sweden such a holder is also entitled to deduct tax paid by the CFC abroad. The purpose of the granted tax credit is to avoid double taxation, although if foreign tax is paid by another entity than the foreign entity in question such CFC-tax cannot be credited. The situation at hand can result in that the holder is liable of paying double CFC tax, contrary to the purpose of tax credit. The freedom of establishment is part of the fundamental freedoms concluded in the EC Treaty. The general goal of the Community is to establish an internal market. The freedom of establishment, stated in Article 43 EC stipulates that restrictions on the freedom of establishment on nationals shall be prohibited. However, restrictions on the freedom of establishment can be justified under certain circumstances. The ECJ has developed a rule of reason test which can justify prohibited restrictions if certain criterias are fulfilled. Concerning tax matters the grounds of justification that have been accepted by the ECJ are the cohesion of the tax system, the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the counteraction of tax avoidance, the need to safeguard the balanced allocation of the power to tax between the Member States and a combination of grounds of justification. An exemplification scheme serves as a mean to illustrate in what instance double CFC taxation can arise. The scheme concerns a corporate group whereas a Swedish parent company owns a subsidiary in the U.K. through which the parent company plans to establish another subsidiary in the UAE. Swedish tax legislation provides that the Swedish parent company is subject to corporation tax on its worldwide profits in Sweden. However, the parent company is generally not taxed on the profits of its subsidiaries as they arise nor is it taxed on dividends distributed by a subsidiary established in Sweden. Although, when subsidiaries are not resident in Sweden and CFC legislation applies tax exempt according to the intercorporate share holding legislation will not be applicable. Therefore, in order for double CFC taxation to arise it is established that CFC legislation will be applicable to the exemplified scheme. Profits accrued in the UAE will be subject to CFC taxation in both the U.K. and Sweden and double taxation relief will not be granted in Sweden for the CFC tax paid in the U.K. It is questionable if double CFC taxation and the lack of tax relief in such a situation is in compliance with the freedom of establishment. The analysis, whereas the purpose of this thesis is concluded, follows the reasoning of the ECJ in accordance with the rule of reason. The purpose is to examine if the lack of double CFC tax relief is in compliance with Community law. It is established that since relief is not granted for double CFC taxation, national legislation hinders the freedom of establishment by forcing a parent company to avoid or modify an intra group structure which leads to the unfavorable consequences in taxation. The tax disadvantage must be seen as making it less attractive for Sweden’s own resident to establish in another Member State and the hindering nature of the lack of double CFC taxation relief constitutes a prohibited restriction to the freedom of establishment. The grounds of justification previously accepted by the ECJ are examined in order to establish if such grounds can justify the lack of double CFC tax relief as a prohibited restriction on the freedom of establishment. None of the acknowledged grounds of justification are able to justify the lack of double CFC tax relief and such a restricted measure is therefore not found to be in compliance with Community Law. Lastly, potential adjustments to CFC legislation, regarding the lack of double CFC tax relief, are discussed to enable compliance with Community law.

<p>CFC legislation has become an instrument to protect national tax bases and minimize the abusive effects of international tax planning. The Swedish CFC legislation is found in chapter 39a of the ITA whereas it is established under what circumstances CFC taxation can arise. If a shareholder of a foreign legal entity is liable of CFC taxation in Sweden such a holder is also entitled to deduct tax paid by the CFC abroad. The purpose of the granted tax credit is to avoid double taxation, although if foreign tax is paid by another entity than the foreign entity in question such CFC-tax cannot be credited. The situation at hand can result in that the holder is liable of paying double CFC tax, contrary to the purpose of tax credit.</p><p>The freedom of establishment is part of the fundamental freedoms concluded in the EC Treaty. The general goal of the Community is to establish an internal market. The freedom of establishment, stated in Article 43 EC stipulates that restrictions on the freedom of establishment on nationals shall be prohibited. However, restrictions on the freedom of establishment can be justified under certain circumstances. The ECJ has developed a rule of reason test which can justify prohibited restrictions if certain criterias are fulfilled. Concerning tax matters the grounds of justification that have been accepted by the ECJ are the cohesion of the tax system, the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the counteraction of tax avoidance, the need to safeguard the balanced allocation of the power to tax between the Member States and a combination of grounds of justification.</p><p>An exemplification scheme serves as a mean to illustrate in what instance double CFC taxation can arise. The scheme concerns a corporate group whereas a Swedish parent company owns a subsidiary in the U.K. through which the parent company plans to establish another subsidiary in the UAE. Swedish tax legislation provides that the Swedish parent company is subject to corporation tax on its worldwide profits in Sweden. However, the parent company is generally not taxed on the profits of its subsidiaries as they arise nor is it taxed on dividends distributed by a subsidiary established in Sweden. Although, when subsidiaries are not resident in Sweden and CFC legislation applies tax exempt according to the intercorporate share holding legislation will not be applicable. Therefore, in order for double CFC taxation to arise it is established that CFC legislation will be applicable to the exemplified scheme. Profits accrued in the UAE will be subject to CFC taxation in both the U.K. and Sweden and double taxation relief will not be granted in Sweden for the CFC tax paid in the U.K. It is questionable if double CFC taxation and the lack of tax relief in such a situation is in compliance with the freedom of establishment.</p><p>The analysis, whereas the purpose of this thesis is concluded, follows the reasoning of the ECJ in accordance with the rule of reason. The purpose is to examine if the lack of double CFC tax relief is in compliance with Community law. It is established that since relief is not granted for double CFC taxation, national legislation hinders the freedom of establishment by forcing a parent company to avoid or modify an intra group structure which leads to the unfavorable consequences in taxation. The tax disadvantage must be seen as making it less attractive for Sweden’s own resident to establish in another Member State and the hindering nature of the lack of double CFC taxation relief constitutes a prohibited restriction to the freedom of establishment. The grounds of justification previously accepted by the ECJ are examined in order to establish if such grounds can justify the lack of double CFC tax relief as a prohibited restriction on the freedom of establishment. None of the acknowledged grounds of justification are able to justify the lack of double CFC tax relief and such a restricted measure is therefore not found to be in compliance with Community Law. Lastly, potential adjustments to CFC legislation, regarding the lack of double CFC tax relief, are discussed to enable compliance with Community law.</p>

Plusieurs cultures se sont mêlées à la conception du système fiscal actuel au Liban. Ce système cédulaire, inchangeable depuis les années cinquante, se caractérise par la prédominance des impôts indirects reflétant une difficulté à atteindre l’assiette des impôts directs.C’est dans cette perspective qu’une révision intégrale du système fiscal Libanais s’avère cruciale. Cette révision doit tenir en compte les spécificités de l’économie libanaise basée sur les secteurs du tourisme et des finances et caractérisée par un secret bancaire très développé, des finances publiques rongées par le poids de la dette publique et du déficit budgétaire, et de la situation géopolitique du Liban, situé dans une région objet de conflits permanents.Dans ce cadre, plusieurs réformes ont déjà été mises en place; l’introduction de la TVA en 2002 constituait la réforme majeure des impôts indirects, la création de la DASS, de la DGE du côté des impôts directs.Toutefois la réforme en cours traite l’unification des impôts cédulaires en un impôt global; cela peut établir une meilleure justice entre les contribuables et engendrer une augmentation des recettes fiscales. Le secret bancaire constitue un important défi à ce type d’imposition. A noter que l’abolition du secret bancaire n’est pas envisageable actuellement considérant son rôle majeur dans l’attraction des capitaux étrangers. Pour cela, la nouvelle loi doit essayer de trouver des solutions pour parvenir à la bonne application de l’imposition globale. A ce niveau, les expériences égyptienne (contrôle fiscal des revenus des capitaux mobiliers, des activités commerciales et industrielles et des professions libérales) et tunisienne (l’application des « acomptes provisionnelles » et de « la retenue à la source ») peuvent constituer des sources d’inspiration. / Many cultures contributed to draw the current Lebanese tax system. This system, where taxes differ according to the source of income, haven’t been reformed since the fifties. The predominance of indirect taxation is the main characteristic reflecting the disability to reach the tax base within the direct taxation.Under this perspective, a full revision of the taxation system seems to be crucial. This revision should take into consideration the specificity of the Lebanese economy based on tourism and financial sectors and where banking secrecy is very developed, the public finance gnaw at by the public debt burden and the budget deficit, and the geopolitical situation where Lebanon is located in the heart of a conflict region.Many reforms had been already undertaken; the VAT implementation in 2002 is the main indirect tax reform; the introduction of DASS and DGE are the reform undertaken on the direct taxes side.Moreover, the current reform aim to unify the different income tax under one global tax; this can lead to a better justice among taxpayers and therefore to an increase in tax revenues.The banking secrecy is an important challenge to this taxation. In fact, due to its major role attracting the foreign capitals, the abolition of this system is not currently considered. For this reason, the new law should figure out the appropriate conducts for a better application of the global tax.At this level, the Egyptian and the Tunisian experiences could be sources of inspiration. The first one regarding the tax audit on the revenues from movable capitals, commercial and industrial activities and the liberal professions. The second one related to the application of the “forecasted installments” and the “stopping at source”.

Member States' rules on the taxation of the foreign business income of companies, whether they are based on the fiscal principle of territoriality or on the principle of worldwide taxation, raise complex issues of compatibility with the law of the European Union. Areas of conflict include particularly the taxation of foreign profits, the deduction of foreign losses, the elimination of international double taxation, and the attribution of profits to permanent establishments. The dissertation analyses these conflicts on the basis of a study of the case law of the European Court of Justice. Although this analysis provides some guidance for the taxation of companies when they carry out business activities throughout the European Union, it is concluded that the Court cannot, by itself: solve the conflict between the taxation of business income in a cross-border context and the objective of achievement of the internal market. / Diss. Stockholm : Handelshögskolan i Stockholm, 2011