Вестник Финансового университета, 2013, № 3(75)
Покупка
Основная коллекция
Тематика:
Экономика. Бухгалтерский учет. Финансы
Наименование: Вестник Финансового университета
Год издания: 2013
Кол-во страниц: 153
Дополнительно
Тематика:
ББК:
УДК:
ГРНТИ:
Скопировать запись
Фрагмент текстового слоя документа размещен для индексирующих роботов.
Для полноценной работы с документом, пожалуйста, перейдите в
ридер.
Издание перерегистрировано в Федеральной службе по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций: ПИ № ФС77– 42557 от 01 ноября 2010 г. Периодичность издания — 6 номеров в год Учредитель: Финансовый университет Журнал ориентирован на научное обсуждение актуальных проблем в сфере экономики, финансов и права Журнал входит в Перечень периодических научных изданий, рекомендуемых ВАК для публикации основных результатов диссертаций на соискание ученой степени кандидата и доктора наук Журнал включен в систему Российского индекса научного цитирования (РИНЦ) Журнал распространяется только по подписке. Подписной индекс 82140 в объединенном каталоге «Пресса России» The edition is reregistered in the Federal Service for communication, informational technologies and media control: ПИ № ФС77– 42557 of November, 1, 2010. Publication frequency — 6 issues per year Founder: Financial University The journal is oriented towards scientific discussion of present-day topics in the sphere of Economics, Finance and Law The journal is included into the list of periodicals recommended for publishing doctoral research results by the Higher Attestation Commission The journal is included into the system of Russian Science Citation Index The journal is distributed only by subscription Subscription index 82140 in the consolidated catalogue «The Press of Russia» Международный научно-практический журнал № 3 (75) 2013 год International Scientific and Practical Journal № 3 (75) 2013
Рукописи представляются в редакцию в электронном виде (на диске или по электронной почте: fin.jurnaly@yandex.ru) Минимальный объем статьи — 10 тыс. знаков, включая пробелы и сноски; оптимальный — 40 тыс. знаков. Редакция в обязательном порядке осуществляет экспертную оценку (рецензирование, научное и стилистическое редактирование) всех материалов, публикуемых в журнале Более подробно об условиях публикации см: http://www.fa.ru Мнение редакции и членов редколлегии может не совпадать с точкой зрения авторов публикаций Письменное согласие редакции при перепечатке, а также ссылки при цитировании на журнал «Вестник Финансового университета» обязательны РЕДАКЦИОННАЯ КОЛЛЕГИЯ М. А. ФЕДОТОВА — главный редактор, заслуженный экономист Российской Федерации, доктор экономических наук, профессор; И. Я. ЛУКАСЕВИЧ— заместитель главного редактора, доктор экономических наук, профессор; В. И. АВДИЙСКИЙ, доктор юридических наук, профессор; М. А. АБРАМОВА, кандидат экономических наук, профессор; В. А. БАРАНОВ, кандидат юридических наук, доцент; В. И. БАРИЛЕНКО, доктор экономических наук, профессор; В. Г. ГЕТЬМАН, доктор экономических наук, профессор; Л. И. ГОНЧАРЕНКО, доктор экономических наук, профессор; С. А. ИВАНОВА, доктор юридических наук, профессор; Н. Г. КОНДРАХИНА, кандидат филологических наук, доцент; Л. Н. КРАСАВИНА, доктор экономических наук, профессор; О. И. ЛАВРУШИН, доктор экономических наук, профессор; Е. В. МАРКИНА, кандидат экономических наук, профессор; М. В. МЕЛЬНИК, доктор экономических наук, профессор; Н. П. МЕЛЬНИКОВА, кандидат экономических наук, профессор; М.В. МЕЛЬНИЧУК, доктор экономических наук, профессор; Л. А. ОРЛАНЮК-МАЛИЦКАЯ, доктор экономических наук, профессор; Б. Б. РУБЦОВ, доктор экономических наук, профессор; Г. Ф. РУЧКИНА, доктор юридических наук, профессор; А. Н. РЯХОВСКАЯ, доктор экономических наук, профессор; В. Н. САЛИН, кандидат экономических наук, профессор; Т. В. СЕДОВА, кандидат педагогических наук, доцент; Д. Е. СОРОКИН, доктор экономических наук, профессор; А. А. ФАТЬЯНОВ, доктор юридических наук, профессор; Ю. М. ЦЫГАЛОВ, доктор экономических наук, доцент; Д. В. ЧИСТОВ, доктор экономических наук, профессор; И. З. ЯРЫГИНА, доктор экономических наук, профессор РЕДАКЦИОННЫЙ СОВЕТ М. А. ЭСКИНДАРОВ — председатель совета, ректор Финансового университета; А. У. АЛЬБЕКОВ, ректор Ростовского государственного экономического университета (РИНХ); Р. Е. АРТЮХИН, руководитель Федерального казначейства (Казначейства России), заведующий кафедрой «Финансовое право» Финансового университета; Т. Д. ВАЛОВАЯ, член Коллегии (министр) по основным направлениям интеграции и макроэкономике Евразийской экономической комиссии; О. В. ГОЛОСОВ, главный ученый секретарь Финансового университета; В. А. ДМИТРИЕВ, председатель госкорпорации «Банк развития и внешнеэкономической деятельности (Внешэкономбанк)»; А. В. ДРОЗДОВ, руководитель Пенсионного фонда Российской Федерации; А. Ю. ЖДАНОВ, член Правления, заместитель Председателя Правления ОАО «Россельхозбанк»; Г. Б. КЛЕЙНЕР, член-корреспондент Российской академии наук, заместитель директора ЦЭМИ РАН; А. А. ЛИБЕТ, член Общественной палаты Российской Федерации; Д. Е. СОРОКИН, член-корреспондент Российской академии наук, первый заместитель директора Института экономики РАН; М. В. ФЕДОРОВ, ректор Уральского государственного экономического университета (УрГЭУ-СИНХ); А. Г. ХЛОПОНИН, заместитель Председателя Правительства Российской Федерации – полномочный представитель Президента Российской Федерации в Северо-Кавказском федеральном округе МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ ИЗДАТЕЛЬСКИЙ СОВЕТ В. АДАМОВ, ректор Хозяйственной академии им. Д. А. Ценова (Болгария); Р. БЕК, профессор Нью-Йоркской школы права, доктор права (США); Д. ВЕБЕР, директор Амстердамского центра налогового права Университета Амстердама, доктор права, профессор (Нидерланды); В. ЖИЛЬ, профессор Университета Париж 1 ПантеонСорбонна (Франция); Д. ЛАФОРДЖИА, ректор Университета Саленто (Италия); А. МАЗАРАКИ, ректор Киевского национального торгово-экономического университета (Украина); А. МУЛИНО, директор научного центра Бирмингемского университета (Великобритания); Н. ОРДУЭЙ, профессор Гавайского университета (США); Я. ОСТАШЕВСКИ, декан факультета управления и финансов Варшавской школы экономики (Польша); Г. ПФЛУГ, декан экономического факультета Венского университета (Австрия); В. САПАТЕРО, ректор Университета Алькала (Испания); К. ТИТЬЕ, декан факультета экономики, бизнеса и права Университета имени Мартина Лютера Галле-Виттенберг, доктор наук, профессор (Германия); Т. ХАЙМЕР, управляющий декан Франкфуртской школы финансов и менеджмента (Германия); С. ХАН, руководитель департамента экономики Блумсбергского университета (США); ЧАН ВЭЙ, президент Ляонинского университета (Китай)
Manuscripts are to be submitted to the editorial office in electronic form (on CD or via E-mail: fin.jurnaly@yandex.ru) Minimal size of the manuscript: 10 ths characters, including spaces and footnotes; optimal — 40 ths characters. The editorial makes a mandatory expertise (review, scientific and stylistic editing) of all the materials to be published in the journal More information on publishing terms is at: http://www.fa.ru Opinions of editorial staff and editorial board may not coincide with those of the authors of publications It is obligatory to get a written approval of the editorial on reprint, and to make references to the journal «Bulletin of the Financial University» if quoting INTERNATIONAL EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD: V. ADAMOV, rector, D. A. Tsenov Academy of Economics (Bulgaria); R. BECK, professor, New York Law School (USA) D. WEBER, director of the Amsterdam Centre for Tax law at the University of Amsterdam (Holland); W. GILLES, professor, University of Paris 1 PantheonSorbonne (France); D. LAFORGIA, rector, University of Salento (Italy); A. MAZARAKI, rector, Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics (Ukraine); A. MULLINEUX, director, Birmingham Business School, Birmingham University (UK); N. ORDWAY, Professor, University of Hawaii (USA); J. OSTASZEWSKI, dean, Management and Finance Faculty, Warsaw School of Economics (Poland); G. PFLUG, dean, Faculty of Economics, Vienna University (Austria); V. ZAPATERO, rector, University of Alcala (Spain); C. TIETJE, dean, Faculty of Economics, Business and Law, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (Germany); T. HEIMER, managing dean, Frankfurt School of Finance and Management / University (Germany); S. KHAN, head, Department of Economics, Bloomsburg University (USA); CHENG WEI, president, Liaoning University (China). EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD: M. A. ESKINDAROV — chairman of the Board, rector, Financial University; A. U. ALBEKOV, rector, Rostov State University of Economics (RINKH); R. E. ARTUKHIN, head of the Russian Federal Treasury, head of the chair «Financial Law», Financial University; T. D. VALOVAYA, member of Ministry Board (Minister) for principle directions of integration and macroeconomics, Eurasian Economic Committee; O. V. GOLOSOV, chief Academic Secretary, Financial University; V. A. DMITRIEV, chairman, State Corporation «Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank)»; A. V. DROZDOV, head, Pension Fund of the Russian Federation; A. YU. ZHDANOV, member of the Board, deputy of Chairman of the Board, OJSC «Rosselkhozbank»; G. B. KLEINER, corresponding Member of Russian Academy of Sciences, deputy director, Russian Academy of Sciences Central Economics and Mathematics Institute; A. A. LIBET, Member of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation; D. E. SOROKIN, corresponding member of Russian Academy of Sciences, first Deputy Director, Russian Academy of Sciences Economy Institute; M. V. FYODOROV, rector, Ural State University of Economics; A. G. KHLOPONIN, vice premier, the President’s plenipotentiary representative in the North Caucasus Federal District EDITORIAL BOARD: M. A. FEDOTOVA — editor-in-chief, Honored Economist of the Russian Federation, PhD in Economics, professor; I. YA. LUKASEVICH —deputy editor-in-chief, PhD in Economics, professor; V. I. AVDIYSKY, PhD in Law, professor; M. A. ABRAMOVA, candidate of science in Economics, professor; V. A. BARANOV, candidate of science in Law, docent; V. I. BARILENKO, PhD in Economics, professor; V. G. GETIMAN, PhD in Economics, professor; L.I. GONCHRENKO, PhD in Economics, professor; S. A. IVANOVA, PhD in Law, professor; N. G. KONDRAKHINA, candidate of science in Philology, docent; L. N. KRASAVINA, PhD in Economics, professor; O. I. LAVROUSHIN, PhD in Economics, professor ; E. V. MARKINA, candidate of science in Economics, professor; M. V. MELNIK, PhD in Economics, professor; N. P. MELNIKOVA, candidate of science in Economics, professor; M. V. MELNICHUK, PhD in Economics, professor; L. A. ORLANYUK-MALITSKAYA, PhD in Economics, professor; B. B. RUBTSOV, PhD in Economics, professor; G. F. RUCHKINA, PhD in Law, professor; A. N. RYAHOVSKAYA, PhD in Economics, professor; V. N. SALIN, candidate of science in Economics, professor; T. V. SEDOVA, candidate of science in Pedagogics, docent; D. E. SOROKIN, PhD in Economics, professor; A. A. FATIANOV, PhD in Law, professor; YU. M. TSYGALOV, PhD in Economics, docent; D. V. CHISTOV, PhD in Economics, professor; I. Z. YARIGINA, PhD in Economics, professor
ВЕСТНИК ФИНАНСОВОГО УНИВЕРСИТЕТА 3’2013 С О Д Е Р Ж А Н И Е АКТУАЛЬНАЯ ТЕМА Дэннис М. Вебер Нарушение европейского налогового законодательства: обзор и последние тенденции в прецедентном праве Европейского Суда в отношении прямых и косвенных налогов (часть 2) ..............................................................................6 О. М. Прексин На пути к саммиту в Стрельне: финансовая тематика в повестке «Группы двадцати» ..........28 ЭКОНОМИКА И УПРАВЛЕНИЕ НАРОДНЫМ ХОЗЯЙСТВОМ С. А. Насриддинов Конструкция и особенности методологии интегрированных структур на современном этапе ......................................................................................................................................41 ФИНАНСЫ, ДЕНЕЖНОЕ ОБРАЩЕНИЕ И КРЕДИТ Н. Э. Соколинская Система управления фондовыми рисками в банках ............................................................................55 МАТЕМАТИЧЕСКИЕ И ИНСТРУМЕНТАЛЬНЫЕ МЕТОДЫ ЭКОНОМИКИ Н. В. Попова Влияние срока до погашения на изменчивость цены облигации ...................................................72 БУХГАЛТЕРСКИЙ УЧЕТ, АНАЛИЗ И АУДИТ А. В. Сметанко Прикладные аспекты планирования риск-ориентированного внутреннего аудита по ключевым показателям эффективности ..............................................................................................85 Е. А. Железнякова Определение уровня существенности с применением аналитических процедур в аудите продаж торговой организации ....................................................................................................99 ПРОБЛЕМЫ И СУЖДЕНИЯ Е. Б. Тютюкина, Е. И. Рукшина Корпорация, корпоративное управление и корпоративные финансы в российской экономике ............................................................................................................................... 108 А. В. Иванов, О. В. Кузнецов Динамика финансового обеспечения дополнительного профессионального образования государственных гражданских служащих ........................ 118 ПУБЛИКАЦИИ МОЛОДЫХ УЧЕНЫХ Ю. Ю. Король Актуальные вопросы правового регулирования оборота объектов незавершенного строительства .................................................................................................................. 128 Д. К. Петренко Методика организации производства в компаниях строительного комплекса в условиях диверсификации ....................................................................................................................... 133 М. Ю. Ильина Инновационная инфраструктура как условие движения «инновационного лифта» ........... 140
C O N T E N T S TOPIC OF THE DAY Dennis M. Weber Abuse of Law in European Tax Law: an Overview and Some Recent Trends in the Direct and Indirect Tax Case Law of the ECJ — part 2 ..............................................................................................6 Oleg M. Preksin On the Way to Strelna: from Declarations to Action — Financial Agenda of the «Group of ten» .......................................................................................................28 ECONOMICS AND NATIONAL ECONOMY MANAGEMENT Salimdzhon A. Nasriddinov On Specific Features of the Methodology of Integrated Structures Today .......................................41 FINANCE, CURRENCY AND CREDIT Nataliia E. Sokolinskaia Stock Market Risk Management System in Banks ....................................................................................55 MATHEMATICAL AND INSTRUMENTAL METHODS IN ECONOMICS Nataliia V. Popova Maturity Impact on Bond Price Volatility ......................................................................................................72 ACCOUNTING AND AUDIT Aleksandr V. Smetanko Applied Aspects of Planning Risk-Oriented Internal Audit of Key Performance Indicators (КPI) .............................................................................................................85 Elena A. Zhelezniakova Defining Materiality Level with Analytical Procedures in Auditing Sales in a Trading Organization ..................................................................................................................................99 ISSUES AND OPINIONS Elena B. Tiutiukina, Elena I. Rukshina Corporation, Corporate Governance and Corporate Finance in Russian Economy ..................... 108 Anatolii V. Ivanov, Oleg V. Kuznetsov Dynamics in Financing Supplementary Vocational Training for State Civil Servants .................................................................................................................................... 118 PUBLICATIONS OF YOUNG SCIENTISTS Iulia Y. Korol Current Issues in Legal Regulation of Turnover of Assets under Construction ............................ 128 Dmitrii K. Petrenko Methodical Approaches to Organizing Production in Construction Companies in Conditions of Diversification .................................................................................................................... 133 Maria U. Il’ina Innovation Infrastructure as Condition of «Innovative lift» Up-trip ................................................ 140 BULLETIN OF THE FINANCIAL UNIVERSITY
ВЕСТНИК ФИНАНСОВОГО УНИВЕРСИТЕТА 3’2013 АКТУАЛЬНАЯ ТЕМА УДК 34.03:336.22 (4) НАРУШЕНИЕ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО НАЛОГОВОГО ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВА: ОБЗОР И ПОСЛЕДНИЕ ТЕНДЕНЦИИ В ПРЕЦЕДЕНТНОМ ПРАВЕ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СУДА В ОТНОШЕНИИ ПРЯМЫХ И КОСВЕННЫХ НАЛОГОВ (ЧАСТЬ 2) ДЭННИС М. ВЕБЕР Доктор права, профессор кафедры Европейского корпоративного налогового права Амстердамского университета, директор Амстердамского центра налогового права, Амстердам, Нидерланды E-mail: Dennis.weber@loyensloeff.com АННОТАЦИЯ В статье рассматривается право государств — членов ЕС бороться с нарушениями законодатель ства, которое определяется в прецедентном праве Европейского Суда как баланс между соблюдением принципа правовой определенности, правом выбора наиболее благоприятного налогового режима и правом государств бороться с уклонением от уплаты налогов. Во 2-й части cтатьи, в числе прочего, подробно разбирается, насколько конкретными должны быть положения, направленные на борьбу с уходом от налогообложения, содержание бремени доказывания, выбор налоговой юрисдикции, а также последствия нарушения. Ключевые слова: нарушение; уклонение от уплаты налогов; искусственные структуры; общий принцип права в ЕС; выбор налоговой юрисдикции. ABUSE OF LAW IN EUROPEAN TAX LAW: AN OVERVIEW AND SOME RECENT TRENDS IN THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAX CASE LAW OF THE ECJ — PART 2 DENNIS M. WEBER PhD (law), Professor, Chair European Corporate Tax Law, University of Amsterdam; Director, Amsterdam Centre for Tax law (ACTL), Amsterdam, Holland E-mail: Dennis.weber@loyensloeff.com ABSTRACT This paper examines the right of the EU Member States to combat abuse, as defined in the case law of the European Court, in particular, the balance between enforcement of the principle of legal certainty, the right to choose the most favourable fiscal route and the right of states to combat tax avoidance. Part 2 analyses, inter alia, how specific an anti-abuse provisions should be, the burden of proof, tax jurisdiction shopping and the consequences of abuse. Keywords: abuse; tax avoidance; artificial structures; general principle of EU-law; tax jurisdiction shopping.
(beginning in the the previous volume) 4. Different levels of abuse — different for mulations of the Court of Justice Together with Wattel [1, p. 212], I am of the opinion that abuse takes place in general at two levels: i) at EU level; and ii) at national level. In the case of abuse at EU level, endeavours are made to make direct use of the EU rules (by, for example, invoking a certain exemption in a Directive) which in fact is not intended for that person. Such a form of abuse often occurs in situations in which the law has been made uniform or has been harmonised (consider, for example, VAT). By abuse at national level, endeavours are made to avoid certain national legislation (for example, the non-deductibility of interest), by invoking Union law (for example, the right of establishment). Such a form of abuse occurs, for example, in non-harmonised areas such as direct taxation, where taxpayers devise all kinds of structures in order to avoid the non-deductibility of interest. In the course of time, the Court has developed two different formulations in the case law on the basis of which abuse can be combated. The first formulation can be found, amongst others, in ECJ 14 December 2000, case C-110/99 (EmslandStärke). In this, the Court considers that for the question if there is abuse, an objective test and a subjective test must be satisfied. The Court maintains this formulation each time there is an issue of abuse at EU level1. In the second formulation, the Court does not refer directly to the objective and the subjective tests, but considers more in general that the Member States may impede abuse. The Court maintains this more general formulation of abuse in the case there is abuse at national level. One example is ECJ 9 March 1999, case C-212/97 (Centros), ECR 1999, p. I-14592. Also in cases concerning direct taxation in which the Member States invoke the combating of tax 1 See, for example, for the capital tax: ECJ 7 June 2007, case C-178/05 (Commission/Greece), ECR I-4185. 2 The Court considered in para. 24: “It is true that according to the caselaw of the Court a Member State is entitled to take measures designed to prevent certain of its nationals from attempting, undercover of the rights created by the Treaty, improperly to circumvent their national legislation or to prevent individuals from improperly or fraudulently taking advantage of provisions of Community law”. avoidance as justification for the free movement, the Court refers, not directly to the objective and subjective tests, but mentions more in general the combating of “wholly artificial arrangements”. With this difference in formulation, the ques tion arises if the Court draws a distinction between combating of abuse at EU level and at national level. In my view, this should make no difference because the core question persists of whether the Community law allows the presumed combating of abuse, independent of the question of whether the abuse takes place at EU level or at national level [1, p. 212]. For that matter, we see that the Court refers more and more to cases from various areas of law3 and accordingly, in this manner, it is already active in bringing the case law more on one line. It is recommended, however, that the Court be more consistent in the formulation of what can be considered abuse [1, p. 212; 2, p. 439]. Hereby, an alignment as close as possible with the objective and subjects tests from Emsland-Starke has my preference, and we see from the doctrine and in the views of the AGs that this description is considered a general guideline4. 5. How specific should an anti-abuse provi sion be? 5.1. Sufficiently specific to combat abuse situa tions only Restrictive national rules which are applica ble “to every situation” (in other words, measures which do not take into account specific circumstances that indicate abuse) “for whatever reason” (thus without taking account of the subjective intention to abuse) are, according to the Court, too general in order to serve to combat abuse. Their restrictive effect can then also not be justified with the argument that tax avoidance must be combated. Emigration levies at the emigration of a natural person (the Lasteyrie case), levying of capital tax when relocating the corporate seat (an issue in ECJ 7 June 2007, case C-178/05 (Commissie/Griekenland), ECR I-4185), the refusal of an interest deduction because the shareholder is 3 For example: In a VAT case to a direct tax case. See: ECJ 22 May 2008, C-162/07 (Ampliscientifica), para. 28 or vice versa: ECJ 5 July 2007 (Kofoed). 4 See AG Stix-Hackl in point 95 of her Opinion in ECJ 3 October 2006, case C-452/04 (Fidium Finanz); AG Maduro, in his Opinion in case C-311/06 (CNDI), point 38 et seq. and AG Geelhoed in point 96 et seq. of his Opinion in ECJ 23 September 2003, case C-109/01 (Akrich), ECR I-9607. АКТУАЛЬНАЯ ТЕМА
ВЕСТНИК ФИНАНСОВОГО УНИВЕРСИТЕТА 3’2013 established abroad (the Lankhorst-Hohorst case, which concerned the interest deduction restriction under German thin capitalisation rules) or an anti-abuse provision which is applicable to every cross border lease of assets (CJ 4 December 2008, C-330/07 (Jobra), H&I 2009/1.6. (comments by Dourado), are examples of measures which are too general in order to justify this restrictive effect with the argument that tax avoidance is being combated. It is clear from the case law that anti-abuse measures which are only applicable in an individual case (so case by case; such as the doctrine of fraus legis) are, in principle, permitted under Union law (see: Centros, para. 25). In line with this case law, we see that in the Glaxo Wellcome case, AG Bot5 required that an anti-abuse provision must be tailored to the abuse to be combated. He disliked the fact that the anti-abuse rule in that case was applicable to all the sales transactions with shares, whereas the abuse could only take place in a group (thus between affiliated bodies). The anti-abuse provision must restrict itself only to transactions within a group if it is to be proportionate, according to the AG. The CJ agreed with its AG on this point. 5.2. The lessons from Cadbury Schweppes and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation 5.2.1. The legal presumption of abuse in both cases It is difficult to indicate how broad (or how strict) anti-abuse rules must be if they are to be in accordance with Union law. ECJ 12 September 2006, case C-196/04 (Cadbury Schweppes) is a well-known and good example of a case from which lessons can be learned as to how the CJ deals with this problem. In this case, the British Controlled Foreign Companies (‘CFC’) legislation was at issue. In short, this legislation made it possible to levy corporation tax in the United Kingdom on profits that were attained by subsidiaries established outside the United Kingdom, the shares of which were held by British holding companies. The profits of such foreign subsidiaries were attributed to the parent company that was established in the United Kingdom and taxed with corporation tax (whereby the foreign corporation tax was set-off). The CFC legislation 5 CJ 17 September 2009, case C-182/08, Glaxo Wellcome, opinion point 167. is applicable in the event the foreign subsidiary is subject to a “lower level of taxation” elsewhere as compared to the British level of levy. There is a “lower level” if the foreign tax paid amounts to less than 75 % of the British tax which would have been due on the profit of the subsidiary. This rule is of particular interest for companies which are developing financial activities. There are exceptions to this CFC legislation. One of these exceptions is the “motive test”: the taxpayer must demonstrate that a lowering of the British tax was not (one of) the principle reason (s) to create the foreign subsidiary and furthermore that the effected lowering of British tax was not the consequence of a “re-routing” of profits. In Cadbury Schweppes, the profit of two subsidiaries established in Ireland was attributed to the parent company established in the United Kingdom, Cadbury Schweppes PLC. The two Irish subsidiaries performed group financing activities and in Ireland, made use of what is called the International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) regime whereby only 10 % Irish corporation tax was paid (the rate in the United Kingdom was 33 %). The Court ruled that the CFC legislation restricted the free movement of establishment, because the CFC legislation was never applicable to domestic companies, nor was it applicable if the company was established in a Member State where the profit was not taxed at a rate that was lower than 75 % of the British rate. The question subsequently was if the restriction was justified because this was specifically targeted at the combating of wholly artificial constructions. The Court then examined what the objective of the right of establishment was6 and recalled that an establishment implied “the actual pursuit of an economic activity through a fixed establishment in that State for an indefinite period”. Subsequently, the Court considered: “It follows that, in order for a restriction on the freedom of establishment to be justified on the ground of prevention of abusive practices, the 6 “That objective is to allow a national of a Member State to set up a secondary establishment in another Member State to carry on his activities there and thus assist economic and social interpenetration within the Community in the sphere of activities as self-employed persons (see Case 2/74 Reyners [1974] ECR 631, paragraph 21). To that end, freedom of establishment is intended to allow a Community national to participate, on a stable and continuing basis, in the economic life of a Member State other than his State of origin and to profit therefrom”, see the ECJ in para. 53.
specific objective of such a restriction must be to prevent conduct involving the creation of wholly artificial arrangements which do not reflect economic reality, with a view to escaping the tax normally due on the profits generated by activities carried out on national territory”. The Court then went on to examine whether the British CFC legislation could be justified by the combating of wholly artificial arrangements and if this restriction was proportional. In this framework, the Court considered first that the CFC legislation was appropriate to attain this objective. Here the court considered: “That legislation covers situations in which a resident company has created a CFC which is subject, in the Member State in which it is established, to a level of taxation which is less than three quarters of the amount of tax which would have been paid in the United Kingdom if the profits of that CFC had been taxed in that Member State” (para 58). “By providing for the inclusion of the profits of a CFC subject to very favourable tax regime in the tax base of the resident company, the legislation on CFCs makes it possible to thwart practices which have no purpose other than to escape the tax normally due on the profits generated by activities carried on in national territory. As the French, Finnish and Swedish Governments stated, such legislation is therefore suitable to achieve the objective for which it was adopted” (para. 59). With respect to the necessity of the CFC leg islation, the Court found first that there were a number of exceptions to the CFC legislation but considered that the CFC legislation could only be justified if it were only applicable in the case of an “artificial arrangement” and the taxpayer was given the opportunity to provide evidence to the argument that the subjective and objective conditions from Emsland-Stärke and Halifax had not been satisfied on the basis of “objective factors which are ascertainable by third parties with regard, in particular, to the extent to which the CFC physically exists in terms of premises, staff and equipment”. It appears from Cadbury Schweppes that the Court is prepared in principle to allow more general measures such as the CFC legislation (such legislation prompts the presumption that in these situations, there is a matter of abuse), under the condition that the taxpayer is given the opportunity to prove that in his situation, there had been no question of abuse. We see the same in ECJ 13 March 2007, case C-524/04 (Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation). In this case, British thin capitalisation rules were up for discussion whereby interest paid within a group under certain conditions could not be deducted (the deductible interest was then re-qualified to a non-deductible profit distribution). According to the Court, the rules constituted a restriction on the right of establishment because they were only applicable if the lender was established abroad. The Court subsequently recalled that such a restriction could be justified in case: “the specific objective of such a restriction must be to prevent conduct involving the creation of wholly artificial arrangements which do not reflect economic reality, with a view to escaping the tax normally due on the profits generated by activities carried out on national territory” (para. 74). The Court first established that the British thin capitalisation rules were appropriate to attain this objective: “As the United Kingdom Government observes, national legislation such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings is targeted at the practice of thin capitalisation, under which a group of companies will seek to reduce the taxation of profits made by one of its subsidiaries by electing to fund that subsidiary by way of loan capital, rather than equity capital, thereby allowing that subsidiary to transfer profits to a parent company in the form of interest which is deductible in the calculation of its taxable profits, and not in the form of non-deductible dividends. Where the parent company is resident in a State in which the rate of tax is lower than that which applies in the State in which its subsidiary is resident, the tax liability may thus be transferred to a State which has a lower tax rate” (para. 76). The Court then examined whether these were also necessary. Hereby, the Court considered that the statutory rule with regard to thin capitalisation could be justified: “where it provides that interest paid by a resi dent subsidiary to a non-resident parent company АКТУАЛЬНАЯ ТЕМА
ВЕСТНИК ФИНАНСОВОГО УНИВЕРСИТЕТА 3’2013 is to be treated as a distribution only if, and in so far as, it exceeds what those companies would have agreed upon on an arm’s-length basis, that is to say, the commercial terms which those parties would have accepted if they had not formed part of the same group of companies”. The Court went on to consider: “The fact that a resident company has been granted a loan by a non-resident company on terms which do not correspond to those which would have been agreed upon at arm’s length constitutes, for the Member State in which the borrowing company is resident, an objective element which can be independently verified in order to determine whether the transaction in question represents, in whole or in part, a purely artificial arrangement, the essential purpose of which is to circumvent the tax legislation of that Member State. In that regard, the question is whether, had there been an arm’s-length relationship between the companies concerned, the loan would not have been granted or would have been granted for a different amount or at a different rate of interest”. The CJ, therefore, allows an at arm’s length test if there is a general presumption that abuse is present. The CJ then set, on the basis of the principle of proportionality, two conditions: 1) “on each occasion on which the existence of such an arrangement cannot be ruled out, the taxpayer is given an opportunity, without being subject to undue administrative constraints, to provide evidence of any commercial justification that there may have been for that arrangement”; 2) “that, where the consideration of those ele ments leads to the conclusion that the transaction in question represents a purely artificial arrangement without any underlying commercial justification, the re-characterisation of interest paid as a distribution is limited to the proportion of that interest which exceeds what would have been agreed had the relationship between the parties or between those parties and a third party been one at arm’s length”. 5.2.2. The lessons from these judgments consid ered further It appears from Cadbury Schweppes and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation that three requirements are set for an anti-abuse rule which operates with a legal presumption of abuse: 1. An objective element which can be inde pendently verified by a third party in order to determine whether the transaction in question represents, in whole or in part, a purely artificial arrangement, which do not reflect economic reality, with a view to escaping the tax normally due on the profits generated by activities carried out on national territory (legal presumption of abuse based on the objective abuse test); 2. The taxpayer is given an opportunity, with out being subject to undue administrative constraints, to provide evidence of any commercial justification that there may have been for that arrangement (proof to the contrary of the taxpayer based on the subjective abuse test); 3. Where the consideration of those elements leads to the conclusion that the transaction in question represents a purely artificial arrangement without any underlying commercial justification, the re-characterisation is limited to abuse situations (proportional combating of abuse). The first requirement which the Court sets for the legal presumption of abuse is, in essence, that the anti-abuse measure must be structured such that there is a concrete indication of abuse, only on the basis of a suchlike rule may the burden of proof that there is no question of abuse in his concrete situation be placed on the taxpayer. It becomes clear that the general criteria are not permitted (see paragraph 5.1.). The general indication that the Court gives is that there must be a rule which is based on an “objective criterion, verifiable by a third party, being applied to test for the existence of a wholly artificial arrangement” (see para. 81 Thin Cap LGO and para. 56 in SIAT). On this, I first wish to remark that it is not clear why the objective criterion must be verifiable by a third party. This requirement first arose in Cadbury Schweppes in 2006 (but then in the framework of the proof to the contrary rule for the taxpayer), but in light of the confidentiality applicable in many Member States with regard to information about the tax position of a taxpayer, it fails to be seen why a third party must verify the objective criterion7. The Court 7 I remark that with the wording “verifiable by a third party”, I assume that the Court does not refer to the fact that the anti-abuse provision must be open to judicial review; see: CJ 17 July 1997, C-28/95 (Leur-Bloem), para. 41. I believe that is a correct requirement.