Tax Fraud and Selective Law Enforcement

This article presents a new conceptual framework for research into tax fraud and law enforcement. Informed by research approaches from across tax law, public economics, criminology, criminal justice, economics of crime, and regulatory theory, it assesses the effectiveness, and the legitimacy, of current approaches to combating tax fraud, bringing new dimensions to previously identified trends in crime control. It argues that, whilst the last decade has witnessed a significant intensification of measures that purportedly target tax fraud, preference has been consistently given to enforcement measures that maximize revenue gains rather than combat the fraud itself, even where the effect is to aggravate the non‐revenue costs of tax fraud. These developments demonstrate a significant shift from tax fraud suppression to tax fraud management. The article concludes that this shift not only undermines tax equity and overall tax compliance, but also leads to selective tax enforcement, thus representing a significant risk to the rule of law

Towards an [Unlawful] Modernized EU VAT Rate Policy

In late 2015, the European Commission announced a monumental U-turn on Value Added Tax rates policy. After decades of advocating the benefits of harmonization of VAT rates across the EU Member States, and after many failed legislative attempts at achieving it, the Commission declared its intention to do the opposite, namely to disharmonize VAT rates across Europe. The announcement was followed by a VAT Action Plan, and a public consultation on the reform of VAT rates, which, under the guise of modernization and consistency with the destination principle, presented two options for reform, both of which would give Member States further freedom and flexibility in the application of reduced rates. Against this background, the aim of this article is not to restate the benefits of VAT rate harmonization, but to assess whether the EU has legislative competence to approve disharmonizing VAT legislation. The article concludes that Article 113 TFEU could not be used as a legal basis for a Directive aimed at disharmonizing VAT rates, and that any such Directive, would lack legal basis and, consequently, be unlawful under the EU constitutional principle of conferral of powers

Editorial: Pillar 2, Fiat, and the EU Unanimity Rule on Tax Matters

On 9 September 2022, five Member States announced that should agreement on the legislative proposal concerning the EU implementation of globalminimumcorporate tax rate be impossible to achieve, they would proceed with implementation of the measure, either unilaterally or through the enhanced cooperation procedure.1 The announcement came after one Member State, Hungary, blocked agreement at the Council meeting in June. Whilst agreement has now been reached,2 for a while the possibility of triggering the enhanced cooperation procedure loomed ever larger. Two months after that announcement, on 8 November 2022 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its eagerly awaited decision on the Fiat case, concerning the use of state aid law to strike down tax deals. In what has been widely seen as amajor defeat for the European Commission,3 the CJEU allowed Fiat’s appeal against the previous decision of the EU General Court, and annulled the Commission’s state aid decision against Luxembourg, effectively closing – or least significantly limiting – the use of state aid law on tax matters. What do these two taxation developments have in common? On the surface, nothing other than the fact that they both concern EU initiatives on corporate tax matters; in reality, however, there is a close link between them: the EU unanimity rule in tax matters. Both the enhanced cooperation procedure and state aid law have come to be regarded as alternative paths’ to harmonization in taxation, where unanimous agreement under Articles 113 and 115 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) cannot, or would be unlikely to, be reached. These latest developments on how, and to what extent, they can be used highlight the significant – and growing – costs of keeping the unanimity rule in taxation. The question is then, is it worth keeping

A longitudinal study of gene expression in first-episode schizophrenia; exploring relapse mechanisms by co-expression analysis in peripheral blood

Little is known about the pathophysiological mechanisms of relapse in first-episode schizophrenia, which limits the study of potential biomarkers. To explore relapse mechanisms and identify potential biomarkers for relapse prediction, we analyzed gene expression in peripheral blood in a cohort of first-episode schizophrenia patients with less than 5 years of evolution who had been evaluated over a 3-year follow-up period. A total of 91 participants of the 2EPs project formed the sample for baseline gene expression analysis. Of these, 67 provided biological samples at follow-up (36 after 3 years and 31 at relapse). Gene expression was assessed using the Clariom S Human Array. Weighted gene co-expression network analysis was applied to identify modules of co-expressed genes and to analyze their preservation after 3 years of follow-up or at relapse. Among the 25 modules identified, one module was semi-conserved at relapse (DarkTurquoise) and was enriched with risk genes for schizophrenia, showing a dysregulation of the TCF4 gene network in the module. Two modules were semi-conserved both at relapse and after 3 years of follow-up (DarkRed and DarkGrey) and were found to be biologically associated with protein modification and protein location processes. Higher expression of DarkRed genes was associated with higher risk of suffering a relapse and early appearance of relapse (p = 0.045). Our findings suggest that a dysregulation of the TCF4 network could be an important step in the biological process that leads to relapse and suggest that genes related to the ubiquitin proteosome system could be potential biomarkers of relapse. © 2021, The Author(s)

Evolution after Anti-TNF Discontinuation in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Multicenter Long-Term Follow-Up Study

OBJECTIVES:The aims of this study were to assess the risk of relapse after discontinuation of anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), to identify the factors associated with relapse, and to evaluate the overcome after retreatment with the same anti-TNF in those who relapsed.METHODS:This was a retrospective, observational, multicenter study. IBD patients who had been treated with anti-TNFs and in whom these drugs were discontinued after clinical remission was achieved were included.RESULTS:A total of 1, 055 patients were included. The incidence rate of relapse was 19% and 17% per patient-year in Crohn''s disease and ulcerative colitis patients, respectively. In both Crohn''s disease and ulcerative colitis patients in deep remission, the incidence rate of relapse was 19% per patient-year. The treatment with adalimumab vs. infliximab (hazard ratio (HR)=1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.66), elective discontinuation of anti-TNFs (HR=1.90; 95% CI=1.07-3.37) or discontinuation because of adverse events (HR=2.33; 95% CI=1.27-2.02) vs. a top-down strategy, colonic localization (HR=1.51; 95% CI=1.13-2.02) vs. ileal, and stricturing behavior (HR=1.5; 95% CI=1.09-2.05) vs. inflammatory were associated with a higher risk of relapse in Crohn''s disease patients, whereas treatment with immunomodulators after discontinuation (HR=0.67; 95% CI=0.51-0.87) and age (HR=0.98; 95% CI=0.97-0.99) were protective factors. None of the factors were predictive in ulcerative colitis patients. Retreatment of relapse with the same anti-TNF was effective (80% responded) and safe.CONCLUSIONS:The incidence rate of inflammatory bowel disease relapse after anti-TNF discontinuation is relevant. Some predictive factors of relapse after anti-TNF withdrawal have been identified. Retreatment with the same anti-TNF drug was effective and safe