Opting for opting in? : an evaluation of the European Commission’s proposals for reforming VAT on financial services

This paper provides a legal and economic analysis of the European Commission’s recent proposals for reforming the application of VAT to financial services, with particular focus on their “third pillar”, under which firms would be allowed to opt-into taxation on exempt insurance and financial services. From a legal perspective, we show that the proposals’ “first and second pillar” would give rise to considerable interpretative and qualification problems, resulting in as much complexity and legal uncertainty as the current regime. Equally, an option to tax could potentially follow significantly different legal designs, which would give rise to discrepancies in the application of the option amongst Member States. On the economic side, we show that quite generally, when firms cannot coordinate their behaviour, they have an individual incentive to opt-in on business-to-business (B2B) transactions, but not on business-to-consumer (B2C) transactions. We also show that opting in eliminates the cost disadvantage that EU financial services firms face in competing with foreign firms for B2B sales. But, these results do not hold if firms can coordinate their behaviour. An estimate of the upper bound on the amount of tax revenue that might be lost from allowing opting-in is provided for a number of EU countries

More Stringent BITs, Less Ambiguous Effects on FDI? Not a Bit!

We focus on investor-state dispute settlement provisions contained in various, though far from all, bilateral investment treaties as a possible determinant of BIT-related effects on bilateral FDI flows. Our estimation results prove to be sensitive to the specification of these provisions as well as the inclusion of transition countries in the sample. Stricter dispute settlement provisions do not necessarily result in higher FDI inflows so that the effectiveness of BITs as a credible commitment device remains elusive

Fiskalische Kosten einer steuerlichen Förderung von Forschung und Entwicklung in Deutschland - Eine empirische Analyse verschiedener Gestaltungsoptionen

Der Beitrag berechnet die Aufkommensausfälle verschiedener Gestaltungsmodelle für eine steuerliche Forschungsförderung in Deutschland auf Basis eines Mikrosimulationsmodells. Die fiskalischen Kosten betragen zwischen 464 Mio. € und 5.701 Mio. €. Eine Erstattungsoption der Steuergutschrift über die Gewerbe- und Körperschaftsteuerschuld hinaus ist unerlässlich, da sonst etwa ein Drittel der Unternehmen nicht oder nur teilweise in den Genuss der Förderung kommen würde und sich dadurch starke Verzerrungen zwischen ertragsstarken und ertragsschwachen Unternehmen ergeben. Eine Differenzierung der Fördersätze für KMU und große Unternehmen kann die Aufkommensausfälle wirksam begrenzen. Eine Kappungsgrenze in Höhe eines absoluten Betrages ist wegen der Verzerrungen innerhalb der Gruppe großer Unternehmen ungünstig. Als besonders pragmatisch erscheint eine Verrechnung der Steuergutschrift mit der abzuführenden Lohnsteuer

The impact of double taxation treaties on foreign direct investment: evidence from large dyadic panel data

To increase inward foreign direct investment (FDI), policy makers increasingly resort to the ratification of double taxation treaties (DTTs). However, the effectiveness of DTTs in inducing higher FDI is still open to debate, as the empirical evidence of existing studies is anything but conclusive. In contrast to earlier approaches, we use a largely unpublished dataset on bilateral FDI stocks, covering a much larger and more representative sample of host and source countries. Controlling for standard determinants of FDI and employing various econometric specifications, our results indicate that DTTs do lead to higher FDI stocks and that the effects are substantively important as well

CFE ECJ Task Force: Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 3/2021 on the CJEU decision of 18 March 2021 in Case C-388/19, MK v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira, on the taxpayers’ option to avoid discriminatory taxation of capital gains

This is an Opinion Statement prepared by the CFE ECJ Task Force1 on the MK v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira case, in which the First Chamber of the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ) delivered its decision on 18 March 2021,2 which deviated from the Opinion delivered by Advocate General Hogan, on the 19 November 2021.3 In MK, the Court confirmed its previous case law and held that the Portuguese (optional) regime for taxation of capital gains from immovable property of non-residents was contrary to the free movement of capital under Article 63 TFEU since non-residents were taxed less favourably than residents. The fact that the domestic system provided an election for non-residents to be treated as residents was not sufficient to consider the rule as compatible with EU Law