Ein frühpleistozänes Kalkartefakt von Würzburg-Schalksberg

In den Jahren 1966 und 1976 wurden bei Ausschachtungsarbeiten in Würzburg-Schalksberg zahlreiche mauerzeitliche Faunenreste aus alten Ablagerungen des Mains geborgen. Zusammen mit den nichtumgelagerten, z.T. bearbeiteten Knochen wurden Werkzeuge aus Kalk entdeckt, die in altpleistozäner Technik hergestellt wurden.researc

Über neue Artefaktfunde aus der Heidelberger Stufe

Nach der Entdeckung altpleistozäner Artefakte der Heidelberger Stufe in Norddeutschland und bei Mauer ließ sich der erkennbare Lebensraum des Homo heidelbergensis jetzt wesentlich ausweiten. Neue Funde aus den präglazialen Terrassen von Süssenborn bei Weimar erwiesen eine Besiedlung auch Mitteldeutschlands, und gleichartige Funde aus den ältesten Donauterrassen bei Wien werden als Hinweis auf eine weitgehend nach Osten in den Kontinent hineinreichende Besiedlung durch den Heidelberger Menschen aufgefaßt. Artefaktfunde aus den Rheinschottern bei Brüggen führen an die plio-pleistozäne Grenze. Im Nachtrag werden Heidelberger Artefakte aus den oberpliozänen Schottern von Sülzfeld in Thüringen angeführt, die den Artefakten von Mauer typologisch sehr nahestehen.researc

The Netherlands I: Köln-Aktienfonds Deka (C-156/17): Refund of dividend withholding tax for a foreign investment fund

In this contribution, the author discusses a case concerning the Dutch dividend withholding tax. Dividend withholding taxes have been assessed for their consistency with EU law in cases referred from several Member States. As a result, a large body of case law has been developed on dividend withholding taxes (DWHT). Nevertheless, on many issues, a lack of clarity or inconsistency between the DWHT and EU law is still present. The case discussed in this chapter exhibits a number of still existing open questions, at least according to the Dutch Supreme Court. This case deals with a claim for refund of Dutch DWHT by a non-resident portfolio shareholder, more precisely, a German resident investment fund, which was refused by the tax authorities. The case focuses on the question of whether the situation of this investment fund is comparable with a Netherlands resident fiscal investment institution (FII) which would have been entitled to a refund of Dutch DWHT. In the context of the fact that under domestic Dutch tax law, the taxpayer in this case is not entitled to a DWHT refund, the author firstly present the facts of the case, the relevant domestic tax laws and DTC law, the main considerations of the Dutch Supreme Court, and the preliminary questions that have been referred to the CJEU. Secondly, the author comments on the issues raised. In this respect, the following issues are discussed: 1. Whether the Dutch Supreme Court can uphold its decision in HR BNB 2015/203 that a foreign investment fund is not comparable with a Netherlands resident FII because a foreign investment fund is not a dividend withholding agent in the Netherlands? 2. Whether on the basis of the Miljoen case, the effective Dutch tax position of participants in a foreign investment fund is comparable with that of participants in a domestic FII and the foreign investment fund therefore has a legal basis for a DWHT refund claim? 3. Whether the PMT case is a confirmation of HR BNB 2015/203? 4. Whether the specific shareholder conditions of the FII regime prevent a comparison of a foreign investment fund with a domestic FII? 5. Whether the redistribution condition of the FII regime prevents a comparison of a foreign investment fund with a domestic FII? These comments are not made in isolation, rather they are based on benchmarks. The contribution is closed by summarizing the author’s main conclusions

The Netherlands I: Fiscal Unity, Groupe Steria’s Per-Element Approach and Currency Losses relating to a Non-Resident Subsidiary (C-399/16[X NV]); Starbucks and State Aid (T-760/15 and T-636/16)

In this contribution, the author discusses three cases. The first case, Case C- 399/16 (X NV) is a case which has been inspired by the Groupe Steria decision. The main issue in Case C-399/16 (X NV) is whether the Groupe Steria decision implies that a Dutch resident parent company cannot be denied the right to take into account currency losses in respect of a UK resident subsidiary. The Netherlands has denied this right on the basis of the Dutch participation exemption. The possible inconsistency with EU law has been founded on the idea that a Dutch resident parent company could have taken into account currency losses if the UK resident subsidiary had been a Dutch resident subsidiary with a permanent establishment (PE) in the UK and that subsidiary had been included in a fiscal unity with its Dutch resident parent company. Can this single element of the Dutch fiscal unity regime be relied on because of the Groupe Steria decision? This per-element approach may be relevant not only for the Netherlands, but for all EU Member States and EEA Member States which have a group taxation regime. The two other cases to be discussed, T-760/15 (The Netherlands v. Commission) and T-636/16 (Starbucks and Starbucks Manufacturing Emea v Commission), concern the European Commission decision that Starbucks received forbidden State aid from the Netherlands through an advanced pricing agreement (APA) concluded between Starbucks and the Dutch Tax Authorities (DTA). Both the Netherlands (Case T-760/15) and Starbucks (Case T-636/16) have appealed the decision. The European Commission is very active in the field of taxation of MNEs and potential State aid. In the Starbucks case the arm’s length pricing is at stake, but the Commission is also active in respect of other fields. Sometimes the fields are closely related, such as in the Apple case which concerns the allocation of profits between head office and PE. However, mismatches are also under investigation, such as the mismatch of the PE concept under the US-Luxembourg tax treaty leading to double non-taxation in the McDonald’s case. The Starbucks case may also be relevant for all EU and EEA Member States, because APA practices are widely applied by the Member States. This contribution starts by discussing Case C-399/16 (X NV) which is followed with a discussion of the Starbucks cases. For each of the cases, an initial description of the facts is provided. Subsequently, domestic tax law and tax treaty law are addressed. Next, the considerations of the Hoge Raad (HR; Dutch Supreme Court) and the Commission are set out respectively. Thereafter, the focus is on the preliminary questions of the HR and the pleas in law and main arguments in the Starbucks cases. Potential answers to the questions raised are then provided along with comments on the positions taken by the EC, the Netherlands and Starbucks from the author’s personal perspective. These potential answers and comments are not be given in isolation, rather they are based on benchmarks. The contribution is closed by summarizing the author’s main conclusions

Texas Business Review, April 1960

The Business Situation in Texas; Commercial Banking in Texas; Industrial Production: A New Industrial Revolution; Retail Trade: February Retail Volume High Despite Weather; Agriculture: Oats: Fourth Largest Grain Crop in Texas; Building Construction: Nonresidential Gains Balance Small Residential Decline in FebruaryBureau of Business Researc