Deutsche Unternehmenssteuerbelastung im internationalen Steuerwettbewerb

Deutschland befindet sich inmitten einer intensiven Debatte über die Unternehmensbesteuerung, deren treibende Kraft der internationale Steuerwettbewerb ist. Sind die Unternehmenssteuern in Deutschland tatsächlich zu hoch? Wie sollte eine Reform der Unternehmensbesteuerung ausgestaltet sein

A European perspective on the US plans for a destination based cash flow tax

The Republican majority in the US House of Representatives is considering the introduction of a destination based cash flow tax (DBCFT). While its global implementation has the potential of substantially increasing welfare, a unilateral introduction of such a tax system raises a range of questions due to the co-existence with source based taxation systems abroad. We consider the US tax plans from an EU perspective. We show that European exporters may suffer, but European firms with affiliation in the US may benefit from a switch to the DBCFT. American multinational firms with affiliates in the EU will be the likely losers of this policy – a surprising finding given President Trump’s “America first!” rhetoric. Finally, tax competition over profits, IP location and investment will further intensify, which will require policy reactions by the EU and its member countries far beyond the implementation of the OECD BEPS project. We will therefore also discuss the legal and economic implications of possible adjustments in EU tax systems

Deutsche Unternehmenssteuerbelastung im internationalen Steuerwettbewerb

Deutschland befindet sich inmitten einer intensiven Debatte über die Unternehmensbesteuerung, deren treibende Kraft der internationale Steuerwettbewerb ist. Sind die Unternehmenssteuern in Deutschland tatsächlich zu hoch? Wie sollte eine Reform der Unternehmensbesteuerung ausgestaltet sein? --

Steuer- und wirtschaftspolitische Bedeutung von Patentboxen im Post-BEPS-Zeitalter

Deutschland ist eines der wenigen Länder ohne steuerliche Instrumente zur Förderung der Entwicklung oder Verwertung von geistigem Eigentum. Aktuell wird aber hierzulande über deren Einführung diskutiert. Ein mögliches Instrument wäre eine output-orientierte Patentbox-Regelung, die Einnahmen und Gewinne aus der Nutzung geistigen Eigentums bevorzugt behandelt. Patentbox-Regime sind allerdings auf die OECD-Agenda zur Bekämpfung von Steuerflucht und schädlicher Steuergestaltung geraten. Um Steuerflucht zu verhindern, haben sich die OECD-Staaten auf einen modifizierten Nexus-Ansatz geeinigt, der eine allein steuerlich motivierte Verschiebung des Steuersubstrats über die Grenzen einschränkt. Können Patentboxen vor diesem Hintergrund noch ein sinnvoller Baustein im Steuersystem sein? Sollten sie parallel mit input-orientierten Fördermaßnahmen eingesetzt werden?Germany is one of the very few developed countries without any R&D related tax incentives. However, broad political consensus has decidedthat this should change in the near future. One possible option would be an output oriented measure, i.e. a so called 'patent box' regime. This instrument has recently undergone significant conceptual changes due to the agreement of OECD, G20 and EU Member States on the 'modified nexus approach'. As a consequence, the patent box has lost much of its appeal as a means to attract IP and IP related profits from abroad. We argue that it nevertheless still has a potentially important role to play as a defensive instrument in international tax competition. In this context, aspects of optimal patent box design within the constraints of the nexus approach and EU law are discussed. We furthermore examine the effectiveness of a patent box regime that adheres to the nexus approach inattracting or stimulating additional R&D investments. Our preliminary conclusion is that it would have an impact on discrete investment choices made by mature MNEs, whereas it would be of even lesser relevance for SMEs than traditional patent box designs

Anspruch auf Rücknahme gemeinschaftsrechtswidrig belastender Verwaltungsakte nach Eintritt der Bestandskraft?

In principle, European Community Member States enjoy procedural autonomy regarding the administration of Community law. However, this principle often clashes with the fundamental requirements of uniform application and full effect of Community law. In particular, conflicts arise when administrative acts violate primary or secondary EC law but are not susceptible to challenge any more if national rules governing their annulment are respected. The focus of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to date in this regard has been on government subsidies granted contrary to Art. 87 et seq. of the EC Treaty. But a similar problem occurs when national administrative law precludes an appeal or court action against unfavourable acts, such as the levying of fiscal duties after the expiry of certain time limits. In Germany, authorities generally have discretion as to whether to rescind such a final act if it is unlawful. They are not even obliged to consider doing so unless the administrative decision is ‘manifestly incompatible‘ with the requirements of statutory or constitutional law or if the legal situation has subsequently changed. This article demonstrates that a subsequent ruling of the ECJ clarifying the interpretation of a Community law provision is not tantamount to a change of the legal situation. A final administrative act which turns out to have been issued contrary to EC law may also not be disregarded in reliance on the ECJ's Ciola judgment since the conflict cannot be resolved by simply resorting to the concept of primacy of EC law. Rather, the principle of legality and the legal objectives sought to be achieved must be weighed and balanced against the principle of legal certainty within the framework of Community loyalty enshrined in Art. 10 of the EC Treaty. As has been pointed out recently in the i-21 Germany case, a discretionary determination guided by these considerations does not render the exercise of rights conferred by the Community legal order excessively difficult if it ultimately gives precedence to legal certainty. EC law must respect disparities in the importance attributed to legal certainty in national legal orders. According to the principle of equivalence, however, German authorities must seriously consider rescinding an administrative decision if it is manifestly incompatible with Community law

EU perspective on VAT exemptions

As VAT becomes an increasingly important source of tax revenue world-wide, tax policy makers should be well aware of its strengths and weaknesses. In academia, there is strong consensus that tax exemptions rank among the most problematic features of VAT. The very concept of exemption is already a misrepresentation, because it normally entails the loss of entitlement to an input VAT credit; exempt supplies are therefore actually “input-taxed”. It is generally accepted that this particular form of occult taxation detrimentally affects economic efficiency and increases administrative complexity. Moreover, VAT as an indirect and impersonal tax on consumption is intended to be borne by final consumers but it is imposed on business. It will therefore often be questionable who really benefits from the intended relief, and whether there are superior alternatives to VAT exemptions to attain their underlying policy objectives. Even where they can be defended, exemptions are often implemented in an inconsistent fashion. All of these aspects are particularly troublesome in the EU VAT system that suffers from legislative eurosclerosis. The present paper discusses these topics with special emphasis on the EU constitutional and institutional framework. It offers an overview of the current array of exemptions and lays out the relevant economic and legal benchmark for their critical assessment. The paper identifies eight main rationales for tax exemptions and analyzes their merits in the light of those benchmarks. Particular attention is given to considerations of tax equity and social policy, and to exemptions of so-called “hard to tax”-supplies. In a separate section, the paper discusses the detrimental effects of the corresponding denial of input VAT deduction and its eventual justifications. Policy makers are thus provided with clear legal guidance as to which exemptions are required, which are tolerable, and which should be abolished within the framework of EU VAT, and how the defendable ones should be amended.