Skatterådgivarens Informationsplikt : En proportionell begränsning av etableringsfriheten?

The growing digitalization of the world’s economy and the further integration of the EU:s internal market, combined with aggressive tax schemes becoming more and more sophisticated, has caused a growing need for unionwide effort to prevent aggressive tax-panning practises. The Council Directive (EU)...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Janrik, Linnéa
Format: Others
Language:Swedish
Published: Stockholms universitet, Juridiska institutionen 2021
Subjects:
Online Access:http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-194800
id ndltd-UPSALLA1-oai-DiVA.org-su-194800
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-UPSALLA1-oai-DiVA.org-su-1948002021-08-17T05:24:29ZSkatterådgivarens Informationsplikt : En proportionell begränsning av etableringsfriheten?sweJanrik, LinnéaStockholms universitet, Juridiska institutionen2021InformationspliktDAC-6DAC6Law (excluding Law and Society)Juridik (exklusive juridik och samhälle)The growing digitalization of the world’s economy and the further integration of the EU:s internal market, combined with aggressive tax schemes becoming more and more sophisticated, has caused a growing need for unionwide effort to prevent aggressive tax-panning practises. The Council Directive (EU) 208/822 often referred to as DAC-6 is but the latest step in the European Union’s ongoing work to fulfil that need. The directive which to a large degree is built on the OECD:s BEPS project action 12, aims to provide early information to tax agencies within the union about potentially harmful tax-arrangements, at an early stage. The hope is that armed with that information can member states intervene in an early stage and protect the tax base. The directive is not uncontroversial and has faced criticism and ongoing legal action[1] for being vague, infringing on the rights guaranteed in the EU charter of fundamental rights and potentially the four freedoms. Whenever the union choses to use its competence to enact legislation, it must abide by the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, and questions have been made if the directive has gone unproportionally far to combat tax evasion. The vague implementation and use of the main benefit test have also been criticised for possibly being contra productive in combating aggressive tax practises and causing European enterprises to become less competitive due to mounting administrative costs.  [1] Se C-694/20. Student thesisinfo:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesistexthttp://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-194800application/pdfinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
collection NDLTD
language Swedish
format Others
sources NDLTD
topic Informationsplikt
DAC-6
DAC6
Law (excluding Law and Society)
Juridik (exklusive juridik och samhälle)
spellingShingle Informationsplikt
DAC-6
DAC6
Law (excluding Law and Society)
Juridik (exklusive juridik och samhälle)
Janrik, Linnéa
Skatterådgivarens Informationsplikt : En proportionell begränsning av etableringsfriheten?
description The growing digitalization of the world’s economy and the further integration of the EU:s internal market, combined with aggressive tax schemes becoming more and more sophisticated, has caused a growing need for unionwide effort to prevent aggressive tax-panning practises. The Council Directive (EU) 208/822 often referred to as DAC-6 is but the latest step in the European Union’s ongoing work to fulfil that need. The directive which to a large degree is built on the OECD:s BEPS project action 12, aims to provide early information to tax agencies within the union about potentially harmful tax-arrangements, at an early stage. The hope is that armed with that information can member states intervene in an early stage and protect the tax base. The directive is not uncontroversial and has faced criticism and ongoing legal action[1] for being vague, infringing on the rights guaranteed in the EU charter of fundamental rights and potentially the four freedoms. Whenever the union choses to use its competence to enact legislation, it must abide by the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, and questions have been made if the directive has gone unproportionally far to combat tax evasion. The vague implementation and use of the main benefit test have also been criticised for possibly being contra productive in combating aggressive tax practises and causing European enterprises to become less competitive due to mounting administrative costs.  [1] Se C-694/20.
author Janrik, Linnéa
author_facet Janrik, Linnéa
author_sort Janrik, Linnéa
title Skatterådgivarens Informationsplikt : En proportionell begränsning av etableringsfriheten?
title_short Skatterådgivarens Informationsplikt : En proportionell begränsning av etableringsfriheten?
title_full Skatterådgivarens Informationsplikt : En proportionell begränsning av etableringsfriheten?
title_fullStr Skatterådgivarens Informationsplikt : En proportionell begränsning av etableringsfriheten?
title_full_unstemmed Skatterådgivarens Informationsplikt : En proportionell begränsning av etableringsfriheten?
title_sort skatterådgivarens informationsplikt : en proportionell begränsning av etableringsfriheten?
publisher Stockholms universitet, Juridiska institutionen
publishDate 2021
url http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-194800
work_keys_str_mv AT janriklinnea skatteradgivarensinformationspliktenproportionellbegransningavetableringsfriheten
_version_ 1719460231432372224