Share the Expertise

January 2013 - edition 113EU Tax Alert

The EU Tax Alert is an e-mail newsletter to inform you of recent developments in the EU that are of interest for tax professionals. It includes recent case law of the European Court of Justice, (proposed) direct tax and VAT legislation, customs, state aid, developments in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg and more.

To subscribe (free of charge) see: www.eutaxalert.com

Please click here to unsubscribe from this mailing.

32

Highlights in this editionCJ rules that Italian rules on intra-Union transfers of assets are not in breach of the Merger Directive (3D I)On 19 December 2012, the CJ delivered its judgment in the 3D I case (C-207/11). The case deals with the compatibility of Italian provisions relating to the deferral of capital gains tax arising from an intra-Union transfer of assets with the Merger Directive

Commission adopts Communication clarifying EU rules on car taxes On 14 December 2012, the Commission presented a Communication clarifying EU rules on car taxation and recommending measures to strengthen the Single Market in this area accompanied by a Commission Staff Working Document giving an overview of the main legal issues that arise in the field of vehicle taxation and the level of protection available to EU citizens and businesses that can be derived from EU law and the Court of Justice’s case law.

3

Contents

Top News• CJ rules that Italian legislation on intra-Union

transfers of assets is not in breach of the Merger

Directive (3D I)

• Commission adopts Communication clarifying EU

rules on car taxes

State Aid• First modernization proposals for new State aid

Regulations launched

• Commission opens investigation into French tax

benefitting milk products

• Commission allows new Spanish scheme for early

depreciation of finance-leased assets

• Commission declares Italian municipal real estate

tax exemption to be illegal aid

Direct taxation• European Parliament gives consent to enhanced

cooperation on the Financial Transaction Tax

• Entry into force of stronger EU rules to help fight tax

evasion

• Developments in the Netherlands: District Court of

Haarlem rules that the 150 kilometre requirement

under the 30% ruling is in conflict with EU law

• Developments in the Netherlands: Advocate General

opines on entitlement of Finnish investment fund to

full refund of Netherlands dividend withholding tax

VAT• Council holds policy debate on ‘quick reaction

mechanism’ against VAT fraud

• Council authorises Poland to continue to apply a

higher threshold in respect of the scheme for small

businesses

• Entry into effect of new VAT rules

• CJ rules that VAT on acquired buildings that

are demolished with a view to construction of a

residential complex is deductible (SC Gran Via

Moineşti)

• CJ rules that right to deduction may be denied if the

taxable person knew or should have known that he

was involved in VAT fraud (Bonik)

• CJ clarifies meaning of the term ‘construction work’

in derogating measure (BLV)

• CJ rules on retrospective reduction of taxable

amount under the Second VAT Directive (Grattan)

• CJ rules on chargeable event in the case of supply

of construction services where consideration is

provided in kind in the form of building right (Orfey)

• Advocate General opines that non-taxable persons

may be a member of a VAT group (Commission v

Ireland)

• Advocate General opines that a VAT grouping

system may not be limited to specific sectors

(Commission v Sweden)

• Commission proposal for derogating measure

allowing Slovenia to apply a higher threshold in

respect of scheme for small businesses

• Commission ask France to tax luxury yacht hire

• Commission proposal regarding taxation of

telecommunications, broadcasting and electronic

services

Customs Duties, Excises and other Indirect Taxes• Commission adopts Communication on Customs

Union: boosting EU competitiveness, protecting EU

citizens in the 21st century

• EU and Canada move towards conclusion of trade

negotiations

• EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement: green light to start

negotiations

• EU requests WTO dispute settlement panel over

Argentina’s import restrictions

• EU and Singapore agree on landmark trade deal

• Commission proposes improved rules to enforce

EU rights under international trade agreements -

Updated with a Regulation

• EU welcomes bilateral deal on Bosnia and

Herzegovina’s WTO accession

4 5

in a transfer of assets. However, such requirement is

not unconditional. In particular, the receiving company

must compute any new depreciation and any gains or

losses in respect of the assets and liabilities transferred

according to the rules that would have applied to the

transferring company if the transfer of assets had not

taken place. While is true that the Merger Directive sets

conditions for the deferral at the level of the receiving

company as regards the valuation of the business

transferred, it is however silent on the valuation for

tax purposes by the Member State of residence of

the transferring company (Italy) of the shares that are

received in exchange for a transfer of assets. This is

further confirmed by the history of the Merger Directive,

as the Commission had attempted, on two occasions,

to ensure that the Merger Directive addressed the

valuation of shares received by transferring companies

in order to avoid economic double taxation of the ‘same’

capital gain. It did so in the 1969 proposal, which

included a provision according to which the shares

of the receiving company could be attributed in the

balance sheet of the transferring company with a value

corresponding to the real value of the transferred assets

without this leading to taxation. In 2003, the Commission

proposed a similar amendment to the Merger Directive

that has not been adopted. Therefore, the Merger

Directive imposes limited obligations on Member States

with respect to companies which transfer assets to a

company resident in another Member State and receive

shares in exchange. That limited obligation is that both

the transferring company and the receiving company

must have the option of taking advantage of fiscal

neutrality as guaranteed by the Directive. This, however,

is where the Member State’s obligations end. There

is no requirement for transferring companies to value

shares received in any particular way.

The CJ stressed that it is clear that the Italian legislation

would have allowed 3D I to attribute the value which

the business transferred had before that operation to

the securities received in exchange for that transfer of

assets and would thus have allowed it to benefit from

the deferral of taxation of the capital gains relating to

those securities, subject to a single condition which is

compatible with EU law. Therefore, it concluded that

the fact that the Italian legislation offers the transferring

Top News

CJ rules that Italian legislation on intra-Union transfers of assets is not in breach of the Merger Directive (3D I) On 19 December 2012, the CJ delivered its judgment

in the 3D I case (C-207/11). The case deals with the

compatibility of Italian provisions relating to the deferral

of capital gains tax arising from an intra-Union transfer

of assets with Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July

1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to

mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges

of shares concerning companies of different Member

States (‘Merger Directive’).

3D I is an Italian company which transferred a branch

of its business located in Italy to a company resident in

Luxembourg, receiving shares in return. Following this

transaction, the transferred branch became part of the

Luxembourg company as its permanent establishment

located in Italy.

3D I chose to attribute to its shares in the receiving

company a value that was higher than the value, for

tax purposes, of the branch that had been transferred.

3 D I elected to pay Italian substitution tax for the capital

gain resulting from the operation at a rate of 19%.

Therefore, it renounced the regime of fiscal neutrality

which would have exempted it from paying tax on the

capital gains arising at the time of the transfer. Under

the fiscal neutrality regime, the value of the shares

received must be the same as the last book value

which the transferred branch of activity had before the

transfer. When the shares are entered at a higher value

it is necessary under Italian law to constitute a reserve

between the book values of the transferred branch and

the shares received which would constitute taxable

income at the rate of 33% if distributed. 3 D I argued

that this accounting condition was incompatible with the

Merger Directive, this being the reason why it had opted

to pay the substitution tax.

The CJ started by recalling that the Merger Directive

imposes a fiscal neutrality requirement with regard to

the receiving and acquired companies which participate

5

fragmentation of national tax schemes, discrimination

and double taxation of cars transferred between

Member States persists.

As a short-term solution, in this Communication, the

Commission identifies and proposes to the Member

States to apply the following best practices:

• to ensure that taxpayers know their rights and

obligations when moving to another Member State,

Member States should provide adequate information

on their application of registration and circulation

taxes on vehicles in cross-border situations,

including information on how they have implemented

the EU legal framework described in the

Communication and the Staff Working Document. To

this end, a central contact point for taxpayers should

be designated, to which a link can be provided on

the website of the Commission.

• to avoid double taxation and ‘over-taxation’ where

citizens move a car permanently from one Member

State to another, Member States that initially applied

a registration tax should as a minimum grant a

partial refund of the tax taking into account the

depreciation of the car independently of whether

or not the Member State of destination provides an

exemption from registration tax, if any.

• Member States should make full use of the flexibility

offered by Directive 83/182/EEC to apply more

liberal arrangements allowing for the temporary use

of vehicles in Member States without application

of registration and circulation tax. This relates,

in particular, to rental cars registered in another

Member State, but also to other situations of

temporary or occasional use by a resident of a car

registered in another Member State.

• to take action to reduce the fragmentation of the EU

car market caused by the divergent application by

Member States of car registration and circulation

taxes. The upcoming Guidelines on financial

incentives for clean and energy-efficient vehicles

also need to be taken into account.

company the additional option of attributing a higher

value to those securities than the value of the business

transferred before that operation, corresponding, in

particular, to the value of the capital gain arising upon

that transfer, but makes the exercise of that option

conditional upon that company carrying over in its own

balance sheet a special reserve fund equivalent to

the capital gains thus arising, cannot be considered

incompatible with the Merger Directive.

Commission adopts Communication clarifying EU rules on car taxesOn 14 December 2012, the Commission presented a

Communication (COM(2012) 756) clarifying EU rules on

car taxation and recommending measures to strengthen

the Single Market in this area. The Communication is

accompanied by a Commission Staff Working Document

(SWD(2012) 429) giving an overview of the main legal

issues that arise in the field of vehicle taxation and

the level of protection available to EU citizens and

businesses that can be derived from EU law and the

Court of Justice’s (CJ) case law. This initiative is aimed

at minimizing the problems encountered by citizens and

businesses moving cars between Member States and

removing obstacles to cross-border rentals.

Car registration taxes and circulation taxes are not

harmonised in the EU. This can result in double taxation

in certain situations and cause the fragmentation of the

Single Market for passenger cars. The magnitude of

the problem is shown by the numerous questions and

complaints related to cross-border car taxation that the

Commission receives year by year.

The Commission had already tried to address the

problem when, in 2005, it put forward a proposal

aimed at abolishing registration taxes and replacing

them with annual ‘green’ circulation taxes. The

Member States, however, could not reach unanimous

agreement on this proposal. As a result, EU law

related to car taxation is mainly derived from the CJ’s

judgments. The Commission has also launched over

300 infringement procedures against Member States

related to discrimination in national car registration rules

and circulation taxes. Despite the case law of the CJ

and legal proceedings against the Member States, the

6 7

The Commission also proposed that it be granted the

authority to enforce the gathering of market information.

Upon opening a formal investigation, it may request

information with the possibility to apply a pecuniary

sanction if incorrect or misleading information is

provided (there would still be no obligation to reply) or

a pecuniary sanction for late or non-compliance with

a request for information. Member States and public

authorities would be exempt from such sanctions.

Secondly, the Council’s Enabling Regulation (Council

Regulation (EC) No 994/98) will be amended which

is the basis for the Commission’s General Block

Exemption Regulation (GBER). The latter allows

Member States to proceed with granting certain types of

aid – within strict limits – without first having to wait for a

decision by the Commission. In the proposal, the scope

of the Enabling Regulation will be extended to new

categories of aid in the following areas:

Culture and heritage conservation; damages caused

by natural disasters; damages caused by adverse

weather conditions in the fisheries sector; forestry and

the promotion of certain food products; conservation

or marine biological resources; amateur sports; aid of

a social character for transport of residents in remote

regions; coordination of transport or reimbursements

for the discharge of certain public service obligations;

certain broadband infrastructure and – most important

for the tax domain – innovation.

Once the Enabling Regulation has been adopted by

the Council and entered into force, the Commission will

adopt a gradual approach in changing its GBER, as

the latter spells out the strict conditions for each type

of aid in order to be exempt from the prior notification

and stand-still procedure. Only in areas where the

Commission has sufficient experience to define those

conditions will it be able to do so.

The Communication will be discussed by the European

Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee

and the Council. The Commission aims to use these

discussions, and the technical discussions with the

Member States, to give new momentum to its 2005

proposal on car taxation.

State AidFirst modernization proposals for new State aid Regulations launched In December 2012, the Commission launched its first

set of proposals for revision of State aid Regulations,

two of which are of particular interest to the tax field.

Firstly, if the proposals are adopted, the 1999

Procedural Regulation (Council Regulation No

659/1999) will be renewed with the objective to focus

State aid enforcement on the more distortive cases

in the internal market while speeding up the decision-

making process. Complainants must provide the

Commission with more complete and correct information

about the alleged aid and the complainant must

demonstrate how his interests would be affected by

the aid. As a result, the Commission could restrict itself

to dealing with well-founded complaints. Currently, the

Commission receives over 300 complaints per year,

many of which are either ‘not motivated by genuine

competition concerns or not sufficiently substantiated’

in the Commission’s view. The Commission, however,

must investigate every alleged infringement under

current rules.

The cooperation between the Commission and national

judges will be formalized and the Commission will be

requesting the authority to conduct parallel inquiries

about aid in a certain sector or of a certain type in

several Member States at once. The Commission

also proposed that it be allowed to submit its views in

national court proceedings as amicus curiae if the EU’s

public interest so requires.

7

It should be pointed out that this decision does not affect

the outcome of an ongoing investigation into a previous

tax lease depreciation scheme in Spain.

Commission declares Italian municipal real estate tax exemption to be illegal aid On 19 December 2012, the Commission ruled that an

Italian real estate tax exemption for non-commercial

entities led to incompatible State aid. Further to a 2006

amendment, carrying out activities on such premises

that were not exclusively of a commercial nature was

allowed. As a result, some commercial activities could

therefore profit from the exemption.

The Commission also found that ecclesiastic institutions

and amateur sport clubs did not profit from an alleged

‘perpetual non-commercial status’ as they were subject

to controls by the tax authorities in respect of the

activities carried out.

Recovery has not been ordered in this case due to

‘absolute impossibility’, a rather unique precedent. In the

Commission’s view, Italy had successfully argued that

it would be impossible to determine retroactively which

part of the real estate had been used exclusively for

non-economic activities and which part had not.

Direct TaxationEuropean Parliament gives consent to enhanced cooperation on the Financial Transaction Tax On 12 December 2012, the European Parliament

voted in favour of authorizing 11 Member States to go

ahead with the introduction of the Financial Transaction

Tax (FTT) via enhanced cooperation. The resolution

was adopted by 533 votes to 91, with 32 abstentions.

The text adopted by the Parliament stresses that the

ultimate goal should still be a worldwide FTT, and urges

the EU to continue campaigning for it. To this end, the

11 willing Member States, which together account for

90% of Eurozone GDP, should set an example of what

a geographically wider tax could achieve, added the

Parliament.

Commission opens investigation into French tax benefitting milk products On 10 October 2012, a formal investigation was

opened into a French tax the proceeds of which go to

the national organization of agriculture and fisheries

products (France regime, AgriMer) in order to finance

measures taken by it in favour of the milk production

market.

In its decision to open a formal investigation, the

Commission points out that there are certain rebates

allowed in respect of this tax that do not seem justified

in light of the stringent State aid rules in the agricultural

sector. As the tax is used to finance the partial or full

cessation of milk production, the Commission points

out that such aid can only be declared compatible if all

commercial farming activities are to be discontinued

by the producer applying for such benefit. As both

the levying of the tax and the aid aimed at cessation

of activities might be incompatible with the common

organization and operation of the EU’s milk market, the

Commission does point out that if the latter is indeed

confirmed during the investigation, it cannot declare

any such aid compatible. (Be advised that the latter

might also affect the validity of the tax itself if it has been

hypothecated towards financing such aid.)

Commission allows new Spanish scheme for early depreciation of finance-leased assets On 20 November 2012, the Commission approved

a new Spanish scheme that allows for the early

depreciation of the costs of certain assets acquired

through a financial lease scheme.

Taxpayers will be allowed to deduct the costs of leased

assets as soon as their production starts instead

of having to wait for the moment of first use. This

scheme can only be applied to those assets that are

manufactured according to a purchaser’s technical

specifications and whose production time spans more

than one year. Eligibility will be automatic and will not

be subject to approval up-front by the Spanish tax

authorities. As a result, the Commission found that this

regime did not meet the selectivity requirement and

hence was not State aid.

8 9

TFEU (see EU Tax Alert no. 111, December 2012), on

18 December 2012, the District Court of Haarlem ruled

to the contrary.

Under the 30% ruling, the employer may pay the

employees, who have been posted to the Netherlands

or recruited from abroad to work in the Netherlands,

a tax free allowance of 30% of the employee’s wage.

This 30% tax free allowance is intended to cover

extraterritorial expenses which the employee incurs

as a consequence of the fact that the employee works

outside his home country. On 1 January 2012, an

amendment to the 30% ruling came into force in order

to prevent its improper use. Under this amendment,

the 30% ruling is only applicable to employees who

have lived at a distance of more than 150 kilometres

from the Netherlands border for a period of more than

two-thirds of the twenty-four months period prior to the

commencement of employment in the Netherlands

(‘150 kilometre requirement’). Employees who do

not meet these criteria are only entitled to a tax free

reimbursement of the actual extraterritorial expenses.

The facts and the claims of the parties in this case are

similar to those in the case before the District Court of

Breda.

In the present case, the District Court of Haarlem stated

that the circumstance that the employee recruited

from abroad is in a better position than a resident of

the Netherlands does not mean that the 30% ruling

cannot be in conflict with the free movement of

workers. Referring to the Cadbury Schweppes case

(C-196/04) and the Orange European Smallcap Fund

case (C-194/06) the District Court reasoned that

unequal treatment of residents of different EU Member

States could constitute an infringement of the TFEU.

Furthermore, according to the District Court, there is

a horizontal discrimination in the underlying case as

the employee who is denied the 30% ruling is in an

objectively comparable situation to an EU resident who

has been living at a distance of 151 kilometres of the

Netherlands border and who would be entitled to the

30% ruling.

Having obtained Parliament’s consent, the Council now

needs to secure a qualified majority vote to allow the

Commission to initiate enhanced cooperation on the

FTT. Commissioner Šemeta urged the Finance Ministers

to make this matter a top priority in the Council in 2013

in order to give the green light needed for the FTT to

proceed. (For more on the procedure for enhanced

cooperation see EU Tax Alert no. 110, November 2012).

Entry into force of stronger EU rules to help fight tax evasion New EU rules which will improve Member States’

ability to assess and collect the taxes that they are due

entered into force on 1 January 2013. The Directive

on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation

(Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011)

lays the basis for stronger cooperation and greater

information exchange between tax authorities in the EU.

One of the key aspects of the Directive is that it brings

an end to bank secrecy: one Member State cannot

refuse to give information to another simply because it is

held by a financial institution.

The Directive sets out practical and effective

measures to improve administrative cooperation

on tax matters. Common forms and procedures for

exchanging information are provided, which will make

the transmission of data between national authorities

quicker and more efficient. Tax officials may be

authorised to participate in administrative enquiries in

another Member State. They will also be able to request

that their tax documents and decisions be notified

elsewhere in the EU. The scope of the Directive is wide,

covering all taxes except those already covered under

specific EU legislation (i.e. VAT and excise duties).

Developments in the Netherlands: District Court of Haarlem rules that the 150 kilometre requirement under the 30% ruling is in conflict with EU law After the District Court of Breda ruled, on 8 November

2012, that the amendment - i.e., the 150 kilometre

requirement - to the 30% ruling under Netherlands

law, effective from 1 January 2012, is in accordance

with the free movement of workers set out in Article 45

9

obtain a credit in Finland for the Netherlands dividend

tax withheld. Therefore, it requested a refund, which

was denied by both the Netherlands Tax Authorities

and the Lower Court of Breda. The Court of Appeals of

Den Bosch ruled, however, that the Fund was entitled

to a full refund based on EU law (see also EU Tax Alert

edition no. 104, April 2012).

The AG examined two legal grounds for the refund that

arose during the proceedings. First, in order to claim a

refund of Netherlands dividend withholding tax, certain

conditions must be satisfied. One is that the Fund

would not have been liable to Netherlands corporation

tax if it had been established in the Netherlands.

Parties agreed that this condition would not have

been fulfilled. The question, however, is whether such

condition constitutes a restriction to the free movement

of capital. The AG stated that, due to the absence of

harmonization within the EU, Member States have

the sovereignty in determining their taxing jurisdiction.

As a result, the Netherlands should not be obliged to

acknowledge the criteria for liability to tax under Finnish

law. Consequently, the Fund was – based on the facts

and circumstances – not comparable to a Netherlands

tax exempt investment fund and therefore, not entitled to

a refund of Netherlands dividend withholding tax.

Second, the Fund argued that it was comparable to

a Netherlands fiscal investment institution (fiscale

beleggingsinstelling) which is subject to tax in the

Netherlands at a rate of 0%. Such Netherlands fiscal

investment institutions are entitled to a refund of

(foreign) dividend tax by way of a Netherlands domestic

‘credit system’, provided they distribute their profits

within a period of eight months after the end of their

fiscal year. Due to the fact that the Fund had no such

distribution obligation, the AG opined that it could not be

compared to a Netherlands fiscal investment institution.

In addition, he stated that the domestic ‘credit system’

only applied if the Fund distributed dividends which were

subject to Netherlands dividend withholding tax, which

would have been possible only if the Fund had been

established in the Netherlands.

In the parliamentary history, it is stated that the 150

kilometre requirement is chosen as residents who live

within this zone are confronted less with extraterritorial

expenses than residents who live outside this zone.

The District Court stated that this reasoning had

not been substantiated and that the travel distance

between the place of residence of the employee outside

the Netherlands and the place of employment in the

Netherlands had not been taken into account. Therefore,

the 150 kilometre requirement could lead to arbitrary

results. According to the District Court, the intention of

the Netherlands legislature to curtail the unintended

use of the 30% ruling is understandable. However, the

fact that the 150 kilometre requirement does not take

into account the actual travel distance precludes the

difference in treatment of incoming employees from

different EU Member States from being justified and

results in the measure not being proportional.

Consequently, the District Court of Haarlem concluded

that the 150 kilometre requirement is not in accordance

with EU law.

Developments in the Netherlands: Advocate General opines on entitlement of Finnish investment fund to full refund of Netherlands dividend withholding tax On 28 November 2012, Advocate General Wattel (‘AG’)

issued his Opinion in the case pending before the

Netherlands Supreme Court over the question whether

a Finnish open ended collective investment fund without

legal personality (‘the Fund’) was entitled to a refund

of Netherlands dividend withholding tax on the basis

of the free movement of capital (Article 63 TFEU). The

AG advised to reverse the judgment of the Court of

Appeals of Den Bosch in favour of the Netherlands

Tax Authorities, i.e. to deny the refund of dividend

withholding tax.

The Fund invested, inter alia, in Netherlands portfolio

shares. Netherlands dividend tax was withheld on

dividends received from these shares. The Fund was

not subject to profit tax in Finland and as such, could not

10 11

The derogating measure, in principle, expired on

31 December 2012. However, on 4 December 2012,

the Council authorised Poland to continue to apply the

derogating measure until 31 December 2015.

Entry into effect of new VAT rules On 1 January 2013, new invoicing rules and a cash

accounting option for small businesses entered into

force, the Commission reminded in a press release of

17 December 2012.

The Commission indicated that the new invoicing rules,

on the basis of which electronic invoicing will have to be

treated the same as paper invoicing, enables companies

to choose what works best for them. According to the

Commission, this has the potential to save businesses

up to EUR 18 billion a year in reduced administration

costs.

Moreover, the Commission refers to the new rules, on

the basis of which Member States are allowed to offer

a cash accounting option to small businesses with a

turnover of less than EUR 2 million a year. According

to the Commission, this will provide companies with

relief in terms of cash flow, because under the cash

accounting scheme businesses are allowed to declare

and pay VAT when they receive or make payments,

rather than at the time of the invoices.

CJ rules that VAT on acquired buildings that are demolished with a view to construction of a residential complex is deductible (SC Gran Via Moineşti) On 29 November 2012, the CJ delivered its judgment in

the SC Gran Via Moineşti case (C-257/11).

SC Gran Via Moineşti SRL (‘GVM’) acquired a plot of

land and the buildings constructed on it in Bulgaria.

In the contract of sale, a demolition permit for those

buildings was also transferred to GVM. GVM carried

out the demolition works with a view to developing a

residential complex on the land. GVM deducted the VAT

relating to all of the land and buildings purchased. The

Romanian tax authorities decided, however, that GVM

had unlawfully deducted VAT for the purchase of the

In conclusion, the AG proposed to reverse the judgment

of the Court of Appeals of Den Bosch and to deny the

refund of dividend withholding tax. In view of the AG,

no preliminary questions were to be referred to the CJ.

Even if the Netherlands Supreme Court follows the

Opinion of the AG, we still advise tax exempt investment

funds resident in the EU and in third countries to file

claims for refund of Netherlands dividend withholding

tax with the Netherlands Tax Authorities in order to

safeguard their rights, given the fact that the CJ may

overrule the case law of the Netherlands Supreme

Court in the future. Please be informed that the statutory

limitation for such claims is, in principle, three years.

VAT Council holds policy debate on ‘quick reaction mechanism’ against VAT fraud In its meeting of 4 December 2012, the Economic

and Financial Affairs (ECOFIN) Council held a policy

debate on the Commission’s proposal for a directive

aimed at enabling immediate measures to be taken

in cases of sudden and massive VAT fraud. The

Commission’s proposal is aimed at speeding up the

procedure for authorizing Member States to derogate

from the provisions of the VAT Directive by providing

for implementing powers to be conferred on the

Commission under a ‘quick reaction mechanism’.

The Council debate focused on whether implementing

powers under the Directive should be conferred on the

Commission or on the Council. The Council asked the

Permanent Representatives Committee to oversee

further work on the proposal, exploring both alternatives,

with a view to enabling it to reach an agreement as soon

as possible.

Council authorises Poland to continue to apply a higher threshold in respect of the scheme for small businesses On the basis of a measure derogating from Article 287

of the EU VAT Directive, Poland was authorised to

apply a higher threshold (EUR 30,000) in respect to the

application of the VAT exemption for small enterprises.

11

sufficient quantity of goods to make the supplies to

Bonik and that no actual supplies had been made by

those suppliers. Consequently, the tax authorities issued

a VAT assessment in which they denied Bonik the right

to deduct VAT on the purchases of the wheat.

Bonik contested the VAT assessment before the

Administrative Court of Varna. This court noted that

the Bulgarian tax authorities did not dispute that Bonik

carried out supplies of goods of the same type and in

the same quantity, or that Bonik acquired those goods

from other suppliers. Furthermore, the court noted

that there was some evidence that direct supplies

were carried out and that the lack of evidence of the

preceding supplies could not support the conclusion that

those direct supplies were not carried out. Under those

circumstances, the court decided to refer preliminary

questions to the CJ in order to find out whether Bonik

was entitled to deduct the VAT.

According to the CJ, it is necessary to check whether

the supplies by Bonik had actually been carried out and

whether the goods in questions were used by Bonik for

the purposes of taxed transactions in order to be able

to establish whether there is a right to deduction. In this

regard, the CJ indicated that it is for the national court

to check and establish the factual circumstances of the

case. In the event the national court should find that

the supplies had actually been carried out and that the

goods had been used for Bonik’s taxed transactions, the

CJ ruled that Bonik cannot, in principle, be refused the

right to deduction.

In the case it would concern fraudulent transactions,

the CJ reminded the referring court that the prevention

of tax evasion, avoidance and abuse is an objective

recognized and encouraged by the EU VAT Directive.

According to the CJ, it is for national courts and judicial

authorities to refuse the right of deduction if that right

is being relied on for fraudulent or abusive ends. In

this regard, the CJ ruled that the right to deduct may

not be refused on the ground that, in view of fraud or

irregularities committed upstream or downstream of that

supply, the supply is considered not to have actually

taken place, when it has not been established on the

demolished buildings, because it had not purchased

them for the purposes of tax transactions, it had

only done so in order to demolish them. Eventually,

the matter ended up before the Court of Appeals of

Bucharest, which decided to refer preliminary questions

to the CJ in order to find out whether the VAT paid on

the buildings by GVM is deductible.

According to the CJ, it is clear that GVM purchased

the land and the buildings with the intention of the

construction of the residential complex on the land in the

course of GVM’s property development activities. The

CJ ruled that in such circumstances, a company has the

right to deduct VAT on the acquisition of the buildings

on the basis of Articles 167 and 168 of the EU VAT

Directive.

Moreover, the fact that the buildings had been

demolished with a view to developing the residential

complex in place of those buildings does not, according

to the CJ, result in an obligation to adjust the initial

deduction of VAT relating to the acquisition of the

buildings on the basis of Article 185 of the EU VAT

Directive.

CJ rules that right to deduction may be denied if the taxable person knew or should have known that he was involved in VAT fraud (Bonik) On 6 December 2012, the CJ delivered its judgment

in the Bonik case (C-284/11). Bonik EEOD (‘Bonik’) is

a Bulgarian company that declared intra-Community

supplies of wheat and sunflower. Following a tax

investigation, the Bulgarian tax authorities found that

there was no evidence of these intra-Community

supplies. Considering that the quantities of wheat and

sunflower quoted on the invoices issued by Bonik had

been taken out of its stock and were not there at the

time of the investigation, the Bulgarian tax authorities

concluded that taxable supplies of those quantities had

been made on Bulgarian territory.

Moreover, the tax authorities also carried out checks

in connection with Bonik’s wheat purchases. In this

regard, it found that Bonik’s suppliers did not have a

12 13

of these factors, the term ‘construction work’ should be

interpreted as covering not only the supply of services

but also the supply of goods.

Finally, the CJ ruled that Germany was allowed to

avail itself only partially of the authorization granted

by the derogating measure by using it only for certain

subcategories (such as particular types of construction

work) and in respect of supplies to certain recipients.

According to the CJ, Germany was required in this

regard to respect the principle of fiscal neutrality and

the general principles of EU law and, in particular, the

principles of proportionality and legal certainty when

establishing those subcategories. The CJ ruled that it

is for the referring court to determine whether those

principles have been respected in this case.

CJ rules on retrospective reduction of taxable amount under the Second VAT Directive (Grattan) On 19 December 2012, the CJ delivered its judgment in

the Grattan case (C-310/11).

Grattan, a UK company, put forward claims against the

UK tax authorities for repayment of VAT relating to the

years 1973 to 1977 in respect of the activities of several

mail order companies. The mail order companies

operated a special sales system that included ‘agents’

who held an account with the mail order company. The

agents received a credit amount of 10% in relation

to their own purchases of goods from the mail order

catalogue and in relation to purchases made by third

parties through them. The agents could claim the credit

amounts as a cheque payment or offset those amounts

against their outstanding debts to the mail order

companies.

The UK tax authorities treated the amounts credited

for third-party customers as payment for the agent’s

services in managing third-party customers. Grattan

objected to this VAT treatment on the ground that it

merely reduced the taxable amount for the supplies

made by the mail order company to the agents and,

therefore, that the mail order companies overpaid VAT.

basis of objective evidence that the taxable person knew

or should have known that the transaction relied on as a

basis for the right of deduction was connected with VAT

fraud committed upstream or downstream in the chain

of supply.

CJ clarifies meaning of the term ‘construction work’ in derogating measure (BLV) On 13 December 2012, the CJ delivered its judgment in

the BLV case (C-395/11).

BLV Wohn- und Gewerbebau GmbH (‘BLV’) engaged

a contractor to build a residential block of six flats at a

fixed price on land owned by BLV. The contractor issued

an invoice to BLV without VAT and referred to BLV as

liable for the VAT as recipient for the supply. BLV paid

the VAT to the tax authorities. Subsequently, BLV asked

for reimbursement of the VAT taking the position that

Germany was not permitted under EU VAT law to apply

the reverse charge mechanism to such a supply.

The application of the reverse charge mechanism was

based on a measure derogating from Article 21(1)(a) of

the Sixth EU VAT Directive, which allowed Germany to

apply the reverse charge mechanism, amongst others,

to the supply of construction work to a taxable person.

The Federal Finance Court was not sure, however,

whether the reverse charge mechanism should have

been applied and decided to refer preliminary questions

to the CJ.

The main question in the proceedings was whether

the term ‘construction work’ within the meaning of the

derogating measure encompassed not only the supply

of services but also the supply of goods. According to

the CJ, the Sixth EU VAT Directive is silent as to the

meaning of the term ‘works of construction’ and that

the meaning and scope of that term must, therefore, be

determined by reference to the general context in which

it is used and its usual meaning in everyday language.

In this regard, the CJ indicated that the objectives and

effectiveness of the legislation in question should be

taken into account. The CJ concluded that, on the basis

13

Orfey in which the open market value of the construction

services of the building was taken into account as

taxable amount. In this respect, the Bulgarian tax

authorities concluded on the basis of a provision in

national VAT law that the taxable event had taken place

on the date the building right was obtained even though,

at that date, the construction of the building had not

been completed and the building had not been put into

use.

Eventually, the matter ended up before the Bulgarian

Supreme Administrative Court which decided to refer

preliminary questions to the CJ. In particular, the

referring court inquired whether the national provision,

on the basis of which the chargeable event is regarded

to take place before completion of the transaction, is

compatible with the EU VAT Directive and whether the

open market value of the construction services should

be used to determine the taxable amount.

According to the CJ, Article 65 of the EU VAT Directive

makes clear that VAT on services becomes chargeable

at the time a payment on account is made provided

that, at that time, all the relevant information concerning

that future supply of services is already known and,

therefore, the services in question are precisely

identified. In this regard, the CJ ruled that, based on

the principle of equal treatment, this also applies if the

payment on account is made in kind as long as that

payment on account may be expressed in monetary

terms, which is for the referring court to identify.

Furthermore, the CJ ruled that Article 80(1) of the EU

VAT Directive, which allows Member States under

certain circumstances to take the open market value

into account as taxable amount, may only be applied

in the case of supplies involving family or other close

personal, management, ownership, membership or legal

ties. According to the CJ, Member States, therefore, are

not permitted to apply the open market value as basis of

assessment if transactions are not completed between

parties having such ties.

Article 8(a) of the Second EU VAT Directive, which was

in force at the time of the supplies, did not permit for

alteration of the taxable amount, or the output tax, after

the supply had taken place. Therefore, the CJ ruled

that taxable persons are not entitled on the basis of

this provision to treat the taxable amount of a supply

of goods as retrospectively reduced where, after the

time of that supply, an agent received a credit from the

supplier which the agent elected to take either as a

payment of money or as a credit against amounts owed

to the supplier in respect of supplies of goods that had

already taken place. According to the CJ, the principle of

fiscal neutrality and the continuation of the VAT system

(the Sixth EU VAT Directive does contain a provision

that in principle requires Member States to reduce the

taxable amount in case all or part of the consideration

has not been received) do not change this conclusion.

CJ rules on chargeable event in the case of supply of construction services where consideration is provided in kind in the form of building right (Orfey) On 19 December 2012, the CJ delivered its judgment

in the Orfey case (C-549/11). The case concerns

a Bulgarian company, Orfey Balgaria EOOD

(‘Orfey’),which had obtained a building right from four

natural persons (‘the owners’). In this regard, Orfey was

entitled to construct a building on the land belonging

to the owners and become sole owner of some of the

real property it had built. By way of consideration for

the building right, Orfey undertook to design the plans

for the building, to build it entirely at its own cost and to

deliver certain real property in that building on a turn-key

basis to the owners without any payments being made

by the owners. For its activities, Orfey sent an invoice

with VAT to each of the owners.

In the course of a tax audit, the Bulgarian tax authorities

found that the taxable amount of the transaction

had been determined based on the tax value of the

building right and not on the open market value of the

real property granted to the owners. Taking the view

that Orfey was supplying construction services to the

owners, the tax authorities issued a VAT assessment to

14 15

to specific sectors and, therefore, requested Sweden

to change its national legislation. Sweden maintained,

however, that the national legislation is in line with the

EU VAT Directive. Eventually, the Commission decided

to refer the matter to the CJ.

Based on a literal interpretation of Article 11 of the

EU VAT Directive, which refers to ‘any persons’

independently of the sector of economic activity in which

they are involved, the Advocate General has opined

that the provision excludes any restriction of its scope

to defined economic sectors. According to the Advocate

General, a Member State that has opted to introduce

a VAT grouping system may, therefore, not limit that

system to specific sectors.

In this regard, the Advocate General was of the opinion

that the purpose of VAT grouping does not support the

conclusion that Member States would nevertheless

have discretion with respect to the economic sectors

to which VAT grouping is available. According to the

Advocate General, limitations are only justified if there

is need to take action against potential abuse for clearly

identified transactions. The Advocate General, therefore,

proposed to declare that Sweden has failed to fulfil its

obligations under Article 11 of the EU VAT Directive by

restricting the availability of VAT grouping to the financial

and insurance sectors.

Commission proposal for derogating measure allowing Slovenia to apply a higher threshold in respect of scheme for small businesses On 16 November 2012, the Commission published a

proposal for a Council Decision that authorizes Slovenia

to apply a measure derogating from Article 287 of

the EU VAT Directive. On the basis of the derogating

measure Slovenia will be allowed to apply a higher

threshold (EUR 50,000) in respect of the application of

the VAT exemption for small enterprises. The aim of the

higher threshold is to simplify the VAT system for small

enterprises by significantly reducing the burdens on

those businesses. The proposed derogation will expire

on 31 December 2015.

Advocate General opines that non-taxable persons may be a member of a VAT group (Commission v Ireland) On 27 November 2012, Advocate General Jääskinen

delivered his Opinion in the case of Commission v

Ireland (C-85/11). The case concerns an infringement

procedure that the Commission has instituted against

Ireland. According to the Commission, Ireland incorrectly

permits non-taxable persons to be members of a VAT

group. Ireland, on the other hand, claims that non-

taxable persons may be members of a VAT group.

The Advocate General has indicated that the wording of

Article 11 of the EU VAT Directive, as has been pointed

out by Ireland, refers to a ‘person’ and not to a ‘taxable

person’. This contrary to other provisions in the EU

VAT Directive which clearly refer to a ‘taxable person’.

Consequently, the Advocate General has opined that

based on the wording of Article 11 of the EU VAT

Directive, non-taxable persons may be a member of a

VAT group as long as they meet the requirements of

having a financial, economic and organizational link with

the other members of the VAT group.

Finally, according to the Advocate General, the purpose

of VAT grouping within the VAT regime and the principle

of fiscal neutrality do not support the position that non-

taxable person cannot be included in a VAT group. As a

result, the Advocate General has proposed that the CJ

should dismiss the action brought by the Commission

against Ireland.

Advocate General opines that a VAT grouping system may not be limited to specific sectors (Commission v Sweden) On 27 November 2012, Advocate General Jääskinen

issued his Opinion in the case of Commission v Sweden

(C-480/10).

In its national legislation, Sweden has opted to introduce

a VAT grouping system that is limited to the financial

and insurance sectors. According to the Commission,

Member States are not permitted to limit VAT grouping

15

Customs Duties, Excises and other Indirect TaxesCommission adopts Communication on Customs Union: boosting EU competitiveness, protecting EU citizens in the 21st century On 21 December 2012, the Commission adopted a

Communication on the State of Customs Union. The

Communication takes stock of the current state of the

EU Customs Union, identifies the challenges that it

currently faces, and sets out priority actions for ensuring

its future evolution. The aim is to ensure that the EU

Customs Union is as modern, effective and efficient as

possible in the coming years, to continue its work in

ensuring a safe and competitive Europe.

Every year, EU customs process 2 billion tonnes of

goods worth EUR 3,300 billion, and collects EUR 16.6

billion in customs duties. Yet, EU customs today are

far more than simply revenue collectors. Over the past

four decades, the Customs Union has evolved into a

multi-functional service provider, delivering both for

businesses and for society as a whole. Customs not

only ensure smooth trade flows and protect against

security risks, they also help to enforce other policies

such as public health, consumer protection, intellectual

property rights, environment and agriculture.

A growing set of responsibilities and intensifying global

challenges such as greater trade flows, increasingly

complex supply chains, an ever faster pace of business

and the globalisation of terrorist risks have put a

mounting strain on customs. Meanwhile, the economic

crisis has squeezed public resources available to

perform these tasks. The Customs Union must do

increasingly more with increasingly less.

Therefore, Commission’s Communication sets out

a course of action to modernise, strengthen and

rationalise the Customs Union in the years ahead.

Commission ask France to tax luxury yacht hire On 21 November 2012, the Commission has formally

requested France to remove the VAT exemption applied

to the hire of yachts used for pleasure boating. The

Commission indicated that the VAT exemption of Article

148 of the EU VAT Directive for certain transactions

concerning vessels does not apply to luxury boats used

by individuals for recreational purposes, which has been

confirmed by the CJ in the Bacino Charter Company

case (C-116/10).

The Commission’s request takes the form of a

reasoned opinion (second stage of the infringement

procedure under Article 258 TFEU). In the absence

of a satisfactory response within two months, the

Commission may refer the matter to the CJ.

Commission proposal regarding taxation of telecommunications, broadcasting and electronic services On 18 December 2012, the Commission adopted the

final proposal in the package of measures concerning

the taxation of telecommunications, broadcasting

and electronic services. As of 1 January 2015, all

telecommunications, broadcasting and electronic

services will be taxed at the place where the customer

is established or resides. According to the Commission,

this will result in a fairer and more business friendly

system. By providing a level playing field for all business

in the sectors concerned, it is expected to contribute to

the development of e-commerce in the Single Market.

The new rules include the one-stop-shop-regime on the

basis of which the suppliers of the telecommunications,

broadcasting and electronic services will be able to

comply with their VAT obligations in the whole of the EU

by submitting a single VAT return in the Member State in

which they are established.

16 17

EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement: green light to start negotiations On 29 November 2012, the European Council decided

to give the Commission ‘the green light’ to start trade

negotiations with Japan. Now there is a clear mandate

– confirmed by all the Member States - which sets out

Europe’s objectives.

To give a few examples:

• the mandate sets out a strict and clear parallelism

between the elimination of duties and non-tariff

barriers;

• there is a safeguard clause to protect sensitive

European sectors;

• the right ‘to pull the plug’ on the negotiations

after one year if Japan does not live up to its

commitments on removing non-tariff barriers is

explicitly reserved.

EU requests WTO dispute settlement panel over Argentina’s import restrictions On 7 December 2012, the EU has requested the World

Trade Organisation (WTO) in Geneva to rule over a

dispute on Argentina’s import restrictions which are

damaging to European business. The EU is taking

this action, along with Japan and the United States, to

force Argentina to lift these measures which have been

harmful to European trade and investment for more than

18 months. These measures potentially affect all EU

exports to Argentina, worth EUR 8.3 billion in 2011. This

decision follows efforts by the EU to find a solution with

Argentina through WTO dispute settlement consultations

during the summer which ended without success.

Argentina’s import measures have been systematically

imposed with a view to pursuing Argentina’s stated

policy of import substitution and elimination of trade

balance deficits, which is inconsistent with WTO rules.

These measures take the form of the following:

1. As of February 2012, Argentina has subjected the

import of all goods to a pre-registration and pre-

approval regime called the ‘Declaración Jurada

Anticipada de Importación’;

First, the modernisation of the Customs Union, which

was started in 2003, must be completed as a priority.

The Commission calls on the Council and Parliament to

adopt and implement the Union Customs Code, which

will make procedures simpler, more efficient and better

fitted for modern trade needs.

Second, work to address identified gaps must be

accelerated. In January 2013, the Commission is to

publish a Communication outlining how to improve

customs risk management and security of the supply

chain. Other measures foreseen for 2013 include a

proposal on approximation of customs penalties, a

review of tariff suspensions/quota rules, implementing a

crisis management action plan and developing a toolbox

of procedures to improve the efficiency of customs in

enforcing health, safety and environment rules.

Finally, a review of governance of how the Customs

Union functions internally will be initiated. The review,

to be undertaken in close collaboration with Member

States, should address how to work better together, in a

more harmonised way, to provide high quality customs

services and improve resource efficiency across the EU.

EU and Canada move towards conclusion of trade negotiations On 23 November 2012, the EU Trade Commissioner

and the Canadian Trade Minister met in Brussels

to bring the negotiations on the EU-Canada

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

towards closure.

Commissioner De Gucht and Minister Fast had in-depth

discussions on the trade deal and made substantial

progress. Both sides will now instruct their negotiators to

narrow the gaps on the outstanding issues, aiming for a

deal in the coming weeks.

Canada is the EU’s eleventh most important trading

partner whereas the EU, with its 27 Member States,

is Canada’s second-largest trading partner after the

United States. An economic study jointly released by

the EU and Canada in October 2008 showed that a

comprehensive trade agreement could increase two-

way bilateral trade by EUR 25.7 billion.

17

potential for EU, industrial, agricultural and services

businesses. An EU-Singapore FTA will be the EU’s

second ambitious agreement with a key Asian trading

partner, after the EU-Korea FTA, which has been in

operation since July 2011.

It is expected that the FTA will create new opportunities

in many services sectors. For example, in banking,

insurance and other financial services industries as

well as in public tendering. It will also cut down on the

red tape and double-testing that makes life difficult for

business. The deal will facilitate the access of industrial

and agricultural products on an important export

market, through greater recognition of EU standards.

For example, Singapore will agree to import European

manufactured cars based on EU technical and safety

standards and approvals.

In addition, this agreement is a first when it comes

to promoting ‘green growth’ and has been especially

designed to meet the EU’s ‘2020 strategy’ for a

competitive economy. The deal will simplify rules

to boost trade and investment in environmental

technologies and promote green public tendering.

Both the EU and Singapore will now seek approval for

the deal from their respective political authorities, and

envisage initialling the draft agreement in spring 2013.

Talks between the two sides on investment will continue.

These discussions, which started later than the trade

negotiations, are based on the new EU competence

under the Lisbon Treaty.

Commission proposes improved rules to enforce EU rights under international trade agreements - Updated with a Regulation On 18 December 2012, the Commission proposed a

new framework to enhance the EU’s ability to enforce

its rights in the international trading system. Ensuring

that the EU’s trade partners respect the agreed trade

rules is essential to make trade agreements work for

the EU economy. The proposal covers the EU’s trade

responses in cases of illegal trade measures in other

countries, and it will allow effective action to safeguard

the interests of EU companies and workers. The

proposal is for a framework to enable the Commission

2. Hundreds of goods also need a non-automatic

import licence. On the pretence of this requirement,

imports are systematically delayed or refused on

non-transparent grounds. As of March 2011, more

than 600 product types have been affected by this

licensing regime.

3. Argentina also requires importers to balance

imports with exports; to increase the local content

of the products they manufacture in Argentina;

or not to transfer revenues abroad. This practice

is systematic, unwritten and non–transparent.

Acceptance by importers to undertake this practice

appears to be a condition for allowing them to import

their goods into Argentina. These measures delay or

block goods at the border and inflict major losses to

industry in the EU and worldwide.

The restrictions, which were in place in 2011, affected

about EUR 500 million of exports in the same year. As

of 2012, the extension of the measures to all products

raised the magnitude of the potentially affected trade to

all EU exports to Argentina, which amounted to EUR 8.3

billion in 2011. The long-term impact of a negative trade

and investment climate is significantly higher.

The EU, together with other major world trading

partners, has raised the issue with Argentina repeatedly

over the past years without success.

On 7 December 2012, also thanks to a close and

constructive co-operation, the EU decided to pursue

the dispute at the same time as the United States and

Japan. Mexico had already requested the establishment

of a panel over the same measures on 21 November

2012. All complainants aim at joint panel proceedings.

EU and Singapore agree on landmark trade deal On 16 December 2012, the EU Trade Commissioner

and Singapore’s Minister of Trade and Industry

completed final negotiations on a free trade agreement

(FTA) between the European Union and Singapore. The

agreement is one of the most comprehensive the EU

has ever negotiated and will create new opportunities for

companies from Europe and Singapore to do business

together. The growing Singaporean market offers export

18

The bilateral deal provides for the lowering of tariffs for

trade in goods and for the opening of services markets

upon accession. These commitments will then be

embodied in the future Protocol of Accession of Bosnia

and Herzegovina to the WTO.

to take executive action when the trade interests of

the EU are at stake, rather than reacting on a case

by case basis when the EU rights are not respected.

Today’s proposal would allow the EU to implement trade

responses in a more streamlined, efficient manner in

order to encourage the offending country to remove the

illegal measures.

The Commission is proposing a Regulation to establish

a clear and predictable framework for adopting

implementing acts following international trade disputes

that have a negative economic impact on the EU. In

cases of last resort, trade sanctions can be put in place

to encourage the offending country to remove illegal

measures.

Action could also be taken to compensate for import

restrictions that are imposed on EU products in

exceptional situations (so-called safeguard measures),

or to react to cases where a WTO member country

changes its trade regime in a way that negatively affects

EU trade (such as raising its import tariffs) without

adequate compensation.

Such implementing acts can only be taken under certain

well-defined conditions and might take the form of new

or increased customs duties or quotas on imports or

exports of goods, amongst other possible measures.

The proposal is for an EU Regulation of the Council and

the European Parliament and will now be discussed

by the Council and the European Parliament under the

ordinary legislative procedure.

EU welcomes bilateral deal on Bosnia and Herzegovina’s WTO accession On 19 December 2012, the EU Trade Commissioner

and the Minister of Foreign Trade and Economic

Relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina signed a deal on

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s accession to the World Trade

Organisation (WTO). This agreement is a key step for

Bosnia’s and Herzegovina’s path to becoming a Member

of the international trade body. Accession to the WTO is

expected to make a lasting contribution to the process

of economic reform and sustainable development in

Bosnia and Herzegovina.

19

Correspondents● Peter Adriaansen (Loyens & Loeff Luxembourg)

● Séverine Baranger (Loyens & Loeff Paris)

● Gerard Blokland (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam)

● Alexander Bosman (Loyens & Loeff Rotterdam)

● Kees Bouwmeester (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam)

● Almut Breuer (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam)

● Mark van den Honert (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam)

● Leen Ketels (Loyens & Loeff Brussel)

● Sarah Van Leynseele (Loyens & Loeff Brussel)

● Raymond Luja (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam;

Maastricht University)

● Arjan Oosterheert (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam)

● Lodewijk Reijs (Loyens & Loeff Eindhoven)

● Bruno da Silva (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam)

● Rita Szudoczky (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam)

● Patrick Vettenburg (Loyens & Loeff Eindhoven)

● Ruben van der Wilt (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam)

www.loyensloeff.com

About Loyens & LoeffLoyens & Loeff N.V. is the first firm where attorneys at

law, tax advisers and civil-law notaries collaborate on a

large scale to offer integrated professional legal services

in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.

Loyens & Loeff is an independent provider of

corporate legal services. Our close cooperation with

prominent international law and tax law firms makes

Loyens & Loeff the logical choice for large and medium-

size companies operating domestically or internationally.

Editorial boardFor contact, mail: eutaxalert@loyensloeff.com:

● René van der Paardt (Loyens & Loeff Rotterdam)

● Thies Sanders (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam)

● Dennis Weber (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam;

University of Amsterdam)

Editors● Patricia van Zwet

● Rita Szudoczky

Although great care has been taken when compiling this newsletter, Loyens & Loeff N.V. does not accept any responsibility whatsoever for

any consequences arising from the information in this publication being used without its consent. The information provided in the publication is

intended for general informational purposes and can not be considered as advice.

Share the Expertise www.loyensloeff.com

Amsterdam

Arnhem

Aruba

Brussels

Curaçao

Dubai

Eindhoven

Geneva

Hong Kong

London

Luxembourg

New York

Paris

Rotterdam

Singapore

Tokyo

Zurich

13-01-EN

-EU

TA