International juridical double taxation and individuals' ability to pay in the light of EU law
According to the CJEU’s case law, the tax disadvantage suffered by taxpayers in a cross-border situation arising from international juridical double taxation does not constitute a forbidden obstacle to free movement because it is a consequence of Member States’ definition of tax jurisdiction. Nevert...
| Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Doctoral thesis |
| Status: | Published version |
| Publication date: | 2023 |
| Country: | España |
| Institution: | CBUC, CESCA |
| Repository: | TDR. Tesis Doctorales en Red |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:www.tdx.cat:10803/687857 |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10803/687857 |
| Access Level: | Open access |
| Keyword: | International juridical double taxation Doble imposición jurídica internacional Derecho de la UE EU law 34 |
| Summary: | According to the CJEU’s case law, the tax disadvantage suffered by taxpayers in a cross-border situation arising from international juridical double taxation does not constitute a forbidden obstacle to free movement because it is a consequence of Member States’ definition of tax jurisdiction. Nevertheless, from an ability-to-pay perspective, this disadvantage may also be perceived as resulting from a Member State’s exercise of taxing powers in a discriminatory or restrictive way. From this perspective, the issue is no longer whether international juridical double taxation is compatible with the EU law but whether disregarding taxpayers’ overall ability in cross-border situations is in accordance with the EU law, given the evolution of the CJEU’s case law on the matter, in particular, concerning the consideration of expenses related to economic activity and personal and family circumstances. This research aims to address this perspective of international juridical double taxation by assessing the relevance of taxpayers’ overall ability to pay in the light of EU law through an exhaustive analysis of the CJEU’s case law in cases in which international juridical double taxation was not eliminated and in which, despite being eliminated, taxpayers’ ability to pay was undermined in the process. |
|---|