- Details
On September 30, 2016 the Japanese Ministry of Finance issued a press release announcing that on that same date Japan and the Republic of Slovenia signed a Convention for the Elimination of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Tax Evasion and Avoidance (Hereafter: the DTA).
Although the DTA has been signed, it has not entered into force yet. For the DTA to enter into force, the respective ratification procedures have to have been finalized in both countries.
Below we will discuss a selection of provisions included in the DTA of which we think they might interest our readers.
- Details
On September 29, 2016 the Irish Revenue published an updated version of its Revenue Operational Manual Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement Guidelines. According to the Irish Revenue it updated Paragraph 32 of the Guidelines. Paragraph 32 sets out the term, or period, for which an APA will be granted - typically between 3 and 5 years. The guidelines have been updated to indicate that in no case will Revenue agree to a period that extends more than 5 years beyond the date of agreement of the bilateral APA with the competent authority of the other tax administration.
Read more: The Irish Revenue updates its Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement Guidelines
- Details
On September 29, 2016 the UK HM Treasury published an updated list of countries that committed to sharing beneficial ownership information.
In comparison to the previous list that was published on September 20, 2016, Brazil has been added to the list as compiled by the UK HM Treasury. Therewith the number of countries that support the initiative for the automatic exchange of information on beneficial ownership has come to 48.
Read more: Brazil commits to sharing beneficial ownership information
- Details
On September 29, 2016 the European Commission published its September infringements' package: key decisions. One of the key decisions is the decision of the European Commission to request Poland to fully transpose Council Directive 2014/107/EU of 9 December 2014 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation into Polish national law.
- Details
On September 29, 2016 on the website of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) the opinion of Advocate General Bot in Case C‑592/15, Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs versus British Film Institute, (ECLI:EU:C:2016:733) was published.
In the present case, the Court is requested to define the scope of Article 13A(1)(n) of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC. That provision states that Member States are to exempt ‘certain cultural services and goods closely linked thereto supplied by bodies governed by public law or by other cultural bodies recognised by the Member State concerned’.
The referring court, the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom), seeks to ascertain whether that provision leaves some latitude to the Member States to choose which cultural services may be eligible for such exemption. That court also seeks to ascertain whether that provision is of direct effect and may, therefore, be relied on directly by taxable persons before national courts where the Member State concerned has failed to transpose the Sixth Directive into national law by the end of the period prescribed.
In this Opinion, the Advocate General explains why he considers that Article 13A(1)(n) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘certain cultural services’ leaves it to the Member States to decide which cultural services may be exempt from value added tax (VAT). The Advocate General explains that it is for the national court to decide, taking account of the nature of the services in question, whether excluding the respondent in the main proceedings, British Film Institute, from entitlement to VAT exemption complies with the principle of fiscal neutrality, and, in particular, whether it entails infringement of the principle of equal treatment in relation to other operators supplying the same services in comparable situations and enjoying exemption from VAT for those supplies.
The Advocate General also states why, in his view, that provision may not be relied on directly by a taxable person before the national court.
Page 1 of 6
