publication . Bachelor thesis . 2009

Cross Border Inheritances and European Community Law : Juridical double taxation of inheritances and the free movement of capital

Wiberg, Caroline;
Open Access English
  • Published: 01 Jan 2009
  • Publisher: Internationella Handelshögskolan, Högskolan i Jönköping, IHH, Rättsvetenskap
  • Country: Sweden
Abstract
Double taxation is known as restricting the free flow of capital and accordingly results in a limited access of the internal market. Although, not many Member States have entered into double taxation conventions in order to avoid juridical double taxation of inheritances. The question then arises whether this failure to eliminate juridical double taxation is restricting the free movement of capital. The ECJ‟s case law regarding inheritance taxes are very varying. In its initial case law, the ECJ stated that national measures which reduce the value of the inheritance are in breach of EC law. Even measures which could restrict investors in one Member State from in...
Subjects
free text keywords: Double taxation, Inheritances, Free movement of capital, Margarete Block, European law, EU-rätt
Related Organizations

2 General provisions ............................................................... 5 2.1 Direct taxation within the Member States ...................................... 5 2.1.1 Principles of jurisdiction to tax............................................. 5 2.1.2 Juridical double taxation ..................................................... 6 2.2 The free movement of capital........................................................ 6 2.2.1 The definition of capital....................................................... 6 2.2.2 Double taxation as a restriction on the free movement of capital ...................................................................... 7 2.2.3 Limitations of Article 56 of the EC Treaty............................ 9

3 Initial Case Law from the ECJ Regarding Taxation of Cross Border Inheritances.................................................. 11 3.1 The Barbier case......................................................................... 11 3.1.1 Background ...................................................................... 11 3.1.2 The judgement of the ECJ ................................................ 12 3.1.3 Analysis ............................................................................ 13 3.2 The van Hilten-van der Heijden case .......................................... 14 3.2.1 Background ...................................................................... 14 3.2.2 The judgement of the ECJ ................................................ 14 3.2.3 Analysis ............................................................................ 15 3.3 The Jäger case............................................................................ 17 3.3.1 Background ...................................................................... 17 3.3.2 The judgement of the ECJ ................................................ 18 3.3.3 Analysis ............................................................................ 18 3.4 Conclusions from the Barbier, van Hilten-van der Heijden and Jäger cases .................................................................................... 19

4 Cases regarding the possibility to deduct for debts relating to the inherited property............................................ 20 4.1 The Eckelkamp case ................................................................... 20 4.1.1 Background ...................................................................... 20 4.1.2 The judgement of the ECJ ................................................ 20 4.1.3 Analysis ............................................................................ 21 4.2 The Arens-Sikken case ............................................................... 22 4.2.1 Background ...................................................................... 22 4.2.2 The judgement of the ECJ ................................................ 23 4.2.3 Analysis ............................................................................ 23 4.3 Conclusions from the Eckelkamp and Arens-Sikken cases......... 24

35 See for example, ECJ 18 December 2007, C-101/05 Skatteverket v A [2007] ECR I-11531, paragraph 21.

36 Dahlberg, Mattias, Direct Taxation in Relation to the Freedom of Establishment and the Free Movement of Capital, page 279.

44 Opinion of Mr Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 26 October 2004 in Case C376/03 D. v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen [2005] ECR I-05821.

47 ECJ 12 May 1998, C-336/96 Mr and Mrs Robert Gilly v Directeur des services fiscaux du Bas-Rhin [1998] ECR I-02793, paragraph 24.

48 C-336/96 Mr and Mrs Robert Gilly v Directeur des services fiscaux du Bas-Rhin, paragraph 30; and 21 September 1999, C-307/97 Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, Zweigniederlassung Deutschland v Finanzamt Aachen-Innenstadt [1999] ECR I-06161, paragraph 56.

49 1982 OECD Model Double Taxation Convention on Estates and Inheritances and on Gifts.

50 1982 OECD Model Double Taxation Convention on Estates and Inheritances and on Gifts, Articles 1(a) and 2.

51 1982 OECD Model Double Taxation Convention on Estates and Inheritances and on Gifts, Article 7.

52 1982 OECD Model Double Taxation Convention on Estates and Inheritances and on Gifts, Articles 9A9B.

Powered by OpenAIRE Open Research Graph
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue