pravoПравоприменениеLaw Enforcement Review2542-15142658-4050Dostoevsky Omsk State University10.52468/2542-1514.2021.5(3).178-194pravo-533Research ArticleПРИМЕНЕНИЕ НОРМ ПРАВА ОРГАНАМИ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЙ ВЛАСТИTHE LAW ENFORCEMENT BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIESПротиводействие избежанию налога на прибыль организаций в правоприменительной практике суда Европейского СоюзаCountering the corporate tax avoidance in the Court of Justice of the European Union practicehttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0819-3110ТасаловК. А.TasalovК. A.

Тасалов Кирилл Артемьевич – аспирант кафедры финансового права

119991, г. Москва, Ленинские горы, 1

ResearcherID: AAZ-7640-2020

SPIN-код РИНЦ: 3010-3298

Kirill A. Tasalov – PhD student, Department of Financial Law Lomonosov

1, Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991

ResearcherID: AAZ-7640-2020

RSCI SPIN-code: 3010-3298

kirilltasalov@gmail.comСоколоваС. Г.SokolovaS. G.

Соколова Светлана Геннадьевна – аспирант кафедры финансового права

119991, г. Москва, Ленинские горы, 1

Svetlana G. Sokolova – PhD student, Department of Financial Law Lomonosov

1, Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991

sokolova.legal@gmail.comhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2383-6903ОсинаД. М.OsinaD. M.

Осина Дина Матвеевна – кандидат юридических наук, доцент кафедры теории права и сравнительного правоведения

119454, г. Москва, пр. Вернадского, 76

ResearcherID: T-3090-2019

SPIN-код РИНЦ: 4773-9912

Dina M. Osina – PhD in Law, Associate Professor, Department of Legal Theory and Comparative Law

76, Vernadskogo pr., Moscow, 119454

ResearcherID: T-3090-2019

RSCI SPIN-code: 4773-9912

Osina.dina@yandex.ruМосковский государственный университет имени М.В. ЛомоносоваРоссияLomonosov Moscow State UniversityRussian FederationМосковский государственный институт международных отношений (университет) Министерства иностранных дел Российской ФедерацииРоссияMGIMO UniversityRussian Federation20210110202153178194Copyright © Тасалов К.А., Соколова С.Г., Осина Д.М., 20212021Тасалов К.А., Соколова С.Г., Осина Д.М.Tasalov К.A., Sokolova S.G., Osina D.M.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://enforcement.omsu.ru/jour/article/view/533

Представлен системный анализ правовых подходов Суда ЕС, касающихся мер, направленных на противодействие избежанию налогов. Беспрепятственное осуществление основных свобод внутреннего рынка может ограничивать возможность защиты фискальной базы государств – членов ЕС. С учетом анализа правоприменительной практики Суда ЕС за 15 лет авторы отмечают возрастающий приоритет защиты фискальных интересов. Эта тенденция сопряжена с ограничением и частных интересов, и налоговой политики отдельных государств – членов ЕС, направленной на создание благоприятного налогового режима для привлечения инвестиций. Запрет злоупотребления правом ЕС предписывает государствам – членам ЕС отказывать в предоставлении налоговой выгоды по директивам, а принцип «вытянутой руки» может применяться для определения налогооблагаемой базы компаний в силу права ЕС в отсутствие национальных антиуклонительных правил. Разделы 1−2 подготовлены С.Г. Соколовой, 3−4.1 − Д.М. Осиной (раздел 4.1 совместно с К.А. Тасаловым), 4.1−7 − К.А. Тасаловым (раздел 4.1. совместно с Д.М. Осиной).

The article contains the analysis of extensive CJEU practice regarding the issues of countering corporate tax avoidance, and legal framework, mostly the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Directives.

The purpose of this paper is to conduct a comprehensive research of the issues of countering the corporate tax avoidance in the CJEU practice. For this reason the authors set the following tasks: (1) to consider the concept of abuse of law, developed by the CJEU practice, with respect to corporate tax avoidance; (2) to identify the interaction between national anti-avoidance rules and fundamental freedoms of the internal market as established by the CJEU practice; (3) to study the CJEU practice concerning the implementation of tax directives and the application of anti-avoidance measures; (4) to identify the main features of the Directives "Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive" (ATAD) in terms of their potential impact on the development of the CJEU practice.

The research methodology includes the application of both general methods of formal logic (including analysis, synthesis, deduction and induction) and special legal methodology (formal legal and comparative legal methods).

The main results of the study. The CJEU has repeatedly considered the problem of conflict of national anti-avoidance rules with the fundamental freedoms of the EU internal market. The conflict between these rules is resolved in different ways depending on the type of antiavoidance rules: (1) national rules aimed at countering the abuse of law, and (2) national rules developed to counter tax avoidance, which are strictly applied according to formal criteria, without any requirement to prove abuse of law in a particular situation. The application of national anti-avoidance rules may provide for the exemptions from the regime of fundamental freedoms of the internal market. Where national anti-avoidance rules are not aimed at combating wholly artificial arrangements, but are applied mechanically, due to formal criteria, such rules should apply subject to the legal regime of fundamental freedoms. The CJEU held that the concept of beneficial owner should be applied not only to interest and royalties, but also to the distribution of profits, despite the fact that the provisions of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive do not contain such a concept. EU law prohibits the granting of state aid. National anti-avoidance rules and law enforcement practice may be subject to such a prohibition in cases where they create positive discrimination.

Conclusions. When implementing the provisions of the ATAD 1-2, the EU Member States committed numerous breaches of the EU law. It therefore can be expected that the CJEU practice regarding the proper implementation of the Directives may appear in the near future. The general prohibition of abuse of EU law shall apply, even in cases where the EU Member State has not implemented the anti-avoidance mechanisms of tax directives into its national law. The general prohibition of abuse of EU law shall apply despite the principle of legal certainty, which precludes directives from being able by themselves to create obligations for individuals, so the directives cannot be relied upon per se by the Member State as against individuals. Sections 1−2 were contributed by S.G. Sokolova, 3−4.1 by D.M. Osina (section 4.1 in collaboration with K.A. Tasalov), 4.1−7 by K.A. Tasalov (section 4.1 in collaboration with D.M. Osina).

Антиуклонительные мерыналоговое право ЕССуд ЕСОбщий судЕвропейский судвнутренний рынокзащита фискальной базызлоупотребление правомизбежание налогаAnti-avoidance measuresEU tax lawCJEUGeneral CourtEuropean Court of Justiceinternal marketprotection of fiscal baseabuse of lawtax avoidanceReferencesButler W. Guest Editor’s Note – Some Reflections on Integration in Eurasia / W. Butler // Russian Law Journal. – 2019. – Vol. 7, iss. 3. – P. 5–11. – DOI: 10.17589/2309-8678-2019-7-3-5-11.Butler W. Guest Editor’s Note – Some Reflections on Integration in Eurasia. Russian Law Journal, 2019, vol. 7, iss. 3, pp. 5–11. DOI: 10.17589/2309-8678-2019-7-3-5-11.Entin M. Institutional and Legal Development of EAEU and EU in Comparative Perspective / M. Entin, V. Voynikov // Russian Law Journal. – 2019. – Vol. 7, iss. 3. – P. 155–168. – DOI: 10.17589/2309-8678-2019-7-3-155-168.Entin M., Voynikov V. Institutional and Legal Development of EAEU and EU in Comparative Perspective. Russian Law Journal, 2019, vol. 7, iss. 3, pp. 155–168. DOI: 10.17589/2309-8678-2019-7-3-155-168.Komarova T. The Court of Justice of the European Union and International Legal Order / T. Komarova // Russian Law Journal. – 2017. – Vol. 5, iss. 3. – P. 140–167. – DOI: 10.17589/2309-8678-2017-5-3-140-167.Komarova T. The Court of Justice of the European Union and International Legal Order. Russian Law Journal, 2017, vol. 5, iss. 3, pp. 140–167. DOI: 10.17589/2309-8678-2017-5-3-140-167.Karliuk M. Russian Legal Order and the Legal Order of the Eurasian Economic Union: An Uneasy Relationship / M. Karliuk // Russian Law Journal. – 2017. – Vol. 5, iss. 2. – P. 33–52. – DOI: 10.17589/2309-8678-2017-5-2-33-52.Karliuk M. Russian Legal Order and the Legal Order of the Eurasian Economic Union: An Uneasy Relationship. Russian Law Journal, 2017, vol. 5, iss. 2, pp. 33–52. DOI: 10.17589/2309-8678-2017-5-2-33-52.Толстопятенко Г. П. Интеграционное налоговое право и новый миропорядок / Г. П. Толстопятенко // Актуальные проблемы российского права. – 2020. – № 11 (120). – С. 23–35.Tolstopyatenko G.P. Integration Tax Law and the New World Order. Aktual’nye problemy rossiiskogo prava = Actual Problems of Russian Law, 2020, vol. 15, iss. 11, pp. 23–35. DOI: 10.17803/1994-1471.2020.120.11.023-035. (In Russ.).Право Европейского Союза : учеб. для бакалавров / ред. С. Ю. Кашкин. – М., 2015. – 318 с.Kashkin S.Yu. (ed.). European Union Law, A Textbook for Bachelors. Moscow, 2015. 318 p. (In Russ.).Винницкий Д. В. Международное налоговое право: проблемы теории и практики. – М. : Статут, 2017. – 463 с.Vinnitsky D.V. International tax law: problems of theory and practice. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2017. 463 p. (In Russ.).Zalasiński A. The ECJ’s Decisions in the Danish “Beneficial Ownership” Cases: Impact on the Reaction to Tax Avoidance in the European Union / A. Zalasiński // International Tax Studies. – 2019. – Vol. 2, no. 4. – P. 1–26.Zalasiński A. The ECJ’s Decisions in the Danish “Beneficial Ownership” Cases: Impact on the Reaction to Tax Avoidance in the European Union. International Tax Studies, 2019, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 1–26Энтин М. Л. Сегодня и завтра ЕС сквозь призму правового инструментария углубления интеграции. Часть II / М. Л. Энтин, Е. Г. Энтина, Е. А. Торкунова // Современная Европа. – 2019. – № 2. – С. 39–49. – DOI: 10.15211/soveurope220193949.Entin M.L., Entin E.G., Torkunova E.A. Today and Tomorrow of the EU through the Prism of Legal Instruments in Deepening Integration. Part II. Sovremennaya Evropa = Modern Europe, 2019, no. 2, pp. 39–49. DOI: 10.15211/soveurope220193949. (In Russ.).Ovcharova E. Tax Compliance in the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America: Forcing and Encouraging Lawful Conduct of Taxpayers / E. Ovcharova, K. Tasalov, D. Osina // Russian Law Journal. – 2019. – Vol. 7, iss. 1. – P. 4–54. – DOI: 10.17589/2309-8678-2019-7-1-4-54.Ovcharova E., Tasalov K., Osina D. Tax Compliance in the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America: Forcing and Encouraging Lawful Conduct of Taxpayers. Russian Law Journal, 2019, vol. 7, iss. 1, pp. 4–54. DOI: 10.17589/2309-8678-2019-7-1-4-54.Dourado A. P. Aggressive Tax Planning in EU Law and in the Light of BEPS: The EC Recommendation on Aggressive Tax Planning and BEPS Actions 2 and 6 / A. P. Dourado // Intertax. – 2015. – Vol. 43, iss. 1. – P. 42–57.Dourado A.P. Aggressive Tax Planning in EU Law and in the Light of BEPS: The EC Recommendation on Aggressive Tax Planning and BEPS Actions 2 and 6. Intertax, 2015, vol. 43, iss. 1, pp. 42–57.Осина Д. М. Пределы налогового планирования и ответственность за нарушение налогового законодательства по праву США / Д. М. Осина // Границы прав и свобод личности с точки зрения либертарно-правовой теории : к 80-летию акад. РАН В.С. Нерсесянца : сб. тр. междунар. науч. конф. (Воронеж, 1–2 июня). – Воронеж, 2018. – С. 368–375.Osina D.M. The Limits of Tax Planning and Responsibility for Violation of Tax Legislation under US law, in: Granitsy prav i svobod lichnosti s tochki zreniya libertarno-ptavovoi teorii, to the 80th anniversary of Academician V.S. Nersesyants, Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference (Voronezh, June 1–2), Voronezh, 2018, pp. 368–375. (In Russ.).Thomsen M. Tax avoidance over time: A comparison of European and U.S. firms / M. Thomsen, C. Watrin // Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation. – 2018. – Vol. 33. – P. 40–63. – DOI: 10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2018.11.002.Thomsen M., Watrin C. Tax avoidance over time: A comparison of European and U.S. firms. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 2018, vol. 33, pp. 40–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2018.11.002.Налоговое право : учеб. для вузов / под ред. С. Г. Пепеляева. – М., 2015. – 796 с.Pepelyaev S.G. (ed.). Tax Law, Textbook for Universities. Moscow, 2015. 796 p. (In Russ.).Жестков С. В. Правовые основы налогового планирования (на примере групп предприятий) : учеб. пособие / С. В. Жестков ; ред. С. Г. Пепеляев. – М., 2002. – 141 с.Zhestkov S.V. Legal fundamentals of tax planning (on the example of groups of enterprises), textbook, ed. by S.G. Pepelyaev. Moscow, 2002. 141 p. (In Russ.).Соколова С. Г. Обход налога / С. Г. Соколова // Законодательство. – 2019. – № 4. – С. 22–29.Sokolova S.G. Tax avoidance. Zakonodatel’stvo, 2019, no. 4, pp. 22–29. (In Russ.).Осина Д. М. Правовое регулирование ответственности за нарушение налогового законодательства в США : дис. ... канд. юрид. наук / Д. М. Осина. – М., 2021. – 244 с.Osina D.M. Legal regulation of liability for violation of tax laws in the United States, Cand. Diss. Moscow, 2021. 244 p. (In Russ.).Freedman J. The UK General Anti-Avoidance Rule: Transplants and Lessons / J. Freedman // Bulletin for International Taxation. – 2019. – Vol. 73, no. 6/7. – P. 332–338.Freedman J. The UK General Anti-Avoidance Rule: Transplants and Lessons. Bulletin for International Taxation, 2019, vol. 73, no. 6/7, pp. 332–338.Cotrut M. International Tax Structures in the BEPS Era: An Analysis of Anti-Abuse Measures / M. Cotrut. – IBFD, 2015. – 344 p. – (IBFD Tax Research Series; Vol. 2).Cotrut M. International Tax Structures in the BEPS Era: An Analysis of Anti-Abuse Measures, IBFD Tax Research Series, vol. 2. IBFD, 2015. 344 p.Helminen M. EU Tax Law – Direct Taxation / M. Helminen. – 2020 edition. – IBFD, 2020. – 600 p.Helminen M. EU Tax Law - Direct Taxation, 2020 edition. IBFD, 2020. 600 p.Kuźniacki B. The C.J.E.U. Case Law Relevant to the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (G.A.A.R.) Under the AntiTax Avoidance Directive (A.T.A.D.) / B. Kuźniacki // University of Bologna Law Review. – 2019. – Vol. 4, iss. 2. – P. 261– 282. – DOI: 10.6092/issn.2531-6133/10023.Kuźniacki B. The C.J.E.U. Case Law Relevant to the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (G.A.A.R.) Under the AntiTax Avoidance Directive (A.T.A.D.). University of Bologna Law Review, 2019, vol. 4, iss. 2, pp. 261–282. DOI: 10.6092/issn.2531-6133/10023.Пономарева К. А. Общие правила борьбы с уклонением от налогообложения в ЕС: регулирование директивы ATAD / К. А. Пономарева // Налоговед. – 2019. – № 4. – С. 81–88.Ponomareva K.A. General rules for prevention of tax evasion in the EU: regulation of the ATAD directive. Nalogoved, 2019, no. 4, pp. 81–88. (In Russ.).Hilling M. Justifications and proportionality: An analysis of the ECJ´s assessment of national rules for the prevention of tax avoidance / M. Hilling // Intertax. – 2013. – Vol. 41, iss. 5. – P. 294–307.Hilling M. Justifications and proportionality: An analysis of the ECJ´s assessment of national rules for the prevention of tax avoidance. Intertax, 2013, vol. 41, iss. 5, pp. 294–307.Захаров А. С. Становление системы налогового права ЕС : дис. ... канд. юрид. наук / А. С. Захаров. – М., 2010. – 201 с.Zakharov A.S. Formation of the EU tax law system, Cand. Diss. Moscow, 2010. 201 p. (In Russ.).Пономарева К. А. Трансграничный учет убытков: новое Решение Суда ЕС / К. А. Пономарева // Налоговед. – 2015. – № 5. – С. 66–73.Ponomareva K.A. Cross-border accounting of losses: a new Decision by the European Union's Court of Justice. Nalogoved, 2015, no. 5, pp. 66–73. (In Russ.).Peeters S. Exit Taxation: From an Internal Market Barrier to a Tax Avoidance Prevention Tool / S. Peeters // EC Tax Review. – 2017. – Vol. 26, iss. 3. – P. 122–132.Peeters S. Exit Taxation: From an Internal Market Barrier to a Tax Avoidance Prevention Tool. EC Tax Review, 2017, vol. 26, iss. 3, pp. 122–132.Пономарева К. А. Правовое регулирование борьбы с уклонением от налогообложения: аналитический обзор практик Европейского союза и Российской Федерации / К. А. Пономарева. – М., 2021. – 96 c.Ponomareva K.A. Legal regulation of wrestling anti-tax evasion: an analytical review of the practices of the European Union and the Russian Federation. Moscow, 2021. 96 p. (In Russ.).Федотова И. Г. Юридические понятия и категории в английском языке : толковый слов. // И. Г. Федотова, Г. П. Толстопятенко. – М., 2016. – 360 с.Fedotova I.G., Tolstopyatenko G.P. Legal concepts and categories in the English language, Explanatory dictionary. Moscow, 2016. 360 p. (In Russ.).Завязочникова М. В. Концепция злоупотребления правом в решениях Европейского Суда по налоговым спорам / М. В. Завязочникова // Налоговед. – 2008. – № 12. – С. 58–63.Zavyazochnikova M.V. The concept of abuse of law in the decisions of the European Union's Court of Justice on tax matters. Nalogoved, 2008, no. 12, pp. 58–63. (In Russ.).Толстопятенко Г. П. Европейское налоговое право : дис. ... д-ра юрид. наук / Г. П. Толстопятенко. – М., 2001. – 317 с.Tolstopyatenko G.P. European tax law, Doct. Diss. Moscow, 2001. 317 p. (In Russ.).Tasalov K. Identifying Conduit Companies: A Russian Perspective on the Beneficial Ownership / K. Tasalov // European Taxation. – 2020. – Vol. 60, no. 12. – P. 536–545.Tasalov K. Identifying Conduit Companies: A Russian Perspective on the Beneficial Ownership. European Taxation, 2020, vol. 60, no. 12. pp. 536–545.Bærentzen S. Danish Cases on the Use of Holding Companies for Cross-Border Dividends and Interest – A New Test to Disentangle Abuse from Real Economic Activity? / S. Bærentzen // World Tax Journal. – 2020. – Vol. 12, no. 1. – P. 3–52.Bærentzen S. Danish Cases on the Use of Holding Companies for Cross-Border Dividends and Interest – A New Test to Disentangle Abuse from Real Economic Activity? World Tax Journal, 2020, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 3–52.Lazarov I. (Un)Tangling Tax Avoidance Under the Interest and Royalties Directive: the Opinion of AG Kokott in N Luxembourg / I. Lazarov // Intertax. – 2018. – Vol. 46, iss. 11. – P. 873–884.Lazarov I. (Un)Tangling Tax Avoidance Under the Interest and Royalties Directive: the Opinion of AG Kokott in N Luxembourg. Intertax, 2018, vol. 46, iss. 11, pp. 873–884.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.