Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
2.Insearchofadefnition
31
thatdefeatstheobjectorpurposeofthisDirective[ł]”(Arti-
cle1(2)).
–IntheATADirective:taxavoidanceisconstitutedbyuanarrange-
mentoraseriesofarrangements”which,interalia,udefeat
theobjectorpurposeoftheapplicabletaxlaw”(Article6).
–IntheprincipalpurposetestproposedwithinAction6ofBEPS:
thebenefitunderadoubletaxtreaty(utheConvention”)isnot
treatedasabusiveifuitisestablishedthatgrantingthatbenefit
inthesecircumstances[i.e.uhavingregardtoallrelevantfactsand
circumstances”]wouldbeinaccordancewiththeobjectandpur-
poseoftherelevantprovisionsof[the]Convention”.
–IntheProposalfortheCCTBDirective:taxavoidanceis
uanarrangementoraseriesofarrangements”whichuhavingbeen
putintoplaceforthemainpurposeoroneofthemainpurposes
ofobtainingataxadvantagethatdefeatstheobjectorpurpose
ofthisDirective,arenotgenuinehavingregardtoallrelevantfacts
andcircumstances”(Article58).
–IntheRecommendationof6.6.12:taxavoidanceisuanartificial
arrangementoranartificialseriesofarrangementswhichhas
beenputintoplacefortheessentialpurposeofavoidingtaxation
andleadstoataxbenefit”,bututhepurposeofanarrangement
orseriesofarrangementsconsistsinavoidingtaxationwhere,
regardlessofanysubjectiveintentionsofthetaxpayer,itdefeats
theobject,spiritandpurposeofthetaxprovisionsthatwould
otherwiseapply”(points4.2and4.5).
–IntheHalifaxdoctrineoftheCJEU,anabusivepractice(i.e.one
whichconstitutestaxavoidance)existsifuthetransactionscon-
cerned,notwithstandingformalapplicationoftheconditionslaid
downbytherelevantprovisions[ł],resultintheaccrualofatax
advantagethegrantofwhichwouldbecontrarytothepurpose
ofthoseprovisions”.12
–InthejurisprudenceoftheCJEUbasedontheCadburySchweppes
case,transactionsareabusiveifthereareuobjectivecircumstances
showingthat,despiteformalobservanceoftheconditionslaid
12JudgmentoftheCJEUof21February2006,C-255/02,Halifax,ECLI:EU:C:2006:121,
para.86.
