La CE demande à la Hongrie de modifier ses dispositions fiscales discriminatoires concernant l'acquisition de propriétés à usage résidentiel

La Commission européenne a officiellement demandé à la Hongrie de modifier ses dispositions fiscales concernant la taxe prélevée sur l'acquisition de propriétés. Ces dispositions défavorisent les contribuables dont l'acquisition est précédée ou suivie de la vente de leur précédente résidence dans un autre État membre. Elles sont incompatibles avec la libre circulation des personnes et la liberté d’établissement, garanties par les articles 18, 39 et 43 du traité CE ainsi que par les articles correspondants de l'accord EEE. La demande revêt la forme d’un avis motivé (deuxième étape de la procédure d’infraction prévue à l’article 226 du traité CE). En l’absence de réaction satisfaisante à l’avis motivé dans un délai de deux mois, la Commission peut décider de saisir la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes.

En vertu de la l´article 21(5) de la loi XCIII hongroise de 1990 sur les taxes, toute personne achetant une maison en Hongrie doit verser une taxe (en hongrois visszterhes vagyonátruházási illeték) calculée sous la forme d'un pourcentage de la valeur de la propriété. Si la propriété est la résidence du contribuable et si l'acquisition est précédée ou suivie de la vente de sa précédente résidence en Hongrie, la taxe est prélevée uniquement si la valeur de la propriété nouvellement acquise est supérieure à celle de la propriété vendue, et ne concerne que la différence de valeur.
En revanche, si l'acquisition de la résidence en Hongrie est précédée ou suivie de la vente de la résidence précédente du contribuable dans un autre État membre, la taxe sera calculée sous la forme d'un pourcentage de la valeur de la propriété acquise, indépendamment de la valeur de la résidence précédente.

Par conséquent, les personnes s’installant en Hongrie et vendant leur résidence dans un autre État membre sont défavorisées par rapport aux résidents hongrois achetant une nouvelle résidence pour remplacer leur résidence actuelle située en Hongrie. La Commission estime que ces personnes peuvent être considérées comme étant dans la même situation que les résidents hongrois, étant donné qu’elles sont susceptibles d'avoir versé une taxe comparable à la taxe hongroise lors de l’acquisition d'une résidence à l'étranger.

La Commission considère donc que les règles hongroises en question imposent des restrictions au droit de chaque citoyen de l'Union européenne de circuler et de résider librement sur le territoire des États membres (article 18 du traité CE), et, plus particulièrement, qu’elles ne sont pas conformes au droit de libre circulation des travailleurs (article 39 du traité CE) et à la liberté d'établissement (article 43 du traité CE).

La CE demande au Portugal de mettre fin à la discrimination fiscale des contribuables non-résidents

La Commission européenne a officiellement demandé au Portugal de modifier ses dispositions fiscales en vertu desquelles les contribuables non‑résidents doivent nommer un représentant fiscal s’ils perçoivent un revenu imposable au Portugal. La Commission considère ces dispositions incompatibles avec la libre circulation des personnes et la libre circulation des capitaux garanties par les articles 18 et 56 du traité CE ainsi que par les articles 36 et 40 de l’accord EEE. La demande revêt la forme d’un avis motivé (deuxième étape de la procédure d’infraction prévue à l’article 226 du traité CE). En l’absence de réaction satisfaisante à l’avis motivé dans un délai de deux mois, la Commission peut décider de saisir la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes.

En vertu de l´article 130 du CIRS (Código do Imposto portugaise sobre o rendimiento das pessoas singulares, loi fiscale sur les revenus des personnes physiques), les contribuables non-résidents percevant un revenu imposable au Portugal doivent nommer un représentant fiscal afin de les représenter devant l'administration fiscale portugaise et de garantir l'acquittement de leurs obligations fiscales. La Commission comprend que cette exigence a pour objectif de garantir le paiement des impôts et de prévenir la fraude fiscale. Ce sont là des nécessités reconnues d'intérêt public. Toutefois, la Commission est d'avis que l’obligation générale faite aux non-résidents de nommer un représentant fiscal va au‑delà des mesures nécessaires à la réalisation de ces objectifs et entrave par conséquent la libre circulation des personnes et la libre circulation des capitaux établies aux articles 18 et 56 du traité CE et dans l'accord EEE.

L'avis de la Commission est basé sur le traité CE dans l’interprétation qu’en donne la Cour de justice des communautés européennes dans l’arrêt du 7 septembre 2006 concernant l’affaire C-470/04, N.

The Rise and Fall of Chinese Tax Incentives and Implications for International Tax Debates

Jinyan Li (York University) published in the Florida Tax Review, Forthcoming CLPE Research Paper No. 5/2008, the paper "The Rise and Fall of Chinese Tax Incentives and Implications for International Tax Debates".

Here is theAbstract:

China had no foreign direct investment (FDI) before 1979. Now, it is one of the world's largest recipients of FDI. China has been generous to a fault in granting tax incentives to foreign investors. As of January 1, 2008, however, these FDI-specific incentives are abolished or phased o ut. What explains the rise and fall? Were the tax incentives not effective in attracting FDI and promoting China's economic growth? What are the implications of the Chinese experience for international tax debates? This article examines these questions.

SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1087382

This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") does not to provide specific legal advice, it is for educational purposes only. This Blog is made available by the international adviser, lawyer or law firm for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice.

The Blog does not constitute legal advice and is not a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of us.

By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog.

The Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional adviser or lawyer in your country.

Our firm and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. The use of this Blog does not implicitly or explicitly convey any warranties or representations as to the accuracy of the information contained herein.

This Blog has created this privacy statement in order to demonstrate our firm commitment to privacy. The following discloses the information gathering and dissemination practices for this Blog.

This Blog takes your privacy very seriously. Our customers told us they want to see clear, easy-to-read information about our privacy commitments and policies. We have made our privacy policies easier to find and easier to read. And we're listening. We welcome your questions and feedback on our privacy policies, and invite you to contact us with your thoughts.

Customer Privacy Controls and Choices:
• You can review and correct your Personal Information collected by us.
• You can limit certain types of solicitation communications from AT&T, including marketing contacts made via telephone, e-mail and text messaging.
• We will provide you with notice of changes to this policy.

Our privacy commitments are fundamental to the way we do business every day. These apply to everyone who has a relationship with this Blog and visitors.
• We will protect your privacy and keep your personal information safe. We use powerful encryption and other security safeguards to protect customer data, when available.
• We will not sell your personal information to anyone, for any purpose. Period.
• We will fully disclose our privacy policies in plain language, and make our policies easily accessible to you.
• We will notify you of any revisions to our privacy policy, in advance. No surprises.
• You have choices about how this Blog uses your information for marketing purposes. Customers are in control.


This Privacy Policy identifies and describes the way This Blog uses and protects the information we collect about visitors. All use of this Blog is subject to this Privacy Policy.

Use of Location Information
• When your wireless device is on, it sends periodic signals to the nearest cell site. We use that information to provide your wireless services;
• You can use your wireless device to obtain a wide array of services based on the approximate location of the device, referred to as Location Based Services, or LBS. The information you receive in connection with your use of LBS may include advertisements related to your request and your location;

Online Activity Tracking and Advertising
• We collect information about your activity on this Blog for a number of purposes using technologies such as cookies, Web beacons, widgets and server log files.
• We and our advertising partners use that information, as well as other information they have or we may have, to help tailor the ads you see on our sites and to help make decisions about ads you see on other sites.

The Information We Collect, How We Collect It, And How We Use It

We collect different types of personal and other information based on your use of our products and services and our business relationship with you. Some examples include:
• Contact Information that allows us to communicate with you -- including your name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address;
• Equipment, Performance, Site Usage, Viewing and other Technical Information about your use of our network, services, products or Web sites.

We collect information in 2 primary ways:
• You give it to us when you register to provide comments;
• We collect it automatically when you visit our Blog.

We use the information we collect in a variety of ways, including to:
• Provide you with the best visitor experience possible;
• Deliver customized content that may be of interest to you;
• Address network integrity and security issues;
• Investigate, prevent or take action regarding illegal activities, violations of our Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policies; and
• For local directory and directory assistance purposes.

Aggregate or Anonymous Information:

We may share aggregate or anonymous information in various formats with trusted entities’ only for purposes such as:
• Our knowledge, and offer of information that may be of interest to you;
• Universities, laboratories and other entities that conduct scientific research; and
• Media research companies for general information only.

More information:

http://internationaltaxchina.blogspot.com
http://www.jpa-iac.com/en/
http://www.braxton-co.com/en/
http://www.tax-international.com
http://www.braxton-group.com

CE exige a Portugal que ponha termo à tributação discriminatória dos contribuintes não residentes

A Comissão Europeia exigiu formalmente a Portugal que altere as suas disposições fiscais segundo as quais os contribuintes não residentes têm de designar um representante fiscal caso obtenham rendimentos tributáveis em Portugal. A Comissão considera a referida disposição incompatível com a livre circulação de pessoas e de capitais, consagrada nos artigos 18.° e 56.° do Tratado CE e nos artigos 36.° e 40.° do Acordo EEE. Esta exigência assume a forma de parecer fundamentado (segunda fase do processo de infracção, prevista no artigo 226.º do Tratado CE).

Se, no prazo dois meses, não houver uma resposta satisfatória ao parecer fundamentado, a Comissão pode decidir remeter a questão para o Tribunal de Justiça das Comunidades Europeias.

De acordo com l´artigo n.º 130 do CIRS (Código do imposto sobre o rendimento das pessoas singulares), os contribuintes não residentes que obtenham rendimentos tributáveis em Portugal têm de designar um representante fiscal para os representar junto das administrações fiscais portuguesas e garantir o cumprimento dos seus deveres fiscais. A Comissão compreende que o objectivo deste requisito seja o de garantir o pagamento dos impostos e impedir a evasão fiscal. Contudo, a Comissão considera que uma obrigação geral imposta aos não residentes para que designem um representante fiscal ultrapassa o necessário para assegurar estes objectivos, impedindo assim a livre circulação de pessoas e de capitais, tal como estabelecido nos artigos 18.° e 56.° do Tratado CE e no Acordo EEE.

O parecer da Comissão baseia-se no Tratado CE tal como interpretado pelo Tribunal de Justiça das Comunidades Europeias no seu Acórdão de 7 de Setembro de 2006, no processo C-470/04.

The CE requests Hungary to amend discriminatory tax provisions relating to the purchase of residential property

The European Commission has formally requested Hungary to amend its fiscal provisions concerning the duty levied on the purchase of property. Those provisions discriminate against taxpayers whose purchase is preceded or followed by the sale of their previous home in another member state. The provisions are incompatible with the free movement of persons and the freedom of establishment, as guaranteed by Articles 18, 39 and 43 of the EC Treaty and the corresponding articles of the EEA agreement. The request takes the form of a Reasoned Opinion (second step of the infringement procedure provided for in article 226 of the EC Treaty). If there is no satisfactory reaction to the Reasoned Opinion within two months, the Commission may decide to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice.

Under Article 21(5) of the Hungarian Act no. XCIII of 1990 on Duties, a person buying a house in Hungary must pay a duty (in Hungarian visszterhes vagyonátruházási illeték) which is calculated as a percentage of the value of the property. Where the property is the taxpayer's home and the purchase is preceded of followed by the sale of his previous home in Hungary, the duty is levied only if the value of the property now acquired exceeds that of the one sold and only on the basis of the difference in values.
On the other hand, where the purchase of his home in Hungary is preceded or followed by the sale of the taxpayer's previous home in another Member State, the duty will be calculated as a percentage of the value of the property purchased irrespective of the value of his previous home.

As a result, people who move to Hungary and sell their homes in other member States will be treated less favourably compared to Hungarian residents buying a new dwelling to replace their current one situated in Hungary. The Commission considers that such persons can be in the same situation as Hungarian residents, by reason of the fact that they may have paid a duty comparable to the Hungarian one when buying a dwelling abroad.

Therefore, the Commission considers that the Hungarian rules at issue pose a restriction on the right of every citizen of the European Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.