Title
Equality of treatment by the ECJ since the Marks and Spencer case: Has the principle of equality in crossborder tax situations ,Used
Sold by Ergodebooks, an authorized reseller.
Returns accepted within 30 days | support@ergodebooks.com
Shipping Information
- Free Standard Shipping — United States only
- Processing Time: 1–3 business days
- Estimated Delivery: 3–5 business days after dispatch
- Double-boxed, fully insured & discreetly packaged
- Tracking number sent via email once dispatched
- Orders over $250 require signature upon delivery. Taxes calculated at checkout.
Returns & Refund
Returns accepted within 30 days of delivery.
Damaged or Defective Item
Free return shipping + replacement or full refund
Wrong Item Received
Free return shipping + replacement or full refund
Change of Mind
Return shipping at customer's expense · 25% restocking fee applies
A dilemma faced by the Court was whether the treatment of domestic tax situations and crossborder tax situation should be the same. ECJ has several times expressed its opinions in respect of transfer of losses from one EU jurisdiction to another. The treatment of losses before and after the M&SII case is not the same due to the applicability of the extended rule of reason doctrine. The result of this was that the positions, which were more likely to be required to be treated equally within Bosal reasoning, were allowed to be treated differently. The Court has relaxed the criteria for the acceptance of justifications. In the Bosal case, the Court has rejected them purely on formal grounds. In the later cases, the Court has started accounting the fiscal interests of Member States, where their tax interests were involved; provided more indepth analysis of grounds of public interest and introduced the possibility to invoke more than one justification; has started to respect the fiscal territorial jurisdiction of Member States, unless the issue of terminal losses arise.
⚠️ WARNING (California Proposition 65):
This product may contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.
For more information, please visit www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.