Φορολογία εισοδημάτων από αποταμιεύσεις και προσπάθειες καταπολέμησης της φοροδιαφυγής στην Ευρωπαϊκή ένωση
Σίτου, Γεωργία Χ.
Κουγέας, Βασίλης Δ., 1952-
Φοροδιαφυγή Φόρος εισοδήματος -- Δίκαιο και νομοθεσία -- Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, Χώρες της Αποταμίευση και επένδυση -- Φορολογία -- Ευρωπαϊκή Οικονομική Κοινότητα, Χώρες της Tax evasion Income tax -- Law and legislation -- European Union countries Saving and investment -- Taxation -- European Economic Community countries
Πάντειο Πανεπιστήμιο Κοινωνικών και Πολιτικών Επιστημών
Refusal of the European Union’s Member States to surrender their sovereignty in tax policy issues, notably with regard to direct taxation in combination with the multitude of variations of their tax systems, delayed the harmonization of their tax law and contributed to the event on harmful tax competition not just between Member States, but also between them and third countries.Given the absence of Community rules and after the liberalization of capital movements within the Community, Member States were quick to adopt fiscal measures designed not only to maintain national mobile capital within their borders, but also to attract funds from other Member States.For this reason most Member States, adopted rules providing minimum or even zero charges for savings. As a result, the phenomenon of harmful tax competition between Member States, extend in the market for financial products.While the aim of liberalizing the movement of capital within the community was to be based on the criteria of market rules on investment, the possibility of tax avoidance became in fact of significant importance. It was therefore common sense within the Community that only an approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the taxation of savings products would be able to prevent the onset of tax evasion and avoidance at Community level.To address this, the European Union decided, inter alia, the adoption of Directive 2003/48/EC, which has been fully incorporated into Greek law.The Directive aims to enable the effective taxation of income paid as interest payments within a Member State to beneficial owners who are individuals resident in another Member State, in accordance with the second states legislation.To achieve this goal, Member States should exchange information for those payments. In fact, they cannot refuse the exchange, citing their law or administrative practice, public policy or legal reasons.Due to structural differences with the other Member States, Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg, instead of exchanging information automatically, were allowed to withhold tax on income from savings within the scope of the Directive. They are bound to reimburse most of this tax to the State where the taxpayer has his tax residence. Also, these three countries are not obliged to implement the Directive111before Switzerland, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco and San Marino implement information exchange interest payments on request.Despite the undeniable importance of the adoption of this Directive, which reached to bind not only the EU Member States, but also third countries, a large portion of the theorists evaluated it as inefficient because of the numerous gaps and omissions allowing investors to avoid application.Recognizing the gaps and the opportunities that tax evaders continue to have despite the implementation of the Directive, the Commission has already proposed its amendment.
Διπλωματική εργασία - Πάντειο Πανεπιστήμιο. Γενικό Τμήμα Δικαίου, ΠΜΣ "Δίκαιο και Ευρωπαϊκή Ενοποίηση", κατεύθυνση Δημόσιο Δίκαιο, 2012