Closer to an internal market? The economic effects of EU tax jurisprudence
This paper proposes a new framework to assess the impact of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) jurisprudence on Internal Market-related areas, by considering whether the jurisprudence of the Court on corporate taxation fulfils the constitutional mandate, as set-out in the European Treaties, of establishing such a market. It is shown that the Court’s focus upon removing discriminatory obstacles to the fundamental freedoms does not necessarily lead to a more level playing field and increased tax neutrality, an instrumental objective towards attaining a European Internal Market. In order to assess whether the jurisprudence of the Court does indeed attain increased neutrality or level playing field, two rulings are used as case studies. The first ruling in Lankhorst-Hohorst regards the compatibility of thin capitalisation with free movement provisions; the second in Marks & Spencer concerns the compatibility of rules on group consolidation with those same provisions. An economic analysis demonstrates that, depending on the reaction of Member States to the ruling, tax induced differences in capital costs faced by firms operating within the European Internal Market may increase, whilst GDP and welfare may decrease. Consideration of actual legislative amendments introduced to thin capitalisation rules by Member States following Lankhorst-Hohorst, and to group consolidation rules following Marks & Spencer, appear to indicate that it is this negative scenario which has prevailed. Results demonstrate that it is not always or necessarily the case that decisions of the CJEU will led to an increased level playing field and tax neutrality, thus contributing to the establishing of the EU Internal Market. The paper considers the constitutional implications of this conclusion, and the consequent breaking of the constitutional instrumental chain. In particular, it reflects on whether the Court’s actions can be regarded as ultra vires, and whether they may constitute a violation of the rule of law and the principle of separation of powers. It concludes that the Court’s lack of consideration of the constitutional instrumental chain might mean that we are heading in the wrong direction.
|Date of creation:||2011|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Park End Street, Oxford OX1 1HP UK|
Phone: +44 (0)1865 288800
Fax: +44 (0)1865 288805
Web page: http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/ideas-impact/tax/
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:btx:wpaper:1112. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dongxian Guo)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.