Open Access
Análisis de compatibilidad de los incentivos fiscales navarros a las producciones cinematográficas con el Derecho de la Unión Europea
(2017) Castro Bosque, Marina; López López, Hugo; Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas; Zientzia Juridikoen Fakultatea
Pese a que la fiscalidad directa es competencia de los Estados miembros, éstos deben ejercer dicha competencia respetando el Derecho europeo. En este sentido, aunque Navarra cuenta con un régimen tributario propio, no puede contravenir la posición de jerarquía que ostenta el Derecho de la UE. Sin embargo, los incentivos fiscales navarros a las producciones cinematográficas presentan problemas de compatibilidad con dicho ordenamiento jurídico, como consecuencia de los requisitos de territorialización del gasto exigidos en el art. 70 LFIS. Por tanto, el presente trabajo tiene como finalidad examinar la adecuación de estos beneficios fiscales con el Derecho europeo, en especial con las libertades fundamentales y el régimen de ayudas de Estado. Para ello va a ser esencial examinar la doctrina jurisprudencial desarrollada por el TJUE a lo largo de los años, así como la postura adoptada por la Comisión Europea y su proyección en nuestro objeto de análisis.
Open Access
Analysis of the DAC 6 in light of EU Primary Law
(2022) Castro Bosque, Marina; López López, Hugo; Derecho; Zuzenbidea
The present thesis is divided into six substantial chapters excluding the introduction, the conclusions and the bibliography. Chapter I, primarily descriptive, seeks to answer the following questions: i) why are mandatory disclosure rules necessary?; ii) how should mandatory disclosure rules be drafted to work effectively?; iii) how does the EU mandatory disclosure regime work? For this, the historical context in which mandatory disclosure rules originated is described. Subsequently, a detailed analysis of the OECD’s approach in relation to mandatory disclosure and, especially, of BEPS Action 12 as an international standard will be carried out. Finally, the Chapter makes a descriptive analysis of DAC 6 as the unified mandatory disclosure regime in the EU with the aim of highlighting its characteristic elements and major points of concern. Chapter II intends to demonstrate whether the DAC 6 actually contributes to improve the internal market and henceforth it might be adopted based on articles 113 and 115 TFEU. To this aim, as an introductory remark, the Chapter briefly addresses the relationships of the sources of EU law relevant for direct taxation. Right after that, the concept of the “internal market” as the basis for the adoption of EU directives in the field of direct taxes is analyzed. The question of what is the real objective or purpose of the DAC 6 is addressed as well in this section. Once this is clarified the Chapter analyzes whether this objective justifies the adoption of a mandatory disclosure regime at the EU level and whether it contributes in practice to the improvement of the internal market. Chapter III analyzes the objective element of the Directive in light of the principle of legal certainty. In particular, the issues to be addressed in this Chapter are: i) what is legal certainty and when it is understood to be violated in the EU; ii) whether DAC 6, as regards its objective element, contravenes the postulates of this principle of legal certainty. Either in its clarity aspect (objective demand) or in its foreseeability aspect (subjective demand). This is observed from the analysis of the wording directive (e.g. lacks clarity) and is demonstrated through the analysis of the implementing measures (i.e. the lack of clarity has led to differing implementations). Chapter IV analyzes whether the EU mandatory disclosure regime really violates the rights of the affected intermediaries and taxpayers. To this end, as a preliminary question, the Chapter deals with the system of protection of fundamental rights in the European Union. Then, the right/duty of professional secrecy in the EU and the protection granted to it by the Directive is analyzed. In this way I will conclude whether or not the right is affected by DAC 6. In addition, the Chapter discusses the rights of defense and, in particular, the right against self-incrimination from a European perspective. Again, the idea is to what extent accounting disclosure under DAC 6 obligations may lead to compelled self-incrimination. Finally, the respect of the privacy rights as a consequence of the disclosure mechanism is questioned. Chapter V deals with the consequences of complying or breaching the disclosure obligation. In this regard, the EU mandatory disclosure rule can give rise to sanctions at two different levels. On the one hand, the sanction for not declaring the required information (i.e. for failing to comply with the reporting obligation). On the other hand, the potential sanction for the information declared. That is, the sanction that the subject may face in the event of reporting a mechanism that falls within the scope of illegal behavior. This Chapter will deal with both levels of sanctions. In this way, an analysis will be made of the different consequences or responses to reporting or non-reporting under the DAC 6 regime. In the first case, the limits faced by Member States when regulating and applying penalties for possible breaches of the obligation to declare will be addressed. These limits arise mainly from the principle of proportionality, the principle of legality or the principle of culpability. In this sense, not all sanctions are subject to the same guarantees and limits. Thus, “criminal” sanctions are subject to a higher standard of protection. Secondly, in some cases, information may be declared that gives rise to the imposition of a sanction. In this case the fundamental rights of the taxpayer and the intermediary may be affected. Therefore, in this Chapter it will also be addressed who imposes these sanctions and under what circumstances. Chapter VI discusses whether retrospective legislation may be employed to combat aggressive tax planning arrangements disclosed under mandatory disclosure rules. In other words, how do EU mandatory disclosure rules affect the taxpayers’ right to legal certainty and legitimate expectations in its temporal demand? This Chapter attends in particular to the above-mentioned question. To this aim, the Chapter analyzes in the first place the requirements of the prohibition of retroactivity as stemming from the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. At this point it shall be noted that it is generally accepted that under certain circumstances the legislator is allowed to deviate from this prohibition. The concept of legitimate expectations has a key role in this respect. Finally, the Chapter concludes with a section dedicated to the application of the key concepts developed around the prohibition of non-retroactivity in the field of DAC6. Against this background it shall be noted that although independent, all the Chapters work as a “whole”. In this regard, as an example, it is not possible to conclude whether fundamental rights are violated without discussing the objective of the Directive (Chapter II), the arrangements that fall within its scope (Chapter III) and the punitive response that might arise from the disclosure obligation (Chapter V). To frame it negatively, without discussing the penalties that might be imposed in case of that certain arrangements are disclosed, it is not possible to assess whether professional secrecy and the right not to incriminate oneself are undermined. The answer to this question will also enable the author to conclude whether the DAC 6 follows the line of mandatory disclosure rules and international tax policy in the last few years or if, on the contrary, it involves a new step in the tax transparency agenda. To this aim the background of the Directive is especially relevant (Chapter I). Finally, the thesis concludes with some general remarks by way of summary. In this section the main ideas, critics and suggestions are highlighted.
Open Access
La responsabilidad tributaria del representante aduanero
(Thomson-Reuters Civitas, 2022-05-01) Castro Bosque, Marina; Derecho; Zuzenbidea; Institute for Advanced Research in Business and Economics - INARBE
Open Access
Analysis of the DAC 6 in light of EU fundamental rights and guarantees
(IBFD, 2024-02-01) Castro Bosque, Marina; Derecho; Zuzenbidea
Since its adoption in 2018, an intense debate has arisen among academics at the international level on whether Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 of 25 May 2018 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation in relation to reportable crossborder arrangements (DAC6) is sufficiently protective from a taxpayers’ rights point of view. That is, opinions differ on whether the measure respects the most basic tenets of EU law: the fundamental rights and general principles of the European Union. Under the domain of EU law, measures that do not respect the general principles or fundamental rights are not considered proportional to the objective they are intended to achieve. The same holds true in relation to measures affecting direct taxation. Further, in this regard, not only Member States but also EU legislators must respect all treaty provisions. Against this background, Recital 18 to DAC6 points out that “this Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union”. However, is this statement true in practice? This analysis necessarily involves assessing whether DAC6 as a piece of secondary legislation respects the requirements of EU primary law. This is therefore the research question of this book: is DAC6 compliant with the requirements of EU primary law concerning fundamental rights and guarantees? The analysis focuses on whether the Directive respects certain specific rights and guarantees: inter alia, the principle of legal certainty, the rights of defence (in particular, professional secrecy and the right not to incriminate oneself), the right to privacy, the principles of proportionality and legality in their punitive demand, and the principle of culpability.
Embargo
El sistema tributario desde una perspectiva de género: la necesaria revisión del régimen fiscal de tributación conjunta en el IRPF
(Aranzadi, 2020-12-01) Castro Bosque, Marina; Derecho; Zuzenbidea; Institute for Advanced Research in Business and Economics - INARBE; Universidad Pública de Navarra / Nafarroako Unibertsitate Publikoa, OTRI UPNA 2019 2141200
En la literatura académica no son abundantes los trabajos dedicados al análisis de las cuestiones de género y fiscalidad. Sin embargo, es evidente que la política fiscal puede tener un impacto importante en la capacidad emancipadora de las mujeres y condicionar el progreso hacia una sociedad verdaderamente igualitaria. Ese impacto puede ser positivo o negativo, en función de que los regímenes fiscales promuevan acciones positivas en forma de incentivos, beneficios o regímenes fiscales preferenciales o, por el contrario, supongan un obstáculo añadido en la consecución de la referida igualdad, en la medida en que configuren reglas que contribuyan a perpetuar situaciones de desigualdad que se pretenden superar. En este capítulo nos proponemos reflexionar críticamente sobre el segundo de los aspectos mencionados y analizar una de las medidas tributarias que, sin duda, contribuyen negativamente a superar un modelo de sociedad en el que las mujeres no se encuentren en condiciones de igualdad de acceso al mercado laboral respecto de los hombres para, posteriormente, proponer los cambios que, a nuestro modo de ver, deberían llevarse a cabo en caso de que se quisieran adoptar las medidas requeridas por una política fiscal orientada mínimamente a cuestiones de género en términos análogos a lo que ha sucedido en otros países de nuestro entorno social, cultural y jurídico.
Open Access
La determinación de la base de la deducción por inversiones en producciones cinematográficas en el caso de los financiadores
(La Ley, 2024-06-01) Castro Bosque, Marina; Derecho; Zuzenbidea; Institute for Advanced Research in Business and Economics - INARBE
Embargo
El derecho a la privacidad y la DAC6: ¿otra vuelta de tuerca a raíz de las conclusiones del AG Nicholas Emiliou?
(Asociación Española de Asesores Fiscales, 2024-06-28) Castro Bosque, Marina; Derecho; Zuzenbidea; Institute for Advanced Research in Business and Economics - INARBE
En el ámbito de la Unión Europea, la cooperación fiscal se ha enmarcado a través de la Directiva 2011/16/UE relativa a la cooperación administrativa en el ámbito de la fiscalidad directa (DAC) y sus modificaciones. En particular, la DAC6 obliga a los intermediarios fiscales y, en ocasiones, al propio contribuyente a comunicar a la administración tributaria determinados mecanismos de planificación fiscal agresiva. Sin embargo, es obvio que esta obligación puede dar lugar a interferencias con el derecho a la privacidad. Precisamente, el pasado 29 de febrero de 2024, el Abogado General (AG) Nicholas Emiliou emitió su dictamen en el asunto Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers y otros (C-623/22), concluyendo que la DAC6 implica una interferencia en el derecho a la privacidad, aunque dicha interferencia es proporcional a la vista de los objetivos perseguidos por la Unión Europea. La cuestión a dilucidar es, por tanto, si en línea con las conclusiones del AG, el derecho a la privacidad se ha protegido adecuadamente en el ámbito del DAC6, considerando el Derecho de la UE.
Open Access
Mandatory disclosure rules in Spain
(IBFD, 2023) López López, Hugo; Castro Bosque, Marina; Derecho; Zuzenbidea; Institute for Advanced Research in Business and Economics - INARBE
In Spain, the implementation of DAC6 has been carried out through Law 10/2020 of 29 December 2020 (the Law). Specifically, this Law introduces two additional provisions to General Taxation Law 58/2003 of 17 December 2003 that deal with mandatory disclosure rules (MDR) in a broad way. The first provision regulates the disclosure obligation on cross-border tax planning arrangements, whereas the second elaborates on the specific obligations between individuals derived from the former. In addition, such implementation has been completed with certain complementary measures and clarifications included in General Taxation Regulation 1065/2007 of 27 July 2007 Regulation 243/2021 of 6 April 2021 (the Regulation)[5] and three tax disclosure models included in Ministerial Order HAC/342/2021 of 12 April 2021 (the Order). In this sense, it should be noted that - even with the deferral due to the COVID-19 situation provided in Directive 2020/876/EU - the Law is almost a year late passed the implementation deadline established by the Directive. Similarly, both the Regulation and the Order were approved months later and on different dates. In addition, it should be pointed out that ¿ unlike other Member States - Spain has not approved interpretive guidelines to shed some light on many of the questions raised by these new obligations. The only clarification given by the administration is a series of FAQs related to the tax disclosure models that add nothing new of substance. In general lines - and as will be shown in this chapter - the MDR have been implemented in identical terms to DAC6, making constant references to its wording and deviating from it on rare occasions.
Open Access
The amendments to the Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC) and taxpayers' rights: the way forward?
(Skattenytt Förlags AB, 2023-11-01) Castro Bosque, Marina; Derecho; Zuzenbidea
Open Access
La DAC 6 como instrumento para la lucha contra el delito fiscal
(Tirant lo Blanch, 2023-08-31) Castro Bosque, Marina; Hucha Celador, Fernando de la; López López, Hugo; Derecho; Zuzenbidea; Institute for Advanced Research in Business and Economics - INARBE
Recientemente la Directiva (UE) 2018/822 del Consejo de 25 de mayo de 2018 que modifica la Directiva 2011/16/UE (conocida como DAC 6) que obliga a los intermediarios fiscales y, en ocasiones, al propio contribuyente, a notificar a la Administración tributaria ciertos mecanismos transfronterizos de planificación fiscal, ha sido transpuesta a los ordenamientos internos de los Estados miembros --en España a través de la Ley 10/2020, de 29 de diciembre por la que se modifica la Ley 58/2003, de 17 de diciembre, General Tributaria--. El nuevo deber de información obliga a intermediarios financieros y obligados tributarios, a comunicar determinados esquemas que van más allá de la planificación fiscal y podrían llegar a ser calificados como abuso o evasión fiscal y, por lo tanto, merecedores de reproche desde un punto de vista penal. En el presente trabajo los autores identifican y analizan las principales dudas jurídicas que plantea la aplicación de este novedoso régimen de información fiscal cuando del delito contra la hacienda pública se trata. Tras el referido análisis concluyen que la DAC 6 no es un instrumento adecuado para combatir efectivamente el delito contra la Hacienda Pública en los términos tipificados en el artículo 305 del CP.