This note provides an assessment of the European Commission’s proposed R&D allowance in the Direct Tax Omnibus Package. It places the proposal in the context of the Commission’s earlier corporate tax initiatives, examines the uncertainty surrounding its design and analyses its interaction with the Pillar Two rules. The note argues that the proposed allowance raises important interpretative and implementation issues and considers whether a qualified refundable tax credit could offer a more effective alternative.
In this note, the author discusses the Greek Council of State decision in Case 133/2025, in which the court determined that specific supporting documents to prove a transfer of tax residence abroad are required. The inability to provide such proof may lead to a decision whereby the taxpayer, who bears the burden of proof, remains a tax resident of Greece and therefore subject to tax on his worldwide income therein.
This overview highlights the Advocate General Opinion on appeals arising from the excess profit scheme.
This overview highlights the Council’s adoption of its report on tax issues and on the activities of the Code of Conduct Group on business taxation during the Cyprus presidency and the Irish presidency’s identification of direct tax priorities for the second half of 2026.
This overview highlights the discussion of the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Tax Matters of the 28th regime and EU corporate tax policy and adoption by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of its draft report on the 28th regime.
This overview highlights the European Commission’s (i) confirmation that Cyprus’ income inclusion rule is qualified, (ii) closing of infringement procedures against Belgium for its incorrect transposition of the controlled foreign company provisions of the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (2016/1164) and against Romania regarding full transposition of DAC9 (2025/872), (iii) opening of an infringement procedure against Poland regarding transposition of the DAC7 (2021/514) reporting rules for foreign digital platform operators and against Germany over the discriminatory conditions of the investment deduction allowance for small and medium-sized enterprises investing abroad, (iv) call to Spain to change the taxation of non-resident taxpayers regarding tax reductions for income from letting dwellings and (v) approval of the Slovak scheme to support cleantech manufacturing capacity.
In this article, the author proposes the development of a sustainable, long-term framework for the simplification and decluttering of EU law in the field of direct taxation, moving beyond the current evaluation of the administrative cooperation and anti-tax avoidance frameworks, as well as the Omnibus on direct taxation.
In this note, the author gives an overview of recent amendments regarding the taxation of investment funds that facilitate investment in infrastructure, renewable energy, private equity and venture capital. In particular, the rules for special investment have been improved so that institutional investors, in particular, can benefit from the reform. The amendments to the tax law have been accompanied by changes to the regulatory law.
The FASTER Directive is intended to simplify withholding tax procedures across the European Union in relation to dividends from publicly-traded instruments issued by EU-based entities. This Directive might also have a significant influence on the tax position of foreign investment funds that face difficulties in relation to domestic withholding tax procedures. This note analyses the potential interaction between the FASTER Directive and foreign investment funds.
This overview highlights the Advocate General’s Opinion on the appeals arising from the excess profit scheme.
“In the middle of every difficulty lies opportunity”. This quotation from Albert Einstein aptly captures the current international tax landscape: the “difficulty” mirrors the uncertainty surrounding the global minimum tax, whereas the “opportunity” may lie in the BEFIT Proposal. Although a truly global approach to corporate taxation appears overly ambitious in today’s geopolitical climate, the BEFIT Directive represents a concrete EU step toward harmonized corporate income taxation, reducing the compliance burden for MNEs through a common tax base, cross-border loss aggregation and the removal of withholding taxes on income flows between BEFIT group members. However, “all that glitters is not gold”: stricter ownership thresholds and mandatory adjustments may restrict access and entail potential revenue losses. From an Italian perspective, this note focuses on the dividend and capital gains regimes, highlighting the risk of future tax revenue losses tied to existing divergences.
The European Union’s 2025 Tax Decluttering and Simplification Agenda faces a paradox: tax systems are growing more complex despite efforts to simplify them. This article argues that complexity is unavoidable in decentralized systems and that policymakers often mistake simplicity for the ultimate goal rather than a design guideline for EU competitiveness. Instead of broad standardization, an argument can be made for fostering “perfect competition” among Member States by correcting market failures such as transaction costs and information asymmetries. Using the DAC directives as a case study, the text highlights how incremental layering has increased compliance burdens. It concludes by advocating structural consolidation and technological harmonization.
This overview highlights the Parliament’s discussion of the feasibility of the 28th Tax Regime
In this article, the authors examine the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the limits of national carbon taxation in light of the EU Emissions Trading System. Advocate General Ćapeta has recently delivered her Opinion in Nitrogénművek (C-519/24), which arguably extends the Court’s existing limitation test by placing greater emphasis on protecting the competitiveness of industries exposed to carbon leakage. The authors critically assess this approach and propose alternative arguments based on the Court’s earlier jurisprudence.
This overview highlights the Council’s update to the list of non-cooperative jurisdictions.
This overview highlights the European Commission’s (i) confirmation of the expected legal basis for the 28th Company Regime, (ii) publication of the EU Inc. Proposal (28th Company Regime), (iii) call on the OECD to relaunch discussions on Pillar One and its reveal of upcoming actions on tax matters and (iv) the opening of an infringement procedure against France for incorrect implementation of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive.
In this two-part article, the author discusses the new Belgian controlled foreign corporation (CFC) rule under Model A of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD). Part 1, which was published in issue 4 of European Taxation (2026), dealt with the compatibility of Belgium’s implementation of the ATAD’s CFC substance carve-out with EU law and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Part 2 analyses, in section 3., the case law of other EU Member States on the application of the substance carve-out under long-standing entity-based CFC rules. The lessons drawn from these cases will be of particular relevance for Belgium and other EU Member States that have more recently adopted entity-based CFC legislation. Two further issues will also be addressed: the interaction between the CFC substance carve-out and the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (PSD) general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) (section 4.) and the still unexplored question of the elimination of double taxation arising from the application of the CFC rules (section 5.)
On 18 July 2025, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled (implicitly) that granting the Dutch dividend withholding tax exemption for dividends distributed to Belgian tax resident intermediate holding companies of Belgian resident individuals would defeat the object and purpose of the EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive (2011/96). The absence of a request for a preliminary ruling in respect of this judgment implies that there was no scope for reasonable doubt that such object and purpose would have been violated had the withholding tax exemption been granted. This article examines the grounds for this absence of scope for reasonable doubt.
In order to avoid the definitive burden of German withholding tax on dividends received from a corporation resident in Germany, foreign shareholders have, in the past, carried out “cum-cum” transactions whereby the shares were temporarily transferred to a legal entity resident in Germany. The German tax authorities refuse tax recognition of such transactions; on the one hand, they deny the domestic legal entity’s beneficial ownership of the shares, and, on the other hand, they assume that the arrangement is abusive. In addition, the German legislature has introduced two special anti-abuse provisions to combat cum-cum transactions. This article critically evaluates the German tax authorities’ views and the two new provisions of German law, particularly taking into account the free movement of capital under article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
This note analyses, from a legal and economic perspective, Portuguese Constitutional Court Ruling 750/2022, which declares the legal provision setting out the method for valuing private (unlisted) corporations, for the purposes of the taxation of equity transfers for no consideration, unconstitutional. This valuation method has been the cornerstone of computing tax liability in respect of stamp duty which, in this scenario, works as a tax on wealth transfers. The Court decided that the resulting valuation under the formula was disproportionate, stating that the share values derived therefrom were exorbitant and out of sync with the economic reality of the company.
