The worldwide outbreak in December 2019 of COVID-19, a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, immediately lead to a worldwide health crisis. Up till now, there have been more than 778 million cases of persons infected with COVID-19 reported to the United Nations World Health Organization (UN WHO). (UN WHO, https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/cases?n=c (accessed 22 Oct. 2025)) The health crisis caused by the virus and the economic impact that the virus had on states’ economies and public finances, including the European Union (EU) Member States, was significant. In order to tackle the virus, containment measures were needed to be taken, which reduced economic activity. Subsequently, the downfall in economic activity had consequences for tax revenue. Meanwhile, various tax measures were implemented by the EU Member States to financially support businesses and individual households during the health crisis and simultaneous economic crisis. An important measure has been tax debt relief, concerning delaying the payment of tax debt and otherwise resolving tax debt issues for taxpayers. During such a severe public crisis, from the viewpoint of human (fundamental) rights, taxpayers in the EU should be entitled, as a right, to tax debt relief measures.
Commission v. Belgium is the first CJEU judgment on the interpretation of the Anti-tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD). Addressing the seemingly narrow issue of Belgium’s alleged failure to implement double taxation relief for CFC income, the case provides broad guidance on the meaning of the ‘minimum level of protection’ under Article 3 ATAD, the relationship between special and general rules, the dual and balancing objectives of the ATAD to combat tax avoidance while preventing new barriers to the Internal Market, and the interpretation of the specific controlled-foreign company rules in Articles 7 and 8 ATAD. The case of Commission v. Belgium has also drawn quite some attention because AG Kokott’s Opinion has addressed a lingering concern: Was the adoption of the ATAD even covered by the European Union’s legislative competences?
EU Directive on the common system of value-added tax (2006/112) contains reverse charge provisions for specific categories of supplies of goods and services. The author points to a problem where if the reverse charge were to be applied only with respect to particular supplies, it could encourage taxpayers to evade VAT by using other items for other categories of supplies. This dynamic is likely to create pressure to extend the scope of the reverse charge mechanism, which would, in effect, and to some extent, convert the VAT into the retail sales tax. The main aim of the paper is to find a solution to avoid the above-mentioned potential problem. The starting hypothesis is that the European Union should stop broadening the scope of the reverse charge and should shift the focus to the joint and several tax liability provision as a preferred means of combatting VAT evasion, fraud and avoidance/abuse. In addition, he analyses the effects of the joint and several tax liability provision on value-added tax, considered a type of antievasion/abuse rule, from the perspective of legal certainty, double taxation and unequal treatment of the taxpayers. The author used the normative dogmatic, comparative and content analysis methods with particular reference to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
By making donations businesses can alleviate poverty, reduce disposal and public expenditure on welfare and mitigate environmental harm. Under EU VAT donations may however result in the payment of VAT, whereas destruction does not. This article explores in what way the current VAT treatment of donations under the EU VAT Directive as well as EU Member States’ national VAT legislation impedes donations and which legislative changes can be considered to alleviate those impediments. It analyses the rules under the EU VAT Directive as well as Member States’ VAT policies on donations and their compatibility with the VAT Directive. It also explores options to change the VAT Directive by freeing donations from VAT, requiring adjustments of VAT in case of destructions or to abstain from levying VAT on donations to parties which have a right to deduct.
A 2025 Belgian Data Protection Authority (DPA) decision and ensuing preliminary questions referred by the Belgian Market Court to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) highlights the tension between the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) structure in Europe. The FATCA structure relies on intergovernmental agreements (FATCA IGAs) between the US and EU Member States. Under these agreements, Member State tax authorities transfer personal data of their citizens and residents to the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It may be determined that these transfers violate some or all of the GDPR’s personal data protections. If that occurs, the incentive for Member States to re-negotiate FATCA IGAs include protecting their financial institutions from 30% withholding on US-source income. However, given the gaps between the US legal protections of data processed by the IRS and what is required by the GDPR, the US Congress would need to enact substantive legislation to provide protections substantially equivalent to what is provided by the GDPR. This article analyses three potential bases on which FATCA IGAs could comply with the GDPR and describes the significant legislative intervention each would require of the US Congress.
