Tom O'Shea has published an interesting comment on the Commission v. Portugal (exit taxes) judgment [“Portuguese Exit Taxes Successfully Challenged by European Commission”, in Tax Notes International, vol. 69, no. 4, January 28, 2013, p. 371]. You can see our previous posts on this topic.
In his view, “one question that arises from National Grid Indus and Commission v. Portugal (‘‘Exit Taxes’’) is the duration of the deferral. Is there a time limit such as 10 years on such deferrals? From reading the Court’s judgments, it seems clear that no such time limit exists. Indeed, the imposition of a time limit may amount to an exit tax in its own right. However, in paragraph 74 ofNational Grid Indus, the Court pointed out: Account should also be taken of the risk of non- recovery of the tax, which increases with the passage of time. That risk may be taken into account by the Member State in question, in its national legislation applicable to deferred payments of tax debts, by measures such as the provision of a bank guarantee. In other words, in some situations there may be a risk of nonrecovery of the tax, and a bank guarantee may be required. But these will be very limited situations involving a small number of taxpayers” (p. 373-374).
“Clearly, interest also may be charged from the moment of realization of the assets or on the transfer of the assets in question to a jurisdiction where there is in place with the origin member state no possibility for mutual assistance in the recovery of taxes, provided that interest is charged in similar domestic situations involving deferral of tax debts. It seems clear that it is not possible to impose an interest charge from the mo- ment of exit because such a charge would amount to a further exit tax restriction in its own right. Similarly, it may be argued that the approach adopted by the(C) Tax Analysts 2013. All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. United Kingdom to amend its exit tax legislation to include a deferral with staged payments of the amount of tax determined on the date of exit over a 10-year period is equally defective and is incompatible with EU law” (p. 374)”.
Thank you very much for sharing these interesting ideas with us, dear Tom.
Tom O'Shea ha publicado un interesante comentario sobre la sentencia del TJUE Comisión v. Portugal, relativa a los impuestos de salida [“Portuguese Exit Taxes Successfully Challenged by European Commission”, in Tax Notes International, vol. 69, no. 4, January 28, 2013]. Puedes consultar algunos post anteriores sobre esta materia.
Destacamos dos ideas de su comentario. Por un lado, Tom entiende que la posibilidad subordinar el aplazamiento de los impuestos de salida al otorgamiento de una garantía bancaria sólo puede tener lugar en supuestos excepcionales de riesgo, que afectarán a un reducido número de contribuyentes (pág. 373). En cuanto a la exigencia de intereses de demora, considera que sólo es posible a partir del momento en que los activos se enajenen o bien se transfieran a un tercer Estado en el que no existan mecanismos internacionales de asistencia mutua en materia de recaudación (pág. 374).
Muchas gracias, Tom, por este interesante comentario.