Littérature scientifique sur le sujet « European tax citizenship »

Interrelation between economic and political dimensions of constitutionalism – European market integration and erosion of democratic representation within Member States of the EU – Regulatory externalities between national democracies – European market citizenship and its ramifications for democratically legitimate exercise of the power to tax – Underinclusiveness of domestic democratic process – Political representation beyond the state – European economic constitution as a source of political empowerment and the EU economic freedoms as political rights – The European Court of Justice as a protector of representation – Reinforcing political participation through regulatory competition – European market freedoms enhance representation but at the expense of political equality – Economic freedoms as insufficient means of political empowerment – Improving democratic representation and equality beyond the state requires properly political citizenship instead of mere market rights

This article builds on observations of self-employed Romanian migrants and their encounters with UK fiscal obligations to position tax as a distinct node in the worker-citizen nexus. Speaking to anthropological critiques of neoliberalism, I argue that economic activity is not merely the ethical imperative of a political order premised on self-reliance. It is also a practical test of migrants’ abilities to translate the moral capital of ‘hard work’ into the categories and bureaucracy of fiscal contribution. Analyzing migrants’ compliance with immigration controls and fiscal regimes, seen as a duty to ‘account for oneself’ in moral and financial terms, this article theorizes tax returns as a key junction in the worker-citizen nexus—one that can allow migrants into, but also confine them to the margins of, European citizenship.

The Treaty of Maastricht introduced the status of EU citizenship to the nationals of Member States. Central to that status is the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, in combination with the right to non-discrimination on the ground of nationality. This contribution argues that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is in the process of reconceptualizing the economically based treaty rights on the free movement of persons into a right that is becoming more and more disconnected from the EU's objective of the realization of the internal market. That perspective is also recognized in the ECJ's direct tax case law on the free movement of economically active persons and has caused for expansion of the influence of EU law on the direct tax autonomy of Member States. This contribution argues that EU citizenship can be viewed as the normative treaty justification underlying that new perspective.

The Neumark report draws attention on several occasions to taxes that affect citizens, including income tax, wealth tax, inheritance tax and taxes on motor vehicles, while also making a number of recommendations. However, the subject of citizens and taxation attracted little attention in the first fifty years of the EU, with the primary focus of cooperation being on economic matters. A Savings Tax Directive was adopted, and there has also been quite some ECJ case law on specific national schemes' compliance, or otherwise, with EU law. The Treaty of Maastricht widened European cooperation to include the second and third pillars, and also of course monetary cooperation. Another relevant development was the introduction of Citizenship of the Union. Since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force on 1 December 2009, Brussels has been devoting increasing attention to the citizens of Europe, including in the field of taxation. Tax obstacles for citizens in cross-border situations now need to be identified and resolved so that European citizens, too, can enjoy the full benefits of the single market.

La constante expansión del mercado interior de la Unión Europea está desbordando las estrictas previsiones que se deducirían para el derecho a la libertad de circulación y residencia regulada en el Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea y en el derecho derivado. Así, a la primigenia conexión del derecho a la libertad de circulación y residencia con la eliminación de las fronteras interiores han sucedido en la actualidad las múltiples conexiones de dicho derecho con el derecho fiscal, los derechos de la personalidad, la educación y la sanidad, tal y como acredita la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea. Esas son las nuevas fronteras que deberán ser afrontadas por el Derecho de la Unión para lograr una ciudadanía plena.The steady expansion of the internal market of the European Union is overflowing the strict provisions that would be deducted for the right to freedom of movement and residence regulated in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and legislation. Thus, the primal connection of the right to freedom of movement and residence with the elimination of controls on persons at internal borders have happened today the multiple connections of this right with the tax law, rights of personality, the education and health, as proving the Court of Justice of the European Union. These are the new frontiers that must be addressed by EU law to achieve full citizenship.

The end of globalization, following the Brexit and Trump’s election, is having immediate repercussions also on the approach of States on tax policies. Although the international community is still engaged in various multilateral projects (e.g. Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), etc.), in the recent years various States, especially in the European area, have unilaterally introduced optional tax regimes specifically designed to attract foreign individuals, reopening a new phase of (lawful) tax competition. Italy has recently aligned with this trend by introducing significant amendments to its immigration and tax rules aimed at permitting a ‘fast-track’ visa procedure for relevant foreign investors and a fifteen-year long exception to the worldwide income tax principle, which allows for the payment of an annual flat tax of EUR 100,000 (plus EUR 25,000 for each family member transferring to Italy with the main applicant) for foreign-sourced income in lieu of the standard progressive tax rates. This measure, which is very interesting also because it allows ‘new Italian residents’ to start accumulating the years necessary for applying for citizenship, appears compatible both with EU law and Italian constitutional principles, and guarantees a coordination with the double tax treaties in force.

Since its formation in 1950s as the economic community, the EU has created the monetary union and is increasingly evolving also into a political union – part of which is also a union or Europe of citizens. This article explores the development and the existing EU legislation and case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) on Union citizenship. The article emphasises the importance of the case law of the CJEU for the development of this concept, focusing especially on the case law pertaining to access to social security benefits in another Member State, the rights of students, tax relief, and personal rights such as the right to write a name in a certain way and the right to family life. Case law of the CJEU has, inter alia, confirmed that even economically inactive Union citizens lawfully residing in another Member State have a right to access to social benefits under the same conditions as the Member State’s own nationals. The concept of the Union citizenship is of key importance in the development of EU law, as it expands the scope of the applicability of the provisions on free movement of persons and other fundamental freedoms. New challenges and questions linked to Union citizenship are arising over time, which should also be regulated at the EU level in the future. Therefore, further development of this concept can still be expected in the EU.

AbstractPositing a “clash of cultures,” many European politicians oppose Muslim headscarves as well as Islamic instruction in public schools; the real source of “failed integration” lies not with the religiosity of young Muslims but rather with an arcane definition of “state neutrality” that sustains the dominance of some religions at the expense of others. Focusing on Germany, this study reviews educational statistics pertaining to youth of migrant origin, showing that conflicts over Islamic instruction mirror deeper patterns of minority discrimination. It outlines the legal hurdles new faith communities must overcome to secure recognition as “corporate entities under public law” (Körperschaftsstatus), entitling them to accredited teacher training, tax-funded salaries, construction subsidies, and other institutional privileges. It describes divergent curricular models utilized by the Länder, followed by a closer look at Islamic instruction in Berlin, where a court ruling compelled authorities to take a pro-active approach. It concludes with a review of dilemmas inherent in Germany's approach to “value education” against the backdrop of the new European Union anti-discrimination directives. Show me any mischief produced by the madness or wickedness of theologians, and I will show you a hundred resulting from the ambition and villany of conquerors and statesmen. Show me an absurdity in religion, and I will undertake to show you a hundred for one in political laws and institutionsEdmund Burke, 1756

In the context of the reform of the tax system and the accounting and reporting system, as well as the integration of Ukraine with the European Community, the issue of simplifying the conditions for doing business, building an effective and understandable system for administering taxes and other duties acquire special significance. One of the important aspects of reforming the tax system of Ukraine is the introduction of unified reporting on personal income tax and unified social tax. The purpose of the article is to identify the positive and negative aspects of the process of reforming the reporting on personal income tax and unified social tax and scientifically substantiate the structure of such unified reporting. The existing forms of reporting on personal income tax and unified social tax, proposed by government agencies, were analyzed. In addition, the unified reporting models from these taxes proposed by scientists were critically assessed by the author. It was found that such indicators as the presence of Ukrainian citizenship, gender and the sign of a new job, do not participate in the process of monitoring the completeness of tax payments. Therefore, it is impractical to fill in these indicators for each employee, and it is enough to submit the total number and structure of these indicators on the reporting title page. The opposite situation exists with the military tax, which is advisable to display for each employee in the reporting for more effective control over its accrual and payment. The author has improved the structure of unified reporting on personal income tax and unified social tax, which will reduce the time spent on filling out such reports, increase the efficiency of control by the fiscal authorities and simplify the process of processing unified reporting data. The main advantages of the proposed form of unified reporting are: significant reduction in the number of indicators; simplicity and compactness; personalized registration of military tax; ease of filling and processing information.

From the 1860s to 1917, direct taxation provides a window onto the paradoxes of reform in late imperial Russia. The new systems of assessment that culminated in the income tax of 1916 aimed to individualize government in a regime still ordered by legal estate and collective identity; to recognize the autonomy of the individual while disassembling and reintegrating the person by way of comprehensive assessment; and to promote a sense of citizenship, participation, and individual responsibility while still defending autocracy. Yanni Kotsonis suggests that these tensions were borrowed, along with the new techniques of taxation and of government, from European and transatlantic practice, but Kotsonis also locates the distinctiveness of the Russian case in the historical context and the set of ideological premises into which the practices were introduced.

La protection européenne du contribuable national a une incidence sur la citoyenneté fiscale en tant que principe de légitimation de l’impôt. La conception nationale du devoir fiscal fondée sur la participation politique du citoyen à son consentement, par le biais de ses représentants, fait face à la conception européenne de l’obligation fiscale fondée sur la protection du contribuable, en tant que titulaire de libertés de circulation, et visant à favoriser la construction d’un espace économique sans frontières. Toutefois, l’étude de ces interactions démontre que les rapports entre l’intégration européenne et la citoyenneté fiscale ne doivent pas être appréciés comme un processus unilatéral dont la seule conséquence serait l’affaiblissement de cette dernière, mais comme un processus transversal dans lequel les effets de l’application du droit de l’Union européenne sur la citoyenneté fiscale rétroagissent sur le niveau de l’intégration fiscale européenne et au-delà sur l’organisation politique de l’Union européenne. Ce constat invite à étudier la manière dont ces rapports conflictuels pourraient, selon la logique fédérale, se résoudre autour de la création d’un impôt européen consenti par les citoyens européens eux-mêmes
The European protection of the national taxpayer has an impact on tax citizenship as a principle of tax legitimisation. The national conception of tax duty based on the political participation of the citizen in his consent, through his representatives, is confronted with the European conception of tax duty based on the protection of the taxpayer, as the holder of freedom of movement, and aimed at favouring the construction of an economic area without borders. However, the study of these interactions shows that the relationship between European integration and tax citizenship should not be seen as a unilateral process whose only consequence would be the weakening of the latter, but as a transversal process where the effects of the enforcement of EU law on tax citizenship have a retroactive effect on the degree of European tax integration and, beyond, on the political organisation of the European Union. This observation invites us to study how these conflicting relations could, following the federal logic, be solved through the creation of a European tax consented by the European citizens themselves

The book collects the contributions of a group of scholars, with different scientific backgrounds, on the issue of the relationship between taxation, solidarity and citizenship within the EU. The common thread linking them is the inescapability of the tax duty in a community of rights and the incompleteness of the European system, which performs important functions of collective interest without claiming any cost for those who use it. What emerges is the need for a genuine EU own tax, which, without the intermediary of the Member States, would burden the users of European public goods, increasing awareness of the social value of the EU, amplifying its solidarity dimension, and outlining a new concept of citizenship. In short, I pay, therefore I am (European citizen).

Taxation is what the European Union lacks today. EU is an area of rights without duties or, rather, in which duties (including taxation) exist only vis-à-vis the individual member states to which they belong. European citizenship is therefore halved, because it is indistinguishable from national citizenship and does not express solidaristic belonging to a supranational community. The investigation into the Union's own tax is the means to address broader issues related to the being of the European Union and its citizens and having at their core the transnational declination of solidarity. The economic and financial profile - inextricably linked to the tax and its revenue - transcends into the centrality of the uses, i.e. the goods and services that the Union may be able to provide, and the indispensable overcoming of the national particularisms that this implies.

The creation of States was already a reality in the late 17th and the early 18th century in Europe, an administrational phenomenon having been propelled by the establishment of a parliamentary authority in Britain and the bureaucratic totalitarianism in continental Europe. The creation of States gaining the form, and the institutional legalization as is known today, gave to its prominent citizens like government and senior management officials, bureaucrats and the representatives of the merchant world, the awareness that States not only were the entities that could monopolize the exercise of power, but they were those entities that could design the totality of measures for the legal, tax, and institutional power over the people that were called its citizens. The States' need for growth and expansion imposes the needed legality behind awarding citizenship. The principle of cosmopolitanism prevails in all western democracies by imposing the same patterns for the matter.

Географический фактор играет двоякую роль в истории Финляндии и ее взаимоотношений с внешним миром. С одной стороны, территориальное положение на окраине Европы обусловило то, что финны сравнительно поздно включились в цивилизационный процесс. С другой стороны, земли, омываемые водами дальних заливов Балтийского моря, находятся в одном из наиболее важных со стратегической точки зрения европейских регионов. Хотя к «финским территориям» издавна проявляли интерес также Англия, Германия и Франция, влияние извне связано для финнов прежде всего с соперничеством ближайших соседей. Политический вакуум, в котором финны пребывали вплоть до начала XI в., пытались заполнить с запада – Швеция и римскокатолическая церковь, с востока – Россия (Великий Новгород) и православная церковь. Первая граница между Швецией и Россией была установлена в 1323 г. Согласно Ореховскому мирному договору Швеция получила юго-западные и западные финляндские территории, Россия – Восточную Карелию. В XVIII в. Россия приступила к поэтапному возвращению финляндских земель, присоединив Финляндию по итогам войны 1808–1809 гг. В границах архиконсервативной Российской империи родилось и постепенно оформилось финляндское государство западного типа. Финляндия получила широкую политическую и экономическую автономию – правительство, четырехсословный орган народного представительства (сейм), налоговую и финансовую систему, свое гражданство, валюту и пр. Финляндию от новой метрополии изначально отделяла таможенная граница. Главой законодательной власти являлся император, управлявший Финляндией на основе коренных законов (конституции) шведского времени. Будучи частью Российского государства, Финляндия постепенно стала политической общностью, а также одним из наиболее экономически развитых регионов империи. Уступки со стороны России были связаны с необходимостью обеспечить безопасность западной границы. The geographical factor plays a twofold role in the history of Finland and its relations with the outside world. On the one hand, the territorial situation on the edge of Europe caused the Finns to join the civilizational process relatively late. On the other hand, the lands washed by the waters of the far reaches of the Baltic Sea are located in one of the most strategically important European regions. Although England, Germany and France have long been interested in the "Finnish territories", external influence for Finns is primarily connected with the hostility of their closest neighbors. It was the political vacuum in which the Finns remained until the beginning of the XI century, that Sweden and the Roman Catholic Church tried to fill from the west, Russia (Veliky Novgorod) and the Orthodox Church – from the east. The first border between Sweden and Russia was established in 1323. According to the Orekhov Peace Treaty, Sweden received the southwestern and western Finnish territories, Russia – East Karelia. In the XYIII century Russia began the gradual return of the Finnish lands, annexing Finland after the results of the war of 1808–1809. Within the borders of the arch-conservative Russian Empire, a Western-type Finnish state was born and gradually took shape. Finland received a wide political and economic autonomy – the government, the four–member body of the People's representation (Seim), the tax and financial system, its citizenship, currency, etc. Finland and the new metropolis were initially separated by the customs border. The head of the legislative power was the emperor, who ruled Finland on the basis of the fundamental laws (constitution) of the Swedish period. Being a part of the Russian state, Finland gradually became a political community, as well as one of the most economically developed regions of the empire. Russia's concessions were determined by the need to ensure the security of the western border.