Išči

Sodna praksa Sodišča EU, lastni članki, spremembe davčne zakonodaje....

Izbrani prispeveki - novice o davkih pri nas in v EU - NEWS about TAXES

V družbi TAXIN d.o.o. (mag. Franc Derganc), partnerici Mreže Modro Poslovanje preučujemo davčno-pravna in druga poslovno-pravna vprašanja na podlagi študija sodne prakse Sodišča EU in slovenskih sodišč, preučevati moramo pravne predpise EU in domače pravne predpise ter spremljamo "potrebe" strank - podjetij, ki delujejo v Republiki Sloveniji ter na t.i. mednarodnih trgih. 


Mreža modro poslovanje, na dnevnem nivoju, spremlja spremembe iz spodaj navedenih baz podatkov.

    The partners (TAXIN d.o.o.) of the Wisdom Business Network study tax, legal and other business-legal issues based on the study of the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU and Slovenian courts, they must study EU legal regulations and domestic legal regulations, and they must monitor the needs of customers - companies that operate in the Republic of Slovenia and operate also on the so-called international markets.

The Wisdom business network monitors changes from the databases listed below on a daily basis.


 

CELEX:62021CC0612: Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 10 November 2022.###

November 10, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CC0651: Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar delivered on 10 November 2022.###

November 10, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CC0616: Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 10 November 2022.###

November 10, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62022TJ0013: Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 November 2022.#Alexandra Loutsou v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Case T-13/22.

November 10, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CJ0702: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 November 2022.#Laboratoire Pareva v European Commission.#Appeal – Biocidal products – Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 – Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 – Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) – Refusal of approval as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 1, 5 and 6 – Approval as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2 and 4 – Teratogenic effect – Human health risk assessment.#Case C-702/21 P.

November 10, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CJ0442: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 November 2022.#ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport A/S and Danske Fragtmænd A/S v European Commission.#Appeal – State aid – Postal sector – Compensation for the discharge of a universal service obligation – Calculation – Net avoided cost methodology – Taking into account the intangible benefits of the universal service – Use of funds granted as compensation – Guarantee covering the redundancy costs of a certain category of employee in the event of insolvency of the universal service provider – Accounting allocation of common costs between universal service activities and non-universal service activities – Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market.#Case C-442/21 P.

November 10, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CJ0494: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2022.#Eircom Limited v Commission for Communications Regulation.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Electronic communications networks and services – Universal service and users’ rights – Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) – Article 12 – Costing and financing of universal service obligations – Single universal service provider and multiple telecommunications services providers operating in the market – Determination as to whether an unfair burden exists.#Case C-494/21.

November 10, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CJ0486: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 November 2022.#SHARENGO najem in zakup vozil d.o.o. v Mestna občina Ljubljana.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public system for the rental and shared use of electric cars – Distinction between the concepts of ‘services concessions’ and ‘public supply contracts’ – Directive 2014/23/EU – Article 5(1)(b) – Article 20(4) – Concept of ‘mixed contracts’ – Article 8 – Determining the value of a services concession – Criteria – Article 27 – Article 38 – Directive 2014/24/EU – Article 2(1), points 5 and 8 – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1986 – Annex XXI – Possibility of imposing a condition concerning the registration of a specific professional activity under national law – Impossibility of imposing that condition on all memb

November 10, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CJ0631: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 November 2022.#Taxi Horn Tours BV v gemeente Weert and Others.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts – Directive 2014/24/EU – Award of contracts – Article 2(1)(10) – Concept of an ‘economic operator’ – Inclusion of a general partnership without legal personality – Article 19(2) and Article 63 – Joint undertaking or reliance on the capacities of other entities of persons linked with that undertaking – Article 59(1) – Obligation to submit one or several European Single Procurement Documents (ESPD) – Purpose of the ESPD.#Case C-631/21.

November 10, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CJ0203: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2022.#Criminal proceedings against DELTA STROY 2003.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA – Applicability – Imposition of a financial penalty on a legal person for non-payment of tax debts – Concept of ‘confiscation’ – Articles 48, 49 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Penalties of a criminal nature – Principles of the presumption of innocence and the legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties – Rights of the defence – Imposition of a criminal penalty on a legal person for an offence committed by the representative of that legal person – Parallel criminal proceedings against that representat

November 10, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CJ0163: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2022.#AD v PACCAR Inc and Others.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Competition – Compensation for harm caused by a practice prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU – Collusive arrangements on pricing and gross price increases for trucks in the European Economic Area (EEA) – Directive 2014/104/EU – Rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union – Article 22(2) – Applicability ratione temporis – First subparagraph of Article 5(1) – Concept of relevant evidence which lies in the control of the defendant or a third party – Article 5(2) – Disclosure of specified items of evidence or relevant categories of evidence on

November 10, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CJ0278: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2022.#Dansk Akvakultur agissant pour AquaPri A/S v Miljø- og Fødevareklagenævnet.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Article 6(3) – Assessment of a project likely to affect a protected site – Obligation to conduct an assessment – Continuation of the economic activity of an operation already authorised at the planning stage, under unchanged conditions, where authorisation has been granted following an incomplete assessment.#Case C-278/21.

November 10, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CJ0385: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2022.#Zenith Media Communications SRL v Consiliul Concurenţei.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Article 101 TFEU – Penalty imposed by the national competition authority – Determination of the amount of the fine – Consideration of turnover in the profit and loss account – Request for the national competition authority to take into account a different turnover – Refusal by the Competition Council – Real situation of the undertaking concerned – Principle of proportionality.#Case C-385/21.

November 10, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62020CJ0211: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 November 2022.#European Commission v Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD.#Appeal – State aid – Public guarantee granted by a public entity – Loans to three football clubs from the Community of Valencia (Valencia CF, Hércules CF and Elche CF) – Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market – Annulment of the decision in so far as it concerns Valencia CF – Concept of ‘advantage’ – Assessment of the existence of an advantage – Guarantee Notice – Interpretation – Duty of care on the part of the European Commission – Burden of proof – Distortion.#Case C-211/20 P.

November 10, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CJ0414: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2022.#VP CAPITAL NV v Belgische Staat.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of establishment – Article 49 and 54 TFEU – Transfer of a company’s registered office to a Member State other than that in which it was incorporated – Recovery of write-downs recorded prior to the transfer – Exemption – Comparability of situations.#Case C-414/21.

November 10, 2022 0 Comments

UPRS Sodba I U 724/2020-11

Ker obveznosti iz naslova DDV niso temeljile denimo na obračunih, ki bi bili vloženi v rednih rokih za posamezna obračunska obdobja, tudi niso imele ločenih zapadlosti z različnimi datumi. Tožniku se je celotna ugotovljena davčna obveznost naložila naenkrat z odmerno odločbo (posledično pa se je odtlej enovito štelo tudi absolutno zastaranje izterjave, ne pa ločeno in sukcesivno za posamezna obračunska obdobja). Posledično pa je jasno, da je šlo pri obeh pobotih zgolj za delno izpolnitev tožnikove obveznosti iz odmerne odločbe DURS (in ne za pokrivanje več časovno različnih davčnih obveznosti iz posameznih transakcij in/ali za posamezna obračunska obdobja), zaradi česar tudi ne pride v poštev uporaba pravil o vrstnem redu pokrivanja več obveznosti iz 93. člena ZDavP-2.
November 10, 2022 0 Comments

UPRS Sodba I U 452/2019-13

Pri navajanju ugotovljenih dejstev in dokazov se je organ prve stopnje skliceval na ugotovitve DIN, ki se je vodil pri družbi A., vendar pa je drugostopenjski organ to pomanjkljivost obrazložitve popravil in v svoji obrazložitvi navedel vse za to zadevo relevantne okoliščine. Tako so vsa relevantna dejstva in dokazi natančno in konkretno za obravnavani primer navedeni v obrazložitvi toženke in ne gre za zgolj sklicevanje na nekonkretizirane ugotovitve iz postopka pri pravni osebi. Zato ne gre za kršitev osnovnih pravil postopka in načela enakosti, kot meni tožnik, ko navaja, da ni mogel vložiti učinkovitega pravnega sredstva.
November 10, 2022 0 Comments

UPRS Sodba I U 1998/2020-9

Do nedovoljenega davčnega izogibanja ne more priti, če davčni zavezanec sklene zgolj en pravni posel, ki ga je dopustil zakonodajalec za uresničitev določenih, predvidenih pravnih in ekonomskih posledic in te posledice skladno z namenom pravnega posla (causo) dejansko tudi nastanejo. Pri tem je lahko namen sklenitve takega posla utemeljen tudi v določeni (nižji) stopnji obdavčitve takega pravnega posla, saj to samo po sebi ni nedopustno. Zgolj en tovrstni pravni posel torej ne more šteti za umeten pravni konstrukt, ki bi pomenil zlorabo predpisov in vodil do neupravičene davčne koristi, da bi bilo mogoče uporabiti možnost drugačnega obdavčenja na podlagi četrtega odstavka 74. člena ZDavP-2.
November 10, 2022 0 Comments

UPRS Sodba I U 1212/2019-12

V obravnavani zadevi ne gre za prekrškovni postopek, ki se vodi po Zakonu o prekrških, marveč za davčni postopek, v katerem se kot materialno pravo uporablja ZDavPR. Gre za dva različna postopka, podlaga za oba pa je ugotovljeno dejansko stanje v zvezi s postopkom potrjevanja računov, ki se vodita pred različnima pristojnima organoma. Na pravilnost ugotovitve davčnega organa v izpodbijani odločbi tožbeni ugovori glede obilice dela zaradi množičnega obiska na prireditvi Pivo in cvetje v Laškem in močnega glavobola A. A., ki predstavljajo olajševalne okoliščine pri ugotavljanju tožnikove odgovornosti, na izpodbijano ugotovitev nimajo vpliva.
November 10, 2022 0 Comments

UPRS Sodba I U 479/2020-14

Izpodbijane odločbe ni mogoče preizkusiti, saj iz nje ne izhaja, ali se tožniku davek za plovilo PI-... odmerja, ker je to plovilo vpisano v vpisnik morskih čolnov po Pravilniku (torej po prvi alineji 2. člena ZDVP) ali ker je njegov lastnik tožnik kot rezident Slovenije, plovilo pa izpolnjuje tehnične pogoje za vpis, čeprav v vpisnik sploh ni vpisano oz. ni vpisano, ker je registrirano v tujini (torej po drugi ali tretji alineji 2. člena ZDVP). V prvem primeru bi tožnikovi argumenti o izbrisu iz vpisnika morskih čolnov z odločbo uprave za pomorstvo iz leta 2017 lahko bili pravnorelevantni, v drugem primeru pa bi utegnilo biti pravnorelevantno dejstvo, da tožnik več ni lastnik predmetnega plovila, kar dokazuje s prodajno pogodbo iz leta 2018.
November 10, 2022 0 Comments
RSS
First11301131113211331135113711381139Last