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:62021CO0345_INF: Order of the Court of 23 November 2021.#Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Appeal – EU trade mark – Whether appeals may be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Court’s Rules of Procedure – Request failing to demonstrate a significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Appeal not allowed to proceed.#Case C-345/21 P.

February 16, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CO0523_INF: Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 16 December 2021.#Innovative Cosmetic Concepts LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Case C-523/21 P.

February 16, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CO0373_INF: Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 1 December 2021.#Hasbro Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed.#Case C-373/21 P.

February 16, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62020CO0598_INF: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 December 2021.#„Pilsētas zemes dienests” AS.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa.#Case C-598/20.

February 16, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CO0505_INF: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 December 2021.#FU v Agence fédérale pour l'Accueil des demandeurs d'asile (Fedasil).#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège.#Case C-505/21.

February 16, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CO0460: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 February 2022.#Vapo Atlantic SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Excise duties – Directive 2008/118/EC – Article 1(2) – Levying, for specific purposes, of other indirect taxes – ‘Specific purposes’ – Definition – Financing of a public undertaking holding the concession contract in respect of the national road network – Objectives of environmental sustainability and reducing accidents – Purely budgetary purpose – Refusal to reimburse a tax based on unjust enrichment – Conditions.#Case C-460/21.

February 16, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CO0035: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 February 2022.#„Konservinvest“OOD v „Bulkons Parvomay“ OOD.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs – Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 – Designations of Origin and Geographical indications – Article 9 – Transitional national protection – Geographical indication designating an agricultural product, registered under the legislation of a Member State and protected at national level.#Case C-35/21.

February 16, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CJ0156: Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 16 February 2022.#Hungary v European Parliament and Council of the European Union.#Action for annulment – Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 – General regime of conditionality for the protection of the European Union budget – Protection of the Union budget in the case of breaches of the principles of the rule of law in the Member States – Legal basis – Article 322(1)(a) TFEU – Alleged circumvention of Article 7 TEU and Article 269 TFEU – Alleged infringements of Article 4(1), Article 5(2) and Article 13(2) TEU and of the principles of legal certainty, proportionality and equality of Member States before the Treaties.#Case C-156/21.

February 16, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62021CJ0157: Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 16 February 2022.#Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union.#Action for annulment – Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 – General regime of conditionality for the protection of the European Union budget – Protection of the Union budget in the case of breaches of the principles of the rule of law in the Member States – Legal basis – Article 322(1)(a) TFEU – Article 311 TFEU – Article 312 TFEU – Alleged circumvention of Article 7 TEU and Article 269 TFEU – Alleged infringements of Article 4(1), Article 5(2) and Article 13(2) TEU, of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, of Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and of the principles of conferral, lega

February 16, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62019CJ0876_INF: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 December 2021.#PlasticsEurope v European Chemicals Agency.#Appeal – Establishment of a list of substances subject to authorisation – List of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Updating of the entry of the substance bisphenol A as a substance of very high concern.#Case C-876/19 P.

February 16, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62018TJ0328_INF:           Arrêt du Tribunal (septième chambre) du 8 septembre 2021.#Naturgy Energy Group, SA, anciennement Gas Natural SDG, SA contre Commission européenne.#Aides d’État – Mesure d’incitation environnementale adoptée par l’Espagne en faveur des centrales au charbon – Décision d’ouvrir la procédure prévue à l’article 108, paragraphe 2, TFUE – Obligation de motivation – Erreur manifeste d’appréciation – Caractère sélectif.#Affaire T-328/18.

This document does not exist in English.
February 16, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62020TJ0119_INF:           Arrêt du Tribunal (première chambre) du 14 juillet 2021.#IN contre Agence exécutive pour le Conseil européen de l’innovation et les PME.#Fonction publique – Agents temporaires – Contrat à durée déterminée – Décision de non-renouvellement – Rapport d’évaluation – Droit d’être entendu – Devoir de sollicitude – Erreur manifeste d’appréciation – Délai raisonnable – Responsabilité – Préjudice moral.#Affaire T-119/20.

This document does not exist in English.
February 16, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62020TO0277_INF:           Ordonnance du Tribunal (huitième chambre) du 6 septembre 2021.#MKB Multifunds BV contre Commission européenne.#Recours en annulation – Aides d’État – Fonds de capital-investissement – Plainte – Mesures constituant prétendument des aides d’État liées à Dutch Venture Initiative – Décision adoptée à l’issue de la procédure préliminaire d’examen – Décision constatant l’absence d’aide d’État – Qualité d’intéressé – Sauvegarde des droits procéduraux – Irrecevabilité.#Affaire T-277/20.

This document does not exist in English.
February 16, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62020TJ0155_INF:           Arrêt du Tribunal (huitième chambre) du 8 septembre 2021.#IZ contre Parlement européen.#Fonction publique – Agents temporaires – Groupe politique – Licenciement – Erreur manifeste d’appréciation – Détournement de pouvoir – Droit d’être entendu – Égalité de traitement – Devoir de sollicitude – Principe de bonne administration – Responsabilité.#Affaire T-155/20.

This document does not exist in English.
February 16, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62020TJ0156_INF:           Arrêt du Tribunal (huitième chambre) du 8 septembre 2021.#JA contre Parlement européen.#Fonction publique – Agents temporaires – Groupe politique – Licenciement – Erreur manifeste d’appréciation – Détournement de pouvoir – Droit d’être entendu – Égalité de traitement – Devoir de sollicitude – Principe de bonne administration – Responsabilité.#Affaire T-156/20.

This document does not exist in English.
February 16, 2022 0 Comments

CELEX:62020TJ0154_INF:           Arrêt du Tribunal (huitième chambre) du 8 septembre 2021.#IY contre Parlement européen.#Fonction publique – Agents temporaires – Groupe politique – Licenciement – Erreur manifeste d’appréciation – Détournement de pouvoir – Droit d’être entendu – Égalité de traitement – Devoir de sollicitude – Principe de bonne administration – Responsabilité.#Affaire T-154/20.

This document does not exist in English.
February 16, 2022 0 Comments

UPRS Sodba I U 973/2018-17

Podatki popisa zalog pijač, ki so ga opravili inšpektorji, nesporno odstopajo od podatkov, ki jih vsebujejo izpisi o stanju zalog, ki jih je naknadno predložil zakoniti zastopnik tožeče stranke. Tožeča stranka je v postopku nadzora pojasnjevala, kje bi lahko bil vzrok za ugotovljene razlike, vendar tega, čeprav pozvana k predložitvi ustreznih dokazil, ni dokazala.
February 16, 2022 0 Comments

UPRS Sodba I U 1788/2019-16

Na omenjeni datum omenjena odvetniška družba še ni bila pooblaščena za zastopanje tožnika, vsaj ne v zadevnem odmernem postopku. Pooblastilo, na katero se sklicuje davčni organ, je bilo dano v sicer povezanem, vendar nesporno drugem upravnem postopku, to je v postopku, v katerem se je ugotavljal rezidentski status tožnika in se je kot tako lahko nanašalo le na zastopanje in opravljanje dejanj v tem postopku. V odmernem postopku pa pooblastilo Odvetniški družbi za zastopanje tožnika na dan 4. 4. 2018 še ni bilo dano in zato ni mogoče šteti, da je bila odločba na omenjeni datum vročena tožniku in da je takrat začel teči enomesečni rok za vložitev predloga za obnovo postopka, kot se navaja v izpodbijanem sklepu.
February 16, 2022 0 Comments

UPRS Sodba I U 2426/2018-15

Za to, da je izpolnjen pogoj za ukrepanje na podlagi petega odstavka 68. člena ZDavP-2, se po zakonskem besedilu ne zahteva, da bi obstajalo nesorazmerje in še manj, da bi bilo nesorazmerje očitno. Zahteva se precejšnje preseganje dohodkov, ki jih je davčni zavezanec napovedal, to pa tudi po presoji sodišča pomeni, da za izpolnjeni pogoj zadošča precejšnja višina zneska, gledano objektivno, ta pa je v konkretnem primeru nedvomno podana. Predmet obdavčitve po določbi petega odstavka 68. člena ZDavP-2 je na predpisan način ugotovljena razlika, medtem ko je v skladu s šestim odstavkom istega člena na tožniku, da vir oziroma vrsto dohodkov ter pravno podlago za njihovo izplačilo dokaže in s tem davčno osnovo, ugotovljeno do stopnje verjetnosti, zniža. Pri tem pa tožnik ni bil uspešen. O obstoju posojila, ki naj bi se mu vračalo z omenjenim nakazilom, ni nobenih listinskih dokazil, čeprav bi jih bilo že z ozirom na višino posojenega zneska in še zlasti...
February 16, 2022 0 Comments

UPRS Sodba I U 1365/2019-13

Glede na spornost namena uporabe konkretnih vozil glede na konstrukcijske lastnosti le teh, kar je relevantna okoliščina glede uvrstitve v pravilno tarifno številko KN, zavrnitev dokaznih predlogov tožnice, s sklicevanjem zgolj na listinske dokaze, pomeni omejevanje dokazovanja določenih dejstev zgolj na določena dokazna sredstva in poseg v pravico do enakega varstva pravic, zato zavrnitev tožničinih dokaznih predlogov ne izpolnjuje zakonskih pogojev za zavrnitev dokaznega predloga stranke.
February 16, 2022 0 Comments
RSS
First14201421142214231425142714281429Last