| Popis: |
As in previous years, the CJEU has dealt with several Belgian direct tax cases. This Belgian chapter aims firstly to give a short update on two cases discussed in last year’s edition, but which were still pending at the time , (Sections II and III). Thereafter the authors selected a few cases, one being a sequel to a prior corporate income tax case (Section IV), one an inheritance matter in line with prior well-established precedents such as among others the Persche case (Section V) and another a matter relating more to a social security issue (Section VI). Finally, the chapter ends with a peculiar case pertaining to the interpretation of the Charter, but where the analysis of the CJEU is limited to the admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling (Section VII). 1. Introduction 2. Jacob and Lennertz (C-174/18) 2.1. Facts and legal background 2.2. CJEU Ruling 3. Brussels Securities (C-389/18) 3.1. Facts and legal background 3.2. Analysis of the advocate general 3.3. Conclusion 4. Argenta Spaarbank NV (C-459/18) 4.1. Facts and legal background – Argenta Spaarbank NV of 4 July 2013 (C-350/11) 4.2. Facts and legal background – Argenta Spaarbank NV of 17 October 2019 (C-459/18) 4.3. Reasoning and decision of the CJEU 4.4. Comments 5. J. Huijbrechts (C-679/17) 5.1. Facts and legal background 5.2. CJEU decision 6. BU v Belgium (C-35/19) 6.1. Facts and legal background 6.2. CJEU decision 7. Joined cases IN (C-469/18) and JM (C-470/18) v Belgium 7.1. Facts and legal background 7.2. Conclusions of Advocate General Kokott and the CJEU decision 7.3. Comments |
