In today’s environment of largely globalizing national economies, international economic integration does not stop at the frontiers of the European Union. Many non-EU-based enterprises are carrying on business in the European Union through the operation of branches or subsidiaries established in EU Member States, and a large number of EU-based enterprises maintain a diversified range of investments outside the Union. Accordingly, in both inward and outward investment relationships, ‘economic openness’ is key nowadays. This legal relationship between EU Member States and the EU as a whole vis-à-vis the rest of the world is the starting point of this book. The author analyses the ‘freedom of investment’ concept between EU Member States and non-EU States under EU law, and specifically its effect on company taxation regimes, from the perspective of multinational enterprises. Focusing on the impact of the Treaty freedoms and international integration agreements on relations with non-EU Member States, this work is the first to specifically address the all-important issue: Under which circumstances can investment-related rights deriving from EU law be invoked by companies established in non-EU states? The analysis identifies the impact of the EU Treaty freedoms on six basic corporate income tax themes that are of particular interest for multinational enterprises: limitation on the deduction of interest expenses; withholding taxes on dividend, interest, and royalty payments; relief for double taxation of income received from foreign investments; CFC legislation; non-deduction of foreign losses from the domestic taxable base; and company taxation upon the transnational transfer of business assets.
See also Country Community Timberlake Village v. HMW Special Utility District of Harris, 438 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Ct. App. 2014) (holding that a neighboring ...
After Justin Timberlake exposed Janet Jackson's pierced nipple on national television for 9/16ths of a second, the FCC received over 540,000 complaints.
Volume III: The Chesapeake and New England, 1660-1750 William E. Nelson ... Decision of Law, Surry County Ct. 1673/74, in Eliza Timberlake Davis ed., ...
E. Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941), 66 Edwards v. Housing Authority of City of ... Timberlake, 148 Ind. 38,46 N.E.339 (1897), 69,70 Graves v.
Fitzgerald, 4.08[B][2], 5.05[D] Fitzgerald v. ... Mastrapa-Font, 7.03[A][3] Fontaine, In re, 5.05[D] Fontenette v. ... Frost, 5.05[A] Formato v.
The sole remedy is avoidance, however; damages cannot be claimed under s. ... 17, it places a great deal of power in the hands of insurance companies to ...
Normally, a mate«s receipt would later be given up for a bill of lading, ... they necessarily prejudice the rights of those who deal in the goods ...
27 257 U.S. 184, 42 S. Ct. 72, 66 L. Ed. 189 (1921). ... 38 Argensinger, “Right to Strike”: Labor Organization and the New Deal in Baltimore, 78 MD . HIST .
704 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s. 80. 705 Leith v. Gould [1986] 1 NZLR 760. It is not clear how a New Zealand court would deal with a case such ...
... to meet the reasonable expectations of claimants about how the corporation should deal with them, by, inter alia, ... 7 Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, s.