JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)
10
May 2012 (*)
(Failure
of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of movement for
workers — Income tax — Allowance — Retirement
pensions —
Effect on small pensions — Discrimination between resident and
non-resident taxpayers)
In
Case C-39/10,
ACTION
under Article 258 TFEU for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on
22 January 2010,
European
Commission, represented by W. Mölls, K. Saaremäel-Stoilov and R.
Lyal, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
applicant,
v
Republic
of Estonia, represented by M. Linntam, acting as Agent,
Pre-litigation
procedure
14
A person of Estonian nationality residing in Finland (‘the
complainant’) made a complaint to the Commission concerning the
calculation of income tax applied in Estonia to the retirement
pension paid to that person in that Member State. The complainant
challenged the refusal of the Estonian authorities to apply the tax
allowance threshold and the supplementary tax allowance threshold
laid down by the Law on income tax for taxpayers resident in Estonia.
15
According to the Commission’s application, the complainant,
after reaching retirement age in Estonia, moved to Finland, and
worked and acquired the right to a pension there. The complainant
thus receives two retirement pensions, one in Estonia and one in
Finland, of almost the same amount. The pension received in Estonia
is subject to income tax, whereas in Finland, on account of the very
low level of the complainant’s total income, there is no liability
to tax. The aggregate amount of the two pensions, moreover, is only
slightly above the allowance threshold laid down in Paragraph 232 of
the Law on income tax.
16
Having regard to those factors, the Commission took the view
that under Estonian law the tax burden on non-residents in a similar
situation to that of the complainant is greater than it would be if
they received all their income in Estonia alone.
17
On 4 February 2008 the Commission thus sent the Republic of
Estonia a letter of formal notice drawing that Member State’s
attention to the possible incompatibility with Article 45 TFEU and
Article 28 of the EEA Agreement of the provisions of national
legislation on the taxation of pensions paid to non residents.
18
By letter of 9 April 2008, the Republic of Estonia contested the
point of view put forward by the Commission. It observed that the Law
on income tax enables the allowances it provides for to be applied to
non-residents who receive the majority of their income, that is to
say, at least 75% of the total, in Estonia. That law thus affords
them the same treatment as residents. Where, on the other hand, the
amount of income received in Estonia is lower than that percentage,
it is for the Member State of residence to ensure that taxpayers not
resident in Estonia are taxed appropriately.
19
On 17 October 2008 the Commission sent the Republic of Estonia a
reasoned opinion, in which it repeated the arguments set out in its
letter of formal notice and invited that Member State to take the
necessary measures within two months from receipt of the reasoned
opinion.
20
In its reply of 18 December 2008 to the reasoned opinion, the
Republic of Estonia expressed its disagreement with the Commission’s
complaints as regards the incompatibility of the Law on income tax
with Article 45 TFEU. It accepted, however, that there were omissions
in that law in relation to its obligations under Article 28 of the
EEA Agreement, and stated that it was prepared to extend the scope of
Paragraph 283 of the law to cover also nationals of the Member States
of the European Economic Area.
21
Since it was not convinced by the arguments put forward by the
Republic of Estonia, the Commission decided to bring the present
action.
22
By order of the President of the Court of 4 June 2010, the
Kingdom of Spain, the Portuguese Republic and the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland were granted leave to intervene in
support of the form of order sought by the Republic of Estonia. By
orders of 7 July 2010 and 14 January 2011, the President of the Court
granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by
the Republic of Estonia to the Federal Republic of Germany and the
Kingdom of Sweden respectively. However, the Federal Republic of
Germany did not submit observations.
On
those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby:
1.
Declares that, by excluding non-resident pensioners from
benefiting from the allowances laid down by the Law on income tax
(Tulumaksuseadus) of 15 December 1999, as amended by the Law of 26
November 2009, where, because of the modest amount of their pensions,
they are not taxable in the Member State of residence under the tax
legislation of that State, the Republic of Estonia has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 28 of the
Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;
Summary of the case:
Judgement :
Summary of the case:
Judgement :
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
Bemerkninger:
Artikkel 25 i avtalen mellom Norge og Brasil sier det ganske tydelig. En borger bosatt i Brasil skal ikke ha mere ufordelaktige betingelser enn borgere bosatt i Norge under samme omstendigheter og forhold. d.v.s. er du norsk minstepensjonist med pensjon under det norske minsteskattnivået,skal de samme regler gjelde i Brasil . Man betaler IKKE skatt,selv om minsteskattnivået er forskjellig fra Norge. Dette er en avtale fra 1982 som ikke er endret. Forsøk ble gjort i februar 2014 til ny avtale med FULLT felles innsyn i ALLE skatte,eiendom og bank annliggende some ikke er akseptert av Brasil til dags dato.
Artikkel 18 og 25 er TVETYDIGE hva minstepensjonistene anngår,og iflg. ECHR skal tvetydige lover komme den det gjelder tilgode. En borger kan heller ikke gis reforhandlings-plikt med et annet lands skattemyndigheter for å tilfredsstille skattekontorets krav om bostedsbevis.
Skattevesenet har siden 2010, ULOVLIG trukket 15% kildeskatt fra ALLE minste-penjonistene i Brasil,stikk imot avtalen. Problemet var jo at tidligere hadde vi minstepensjonister og pensjonister. Så ble vi alle med étt pensjonister og behandles deretter. AP er mestre i å endre meningen i ord hvis det er noe de ønsker å snikinnføre på ulovlig vis. Jrf. uførepensjonister ble til uføretrygdede med de verste konsekvenser.
Det er jo helt tydelig at Finansdepartementet bryter loven i baade The European Commission,ECHR samt sin EGEN avtale med Brasil fra 1982. Hvor lenge skal Norge faa lov til aa peke nese til internasjonale avtaler de har underskrevet?
Det er jo helt tydelig at Finansdepartementet bryter loven i baade The European Commission,ECHR samt sin EGEN avtale med Brasil fra 1982. Hvor lenge skal Norge faa lov til aa peke nese til internasjonale avtaler de har underskrevet?
Administrator
THE OTIUM POST
No comments:
Post a Comment
Enter your comments here: