Hacia una concepción unitaria del abuso del derecho tributario de la Unión Europea

Referencias bibliográficas

• ARNULL (2011), «What is a General Principle of EU Law?», en DE LA FERIA & VOGENAUER (2011), p. 7.
• CALDERÓN CARRERO (2010), «La Coordinación Europea de las Normas de Transparencia Fiscal Internacional y de Subcapitalización» Revista de Contabilidad y Tributación n. 328, p. 5.
• CALDERÓN CARRERO (2012), «Una vuelta de tuerca a la interpretación europea de la cláusula antiabuso de la "Directiva Fusiones": ¿Hacia motivos económicos válidos de "alto voltaje"?» (en prensa).
• CALDERÓN / GARCÍA-HERRERA (2010), «La doctrina del TJUE sobre el principio de plena competencia al hilo de la sentencia de la Hight Court británica en el caso de Test Claimants in the Thin Cap: el test comunitario de los motivos comerciales y sus implicaciones, Revista de Contabilidad y Tributación n. 332, p. 45.
• CERIONI (2010), «The "Abuse of Right" in EU Company Law and EU Tax Law: a Re-Reading of the ECJ Case-Law and the Quest for a Unitary Notion», available athttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/4141
• DE BROE (2008), International Tax Planning and Prevention of Abuse , Amsterdam: IBFD.
• DE LA FERIA (2008), «Prohibition of Abuse of (Community) Law: the Creation of a New General Principle of EC Law Through Tax», Common Market Law Review vol. 45, p. 395.
• DE LA FERIA & VOGENAUER (2011), Prohibition of Abuse of Law: A New General Principle of EU Law , Oxford: Hart Publishing.
• EDWARDS and FARMER (2008), «The concept of abuse in the freedom of establishment of companies: a case of double standards?», in ARNULL, EEKHOUT & TRIDIMAS, Continuity and Change in EU Law: Essays in Honour of Sir Francis Jacobs , Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 214.
• ENGLISH (2011), «National Measures to Counter Tax Avoidance under the Merger Directive», Oxford University Center for Business Taxation Working Paper 11/13.
• FARMER (2011), «Prohibition of Abuse of (European) Law: The Creation of a New General Principle of EU Law Through Tax: A Response», en DE LA FERIA & VOGENAUER (2011), p. 3.
• FREEMAN (2011), «The Anatomy of Tax Avoidance Counteraction: Abuse of Law in a Tax Context at Member State and European Union Level», en DE LA FERIA & VOGENAUER (2011), p. 365.
• GARCÍA PRATS (2002), «Las medidas tributarias anti-abuso y el Derecho comunitario», en Soler / Serrano (dir.), Las medidas anti-abuso en la normativa interna española y en los CDIs y su compatibilidad con el Derecho comunitario , Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Fiscales, pp. 163 y ss.
• GARCÍA PRATS (2010), «The "Abuse of Tax Law": Prospects and Analisys», in BIZIOLI (ed.), Essays in International and European Tax Law , Napoli: Jovene, pp. 50.
• HOENJET (1997), «The Leur-Bloem Judgement: the Jurisdiction of the ECJ and the Interpretation of the Anti-Abuse Clause in the Merger Directive», EC Tax Review n. 4, pp. 206.
• KAYE y MAZZA (2011), «Tax Evasion and Avoidance in the US», en Van Thiel (ed.) (2011), p. 73.
• KIEKEBELD (2009), «Anti-Abuse in the Field of Taxation: Is there One Overall Concept», EC Tax Review n. 4, p. 144.
• KJELLGREN (2002), «On the Border of Abuse: the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice on Circumvention, Fraud and Abuses of Community Law», en ANDENAS, M., y ROTH, W. (2002), Services and Free Movement in EU Law , Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 245-277.
• KNOBBE-KEUK (1992), «The EC Corporate Tax Directives - Anti-abuse Provisions, Direct Effect, German Implementation Law», Intertax n. 8-9/1992, p. 485.
• KOUTRAKOS (2011), «The Emsland-Stärke Abuse of Law Test in the Law of Agriculture and Free Movement of Goods», en DE LA FERIA & VOGENAUER (2011), p. 203.
• LANG and HEIDENBAUER (2008), «Wholly Artificial Arrangements», in Hinnekens and Hinnekens (eds.), A Vision of Taxes Within and Outside European Borders , Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law International, p. 597.
• LANG (2011), «Cadbury Schweppes’ Line of Case Law From the Member States’ Perspective», en DE LA FERIA & VOGENAUER (2011), p. 381.
• LANG (2011a), «The General Anti-Abuse Rule of Art. 80 of the Draft Proposal for a Council Directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base», European Taxation vol. 51, nº. 6, p. 223.
• LYAL (2011), «Cadbury Schweppes and Abuse: Comments», en DE LA FERIA & VOGENAUER (2011), p. 427.
• MARTÍN JIMÉNEZ (2007), «Globalización y Derecho tributario: el impacto del Derecho comunitario sobre las cláusulas antielusión / abuso del Derecho interno», Documentos del Instituto de Estudios Fiscales nº 7.
• MARTÍN JIMÉNEZ (2010), «Transfer Pricing and EU Law Following the ECJ Judgement in SGI: Some Thoughts on Controversial Issues», Bulletin for International Taxation n. 5, p. 271 (en castellano, publicado en Cordón [dir.], Fiscalidad de los precios de transferencia [operaciones vinculadas] , Madrid, CEF).
• MARTÍN JIMÉNEZ (2011), «Beneficial Ownership and The Judicial Interpretation of the Spanish Anti-abuse of Clause of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (special consideration of the Judgement by Audiencia Nacional of January 22, 2009)» en Lang et al. (eds.) (2011), Tax Treaty Case-Law Around the Globe -2011 , Viena, Linde.
• MARTÍN JIMÉNEZ / CALDERÓN CARRERO (2011), «La jurisprudencia del TJCE: los efectos del principio de no discriminación y las libertades básicas comunitarias sobre la legislación nacional en materia de imposición directa» in CARMONA (dir.), Convenios para Evitar la Doble Imposición y Fiscalidad de la Unión Europea , 6ª edition, Valencia, Ciss.
• PALAO TABOADA (2009), «Los motivos económicos válidos en el régimen fiscal de las reorganizaciones empresariales», in La Aplicación de las Normas Tributarias y la Elusión Fiscal , Valladolid: Lex Nova, p. 201 (este trabajo se publicó originariamente en la Revista de Contabilidad y Tributación nº 235/2002, p. 63).
• PETROSOVITCH (2010), «Abuse under the Merger Directive», European Taxation vol. 50, n. 12, p. 558.
• PIANTAVIGNA (2009),«Prohibition of Abuse of Law: A New General Principle of EU Law? 3-4 October 2008, Oxford UK (Conference Report)», Intertax vol. 37, n. 3, p. 166.
• PISTONE (2007), «The Need for Clarity and the Application of the Acte Claire Doctrine to Direct Taxes», Intertax vol. 35, n. 10, p. 534.
• PISTONE (2011), «Abuse of Law in the Context of Indirect Taxation: From (Before) Emsland-Stärke 1 to Halifax (and Beyond)», en DE LA FERIA & VOGENAUER (2011), p. 381.
• POIARES MADURO (2004), «Harmony and Dissonance in Free Movement», in Andenas and Roth, Services and Free Movement in EU Law , Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 41.
• ROBERT and TOF (2011), «The Substance Requirement and the Future of Domestic Anti-abuse Rules within the Internal Market», European Taxation vol. 51, nº 11, p. 436.
• RODRÍGUEZ-BEREIJO LEÓN (2011), «La carga de la prueba en el Derecho Tributario: su aplicación en las normas tributarias anti-abuso y en la doctrina del TJUE», Revista de Contabilidad y Tributación n.º 344, p. 5.
• RUIZ ALMENDRAL (2006), El fraude a la ley tributaria a examen , Cizur Menor: Pamplona.
• RUIZ ALMENDRAL (2010), «¿Tiene futuro el test de los "motivos económicos válidos" en las normas anti-abuso?: sobre la planificación fiscal y las normas anti-abuso en el Derecho de la Unión Europea The business purpose test», Revista de Contabilidad y Tributación n. 329-330, p. 5.
• SCHÖN (2008), «Abuse of Rights and European Tax Law», in Avery Jones, Harris and Oliver, Comparative Perspectives on Revenue Law , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 75.
• SNELL (2011), «The Notion of and a General Test for Abuse of Rights: Some Normative Reflections» en DE LA FERIA & VOGENAUER (2011), p. 219.
• SØRENSEN, «What is a General Principle of EU Law: A Response», en DE LA FERIA & VOGENAUER (2011), p. 25.
• TRIDIMAS (2009) «Abuse of Right in EU Law: Some Reflections with particular Reference to Financial Law», Queen Mary University of London, School of Law .
• Legal Studies Research Paper No. 27/2009 (una version posterior de este trabajo aparece también en DE LA FERIA & VOGENAUER [2011], p. 169).
• VAN DER HURK, VAN DEN BROEK and KORVING (2010), «ECJ limits Dutch denial of Merger Directive benefits», European Union Tax Alert-3 June 2010, disponible en www.deloitte.com
• VANISTENDAEL (1992), «The Implementation of the Parent / Subsidiary Directive in the EC - Comments on Some Unresolved Questions», Tax Notes International , September 21, p. 599.
• VANISTENDAEL (2006), «Halifax and Cadbury Schweppes: one single European theory of abuse in tax law?» EC Tax Review 2006/4, p. 192.
• VANISTENDAEL (2011), «Cadbury Schweppes and Abuse from an EU Tax Law Perspective»en DE LA FERIA & VOGENAUER (2011), p. 407.
• VAN THIEL (ed.) (2011), Sharing Information Across Borders in Indirect and Direct Tax -2010 & The Permanent Establishment in International Tax Law-2011 , Datev & Confederation Fiscale Europeenne.
• VOGENAUER (2011), «The Prohibition of Abuse of Law: An Emerging General Principle of EU Law», en DE LA FERIA & VOGENAUER (2011), p. 521.
• WEBER (1997), «The First Step of the ECJ Concerning an Anti-Abuse Doctrine in the Field of Harmonized Direct Taxes», EC Tax Review n. 1, p. 22.
• WEBER (2005), Tax Avoidance and the EC Treaty Freedoms (A Study of the Limitations under European Law to the Prevention of Tax Avoidance) , The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
• WEBER (2011), «Abuse of Law in the Context of Indirect Taxation: Why We Need the Subjective Intention Test, When is Combating Abuse an Obligation and Other Comments», en DE LA FERIA & VOGENAUER (2011), p. 381.