Finlaysons’ Post

Our firm contributed for another year to the Chambers and Partners Tax Controversy 2024 Global Practice Guide, covering 30 jurisdictions. Alex Karopoulos, head of Tax Controversy & Litigation, Dimitrios Gialouris and Diana Tsourapa, partners, and Eva Yotakou, senior associate, authored the chapter for Greece, providing in-depth analysis and expert commentary on causes of tax controversies; tax audits; administrative litigation; judicial litigation and much more. Explore the guide here: bit.ly/3VIKb2u

Global firm Jones Day has announced the addition of John Walker as a partner, supporting the firm’s cross-border and domestic tax practice in Australia. Law.asia #AsiaBusinessLawJournal

Chamon, Serrano, Amorim Advogados (CSA Advogados) announced that Marina Pires Bernardes (pictured) will become a partner at the firm, responsible for Tax Litigation and Tax Transactions, covering all administrative and judicial litigation and any work involving the negotiation of tax transaction proposals with the Federal, State and Municipal Attorney’s Offices. Read the full article >> https://lnkd.in/dtDSZSE4 #TheLatinAmericanLawyer #announcement #taxlitigation #legaladvisors

How Does the Practice of Tax Law by #Lawyers Differ from the Work of Chartered Accountants in Taxation? As a #tax advocate, I've often encountered the misconception that Chartered Accountants (CAs) are the sole experts in the domain of taxation. However, the practice of taxation law by lawyers offers distinct advantages and competencies. Lawyers specializing in tax law bring a deep understanding of legal principles and judicial precedents, enabling them to navigate complex regulatory landscapes and litigate effectively on behalf of clients. While CAs excel in financial analysis and compliance, tax lawyers provide strategic legal insights and robust representation in tax disputes and advisory services. Our expertise ensures comprehensive legal solutions that extend beyond mere number-crunching, addressing the intricate interplay between tax legislation and broader legal contexts. In essence, the collaboration between CAs and tax lawyers can offer the most thorough approach to taxation matters, combining financial precision with legal acumen. Legum Attorney- Chamber of Ashish Panday https://legumattorney.com #legumattorney #taxadvocate #lawfirm #TaxLaw #LegalExpertise #CharteredAccountants #TaxAdvocacy #LegalInsight #lawstudent #ourlegalworld #supremecourt #itat #gst #customs #incometax #CA #lawyer #tradelaw #ICAI

#STSDeloitte | ⚠ With the judgment dated 13th June 2024 (C-696/22), the Court of Justice EU interpreted Articles 63, 64, 66 and 168 and the principle of respect for the rights of the defense, in a proceeding regarding the lawfulness of a tax assessment notice imposing additional VAT for the services provided to undertakings which are subject to insolvency proceedings.   🔎 In particular, the taxpayer, a company incorporated under Romanian law, brings together court-appointed administrators and liquidators, known as ‘insolvency practitioners’ under Romanian law. It provides services to companies which are subject to insolvency proceedings. The consideration for these services is determined by the insolvency court or the assembly of creditors payer and have been invoiced by the taxpayer only on the date on which payments were received, also considering that said payment is subject to the availability of liquid assets in the debtors’ accounts.   💰 The national tax authorities considered that the chargeable event and the chargeability of tax should be determined as being at the time on which the services have been supplied. Moreover, they refused to allow the deduction of the VAT invoiced by a law firm pursuant to a cooperation agreement granting financial assistance to the taxpayer, on the ground that this last one had not demonstrated that the services provided by the law firm were used for the purposes of its taxable transactions.   Finally, the taxpayer did not have the opportunity to state its position on new arguments proposed by the tax authorities in the context of the administrative complaint procedure contesting the VAT assessment.   Emmanuel Orlando   #VAT #VATDirective #CJEU   👇

#STSDeloitte | ⚠ With the judgment dated 13th June 2024 (C-696/22), the Court of Justice EU interpreted Articles 63, 64, 66 and 168 and the principle of respect for the rights of the defense, in a proceeding regarding the lawfulness of a tax assessment notice imposing additional VAT for the services provided to undertakings which are subject to insolvency proceedings.   🔎 In particular, the taxpayer, a company incorporated under Romanian law, brings together court-appointed administrators and liquidators, known as ‘insolvency practitioners’ under Romanian law. It provides services to companies which are subject to insolvency proceedings. The consideration for these services is determined by the insolvency court or the assembly of creditors payer and have been invoiced by the taxpayer only on the date on which payments were received, also considering that said payment is subject to the availability of liquid assets in the debtors’ accounts.   💰 The national tax authorities considered that the chargeable event and the chargeability of tax should be determined as being at the time on which the services have been supplied. Moreover, they refused to allow the deduction of the VAT invoiced by a law firm pursuant to a cooperation agreement granting financial assistance to the taxpayer, on the ground that this last one had not demonstrated that the services provided by the law firm were used for the purposes of its taxable transactions.   Finally, the taxpayer did not have the opportunity to state its position on new arguments proposed by the tax authorities in the context of the administrative complaint procedure contesting the VAT assessment.   Emmanuel Orlando   #VAT #VATDirective #CJEU   👇

#STSDeloitte | ⚠ With the judgment dated 13th June 2024 (C-696/22), the Court of Justice EU interpreted Articles 63, 64, 66 and 168 and the principle of respect for the rights of the defense, in a proceeding regarding the lawfulness of a tax assessment notice imposing additional VAT for the services provided to undertakings which are subject to insolvency proceedings.   🔎 In particular, the taxpayer, a company incorporated under Romanian law, brings together court-appointed administrators and liquidators, known as ‘insolvency practitioners’ under Romanian law. It provides services to companies which are subject to insolvency proceedings. The consideration for these services is determined by the insolvency court or the assembly of creditors payer and have been invoiced by the taxpayer only on the date on which payments were received, also considering that said payment is subject to the availability of liquid assets in the debtors’ accounts.   💰 The national tax authorities considered that the chargeable event and the chargeability of tax should be determined as being at the time on which the services have been supplied. Moreover, they refused to allow the deduction of the VAT invoiced by a law firm pursuant to a cooperation agreement granting financial assistance to the taxpayer, on the ground that this last one had not demonstrated that the services provided by the law firm were used for the purposes of its taxable transactions.   Finally, the taxpayer did not have the opportunity to state its position on new arguments proposed by the tax authorities in the context of the administrative complaint procedure contesting the VAT assessment.   @Emmanuel Orlando   #VAT #VATDirective #CJEU   👇

#STSDeloitte | ⚠ With the judgment dated 13th June 2024 (C-696/22), the Court of Justice EU interpreted Articles 63, 64, 66 and 168 and the principle of respect for the rights of the defense, in a proceeding regarding the lawfulness of a tax assessment notice imposing additional VAT for the services provided to undertakings which are subject to insolvency proceedings.   🔎 In particular, the taxpayer, a company incorporated under Romanian law, brings together court-appointed administrators and liquidators, known as ‘insolvency practitioners’ under Romanian law. It provides services to companies which are subject to insolvency proceedings. The consideration for these services is determined by the insolvency court or the assembly of creditors payer and have been invoiced by the taxpayer only on the date on which payments were received, also considering that said payment is subject to the availability of liquid assets in the debtors’ accounts.   💰 The national tax authorities considered that the chargeable event and the chargeability of tax should be determined as being at the time on which the services have been supplied. Moreover, they refused to allow the deduction of the VAT invoiced by a law firm pursuant to a cooperation agreement granting financial assistance to the taxpayer, on the ground that this last one had not demonstrated that the services provided by the law firm were used for the purposes of its taxable transactions.   Finally, the taxpayer did not have the opportunity to state its position on new arguments proposed by the tax authorities in the context of the administrative complaint procedure contesting the VAT assessment.   @Emmanuel Orlando   #VAT #VATDirective #CJEU   👇

#STSDeloitte | ⚠ With the judgment dated 13th June 2024 (C-696/22), the Court of Justice EU interpreted Articles 63, 64, 66 and 168 and the principle of respect for the rights of the defense, in a proceeding regarding the lawfulness of a tax assessment notice imposing additional VAT for the services provided to undertakings which are subject to insolvency proceedings.   🔎 In particular, the taxpayer, a company incorporated under Romanian law, brings together court-appointed administrators and liquidators, known as ‘insolvency practitioners’ under Romanian law. It provides services to companies which are subject to insolvency proceedings. The consideration for these services is determined by the insolvency court or the assembly of creditors payer and have been invoiced by the taxpayer only on the date on which payments were received, also considering that said payment is subject to the availability of liquid assets in the debtors’ accounts.   💰 The national tax authorities considered that the chargeable event and the chargeability of tax should be determined as being at the time on which the services have been supplied. Moreover, they refused to allow the deduction of the VAT invoiced by a law firm pursuant to a cooperation agreement granting financial assistance to the taxpayer, on the ground that this last one had not demonstrated that the services provided by the law firm were used for the purposes of its taxable transactions.   Finally, the taxpayer did not have the opportunity to state its position on new arguments proposed by the tax authorities in the context of the administrative complaint procedure contesting the VAT assessment.   Emmanuel Orlando   #VAT #VATDirective #CJEU   👇

#STSDeloitte | ⚠ With the judgment dated 13th June 2024 (C-696/22), the Court of Justice EU interpreted Articles 63, 64, 66 and 168 and the principle of respect for the rights of the defense, in a proceeding regarding the lawfulness of a tax assessment notice imposing additional VAT for the services provided to undertakings which are subject to insolvency proceedings.   🔎 In particular, the taxpayer, a company incorporated under Romanian law, brings together court-appointed administrators and liquidators, known as ‘insolvency practitioners’ under Romanian law. It provides services to companies which are subject to insolvency proceedings. The consideration for these services is determined by the insolvency court or the assembly of creditors payer and have been invoiced by the taxpayer only on the date on which payments were received, also considering that said payment is subject to the availability of liquid assets in the debtors’ accounts.   💰 The national tax authorities considered that the chargeable event and the chargeability of tax should be determined as being at the time on which the services have been supplied. Moreover, they refused to allow the deduction of the VAT invoiced by a law firm pursuant to a cooperation agreement granting financial assistance to the taxpayer, on the ground that this last one had not demonstrated that the services provided by the law firm were used for the purposes of its taxable transactions.   Finally, the taxpayer did not have the opportunity to state its position on new arguments proposed by the tax authorities in the context of the administrative complaint procedure contesting the VAT assessment.   Emmanuel Orlando   #VAT #VATDirective #CJEU   👇