My Library

University LibraryCatalogue

Limit search to items available for borrowing or consultation
Result Page: Previous Next
Can't find that book? Try BONUS+
Look for full text

Search Discovery

Search CARM Centre Catalogue

Search Trove

Add record to RefWorks

Book Cover

Title Comparative fiscal federalism : comparing the European Court of Justice and the US Supreme Court's tax jurisprudence / [edited by] Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, James R. Hines Jr. and Michael Lang.

Published Alphen aan den Rijn : Kluwer Law International ; Frederick, Md. : Sold and distributed in North, Central, and South America by Aspen Publishers, [2007]


Location Call No. Status
 UniM Law ST 5  KM 336.5 N1 COMP    AVAILABLE
Physical description xxiv, 482 pages ; 25 cm.
Series Eucotax series on European taxation ; v. 14.
Eucotax series on European taxation ; v. 14.
Notes Papers from a conference held at the University of Michigan Law School in October 2005 and sponsored by the Law School, the European Union Center and Harvard Law School's Fund for Tax and Fiscal Research.
Bibliography Includes bibliographical references and index.
Summary "When one compares the recent line of cases decided by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the area of taxation to the US Supreme Courtѫs treatment of state taxes under the US Constitution, the difference is striking. In general, the Supreme Court has granted wide leeway to the states to adopt any tax system they wish, only striking down the most egregious cases of discrimination against out of state residents. In contrast, the ECJ interpreted the Treaty of Rome (the ѵconstitutionѫ of the EU) aggressively to strike down numerous Member State income tax rules on the ground that they were discriminatory. On the face of it, this contrast is surprising. After all, the ECJ is dealing with fully sovereign countries, and taxation is one of the primary attributes of sovereignty. Moreover, the authority of the ECJ to strike down Member State direct taxes is unclear. The Treaty of Rome generally reserves competence in direct taxation to the Member States, and all EU-wide changes in direct taxation have to be approved unanimously by all 25 Member States. Nevertheless, the ECJ has since the 1980s interpreted the ѵfour freedomsѫ embodied in the Treaty of Rome (free movement of goods, services, persons and capital) to give it the authority to strike down direct tax measures that it views as incompatible with the freedoms. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has clear authority under the Supremacy Clause to strike down state laws that are incompatible with the Constitution. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, the US will not be hurt if the power to review federal laws were taken away from the Court, but it could not survive if the Court lost its power over state legislation. Moreover, the states are not fully sovereign, and (unlike Member States that are represented in the EU Council), are not even directly represented in Congress, so that the Court could strike down their laws without (in most cases) expecting an outcry from the other branches of the federal government. In light of the foregoing, Comparative Fiscal Federalism: Comparing the European Court of Justice and the US Supreme Courtѫs Tax Jurisprudence will focus on two intriguing aspects of importance to tax practitioners as well as policy makers: What is the explanation for the contrast? Given this divergence of political context, what can the ECJ and the Supreme Court learn from each otherѫs tax jurisprudence?"--Publisher's website.
Other author Avi-Yonah, Reuven S. (Reuven Shlomo), 1957-
Hines, James R.
Lang, Michael, 1965-
Subject Court of Justice of the European Communities.
United States. Supreme Court.
Income tax -- Law and legislation -- European Union countries.
Tax incidence -- European Union countries.
Double taxation -- European Union countries.
Income tax -- Law and legislation -- United States -- States.
Tax incidence -- United States -- States.
Taxing power -- United States -- States.
ISBN 9789041125521 (hbk.)