Imagine that a debtor voluntarily concludes a transaction with a third party where he knows (or should know) that it hinders the creditor’s possibilities of collecting the debt. In civil law countries, a creditor can invoke the nullification of that legal act by means of a so-called actio pauliana. This raises the question of which court has jurisdiction in the case of an international dispute, regarding an actio pauliana, that is instituted by a creditor against a third party?
On November 23, 2018, the German Federal Council (Bundesrat) approved the Tax Reform Act of 2018 (the "Tax Reform Act"; Gesetz zur Vermeidung von Umsatzsteuerausfllen beim Handel mit Waren im Internet und zur nderung weiterer steuerlicher Vorschriften), which was passed by the German Parliament (Bundestag) on November 8, 2018.
Recently the German legislature passed a new law, exempting extraordinary profits created by the waiver of claims under restructurings from income tax liability. The amendment was necessary because the German Federal Tax Court had previously held the original administrative decree (which in a conceptually different manner avoided the tax burden on such profits) unlawful. This article gives a brief overview over the legislative history and the practical consequences of the amendment.
1. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Das BAG begehrt in seiner Vorlage an den EuGH vom 16.10.2018 (Az.: 3 AZR 139/17) die Klärung der Frage, in welchem Rahmen der Erwerber eines Betriebs aus der Insolvenz des Veräußerers für Betriebsrenten gemäß § 613a BGB übergegangener Arbeitnehmer haften muss und ob seine bislang praktizierte erwerberfreundliche teleologische Reduktion des § 613a Abs. 1 BGB in diesem Zusammenhang unionsrechtskonform ist.
I. Einleitung
On November 23, 2018, the German Federal Council (Bundesrat) approved the Tax Reform Act of 2018 (the “Tax Reform Act”; Gesetz zur Vermeidung von Umsatzsteuerausfällen beim Handel mit Waren im Internet und zur Änderung weiterer steuerlicher Vorschriften), which was passed by the German Parliament (Bundestag) on November 8, 2018.
Todos los supuestos de extinción en que ésta es adoptada por voluntad del trabajador, pero derivada de una decisión unilateral de la empresa, han de tener el mismo tratamiento por parte de los Estados miembros. Así lo señala el Tribunal de de Justicia en un reciente pronunciamiento en el que resuelve una cuestión cuya trascendencia práctica desborda el supuesto planteado específicamente.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled today that the Pension Protection Fund regime does not satisfy European law requirements. The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on the PPF, and could have wider knock-on effects for many occupational pension schemes.
Background to the case
Insurance Quarterly Legal and Regulatory
Update
Period covered: 1 July 2018 30 September 2018
1
Table of Contents
(La Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 20 de septiembre del 2017)
El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea establece las condiciones para no considerar ayuda de Estado la decisión de una autoridad pública cuando se comporta como lo haría un acreedor privado en una economía de mercado al aceptar una quita en un procedimiento de convenio de acreedores...
1. El supuesto de hecho