Notice: Trying to get property of non-object in /home/flemingc/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-seo/frontend/schema/class-schema-person.php on line 151

Notice: Trying to get property of non-object in /home/flemingc/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-seo/frontend/schema/class-schema-person.php on line 226

Notice: Trying to get property of non-object in /home/flemingc/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-seo/frontend/schema/class-schema-person.php on line 232

Settlement Agreement Eesti Keeles

Umicore therefore considers that it is an error to classify the concepts of a transaction as an “advantage”, except in exceptional situations where a party derives from that transaction a result that is manifestly better than it can expect from a dispute. The second paragraph of Article 84 of the VAT Code provides that the Minister for Finance may make comparisons with taxpayers, unless those comparisons involve an exemption or reduction of tax. Such comparisons can therefore relate only to facts and not to cases. They are generally only possible if both parties make concessions (12) (not on the amount of tax that may result from the facts found, but on facts, the setting of fines, etc.). Umicore submits that, in the present case, the criterion of selectivity is manifestly not met, given that the tax convention at issue is merely a specific application of a general regime which would be made available to all taxpayers in the same situation and that the special tax inspectorate would not exercise any discretion in the event of a compromise. Umicore considers that a tax treaty such as the agreement at issue does not constitute an advantage within the meaning of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and therefore does not constitute State aid. . . .