Išči

Sodna praksa Sodišča EU, lastni članki, spremembe davčne zakonodaje....

Izbrani prispeveki - novice o davkih pri nas in v EU - NEWS about TAXES

V družbi TAXIN d.o.o. (mag. Franc Derganc), partnerici Mreže Modro Poslovanje preučujemo davčno-pravna in druga poslovno-pravna vprašanja na podlagi študija sodne prakse Sodišča EU in slovenskih sodišč, preučevati moramo pravne predpise EU in domače pravne predpise ter spremljamo "potrebe" strank - podjetij, ki delujejo v Republiki Sloveniji ter na t.i. mednarodnih trgih. 


Mreža modro poslovanje, na dnevnem nivoju, spremlja spremembe iz spodaj navedenih baz podatkov.

    The partners (TAXIN d.o.o.) of the Wisdom Business Network study tax, legal and other business-legal issues based on the study of the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU and Slovenian courts, they must study EU legal regulations and domestic legal regulations, and they must monitor the needs of customers - companies that operate in the Republic of Slovenia and operate also on the so-called international markets.

The Wisdom business network monitors changes from the databases listed below on a daily basis.


 

CELEX:32025D1562: Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1562 of 25 July 2025 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility to support the Albanian Armed Forces

CELEX:32025D1562: Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1562 of 25 July 2025 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility to support the Albanian Armed Forces
July 28, 2025 0 Comments

CELEX:32025D1555: Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1555 of 25 July 2025 amending Decision (CFSP) 2021/1277 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Lebanon

CELEX:32025D1555: Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1555 of 25 July 2025 amending Decision (CFSP) 2021/1277 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Lebanon
July 28, 2025 0 Comments

CELEX:32025D1558: Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1558 of 25 July 2025 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran

CELEX:32025D1558: Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1558 of 25 July 2025 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran
July 28, 2025 0 Comments

CELEX:32025R1559: Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1559 of 25 July 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran

CELEX:32025R1559: Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1559 of 25 July 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran
July 28, 2025 0 Comments

CELEX:62006TJ0161: Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2012.#Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater v European Commission.#Action for damages — ‘Culture 2000’ programme — Grants made for projects — Claims for payment of various sums — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure — Inadmissible.#Case T‑161/06.

July 26, 2025 0 Comments

UPRS Sodba II U 153/2021-19

Vloga tožeče stranke za odpečatenje spletnih strani je bila pravilno zavrnjena, ker ugotovljene nepravilnosti, ki so bile razlog za zapečatenje spletnih strani, še niso bile odpravljene in se kršitve nadaljujejo, dejavnost spletne prodaje pa se z namenom izogibanja davčnim obveznostim navidezno preusmerja na nove subjekte. Tako se le navzven ustvarja vtis, da je dejavnost zadevne spletne prodaje prenesena na nov subjekt (tožečo stranko), dejansko pa se ta izvaja tako kot prej, ne da bi bile pomanjkljivosti, zaradi katerih so bile zadevne spletne strani zapečatene, odpravljene. Ker kršitve, zaradi katerih so bile spletne strani zapečatene, niso odpravljene. Pogoji za odpečatenje teh spletnih strani niso izpolnjeni.
July 25, 2025 0 Comments

UPRS Sodba II U 145/2022-13

V primeru, ko v postopku osebnega stečaja nad notarjem kot zasebnikom do odpusta obveznosti ni prišlo, stečajni dolžnik upnikom za neplačane obveznosti odgovarja tudi po zaključku stečajnega postopka. Te obveznosti lahko poravna prostovoljno ali pa prisilno v postopku (civilne ali davčne) izvršbe, ki ga lahko upniki po koncu stečajnega postopka vodijo zoper njega za vse neplačane terjatve - tako tiste iz osebne kot tudi tiste iz poslovne sfere, za katere zasebnik kot fizična oseba odgovarja z vsem svojim premoženjem.
July 25, 2025 0 Comments

UPRS Sodba II U 112/2023-11

Po stališču sodne prakse mora stranka imeti realno možnost, da se izjavi o vseh relevantnih vidikih, pomembnih za izdajo odločbe. Torej ni dovolj, da se zavezanca zgolj pisno poziva in ga seznanja s postopkom, temveč predvsem pomeni, da se v dokaznem postopku neposredno pred organom odločanja izvedejo dokazi, ki so tudi v korist zavezanca (kot je na primer neposredno zaslišanje prič), kakor tudi, da se zavezancu omogoči neposredno soočenje z razlogi davčnega organa. Pravilo, da lahko davčni organ odloča v skrajšanem postopku brez zaslišanja strank, ureja le razširjeno procesno možnost organa, da odloči v skrajšanem ugotovitvenem postopku, vendar mu ne prepoveduje izvedbe posebnega ugotovitvenega postopka in zaslišanja stranke. Skladno s tem mora organ izpeljati posebni ugotovitveni postopek po ZUP in tožnika v zvezi z ugotovljenimi dejstvi zaslišati, če bi v okviru skrajšanega ugotovitvenega postopka opustitev načela zaslišanja stranke privedla do...
July 25, 2025 0 Comments

UPRS Sodba II U 320/2022-24

Tožeča stranka je dolgovani znesek, ki izhaja iz izvršilnega naslova, poravnala po izdaji sklepov o izvršbi. V tem primeru davčni organ po uradni dolžnosti ali na zahtevo stranke v skladu s 1. točko prvega odstavka 155. člena ZDavP-2 ustavi izvršbo. Ni pa ta okoliščina razlog za odpravo izpodbijanih sklepov o davčni izvršbi. V upravnem sporu presoja sodišče pravilnost in zakonitost izpodbijanih aktov, v konkretnem primeru sklepov o davčni izvršbi, v času njihove izdaje.
July 25, 2025 0 Comments

VSRS Sodba X Ips 10/2024

Davčni organ mora prikriti pravni posel, ko ugotovi njegov obstoj, ustrezno opredeliti. Nato mora presoditi, ali ga je na podlagi ugotovljenih lastnosti mogoče obdavčiti kot katerega od dohodkov iz 1. do 5. točke 18. člena ZDoh-2, ki so urejeni v ustreznih poglavjih ZDoh-2. Šele če to ne bi bilo mogoče, mora opraviti presojo, ali gre za katerega izmed posebej opredeljenih tipov dohodkov, ki jih zakon našteva med drugimi dohodki (od 1. do 10. točke tretjega odstavka 105. člena ZDoh-2), ali za dohodek, ki bi bil po ZDoh-2 oproščen plačila dohodnine. Šele če ne bi šlo niti za tak dohodek, se lahko pojavi vprašanje, ali je mogoča njegova obdavčitev na podlagi 11. točke tretjega odstavka 105. člena ZDoh-2. Pri tem za uporabo slednje pravne podlage ne zadošča zgolj dejstvo, da drugih pravnih podlag za obdavčenje ni mogoče uporabiti, temveč je potrebna (dodatna) presoja, ali gre sploh lahko za dohodek v smislu te določbe ZDoh-2.
July 25, 2025 0 Comments

CELEX:62023TJ1081: Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 July 2025 (Extracts).#BT Global Services Belgium v European Commission.#Public supply contracts – Tendering procedure – Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations – New Generation Extension (TESTA-ng II Ext) – Directive 2014/24/EU – Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 – Decision to modify the existing contract without publishing a new call for tenders – Unforeseeable circumstances – Action for annulment – Locus standi – Individual concern – Admissibility.#Case T-1081/23.

July 25, 2025 0 Comments

CELEX:62024TJ0113: Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 July 2025 (Extracts).#Lattanzio KIBS SpA and Others v European Commission.#Public procurement – Protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Action for annulment – Lack of direct concern – Partial inadmissibility – Criteria for exclusion from participation in public procurement procedures – Concept of ‘final judgment that the person or entity is guilty’ – Article 136(1)(d)(ii) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 – Persons who have powers of representation, decision or control with regard to a person or entity who is excluded – Article 136(4)(a) of Regulation 2018/1046 – Obligation to state reasons – Proportionality.#Case T-113/24.

July 25, 2025 0 Comments

CELEX:62023TJ1123_INF: Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 January 2025.#Paolo Meucci v European Parliament and European External Action Service.#Case T-1123/23.

July 25, 2025 0 Comments

CELEX:62023TJ0178_INF: Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 January 2025.#Halima Bent Zine El Abidine Ben Haj Hamda Ben Ali v Council of the European Union.#Case T-178/23.

July 25, 2025 0 Comments

CELEX:62024TO0512: Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 22 July 2025.#Oberon Fuels, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark RDME – Absolute ground for invalidity – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law.#Case T-512/24.

July 25, 2025 0 Comments

CELEX:62023TJ0607_INF: Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 January 2025.#Desimo, Lda v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark ELIOS – Earlier EU word mark HELIOS and earlier national figurative mark HELIOS – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Damage to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Cross-claim.#Case T-607/23.

July 25, 2025 0 Comments

CELEX:62024TJ0171_INF: Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 February 2025.#DH v European Commission.#Case T-171/24.

July 25, 2025 0 Comments

CELEX:62024TJ0168_INF: Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 January 2025.#Quality is Our Recipe LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Case T-168/24.

July 25, 2025 0 Comments

CELEX:62023TJ0033_INF: Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 November 2024.#Domator24 sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark PREDATOR – Earlier EU word mark PREDATOR – Relative ground for invalidity – Likelihood of confusion – Complementarity and similarity of the goods – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).#Case T-33/23.

July 25, 2025 0 Comments

CELEX:62024TJ0280_INF: Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 February 2025.#ExactCut s. r. o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Case T-280/24.

July 25, 2025 0 Comments
RSS
First45679111213Last