All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

Greece moves towards rationalised implementation of anti-avoidance rules

Sponsored by

eygreece.png
The circular provides important guidance on the rather vague scope of application of GAAR and TAARs

Nasia Kasidou of EY Greece explores how tax authorities are working towards improving certainty within the Greek tax world.

The Greek Tax Authorities (GTA) have recently released guidelines (Circular E. 2167/13.09.2019) for the uniform implementation of anti-avoidance rules (General and Targeted, hereinafter GAAR and TAAR). The circular deals with: 

  • The GAAR provided under Article 38, L.4174/2013; 

  • The TAAR for tax losses forfeiture provided under Article 27 (L.4172/2013, Greek Income Tax (GITC));

  • The TAAR for corporate restructurings provided under Article 56, GITC.


General principles




As a general remark, GAARs provide principles to counter potential avoidance of tax, whereas the scope of TAARs is to target specific arrangements of tax avoidance.

On the basis of the issued circular, it seems that the GTA’s intended approach on GAAR/TAAR is to achieve a reasonable balance between mitigating tax avoidance while adhering to the evolving business of enterprises. To this effect, the following general principles are outlined:

  • GAAR/TAAR should be applied exceptionally, only in cases where an actual abuse of the tax provisions has been identified. It appears that the intention of the GTA is to distinguish the genuine transactions effected in a tax efficient manner from the artificial arrangements aiming at tax avoidance.

  • GAAR should apply only in cases where no TAAR could be invoked (based on the general principle that special provisions override the general). Therefore, TAAR for tax losses forfeiture overrides both GAAR and TAAR provided for corporate restructurings, whereas TAAR for corporate restructurings overrides GAAR.


TAAR on corporate restructurings




Setting aside the general guidelines provided for the GAAR implementation, it is worth focusing on the guidelines provided - for the first time - for the TAAR applicable on corporate restructurings (Article 56, GITC):

TAAR on corporate restructurings is aligned with the provisions of 2009/133/EU Directive and applies for restructurings (both domestic and cross border) effected under Article 52-55 of GITC (mergers, full/ partial demergers, spin offs, share exchanges, transfer of the registered seat).

More in detail, per said TAAR, to the extent that tax avoidance or tax evasion is identified as the main or one of the main objectives of the companies under restructuring, all benefits granted in accordance with Article 52 -55 of GITC are fully or partially disallowed. Where a transaction is not performed for valid economic reasons, such as the restructuring or the rationalisation of the activities, this may constitute an evidence that the main or one of the principal objectives of the transaction is the tax avoidance or tax evasion. 

According to the recently issued circular, TAAR on corporate restructurings addresses only tax avoidance cases from an income tax perspective, whereas any other tax area should be addressed on the basis of GAAR. Similarly, restructurings effected under provisions other than GITC (i.e. L.1297/1972 and L.2166/1993) are captured by GAAR. 

Another important issue addressed in the circular is that the burden of proof for applying TAAR lies with the GTA. 

The circular makes indicative reference to Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decisions for the interpretation and application of said TAAR:

  • The tax administration should apply the TAAR and assess tax liability according to the specific details of the transaction and not on the basis of predetermined general criteria (Leur- Bloem C-28/95).

  • A restructuring based on several objectives, which may also include tax considerations, can constitute a valid commercial reason provided, however, that those considerations are not predominant in the context of the proposed transaction (Foggia C-126/10). In other words, the concept of valid economic reasons is broader than pursuit of purely tax advantage. Therefore, a restructuring performed for several purposes, including tax purposes, may be carried out for valid economic reasons, to the extent that the pursuit of tax benefits is not the principal objective satisfied by virtue of the restructuring concerned.


Finally, it can be noted that in order to determine whether valid economic reasons exist in the case of a restructuring, the actual motive, purpose and will of the parties involved should be examined. The actual purpose for the performance of the restructuring may be proven in any possible way (e.g. through the correspondence between the parties involved, respective directorial decisions, correspondence with authorities of other countries, etc.).

To sum up, the circular provides important guidance on the rather vague scope of application of GAAR and TAARs. It is also worth noting that the GTA set the pace of applicability of these rules based on the CJEU hallmark decisions and on the balanced allocation of burden of proof between the taxpayer and the GTA. Going forward, the challenge of the GTA is to apply this guidance consistently and in a uniform manner in the course of tax audits.



Nasia Kasidou

E: nasia.kasidou@gr.ey.com


more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The European Parliament raises concerns over unanimity in voting on pillar two, while protests break out over tax reform in Colombia.
Ramesh Khaitan speaks to reporter Siqalane Taho about tax morality, transfer pricing regulations, Indian tax developments, and the OECD’s two-pillar solution.
Join ITR and KPMG China at 10am BST on October 19 as they discuss the personal, employment, and corporate tax-related implications of employees working from overseas.
Tricentis and Boehringer Ingelheim, along with a European Commission TP specialist, criticised the complexity of pillar one rules and their scope at an ITR event.
Speakers at ITR’s Managing Tax Disputes Summit said taxpayers can still face lengthy TP audits, despite strong documentation preparation
Gig economy companies in New Zealand will need to fully account and become liable for the goods and services tax of underlying suppliers on their platforms, under new proposals.
Join ITR and Thomson Reuters at 2pm (UAE) / 11am (UK) on October 13 as they discuss how businesses can prepare for Tax Administration 3.0 and future-proof against changes such as e-invoicing and increasing digitisation.
ITR has partnered with global TP leaders from Deloitte to discuss transfer pricing controversy around the globe, and to share advice on how to navigate an increasingly uncertain and risky TP landscape.
Sources say they are not satisfied with pillar one protections in the marketing and distribution safe harbour, even though it was designed to give businesses greater tax certainty.
Political support for qualified majority voting is at a peak as unanimity rules continue to block the European Council from passing a directive on pillar two.
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree