Google Wins Hungarian Tax Appeal in EU's Highest Court
The decision means that the internet giant will not have to pay the fines for failing to register to pay tax on sales of advertising in Hungary.
March 03, 2020 at 07:24 AM
2 minute read
Hungary's imposition of €3 million in penalties on Google Ireland for failure to register to pay an advertising tax was unfair and in violation of EU law, the European Court of Justice ruled Tuesday.
Imposing immediate, daily penalties on a non-Hungarian company constitutes "a difference in treatment" and "a restriction on the freedom to provide services" that violates Article 56 of the EU's founding treaty, Europe's highest court ruled.
The decision means that Google will not have to pay the fines for failing to register in 2017 to pay tax on sales of advertising in Hungary.
Google had appealed both the imposition of the tax and the fines, claiming that the tax unfairly penalized some companies because it was based on revenue, and that the fines were unfair because they were assessed immediately, with inadequate time for appeal.
Google also argued that Hungarian companies were not subject to the same fines, as they are automatically assessed taxes.
Hungary claimed that Google had attained a competitive advantage by not registering for taxes, and that the size of the fines was justified because the complaint dated back to 2015.
In its ruling Tuesday, the European Court of Justice upheld a lower-court ruling that Hungary was within its rights to require registration and impose penalties for non-compliance, and that the requirement in itself did not constitute an illegal restriction on providing services.
But it agreed with Google that the penalties for late payment were unfair because Hungarian companies were not subject to the same penalties, and that in practice only non-Hungarian companies were assessed on the penalties. The court also found that the size of the penalties was "disproportionate" and therefore "unjustified."
The ruling on penalties is in line with the view of the EU's competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, and with a non-binding opinion issued last autumn by an adviser to the Court of Justice. Advocate General Juliane Kokott wrote in September that the Hungarian advertising law had been applied unfairly to companies not based in Hungary, imposing "coercive measures" that constitute "an indirect restriction of the freedom to provide services."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDoctors and Scientists Lead Climate Protests at Each Magic Circle Firm
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250