Effective administrative cooperation and mutual assistance in direct taxation are crucial for the proper application of tax laws and for combating tax fraud and evasion in the EU. However, these collaborative efforts face legal and practical challenges, particularly due to the internal market and cross-border mobility of taxpayers and businesses. This paper reviews the legal structure established by Council Directive 2011/16/EU and related instruments, and examines recent develop-ments and proposals to enhance said cooperation – including automatic information exchange, joint audits, tax ruling exchanges, and mutual assistance in claim recovery. It also explores the potential benefits and drawbacks of extending cooperation to non-EU jurisdictions and the role of the OECD and other international organisa-tions in promoting the cooperation in question. The paper concludes that while significant progress has been made, some challenges need still to be addressed. It recommends measures to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of said coopera­tion while respecting the rights and interests of taxpayers and Member States.

Many of the principles of taxation that were developed in the first half of the 20th century, such as the arm’s length principle and the definition of the term “permanent establishment” (PE) in determining the tax position of international business operations, when applied to the business models of the 21st century, often result in the under-taxation of businesses that are otherwise fully compliant with the laws as presently written and implemented. Compounding the problem is the fact that these rules and principles of taxation are broadly recognized and are enshrined in a wide network of tax treaties. This makes the task of modifying or updating these rules and principals extremely difficult. Using legal-dogmatic and legal-theoretical methods, the author will show that present attempts to tax e-commerce transactions unilaterally are not effective and that, under present conditions, even organizations such as the EU are unable to address the problem at hand. The OECD project, commissioned by the G-20, which seeks to create a set of international e-commerce taxation rules, faces some very serious difficulties – largely because a well-established “set in stone” complement of internationally accepted laws, rules, and regulations is serving to block the development of new, more appropriate rules. This phenomenon has become known as the lock-in effect or legal impossibilism. In order to effectively address this phenomenon, lawmakers on a global basis must understand the mechanisms that are blocking the effective evolution of business taxation.

These standards were introduced at four international organizations and supranational associations: 1) the European Union; 2) the Council of Europe; 3) the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; 4) the Commonwealth of Independent States. The article states that the key reason for the introduction of standards for the regulation of lobbying at the international level was considerable corruption in the adoption of legal acts. It is concluded that latent and unregulated lobbying can seriously undermine public confidence in the institution of government, especially in the countries of the so-called “new democracy”. International regulation of lobbying takes the form of resolutions, procedural rules, guidelines, recommendations and model legislation. Notably, the first steps towards international regulation of lobbying were taken by the institutions of the European Union. Today EU standards for the regulation of lobbying is based on a series of articles set out in the EU-founding treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. EU standards for the regulation of lobbying influence not only the EU Member States, but it also extends to EU Partner Countries. Significant steps in the implementation of international standards for the regulation of lobbying are being constantly carried out by the Council of Europe. The establishment of CE standards for the regulation of lobbying is reflected in the activity of statutory bodies of the Council of Europe and its semi-autonomous bodies. In recent years a lot of work on the strengthening of international standards for lobbying regulation has been done by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. To help address the concerns with transparency and integrity in lobbying, the OECD Member Countries adopted in 2010 a Recommendation on Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying as guidance to decision-makers on how to promote good governance in lobbying. Another international organization, which began to regulate actively the practice of lobbying is the Commonwealth of Independent States. In order to intensify the work concerning legislative regulation of lobbying in the member countries of the CIS, at the XXII Plenary Session of the Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS member states the Resolution No. 22-16 of November 15, 2003 was adopted, which approved a model law “On regulation of lobbying activity in state authorities”.

The author is searching for an answer to the question of whether the European Union needs own solutions in the area of taxation of digital economy and whether the solution offered by the European Commission, which is taxation of significant digital presence, can be effective in taxing the digital economy of the European Union. To this end, a number of references to selected standpoints of international doctrine, OECD regulations, and the draft of the Directive has been made in this paper.

Cash pooling is a method of managing financial resources, which works well primarily in enterprises with an extensive corporate structure and operating within capital groups. The choice of a given form of cash pooling will depend on the entrepreneur’s individual preferences. Although using this method has many advantages, it still raises legal doubts. There is a lack of provisions in Poland that would precisely regulate this type of greement. In many cases, the design of the cash pooling agreement is similar to a loan agreement. However, it is worth paying attention to the basic differences, such as the fact that the essence of cash pooling is not an obligation to transfer a specific monetary value to an entity specified in the contract. These and other specific features of cash pooling agreements mean that it is not always obvious to which entity and on what terms an entity can be granted the status of beneficial owner. An additional, verification obligations imposed on the Polish payer and the need to act with due diligence are practical impediments.

Cash pooling is a method of managing financial resources, which works well primarily in enterprises with an extensive corporate structure and operating within capital groups. The choice of a given form of cash pooling will depend on the entrepreneur’s individual preferences. Although using this method has many advantages, it still raises legal doubts. There is a lack of provisions in Poland that would precisely regulate this type of greement. In many cases, the design of the cash pooling agreement is similar to a loan agreement. However, it is worth paying attention to the basic differences, such as the fact that the essence of cash pooling is not an obligation to transfer a specific monetary value to an entity specified in the contract. These and other specific features of cash pooling agreements mean that it is not always obvious to which entity and on what terms an entity can be granted the status of beneficial owner. An additional, verification obligations imposed on the Polish payer and the need to act with due diligence are practical impediments.

A review of solutions which serve the taxation of the digital economy allows for the statement of a thesis that there are many methods which could tax business activity based on digital technologies. One should remember, however, that there also must be consensus and political will in order to introduce them. Due to the lack of consensus at the global level, on 21 March 2018, the European Commission presented two draft directives which were to ensure the taxation of enterprises conducting business in the European Union in the area of digital economy: the Directive laying down rules relating to the corporate taxation of a significant digital presence and the Directive on the common system of a digital services tax on revenues resulting from the provision of certain digital services. The drafts of the Directives presented by the Commission are the beginning of the legislative work at the Union level. One should ask the question whether the European Union needs its own solutions regarding the taxation of the digital economy. In this paper,
the author attempts to evaluate whether the target solution proposed by the Commission, that is, the taxation of a significant digital presence, i.e. a digital establishment,
can be an effective tool for the taxation of the digital economy in the European
Union. For this purpose, subsequent references were made to selected opinions
of international doctrine, OECD regulations and the draft of the Directive.