}

8.00 - 22.00

Mon – Sun

+45 30 11 77 66

News

A CLIENT OF RSN LAW FIRM IS TODAY IMPOSED A BY 33 PERCENT REDUCED PERIOD OF BANKRUPTCY QUARANTINE IN A CASE CONCERNING E.G. TAX AND VAT QUESTIONS – 14. JUNE 2021

A client of RSN Advokatfirma is today imposed a by 33 percent reduced period of bankruptcy quarantine in a case concerning e.g. tax and VAT questions.

The said verdict from The Danish Maritime and Commercial Court will be appealled to the high court.

RSN Law Firm has great expertise in legal problems derived from and in conjuction with tax law, VAT law and duty law.

A CLIENT OF RSN LAW FIRM WAS YESTERDAY AQUITTED FROM BANKRUPTCY QUARANTINE IN A CASE INCLUDING TAX AND VAT QUESTIONS – 19. APRIL 2021

A client of RSN Law Firm was yesterday aquitted from bankruptcy quarantine at the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court in a case including tax and VAT questions due to the bankruptcy trustee’s decision.

RSN Law Firm has great expertise in legal problems derived from and in conjuction with tax law, VAT law and duty law.

NEW JUDGMENT FROM THE ECJ: MOMS GROUP OF DANSKE BANK AND SWISS SUBSIDIARY OF DANSKE BANK – TWO SPECIFIC PERSONS

On 11 March 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a new judgment concerning Section 47(4) of the VAT Act (VAT group). Danske Bank (VAT group in Denmark) and its Swedish branch (not in VAT group in Sweden) are two separate persons subject to VAT, whereby the supply of IT services from the Danish company/VAT group to the Swedish branch with allocation of costs thereto are supplies for VAT purposes in Sweden (VAT to Sweden under

Value Added Tax Act). Danske Bank was thus unsuccessful in its assessment of the VAT System Directive (the VAT Act in Denmark and the Value Added Tax Act in Sweden).

The current VAT and business structures of, for example, Danish and foreign banks with the same or similar VAT structure as Danske Bank will therefore have to be reassessed, as both more internal and external costs and/or supplies may be subject to VAT in the future. RSN Law firm will be happy to assist with this in Denmark.

Link to the EU ruling is attached: https://lnkd.in/d67REyt

RSN LAW FIRM OBTAINED VERY SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN TAX AUTHORITY FINE AGAINST CLIENT – 7 FEBRUARY 2021

RSN Law firm has obtained a very substantial reduction in the fine imposed by the Tax Agency on its client (the defendant) in respect of pending tax cases.

RSN Law firm has great expertise in comprehensive legal advice, including both tax, VAT and duties as well as possible fines, for both private clients and corporate clients.

RSN LAW FIRM HAS SUCCESFULLY ADVICED A SMALLER BUSINESS REGARDING RECONSTRUCTION WITH SKATTEMÆSSIG OG CIVILRETLIG REKONSTRUKTION – 15. DECEMBER 2020

RSN Advokatfirma har succesfuldt bistået mindre erhvervsvirksomhed med skattemæssig og civilretlig rekonstruktion via en fællesmængde af flere afgørelser fra offentlige myndigheder inden for forskellige retsgrundlag.

RSN Advokatfirma har stor ekspertise i samlet juridisk rådgivning, herunder vedr. både skat, moms og afgifter samt andre retsgrundlag.

 

RSN LAW HAS SUCCESFULLY ADVICED A SMALL BUSINESS REGARDING ITS RECONSTRUCTION VIA TAX LAW AND CIVIL LAW – 15. DECEMBER 2020

RSN Law Firm has succesfully adviced a small business regarding reconstruction within tax law and civil law via a common quantity of several decisions from public authorities within different legal areas.

RSN Law Firm has great expertise in joint legal and business advice, including tax law, VAT law and duty law, etc.

 

NEW ARTICLE ON WWW.SSRN.COM: REQUIREMENT TO REBALANCE OR TO AMEND THE EU TREATY (TEU AND TFEU) IN CONCORDANCE WITH NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW? – 18. NOVEMBER 2020

The article (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3732824) explains and analyzes, whether there is a legal requirement to rebalance or amend the EU Treaty (TEU and TFEU) in concordance with national constitutional law due to a conflict of competence between the national supreme courts and national constitutional courts and the European Court of Justice. In short, the article has the following conclusions or findings:

(i) National constitutional law and EU constitutional law (lex superior) are not in all instances in judicial congruence due to a conflict of competence.

(ii) Under EU law as interpreted by the ECJ, even national constitutional law is under EU law primacy or supremacy, cf. e.g. 1) ECJ case C-11/70, International Trading company, para 3, 2) ECJ case C-285/98, Kreil, and 3) ECJ case C-399/11, Melloni, para 58.

(iii) Nevertheless, in three instances the European Court of Justice (the ECJ) has been overruled by national supreme courts and national constitutional courts under or due to national constitutional law, cf. 1) the Landtová case from the Czech Republic (the Czech Constitutional Court’s decision Pl. ÙS 5/12 of 31 January 2012), 2) the Ajos case from Denmark (the Danish Supreme Court’s judgment of 6 December 2012 published in U.2017.824H) and 3) the ECB judgment from Germany (Federal Constitutional Court’s judgment of 5th May 2020, 2 BvR 859/15, etc.).

(iv) The major focal point of the conflict of competence is the applied legal methodology by the ECJ with implied powers or derivation from the coherence of the EU Treaty or the EU treaties to treaty-giving power and legislative power for the ECJ. In reality, the said applied legal methodology gives the ECJ judicial circular competences or Competence to Competence (both treaty-giving power, legislative power and judicial power).

(v) A solution to this judicial Gordian knot or way out of the said conflict of competence could be to rebalance or amend the EU treaty.

(vi) A suggested amendment to the EU Treaty is to add a section 4 to Art. 19 TEU. This suggested section 4 of Art. 19 TEU would constitute a new legal mechanism regarding EU law and national constitutional law. This legal mechanism could be that a conflict of competences with regard to ultra vires (outside conferred competences) would result in a renewed legislative process under e.g. Art. 294 TFEU. If the ECJ’s interpretation was upheld by the EU’s legislative power, the national courts must accede to this renewed legal basis. If the ECJ’s interpretation is not upheld via EU’s legislative process, the said interpretation by the ECJ is invalid. The same as above-mentioned would apply with regard to EU principles, which principles could only apply on an EU constitutional level, if they were made statutory via the Treaty, cf. Art. 1 TEU.

FURTHER LEGAL “MINK SCANDAL” – 14. NOVEMBER 2020

https://lnkd.in/dYJFz_ Please now read U.1998.800H, paragraph 9.2. There are no possible EU state aid rules contrary to the Basic Law, including Article 73 of the Basic Law (full compensation), see also U.2017.824H (Ajos judgment). EU law prevails over Danish law. Moreover, there can be no infringement of EU law, as EU state aid rules must not contravene EU fundamental rights (EUC Art. 17). It is more and more dilettantish. It is reminiscent of the Ministry of Taxation v. Chamber of Advocates.

EMERGENCY LAW AS A DOMESTIC BASIS FOR, INTER ALIA. DISMISSAL OF RASTIC MINIMUM TAXES (BUT CONTINUED BREACH/CREDITATION OF ARTICLES 72 and 73 OF THE CONSTITUTION) – 13. NOVEMBER 2020

On information and actual conduct, the government is now using emergency law as a domestic basis for, inter alia, the culling of healthy mink herds. Whether this is a valid legal basis in subsequent e.g. judicial review, including the involvement of e.g. Lundgren and Høiby (experts other than SSI), is not entirely certain. However, Article 73 of the Basic Law is still violated (no legal basis), as is Article 72 of the Basic Law (no legal basis or court order). In any case, fortunately and probably fairly, the Government and the Folketing cannot legally avoid full compensation to the mine-owners (still questionable as to which sub-elements are included). But very hard to be irresponsible or take substantial risk on behalf of the world, see Cluster 5. Also for parliament. Could we take the farmed mink (the best in the world) and isolate them on an uninhabited island or islands in e.g. Kattegat and Limfjorden and feed them in suits etc. until the risk is more and better identified?

RSN Law firm will be happy to assist the mink farmers.

RSN LAW FIRM HAS, THROUGH E.G. BINDING ANSWERS COMPLETED SUCCESSFUL TAX ADVICE – 12. NOVEMBER 2020

RSN Law Firm has successfully completed tax advice for a client, including a binding response.

RSN Law Firm is happy to assist both corporate and private clients with tax advice, including via binding answers from the Tax Administration. In many cases, there will be a legally favorable or successful tax solution for the client, but it cannot be excluded that tax advice may have negative financial consequences for the client.

Different forms of settlement can be legally agreed for tax advice.

THE EU COMMISSION APPEALS THE “APPLE JUDGMENT” ON UNLAWFUL STATE AID THROUGH TAX ADVANTAGES “INTERNALLY” IN THE EU COURT OF JUSTICE – 25 SEPTEMBER 2020

The European Commission announced today that the “Apple judgment” on illegal state aid through tax advantages is being appealed by the European Commission “internally” in the European Court of Justice. Thus, the CJEU has to examine/assess whether the General Court (1st instance “internal” of the CJEU in the case at stake/autonomous court under TEU) has made an erroneous examination/assessment of one or more points of law. Only questions of law (jus) can be reviewed via the appeal.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/STATEMENT_20_1746

RSN LAW FIRM IS HAPPY TO LITIGATE THE BARRED APPEAL FOR PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS UNDER, INTER ALIA. EMRK AND EU FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – 14 SEPTEMBER 2020

RSN Law Firm is happy to conduct a principled legal challenge on this issue against the Ministry of Taxation under the ECHR and EU Fundamental Rights. If one or more clients so wish.

RSN Law firm is currently conducting litigation on behalf of clients against the Ministry of Taxation regarding violations of, inter alia, the ECHR and the EU Fundamental Rights in relation to 1) the cut-off of the application of relevant or decisive rules of law at first instance before the courts (finality clause) and 2) in relation to legal double and economic triple taxation of shareholder loans (approx. 100 to approx. 125 in tax rate).

https://politiken.dk/indland/art7919613/Indgreb-mod-boligejere-kan-være-i-strid-med-menneskerettigheder

RSN LAW FIRM SETTLES LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF CLIENT – 24 AUGUST 2020

RSN Law Firm has settled on behalf of client in a relatively major lawsuit involving, among other things, mortgages, so that the client, who as counterparty has been subject to fraud, can neither meet with, among other things, claims for damages, police report or claim for legal costs.

RSN Law firm is happy to assist clients with settlement solutions in litigation and other matters to the benefit of both parties.

ARTICLE IN EUROPEAN TAXATION: DENMARK – JURIDICAL DOUBLE TAXATION AND ECONOMIC TRIPLE TAXATION OF SHAREHOLDER LOANS IN DENMARK: “CUM IN” UNDER DANISH TAX LAW – 15 July 2020

15 July 2020 I had an article published in European Taxation. The said article deals with 1) the unlawful domestic juridical double taxation and domestic economic triple taxation of shareholder loans in Denmark and 2) the illegal methodology used to create such taxation. The applied methodology is the for the individual tax payer the onerous equivalent of “Cum Ex” or the unlawful methodology applied in the major tax fraud scandal in Europe. A so-called pilot case is pending before the Eastern High Court (I am the attorney). Link to the article with link to the Danish city court cases in question is enclosed:

https://www.ibfd.org/IBFD-Products/Journal-Articles/European-Taxation/collections/et/html/et_2020_08_dk_1.html

ARTICLE IN EUROPEAN TAXATION: DENMARK – JURIDICAL DOUBLE TAXATION AND ECONOMIC TRIPLE TAXATION OF SHAREHOLDER LOANS IN DENMARK: “CUM IN” UNDER DANISH TAX LAW – 15 July 2020

15 July 2020 I had an article published in European Taxation. The said article deals with 1) the unlawful domestic juridical double taxation and domestic economic triple taxation of shareholder loans in Denmark and 2) the illegal methodology used to create such taxation. The applied methodology is the for the individual tax payer the onerous equivalent of “Cum Ex” or the unlawful methodology applied in the major tax fraud scandal in Europe. A so-called pilot case is pending before the Eastern High Court (I am the attorney). Link to the article with link to the Danish city court cases in question is enclosed:

https://www.ibfd.org/IBFD-Products/Journal-Articles/European-Taxation/collections/et/html/et_2020_08_dk_1.html

LEGAL MATTERS, HOME LAW, LIGHT AND COOPERATION BETWEEN LEGISLATION UNDER DANISH TAX, VAT AND INCOME TAX LAW – 15 July 2020

Lawyer Rasmus Smith Nielsen’s doctoral thesis, which, among other things, 1) clearly demonstrated the unlawful possibility of theoretical and, not least, practical arbitrary application of law within Danish tax law, and 2) developed a legal verification method regarding outside and inside law, as well as 3) analysed the theoretical connections between the various legal bases and 4) described the various legal requirements, has been rejected by the doctoral assessment committee (three members) set up by the University of Copenhagen. The PhD thesis will therefore not be defended on the scheduled date of 11 September 2020. The main reason for this is that the assessment committee has judged that the thesis lacks research quality and is opinionated. It is quite the opposite – it is, for example, the Ministry of Taxation and the Chamber of Advocates that commit continuous legally verifiable clear legal violations in tax, VAT and fiscal law. And this continues to be to the detriment of a number of taxpayers and/or the public purse, as well as hindering full democratic governance of the area. The thesis is therefore published on www.ssrn.com.

COURT OF JUSTICE ANNULS COMMISSION DECISION ON UNLAWFUL IRISH STATE AID THROUGH TAX RELIEF TO APPLE – 15 July 2020

The European Court of Justice today annulled the European Commission’s decision on illegal Irish state aid of €13 billion via tax breaks to Apple. The reason given was that the European Commission had not sufficiently proven, under Article 107 TFEU, that illegal state aid via tax breaks to Apple existed. Read the press release of the European Court of Justice via this link:

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-07/cp200090en.pdf

RSN LAW FIRM GRANTED LEAVE TO BRING CASE IN PRINCIPLE – 25 JUNE 2020

RSN Law Firm has obtained free legal process through its client’s legal expenses insurance (homeowner’s insurance) for the conduct of principal litigation in the areas of construction law, contract law and buyer’s rights.

THE DANISH “CUM EX” SETTLEMENT – ABOVE OR UNDER THE RULE OF DANISH LAW? TAXATION BY LAW OR BY SETTLEMENT?

This article’s findings or conclusions are the following:

(i). The Danish “cum ex” settlement regarding tax fraud winnings must be in full congruence with statutory authority, since any write down or annulment of tax debt are encompassed by art. 43, first indent of the Danish Constitution (requirement of statutory authority to impose, alter or repeal tax, VAT and excise).

(ii). Danish public law settlements, including public law settlements within tax, VAT and excise law, must under case law be fully congruent with the relevant legal basis of the area in question (e.g. statutory authority). Furthermore, such a state of law is in congruence with EU law (supranational law), since EU law cannot be bypassed or circumvented via public law settlements.

(iii). Under Danish law or EU law circulars have no legally binding effect in an individual onerous direction for the subjects of taxation. But surely, unlawful circulars, which are not evidently contrary to the legal basis, are legally binding in a beneficial way for the subjects of taxation under a principle of equality or a principle of justified legal expectations. And there is no sufficient legal basis in the Act of the Budget, etc., for a write down or annulment of tax debt, including via settlement.

(iv). However, there is legal basis in art. 13, 14 and/or 16 of the Act on Debt Collection for a write down or annulment of tax debt via settlement, including extraordinarily also tax fines.

(v).  Nevertheless, Danish law 5-1-2 will under lawful criterions derived or construed from e.g. case law hinder the Danish “cum ex” settlement regarding tax fraud winnings under the common perception of morality. But this result is with substantial uncertainty given the legal basis (judicial review of a common perception of morality).

(vi). From a tax advice perspective each specific case requires individual tax advice from e.g. Danish tax attorneys to the tax evaders and/or to the Danish tax authorities.

AJOS-DOMME D.D. “REVISITED” – THE EU COURT HAS ACTED OUTSIDE ITS ASSIGNED COMPETENCES/ULTRA VIRES UNDER THE BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT (THE GERMAN CONSTITUTION AND THE EU CONSTITUTION ITSELF) – 5 MAY 2020

Under the German Constitution and the EU Constitution itself, as interpreted and defended by the German Constitutional Court, the Court of Justice of the European Union has on this day acted concretely outside its assigned competences/ultra vires. The judgment is congruent with the Ajos judgment (U.2017.824H) as far as the issue of domestic defects is concerned. However, the nature of the lack of competence is different, as also held by the Czech Constitutional Court in a similar case. The CJEU is not an independent treaty-making body.

https://lnkd.in/e3BBHrJ

One should also remember Professor of EU Law Hjalte Rasmussen.

RSN Law firm is an expert on legal rights, which are crucial for political-democratic governance and legal certainty, and conducts a number of court cases and appeals, inter alia, in this area.

NO VIOLATION OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF CAPITAL IN TEUF ART 63 AS A RESULT OF ITALIAN TAX ON FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO DERIVATIVES – 30 APRIL 2020

The Court of Justice of the European Union has reportedly ruled in case C-565/18, Society General S.A., that only Article 63 TFEU (free movement of capital) was at issue. And that Italian tax on financial transactions relating to derivatives was not infringed under Article 63 TFEU, because, according to the information provided, there was no restriction within the meaning of that provision in relation to the tax in question, which is imposed irrespective of nationality and place of establishment. The same applied, it was submitted, to the reporting obligation.

NO DISCRIMINATION CONTRARY TO THE TREATY ON THE BASIS OF TAXING RIGHTS CONFERRED UNDER THE DOUBLE TAXATION AGREEMENT AND EU MEMBER STATE DIFFERENCE IN TAX RATES – 30 APRIL 2020

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that there is no discrimination under Article 18 (discrimination on grounds of nationality) and Article 21 (citizenship of the Union) TFEU if a tax right in respect of a public pension is allocated to a State under a double taxation convention between EU Member States on the basis of nationality, so that this allocation results in a higher tax rate in one State (the State with the tax right) than in the other.

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-04/cp200054en.pdf

ARTICLE 112 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IS AN UNLAWFUL EXCLUSIVITY PROVISION – 1ST INSTANCE ADMINISTRATIVE IS ALSO JUDICIAL – 28 APRIL 2020

It follows from U.2001.861H as well as the constitutional law literature that § 112 of the Criminal Execution Act is an unlawful exclusivity provision (“…if there is a question of…”) under § 63(1) of the Basic Law with constitutional customary law relating thereto. The provision in question must also be assessed in conjunction with Article 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (administrative review).

There are thus very important areas and circumstances in the field of penal enforcement which are currently excluded from review (the decision of the Prison Service or the first instance is final).

A review of Article 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must also be carried out under Article 6 of the ECHR and Articles 41 and 47 of the EU Charter, cf. Article 52(3) (right to a fair trial), cf. Article 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION HAS SUSPENDED THE SPECIAL COURT OF APPEAL IN POLAND (JURISDICTION) – 24 APRIL 2020

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ordered special measures in a pending infringement case between the European Commission and Poland concerning the sufficient independence and impartiality of the Special Court of Appeal in Poland (the judges of the Special Court of Appeal are appointed (very) indirectly by the Lower House of the Polish Parliament). Thus, the Special Court of Appeal in Poland, which is in charge of adjudicating disciplinary liability of judges, is suspended pending a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union on the disputed infringements.

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-04/cp200047en.pdf

COMPENSATION CASE – “CUM EX” and “CUM IN” – 3 APRIL 2020

There is no legal difference – under the mechanism for evoking the tax effects via illegally determined, effectively unwritten bond law – between “cum ex” (double refund of dividend tax) and “cum in” (legal double taxation of legal and illegal shareholder loans). There are no ‘general tax rules’, as defined in the wording and the preparatory works of § 16 E (1) of the Equalization Act, which can give it effect. In addition, there are a number of other safeguards. RSN Law firm would like to draw your attention to Sections 48 and 49 of the Code of Judicial Procedure (liability of judges). But the “difference” is the current law under two district court judgments with one under full review and settled practice of the Lands Tax Court.

https://www.sktst.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/skattestyrelsen-rejser-erstatningskrav-mod-et-stoerre-dansk-advokatfirma/

LEGAL CIRCULAR NON-TRIAL VIA TAX ADMINISTRATION ACT § 48. PARAGRAPH 1, AND NO REMAND – 1 APRIL 2020

A district court (a judge) has on Thursday inferred or found that section 48(1) of the Tax Administration Act prevented review of loss deductions for amounts actually paid under several relevant legal bases in a case where my client et al. under criminal conviction have been defrauded (the court, despite transfers to fraudulent accounts and testimony, however, did not find the actual payment proven in the tax case). The reason for this is that the Tax Court has not dealt with the issue and that, in the Court’s view, there is not the necessary connection with the issue of interest deduction. On the other hand, the case is not referred back for reconsideration by, for example, the National Tax Court. Thus, my client has only been dealt with under part of the relevant legal rules without the possibility of a review of the possible legal remedy thereof with a review of the facts by the referral body. This is legal circular non-review. The case is being considered for appeal, cf. inter alia the preparatory works to Section 48(1) of the Tax Administration Act, Section 63(1) of the Basic Law and the constitutional case-law relating thereto, and the ECHR. In my view, the legal situation in the present case is a kind of mild GDR law.

THE CASE LAW AND PRACTICE ON § 16 E(1) OF THE EQUALISATION ACT IS AS FOLLOWS CONFIRMED BY THREE DISTRICT COURT JUDGES (NATIONAL LEGAL DOUBLE TAXATION AND ECONOMIC TRIPLE TAXATION) – 30 MARCH 2020

The case law and practice on Section 16 E(1) of the Danish Income Tax Act has been confirmed by three district court judges in a case led by RSN Law firm. The law thus remains that legal and illegal shareholder loans are legally double taxed (a tax rate of approximately 100 below the “top tax”) and economically triple taxed (a tax rate of approximately 125 below the “top tax”). The payment is itself taxable. Thus, mere wage reporting without reimbursement would also qualify for the tax effects mentioned. In addition, a possible legal “cum in” for the Ministry of Taxation has been made.

The court did not consider that, for example, clear case law on the ECHR could lead to a different result (expropriatory and/or punitive taxation), just as the National Tax Court had, in the court’s view, carried out the necessary factual and legal investigations. RSN Law firm strongly disagrees with the subsumption and the outcome, including the Tax Ministry’s litigation, but will now thoroughly discuss with my client whether the client wishes to bring the case before the Regional Court and ultimately either the European Court of Human Rights or the European Court of Justice.

THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION REJECTED REVIEW OF PART OF POLISH JUDICIAL REFORM – 26 MARCH 2020

The Court of Justice of the European Union has today rejected the review by way of preliminary ruling of part of the Polish judicial reform (disciplinary sanctions against judges). The reason given was that the cases did not contain an EU law element in relation to Article 19(1) (2) TEU or other EU law provisions in the field of preliminary rulings. The CJEU did not address the questions referred for a preliminary ruling. However, the CJEU ruled that a preliminary ruling before the Court of Justice may not in itself lead to disciplinary sanctions for judges in Poland.

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-03/cp200035en.pdf

COMPENSATION FOR WRONGFUL ARREST – 26 MARCH 2020

RSN Law firm has recently obtained compensation for unlawful arrests from the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Copenhagen on behalf of a client. The arrests in question were a consequence of the prosecution’s failure to provide the relevant or decisive files, which is why that part of the case was resolved without files via the Swedish authorities. The case shows that, unfortunately, as a lawyer, you have to be very careful about whether you receive all the relevant or decisive files, but that you are rightly compensated for the effects if this is discovered. From what has been reported in the press, there appear to have been similar problems in the “Britta Nielsen case”. The question of compensation for loss of earnings has not yet been finally settled (whether to refer it to the Public Prosecutor).

EU ACCESSION LAW DECLARED INVALID IN GERMANY – 20 MARCH 2020

The Constitution (e.g. Constitution in Germany and Constitution in Denmark) must be respected in Germany as well as in Denmark. Germany’s accession by law to the European Patent Court has been declared null and void by the German Constitutional Court (Federal Constitutional Court) due to violation of the requirement in the German Basic Law (Constitution) for a qualified majority of at least 2/3 in the German Bundestag (similar to the Folketing in Denmark) for such a transfer of judicial power to the EU.

EMERGENCY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – COVID19 VIRUS IN DENMARK AND IN DANISH CONSTITUTIONAL LAW? – 16 MARCH 2020

Article published on www.ssrn.com:

The article is a short, quick and comprehensive introduction to emergency constitutional law in Danish constitutional law. It explains briefly and in general 1) what legal phenomenon or legal system concept constitutional emergency law is. The article also briefly and in general assesses 2) the domestic basis for constitutional emergency law in Denmark, 3) the factual circumstances for the constitution of constitutional emergency law, 4) the requirements for the application of constitutional emergency law, 5) the judicial review of constitutional emergency law and 6) possible liability for errors of judgment, abuse etc. under constitutional emergency law.

The Article thus addresses the very exceptional case where constitutional emergency should come under consideration and possible application, including in very serious pandemics. There was constitutional emergency law in the Weimar Republic, for example.

CLEARLY ILLEGAL DANISH VAT PRACTICE CONCERNING VAT DEDUCTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJURIES – 22. JANUARY 2020

It follows from the VAT Administration’s own legal understanding in the Legal Guide 2019-2, section D.A.11.1.8.1, that for VAT subjects (natural and legal persons) favorable and/or burdensome VAT practices regarding damages and via stated practices compensations therefor “…are not established by law, but regulated partly by court practice, partly by administrative practice.” The guide refers only to a 1968 decision of the VAT Board. This is not in itself contrary to EU law, unless the practice in question is in itself contrary to EU law/violates the VAT Directive and/or the principle of legal certainty, but it is a clear violation of Article 3, Article 43, first indent, and, in the circumstances, Article 46(1) of the Basic Law.

RSN Law firm can advise your business on, for example, a principle of legally protected legitimate expectations under EU law and/or conduct an independent review of the underlying VAT law in the VAT System Directive.

RSN LAW FIRM ASSISTS CORPORATE CLIENT WITH LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN CONNECTION WITH PREPARATION OF CONSULTATION RESPONSE REGARDING AMENDMENT OF RULES ON TAXATION OF FREE CAR – 12. DECEMBER 2019

If your company and/or e.g. organization+ has similar needs, RSN Law Firm is a specialist in the legislative process. So that potential and real legal, political, administrative and/or financial problems can be found as soon as possible in the legislative process. And be disclosed to the relevant ministry, etc. For the benefit of all parties and stakeholders.

RSN LAW FIRM UPHELD BY THE LITIGATION APPROVAL BOARD AND REMANDED TO THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION IN A PRINCIPLED CASE CONCERNING COMPENSATION FOR INVESTMENT IN SECURITIES, ETC. ON A KNOWN INVESTMENT PLATFORM – WHAT OPPORTUNITIES DOES THIS PRESENT FOR YOU AND/OR YOURS – 26 NOVEMBER 2019

RSN Law firm, on behalf of a private client, has been granted leave to appeal by the Procedural Orders Board and has been remanded to the Civil Administrative Board for reconsideration in a case concerning compensation for investment in securities, etc.

If you and/or you have also lost money through e.g. technical errors on e.g. known investment platforms, you are very welcome to contact me.

RSN LAW FIRM ASSISTED IN FALSE SIGNATURE CASE IN WHICH POLICE DROPPED CHARGES – 26 NOVEMBER 2019

RSN Law Firm has assisted a private client in a false signature case in which the police have dropped the charges.

If you are charged or accused of, for example, infringing tax or VAT legislation, you are always very welcome to contact me.

RSN LAW FIRM HAS HAD A DECISION ON SERVICE ABROAD AND A DECISION ON EXTRADITION FOR SERVICE IN SWEDEN AMENDED – 26 NOVEMBER 2019

RSN Law firm has assisted a private client in a case concerning serving a sentence in Sweden and extradition to Sweden, in which the client was granted a ruling allowing him to serve a sentence in Denmark and not to be extradited to Sweden. If you have problems with extradition to other countries in tax cases, you are always welcome to contact me.