{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010548523206751054, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007383966244725738, 'mean_word_length': 4.93125, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Relocation and Taxation: the European Court of Justice Disallows the French Rule of Direct Taxation of Unrealised Gains – Commentary on the ECJ’s Decision in Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant –

Abstract In Lasteyrie du Saillant the ECJ ruled that the principle of freedom of establishment laid down by Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from establishing a mechanism for taxing unrealised increases in value when a taxpayer transfers his tax residence outside that State. The following case note will show how this is in line with a coherent jurisdiction by the Court concerning the fundamental freedoms and why neither the coherence of the tax system nor the protection of taxable items nor the prevention of tax evasion could justify restrictions on the freedom of establishment imposed by such rule as laid down by Article 167a of the French Code Général des Impôts.