Limitation-on-benefits clauses are clearly different from most-favoured-nation clauses: Test claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation

Pasquale Pistone

Limitation-on-benefits clauses are clearly different from most-favoured-nation clauses: Test claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation

Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law

Publication: Scientific journal › Journal article › peer-review

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	363 - 365
Journal	British Tax Review
Issue number	4
Publication status	Published - 2007

Austrian Classification of Fields of Science and Technology (ÖFOS)

505004 Financial law
505003 European law

The Impact of European Law on the Relations with Third Countries
Pistone, P. (PI - Project head) & Tenore, M. (Researcher)
10/01/05 → 10/01/10
Project: Research funding

Cite this

@article{fd543e3dd5c74def8a919020bbf3e660,

title = "Limitation-on-benefits clauses are clearly different from most-favoured-nation clauses: Test claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation",

author = "Pasquale Pistone",

year = "2007",

language = "English",

pages = "363 -- 365",

journal = "British Tax Review",

issn = "0007-1870",

publisher = "Thomson Reuters",

number = "4",

}

Limitation-on-benefits clauses are clearly different from most-favoured-nation clauses: Test claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation

Austrian Classification of Fields of Science and Technology (ÖFOS)

Projects

The Impact of European Law on the Relations with Third Countries

Cite this