remained until early in 1994, before moving to Morgan Lewis & Bockius' Brussels Office to become the Managing Partner. He was lured away to Jones Day late in 2000. Howard received his B.A. and MA degrees from Colgate University in International Relations and Economics and a JD from Harvard Law School. He told me that one of his biggest challenges at the time was writing his dissertation on Subpart F for Professor Stanley Surrey, who had developed the concept in the first place.
In Brussels, Howard has clearly carved out a niche for himself in EC tax issues. He co-authored the BNA Tax Management Portfolio (No. 999) on "Business Operations in the European Union", which is now in its second edition (published in April 2005), and he serves on the Editorial Board of IBFD's European Taxation as well as of the Tax Management International Forum and a number of international tax newsletters. Howard also chairs the Legal & Taxation Committee of the American Chamber of Commerce in Belgium, which takes the lead in lobbying for U.S. industry in Belgium and vis-à-vis the EC Institutions, and in this role he has been quite active, especially as regards e-commerce VAT issues and, more recently, the Commission's study on a new corporate income tax regime for Europe. He has been asked to chair one of the seminars at this year's IFA Congress, to be held in The Netherlands in September.


KJ: You have been practicing international tax law, primarily in Europe, for quite a few years now. What changes have you seen over this time?

HML: In my view, the greatest change in international tax law has been the literal explosion in available research materials on the subject. When I first started, back in the late 1970s, there were very few journals that covered the international tax arena, and not all that many books on the subject either. These days, there is, if anything, a surfeit of resources and material. Thus, it is literally impossible to keep up with all of the journals and newsletters that appear on one's desk or in the inbox, so you have to be very discriminating in what you can follow.
This leaves aside the advent of the Internet of course. Indeed, we were working with telexes then; we did not even have faxes. So the leap to e-mail is obviously the next big sea change, specifically in terms of the speed which is expected of replies, as well as the speed of change in general. Tax laws are changing everywhere at a faster pace than they used to, no doubt following the general tendency all of us have seen that the tax authorities are now only one step behind the taxpayers, whereas there used to be as many as 10!!


KJ: As you are based in Brussels, the "Capital of Europe" what changes have you noticed on the European tax front in particular?

HML: When I first moved to Brussels in 1979, the city was very much like Washington probably was in the 1930s, before the accumulation of more Federal power. Brussels and the European Institutions are still a long way from a true Federal Government, with all the attendant powers one sees in Washington. Nevertheless, one can certainly note a trend in that direction, which has accelerated over the past 10 years. As more and more other areas of law have become harmonized or converged in one way or another by European legislation, tax issues now stand out as being one of the remaining bastions of Member State or national sovereignty.
Thus, increasing attention is being paid on the tax front at the European level, starting with the package of three directives which came into force in 1992, and then the further three direct tax measures announced in 1997, which effectively came into force last year. Of course, VAT has been around as a strong European tax, certainly since 1977, and there is an extensive body of case law in that regard. But the growing jurisprudence in the income tax field is what has caught many national governments offguard. They may be breathing a sigh of relief following the narrow ruling of the European Court in the Marks & Spencer case, but they will nevertheless feel more and more constrained to take clear action to agree upon and clarify European corporate tax law principles and rules over the next several years in order to avoid getting whipsawed by the piecemeal reforms presently required by the Court of Justice.


KJ: Given what you have indicated above, do you see Brussels becoming more like a Washington in terms of tax lobbying in the future?

HML: Yes I do. It will be a long and slow process, but it has already begun. Although my practice is not primarily focused on EC tax lobbying (nor is anyone's as yet), I have been asked by clients over the years to undertake that type of work from time to time, more often than not in the area of VAT. What I have found with regard to VAT and customs issues in particular is that they are much less harmonized than one would think should be the case, especially in view of their EC-wide application.
Hence, the Commission is actually very open to hearing about discrepancies in treatment between Member States and can sometimes be persuaded to take action against a divergence for the sake of harmonization. However, one must convince the Commission of the importance of the matter, and that there is truly an infringement of EC law. I have also been involved in one major corporate income tax case involving this type of issue, specifically the well- known ECJ decision involving Saint Gobain. I can only see this area becoming all the more important in the future.


KJ: Speaking of your own practice, can you give us a bit more of a flavor of what you do?

HML: I actually have quite an eclectic practice, which I enjoy very much, in large part due to the great variety of issues I encounter. Obviously, I am involved in some pure EC tax matters, involving corporate income tax, VAT and custom duties.
Sitting in Belgium as I do, I also handle inbound Belgian tax matters for multinationals. Then, having been originally trained in U.S. tax law, I have naturally carved out a niche in the European marketplace for U.S. tax issues, not only for Belgian multinationals, but also for French, Italian, Dutch companies and others.
But to be honest, what I do most is pan-European corporate structuring and reorganizations. This can be part of a cross-border merger or a corporate reorganization following a merger or acquisition, or it can result from the planning for or post-integration of a multi-jurisdictional joint venture. I am also involved in many "greenfield" investments in various countries in Europe and how best to structure them.
Since we are lawyers and not accountants, we are not heavily involved in tax return or tax compliance issues and we are very pleased to work in a team with our tax accountant colleagues for the common benefit of our clients in that regard. On the other hand, as lawyers, we do get very heavily involved on all the other, purely legal matters that arise on any structuring or restructuring, notably the incorporation of various entities, the establishment of branches, arranging for the mergers and/or dissolutions of entities, and advising on the labor law impact of all the above. And of course we draft up and negotiate (when necessary) the relevant contracts, documentation, filings, and the like.
This certainly keeps me quite busy and ensures that I am on top of quite a few different areas of law in as many as 20 countries throughout Europe. In any case, it is a niche in which I believe we have rather a unique market position, at least among law firms. KJ- Howard, I want to personally thank you for the time you have taken to answer our questions. Your perspective will undoubtedly be very valuable to anyone considering an international tax career abroad.

Kathleen Jennings (KJ)
Editor, The Tax Intelligence Report
kitty@etsearch.com

Howard Liebman (HML)
Tax Partner, Jones Day in Brussels, Belgium
hliebman@jonesday.com