Opinion Statement of the CFE on Columbus Container Services (C-298/05 1 )
|
|
- Cody Cummings
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Opinion Statement of the CFE on Columbus Container Services (C-298/05 1 ) Submitted to the European Institutions in May 2008
2 This is an Opinion Statement on the ECJ Tax Case C-298/05 Columbus Container Services BVBA & Co v. Finanzamt Bielefeld Innenstadt' prepared by the ECJ Task Force of the Confédération Fiscale Européenne (CFE). The CFE is the leading European association of 29 national tax advisory organisations representing over 180,000 tax advisers. The Columbus case has already been commented on several times, and rightly so 1. Amongst others, this judgment may have implications in the context of anti-abuse provisions and contains a number of theoretical propositions, which appear for the first time in the ECJ case law. The facts 1. Columbus is a limited partnership governed by Belgian law, which at the time of the facts (1996) had its registered office in Antwerp (Belgium). Its object consists in the coordination of the activities of an international group. Its participations were held, on the one hand, by eight members of the same family residing in Germany, each member having a 10% holding, and, on the other hand, as regards the remaining 20%, by a German partnership, the participations in which are also held by members of that family. At Columbus general meeting, all shareholders are represented by the same person. 2. According to Belgian Law, Columbus is a taxable subject and considered as a coordination centre for the purposes of Royal Decree No 187 by the Belgian tax authority. It therefore enjoys the attractive tax regime applicable to coordination centres. In Germany, however, Columbus is treated as a transparent partnership, which implies that its profits are assigned to its partners, regardless of the fact that the partnership is liable, as such, to corporation tax abroad Under German domestic tax law a foreign partnership is regarded as a permanent establishment of each partner, and international double taxation is relieved by way of the credit method for a permanent establishment. Under its tax treaties, however, Germany usually applies the exemption method, and so does the treaty with Belgium. Yet, as of 1993 Germany, on a unilateral basis under its domestic law, decided to tax foreign permanent establishments with passive investment income in low-tax jurisdictions by applying the credit method (unilateral switchover clause), thus overriding the exemption provided in its tax treaties for these cases. This measure was introduced with a view to 1 See G. Meussen, Columbus Container Services A Victory for the Member States, ET 4/2008, pp ; T. O Shea, «German CFC Rules Compatible with EU Law, ECJ states», Tax Notes International, 24 Dec. 2007, pp. 1-5 ; prior to the judgment, also see J. Lüdicke, in M. Lang, J. Schuch, C. Staringer (eds.), ECJ Recent Developments in Direct Taxation, Linde Verlag, 2006, p. 163 et seq.; A. Cordewener, EC Law protection against horizontal tax discrimination on the rise or how to play snooker in an Internal Market, in EC Tax Review, 2007/5 at 210 and ff.; M. Lang, ECJ Case Law on Cross-Border Dividend Taxation Recent Developments, in EC Tax Review 2008/2, at 74 and ff.; P. Pistone, Intertax 2008/4. 2 An interesting problem raised by this case could have been whether Germany should have accepted Belgium's characterization of Columbus as a non-transparent entity, on the basis of non-tax case law (see for instance the cases Überseering and Inspire Art, as well as the pending case Cartesio). The answer would probably have been negative in the state of present EC tax case law. Compare also Opinion Adv. Gen. P. Mengozzi, 29 March 2007, para. 40 et seq 1
3 countering the possible circumvention of German CFC legislation by setting up foreign partnerships (permanent establishments) in a low-tax jurisdiction In the Columbus case, there was no doubt that the credit method was applicable under domestic German law. This raised two different problems: first, that the tax treaty concluded between Germany and Belgium provided, in a general way, for the exemption method 4, so that Germany actually overrode the treaty by replacing the exemption provided therein by the credit method; second, that this switchover in the method made the tax burden of Columbus partners substantially higher than it would have been if the tax treaty had applied. Issue One Treaty Override The judgement 5. It is one of the most interesting aspects of the judgment that the ECJ did not regard the treaty override problem as falling under its jurisdiction. The judgment holds that the Court may not examine the relationship between a national measure, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, and the provisions of a double taxation convention (...) since that question does not fall within the scope of Community law (para 47). One may accept this as a general statement, since tax treaties are part of international law and therefore any question of the State s failure to fulfil the obligations undertaken under tax treaties are not a matter of Community law, as long as the outcome does not affect the internal market. 6. However, one may argue that although tax treaties are not EC Law instruments, they nevertheless pursue an objective that is relevant for EC Law, namely the elimination of double taxation, mentioned in Article 293 EC Treaty 5. This is to say that the ECJ's position in this respect, understandable as it may be, could be disputed on theoretical grounds. Issue Two The comparison 7. The key question at stake in the Columbus case is however a different one: is there an infringement of the freedom of establishment where a Member State subjects the profits of a foreign partnership to taxation (subject to a foreign tax credit) while those profits would not have been taxed if the partnership had been taxed at a higher rate in another 3 At that time a low-tax jurisdiction was defined as any jurisdiction effectively taxing corporate income at less than 30%. For a more detailed description of the relevant German (and Belgian) provisions and their legislative history, see A. Cordewener, German `Anti-avoidance Measures versus Belgian Coordination Centres: A Long Struggle Without Survivors?, in L. Hinnekens and Ph. Hinnekens (eds.), A Vision of Taxes within and outside European Borders Festschrift in honor of Prof. Dr. Frans Vanistendael, Kluwer Law International 2008, at 203 et seq. 4 To simplify the rather complicated treatment of hybrid entities under the tax treaty between Germany and Belgium, it can be said that, according to that treaty, the exemption method applies to participations in foreign limited partnerships, which are treated as a foreign permanent establishment in the hands of the German partners. Columbus is therefore treated as a foreign permanent establishment of each German partner (on a pro rata basis). 5 Article 293 EC Treaty will disappear with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 (at the earliest 1 January 2009). 2
4 Member State? The ECJ clearly answers in a negative way. The point of this commentary is to analyse whether the comparison made by the Court in this case is consistent with the way in which the Court drew the comparison in previous similar cases, including especially the Cadbury Schweppes case. The comparison 8. According to the Court, there is no doubt that the provisions on the freedom of establishment apply to the situation at hand. This is an interesting point in itself, as none of Columbus' shareholders actually held a majority in the company. This did not prevent the Court from holding that the freedom of establishment was at stake, as "all shares in Columbus are held, either directly or indirectly, by members of one family. The latter pursue the same interests, take decisions concerning Columbus by agreement through the same representative at the general meeting of Columbus and decide on its activities" (para. 31). This assertion implies that, as long as joint control is exerted by several persons, they may collectively claim the benefit of the freedom of establishment. This position is factually undisputable in the present case. It is to be seen under which conditions a similar joint control could be found in other situations where agreement between the partners is not as apparent as it is here. 9. In any case, the main problem is elsewhere. According to the Court, "the German tax legislation in issue in the main proceedings ( ) does not make any distinction between taxation of income derived from the profits of partnerships established in Germany, and taxation of income derived from the profits of partnerships established in another Member State which subjects the profits made by those partnerships in that State to a rate of tax below 30%. By applying the set-off method to such foreign partnerships, that legislation merely subjects, in Germany, the profits made by such partnerships to the same tax rate as profits made by partnerships established in Germany" (para 39). The Court concludes: "Since partnerships such as Columbus do not suffer any tax disadvantage in comparison with partnerships established in Germany, there is no discrimination resulting from a difference in treatment between those two categories of partnerships" (para 40). 10. A critical standpoint to the Court's decision may be taken by arguing that the German rule at stake, being a rule aimed at preventing the circumvention of an anti-avoidance (namely the CFC) rule (therefore a quasi-cfc rule) 6, should have been examined along the line drawn by the Cadbury Schweppes case of the ECJ 7. This argument may itself lead to two conclusions: first, that the foreign partnership subject to a low-tax regime should have 6 A standard CFC rule deals with a separate legal entity and tackles both diversion of profits into a low tax entity and deferral of the tax on the remittance of those profits. The quasi CFC rule only tackles diversion of profits into a low tax jurisdiction. There was no deferral because from a German (but not Belgian) point of view the partnership was regarded as transparent. 7 ECJ, 12 September 2006, C-196/04. 3
5 also been compared to a foreign partnership subject to a "normal" tax regime in another Member State 8 ; second, that the foreign partnership should have been compared to a legal entity with tax personality subject to a low-tax regime, wherever located. These two comparisons will be dealt with successively. 11. It is clear from the history that the tax regime applied to Columbus' partners has been introduced in the German system in order to supplement the pre-existing legislation where only foreign entities with tax personality were subject to the CFC provisions. The disputed provision is therefore part of a broader piece of legislation designed to fight against tax avoidance. 12. This being said, in our view it seems natural to refer to the Cadbury Schweppes case in order to check whether the German rule at hand is compatible with the requirements of the freedom of establishment. This case is relevant, not only insofar as it deals with the UK CFC rule, but also as it seems to have admitted that freedom of establishment could be infringed also in cases of horizontal discrimination. More precisely, the ECJ held that the UK CFC rule created a tax disadvantage for the resident company to which the legislation on CFCs was applicable because it taxed a parent company on the profits of its foreign subsidiary subject to a low level of taxation, while that was not the case "for a resident company with a subsidiary taxed in the United Kingdom or a subsidiary established outside that Member State which is not subject to a lower level of taxation" (para. 45). This paragraph was so important as to drive the Advocate General in the Columbus case to state that the German rule should be deemed contrary to the freedom of establishment It is surprising that the ECJ does not address the main argument in favour of this approach, namely the fact that it is the only one in line with the uniformity of the Internal Market. Instead, the Court sticks to the idea that "Member States enjoy a certain autonomy. It follows from that tax competence that the freedom of companies and partnerships to choose, for the purposes of establishment, between different Member States in no way means that the latter are obliged to adapt their own tax systems to the different systems of tax of the other Member States in order to guarantee that a company or partnership that has chosen to establish itself in a given Member State is taxed, at national level, in the same way as a company or partnership that has chosen to establish itself in another Member State" (para. 51). In our view the Court should have taken the occasion to make a more detailed and explanatory statement about the limits to the tax sovereignty of the Member States, instead of making a mere reference to the certain autonomy enjoyed by the Member States. 14. Certainly, the argument drawn from the Cadbury Schweppes case may be challenged. As a matter of fact, there is a difference between a "Cadbury CFC problem", where a resident company is taxed on the profits of its subsidiary, and a "Columbus CFC problem", where a resident member of a partnership is taxed on profits realized through a deemed 8 As the ECJ did in para. 45 of the Cadbury Schweppes decision. 9 Opinion Adv. Gen. P. Mengozzi, 29 March 2007, para. 114 et seq. 4
6 permanent establishment abroad. While, in the former case, the CFC rule may operate as a deemed distribution of profits to the parent, no such distribution may apply in the latter, where the profits of the partnership are simply attributed to the partners. This technical difference between the two rules is considered by some commentators as relevant enough to justify the different solution chosen by the Court in the Cadbury Schweppes and Columbus cases This argument does find some support in the wording of the Cadbury Schweppes judgment, where it states that "even taking into account, as suggested by the United Kingdom, Danish, German, French, Portuguese, Finnish, and Swedish Governments, the fact referred to by the national court that such a resident company does not pay, on the profits of a CFC within the scope of application of that legislation, more tax than that which would have been payable on those profits if they had been made by a subsidiary established in the United Kingdom, the fact remains that under such legislation the resident company is taxed on profits of another legal person. That is not the case for a resident company with a subsidiary taxed in the United Kingdom or a subsidiary established outside that Member State which is not subject to a lower level of taxation "(para. 45). This wording suggests that the disadvantages created by a CFC rule are greater for a parent company (which is taxed on undistributed profits) than for an entity with a direct activity abroad (because such activity would be taxed anyway). 16. However, this objection to the "Cadbury Schweppes argument" does not seem fully convincing. The fact that the CFC rule applies in different technical ways for foreign subsidiaries and foreign permanent establishments should not be decisive when it comes to assessing the compatibility of the rule with the freedom of establishment. Basically, the mechanism of the CFC rule is exactly the same in both situations, and the difference in its implementation is only a matter of adaptation to the legal nature of the situations. Besides, in the specific case of the German rule at stake in the Columbus case, let us repeat that the normal implementation of the law (inclusive of the tax treaty with Belgium) would have led to exemption. 17. If the Court had chosen the same comparator as in Cadbury Schweppes, the Court should then have enquired about possible justifications, in particular the need to prevent abusive practices. It might even have left the case unsolved, referring the case back to the domestic court, with a view to let it ascertain whether there was in fact a wholly artificial arrangement. The story would have been much longer, but, sometimes, the law deserves long stories. The Statement By reasoning in a different way than in Cadbury Schweppes, the Court has created a discrepancy between the situation of resident taxpayers owning subsidiaries subject to favourable tax regimes in another Member State (where the Cadbury Schweppes reasoning applies) and that of other 10 See footnote n. 3 5
7 taxpayers operating through an (effective or deemed) permanent establishment in the other Member State. Needless to say, the Court's position in Columbus may prove an incentive to group restructuring. 6
EJTN Judicial Training on EU Direct Taxation Prof. Gerard Meussen Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands 21 April 2016
EJTN Judicial Training on EU Direct Taxation Prof. Gerard Meussen Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands 21 April 2016 23/04/2016 Gerard Meussen 1 Topics to be addressed Companies: exit taxation
More informationA paper issued by the European Federation of Accountants (FEE)
FEE OBSERVATIONS ON EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE DECIDED CASE C - 446/03 MARKS & SPENCER V. HER MAJESTY S INSPECTOR OF TAXES A paper issued by the European Federation of Accountants (FEE) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
More informationOpinion Statement of the CFE ECJ Task Force
Opinion Statement of the CFE ECJ Task Force on the Concept of Abuse in European Law, based on the Judgments of the European Court of Justice Delivered in the Field of Tax Law November 2007 Paper submitted
More informationOpinion Statement of the CFE. on the decision of the European Court of Justice of 29 November 2011 on case C-371/10, National Grid Indus BV
Opinion Statement of the CFE on the decision of the European Court of Justice of 29 November 2011 on case C-371/10, National Grid Indus BV and business exit taxes within the EU Prepared by the ECJ Task
More informationInternational Tax Planning and Prevention of Abuse. A Study under Domestic Tax Law, Tax Treaties and EC Law in relation to Conduit and Base Companies
International Tax Planning and Prevention of Abuse A Study under Domestic Tax Law, Tax Treaties and EC Law in relation to Conduit and Base Companies Table of Contents PART ONE: THE USE OF CONDUIT & BASE
More informationORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 12 September 2002 *
MERTENS ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 12 September 2002 * In Case C-431/01, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Cour d'appel de Mons (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
More information1. This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 43 EC, 48 EC and 56 EC.
EC Court of Justice, 21 January 2010 * Case C-311/08 Société de Gestion Industrielle SA (SGI) v État belge Third Chamber: J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 19.12.2006 COM(2006) 824 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
More informationBudapest, 5 July Workshop on EC law and tax treaties (5 July 2005, Charlemagne Building, meeting room S2, Rue de la Loi 170, 1040 Brussels)
Budapest, 5 July 2005 Workshop on EC law and tax treaties (5 July 2005, Charlemagne Building, meeting room S2, Rue de la Loi 170, 1040 Brussels) RE: Consumption-oriented company taxation: a Central European
More informationCONFEDERATION FISCALE EUROPEENNE
CONFEDERATION FISCALE EUROPEENNE The Consequences of the Verkooijen Judgement 1 Prepared by the Task force of the Confédération Fiscale Européenne on ECJ Case Law 2 1. INTRODUCTION It is significant that
More informationPrepared by the ECJ Task Force of the CFE Submitted to the European Court of Justice, the European Commission and the EU Council in December 2014
Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 4/2014 of the CFE on the decision of the European Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-39/13, C-40/13 and C-41/13, SCA Group Holding BV et al, on the requirements to form fiscal
More information2.2. Relationship of the Recommendation 4 to the remaining Recommendations of the Report
Hybrid Mismatch Rule for Reverse Hybrids 2.1.3. Structured Arrangement Under Recommendation 10 of the Report, a structured arrangement is any arrangement where the hybrid mismatch is priced into the terms
More informationEC Court of Justice, 29 March Case C-347/04 Rewe Zentralfinanz eg v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte. National legislation
EC Court of Justice, 29 March 2007 1 Case C-347/04 Rewe Zentralfinanz eg v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte Second Chamber: Advocate General: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. Kluka, R. Silva de Lapuerta,
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
EN EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 2.7.2009 COM(2009) 325 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the VAT group option provided for
More informationEC Court of Justice, 18 July 2007 * Case C-231/05. Oy AA. Legal context
EC Court of Justice, 18 July 2007 * Case C-231/05 Oy AA Grand Chamber: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, R. Schintgen, P. Kris, E. Juhász, Presidents of Chambers, K. Schiemann,
More informationItaly s CFC Regime: Wholly Artificial Arrangements
Volume 65, Number 8 February 20, 2012 Italy s CFC Regime: Wholly Artificial Arrangements by Piergiogio Valente Reprinted from Tax Notes Int l, February 20, 2012, p. 589 Italy s CFC Regime: Wholly Artificial
More informationAmCham EU s position on the Commission Anti-Tax Avoidance Package
AmCham EU s position on the Commission Anti-Tax Avoidance Package Executive summary AmCham EU welcomes attempts to ensure that adoption of the OECD s recommendations is consistent across the EU and with
More informationon the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Case C-386/14, Groupe Steria SCA, on the French intégration fiscale
Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 4/2015 on the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Case C-386/14, Groupe Steria SCA, on the French intégration fiscale Prepared by the CFE ECJ Task Force Submitted to the
More informationEC Court of Justice, 22 March Case C-383/05 Raffaele Talotta v État belge. Legal context
EC Court of Justice, 22 March 2007 1 Case C-383/05 Raffaele Talotta v État belge First Chamber: Advocate General: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, A. Borg Barthet, M. Ilei (Rapporteur)
More informationJoined cases C-398/16 and C-399/16 X BV (C-398/16), X NV (C-399/16) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
EU Court of Justice, 22 February 2018 * Joined cases C-398/16 and C-399/16 X BV (C-398/16), X NV (C-399/16) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën First Chamber: R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber,
More information10. Taxation of multinationals and the ECJ
10. Taxation of multinationals and the ECJ Stephen Bond (IFS and Oxford) 1 Summary Recent cases at the European Court of Justice have prompted changes to UK Controlled Foreign Companies rules and a broader
More informationEC Law Aspects of Hybrid Entities
EC Law Aspects of Hybrid Entities Table of Contents Preface List of abbreviations Part I Introduction Chapter I: Introduction 1. Background 2. Scope and structure 3. Outline of the research Part II Classification
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 17.10.2003 COM(2003) 613 final 2003/0239 (CNS) Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE amending Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation
More informationThe Liège Court of First Instance in Belgium has
Kerckhaert-Morres Revisited: ECJ to Reconsider Belgian Taxation of Inbound s by Marc Quaghebeur Marc Quaghebeur is with Vandendijk & Partners in Brussels. The Liège Court of First Instance in Belgium has
More informationOpinion of Advocate General Kokott, 27 February Joined Cases C-39/13, C-40/13 and C-41/13
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, 27 February 2014 1 Joined Cases C-39/13, C-40/13 and C-41/13 Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Noord/kantoor Groningen v SCA Group Holding BV (C-39/13), X AG, X1 Holding
More information1. This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 43 EC, 46 EC, 48 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC.
EC Court of Justice, 17 January 2008 * Case C-105/07 NV Lammers & Van Cleeff v Belgische Staat Fourth Chamber: K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, G. Arestis (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, J. Malenovský
More informationExit Taxation After Commission v Denmark C-261/11
FEATURED ARTICLES ISSUE 56 DECEMBER 5, 2013 Exit Taxation After Commission v Denmark C-261/11 by Michael Tell, PhD, Assistant Professor, Law Department, Copenhagen Business School and Senior Associate,
More informationThe Guiding Principle and the Principal Purpose Test
oecd The Guiding Principle and the Principal Purpose Test I. The background to the Guiding Principle The 2003 OECD Commentary on Article 1 raised two questions with respect to improper use of tax treaties
More information1. This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 56 EC and 293 EC.
EC Court of Justice, 16 July 2009 * Case C-128/08 Jacques Damseaux contre État belge First Chamber: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, M. Ilesic, A. Borg Barthet, E. Levits (Rapporteur), and J.-J. Kasel,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 22 March 2007 *
TALOTTA JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 22 March 2007 * In Case C-383/05, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour de cassation (Belgium), made by decision of 7 October
More informationPAPER 3.01 EU DIRECT TAX OPTION
THE ADVANCED DIPLOMA IN INTERNATIONAL TAXATION December 2016 PAPER 3.01 EU DIRECT TAX OPTION Suggested Solutions PART A Question 1 First of all it has to be established which treaty freedom is applicable
More information4. Article 63(1) TFEU and Article 65(1)(a) TFEU constitute the EU law framework for this case.
Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, 10 September 2015 1 Case C-252/14 Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v Skatteverket Introduction 1. It is a well-established principle of the case-law of the Court that,
More informationThe EU draft anti-avoidance directive (ATAD) A focus on CFC rules from a Swiss perspective
The EU draft anti-avoidance directive (ATAD) A focus on CFC rules from a Swiss perspective Prof. Dr. Robert Danon Professor of Swiss and International Tax Law at the University of Lausanne Of counsel,
More informationSofina SA, Rebelco SA, Sidro SA v Ministre de l Action et des Comptes publics
Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet, 7 August 2018 1 Case C-575/17 Sofina SA, Rebelco SA, Sidro SA v Ministre de l Action et des Comptes publics Provisional text I Introduction 1. This request for a preliminary
More informationTHE UK TAX GROUP LITIGATION ORDERS THE CURRENT STATUS Liesl Fichardt 1 Philippe Freund 2
The EC Tax Journal THE UK TAX GROUP LITIGATION ORDERS THE CURRENT STATUS Liesl Fichardt 1 Philippe Freund 2 Introduction The past few months have witnessed far reaching developments in the UK tax group
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 28 February 2008 (*)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 28 February 2008 (*) (Freedom of establishment Taxation of companies Monetary effects upon the repatriation of start-up capital granted by a company established in
More informationECJ to Examine Belgian Withholding Rules
Volume 48, Number 1 October 1, 2007 ECJ to Examine Belgian Withholding Rules by Marc Quaghebeur taxanalysts ECJ to Examine Belgian Withholding Rules Belgium s Liège Court of Appeal, in Truck Center v.
More informationGeneral Comments. Action 6 on Treaty Abuse reads as follows:
OECD Centre on Tax Policy and Administration Tax Treaties Transfer Pricing and Financial Transactions Division 2, rue André Pascal 75775 Paris France The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise: Comments on
More informationEuropean Commission publishes Anti Tax Avoidance Package
28 January 2016 - Number 65 Brazil Desk e-mail bulletin European Commission publishes Anti Tax Avoidance Package On 28 January 2016 the European Commission published an Anti Tax Avoidance Package containing
More informationdelivered on 6 April 20061
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL GEELHOED delivered on 6 April 20061 I Introduction II Legal and economic background to the reference A Overview of context of dividend taxation 1. The present case arises from
More informationNational Grid Indus v. Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Rijnmond/kantoor Rotterdam
National Grid Indus Member State Case number Case name Date of decision Netherlands C 371/10 National Grid Indus v. Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Rijnmond/kantoor Rotterdam 29 November 2011 Court/Chamber
More informationC. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, V. Skouris and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges
EC Court of Justice, 14 December 2000 Case C-141/99 Algemene Maatschappij voor Investering en Dienstverlening NV (AMID) v Belgische Staat Sixth Chamber: Advocate General: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President
More informationBelgium in International Tax Planning Second Revised Edition
Belgium in International Tax Planning Second Revised Edition Chapter 4 Specific anti-avoidance provisions and international tax planning 4.1. General International tax planning strategies invariably require
More informationChapter 5. The Relevance of Residence Under EC Tax Law
Chapter 5 The Relevance of Residence Under EC Tax Law by Luc De Broe 1 This chapter does not aim at exhaustively discussing the Community law aspects of residence of individuals in the field of direct
More informationGovernment Clarifies High-Tax Exception to CFC Rules
Volume 46, Number 4 April 23, 2007 Government Clarifies High-Tax Exception to CFC Rules by Marco Rossi taxanalysts Government Clarifies High-Tax Exception to CFC Rules Italy s tax administration has ruled
More informationI N D I V I D U. Case C-527/06 R.H.H. Renneberg v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
C-527/06 Renneberg Case C-527/06 R.H.H. Renneberg v taatssecretaris van Financiën ecision date: 16 October 2008 Procedure type: Preliminary ruling AG opinion: Mengozzi, 25 June 2008 Justifications: ouble
More information1. The present request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU.
EUJ EU Court of Justice, 21 December 2016 * Case C-593/14 Masco Denmark ApS, Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet Fourth Chamber: T. von Danwitz, President of the Chamber, E. Juhász, C. Vajda (Rapporteur), K.
More informationP. Jann (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, A. Tizzano, A. Borg Barthet, E. Levits and J.J. Kasel, Judges
EC Court of Justice, 11 December 2008 * Case C-285/07 A.T. v Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften First Chamber: Advocate General: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, A. Tizzano, A. Borg Barthet,
More informationInternational Tax Newsletter - May 2017
International Tax Newsletter - May 2017 Highlights Selected recent decisions rendered by the Swiss Supreme Court - Exchange of information regarding bank data, including the Falciani case - Exchange of
More information1. Which foreign entities need to be classified?
1. Which foreign entities need to be classified? Determining whether a non-resident entity is subject to company taxation implicitly answers the previous question of what can be considered to be an entity
More informationde Nederlandse Orde van Belastingadviseurs The Dutch Association of Tax Advisers
de Nederlandse Orde van Belastingadviseurs The Dutch Association of Tax Advisers Committee on Legislative Proposals Amsterdam, July 12, 2018 Subject: Proposal for a Directive amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132
More informationPrepared by the ECJ Task Force of the CFE Submitted to the European Court of Justice, the European Commission and the EU Council in December 2014
Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 3/2014 of the CFE on the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 23 January 2014 in case C-164/12, DMC, concerning taxation of unrealized gains upon a reorganisation within
More informationFörsäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia (publ) and Ola Ramstedt v Riksskatteverket
Opinion of Advocate General Léger, 3 April 2003 1 Case C-422/01 Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia (publ) and Ola Ramstedt v Riksskatteverket 1. This reference to the Court for a preliminar y ruling by the
More informationHybrid Entities; avoidance of double (non-) taxation under the Parent-Subsidiary Directive and the OECD Model Tax Convention
29 September 2015 Seminar: Hybrid Entities; avoidance of double (non-) taxation under the Parent-Subsidiary Directive and the OECD Model Tax Convention Conference chairman: Prof. A.J.A. (Ton) Stevens www.europesefiscalestudies.nl
More informationECJ Pending Cases from Austria F.E. Familienprivatstiftung Eisenstadt and Finanzamt Linz
ECJ Pending Cases from Austria F.E. Familienprivatstiftung Eisenstadt and Finanzamt Linz Staringer Austria Claus Staringer 1 I. Overview II. F.E. Familienprivatstiftung Eisenstadt (C-589/13) A. Background:
More informationProfits which a subsidiary distributes to its parent company shall be exempt from withholding tax.
EC Court of Justice, 3 June 2010 * Case C-487/08 European Commission v Kingdom of Spain First Chamber: A. Tizzano, President of the Chamber, E. Levits (Rapporteur), A. Borg Barthet, J.-J. Kasel and M.
More informationMr. Germano Mirabile DG Taxation and Customs Union European Commission Brussels. By
Date Le Président Fédération Av. d Auderghem 22-28/8 des Experts 1040 Bruxelles 13 March 2008 Comptables Tél. 32 (0) 2 285 40 85 Européens Fax: 32 (0) 2 231 11 12 AISBL E-mail: secretariat@fee.be Mr. Germano
More informationDOMESTIC ANTI-AVOIDANCE PROVISIONS: TREATY AND EU OVERRIDES 1. Laurent Sykes
DOMESTIC ANTI-AVOIDANCE PROVISIONS: TREATY AND EU OVERRIDES 1 PART A: INTRODUCTION Laurent Sykes Which is the stronger medicine against domestic anti-avoidance provisions double tax treaties or EU law?
More informationATRiD: Harmonizing the rules on the allocation of taxing rights within the EU and in the relations with third countries
ATRiD: Harmonizing the rules on the allocation of taxing rights within the EU and in the relations with third countries Paolo Arginelli 1This contribution lays down a general plan for what the EU should
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 14 December 2000 *
JUDGMENT OF 14. 12. 2000 CASE C-141/99 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 14 December 2000 * In Case C-141/99, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Hof
More informationÉtablissements Rimbaud SA v Directeur général des impôts, Directeur des services fiscaux d Aix-en-Provence
EU Court of Justice, 28 October 2010 * Case C-72/09 Établissements Rimbaud SA v Directeur général des impôts, Directeur des services fiscaux d Aix-en-Provence Third Chamber: K. Lenaerts, President of the
More informationCase C-6/16 Eqiom SAS, formerly Holcim France SAS, Enka SA v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics
EU Court of Justice, 7 September 2017 * Case C-6/16 Eqiom SAS, formerly Holcim France SAS, Enka SA v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics Sixth Chamber: E. Regan, President of the Chamber, A. Arabadjiev
More informationA The France-Belgium Double Taxation Convention: background and relevant provisions
Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed, 6 April 2006 1 Case C-513/04 Mark Kerckhaert, Bernadette Morres v Belgische Staat I Introduction 1. In the present preliminary reference procedure, the Rechtbank van
More informationEC Court of Justice, 12 December 2002 * Case C-385/00. F. W. L. de Groot v Staatssecretaris van Financiën. Legal framework
EC Court of Justice, 12 December 2002 * Case C-385/00 F. W. L. de Groot v Staatssecretaris van Financiën Fifth Chamber: Advocate General: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans,
More informationExcerpt from White paper on the requirements of the GDPR to business activities of debt collection agencies
Page 1 of 8 Excerpt from White paper on the requirements of the GDPR to business activities of debt collection agencies Originally written by Dr. Kai-Uwe Plath (LL.M. New York) on behalf of German Association
More informationECJ to Review Belgian Dividend Treatment
Volume 52, Number 5 November 3, 2008 ECJ to Review Belgian Dividend Treatment by Marc Quaghebeur Reprinted from Tax Notes Int l, November 3, 2008, p. 372 Reprinted from Tax Notes Int l, November 3, 2008,
More informationUK CFC rules: European Commission publishes opening decision on State aid
20 November 2017 Global Tax Alert UK CFC rules: European Commission publishes opening decision on State aid EY Global Tax Alert Library Access both online and pdf versions of all EY Global Tax Alerts.
More informationX BV (C-398/16), X NV (C-399/16)
Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona, 25 October 2017 1 Joined Cases C-398/6 and C-399/16 X BV (C-398/16), X NV (C-399/16) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën Provisional text 1. The Court has
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 12 September 2006'
CADBURY SCHWEPPES AND CADBURY SCHWEPPES OVERSEAS JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 12 September 2006' In Case C-196/04, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Special Commissioners
More information1. This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC.
EC Court of Justice, 15 April 2010 * Case C-96/08 CIBA Speciality Chemicals Central and Eastern Europe Szolgáltató, Tanácsadó és Keresdedelmi kft v Adó- és Pénzügyi ellenörzési Hivatal (APEH) Hatósági
More informationSixth Chamber: A. Arabadjiev, President of the Chamber, C. G. Fernlund (Rapporteur) and S. Rodin, Judges Advocate General: J.
EU Court of Justice, 30 June 2016 * Case C-176/15 Guy Riskin, Geneviève Timmermans v État belge Sixth Chamber: A. Arabadjiev, President of the Chamber, C. G. Fernlund (Rapporteur) and S. Rodin, Judges
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 26.01.2006 COM(2006) 22 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE
More informationPurpose and scope of the Belgian report
Anti-avoidance measures of general nature and scope - GAAR and other rules 12 September 2017 Wim Panis Partner Stibbe Purpose and scope of the Belgian report 1. Understanding domestic GAAR - specific to
More informationOpinion of Advocate General Kokott, 17 November Case C-68/15. I Introduction
AG Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, 17 November 2016 1 Case C-68/15 X I Introduction 1. In this reference for a preliminary ruling, the Court of Justice has been asked to determine whether a tax levied
More informationÉtablissements Rimbaud SA v Directeur général des impôts and Directeur des services fiscaux
AG Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen, 29 April 2010 1 Case C-72/09 Établissements Rimbaud SA v Directeur général des impôts and Directeur des services fiscaux I Introduction 1. The reference for a
More informationAnswer-to-Question- 1
Answer-to-Question- 1 According to Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Union shall adopt measures with the aim of establishing the functioning of the internal
More informationTo what extent does Cyprus still present advantages in international tax planning? The Switzerland EC savings tax agreement: a positive result?
The following completed extended essays have been submitted by students registered for the ADIT extended essay option, and have been awarded a pass. Successful extended essays are correct to 30 June 2018.
More informationK. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, G. Arestis, J. Malenovský and T. von Danwitz, Judges
EC Court of Justice, 24 May 2007 1 Case C-157/05 Winfried L. Holböck v Finanzamt Salzburg-Land Fourth Chamber: Advocate General: K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta,
More informationSociété d investissement pour l agriculture tropicale SA (SIAT) v État belge
EUJ EU Court of Justice, 5 July 2012 * Case C-318/10 Société d investissement pour l agriculture tropicale SA (SIAT) v État belge FirstChamber: Advocate General: P. Cruz Villalón A. Tizzano, President
More informationBELGIUM GLOBAL GUIDE TO M&A TAX: 2018 EDITION
BELGIUM 1 BELGIUM INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 1. WHAT ARE RECENT TAX DEVELOPMENTS IN YOUR COUNTRY WHICH ARE RELEVANT FOR M&A DEALS AND PRIVATE EQUITY? A major corporate income tax reform has been published
More informationChapter 1. Spain: Are Activities in Vessels, Geographically Concentrated Areas and Director s Homes PEs?
Chapter 1 Spain: Are Activities in Vessels, Geographically Concentrated Areas and Director s Homes PEs? Adolfo Martín Jiménez 1.1. Introduction In the judgment of the Audiencia Nacional (AN) of 25 April
More informationLosses Unchained: The ECJ s Cross-Border Travel Requirement
Volume 70, Number 2 April 8, 2013 Losses Unchained: The ECJ s Cross-Border Travel Requirement by Melanie Dimitrov and Christian Wimpissinger Reprinted from Tax Notes Int l, April 8, 2013, p. 149 Losses
More informationA. Rosas (Rapporteur), acting as President of the Second Chamber, U. Lõhmus, A. Ó Caoimh, A. Arabadjiev and C. G. Fernlund, Judges
EUJ EU Court of Justice, 28 February 2013 * Case C-168/11 Manfred Beker, Christa Beker v Finanzamt Heilbronn Second Chamber: Advocate General: P. Mengozzi A. Rosas (Rapporteur), acting as President of
More informationMarks & Spencer plc v David Halsey (Her Majesty s Inspector of Taxes)
EC Court of Justice, 13 December 2005 1 Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer plc v David Halsey (Her Majesty s Inspector of Taxes) Grand Chamber: Advocate General: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans
More informationHughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant v Ministère de l'économie, des Finances et de l'industrie
EC Court of Justice, 11 March 2004 1 Case C-9/02 Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant v Ministère de l'économie, des Finances et de l'industrie Fifth Chamber: Advocate General: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
More informationOPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER delivered on 24 October
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER delivered on 24 October 2000 1 1. By this action brought before the Court of Justice on 25 February 1999, the Commission seeks a declaration that the Federal
More informationTax Policy: Designing and Drafting a Domestic Law to Implement a Tax Treaty. Kiyoshi Nakayama Fiscal Affairs Department
T e c h n i c a l N o t e s a n d M a n u a l s Tax Policy: Designing and Drafting a Domestic Law to Implement a Tax Treaty Kiyoshi Nakayama Fiscal Affairs Department I n t e r n a t i o n a l M o n e
More information8. Articles 1 to 5 of the Konserniavutuksesta verotuksessa annettu laki 825/1986 ( the KonsAvL ) provide:
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, 12 September 2006 1 Case C-231/05 Oy AA I Introduction 1. This reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court, Finland)
More informationEU's Anti-Tax Avoidance Proposal Is Problematic
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com EU's Anti-Tax Avoidance Proposal Is Problematic Jordi
More informationOPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL JACOBS delivered on 9 December
LABORATOIRES FOURNIER OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL JACOBS delivered on 9 December 2004 1 1. The present case raises the question whether legislation of a MemberState which provides for a corporation tax
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 18 July 2007 *
OY AA JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 18 July 2007 * In Case C-231/05, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Korkein hallintooikeus (Finland), made by decision of 23 May
More informationWithholding Taxes and the Effectiveness of Fiscal Supervision and Tax Collection
European Union Withholding Taxes and the Effectiveness of Fiscal Supervision and Tax Collection This article discusses some issues raised in IFA/ EU Seminar G The death of withholding taxes? at the 63rd
More informationState Aid No. N131/2009 Finland Residential Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) Scheme
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 12.05.2010 C (2010) 2974 final PUBLIC VERSION WORKING LANGUAGE This document is made available for information purposes only. Subject: State Aid No. N131/2009 Finland Residential
More informationEC Court of Justice, 17 September 2009 * Case C-182/08. Glaxo Wellcome GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt München II. Legal framework ECJ
EC Court of Justice, 17 September 2009 * Case C-182/08 Glaxo Wellcome GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt München II First Chamber: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, M.Ilešiè, A. Borg Barthet, E. Levits (Rapporteur),
More informationE/C.18/2016/CRP.2 Attachment 9
Distr.: General * October 2016 Original: English Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters Twelfth Session Geneva, 11-14 October 2016 Agenda item 3 (b) (i) Update of the United Nations
More informationACTL Conference on REITs
ACTL Conference on REITs Recent tax treaty developments and their implications for REITs November 14, 2014 Prof. Arnaud de Graaf degraaf@law.eur.nl 0.0- Introduction 1. REITs in cross-border context 2.
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 22.11.2006 COM(2006) 728 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
More informationFinanzamt für Körperschaften III in Berlin v Krankenheim Ruhesitz am Wannsee- Seniorenheimstatt GmbH
EC Court of Justice, 23 October 2008 * Case C-157/07 Finanzamt für Körperschaften III in Berlin v Krankenheim Ruhesitz am Wannsee- Seniorenheimstatt GmbH Fourth Chamber: K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber,
More informationOpinion of Advocate General Kokott, 16 July Case C-540/07. Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, 16 July 2009 1 Case C-540/07 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic I Introduction 1. In these proceedings the Commission is objecting to the Italian
More informationTest Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, The Commissioners for her Majesty s Revenue & Customs
Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen, 19 July 2012 1 Case C-35/11 Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, The Commissioners for her Majesty s Revenue & Customs Table
More information