Foreign companies as shareholders that are eligible for a refund of withholding tax in accordance with Art. 5 of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive are entitled to interest under EU law if the refund of the tax amounts is withheld from them in violation of EU law or if - for the same reason - tax is withheld from the outset. This was decided by the Supreme Tax Court in a recent judgment.
If a tax privilege which is optional under EU law was wrongfully not granted, and where the taxpayer therefore was forced to make advance tax payments, interest is payable on the eventual tax refund claim. This was decided by the Supreme Tax Court in a case where the tax office refused to apply the reduced electricity tax rate on the quantity of electricity drawn in respect of the plaintiff’s own consumption.
Following a ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) earlier this year, the Supreme Tax Court held in its decision of 31 October 2019 that the incorporation into the tax base of controlled company income from invested capital from an intermediary company domiciled in Switzerland in the financial year 2006 may restrict the free movement of capital, but it is justified through compelling reasons of public interest and does not therefore contravene EU law.
On 20 December 2017 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued its decision on two cases referred to it by the Cologne Tax Court on the compatibility of the anti-abuse rule in Section 50d Income Tax Act (ITA) with EU law. According to Section 50d (3) ITA certain intermediary foreign companies are not entitled to a (full or partial) refund of German withholding tax; without a preceding oral hearing the ECJ took the view that the section was incompatible with both the Parent-Subsidiary Directive and the freedom of establishment. - See update further below!
In a most recent decision, the Supreme Tax Court held that a foreign investment fund who received dividends from domestic stock corporations which were subject to tax withholding (capital gains tax) under the 2004 Investment Tax Act is in general entitled to a refund of this tax under the principles of EU law.
The Supreme Tax Court has held that air passenger duty as levied in Germany is not prohibited under EU law and that there is no need to lay the question before the ECJ.
According to a decision of the Supreme Tax Court the so called “extended unlimited gift tax liability” does not violate the constitutional principle of equality and the freedom of movement of capital under EU law. The German gift tax arises if the donor is a resident at the time the gift is made, or the acquirer is a resident at the time the tax arises. If this is the case, the tax is levied for the total amount of assets received, irrespective of whether these are of domestic or foreign origin.
According to the decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the different inheritance tax allowances in the case of unlimited and limited tax liability is in line with EU law, specifically it is not in breach of the free movement of capital. However, the refusal of the German tax office to deduct liabilities linked to the inheritance in the case of limited tax liability is not compatible with EU law.
The Supreme Tax Court has doubts as to whether EU law precludes national case law which states that the decision to allocate an asset to private or business use must be submitted to the tax office by the end of the statutory period for submission of the annual VAT return. Accordingly, in a ruling of 18 September 2019 ( XI R 3/19 published on 30 January 2020) it has requested clarification from the European Union Court of Justice (ECJ).
On 20 December 2017 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that the divergent VAT treatment of discounts granted by pharmaceutical companies (i.e. trader/entrepreneur for VAT purposes) to statutory (public) health insurance funds and private health insurance funds constitutes an infringement of EU law. The ECJ followed the Advocate General’s opinion and confirmed the doubts of the German Supreme Tax Court which had referred the question to the ECJ under reference V R 42/15.
Does the free movement of capital require a Member State to tax non-resident and resident investment vehicles according to the same tax system? This is the question raised in the request for a preliminary ruling submitted to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) by the Portuguese tax court (Tax Arbitration Tribunal). Contrary to the Opinion of the Advocate General the ECJ decided that the withholding tax on dividends paid to non-resident Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities (UCITS) is in violation with current EU Law.
In a Bulgarian case the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that EU law does not preclude national legislation imposing withholding tax on notional market-based interest (mandated under local tax anti-avoidance rules). Such withholding tax cannot be exempt under the regimes of the IRD (EU Interest - Royalty Directive 2003/49/EC) and the PSD (EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive 2011/96/EU) as there have been no actual payments of interest.
Payments made to a purchaser to compensate for a poor economic position following the transfer of an interest in a partnership may not be deducted from the domestic tax base to the extent they are attributable to a foreign branch (i.e. a permanent establishment for tax treaty purposes) of the partnership. In its decision the Supreme Tax Court cited a decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) from 2015.
The German anti- treaty shopping rule denying full or partial relief from withholding tax, as otherwise prescribed under a double tax treaty or applicable EU directive, is questioned by the Lower Tax Court of Cologne as being in violation of community law. The question has been referred to the ECJ in number of cases.
Pursuant to the claim for interim relief in the form of a suspension from payment the Supreme Tax Court decided that the taxation of foreign passive income pursuant to Secs. 7 et seq. Foreign Tax Act of a corporation domiciled in Hong Kong is not in serious doubt with respect to the free movement of capital and under constitutional law.
On 25 June 2018, the European Court of Justice published its decision of 14 June 2018 concerning the current version of the German anti-treaty /anti-directive shopping legislation.
A Danish company may set off the final losses of its foreign EU-permanent establishment against its own taxable income, provided it can prove that the losses incurred are final and the company has exhausted the possibilities to deduct those losses in that Member State.
In his Opinion of 20 January 2022, the Advocate General (AG) suggests to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that Germany’s requirements for withholding tax claims filed by non-resident corporate taxpayers with seat or place of management in the EU or EEA are too strict in two respects and thus in violation of Article 63 TFEU on the free movement of capital.
In a recent judgement the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has clarified that it is contrary to the freedom of establishment to deny the deduction of interest costs on a loan from a normally taxed group company, if this would not have happened had the loan been granted from a normally taxed Swedish group company instead.
