In its judgment today the European Court of Justice held that current EU-law contravenes a national legislation or a national practice which excludes the possibility for a tenderer who has been unlawfully excluded from a procedure for the award of a public contract to be compensated for the loss suffered because of the loss of the opportunity to participate in that procedure with the intention to obtain the contract concerned.
In a most recent judgment, the European Court of Justice decided that Article 10a of the Dutch Corporate Income Tax Act providing for an interest deduction limitation rule in wholly artificial arrangements is compatible with EU law. Although this article introduces a difference in treatment between a domestic and a cross-border situation, such a difference is justified based on the need to combat tax fraud and tax evasion.
German corporate group law is characterized by the principle of the legal independence of group companies. Nevertheless, the question repeatedly arises as to what extent the parent company is liable for tortious breaches of duty by its subsidiaries. This question has significant practical implications for corporate group organization and risk management. The following article provides an overview of the corporate law foundations, the grounds for the parent company’s liability, and its limitations.
In a reference for a preliminary ruling from the UK Upper Tribunal the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is asked whether the immediate tax charge on a transfer of assets from a UK resident company to a sister company resident in Switzerland (which does not carry on a trade in the UK through a permanent establishment) contrasts with EU-Law (Article 49 TFEU or Article 63 TFEU).
On 20 September 2018, the European Court of Justice held that the “activity clause” in the German trade tax act for third country sourced dividends is contrary to the free movement of capital (Art. 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU - TFEU).
The ECI held that it is from the outset not compatible with EU-Law if the possibility for a partnership to form a VAT group - in addition to the controlling company – is limited to those partners in the partnership whose business is financially integrated into that of the parent. Such a restriction can only be justified by a specific need to prevent abuse.
In a judgement of 5 March 2020 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) dealt with the question whether telephone advisory services provided by a company on behalf of state health insurance funds through so-called “health coaches” may be free from VAT. The ECJ held that VAT exemption may indeed apply, provided the services have a therapeutic or curative objective and are of a comparable level of quality as the services provided by other suppliers in this field.
On 20 December 2017 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) took the view that Section 50d (3) Income Tax Act prohibiting certain intermediary foreign companies from (full or partial) refund of German withholding tax was incompatible with both the Parent-Subsidiary Directive and the freedom of establishment. The German Tax Authorities have recently issued a circular on its application of the rules.
The European Court of Justice issued a joint judgment in two cases regarding the Dutch group taxation regime under which a parent company is not allowed to deduct interest in respect of a loan taken from a Swedish related company in order to finance its capital contribution to an Italian subsidiary. This is held to be in conflict with the EU freedom of establishment. On the other hand, the refusal to deduct currency losses resulting from fluctuations in the exchange rate is viewed by the court as being not in violation of EU-law.
The Lower Tax Court of Rhineland Palatinate has asked the ECJ to rule on the income adjustment provision of the Foreign Tax Act as amended in 2003 as it might not be in accordance with EU-law. The focus of the judicial review is on the tax consequences of a business relationship with a related party and where the terms do not meet the third party comparison test. The ECJ advocate general has suggested the court decide that the German rules for profit adjustment under Sec. 1 Foreign Tax Act are not in violation of the freedom of establishment.
The ECJ held that the German inheritance and gift tax option for taxation as a resident does not fully resolve the conflict with EU law from the lower personal allowances for non-residents. In consequence and considering an earlier ECJ judgment of April, 2010 the referring Lower Tax Court now finally ruled in favour of the taxpayer.
