In a most recent decision on the procedural approach to obtain a WHT exemption, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has reaffirmed that procedural aspects and formalities can amount to disguised restrictions, and that the practical realization of fundamental freedoms must be ensured. This requires considering not only the relevant provisions of tax law but also any procedural requirements and formalities that may hinder the application of tax benefits or relief.
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 ECJ has held that freedoms of establishment and of capital movement preclude national legislation relieving foreign tax by credit as opposed to the exemption of domestic source income where the actual corporation tax paid by domestic companies is generally less than the nominal rate. It has also accepted the freedom of capital movement as relevant, unless the national legislation was aimed at controlling interests.
An ECJ advocate general has suggested the court deny an individual freedom of capital movement on the grounds that the more appropriate freedom is that of establishment, which, however, is not relevant in the circumstances.
According to a most recent decision of the Supreme Tax Court, there are still no constitutional concerns regarding the statutory amount of the late payment penalty as provided in Section 240 (1) sentence 1 Fiscal Code, also for periods after 31 December 2018 (follow-up to the decision of the Supreme Tax Court of 23 August 2023 – case: X R 30/21). In the opinion of the court, the compatibility with EU law is also beyond doubt.
In a most recent decision, the Regional Tax Court of Düsseldorf dismissed the claim of a Japanese corporation for a refund of withholding tax on the grounds that the case was within the scope of the EU principles for freedom of establishment which the plaintiff, being a resident of a third country, could not invoke.
The ECJ has held that no restriction on the freedom of capital movement arises from relieving domestic double taxation on dividend income under an exact imputation system, whilst foreign double taxation is relieved by exempting the foreign income.
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.
In its judgement of 24 July 2018, published on 30 January 2019, the Supreme Tax Court held that with regard to national provisions with a requirement of a minimum shareholding of at least 10%, the principle of the free movement of capital is not blocked by the principle of freedom of establishment. Whilst the judgement specifically related to a legal provision, which is no longer applicable, it represents a departure by the Supreme Tax Court from its previous view on this issue.
The German Federal Ministry of Finance has commented on the tax consequences of a UK limited company which has been removed from the British register of companies (Companies House) after 31 December 2020.
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!
