An orchestra musician employed by a public corporation in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is an artist within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of the double tax treaty between Germany and Luxembourg. The Supreme Tax Court has recently decided that his salary is taxable in Germany as income from employment with a credit of the tax paid in Luxembourg.
The finance ministry has agreed with Luxembourg that redundancy payments and unemployment benefit shall be taxed in the country of the (former) employment.
Germany and Luxembourg have agreed to waive the split of remuneration of commuters, if less than 20 working days in the year were not spent in the country of employment and that country taxes the full amount.
Advocate General Kokott is of the view that the Commission erred in deciding that Luxembourg had granted unauthorized state aid to Amazon in the form of tax advantages.
The finance ministry has decreed a suspension of 2010 tax assessments on commuters to Luxembourg in respect of time spent in Germany whilst sick, on holiday or training.
Corporations with at least a 25% share in a Société d'investissement à capital variable (SICAV), a Luxembourg investment company, do not have to pay income tax in Germany on the dividends received from the SICAV in 2010. This also applies if the Luxembourg tax authorities – for whatever reason - did not exercise their right of taxation at source and the distributions hence remained untaxed.
On 21 July 2021 Luxembourg has filed an appeal against the judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 in the joined cases T-516/18 and T-525/18 (Luxembourg and Engie Global LNG Holding and Others / Commission) regarding certain tax rulings concerning the transfer of business activities within the Engie group.
In its judgment of today in two joint cases the European Court of Justice held that the European Commission’s review of the tax rulings granted by Luxembourg to the Engie group infringed EU law. Hence, the ECJ sets aside the judgment of the General Court and annuls the decision of the EU Commission.
The European Court of Justice in its judgment on two joined cases held today that the General Court wrongly upheld the Commission’s decision on State aid as regards the “tax rulings” issued by the Luxembourg tax authorities. The General Court erred when confirming the reference framework used by the Commission to apply the arm’s length principle to integrated companies in Luxembourg but failing to consider the specific rules implementing that principle in that Member State.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) confirms in his most recent judgment that the Commission has not established that the tax ruling given to Amazon by Luxembourg was a State aid that was incompatible with the internal market.
In a request from Luxembourg for a preliminary ruling, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was asked whether the member of the board of directors (MBD) of a Luxembourg public limited company pursues an economic activity which is carried out independently and thus subject to Value Added Tax. In previous cases this question was addressed only for a member of a supervisory board and a managing director and answered by the Court in the negative. In the current case the ECJ has reservations as to the independence of the service provided by the MBD.
The finance ministry has agreed with Luxembourg that road vehicle and train crews resident in the one country but working for an employer in the other shall tax their earnings in the country where they actually drive. If they drive in both countries on the same day the day’s earnings are split equally between the two.
In her Opinion the Advocate General considers that the European Commission erred in finding that Luxembourg had granted unlawful State aid to the Engie group in the form of tax advantages (tax rulings). The AG proposes that the ECJ should uphold the appeals and, consequently, set aside the judgment of the General Court and annul the decision of the EU Commission.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) was asked on the Value Added Tax (VAT) treatment of tourist navigation services on the stretch of the river Moselle over which both Germany and Luxembourg exercise joint sovereignty. The Luxembourg tax authorities issued VAT assessments to the Luxembourg tour operator as regards its transport services on the river Moselle. In conclusion, the ECJ noted that these services are subject to VAT in any case and the taxation by Luxembourg prevented Germany from imposing VAT.
The ECJ has held that there is no provision in the VAT Directive allowing France and Luxembourg to tax supplies of e-books at other than the standard rate of VAT.
Following two requests from Luxembourg for a preliminary ruling the European Court of Justice held that the national provision whereby the information on the beneficial ownership of companies incorporated within the EU is accessible in all cases and to any member of the general public to be invalid.
The finance ministry has published a decree asking tax offices to reject brokered bond stripping schemes between German and Luxembourg investment funds abusing the treaty protection of dividends.
The distribution of profits by a Luxembourg subsidiary (in the legal form of a SARL) to its German parent company (a partnership limited by shares – KGaA) may be an abuse of legal forms where the KGaA provided SARL with a loan and shortly thereafter waived repayment, thereby putting SARL in a position to actually make the profit distribution. Even more when the losses arising from the impairment of the value of SARL because of the distribution are to be used by the shareholders in a tax-effective manner.
The Düsseldorf Tax Court has decided that a so-called bond stripping model involving a partnership limited by shares (KGaA) as a shareholder in a Luxembourg Société d’Investissement à Capital Variable (SICAV) constitutes an abuse of legal form under Section 42 of the German General Tax Code (Abgabenordnung). Does this really mark the end of the legal proceedings that have been ongoing since 2018?
