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.
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.
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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
In her Opinion, the Advocate General suggested the European Court of Justice decide that Luxembourg has fulfilled its obligation to transpose the Anti-Tax-Avoidance-Directive (ATAD) into national law by including so called securitization companies in the list of 'financial undertakings' for which the interest limitation rule set forth in Article 4 ATAD is not applicable.
According to a decision of the Baden-Württemberg Tax Court, the change of an investment fund’s Luxembourg-based management company is not subject to real estate transfer tax. The transfer of the power of management is not regarded as a taxable transfer of shares because the legal ownership of the shares remains with the investors. The transfer of the power of management thus does not automatically result in a transfer of shares.
Following a failure to fulfil their obligations, five Member States are held liable by the European Court of Justice to pay financial penalties for failing to transpose the Whistleblowers directive. They must pay a lump sum to the Commission; Estonia, if it has still not transposed the directive, must also pay a daily penalty payment.
According to the ruling of the Supreme Tax Court published on 28 August 2025, taxation under the Investment Tax Act 2004 represents the final tax burden and for private investors it takes precedence over taxation under the general provisions. This also hinders a fund's capital investments being allocate to the shareholder under Section 39 (2) No. 1 of the Tax Code.
In a most recent decision, the European Court of Justice held that action on the part of the debtor dating back a number of years and the fact that there is, in the Member State in which the debtor is established, a law capable of hindering the enforcement of the claim concerned may be taken into account in establishing urgency for a European Account Preservation Order.
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?
With regard to the refund of withholding tax on profit distributions made by a domestic subsidiary to its EU parent company, the Supreme Tax Court decided that these distributions are not excluded from the tax relief under the EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive if they relate to profits that, although distributed after the commencement of the subsidiary’s liquidation, were generated prior to the opening of the liquidation proceedings.
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.
In a request for a preliminary ruling from Luxembourg the ECJ was asked under what conditions a tax administration may seek disclosure from a lawyer in the context of an exchange of information and whether such information provided falls under the protection of legal professional privilege pursuant to Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In this case the ECJ sees an infringement of the essence of the right guaranteed in Article 7 of the Charter which cannot be justified.
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.
