The European Council (ECOFIN) has adopted an amendment to the Parent/Subsidiary Directive to exclude arrangements entered into without a business reason other than to obtain a tax advantage from its benefits.
The subject-to-tax provision of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive, whereby distributed dividends are exempt from withholding tax, requires that the dividends are taxed in the hands of the parent company. In practice, this necessitates actual payment of the tax.
Following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Tax Disputes Commission of the Republic of Lithuania, the European Court of Justice has commented in some detail on the general anti abuse provision (GAAR) of the Parent Subsidiary Directive (PSD).
In a request for a preliminary ruling from Italy, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that a national legislation providing for tax being levied on more than 5% of the amount of the dividends that financial intermediaries receive, as parent companies, from their subsidiaries resident in other Member States is contrary to EU law. This also applies in the case of a tax which is not a tax on corporate income but which includes in its basis of assessment those dividends or a part thereof.
The finance ministry has announced the arrangements for claiming withholding tax exemption under the EU Parent/Subsidiary Directive on dividends on shares held in the custody of a bank.
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.
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.
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 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.
The Supreme Tax Court has followed an ECJ case in holding that a foreign corporate shareholder may claim from the local tax office a refund of the tax deducted at source from its dividend.
The Supreme Tax Court has followed an ECJ case in holding that a foreign corporate shareholder may claim from the local tax office a refund of the tax deducted at source from its dividend.
In a case brought by the Commission, the ECJ has held that Germany’s withholding tax on dividends to other corporations is in breach of community law in that it discourages persons from other member states from investing in Germany.
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.
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.
On 26 February 2019, the ECJ issued its judgements in the joined cases T Denmark and Y Denmark -v- the Danish Ministry of Taxation (C-116/16 and C-117/16) and N Luxembourg 1, X Denamrk A/S, C Danmark I and Z Denmark ApS -v- the Danish Ministry of Taxation ( C115/16. C-118/16, C-119/16 and C-299/16).
