Issue 2011 – nr. 003 March – April 2011

Issue 2011 – nr. 003
March – April 2011
The EU Tax Newsletter is prepared by members of PwC’s EU Direct Tax Group (EUDTG). If
you would like to receive future editions of this newsletter, please register online at:
www.pwc.com/eudtg.
Contents
ECJ cases
Belgium
Finland
Finland
Germany
Germany
Netherlands
Portugal
Portugal
ECJ referral on (former) tax credit system relating to the use of
tangible assets: Waypoint Aviation SA v. État Belge case
ECJ referral on exchange of shares in transactions with a company
resident in an EEA member state
ECJ referral on final tax losses in cross-border mergers
ECJ judgment on deductibility of perpetual annuity: Schröder case
ECJ referral on tax credit limitation
ECJ referral on tax discrimination against foreign charities
ECJ judgment on mandatory appointment of tax representative for
non-residents
ECJ judgment on Portuguese scheme for tax adjustment of financial
assets not located within Portugal
National developments
Finland
Finland
Germany
Germany
PwC EU Tax News
Central Tax Board advance ruling on withholding tax on dividends
from a Finnish company to a Norwegian investment fund
Supreme Administrative Court annuls earlier judgement on
applicability of CFC legislation in intra-EU situations
Federal Fiscal Court decision on taxation of Liechtenstein private
foundations
Federal Finance Ministry accepts EU/EEA companies with foreign
statutory seat but domestic place of management as lower tier
members in fiscal unities
1
Italy
Netherlands
Netherlands
Netherlands
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Finance Ministry issues draft implementing decree about the Home
State Taxation regime
Dutch double inheritance taxation not in breach of EU Law
Non-deductibility competition fine not in breach of EU Law
Dutch exit tax on pension rights as such not in breach of EU Law
Government proposes interim-regime for currency results on
participations
Taxation of capital gains realized on the sale of shares held on micro
and small companies
Spanish government publishes Sustainable Economy Act
EU developments
EU
EU
EU
Germany
European Commission issues proposal for a recast of the EU Parentsubsidiary Directive
Conclusions European Council Spring summit held on 25-26 March
2011
European Commission Decisions concerning tax infringement
procedures against four EU countries
European Commission requests Germany to amend discriminatory
law on gift and inheritance tax allowance for non-residents
CCCTB
EU
European Commission proposes directive on the CCCTB
State aid
Gibraltar
PwC EU Tax News
AG opinion in the case Commission and Spain v. Gibraltar and the
United Kingdom
2
ECJ cases
Belgium – ECJ referral on (former) tax credit system relating to the use of
tangible assets: Waypoint Aviation SA v. État Belge (Case C-9/11).
Until 1 January 2011 Belgian taxpayers could benefit from a tax credit, i.e. a notional
withholding tax, on income from loans granted mainly to coordination centres to the extent
that the borrowed funds were used by the centres or other group companies to acquire or to
develop new tangible assets, provided that these assets were used in Belgium.
Waypoint Aviation SA (hereafter “WA”) financed the acquisition of two planes via a finance
lease concluded with and for the benefit of a Belgian coordination centre. Through a sequence
of transfers the planes were used by a French group company. Therefore, the Belgian tax
authorities refused the the tax credit to WA.
The taxpayer considers (apart from the fundamental discussion on whether the conditions of
the specific tax provisions are complied with) that the provision which does not permit a tax
credit when the right of use is conferred to a company resident in a Member State other than
Belgium is contrary to the EU’s principle of freedom to provide services.
On 7 January 2011, the Brussels Court of Appeal referred questions to the ECJ on the
compatibility of such a restriction wih Article 49 TFEU.
Given the end of the coordination centres regimes, this case could at first sight be considered
as only having a theoretical interest. However, the decision in that case could well have a
significant impact on the Belgian investment deduction regime (both provisions being drafted
quite similarly: i.e. requiring an investment in Belgium).
-- Olivier Hermand and Patrice Delacroix, PwC Belgium; [email protected]
Finland – ECJ referral on exchange of shares-transactions with a company
resident in an EEA member state
On 31 January 2011, the Supreme Administrative Court made a reference to the ECJ for a
preliminary ruling on share-for-share transactions with a company resident in an EEA
member state in the light of Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement on, respectively, the
freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital (SAC: 2011:10)
Finnish Company A owned approx. 20% of the shares in Finnish Company C. The other owner
of C with approx. 80% was a Norwegian Company B, whose company form is “aksjeselskap”.
The intension was to effectuate an exchange of shares in a way that A transfers its shares in C
shares to B and A receives as a consideration newly issued shares in B. As a result of this
transaction B would become 100% owner of C and A would own approx. 6% of the B.
Finland has implemented the EU’s Merger Directive 90/434/EEC, amended by the directive
2005/19/EY and codified by 2009/133/EC into its domestic tax law (Business Income Tax Act
– BITA). Relevant BITA provisions apply to domestic transactions as well as to transactions
PwC EU Tax News
3
with parties from other EU Member States. Parties resident outside of the EU (for example
Norway) are not within the scope of the BITA provision enabling tax neutral exchange of
shares transaction. Thus, if Company B were a Finnish resident or resident of another EU
Member State, the exchange of shares transaction would be tax neutral in Finland.
In its preliminary ruling, the Supreme Administrative Court asks whether the exchange of
shares transaction in question should be tax neutral in Finland, when taking into account
Articles 31 and 40 EEA, in the same way as if the change of shares were to involve domestic
companies or companies resident elsewhere in the EU?
-- Jarno Laaksonen and Heikki Lajunen, PwC Finland; [email protected]
Finland – ECJ referral on final tax losses in cross-border mergers
On 7 March 2011, the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland decided to refer a preliminary
ruling to the ECJ on the utilization of Swedish tax losses in Finland in the case of a crossborder merger. Prior to the merger the tax losses in question cannot be utilized in Sweden and
after the merger the Swedish tax losses would cease to exist. PwC is assisting the Finnish tax
payer in this case.
Finnish company A owned all of the shares in a Swedish company B. As company B was lossmaking, its operations were shut down. Company B ceased to have activities or employees. As
the operations of company B were shut down it could not offset its tax losses by itself. The tax
losses could not be utilized by way of Swedish group contribution either as all of the other
Swedish group companies were in a loss making position as well. The assets and liabilities of
company B were planned to be transferred to company A by way of a cross-border merger. As
there were no activities in Sweden, a permanent establishment would not be established in
Sweden for company A after the merger. Problems arose as Finnish tax law does not recognize
the transfer of losses in cross-border mergers. Therefore, the unutilized tax losses of company
B would become final tax losses, as they would cease to exist in Sweden.
In the case at hand, company A cannot deduct the tax losses of company B on the basis of
domestic tax law as the tax losses of Company B are not computed in accordance with Finnish
rules. In a comparable situation, if company B were a Finnish company, the tax losses would
be transferred to company A Therefore, in principle, a cross-border merger should receive the
same tax treatment as a purely domestic merger.
The Supreme Administrative Court referred two questions for a preliminary ruling:
Do Article 49 TFEU and Article 54 TFEU provide that a Finnish resident company (receiving
company) may offset losses of a merging company resident in another Member State, when
these losses are connected with the activities exercised in that other member state in the years
preceding the merger, in a situation where a permanent establishment is not established of
the receiving company in the state of residence of the merging company and when, according
to the national law, the receiving company would be able to offset losses of the merging
company if the merging company was domestic or the losses derived from the permanent
establishment located in the state of residence of the receiving company?
PwC EU Tax News
4
If the answer to the first question is positive, do Article 49 TFEU and Article 54 TFEU have an
effect on whether the losses should be calculated on the basis of the tax laws of the receiving
company’s state of residence or should the tax losses be regarded as confirmed in the state of
residence of the merging company on the basis of the tax laws of that state?
-- Jarno Laaksonen and Heikki Lajunen, PwC Finland; [email protected]
Germany – ECJ judgment on deductibility of perpetual annuity: Schröder case
(C-450/09)
On 31 March 2011, the ECJ decided that the deductibility of an annuity for an anticipated
succession inter vivos (property settlement agreement) should be extended to non-residents.
The claimant, a German national who worked and resided in Belgium, was granted a rental
house located in Germany by way of anticipated succession from his mother to whom he owed
a perpetual annuity in return. In his German tax return he declared the rental income as well
as his expenses for the annuity. However, the tax authority denied the deduction of the
annuity as this is technically not considered to be an income related expense but a personal
related expense, which cannot be offset by non-residents but only by German residents (Sec.
50 para. 1 sentence 3 ITA in connection with Sec. 10 No. 1a ITA). The claimant took action
before the Lower Fiscal Court which referred a preliminary question to the ECJ.
The ECJ held the different treatment to be in breach of the free movement of capital. The
Court rejected the argument brought forward by the German government that the annuity
would only form part of family support arrangement with the amount being calculated
according to the needs of the mother and the son´s economic ability to pay. The ECJ
concluded that even if the amount would not reflect the actual value of the asset transferred,
the payment is nevertheless inextricably linked to the taxable income deriving from it.
Referring to the cases like Gerritse (C-234/01), Centro Equestre (C-345/04) and Conijn (C346/04), the ECJ stated that such expenses have to be deductible in the source State (here:
Germany).
As a consequence, Sec. 50 para. 1 sentence 3 ITA is not applicable anymore and non-residents
are entitled to deduct perpetual annuities paid for the transfer of assets generating taxable
income.
-- Gitta Jorewitz and Juergen Luedicke, Germany; [email protected]
Germany –ECJ referral on tax credit limitation (C-168/11)
With its decision of 9 February 2011, the German Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) referred a case
to the ECJ asking whether the German limitation of the withholding tax credit of foreign
sourced dividends is in line with EU Law.
In 2007 a German resident received dividends from companies situated in the EU and Third
States. As dividend income of individuals is (partly) taxable, the foreign withholding tax can in accordance with the underlying double tax treaty and Sec. 34c Income Tax Act - be credited
against the respective amount of German income tax.
PwC EU Tax News
5
However, when assessing the respective amount of tax, special personal expenses without any
link to the foreign income will partly be attributed to this income. This attribution reduces the
taxable foreign income and thus results in a limitation of the tax credit.
The BFH doubts whether this attribution of non-linked expenses to foreign income is in line
with the free movement of capital. In the Court´s view, special personal deductions should not
affect the tax credit, as otherwise a juridical double taxation of dividends will not be avoided
and, moreover, personal tax allowances would not come totally into effect.
With this referral, the ECJ might get the opportunity to reconcile its findings in the cases of
Kerckhaert and Morres (C-513/04) and Haribo (C-436/08), according to which EU law does
not preclude a juridical double taxation, with the decision of the EFTA-Court in the case
Seabrokers (E-7/07). In the latter case the Court decided that attributing non-linked expenses
to foreign income when assessing the tax credit infringes the freedom of establishment.
Although the EFTA-Court confirmed that Member States were not obliged to avoid a juridical
double taxation, it assessed an infringement by looking at the effectively deducted expenses. If
non-linked expenses are partly attributed to the foreign income which subsequently reduces
the tax credit, such expenses were in effect only partly deductible in the Home State.
When only focusing on the effective deduction of special personal expenses instead of on the
juridical double taxation, the infringement of the contested German provision might already
be decided by the ECJ in the De Groot case (C-385/00). In this case, the ECJ held that a
provision does not comply with the free movement of workers, if a taxpayer loses in part
personal tax allowances in the Home State due to his foreign sourced income if this is taxed in
the Host State without such a personal relief. From preceding case law it is clear that the Host
State is not obliged to provide for such personal tax allowances.
-- Gitta Jorewitz and Juergen Luedicke, PwC Germany; [email protected]
Netherlands – ECJ referral on tax discrimination against foreign charities
The European Commission has decided to refer The Netherlands to the ECJ because its tax
treatment of gifts to charities is discriminatory and in breach of EU rules on the free
movement of capital. Dutch tax relief for gifts to charities applies only to donations made to
charities registered in The Netherlands and not to donations to foreign charities.
Under Dutch tax law, donations to foreign charities cannot qualify for tax relief unless the
foreign charity has registered itself in The Netherlands. In practice, this is liable to discourage
Dutch taxpayers from making donations to foreign charities which are not registered in The
Netherlands.
The Commission considers that the requirement for foreign charities to register is
disproportionate and incompatible with the EU rules on the free movement of capital
guaranteed by Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the European Economic Agreement.
In a similar case, in Persche (Case C-318/07) the ECJ ruled that "nothing prevents the tax
authorities of the Member State of taxation from requiring a taxpayer, wishing to obtain the
PwC EU Tax News
6
deduction for tax purposes for gifts made for the benefit of bodies established in another
Member State, to provide the relevant evidence".
The Commission sent a reasoned opinion to The Netherlands on 18 March 2010 (IP/10/300).
France is also subject to an infringement case on donations to foreign charities (see
IP/09/1764).
-- Bob van der Made, PwC Netherlands; [email protected]
Portugal – ECJ judgment on mandatory appointment of tax representative for
non-residents (Commission v. Portugal; C-267/09)
On 5 May 2011, the ECJ handed down its decision in Case C-267/09, brought before the court
by the European Commission against Portugal regarding the Portuguese rules which require
non-resident taxpayers to appoint a tax representative in Portugal.
The Portuguese Personal Income Tax Code establishes that non-residents in receipt of income
subject to tax and residents who leave the national territory for more than six months are
required, for the purposes of taxation, to appoint a natural or legal person, resident or
established in Portugal, authorised to represent them in dealings with the Portuguese tax
authorities and to ensure their compliance with their obligations as regards taxation.
According to the ECJ decision, the provisions in question are discriminatory and constitute a
breach of Articles 21 TFEU and 63 TFEU and the corresponding articles of the EEA
Agreement.
The ECJ concluded that, by obliging the taxpayers in question to appoint a tax representative,
the Portuguese legislation requires them to take action and to bear the cost of remunerating
that representative. According to the ECJ, such constraints create for those taxpayers a
difficulty liable to discourage them from investing capital in Portugal and, therefore, they
must be regarded as a restriction on the free movement of capital which is generally
prohibited by Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement.
Additionally, the ECJ also considered that such restriction could not be regarded as justified
in the light of Article 63 TFEU by the overriding requirement of general interest of ensuring
the effectiveness of fiscal supervision and the prevention of tax avoidance, since it goes
beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.
Further to this decision, it is expected that Portugal will amend its tax legislation and
eliminate the obligation to appoint a tax representative for non-residents.
-- Leendert Verschoor en Jorge Figueiredo, Portugal; [email protected]
PwC EU Tax News
7
Portugal – ECJ judgment on Portuguese scheme for tax adjustment of financial
assets not located within Portugal: Commission v. Portugal (Case C-20/09)
On 7 April 2011, the ECJ handed down its decision in Case C-20/09, brought against Portugal
regarding the Portuguese tax regularisation scheme established by Law No 39-A/2005 of 29
July 2005.
Under this regime, also referred to as RERT I, taxpayers holding undeclared pecuniary items
abroad on 31 December 2004 were allowed to disclose and regularise such investments by
filing a confidential tax statement until 16 December 2005 and pay a sum corresponding to
the application of a rate of 5% on the value of the financial assets listed in such declaration.
However, a preferential reduced rate of 2.5% would be applied if the declared financial assets
were Portuguese government bonds or if their respective value had been reinvested in
Portuguese government bonds by the time when the adjustment declaration was filed.
Additionally, taxpayers holding public debt securities issued by the Portuguese State and
wishing to benefit from the preferential tax treatment, had to maintain those assets for a
period of at least three years from the date of submission of the statement of tax
regularisation, failing which those taxpayers were required to pay the difference between the
amount corresponding to application of the general regularisation rate and that which they
had paid on the basis of the preferential rate, plus the corresponding compensatory interest
increased by 5 percentage points.
According to the ECJ, the scheme in question, by providing for different treatment according
to whether taxpayers held public debt securities issued by the Portuguese State or public debt
securities issued by other Member States, was more favourable to the first and dissuaded
taxpayers from investing in public debt securities issued by other Member States and from
keeping their regularised financial assets in forms other than Portuguese State securities. In
conclusion, the regime at hand constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital,
prohibited by Article 63 TFEU.
-- Leendert Verschoor en Jorge Figueiredo, Portugal; [email protected]
Back to top
National developments
Finland – Central Tax Board advance ruling on withholding tax on dividends
from a Finnish company to a Norwegian investment fund
The Finnish Central Tax Board gave an advance ruling (KVL 21/2011, issued on 30 March
2011) for years 2010 – 2011 stating that a Norwegian investment fund is not liable to tax in
Finland on its Finnish source dividend income because the same dividend to a Finnish
investment fund would have been tax exempt in Finland.
PwC EU Tax News
8
In the case at hand, a Norwegian investment fund A was subject to Norway’s Investment Fund
Act and an Undertaking for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities ("UCITS")
referred to in the Directive 85/611/ECC on the coordination of laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable
securities (UCITS-Directive). The investment fund’s assets were managed by a management
company which was a Norwegian limited liability company. The investment fund was a
separate legal entity in Norway and had an unlimited tax liability. Dividend and capital gain
received by the Norwegian investment fund were in most cases tax exempt in Norway on the
basis of special tax provisions.
As the investment fund A was an UCITS fund referred to in the UCITS-Directive, no objective
differences were regarded to exist between the Norwegian investment fund A and a Finnish
investment fund. Thus, the Central Tax Board considered that the Norwegian investment fund
could be regarded to have similar key characteristics to a Finnish investment fund. Different
tax treatment of these two investment funds could not be justified with the need to safeguard
cohesion of the tax system or the allocation of taxation rights between the Member States. The
provisions of the EC Treaty and EEA Agreement regarding the free movement of capital are
regarded to provide the same tax exemption in Finland for a Norwegian investment fund
(being an UCITS-fund) that is provided for a Finnish investment fund. Hence, Norwegian
investment fund A should not be liable to tax in Finland on its Finnish source dividend under
the same Finnish tax provision that grants tax exemption to a Finnish investment fund.
This is the first decision in Finland where a comparison has been made between a Finnish
investment fund (a contractual arrangement) and a foreign investment fund (a separate legal
entity). Despite the obvious differences in the legal forms of the investment funds, the Central
Tax Board considered the UCITS-Directive to be the decisive factor for the comparability.
The current practice within Finnish Tax Administration has been to compare foreign
investment funds that are separate legal entities to Finnish limited liability companies and not
to Finnish investment funds. Thus the foreign investment fund receiving Finnish source
dividends from publicly quoted companies must itself be quoted on a Stock Exchange (or at
least have some of the units in its sub funds quoted) in order to receive the dividends tax
exempt. If the Central Tax Board’s ruling is maintained, Finnish source dividend should be
tax exempt for foreign investment funds regardless of whether the foreign fund is publicly
quoted or not. With respect to the requirement of foreign investment fund being an UCITSfund, the issue is more uncertain. Despite the emphasis the Central Tax Board gave to the
UCITS-Directive, Finnish investment funds may also be non-UCITS, and therefore, it cannot
be ruled out that also foreign non-UCITS-funds could be comparable to Finnish investment
funds.
Finally, it is important to note that the Central Tax Board’s decision may still be appealed to
the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court and referred further to the ECJ.
-- Jarno Laaksonen and Heikki Lajunen, PwC Finland; [email protected]
PwC EU Tax News
9
Finland – Supreme Administrative Court annuls earlier judgement on
applicability of CFC legislation in intra-EU situations
On 11 April 2011, the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court gave a judgement (SAC 2011:38)
where it annulled its own CFC related decision from 2002 (SAC 2002:26). In its judgement in
2002 the Court stated inter alia that in the case at hand the EU’s principle of freedom of
establishment did not prevent the applicability of Finnish CFC legislation to a group company
in Belgium (being a co-ordination centre). At the time, the Court gave the decision without
referring the question to the ECJ, which it now admits was a mistake, and it also admits that
its judgement in 2002 was not in line with the 2006 Cadbury Schweppes case (C-196/04).
In this case, the Finnish company A Oyj owned all the shares in a Belgian company B N.V.
which was established as a co-ordination centre and thus benefited from a low corporate
income tax rate in Belgium. B N.V. acted as a financing company for the group and also
participated in research and development activities. B N.V. employed around 10 to 15 people.
According to Finnish CFC legislation at the time, a foreign company could be deemed as a CFC
in case the effective level of income taxation of the company was lower than 3/5 of the
corresponding level in Finland and certain other conditions were met. After establishing that
the requirements to apply Finnish CFC legislation on the basis of Finnish domestic tax law
were met, the Supreme Administrative Court stated in 2002 that neither the Double Tax
Treaty between Finland and Belgium nor the Articles 43 EC and 48 EC prevented the
application of the aforementioned CFC legislation. Thus the profits of B N.V. generated during
1999 and 2000 could be taxed at the hands of A Oyj. The Court held that it was a question of
applicability of domestic legislation to a domestic company and thus could not be considered
as discrimination from an EU Law perspective.
In 2006 the ECJ decision in Cadbury Schweppes was given. ECJ held that Articles 43 EC and
48 EC must be interpreted as precluding the inclusion, in the tax base of a resident company
established in a Member State, of profits made by a CFC in another Member State, where
those profits are subject in that State to a lower level of taxation than that applicable in the
first State, unless such inclusion relates only to wholly artificial arrangements intended to
escape the national tax normally payable. Accordingly, such tax measure must not be applied
where it is proven, on the basis of objective factors which are ascertainable by third parties,
that despite the existence of tax motives, the controlled company is actually established in the
host Member State and carries on genuine economic activities there.
After the Cadbury Schweppes judgement, company A Oyj applied for the annulment of the
Supreme Administrative Court decision given in 2002. This time the Court held that the
interpretation of the Finnish legislation in force at the time and its relation to EU Law had not
been clear enough to not apply Article 234 EC. With regard to the substance of the case, the
SAC held in accordance with the reasoning of Cadbury Schweppes that B N.V. was actually
established in Belgium and carried out genuine economic activities.
The Supreme Administrative Court mentioned that although the decisions of the ECJ can be
seen as having a retroactive effect, this does not necessarily result in the annulment of final
and already legally binding judgements (e.g. C-453/00 Kühne & Heitz). According to Finnish
legislation, a decision can be annulled in case there has been a procedural error which has had
PwC EU Tax News
10
a substantial effect on the decision or the decision has been based on the application of
incorrect law. In addition, the decision cannot be annulled unless it infringes the right of an
individual or the public interest demands it. All the relevant aspects should be carefully
considered. Taken into consideration the aforementioned breaches of EU Law as well as the
financial significance of the decision to the taxpayer and the fact that the application for
annulment was filed immediately after ECJ’s decision, the Supreme Administrative Court held
that the earlier decision of the Supreme Administrative Court was to be annulled and the case
was referred to the Tax Authorities for a new tax assessment.
-- Jarno Laaksonen and Heikki Lajunen, PwC Finland; [email protected]
Germany – Federal Fiscal Court decision on taxation of Liechtenstein private
foundations
On 22 December 2010, the Federal Fiscal Court decided that the taxation of profits of a
Liechtenstein foundation directly in the hands of the beneficiary is in line with the EEA
Agreement.
In Germany, the income of private foundations is taxed at the level of the foundation.
However, according to Sec. 15 Foreign Tax Act 1972 (FTA) the income of foreign foundations
and trusts is directly attributed to its beneficiaries. Although the goal of Sec. 15 FTA 1972 is to
combat tax evasion, the rule is applicable in any case of foreign foundations and trusts irrespective of the facts of a particular case.
The Federal Fiscal Court has now decided that Sec. 15 FTA 1972 constitutes a breach of the
free movement of capital of Art. 40 EEA Agreement, but - in this case - can be justified by the
fight against tax evasion and the need to safeguard the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, since
Germany had no convention on mutual assistance with Liechtenstein in the relevant tax year.
According to the Federal Fiscal Court, the possibility that the taxpayer provides evidence is
not sufficient to safeguard fiscal supervision.
Sec. 15 FTA was amended in 2009 as a reaction on an infringement procedure of the
Commission (IP/07/1151). The income of the foundation is now no longer attributed to its
beneficiaries if a mutual assistance convention is applicable and if the taxpayer provides
evidence that he has no power to dispose of the assets of the foundation.
-- Moritz Glahe and Juergen Luedicke, PwC Germany; [email protected]
Germany – Federal Finance Ministry accepts EU/EEA companies with foreign
statutory seat but domestic place of management as lower tier members in fiscal
unities
On 28 March 2011 the German Federal Ministry of Finance issued a decree in which it
overruled a German tax provision that requires the lower tier company in a German corporate
income tax and trade tax fiscal unity to have both its seat and place of management in
Germany (section 14 para 1 Corporate Income Tax Act).
PwC EU Tax News
11
According to the circular it is sufficient for companies founded in an EU/EEA Member State
to have their place of management in Germany to be able to participate in a fiscal unity as
lower tier company.
The Ministry published the decree as a consequence of the infringement procedure initiated
by the European Commission against Germany on 29 January 2009 (case reference number
2008/4909). The Commission considers the German requirement of domestic seat and place
of management to violate the freedom of establishment because companies formed in other
Member States which shift their place of management to Germany cannot enjoy the benefits
of a fiscal unity (i.e. the inter-company consolidation of profits and losses) although they are
fully liable to tax just as purely domestic companies are. The Commission therefore formally
requested Germany to end its discriminatory taxation on 30 September 2010 (see EU Tax
News Issue 2010 - no. 006).
The practical consequences of the decree are limited, though, because all conditions which the
law provides for fiscal unities apart from the domestic seat of the lower tier company must
still be fulfilled. This implies the conclusion of a profit and loss pooling agreement by which
the lower tier company consents to transfer its future profits to the top tier company whereas
the latter consents to assume the future losses of the former. In many cases, it is impossible
for companies formed abroad to conclude such an agreement because the company law
governing them prevents this. Yet, the question whether this requirement which discriminates
against companies originating from other countries is in conformity with the EU fundamental
freedoms remains unsolved.
-- Björn Bodewaldt and Juergen Luedicke, Germany; [email protected]
Italy – Finance Ministry issues draft implementing decree about the Home State
Taxation regime
On 6 April 2011, the Italian Finance Ministry issued the draft of the implementing Decree
about the new Italian regime on Home State Taxation. Such a regime will give the opportunity
to EU companies, setting up a new business activity in Italy, to apply any fiscal system of other
EU Member States instead of the Italian fiscal system (for more information please refer to
EUDTG Tax News 2010 – nr. 005).
Scope of the draft issue is to open a public discussion about the new regime before its final
implementation. The main points, specified by the draft of the implementing decree, are the
following:
 the new regime can be used by EU companies, resident for at least 24 months in an EU
Member State, which decide to transfer their tax residence or constitute a
subsidiary/permanent establishment in Italy with the aim to set up a new business activity;
 a new business activity does not include activities already carried out in Italy (e.g. through
a subsidiary/permanent establishment of the EU companies);
 any EU fiscal system (taxable base and tax rate), not necessarily the same of the State of
residence of the EU companies, can be used for a period not exceeding three years; after
this period the ordinary Italian fiscal system is applicable;
PwC EU Tax News
12
 the employees in Italy of the EU companies, for the taxation of their salaries, could opt to
apply the same EU fiscal system chosen by the EU companies;
 in order to access the new regime it is necessary to file a tax ruling with the Italian Tax
Authorities;
 the new regime will be actually applicable only after the publication of the final version of
the implementing decree.
Finally, it should be pointed out that, so far, it seems that the new Italian regime on Home
State Taxation has not yet been notified to the European Commission according to the
procedure provided for in article 108, paragraph 3, TFEU on State Aid.
-- Claudio Valz and Luca la Pietra, Italy; [email protected]
Netherlands – Dutch double inheritance taxation not in breach of EU Law
On 8 April 2011, the Dutch Supreme Court held that inheritance tax imposed by the
Netherlands was not in breach of EU Law, even though (i) Belgium had also taxed the same
inheritance and (ii) there was consequently double taxation of the inheritance.
In 2002, the litigant inherited a stake in a Dutch real estate company from his father. The
father, who was a Dutch national, had – at the time of his death – lived in Belgium since 1996.
According to Dutch tax law, an inheritance received from a Dutch national is taxable if the
testator lived in the Netherlands at some point during the last 10 years of his life. This meant
that the inheritance was subject to Dutch inheritance tax. At the same time, Belgium also
imposed an inheritance tax because the testator was a Belgian resident in 2002.
The parallel exercise of fiscal sovereignty by the Netherlands and Belgium resulted in double
taxation of the inheritance. This outcome was not prevented either by a tax treaty, or by
unilateral policy of either country. The Dutch Supreme Court held that EU Law does not
provide any general criteria for the attribution of areas of competence between the Member
States in relation to the elimination of double taxation within the EU. Contrary to what the
litigant has argued, the Netherlands is therefore under no obligation to allow the deduction of
foreign inheritance tax in the present case.
-- Marius Girolami, PwC Netherlands; [email protected]
Netherlands – Non-deductibility of competition fine not in breach of EU Law
On 31 March 2011, the Lower Court of the Hague held that the non-deductibility of a
competition fine, imposed by the Dutch Competition Authority (“NMa”), is not in breach of
the EU principle of equality and EU competition law.
The litigant is a Dutch resident to whom competition fines have been imposed by the Dutch
Competition Authority due to a violation of Article 101 TFEU. The Dutch Tax Authorities
refused the deduction of these fines from the corporate income tax base. According to Dutch
tax law, deduction of administrative fines, such as competition fines imposed by the Dutch
authorities or EU institutions, is not permitted. However, competition fines imposed by
authorities of other EU Member States are deductible.
PwC EU Tax News
13
The Lower Court has held that the treaty freedoms and Article 18 TFEU do not preclude
discrimination by a Member State against its own residents, as long as the Member State does
not hinder the free movement of its residents. This outcome can be understood in light of the
fact that this is a purely domestic situation.
-- Marius Girolami, PwC Netherlands; [email protected]
Netherlands – Dutch exit tax on pension rights as such not in breach of EU Law
On 15 April 2011, the Dutch Supreme Court held that the Dutch exit tax on pensions is not as
such in breach of EU Law nor contrary to the principle of Good Faith governing the tax treaty
between the Netherlands and Belgium, except where decreases in pension entitlements after
emigration are not taken into account.
The litigant is a resident of the Netherlands who moved to Belgium on 5 March 2003. Based
on Articles 3.83 and 3.146 of the Dutch Individual Tax Act, he is taxed on the fair market
value of his pension entitlements at the moment of emigration.
The Dutch tax authorities issued a so-called ‘conservatory assessment’, according to which a
suspension of payment for a ten year period is (automatically) granted. After this period, the
assessment expires. No security for payment is required. The litigant argues, inter alia, that
the conservatory assessment is contrary to the principle of Good Faith governing the tax treaty
and in breach of EU Law.
The Dutch Supreme Court held that the conservatory assessment has not been issued contrary
to good faith with respect to the tax treaty between the Netherlands and Belgium (2001). This
is because under Article 18 of the treaty, the Netherlands is in some circumstances entitled to
tax pensions paid to a resident of Belgium. This decision is interesting in the light of the
Supreme Court’s decision of 19 June 2009. In a similar case involving the tax treaty between
the Netherlands and France (1973), it was held that the Dutch exit tax on pension rights was
contrary to the principle of Good Faith. This difference can be explained by the fact that under
the treaty with France, the State of residence (after the migration) is under all circumstances
entitled to tax the pension income.
Furthermore, the Dutch Supreme Court held that the conservatory assessment is not as such
in breach of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Based on the case law of
the ECJ (in particular case C-470/04, N) the Supreme Court stated that the tax provisions
restrict the exercise of the treaty freedoms. However, as they pursue a legitimate objective in
the public interest (preserving a balanced allocation of taxing powers between the Member
States, with reference to the OECD commentary on Article 18), are appropriate for ensuring
the attainment of that objective and do not go beyond what is necessary, the conservatory
assessment was not considered to be contrary to EU Law.
The Supreme Court noted that if the conservatory assessment is collected in the future (e.g. in
case of surrendering the pension entitlements), whereas the value of the pension entitlements
has decreased after migration or tax rates have changed, a higher tax liability may arise
compared to the situation in which the litigant did not move to another Member State. This
PwC EU Tax News
14
disproportionate restriction is only partially neutralised under Dutch law (upon request). In
order to comply with the case law of the ECJ, in these circumstances, only the amount of tax
due as if the litigant remained a resident of the Netherlands may be collected by the tax
collector.
-- Muriël Schoenmakers, Niek Schipper, Sjoerd Douma and Anna Gunn, PwC Netherlands;
[email protected]
Netherlands – Government proposes an interim-regime for currency results on
participations
On 8 April 2011, the Netherlands State Secretary for Finance announced plans to change the
tax treatment of currency results on participations in subsidiary companies under the Dutch
Corporate Income Tax Act of 1969. These plans react to taxpayers who wish to deduct
currency losses on those shares on the basis of EU Law.
At present, currency results on participations are exempt under the Dutch participation
exemption. This means that currency losses are non-deductible for Dutch corporate income
tax purposes. In view of the ECJ’s decision in the case of Deutsche Shell (C-263/08), this
outcome is arguably contrary to EU Law. This has lead a number of Dutch taxpayers to claim a
currency loss in their corporate income tax return.
The State Secretary holds the view that the Dutch participation exemption does not
contravene EU Law. Nevertheless, it has now been announced that measures will be taken
anticipating a possible legal victory on the part of the taxpayers in this case. The new
measures are set to apply from 8 April 2011 onwards.
The crux of the legislative changes is that once a taxpayer chooses to deduct Deutsche Shell
losses, future currency gains would also become taxable. In addition to this, anti-abuse
measures have been announced aimed at preventing the double use of currency losses, and
the circumvention of rules through restructuring within a group.
The State Secretary’s announcement leaves open a number of issues which need to be clarified
in the actual legislative proposal. It is, for example, unclear whether currency gains may
become taxable in excess of any deductible currency losses. Also, it is unclear whether the new
legislation will cover all participations held by a taxpayer or only the participations with
respect to which a currency loss has been taken into account or which have been transferred
within the group (thus excluding third party transactions). Another point is the treatment of
situations in which a currency loss has been realized through a redemption of shares because,
for those, corresponding currency gains will not occur. The EU Law compatibility of the
proposed legislation – including its retroactive effect – will largely depend on the answers to
these and similar questions.
As currently announced, the aforementioned measures ought not impact taxpayers who have
not claimed Deutsche Shell losses. Note, however, that these measures are referred to as an
“interim-regime”, possibly suggesting further changes in the future.
-- Sjoerd Douma and Anna Gunn, PwC Netherlands; [email protected]
PwC EU Tax News
15
Portugal – Taxation of capital gains realized on the sale of shares held on micro
and small companies
Law 15/2010 of 26 July established that capital gains obtained by individuals arising from the
sale of shares held in micro or small companies, which are not listed on a stock exchange, or
in any regulated market, are exempt from Personal Income Tax (PIT) on 50% of the respective
amount (positive balance between capital gains and capital losses). The applicable PIT rate is
20%.
The referred amendment of the taxation of capital gains entered into force in 2010.
These capital gains should be declared in Annex G (Capital Gains) of the Personal Income Tax
(PIT) annual return, to be submitted by individual taxpayers.
However, Annex G of the PIT return, and respective filing instructions, to be used in 2011 to
declare income obtained in 2010 or previous years, is designed in a way that the above
mentioned tax benefit can in practice apply only in case of a sale of shares in a Portuguese
resident micro or small company, thus excluding foreign companies.
In fact, Annex G requires not only that the concept of “Micro and small companies” is the one
defined in the annex of the Decree-Law 327/2007, which follows the EU rules on this matter,
but also requires that such status of micro or small company is certified by IAPMEI
(Portuguese Agency for SMEs and Innovation).
Finally, Annex G requires the individual taxpayer to identify the Portuguese Number of
Collective Person / Portuguese Tax Number of the company whose shares are sold, which
undoubtfully points towards the intention of applying the regime to domestic situations.
The above mentioned regime, as it provides for different treatment according to whether
taxpayers hold shares in Portuguese companies or in companies resident in other Member
States, being more favourable to the first and dissuading taxpayers from investing in the
latter, is arguably incompatible with EU law, more precisely with Article 63 TFEU.
-- Leendert Verschoor en Jorge Figueiredo, Portugal; [email protected]
Spain – Spanish government publishes Sustainable Economy Act
Spain – On 5 March 2011, the Spanish Sustainable Economy Act was published. With regards
to the tax changes contained therein, we would like to highlight the following:
Exemption applicable to the distribution of benefits by pension funds resident in the EEA
The scope of the exemption covered in the Spanish non-resident income tax Act concerning
the distribution of dividends and participation in benefits obtained without the presence of a
permanent establishment has been widened and includes pension funds resident in another
EU Member State or permanent establishment of the aforementioned institutions based in
another EU Member State.
PwC EU Tax News
16
The exemption shall be applicable to the pension funds which are resident in a country part of
the EEA in so far as the latter has a Double Tax Treaty to avoid double taxation with an
exchange of information clause, with Spain.
Exemption concerning the distribution of benefits by collective investment institutions
resident in the EEA
The scope of the exemption considered in the Spanish non-resident income tax Act regarding
the distribution of dividends and participation in benefits obtained without the presence of a
permanent establishment has been widened and includes collective investment institutions
covered by Directive 2009/65/CE. The aforementioned exemption cannot give rise to a lower
tax obligation from that which would have resulted from the application the standard tax rate
established in the Corporate Income Tax to said income for collective investment institutions
resident in Spain.
The exemption shall be applicable to investment institutions which are resident in an EEA
Member State, in so far as the latter has a Double Tax Treaty to avoid double taxation with an
exchange of information clause, with Spain.
The Act in its provisions, refers to collective investment institutions resident in Spain.
-- Miguel Ferre, PwC Spain; [email protected]
Back to top
EU developments
EU – European Commission issues proposal for a recast of the EU Parentsubsidiary Directive (COM(2010) 784 final)
On 4 January 2011, the European Commission issued a Communication on 4 January 2011
regarding its proposal for a recast of the Council Directive on the common system of taxation
applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States . The
need for this recast is explained in the explanatory memorandum attached to the
Commission’s Communication:
“On 1 April 1987 the Commission decided to instruct its staff that all acts should be codified
after no more than ten amendments, stressing that this is a minimum requirement and that
departments should endeavour to codify at even shorter intervals the texts for which they are
responsible, to ensure that their provisions are clear and readily understandable.
The codification of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of
taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member
States has been initiated by the Commission, and a relevant proposal has been submitted to
PwC EU Tax News
17
the legislative authority. The new Directive was to have superseded the various acts
incorporated in it.
In the course of the legislative procedure, views were expressed by the European Parliament
and by the Council that the wording of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Directive
90/435/EEC, as it appeared in Article 4(5) of the proposed codified text, might be understood
as establishing a secondary legal basis. In the light of the judgment of the ECJ of 6 May 2008
in Case C-133/06 (European Parliament v. Council) and for the avoidance of any doubt and
for the sake of legal certainty, those two institutions requested that the provision in the
proposed codified text be redrafted. Since such a redrafting would imply certain substantive
changes, and would therefore go beyond straightforward codification, it was considered
necessary that point 85 of the Inter-institutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 –
Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts – be applied, in the
light of the Joint declaration on that point.
The amendment to be made to Article 4(5) of the proposed codified text concerns the
insertion of words clarifying that the rules referred to in that provision are adopted by the
Council acting in accordance with the procedure provided for in the Treaty.
It is therefore appropriate to transform the codification of Directive 90/435/EEC into a recast
in order to incorporate the necessary amendment.”
-- Bob van der Made, PwC Netherlands; [email protected]
EU – Conclusions European Council Spring summit held on 25-26 March 2011
On 25 March 2011, the Euro-zone Heads of State or Government, joined by Bulgaria,
Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, adopted the Euro Plus Pact aimed at
“strengthening the economic pillar of the monetary union, achieving a new quality of
economic policy coordination, improving competitiveness, thereby leading to a higher degree
of convergence.” The Euro Plus Pact will focus primarily on areas that fall under national
competence and are deemed as key for increasing competitiveness and avoiding harmful
imbalances. Echoing some of the recommendations in the 2010 Monti Report, the Euro Plus
Pact aims to strengthen the economic governance of the EU and ensure the lasting stability of
the Euro area as a whole. Robust action at EU level is called for to stimulate growth by
strengthening the Single Market, reducing the overall burden of regulation and promoting
trade with third countries.
The Euro Plus Pact is said to fully respect the integrity of the EU-27 Single Market, yet the
implementation of commitments and progress towards the common policy objectives will be
monitored politically by the Heads of State or Government of the Euro area and participating
countries on a yearly basis, on the basis of a report by the Commission. In addition, Member
States commit to consult their partners on each major economic reform having potential spillover effects before its adoption.
PwC EU Tax News
18
The Euro Plus Pact on tax policy coordination
"Direct taxation remains a national competence. Pragmatic coordination of tax policies is a
necessary element of a stronger economic policy coordination in the euro area to support
fiscal consolidation and economic growth. In this context, Member States commit to engage in
structured discussions on tax policy issues, notably to ensure the exchange of best practices,
avoidance of harmful practices and proposals to fight against fraud and tax evasion.
Developing a common corporate tax base could be a revenue neutral way forward to ensure
consistency among national tax systems while respecting national tax strategies, and to
contribute to fiscal sustainability and the competitiveness of European businesses. The
Commission has presented a legislative proposal on a common consolidated corporate tax
base."
Click here for the full text of the Council Conclusions.
-- Bob van der Made, PwC Netherlands; [email protected]
EU – European Commission Decisions concerning tax infringement procedures
against four EU countries
On 6 April 2011, the European Commission published eight press releases concerning
infringement procedures in the field of taxation against four EU Member States:

Belgium, capital gains (IP/11/421);

Belgium, foreign investment companies (IP/11/422);

Belgium, discrimination against Icelandic and Norwegian funds (IP/11/423);

Belgium, inheritance tax provisions (IP/11/425);

Belgium, property tax legislation (IP/11/427);

Cyprus, excise duties on imported second-hand motorcycles (IP/11/426);

Germany, VAT exemptions for sharing costs of services (IP/11/428);

Netherlands, foreign charities see our newsletter contribution above; (IP/11/429).
-- Bob van der Made, PwC Netherlands; [email protected]
Germany – European Commission requests Germany to amend discriminatory
law on gift and inheritance tax allowance for non-residents
According to German tax law on gifts and inheritance, different amounts of tax allowance may
be deducted from the taxable base, i.a. depending on the country of residence of the testator
and of the heir. The maximum amount of € 500.000 may be deducted in case testator and
heir were a married couple and both resided in Germany. In case the married couple were not
residents in Germany, only the minimum amount of 2.000 € may be deducted. Equivalent
provisions also apply in the case of gift tax.
In its Mattner judgment of 22 April 2010 (C-510/08, para. 56), the ECJ decided that such
differentiation contravened the principle of free movement of capital However, as the
outcome of the Mattner judgment has not been incorporated into new legislation, the
Commission now ordered Germany to amend its provisions respectively.
PwC EU Tax News
19
The Commission's request takes the form of a "Reasoned Opinion" (second step of EU
infringement proceedings). In the absence of a satisfactory response within two months, the
Commission may refer Germany to the ECJ. For previous coverage of the case also find our
EUDTG Newsflash on the Mattner judgment.
-- Stefan Ickenroth and Gitta Jorewitz, Germany; [email protected]
Back to top
CCCTB
EU – European Commission proposes EU Directive on the CCCTB
On 16 March 2011, the European Commission proposed a directive for a common system for
calculating the tax base of businesses operating in the EU: the Common Consolidated
Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB). This is a single set of rules which companies operating within
the EU could opt to use to calculate their taxable profits. In other words, a company, or group
of companies, would have to comply with just one EU system to compute its taxable income,
rather than with different rules in each of the Member States in which it operates. Under the
CCCTB, companies active in more than one EU Member State would only have to file a single
tax return for all their activities in the EU (i.e. a ‘one-stop-shop’). Cross-border loss relief
would be possible and there would be no transfer pricing rules in the CCCTB area. After the
tax base has been calculated, it would subsequently be redistributed or apportioned to the
relevant Member States participating in CCCTB, according to an agreed pre-set formula. The
tax rates which are applied to the allocated tax base are not covered by the proposal, as they
would continue to be determined at a national level.
If the proposal is adopted by the Member States in Council – either by all of them or by at
least nine Member States under a special procedure – multinational companies would need to
rethink their EU tax strategy. Companies would have to consider under what circumstances
they would wish to opt-in and use the common tax base. This requires a proactive approach
and a possible change in their EU tax strategy.
Following the Commission’s adoption of the proposal, the Hungarian EU Council Presidency
formally introduced the proposal in the Council’s Working Party on Tax Questions on 5 May
2011. The proposal has also been sent to the European Parliament and the Economic and
Social Committee for their consultative (non-binding) opinions, and to the 27 national
parliaments in the EU, which also had to be notified under the new Lisbon Treaty rules, in
light of an EU “subsidiarity and proportionality” check.
There is some parallel political pressure from Eurozone EU Member States led by Germany
through the Euro Plus Pact adopted on 25 March 2010: whilst taking note of the
Commission’s CCCTB proposal, the Pact states that “developing a common corporate tax base
(CCTB) could be a revenue neutral way forward (…)”.
PwC EU Tax News
20
Click here for PwC’s newsletter on CCCTB.
PwC is particularly well-positioned to advise multinational groups on the impact of CCCTB:

We have a PwC CCCTB working group which has been dedicated to the CCCTB for the
past three years, and which is also part of PwC’s EU Direct Tax Group of EU tax law
experts, and have carried out 3 studies on CCCTB at the request of the Commission:
o
A PwC impact assessment on CCCTB and CCTB concerning the effective tax rate and
compliance costs, with the participation of more than 20 multinational groups in
several industries; and
o
Two other studies on CCCTB and possible adjustments for financial institutions.
-- Peter Cussons, Sjoerd
[email protected]
Douma,
Bob
van
der
Made,
and
Marc
Kanter;
Back to top
State aid
Gibraltar – AG opinion on Commission and Spain v. Gibraltar and the UK:
(joined cases C-106/09 P and C-107/09 P)
On 7 April 2011, AG Jääskinen published his Opinion in the case of the European Commission
and Spain v. the Government of Gibraltar and the UK.
This case concerns reforms to the corporate income tax system of Gibraltar. This system
would have applied to all companies established in Gibraltar and consisted of (i) a payroll tax,
(ii) a business property occupation tax and (iii) a registration fee. In 2004, the European
Commission decided that this reform constituted unlawful State aid. This decision was
subsequently overturned by the Court of First Instance (CFI) in 2008. The Commission and
Spain have challenged this outcome before the ECJ. The AG’s Opinion pertains to the appeal
before the ECJ. The Gibraltar Government have subsequently said that the reforms will not go
ahead in the form challenged by the Commission.
The Commission and Spain put forward two main arguments in favour of their position that
the Gibraltar regime constituted unlawful State aid.
(i)
Regional selectivity
Firstly, it is argued that the system would grant a benefit to Gibraltar companies as compared
to UK companies (‘regional selectivity’). The question becomes whether the comparison which
the Commission makes between UK companies and Gibraltar companies is pertinent.
Specifically, it must be determined whether the UK and Gibraltar should for present purposes
be considered a one single system of reference, or whether they are in fact two separate
systems. With reference to the ECJ’s judgment in the case of the Azores (C-88/03), the AG
PwC EU Tax News
21
agrees with the position taken by the CFI that the latter interpretation should be adopted. The
Gibraltar measures can therefore not be regarded as regionally selective.
(ii)
Material selectivity
Secondly, the Commission argues that the Gibraltar measures are materially selective. Under
the present case law the concept of material selectivity is understood to mean that a facet of a
national tax system (i.e. a special regime) benefits a particular category of taxpayers. This is
determined with reference to the general tax system (‘system of reference’).
The CFI had previously concluded that the Commission had, in casu, not demonstrated that
the measures deviated from the ‘normal’ tax regime of Gibraltar. By contrast, the Commission
submits that as the system will effectively benefit offshore companies, it can be regarded as
‘inherently discriminatory’.
The AG rejects the arguments of the Commission. He notes that although the Gibraltar regime
might be regarded as harmful tax competition in the sense of the Code of Conduct on business
taxation, it does not automatically fall within the EU’s regime on State aid.
The AG rejects the arguments put forward by the Commission and Spain, and so concludes
that the judgment of the CFI should be upheld.
-- Anna Gunn, PwC Netherlands, and Peter Cussons, PwC UK; [email protected]
PwC EU Tax News
22
About PwC’s EU Direct Tax Group (EUDTG)
The EU Direct Tax Group (EUDTG) is a pan-European team of EU tax law specialists and part
of PwC’s International Tax Services network. The EUDTG has dedicated client servicing teams
in place in all 27 EU Member States, most of the EFTA (European Free Trade Agreement)
countries and Switzerland. The EUDTG has assisted numerous clients in understanding their
EU Law rights and in coordinating, filing and obtaining substantial refunds of tax unlawfully
exacted in various EU or EEA territories. Our EUDTG is playing a leading role in actively
developing new original and cutting-edge EU arguments and solutions that help our clients in
the best way possible.
For more information, please visit: www.pwc.com/eudtg.
For further information about this newsletter or the EUDTG, please contact Bob van der Made
(email: [email protected]; or Tel.: + 31 6 130 96 2 96).
EU Tax News editors: Irma van Scheijndel. Peter Cussons and Bob van der Made.
This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute
professional advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific
professional advice. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of
the information contained in this publication, and, to the extent permitted by law, PricewaterhouseCoopers does not
accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or
refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this publication or for any decision based on it.
© 2011 PwC. All rights reserved. Not for further distribution without the permission of PwC. “PwC” refers to the
network of member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited (PwCIL), or, as the context requires,
individual member firms of the PwC network. Each member firm is a separate legal entity and does not act as agent of
PwCIL or any other member firm. PwCIL does not provide any services to clients. PwCIL is not responsible or liable
for the acts or omissions of any of its member firms nor can it control the exercise of their professional judgment or
bind them in any way. No member firm is responsible or liable for the acts or omissions of any other member firm nor
can it control the exercise of another member firm’s professional judgment or bind another member firm or PwCIL in
any way.
PwC EU Tax News
23
PwC EUDTG contacts
EUDTG Chair:
Frank Engelen: [email protected]
EUDTG Secretary:
Bob van der Made: [email protected]
EUDTG country leaders:
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Gibraltar
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
UK
Friedrich Roedler
Olivier Hermand
Krasimir Merdzhov
Lana Brlek
Marios Andreou
Peter Chrenko
Soren Jesper Hansen
Erki Uustalu
Jarno Laaksonen
Emmanuel Raingeard
Juergen Luedicke
Vassilios Vizas
Robert Guest
Gabriella Erdos
Fridgeir Sigurdsson
Carmel O’Connor
Claudio Valz
Zlata Elksnina
Kristina Krisciunaite
Eric Centi
Kevin Valenzia
Sjoerd Douma
Steinar Hareide
Camiel van der Meij
Jorge Figueiredo
Mihaela Mitroi
Todd Bradshaw
Clare Moger
Miguel Ferre
Gunnar Andersson
Armin Marti
Peter Cussons
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
kristina. [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
EUDTG CCCTB contact:
Peter Cussons: [email protected]
EUDTG State aid contact:
Sjoerd Douma: [email protected]
EUDTG EU Public Affairs contact:
Bob van der Made: [email protected]
PwC EU Tax News
24