C-682/15 Berlioz
A French subsidiary paid dividends to its Luxembourg parent (B) without deducting WHT on the basis that they were exempt. The French tax authorities requested information from the Luxembourg tax authorities, which sought the relevant information from B. B refused to provide some information and a fine was imposed. B appealed because the information requested was not foreseeably relevant. The Luxembourg Tribunal refused to consider this question. B argued that this refusal violated its rights to an effective judicial remedy under the European Charter of Human Rights.
The CJEU held that protection against arbitrary involvement by public authorities in the private activities of any natural or legal person is a basic principle of EU law. The Luxembourg Tribunal was wrong to refuse to consider B’s challenge to the legality of the information request. The CJEU stressed that an information order is lawful only if the information requested is ‘foreseeably relevant’ for the purposes of the tax investigation in the Member State seeking it. Member States cannot engage in ‘fishing expeditions’ or request information that is of no relevance to the investigation concerned. The case is available here.
This article appears in the JHA May 2017 Tax Newsletter, which also features:
