Anti-Treaty Shopping rules breach EU law
C-504/16 and C-613/16 Deister Holding and Juhler Holding
The cases concerned the German Anti-Treaty shopping provision. Both cases concern non-resident holding companies receiving dividends from a German subsidiary and in both cases the holding company received a profit distribution from the German subsidiary, on which dividend WHT was levied. The companies sought a refund of the tax withheld. The German tax authorities denied the request on the basis of the German Anti-Treaty Shopping rules. The holding companies challenged the assessments.
The CJEU firstly concluded that both cases fall within the scope of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (PSD), which in principle prohibits the levying of WHTs on profit distributions paid to foreign parent companies. According to Article 1(2) of the PSD, Member States are only allowed to deviate from that rule to prevent tax evasion and abuse. The Court stated that only provisions whose specific objective is to prevent artificial structures deviating from economic reality and targeting unjustified tax advantages fall within the scope of the exception in the Directive. The Court concluded that the German rules in question, which generally exclude a special group of taxpayers from the application of the PSD, create a general and irrefutable presumption of abuse and therefore go beyond what is necessary to prevent tax evasion and abuse. In this respect, the Court emphasized that a group’s special shareholding structure does not in itself indicate the existence
of a wholly artificial arrangement. Consequently, the Court ruled that the disputed German provisions are not in line with the PSD.
The CJEU further observed that it is only where a resident subsidiary distributes profits to a non-resident parent company that the WHT exemption is subject to certain conditions and concluded that this difference in treatment is liable to deter a non-resident parent company from exercising an economic activity in Germany and therefore constitutes a restriction to the freedom of establishment, which cannot be justified.
This article appears in the JHA January 2018 Tax Newsletter, which also features:
- Brexit Negotiation Directives on the EU-UK Transition Period
- AG Opinion in Bevola case C-650/16 – Marks & Spencer applied to cross border definitive losses
As announced in July of last year, the 2020 Budget introduces a new deferred payment plan option for Corporation Tax charged on profits or gains arising from certain transactions between UK companies and EEA companies of the same group of companies.
Reversal of Inverclyde
The 2020 Budget announced provisions to reverse last year’s FTT decision in Inverclyde. In that case, HMRC denied the appellant LLPs’ claims for Business Property Renovation Allowance on the basis that the LLPs did not carry on a business with a view to a profit.
HMRC nudge letters
HMRC continues to fight the good fight in its quest to cut down on tax avoidance and have recently been issuing further “nudge” letters to taxpayers who may have an income source or assets producing gains overseas and consequently an undisclosed outstanding UK tax liability.
ExxonMobil: FTT Decision Released
The FTT decision in Esso Exploration and Production UK Limited and others v HMRC, which relates to pre-2006 claims for Cross Border Group Relief, has now been released.