German Ministry of Finance Guidance on Anti-Treaty Shopping Rule
The German Ministry of Finance has published its official guidance on the German anti-treaty shopping rule, in direct response to the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) in Joined Cases C-504/16 and C-613/16 Deister Holding and Juhler Holding (reported in the January 2018 newsletter). The CJEU had held that the German anti-treaty shopping provisions breached the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (‘PSD’).
Issued on 4 April 2018, the guidance provides that the previous German laws on anti-treaty shopping (dated 2007) are no longer to be applied in open cases where the foreign recipient of a distribution of profits claims a tax refund under the PSD, so that all such open cases must now be approved by the Federal Central Tax Office. Significantly, the guidance also comments on the applicability of the subsequent (2012) anti-treaty shopping provision. The guidance stipulates that the 2012 provision allows holding entities that only carry out asset management to claim tax relief under the PSD, provided that the said entity actually exercises its shareholder rights and does not merely exist for the purpose of avoiding tax.
It is worth noting that the guidance only concerns dividend withholding tax under the PSD. Specifically, the guidance does not affect withholding tax relief on interest or royalties (under the Interest and Royalties Directive) or relief on other dividends not falling within the scope of the PSD.
This article appears in the JHA April 2018 Tax Newsletter, which also features:
- Slovak Emission Allowances Tax Breaches EU Law
- HMRC May Not Open Enquiry into Voluntary Self-Assessment Return
The DBKAG & K (CJEU) decision: an opportunity for investment funds?
On 17 June 2021, the European Court decided the joint cases K (C-58/20) and DBKAG (C-59/20) regarding whether the supply of certain services constituted the “management of special investment funds”, benefiting from the VAT exemption enshrined in Article 135(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC.
Raising the bar: UK Supreme Court clarifies the requirements for HMRC to issue Follower Notices
On 2 July 2021, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in R (on the application of Haworth) v HMRC  UKSC 25, finding unanimously in favour of the taxpayer and upholding the Court of Appeal’s decision to quash the follower notice issued to him.
The Danish Supreme Court decides the Fidelity case
The Fidelity case concerned claims brough by three undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) for the repayment of Danish withholding tax on dividends received from companies resident in Denmark between 2000 and 2009. The Supreme Court rejected the claims on the grounds that the Fidelity UCITS did not fulfil the conditions for the exemption provided by Danish law.
A yellow card for footballers and their agents……let’s bring in another match official
There has been long running tension between HMRC and the way that footballers and their agents are remunerated. As the Professional Footballers’ Association wade into the debate, Helen McGhee discusses the problems arising from agents’ fees and image rights.