Rupert Shiers’s scientific contributions

In this CFE Opinion Statement, submitted to the EU Institutions in November 2022, the CFE ECJ Task Force comments on the ECJ decision of 22 September 2022 in W AG (Case C-538/20), on the deductibility of foreign final losses.

In this CFE Opinion Statement, the CFE ECJ Task Force comments on the EFTA Court decision of 1 June 2022 in PRA Group Europe (Case E-3/21), on the discriminatory interaction between the “interest barrier” and group contributions.

In this CFE Opinion Statement, the CFE ECJ Task Force comments on the decision of 27 January 2022 in European Commission v. Kingdom of Spain (Form 720) (Case C-788/19) on the lack of proportionality of the consequences derived from the failure to provide information concerning assets or rights held in other Member States of the European Union or the European Economic Area.

In this CFE Opinion Statement, the CFE ECJ Task Force comments on the ECJ decision in État luxembourgeois v. L (Case C-437/19) of 25 November 2021. This decision brings further clarification on the rights of information holders in respect of cross-border exchange of information, as well as on the concept of “foreseeable relevance”.

In this CFE opinion statement, the CFE ECJ Task Force comments on the ECJ decision in MK v. Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Case C-388/19) of 18 March 2021. The Court confirmed its previous case law and held that the Portuguese (optional) regime for taxation of capital gains from immovable property of non-residents was contrary to the free movement of capital under article 63 of the TFEU since non-residents were taxed less favourably than residents.

The CFE ECJ Task Force acknowledges the different views on the CJEU’s “final loss” doctrine previously established in Lidl Belgium for treaty-exempt permanent establishments, but also notes that the reasoning of that case has been implicitly renounced by the Court in Timac Agro and in W AG. The W AG decision makes it clear that comparability should be examined differently depending on whether the exemption is granted by domestic or tax treaty law. The CFE ECJ Task Force has reservations regarding this distinction. For the taxpayer, exemption has the same economic effects regardless of whether is adopted through domestic law or tax treaty law. Moreover, W AG departs from the Court’s reasoning and thinking in Lidl Belgium, which also concerned Germany and the same rules. Ideally, the Court would have made this explicit. Finally, it remains to be seen if Marks and Spencer is still “good law” or if W AG was one of the final nails in the coffin of the “final loss” doctrine.

The CFE ECJ Task Force welcomes the EFTA Court's progressive impetus on fundamental freedoms doctrine: PRA Group Europe AS makes it clear that for purposes of identifying a restriction, for establishing comparability and for justification, a combined perspective on the interaction of two sets of rules – here the interest barrier on the one hand and the group contribution regime on the other – is necessary. From that perspective, the interaction of the Norwegian rules on the "interest barrier" and on group contributions leads to unjustified discrimination in cross-border situations. However, if asked to decide on a similar case, the CJEU might take a different approach. First, the CJEU could take a different perspective on the available grounds of justifications and, e.g., accept the coherence of the tax system as such ground. Second, Article 4 ATAD gives the Member States the option to treat an "interest barrier group" as a single taxpayer and to limit the group perspective to domestic settings. Even if such an option in the ATAD is not viewed as "exhaustive harmonization", one could wonder if the mere existence of the ATAD and the value judgments made by the EU legislature therein could lead to a different outcome in the EU (CJEU) vis-à-vis the EEA (EFTA Court).

This is an Opinion Statement prepared by the CFE ECJ Task Force on the Commission v Spain case (also cited as the 'Form 720' case), in which the First Chamber of the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ) delivered its decision on 27 January 2022. The Court, in its decision, ruled in favour of the action brought by the Commission and did not fully follow the reasoning of AG Saugmandsgaard Øe in his Opinion of 15 July 2021, who proposed only to partially accept the action brought by the Commission. The Court held that the Kingdom of Spain had failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 63 TFEU and 40 of the EEA Agreement by imposing disproportionate measures on the failure to duly comply with the obligation to provide information concerning assets and rights located abroad. The Spanish legislation provided for very serious economic consequences, such as the taxation of the value of not duly declared assets and rights as unjustified capital gains with no statute of limitations period. The legislation also provided for a proportional fine of 150% of the tax calculated on amounts corresponding to the value of those assets or those rights, which could be applied concurrently with flat-rate fines. At the same time, such flat-rate fines were much higher than the penalties imposed in respect of similar infringements in a purely national context, not being capped by any amount. Commission v. Spain is an important case as it addresses a number of relevant issues regarding the limits that the Member States must respect when implementing measures to counteract international tax avoidance and evasion.

The CFE Tax Advisers Europe welcomes the judgment of the Court as it provides further clarification on the legal protection of the information holders afforded by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in cases of cross-border exchange of information. Article 47 of the Charter guarantees that national courts can review the cross-border information request in order to assess its legality and also that the information holder must be able to ascertain the reasons upon which the order they receive is based. Moreover, the CFE Tax Advisers Europe welcomes the illumination regarding the concept of “foreseeable relevance”, but also notes that additional clarification will be needed to distinguish permissible group requests from illegal “fishing expeditions”.

The Court's judgment in Société Générale reinforces established case law that EU law neither prohibits juridical double taxation nor does it put an obligation on the residence Member State to prevent the disadvantages which could arise from the exercise of competence thus attributed by the two Member States. The parallel existence of taxing jurisdiction, however, must be distinguished from the exercise of such jurisdiction by each Member State. While Member States are free to determine the connecting factors for the allocation of taxing jurisdiction in tax treaties, "the exercise of the power of taxation, so allocated by bilateral conventions for the avoidance of double taxation, the Member States must comply with EU rules and, more particularly, observe the principle of equal treatment". It is generally accepted in the Court's case law that both the ordinary credit and exemption (including exemption with progression) are permissible methods to avoid double taxation. In Société Générale this position was confirmed, specifically as regards the "maximum deduction" under the ordinary credit method in tax treaties, even though this treatment can result in a disadvantage for cross-border income as compared with domestic income. As the disadvantage in Société Générale was due to the difference between gross-basis taxation of dividends in the source Member States (Italy, the Netherlands and the UK) and net-basis taxation of those foreign-sourced dividends in the residence State (France), it remains to be seen if future cases will bring clarity in light of the Seabrokers judgment of the EFTA Court which examined how expenses can be lawfully allocated to foreign income from the perspective of the residence Member State. The CFE Tax Advisers Europe stresses that in an Internal Market neither (unintended) double non-taxation nor double taxation is acceptable. It, therefore, calls on all EU institutions to analyze and address the remaining issues of juridical double taxation-including in the context of the upcoming actions amending current corporate tax directives.