Neodyum Miknatis
amateur porn
implant
olabahis
Casino Siteleri
Kayseri escort
canli poker siteleri kolaybet meritslot
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
Articles

Luxembourg tax measures on non-cooperative jurisdictions: EU blacklist updated

Luxembourg tax measures on non-cooperative jurisdictions: EU blacklist

Luxembourg tax measures on non-cooperative jurisdictions: EU blacklist updated

07.10.2020 LU law

On 6 October 2020, the European Union list of non-cooperative jurisdictions (the “EU List") was updated. The changes have an impact on bill of law nº 7547, providing that, as from 1 January 2021, interest or royalties, accrued or paid, should no longer be deductible for tax purposes when the beneficiary is a related enterprise established in a country included in the EU List.

​On 30 March 2020, the Luxembourg Government has submitted bill of law nº 7547 (the “Bill") providing that, as from 1 January 2021, interest or royalties, accrued or paid, should not be deductible for tax purposes when the beneficiary is a related enterprise established in a country included in the EU List. ​

Under the Bill, the non-deductibility of interest and royalties, to be introduced through the amendment of article 168 of the Luxembourg Income Tax Law, should not apply where the Luxembourg company demonstrates that the transaction pursuant to which interest and royalties are paid is implemented for valid commercial reasons that reflect economic reality.

On 6 October 2020, the Council of the EU decided to remove Cayman Islands and Oman from the EU List, further to the implementation of specific measures by these jurisdictions.

Anguilla and Barbados were however added to the EU List following peer review reports published by the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes.

As of today, the Bill is still going through the legislative process[1] with a final vote expected before the end of the year. Arrangements involving Cayman entities should thus no longer be concerned by the upcoming measures, as long as the Cayman Islands remain excluded from the EU list. These measures will continue to impact structures where a Luxembourg taxpayer owes interest or royalties to a related enterprise which is tax resident in American Samoa, Anguilla, Barbados, Fiji, Guam, Palau, Panama, Samoa, Seychelles, Trinidad and Tobago, the U.S. Virgin Islands or Vanuatu.

For previous reporting and further details on the Bill, please see our newsflash of 3 April 2020.


[1] The most recent development being the Avis du Conseil d'État, dated 16 June 2020.​

Team

Related news

01.10.2020 NL law
EU merger control: Dutch clause to catch future killer acquisitions

Short Reads - Competition Commissioner Vestager presented a sneak peak of her plans for the future of EU merger control on the 30th anniversary of the EU Merger Regulation. The proposed plans include a simplification of the notification procedure and a new approach towards the system of referral to ensure that significant transactions, particularly in the digital and pharmaceutical industries, no longer escape Commission scrutiny.

Read more

01.10.2020 NL law
Waiting for the EC: third-party platform bans and RPM still on radar

Short Reads - The results of the European Commission’s evaluation of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER) call for more clarity and convergence in the interpretation of certain (online) vertical restrictions. However, the Dutch competition authority (the ACM) and the Dutch courts cannot wait for the European Commission’s revised VBER rules to deal with such sales restrictions.

Read more

01.10.2020 NL law
Directors' liability due to competition law infringements by the company

Short Reads - The District Court Noord-Nederland recently allowed the trustees in bankruptcy of Northsea shrimp trading company Heiploeg to recover part of a EUR 27 million cartel fine from a former director. Internationally, the question whether companies can recover competition law fines through civil claims against individuals involved in the competition law infringement, is controversial. The court held, however, that the director’s personal involvement in the infringement amounted to ‘serious mismanagement’, triggering personal liability to pay damages.

Read more