Short Reads

Dutch Supreme Court rules that denying a fiscal unity between Dutch sister subsidiaries of non-EU joint parent company is not in breach of non-discrimination clause

Dutch Supreme Court rules that denying a fiscal unity between Dutch s

Dutch Supreme Court rules that denying a fiscal unity between Dutch sister subsidiaries of non-EU joint parent company is not in breach of non-discrimination clause

22.12.2017 NL law

On 15 December 2017 a ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court was published in which it is essentially ruled that the Dutch fiscal unity regime, by disallowing a fiscal unity between Dutch sister subsidiaries of a joint Israeli parent company, is not in breach of the non-discrimination clause as included in article 27(4) of the Dutch-Israel tax treaty (the "Treaty").

Background

Based on the Dutch fiscal unity regime, a Dutch parent company that owns at least 95% of the shares in a Dutch subsidiary, upon a joint request, can form a fiscal unity for corporate income tax purposes. If included in a fiscal unity regime, profits and losses can be settled between the entities included in the fiscal unity and transactions between these entities are ignored for corporate income tax purposes (subject to certain anti-abuse provisions and pending EU case law regarding the 'per element' approach). Only the parent company has to file a corporate tax return that includes the consolidated income of the entities included in the fiscal unity.

Traditionally, the fiscal unity regime requires the parent of the fiscal unity to be a Dutch resident corporate income taxpayer. Subject to certain conditions, a Dutch permanent establishment of a non-resident corporate income taxpayer can also head a fiscal unity. However, the European Court of Justice in its ruling on the joint cases C 39/13 to C 41/13, in short, decided that the Dutch fiscal unity rules infringe the freedom of establishment as a Dutch parent company, under Dutch tax law, was allowed to form a fiscal unity with its Dutch based subsidiaries, whilst a parent of another EU/EEA member state was not allowed to form a fiscal unity with its Dutch based subsidiaries. Subsequently, the fiscal unity regime has been amended whereby a fiscal unity became possible between Dutch subsidiaries that are held by a parent company of another EU/EEA member state. We note that such fiscal unity is - according to the Dutch tax authorities - not possible with a parent of a third state (i.e. not an EU/EEA member state) which led to the ruling at hand.

The case of 15 December 2017

The key facts on which the Supreme Court ruling of 15 December 2017 is based, are as follows. An Israeli resident top company holds 99.9% of the shares in two Israeli subsidiaries that each hold 50% of the shares of three Dutch resident subsidiaries. Two of these Dutch resident subsidiaries each hold 50% of the shares in another Dutch resident subsidiary. None of the Israeli companies has a permanent establishment in the Netherlands. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the Dutch fiscal unity regime was in breach of the non-discrimination clause included in article 27(4) of the Treaty, as the regime disallowed a fiscal unity between the Dutch subsidiaries that were held by an Israeli top company. Art. 27(4) states: "Enterprises of one of the States, the capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of the other State, shall not be subjected in the first-mentioned State to any taxation or any requirement connected therewith which is other or more burdensome than the taxation and connected requirements to which other similar enterprises of that first-mentioned State are or may be subjected."
The High Court ruled that the fiscal unity regime was in breach of the non-discrimination clause based on the different tax treatment of Dutch sister subsidiaries with an Israeli parent company wanting to form a fiscal unity (which is not allowed) and - the hypothetical situation that – Dutch sister subsidiaries with a Dutch parent company want to form a fiscal unity (which is allowed). However, the Supreme Court ruled that this comparison was incorrect. Instead, the Dutch sister subsidiaries of the Israeli based parent company wanting to form a fiscal unity should be compared to the hypothetical situation of the Dutch sister subsidiaries wanting to form a fiscal unity (i.e. without a parent company). Dutch subsidiaries cannot form a fiscal unity without a Dutch top company. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that since there is no difference in tax treatment, the Dutch fiscal unity regime is not in conflict with article 27(4) of the Treaty.

Practice Guides Chambers

On another note, we are pleased to inform you that Stibbe has written the Dutch chapter to the Chambers Practice Guides Corporate Tax 2018. The chapter consists of 9 sections and provides you with an outline of the Dutch corporate income tax system. Special attention is paid to BEPS in relation to the Netherlands.

Related news

14.01.2020 NL law
Dutch Supreme Court ruling on Dutch substantial interest rules

Short Reads - On 10 January 2020, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled on an important case whereby a dividend distribution by a Dutch holding company to its Luxembourg corporate shareholder was subject to Dutch corporate income tax based on the Dutch substantial interest rules1. The taxpayer was in this case not successful in relying on either the EU Parent – Subsidiary Directive (the “PSD”) or the argument that such taxation was an infringement of EU law. In this Tax Alert we provide you with a summary of the case and some preliminary observations.

Read more

05.11.2019 LU law
Stibbe renforce son cabinet au Luxembourg avec l’arrivée de Johan Léonard en qualité d’associé au sein du département de droit fiscal

Inside Stibbe - Luxembourg, 5 novembre 2019 – Stibbe renforce son cabinet luxembourgeois avec le recrutement latéral de Johan Léonard, associé au sein de la pratique de droit fiscal. Son arrivée permettra au cabinet d’augmenter son offre fiscale au Luxembourg afin de mieux répondre à l’évolution des besoins du marché. Johan a rejoint Stibbe le 4 novembre 2019.

Read more

03.01.2020 NL law
Fiscale maatregelen tegen klimaatverandering

Articles - De wereldwijde toegenomen CO2-uitstoot baart veel mensen zorgen, gezien de hoeveelheid (media)aandacht die de klimaatverandering tegenwoordig krijgt. Men is het erover eens dat er een wereldwijde aanpak zal moeten komen om de klimaatverandering tegen te gaan. Het Klimaatakkoord van Parijs is een eerste stap in de goede richting en als het aan de Europese Commissie ligt, heeft Europa in 2050 een klimaat neutrale economie. Uit de overige bijdragen van deze Klimaatspecial blijkt tevens dat Nederland niet stilzit en verschillende maatregelen treft om de CO2-uitstoot te reduceren.

Read more

10.12.2019 NL law
David Orobio de Castro, Michael Molenaars and Job van Hooff new board Stibbe in Amsterdam

Inside Stibbe - As of 1 January 2020, David Orobio de Castro, Michael Molenaars and Job van Hooff will form the new board of Stibbe in Amsterdam. David Orobio de Castro has been on the board of Stibbe since 2016 and succeeds Derk Lemstra as managing partner. After a period of six years on the board, Derk will once again fully focus on advising clients in the field of corporate law.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring