umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
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

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Public consultation on proposed amendment of Dutch classification rules for certain domestic and foreign legal entities

Short Reads - On 29 March 2021 the Dutch government has released a consultation document (the “Consultation Document”) containing a draft bill of law and explanatory memorandum to amend the Dutch classification rules for certain domestic and foreign legal entities.

Read more