Netherlands vs Bosal Holding BV, September 2003, European Court, Case no C-168/01

Posted on | By European Court of Justice | No comments
Category: Disallowed Deduction, Legality - Legitimacy - Constitutional | Tag: , , , ,
« | »

Bosal is a company which carries on holding, financing and licensing/royalty related activities and which, as a taxpayer, is subject to corporation tax in the Netherlands. For the 1993 financial year, it declared costs amounting to NLG 3 969 339 in relation to the financing of its holdings in companies established in nine other Member States. In an annex to its declaration concerning that financial year, Bosal claimed that those costs should be deducted from its own profits.

The inspector refused to allow the deduction sought, and the Gerechtshof te Arnhem (Netherlands), before which Bosal brought an action against the dismissal of its claim, confirmed the inspector’s position. It is in those circumstances that Bosal appealed on a point of law to the referring court.

Taking the view that an interpretation of Community law was necessary in order to resolve the dispute before it, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

1. Does Article 52 of the EC Treaty, read in conjunction with Article 58 thereof …, or any other rule of EC law, preclude a Member State from granting a parent company subject to tax in that Member State a deduction on costs relating to a holding owned by it only if the relevant subsidiary makes profits which are subject to tax in the Member State in which the parent company is established?

2. Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 1 whether, where the subsidiary is subject to tax based on its profits in the Member State concerned but the parent company is not, the relevant Member State takes account of the abovementioned costs in levying tax on the subsidiary?

Judgement of the Court

The court ruled in favor of Bosal. Not allowing deductions of costs related to participations in foreign subsidiaries is contrary to EC law.

“Council Directive 90-435-EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, interpreted in the light of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) precludes a national provision which, when determining the tax on the profits of a parent company established in one Member State, makes the deductibility of costs in connection with that company’s holding in the capital of a subsidiary established in another Member State subject to the condition that such costs be indirectly instrumental in making profits which are taxable in the Member State where the parent company is established.”

Click here for text version

CELEX_62001CJ0168_EN_TXT

Related Guidelines

TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.10The following are examples of costs associated with shareholder activities, under the standard set forth in paragraph 7.6: a) Costs relating to the juridical structure of the parent company itself, such as meetings of shareholders of the parent, issuing of shares in the parent company, stock exchange listing of the...
TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.62Subject to the provisions of paragraph 7.55, the charge for services to any member of the electing MNE group shall be the sum of (i) the costs incurred by another group member in providing services specifically to the member under the second step as detailed in paragraph 7.57, plus the...
TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.31Paragraph 5 of Article 25, which was incorporated in the OECD Model Tax Convention in 2008, provides that, in mutual agreement procedure cases in which the competent authorities are unable to reach an agreement within two years of the initiation of the case under paragraph 1 of Article 25, the...
TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.50The following example illustrates the concept of determining the actual transaction where a transaction has not been identified by the MNE. In reviewing the commercial or financial relations between Company P and its subsidiary companies, it is observed that those subsidiaries receive services from an independent party engaged by Company...
TPG2022 Chapter II Annex II example 1151.  The success of an electronics product is linked to the innovative technological design both of its electronic processes and of its major component. That component is designed and manufactured by associated company A; is transferred to associated company B which designs and manufactures the rest of the product; and is...
TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.33Paragraph 2 of Article 9 specifically provides that the competent authorities shall consult each other if necessary to determine appropriate corresponding adjustments. This confirms that the mutual agreement procedure of Article 25 may be used to consider corresponding adjustment requests. See also paragraph 10 of the Commentary on Article 25...
TPG2022 Chapter II Annex II example 1365. Company A, resident in Country A, is the parent company of Retail Group, an MNE group engaged in the retail fashion industry. Over the years, Company A has developed know-how and has enhanced the value of the trademark and associated goodwill of its business through intensive marketing activities. In...
TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.50Where a country cannot include the second sentence of paragraph 2 of Article 25 in its tax treaties, element 3.3 of the Action 14 minimum standard states that it should be willing to accept an alternative treaty provision that limits the time during which a Contracting State may make an...
TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.4Intra-group services may vary considerably among MNE groups, as does the extent to which those services provide a benefit, or an expected benefit, to one or more group members. Each case is dependent upon its own facts and circumstances and the arrangements within the group. For example, in a decentralised...
TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 926. The facts in this example are the same as in Example 8, except as follows: Under the contract between Primair and Company S, Company S is now obligated to develop and execute the marketing plan for country Y without detailed control of specific elements of the plan by Primair....

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *