# C_2007069EN.01000903.xml

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 February 2007 — D.M.M.A. Arens-Sikken v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-43/07)

(2007/C 69/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: D.M.M.A. Arens-Sikken

Appellant:

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent:

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) be interpreted as precluding a Member State from taxing the inheritance under inheritance law of immovable property situated in that Member State and forming part of the estate of a person resident in another Member State at the time of his death on the basis of the value of the immovable property without account being taken of overendowment debts owed by the inheritor by reason of a testamentary parental partition inter vivos? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) be interpreted as precluding a Member State from taxing the inheritance under inheritance law of immovable property situated in that Member State and forming part of the estate of a person resident in another Member State at the time of his death on the basis of the value of the immovable property without account being taken of overendowment debts owed by the inheritor by reason of a testamentary parental partition inter vivos?

inter vivos

| 2. | If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative and if it must also be determined by means of a comparison whether and, if so, to what extent overendowment debts must be taken into account, what method of comparison — one of the two methods referred to in 3.6.6 [of the judgment] or another method entirely — must be used in a case such as the present to determine whether the inheritance duty which would have been levied if the testator had been resident in the Netherlands at the time of his death would have been less than the transfer duty? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative and if it must also be determined by means of a comparison whether and, if so, to what extent overendowment debts must be taken into account, what method of comparison — one of the two methods referred to in 3.6.6 [of the judgment] or another method entirely — must be used in a case such as the present to determine whether the inheritance duty which would have been levied if the testator had been resident in the Netherlands at the time of his death would have been less than the transfer duty?

| 3. | Does it make any difference to the analysis of the obligation possibly imposed by the EC Treaty on the Member State in which the immovable property is situated to permit the deduction of the overendowment debts in whole or in part whether that deduction leads to a smaller concession to prevent double taxation in the Member State which considers itself to have authority to tax the estate by virtue of the testator's place of residence? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does it make any difference to the analysis of the obligation possibly imposed by the EC Treaty on the Member State in which the immovable property is situated to permit the deduction of the overendowment debts in whole or in part whether that deduction leads to a smaller concession to prevent double taxation in the Member State which considers itself to have authority to tax the estate by virtue of the testator's place of residence?

---