# C_2014129EN.01001001.xml

| 28.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Société Générale SA; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-17/14)

(2014/C 129/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: Société Générale SA

Other party to the appeal in cassation: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the application of Article 63 TFEU require that the comparison of a non-resident with a resident in a case in which dividend tax is withheld on a dividend payment by the source State be extended to the corporation tax against which the dividend tax is set off in the case of residents? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the application of Article 63 TFEU require that the comparison of a non-resident with a resident in a case in which dividend tax is withheld on a dividend payment by the source State be extended to the corporation tax against which the dividend tax is set off in the case of residents?

| 2. | (a) | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, should account be taken, in making that comparison, of all the costs which, in an economic sense, are connected with the shares from which the dividend arises? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

(a)

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, should account be taken, in making that comparison, of all the costs which, in an economic sense, are connected with the shares from which the dividend arises?

| (b) | If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, should account then be taken of a possible write-off of a bought dividend and of a possible financing burden resulting from ownership of the shares concerned? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, should account then be taken of a possible write-off of a bought dividend and of a possible financing burden resulting from ownership of the shares concerned?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is it sufficient, in the assessment as to whether a potentially discriminatory withholding tax levied at source is effectively neutralised on the basis of a convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded by the source State, that (i) the double taxation convention concerned contains a provision in that regard, and that, although that option is not unconditional, (ii) in the case in question it has the result that the Netherlands tax burden for a non-resident is not heavier than that for a resident? In the case of inadequate compensation in the year in which the dividends are received, is it relevant, in the assessment of that neutralisation, that there is the possibility of carrying forward the deficit and of utilising the set-off in subsequent years? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is it sufficient, in the assessment as to whether a potentially discriminatory withholding tax levied at source is effectively neutralised on the basis of a convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded by the source State, that (i) the double taxation convention concerned contains a provision in that regard, and that, although that option is not unconditional, (ii) in the case in question it has the result that the Netherlands tax burden for a non-resident is not heavier than that for a resident? In the case of inadequate compensation in the year in which the dividends are received, is it relevant, in the assessment of that neutralisation, that there is the possibility of carrying forward the deficit and of utilising the set-off in subsequent years?

---