# C_2012058EN.01000602.xml

| 25.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 58/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 3 January 2012 — P Oy

(Case C-6/12)

2012/C 58/09

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P Oy

Applicant:

Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | In the context of an authorisation procedure, such as that in Paragraph 122(3) of the Law on income tax, must the criterion of selectivity in Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as precluding the authorisation of the deduction of losses in the case of changes of ownership if the procedure referred to in the last sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU is not observed? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the context of an authorisation procedure, such as that in Paragraph 122(3) of the Law on income tax, must the criterion of selectivity in Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as precluding the authorisation of the deduction of losses in the case of changes of ownership if the procedure referred to in the last sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU is not observed?

| 2. | In the interpretation of the criterion of selectivity, in particular in order to determine the reference group, is it necessary to take into account the general rule on the deductibility of established losses in Paragraphs 117 and 118 of the Law on income tax or the provisions concerning changes of ownership? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the interpretation of the criterion of selectivity, in particular in order to determine the reference group, is it necessary to take into account the general rule on the deductibility of established losses in Paragraphs 117 and 118 of the Law on income tax or the provisions concerning changes of ownership?

| 3. | If the criterion of selectivity in Article 107 TFEU is a priori regarded as being fulfilled, may the system resulting from Paragraph 122(3) of the Law on income tax be regarded as justified by the fact that it is a mechanism inherent in the tax system itself which is necessary for example in order to prevent tax evasion? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the criterion of selectivity in Article 107 TFEU is a priori regarded as being fulfilled, may the system resulting from Paragraph 122(3) of the Law on income tax be regarded as justified by the fact that it is a mechanism inherent in the tax system itself which is necessary for example in order to prevent tax evasion?

| 4. | When assessing possible justification and whether the system is a mechanism inherent in the tax system, what importance must be given to the extent of the discretion of the tax authorities? Is it necessary, as regards the mechanism inherent in the tax system itself, that the body applying the law has no discretion and that the conditions for the application of the derogation are set out precisely in the legislation? |
| --- | --- |

4.

When assessing possible justification and whether the system is a mechanism inherent in the tax system, what importance must be given to the extent of the discretion of the tax authorities? Is it necessary, as regards the mechanism inherent in the tax system itself, that the body applying the law has no discretion and that the conditions for the application of the derogation are set out precisely in the legislation?

---