Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 —Tate & Lyle Investments (Case C-384/11)
The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Article 63 TFEU — Tax legislation — Payment of dividends — Withholding tax — Prevention or mitigation of a series of charges to tax — Different treatment of resident recipient companies and non-resident recipient companies
Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments — Restrictions — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — National legislation subjecting dividends paid, following a corporate division, by a resident company to a non-resident company
to heavier taxation than that imposed on dividends paid in all cases to companies which are resident in the Member State concerned — Not permissible — Limits — Neutralisation of the effects of the restriction by imposing withholding tax on the tax due in the other Member State in
accordance with a double-taxation convention — Determination by the national court (Art. 63 TFEU) (see paras 18-46, operative part)
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 63 TFEU — Restrictions
on the free movement of capital — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Tax on dividends — National rules providing for a 10%
withholding tax on dividends distributed by resident companies and on assimilated income — Imputation to corporation tax of
the amount withheld possible only for resident companies.
Operative part
Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings,
which applies withholding tax to dividends distributed by a resident company to resident and non-resident recipient companies
which have a holding of less than 10% in the capital of the distributing company but with a purchase value of at least EUR 1.2
million, while at the same time providing a mechanism for the mitigation of a series of charges to tax only for resident recipient
companies. Where a Member State relies on a convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded with another Member
State, it is for the national court to establish whether account should be taken, in the main proceedings, of that convention,
and, if so, to determine whether it enables the effects of the restriction on the free movement of capital to be neutralised.