Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee - Exit taxation and the need for co-ordination of Member States' tax policies
Date: 2006-12-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: basis of tax assessment, corporation tax, double taxation, fiscal policy, personal income tax, tax system

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 19.12.2006 
COM(2006) 825 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE 

Exit taxation and the need for co-ordination of Member States' tax policies  

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Exit taxes: legal framework ......................................................................................... 3 

The decision of the ECJ in de Lasteyrie and its implications for individuals.............. 3 

Resolving mismatches and eliminating double taxation and double non-taxation ...... 4 

Exit taxes on companies............................................................................................... 5 

Implications of de Lasteyrie for companies ................................................................. 5 

Resolving mismatches and eliminating double taxation and double non-taxation ...... 7 

Exit taxes in respect of emigration or transfer of assets to EEA/EFTA States ............ 8 

Freedoms applicable to EEA-states ............................................................................. 8 

Emigration of individuals / transfer of seat of companies – free movement of workers 
/ freedom of establishment ........................................................................................... 8 

4.3. 

Transfer of assets – freedom of establishment, free movement of goods and capital . 9 

5. 

6. 

Exit taxes in respect of third countries......................................................................... 9 

Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 10 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The present Communication is presented within the framework of the Communication on co-
ordinating Member States' direct tax systems in the Internal Market issued today. It analyses 
the legal requirements laid down in the EC Treaty as interpreted by the the European Court of 
Justice  (ECJ)  in  the  de  Lasteyrie1case,  and  confirmed  and  developed  in  the  N  case2,  and 
considers how these affect exit taxes levied on individuals and on companies. It also examines 
how  MSs'  exit  tax  rules  can  be  made  compatible  with  the  requirements  of  EC  law  and 
discusses  the  broad  principles  of  possible  co-ordinated  solutions  to  the  current  mismatches 
between  different  national  provisions.  The  Commission  intends  to  develop  more  detailed 
guidance on these issues in close cooperation with MSs. 

2. 

EXIT TAXES: LEGAL FRAMEWORK 

2.1. 

The decision of the ECJ in de Lasteyrie and its implications for individuals 

On 11 March 2004, the ECJ gave an important interpretation of the freedom of establishment 
in  the  context  of  French  legislation  taxing  unrealised  increases  in  value  of  securities  where 
individual  taxpayers  move  their  tax  residence  outside  France.  When  Mr.  de  Lasteyrie  du 
Saillant in 1998 moved from France to Belgium, he was subject to immediate taxation on the 
unrealised increase in value of the shares which he held in a French company.  

The ECJ held that the French provision in question was likely to restrict the exercise of the 
freedom of establishment, having at the very least a dissuasive effect on taxpayers wishing to 
establish themselves in another MS, because they were subjected in the exit country, by the 
mere fact of transferring their tax residence outside France, to tax on a form of income that 
had not yet been realised, and thus to disadvantageous treatment by comparison with a person 
maintaining his residence in France.  

Although the ruling in de Lasteyrie relates to the facts and circumstances of the case at issue, 
the ECJ's interpretation of EC Law implies conclusions as regards exit taxes in general. 

Taxing  residents  on  a  realisation  basis  and  departing  residents  on  an  accruals  basis  is  a 
difference in treatment which constitutes an obstacle to free movement. Where a MS decides 
to assert a right to tax gains accrued during a taxpayer's residence within its territory, it cannot 
take measures which present a restriction to free movement.  

This rules out the possibility of immediate collection of  the  tax  due on the  unrealised gains 
when taxpayers move their tax residence to another MS. The ECJ ruled in de Lasteyrie and in 
N  that  the  possible  suspension  of  payment  made  subject,  for  example,  to  conditions  that 
guarantees must be provided, constitutes a restrictive effect in that the taxpayer is deprived of 
enjoyment  of  the  assets  given  as  a  guarantee.  Similarly,  it  is  clear  from  de  Lasteyrie  that 
suspension of payment cannot be made subject to the condition of designating a representative 

1 

2 

Case C-9/02 Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant v. Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie, 
OJ C 94, 17.4.2004, p. 5. 
Case C-470/04 N v Inspecteur van de Belastningsdienst Oost / kantoor Almelo, 7 September 2006. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
in  the  MS  of  origin.  In  general,  any  means  of  preserving  the  tax  claim  must  be  strictly 
proportional to that aim and must not entail disproportionate costs for the taxpayer. 

As the ECJ confirmed in N3, when a resident of a MS transfers his/her residence to another 
MS, the MS from which he/she departs is not prevented by EC law from assessing the amount 
of income on which it wishes to preserve its tax jurisdiction, provided this does not give rise 
to an immediate charge to tax and that there are no further conditions attached to the deferral. 
Such a practice is in line with the principle of fiscal territoriality, connected with a temporal 
component, namely residence within the territory during the period in which the taxable profit 
arises. A requirement, that the taxpayer submits a tax declaration at the time of the transfer of 
residence, necessary for the purpose of assessing the income, can be considered proportionate 
having regard to the legitimate objective of allocating the taxing powers, in particular so as to 
eliminate double taxation, between the MSs4. 

Most MSs which had exit tax rules on individual shareholders similar to those at issue in de 
Lasteyrie have since abolished or amended them in line with the ruling. This has enabled the 
Commission to suspend infringement proceedings against a number of MSs on this particular 
aspect.  The  Commission  will,  however,  continue  to  monitor  MSs'  rules  in  this  area  with  a 
view to ensuring their EC law compatibility. 

2.2. 

Resolving mismatches and eliminating double taxation and double non-taxation  

Although  granting  an  unconditional  deferral  may  resolve  the  immediate  difference  in 
treatment between taxpayers who move to another MS and those who remain in the same MS, 
it  will  not  necessarily  provide  a  solution  for  the  existing  mismatches  between  MSs'  tax 
systems. According to the general rule of Article 13 of the OECD Model Tax Convention on 
Income and on Capital, it is the State of residence which has the exclusive taxing right on the 
alienation  of  shares.  There  are  no  specific  rules  in  the  Model  Convention  on  how  to  treat 
individuals  who  have  changed  their  tax  residence.  In  practice,  some  MSs  have  included 
specific  provisions  in  their  bilateral  tax  conventions  to  ensure  that  the  attribution  of  taxing 
rights matches an extended tax liability of taxpayers under national law. Others take the view 
that  as  the  deemed  disposal  'occurs'  at  the  moment  just  before  emigration,  it  is  a  domestic 
transaction to which the double tax convention does not apply.  

A possible unjustified restriction could arise if the exit State calculated the capital gain at the 
moment of deemed disposal, and collected the tax at the moment of actual disposal, and the 
new State of residence taxed the whole capital gain from acquisition up to the actual disposal. 
This would cause double taxation of the value increase from acquisition to deemed disposal, if 
the  residence  State  considered  that  it  had  the  exclusive  taxing  right  on  the  disposal,  and 
neither  MS  granted  a  credit  for  the  tax  levied  by  the  other.  The  Commission  considers  that 
where two MSs choose to exercise their taxing rights on the same income, they must ensure 
that this does not result in double taxation. This view also finds implicit support in the ECJ's 
decision in N5. 

3 
4 
5 

Paras 42-46. 
Para 49. 
Para 49. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Commission sees different options for MSs to resolve these mismatches:  

–  In  practice,  a  number  of  MSs  which  either  assume  a  deemed  disposal  just  before 
emigration or apply a system of extended tax liability already provide for a mechanism to 
credit any tax levied by the new residence state on the same gains.  

–  MSs could also agree to divide the taxing rights on the gains, e.g. by splitting up the taxing 
rights according to the period that the shareholder was resident in the respective MSs. This 
may  require  changes  to  existing  double  tax  conventions.  As  confirmed  by  the  ECJ  in  N, 
any solution would need to take account of a possible decrease in value of the shares6 by 
either the host MS or that of origin. The fact that a taxpayer has exercised his or her right 
of free movement may not result in taxation of a higher amount of gains than would have 
been taxable had he/she not changed residence.  

Irrespective of which method MSs use to resolve the mismatches between their tax systems, 
effective  administrative  co-operation  will  be  key  to  ensuring  the  success  of  such  measures. 
The exit State will only be able to exercise its taxing rights at the moment of disposal, if it is 
aware that such a disposal occurs. Similarly, if the emigrated taxpayer refuses to pay his/her 
taxes, the exit State will have to rely on the new State of residence to collect the taxes on its 
behalf7.  MSs  should  therefore  make  full  use  of  the  possibilities  offered  by  the  Mutual 
Assistance Directive and the Recovery Directive8.  

3. 

EXIT TAXES ON COMPANIES 

3.1. 

Implications of de Lasteyrie for companies 

The  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  interpretation  of  the  freedom  of  establishment 
given  by  the  ECJ  in  de  Lasteyrie  in  respect  of  exit  tax  rules  on  individuals  also  has  direct 
implications for MSs' exit tax rules on companies9.  

The  European  Company  Statute  became  available  for  use  on  8  October  2004,  making  it 
possible for a company organised in the form of an SE (Societas Europaea10) to transfer its 
registered office to another MS, without this resulting in the winding up of the company or the 
creation  of  a  new  legal  person.  The  2005  amendments11  to  the  Merger  Directive 
(90/434/EEC) ensure that, provided certain conditions are met, the transfer of the registered 
office  of  an  SE  or  of  a  European  Co-operative  Society12  from  one  MS  to  another  will  not 
result in immediate taxation of unrealised gains on assets remaining in the MS from which the 
office  is  transferred.  The  amendments  are  silent  on  those  assets  which  do  not  remain 
connected  to  a  PE  in  the  MS  from  which  the  registered  office  is  transferred.  However,  the 
Commission considers that the principles of de Lasteyrie apply to such 'transferred' assets. 

6 
7 
8 

9 

10 
11 
12 

Para 54. 
As the ECJ observed in N, see paras 52-53. 
Council  Directive  77/799/EEC  of  19.12.1977  and  Council  Directive  76/308/EEC  of  15.3.1976  as  last 
amended by Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15.6.2001. 
Some  commentators  have  observed  that  with  the  exception  of  one  paragraph,  the  entirety  of  the 
judgement was written in terms of “taxpayer”, rather than referring merely to taxation on individuals. It 
may be noted that the ECJ itself cites de Lasteyrie in its judgment of 13.12.2005 in Case C-411/03 Sevic 
Systems AG concerning the cross-border merger of companies. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001 of 8.10.2001. 
Council Directive 2005/19/EC of 17.2.2005. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1435/2003 of 22.7.2003. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
There  is  also  a  type  of  exit  charge  in  most  MSs  when  a  company  transfers  single  assets  or 
liabilities  to  a  permanent  establishment  (PE)  situated  in  another  MS,  whereas  a  similar 
transfer  of  assets  from  a  head  office  to  a  branch  in  the  same  MS  would  not  attract  any 
immediate tax consequences13. 

When a company transfers assets to a PE in another MS, the MS of residence of the company 
may want to assert its taxing rights on the difference between the market value of assets and 
liabilities  at  the  time  of  transfer  and  their  value  for  tax  purposes  (gains).  This  difference  is 
usually  taxed  upon  realisation,  and  not  on  an  accruals  basis.  However,  assets  and  liabilities 
which are transferred by a company's head office to its PE situated in another MS are, under 
the current tax rules of most MSs, considered as ‘alienated’ and gains accrued while the assets 
were  effectively  connected  with  the  company  resident  in  their  territory  are  usually  taxed 
immediately upon transfer of the assets.  

It  follows  from  de  Lasteyrie  that  taxpayers  who  exercise  their  right  to  freedom  of 
establishment by moving to another MS may not be subject to an earlier or higher tax charge 
than taxpayers who remain in one and the same MS. If a MS allows tax deferral for transfers 
of assets between locations of a company resident in that MS, then any immediate taxation in 
respect  of  a  transfer  of  assets  to  another  MS  is  likely  to  be  contrary  to  the  EC  Treaty 
freedoms.  

A MS wishing to exercise its taxing rights on the difference between the book value and the 
market value of the asset at the moment of transfer, may establish the amount of income on 
which  it  wishes  to  preserve  its  tax  jurisdiction,  provided  this  does  not  give  rise  to  an 
immediate  charge  to  tax  and  that  there  are  no  further  conditions  attached  to  the  deferral. 
However,  such  an  unconditional  deferral  will  not  necessarily  provide  a  solution  for  the 
existing mismatches between MSs' tax systems (see under 3.2). 

In  case  of  deferral,  MSs  may  impose  reasonable  obligations  on  taxpayers  to  keep  the  tax 
authorities regularly informed of their continued holding or indeed disposal of the transferred 
assets,  provided  such  obligations  do  not  go  beyond  what  is  necessary  to  achieve  their 
objective  and  do  not  prevent  taxpayers  from  exercising  their  Treaty  rights.  A  MS  could  for 
example  require  its  taxpayers  to  file  a  declaration  when  they  transfer  assets  to  another  MS 
confirming  that  they  have  not  disposed  of  the  assets.  A  simple  annual  statement  from  the 
taxpayer  that  its  PE  in  the  other  MS  continues  to  hold  possession  of  the  transferred  asset 
combined with a declaration at the moment of actual disposal or of a subsequent transfer of 
the asset to a third state would also appear to be acceptable and sufficient. 

The  Commission  also  encourages  MSs  to  make  better  use  of  the  means  already  at  their 
disposal to improve the exchange of information and assistance in collection between the tax 
administrations concerned. The Commission is prepared to assist MSs in examining the scope 
for automatic exchange of information in this area. 

13 

Similar issues may arise in respect of the transfer of assets from a PE to a head office in another MS, or 
indeed for transfers between two PEs of the same company situated in different MSs. For the sake of 
simplicity, only the transfer of assets from head office to PE is discussed in this Communication, but the 
analysis is equally applicable to those other types of transfer. It may however be noted that the practical 
implications may vary for the different scenarios depending on the method used by the MS of the head 
office to avoid international double taxation. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
If a MS wishes to minimise the administrative burden, it could offer its taxpayers the option to 
renounce the deferred collection of tax and to choose to pay the tax at the moment of transfer. 
Such an option must however be truly voluntary and even-handed. A MS may not coerce its 
taxpayers into opting for immediate payment of the tax by imposing an undue burden on them 
in case of deferral of collection until the actual disposal of the assets. 

3.2. 

Resolving mismatches and eliminating double taxation and double non-taxation 

MSs  apply  different  valuation  methods  in  respect  of  the  cross-border  transfer  of  assets.  A 
number of MSs allow assets to be transferred to a PE in another MS at book value. These MSs 
choose  not  to  exercise  their  taxing  rights  on  the  difference  between  the  book  value  and  the 
market value of the assets at the time of transfer. Generally, they also value assets transferred 
to a PE in their territory at book value. Other MSs seek to exercise their taxing rights on the 
difference between the book value and the market value at the moment of transfer.  

If an asset is transferred from a MS which chooses to exercise its taxing rights at the moment 
of transfer to a MS which values the transferred asset at book value and taxes any subsequent 
increase  in  value  upon  disposal  of  the  asset,  this  can  result  in  double  taxation  of  the  gains 
involved.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  an  asset  is  transferred  from  a  MS  which  allows  transfer  at 
book  value  to  a  MS  which  values  the  transferred  asset  at  market  value,  there  will  be  no 
taxation of the difference between the book value and the market value of the asset in either 
MS, i.e. unintentional double non-taxation.  

Mismatches  also  occur  when  two  MSs  apply  the  same  basic  approach  but  in  practice  reach 
different conclusions on the value of the specific assets involved. If the MS to which the asset 
is transferred attributes a higher value to the asset, thus allowing for a higher depreciation of 
the  asset  against  the  taxable  profits  of  the  PE  and  taxing  a  lower  amount  of  gains  on  any 
possible subsequent disposal of the asset, this can lead to double non-taxation of part of the 
gains. If, on the other hand, the MS to which the asset is transferred attributes a lower value to 
the asset, depreciation will be lower and gains on an eventual later disposal higher, resulting 
in double taxation of part of the gains.  

Such mismatches hamper the proper functioning of the Internal Market as they may dissuade 
companies  from  investing  in  other  MSs.  The  scope  for  double  non-taxation  may  also 
encourage them to structure their cross-border activities in such a way as to exploit the gaps 
between  the  different  national  tax  systems  rather  than  to  make  their  business  decisions  on 
sound economic grounds.  

Where  a  MS  chooses  to  exercise  its  taxing  rights  at  the  moment  of  transfer  of  the  asset  to 
another  MS,  the  taxpayer  should  not  suffer  any  double  taxation  as  a  result.  The  MSs 
concerned should therefore ensure that measures are taken to avoid such double taxation.  

One way to do this would be for the MS to which the asset is transferred to accept the market 
value established by the other MS at the moment of transfer as the starting value of the asset 
for  tax  purposes.  Such  an  approach  based  on  mutual  recognition  would  be  simple  to 
administer for tax administrations and taxpayers. It may however offer scope for tax arbitrage 
in  that  taxpayers  may  seek  to  exploit  differences  in  valuation  practices  between  MSs  to 
maximise  the  amount  of  gains  taxed  in  the  MS  with  the  lower  corporate  tax  rate. 
Alternatively,  MSs  could  continue  to  value  the  assets  according  to  their  own  rules,  but 
provide  for  a  procedure  to  resolve  possible  differences  in  valuation,  e.g.  a  binding  dispute 
resolution  mechanism  such  as  that  provided  for  in  the  EU  Arbitration  Convention 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
(90/436/EEC)  or  a  generalised  mechanism  to  overcome  double  taxation  within  the  EU  (as 
stated in the Coordination Communication the Commission intends to explore the scope and 
feasibility of such a mechanism in due course). 

Where an asset is transferred from a MS which allows transfer at book value to a MS which 
would  usually  value  the  transferred  asset  at  market  value,  MSs  should  take  appropriate 
measures to avoid double non-taxation of the difference between the book value of the asset 
and its market value at the moment of transfer. One way to do this would be for the MS to 
which  the  asset  is  transferred  to  use  the  other  MS's  book  value  as  the  starting  value  for  tax 
purposes. In these circumstances, an approach based on mutual recognition would appear the 
obvious solution.  

The above approaches are generally premised on the idea that the exit State should grant tax 
deferral  until  the  actual  disposal  of  the  assets  by  the  PE  or  the  transfer  of  those  assets  to  a 
third country (see Chapter 4). It must, however, be acknowledged that certain types of assets 
used in or created by companies are, by their nature, not meant to be disposed of, but are used 
up by the company or expire over time (e.g. certain intangibles). In practice, MSs frequently 
use other taxable events than actual disposal to ensure appropriate taxation of such assets in 
purely  domestic  situations,  e.g.  national  tax  systems  generally  compensate  for  accelerated 
depreciation  in  the  first  year(s)  after  purchase  by  a  corresponding  reduced  depreciation  in 
subsequent years Another example is the current taxation of the income stream from a self-
developed  patent  (no  capitalisation  of  research  and  development  expenditure)  during  the 
patent protection period.  

The Commission believes that where MSs use other taxable events than disposal in domestic 
situations,  they  should  also  be  able  to  apply  similar  mechanisms  in  cross-border  situations, 
provided  this  does  not  result  in  a  worse  treatment  of  cross-border  operations  compared  to 
domestic ones. MSs should however ensure that such alternative mechanisms do not give rise 
to double taxation and unintentional double non-taxation. They should therefore co-ordinate 
their application with the MSs to which the assets are being transferred. The Commission is 
prepared to assist MSs in developing detailed guidance on these issues.  

4. 

EXIT TAXES IN RESPECT OF EMIGRATION OR TRANSFER OF ASSETS TO EEA/EFTA 
STATES 

4.1. 

Freedoms applicable to EEA-states 

The European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement provides for the same four basic freedoms 
as the EC Treaty (goods, persons, services and capital). It also includes horizontal provisions 
relevant  to  the  four  freedoms.  Secondary  Community  legislation  in  the  area  of  taxation, 
however, has not been incorporated in the EEA Agreement. The Mutual Assistance Directive 
and the Recovery Directive therefore do not apply to these states 

4.2. 

Emigration  of  individuals  /  transfer  of  seat  of  companies  –  free  movement  of 
workers / freedom of establishment 

Taxes  levied  in  case  of  the  emigration  of  individuals  or  the  transfer  of  seat  of  companies 
would  primarily  appear  to  involve  the  free  movement  of  workers  (Article  39  EC  /  28  EEA 
Agreement)  and  the  freedom  of  establishment  (Article  43  EC  /  31  EEA  Agreement) 
respectively. The exit taxes at issue in de Lasteyrie and N which applied to individuals with 
substantial shareholdings were found to contravene the freedom of establishment. As the same 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
basic freedoms apply to EEA states, the rulings in de Lasteyrie and N are of direct relevance 
to  them.  The  question  is  whether  there  are  significant  differences  in  situation  which  could 
justify such restrictions in the case of EEA states. The Commission is of the opinion that an 
immediate collection of tax may be justified in certain circumstances by overriding reasons in 
the general interest, in particular the need to ensure the effectiveness of fiscal supervision and 
to prevent tax evasion.  

EEA  states  are  not  obliged  to  implement  secondary  Community  legislation  in  the  area  of 
taxation,  such  as  the  Mutual  Assistance  Directive  and  the  Recovery  Directive.  As  a 
consequence, MSs do not necessarily have the same guarantees that deferred tax claims can 
be discharged at a later stage as they would have within the Community. In many cases, MSs 
have,  however,  concluded  bilateral  or  multilateral  tax  conventions  with  EEA  states  which 
include  information  exchange  obligations  that  provide  for  an  equivalent  level  of  mutual 
assistance.  The  Commission  believes  that  in  situations  where  a  lack  of  administrative  co-
operation  prevents  MSs  from  safeguarding  their  tax  claims  they  should  be  entitled  to  take 
appropriate measures at the moment of emigration or transfer. 

4.3. 

Transfer  of  assets  –  freedom  of  establishment,  free  movement  of  goods  and 
capital 

The transfer of assets from a company's head office in a MS to its PE situated in another MS 
could,  depending  on  the  circumstances  and  nature  of  the  assets,  involve  the  freedom  of 
establishment, the free movement of goods or the free movement of capital.  

In the case of EEA states, where the same freedoms apply, this would appear to raise issues 
similar to those discussed in 4.2. in respect of the emigration of individual taxpayers and the 
transfer of seat of companies. The Commission is of the opinion that MSs should be allowed 
to  safeguard  their  tax  claims  at  the  moment  of  transfer  of  the  assets  if  there  is  no  adequate 
information exchange relationship with the EEA state concerned. 

5. 

EXIT TAXES IN RESPECT OF THIRD COUNTRIES 

Of  the  four  basic  freedoms,  only  the  free  movement  of  capital  and  payments  (Article  56) 
applies to third countries.  

In respect of the emigration or transfer of seat to other third countries14 as such, the provisions 
on the free movement of persons do not apply and MSs remain free to assess and collect their 
taxes at the moment of departure. However, the emigration of an individual or the transfer of 
seat of a company may involve transactions which are covered by the provisions on the free 
movement  of  capital.  The  transfer  of  assets  to  a  PE  in  a  third  country  may  also  fall  to  be 
examined from the perspective of the free movement of capital.  

Since  the  result  of  the  application  of  the  different  freedoms  should  be  the  same,  it  would 
appear that an immediate collection of tax at the moment of transfer of such assets constitutes 
a  restriction  on  the  free  movement  of  capital.  However,  as  noted  above,  the  Commission 
believes  that  a  lack  of  administrative  co-operation  may  justify  a  restriction  in  these 
circumstances.  The  Commission  would  encourage  MSs,  where  appropriate,  to  enhance 

14 

With the exception of Switzerland. Under the 1999 Agreement between the European Community, its 
MSs and the Swiss Confederation, the free movement of persons also applies in respect of Switzerland. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
administrative co-operation with their non-EU partners, as this is the best means of ensuring 
tax compliance and preventing tax evasion. 

6. 

CONCLUSION  

Exit  taxation  is  a  prime  example  of  an  area  where  MSs  could  benefit  from  co-ordination  at 
EU level. A co-ordinated approach can help MSs to make their exit tax rules compatible with 
the requirements of EC law and with each other. 

The Commission is willing to assist MSs in developing the co-ordinated solutions set out in 
this  Communication  and  intends  to  establish  more  detailed  guidance  on  the  above  issues  in 
close co-operation with MSs.  

The Commission invites the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social 
Committee to give their opinion on this Communication. 

EN 

10 

   EN