Joined Cases C-115/16, C-118/16, C-119/16 and C-299/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret, Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — N Luxembourg 1 (C-115/16), X Denmark A/S (C-118/16), C Danmark I (C-119/16), Z Denmark ApS (C-299/16) v Skatteministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States — Directive 2003/49/EC — Beneficial owner of the interest and royalties — Article 5 — Abuse of rights — Company established in a Member State and paying to an associated company established in another Member State interest all or almost all of which is then transferred outside the European Union — Subsidiary subject to an obligation to withhold tax on the interest at source)
Date: 2019-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Luxembourg, approximation of laws, corporation tax, group of companies, interest, limited partnership, tax exemption, tax on capital, tax system, venture capital








C_2019139EN.01000501.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/5






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret, Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — N Luxembourg 1 (C-115/16), X Denmark A/S (C-118/16), C Danmark I (C-119/16), Z Denmark ApS (C-299/16) v Skatteministeriet
(Joined Cases C-115/16, C-118/16, C-119/16 and C-299/16) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States - Directive 2003/49/EC - Beneficial owner of the interest and royalties - Article 5 - Abuse of rights - Company established in a Member State and paying to an associated company established in another Member State interest all or almost all of which is then transferred outside the European Union - Subsidiary subject to an obligation to withhold tax on the interest at source)
(2019/C 139/03)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring courts

Østre Landsret, Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: N Luxembourg 1 (C-115/16), X Denmark A/S (C-118/16), C Danmark I (C-119/16), Z Denmark ApS (C-299/16)

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Cases C-115/16, C-118/16, C-119/16 and C-299/16 are joined for the purposes of the judgment.










2.


Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States, read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption of interest payments from any taxes that is provided for by it is restricted solely to the beneficial owners of such interest, that is to say, the entities which actually benefit from that interest economically and accordingly have the power freely to determine the use to which it is put.
The general principle of EU law that EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends must be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a fraudulent or abusive practice, the national authorities and courts are to refuse a taxpayer the exemption of interest payments from any taxes that is provided for in Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49, even if there are no domestic or agreement-based provisions providing for such a refusal.










3.


Proof of an abusive practice requires, first, a combination of objective circumstances in which, despite formal observance of the conditions laid down by the EU rules, the purpose of those rules has not been achieved and, second, a subjective element consisting in the intention to obtain an advantage from the EU rules by artificially creating the conditions laid down for obtaining it. The presence of a certain number of indications may demonstrate that there is an abuse of rights, in so far as those indications are objective and consistent. Such indications can include, in particular, the existence of conduit companies which are without economic justification and the purely formal nature of the structure of the group of companies, the financial arrangements and the loans. The fact that the Member State where the interest arises has concluded a convention with the third State in which the company that is the beneficial owner of the interest is resident has no bearing on any finding of an abuse of rights.










4.


In order to refuse to accord a company the status of beneficial owner of interest, or to establish the existence of an abuse of rights, a national authority is not required to identify the entity or entities which it regards as being the beneficial owner(s) of that interest.










5.


Article 3(a) of Directive 2003/49 must be interpreted as meaning that a société en commandite par actions (SCA) (limited partnership with share capital) authorised as a société d’investissement en capital à risque (SICAR) (risk capital investment company) governed by Luxembourg law cannot be classified as a company of a Member State, within the meaning of that directive, capable of being entitled to the exemption provided for in Article 1(1) of the directive if, a matter which is for the referring court to ascertain, the interest received by that SICAR, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is exempt from impôt sur les revenus des collectivités (corporate income tax) in Luxembourg.










6.


In a situation where the system, laid down by Directive 2003/49, of exemption from withholding tax on interest paid by a company resident in a Member State to a company resident in another Member State is not applicable because there is found to be fraud or abuse, within the meaning of Article 5 of that directive, application of the freedoms enshrined in the FEU Treaty cannot be relied on in order to call into question the legislation of the first Member State governing the taxation of that interest.
Outside such a situation, Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as:






—


not precluding, in principle, national legislation under which a resident company which pays interest to a non-resident company is required to withhold tax on that interest at source whilst such an obligation is not owed by that resident company when the company which receives the interest is also a resident company, but as precluding national legislation that prescribes such withholding of tax at source if interest is paid by a resident company to a non-resident company whilst a resident company that receives interest from another resident company is not subject to the obligation to make an advance payment of corporation tax during the first two tax years and is therefore not required to pay corporation tax relating to that interest until a date appreciably later than the date for payment of the tax withheld at source;










—


precluding national legislation under which the resident company that owes the obligation to withhold tax at source on interest paid by it to a non-resident company is obliged, if the tax withheld is paid late, to pay default interest at a higher rate than the rate which is applicable in the event of late payment of corporation tax that is charged, inter alia, on interest received by a resident company from another resident company;










—


precluding national legislation providing that, where a resident company is subject to an obligation to withhold tax at source on the interest which it pays to a non-resident company, account is not taken of the expenditure in the form of interest, directly related to the lending at issue, which the latter company has incurred whereas, under that national legislation, such expenditure may be deducted by a resident company which receives interest from another resident company for the purpose of establishing its taxable income.










(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.