CELEX: C2007/095/07
Language: en
Date: 2007-04-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-524/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom)) — Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Corporation tax — Loan interest paid to a related company resident in another Member State or in a non-member country — Interest treated as a distribution — Cohesion of the tax system — Tax avoidance)

28.4.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 95/5
            
         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom)) — Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
   (Case C-524/04) (1)
   
   (Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Corporation tax - Loan interest paid to a related company resident in another Member State or in a non-member country - Interest treated as a distribution - Cohesion of the tax system - Tax avoidance)
   (2007/C 95/07)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation
   
      Defendant: Commissioners of Inland Revenue
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Articles 43, 49 and 56 EC — National tax legislation — Ability of a company established on national territory to deduct for tax purposes interest paid on a loan granted by its parent company — Situation differing according to the State where the parent company established
   Operative part of the judgment
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 43 EC precludes legislation of a Member State which restricts the ability of a resident company to deduct, for tax purposes, interest on loan finance granted by a direct or indirect parent company which is resident in another Member State or by a company which is resident in another Member State and is controlled by such a parent company, without imposing that restriction on a resident company which has been granted loan finance by a company which is also resident, unless, first, that legislation provides for a consideration of objective and verifiable elements which make it possible to identify the existence of a purely artificial arrangement, entered into for tax reasons alone, to be established and allows taxpayers to produce, if appropriate and without being subject to undue administrative constraints, evidence as to the commercial justification for the transaction in question and, secondly, where it is established that such an arrangement exists, such legislation treats that interest as a distribution only in so far as it exceeds what would have been agreed upon at arm's length.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 43 EC has no bearing on legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation referred to in Question 1, where that legislation applies to a situation in which a resident company is granted a loan by a company which is resident in another Member State or in a non-member country and which does not itself control the borrowing company and where each of those companies is controlled, directly or indirectly, by a common parent company which is resident in a non-member country.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               In the absence of Community legislation, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law, including the classification of claims brought by injured parties before national courts and tribunals. Those courts and tribunals are, however, obliged to ensure that individuals have an effective legal remedy enabling them to obtain reimbursement of the tax unlawfully levied on them and the amounts paid to that Member State or withheld by it directly against that tax. As regards other loss or damage which a person may have sustained by reason of a breach of Community law for which a Member State is liable, the latter is under a duty to make reparation for the loss or damage caused to individuals under the conditions set out in paragraph 51 of the judgment in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame [1996] ECR I-1029, but that does not preclude the State from being liable under less restrictive conditions, where national law so provides.
               Where it is established that the legislation of a Member State constitutes an obstacle to freedom of establishment prohibited by Article 43 EC, the national court may, in order to establish the recoverable losses, determine whether the injured parties have shown reasonable diligence in order to avoid those losses or to limit their extent and whether, in particular, they availed themselves in time of all legal remedies available to them. However, in order to prevent the exercise of the rights which Article 43 EC confers on individuals from being rendered impossible or excessively difficult, the national court may determine whether the application of that legislation, coupled, where appropriate, with the relevant provisions of double taxation conventions, would, in any event, have led to the failure of the claims brought by the claimants in the main proceedings before the tax authorities of the Member State concerned.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.