CELEX: 62014CA0009
Language: en
Date: 2015-06-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-9/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v D.G. Kieback (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Tax legislation — Income tax — Income received in a Member State — Non-resident worker — Tax in the State of employment — Conditions)

24.8.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 279/11
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v D.G. Kieback
   (Case C-9/14) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Tax legislation - Income tax - Income received in a Member State - Non-resident worker - Tax in the State of employment - Conditions))
   (2015/C 279/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Referring court
   
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   
      Defendant: D.G. Kieback
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   Article 39(2) EC must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, for the purposes of charging income tax on a non-resident worker who has pursued his occupational activity in that Member State during part of the year, from refusing to grant that worker a tax advantage which takes account of his personal and family circumstances, on the basis that, although he received, in that Member State, all or almost all his income from that period, that income does not form the major part of his taxable income for the entire year in question. The fact that that worker left to pursue his occupational activity in a non-member State and not in another EU Member State does not affect that interpretation.
   
      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.