CELEX: 62017CN0608
Language: en
Date: 2017-10-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-608/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Skatteverket v Holmen AB

8.1.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 5/24
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Skatteverket v Holmen AB
   (Case C-608/17)
   (2018/C 005/32)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   
      Referring court
   
   Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Skatteverket
   
      Defendant: Holmen AB
   
      Questions referred
   
   
            
               1.
            
            
               In order for a parent company in one Member State to have the right — which follows from, inter alia, the case of Marks & Spencer — on the basis of Article 49 TFEU to deduct definitive losses in a subsidiary in another Member State, is it necessary that the subsidiary be directly owned by the parent company?
            
         
            
               2.
            
            
               Is that part of a loss which, as a result of the rules in the subsidiary’s State, it has not been possible set off against profits which were made there in a particular year, but instead could be carried over so that they could potentially be deducted in a future year, also to be regarded as definitive?
            
         
            
               3.
            
            
               In the assessment of whether a loss is definitive, must account be taken of the fact that, under the rules in the subsidiary’s State, the possibility for parties other than the party making the loss itself to deduct the loss is restricted?
            
         
            
               4.
            
            
               If account is to be taken of a restriction such as that referred to in question 3, must regard be had to the extent to which the restriction has in fact led to it not being possible to set off any part of the losses against profits made by another party?