CELEX: 62010CN0318
Language: en
Date: 2010-07-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-318/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) lodged on 2 July 2010 — SIAT SA v Belgian State

11.9.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 246/26
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) lodged on 2 July 2010 — SIAT SA v Belgian State
   (Case C-318/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/44
   Language of the case: French
   
      Referring court
   
   Cour de Cassation
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellant: SIAT SA
   
      Respondent: Belgian State
   
      Question referred
   
   Must Article 49 of the EC Treaty, in the version applicable to this case (the facts giving rise to the dispute having occurred prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009), be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State according to which payments for supplies or services are not to be regarded as deductible business expenses where they are made or attributed directly or indirectly to a taxpayer resident in another Member State or to a foreign establishment which, by virtue of the legislation of the country in which they are established, are not subject there to a tax on income or are subject there, for the relevant income, to a tax regime which is appreciably more advantageous than the one to which such income is subject in the Member State whose national legislation is at issue, unless the taxpayer proves, by any legal means, that such payments relate to genuine and proper transactions and do not exceed the normal limits, whereas such proof is not required, as a precondition for the deduction of payments for supplies or services made to a taxpayer residing in that Member State, even if the taxpayer is not subject to any tax on income or is subject to a tax regime which is appreciably more advantageous than the one laid down by the ordinary law of that State?