CELEX: C2007/315/28
Language: en
Date: 2007-12-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-251/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz, Austria) — Firma Ing. Auer — Die Bausoftware GmbH v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr (Indirect taxes — Raising of capital — Transfer of the seat of a company — Abolition of the capital duty charged to a company)

22.12.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 315/17
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz, Austria) — Firma Ing. Auer — Die Bausoftware GmbH v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr
   (Case C-251/06) (1)
   
   (Indirect taxes - Raising of capital - Transfer of the seat of a company - Abolition of the capital duty charged to a company)
   (2007/C 315/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: Firma Ing. Auer — Die Bausoftware GmbH
   
      Defendant: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat — Interpretation of Article 4(1)(a) and (g), Article 4(3)(b) and Article 7(2) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — Capital duty charged to a company which has transferred its effective centre of management from a Member State which has abolished capital duty to a Member State which charges capital duty
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 4(1)(g) and (3)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 and by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be interpreted to the effect that the waiver by a Member State of the charging of capital duty does not preclude a company falling within one of the categories referred to in Article 3(1)(a) of that directive from being classified as a capital company for the purposes of charging capital duty within the meaning of Article 4(1)(g) of that directive if its effective centre of management is transferred from that Member State to another Member State in which that duty is still levied. Nevertheless, the result of such an interpretation cannot be to encourage conduct characterised by the putting in place of artificial arrangements with the sole aim of obtaining a fiscal advantage. It is for the national court to verify whether there is objective evidence of action constituting an abusive practice of that kind in the circumstances of the main proceedings.
   
      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.