CELEX: 62008CN0067
Language: en
Date: 2008-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-67/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2008 — Margarete Block v Finanzamt Kaufbeuren

26.4.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 107/19
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2008 — Margarete Block v Finanzamt Kaufbeuren
   (Case C-67/08)
   (2008/C 107/29)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: Margarete Block
   
      Defendant: Finanzamt Kaufbeuren
   Questions referred
   
               1.
            
            
               Do the provisions of Article 73d(1)(a) and (3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 58(1)(a) and (3) EC) allow the crediting of Spanish inheritance tax against German inheritance tax to be precluded under Paragraph 21(1) and (2)(1) of the Erbschaftsteuer- und Schenkungsteuergesetz (Law on inheritance and gift tax) in conjunction with Paragraph 121 of the Bewertungsgesetz (Valuation Law) (category restriction) even in the case of deaths which occurred in 1999?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Is Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC) to be interpreted as meaning that the inheritance tax which another European Union Member State levies in respect of the acquisition, by an heir resident in Germany, of the capital claims of a testator last resident in Germany against credit institutions in that other Member State must be credited against German inheritance tax?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               In deciding which of the States involved has to avoid double taxation is the justification for the different connecting factors in the national tax law systems relevant and, if so, is the connection to the residence of the creditor more justified than the connection to the registered office of the debtor?