Court stated in Marks & Spencer that the possibility of transferring the losses incurred by a nonresident company to a resident company entails the risk that within a group of companies losses will be transferred to companies established in the Member States which apply the highest rates of taxation and in which the tax value of the losses is therefore the highest. In contrast to the situation concerning subsidiaries, where it is conceivable that the transfer of losses will be systematically organised within groups of companies and losses directed solely to companies of the group established in Member States with higher rates of taxation, 15in the case of permanent establishments there is clearly no scope for such ‘jurisdiction shopping’ if a company in one Member State is allowed to deduct losses made by a permanent establishment in another Member State. That is because, as the Commission submits, measures enabling the ‘transfer’ of losses from a permanent establishment, as opposed to a subsidiary, are neither necessary nor theoretically conceivable: losses made by a permanent establishment are losses of the taxpayer ‘parent’ company. Losses made by national permanent establishments can accordingly be directly and immediately deducted. The only difference between that domestic situation and the present case lies in the allocation of the power to impose taxes: if the permanent establishment is resident in another Member State with which there is a double taxation convention such as that at issue in the present case, that State will have the exclusive right to tax the income of the permanent establishment in question. That does not affect the fact that a loss accrues to the taxpayer company, directly reducing its taxable income in its State of residence. The other State’s right to tax simply creates a second connecting factor for the same 13 — Since the loss was made in 1999 but could not be used in Luxembourg until 2003, Lidl was still disadvantaged by its inability to set the loss off against its profits in Germany at an earlier stage.
Glede zadnjega, tretjega dejavnika utemeljitve, ki se nana�a na nevarnost davč- nega izogibanja, je Sodi�če v sodbi Marks & Spencer ugotovilo, da možnost prenosa izgub, ki jih je imela družba nerezidentka, na družbo rezidentko vsebuje tveganje, da se bodo znotraj skupine družb izgube prena�ale na družbe s sedežem v državah članicah, v katerih veljajo najvi�je davčne stopnje in v katerih je zato davčna vrednost izgub največja. Drugače kot položaj z odvisnimi družbami, kjer se razume, da bo prenos izgub sistematično organiziran znotraj skupin družb in izgube usmerjene le na družbe skupine s sedežem v državah članicah, v katerih veljajo najvi�je davčne stopnje, 15v primeru stalnih poslovnih enot jasno ni prostora za tak forum shopping, če družba iz ene države članice lahko odbije izgube, ki jih je imela stalna poslovna enota v drugi državi članici. Tako je zato, kot trdi Komisija, ker ukrepi, ki omogočajo „prenos“ izgub iz stalne poslovne enote, kar se odreka odvisni družbi, niso niti potrebni niti teoretično razumljivi: izgube, ki jih je imela stalna poslovna enota, so izgube matične družbe, ki je davčni zavezanec. Izgube, ki so jih imele nacionalne stalne poslovne enote, se torej lahko neposredno in takoj odbijejo. Edina razlika z domačim položajem in s tem primerom je v porazdelitvi pristojnosti obdavčitve: če je stalna poslovna enota rezident v drugi državi članici, s katero je sklenjena konvencija o dvojnem obdavčevanju, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, bo imela ta država izključno pravico, da obdavči dohodek teh stalnih poslovnih enot. To ne vpliva na dejstvo, da izguba nastane družbi, ki je davčni zavezanec, ki takoj zmanj�a svoj obdavčljivi dohodek v državi, kjer je rezident. Pravica obdavčitve, ki jo ima druga država, zgolj ustvarja drug povezovalni dejavnik za enako izgubo in zato tudi možnost za dvojni odbitek. V primerih, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, se mi zdi, da tretji dejavnik 13 – Ker je izguba nastala leta 1999, ampak se v Luksemburgu ni mogla uporabiti do leta 2003, družba Lidl na začetku ni mogla poravnati izgube z dobički v Nemčiji.