Council Directive (EU) 2015/121 of 27 January 2015 amending Directive 2011/96/EU on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States
Grade B
mapped from publisher markup. A grade says how a document's structure was obtained, not how reliable the law is.
Address https://gelex.eu/eli/EU/directive/2015/121@2015-01-27/en
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 115 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee,
Acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure,
Whereas:
(1) Council Directive 2011/96/EU exempts dividends and other profit distributions paid by subsidiary companies to their parent companies from withholding taxes and eliminates double taxation of such income at the level of the parent company.
(2) It is necessary to ensure that Directive 2011/96/EU is not abused by taxpayers who fall within the scope of its application.
(3) Some Member States apply domestic or agreement-based provisions aimed at tackling tax evasion, tax fraud or abusive practices in a general or in a specific way.
(4) However, those provisions may have different levels of severity and, in any case, they are designed to reflect the specificities of each Member State's tax system. Moreover, some Member States do not have any domestic or agreement-based provisions for the prevention of abuse.
(5) Therefore, the inclusion of a common minimum anti-abuse rule in Directive 2011/96/EU would be very helpful to prevent misuse of that Directive and to ensure greater consistency in its application in different Member States.
(6) The application of anti-abuse rules should be proportionate and should serve the specific purpose of tackling an arrangement or a series of arrangements which are not genuine, that is, which do not reflect economic reality.
(7) To that end, when assessing whether an arrangement or a series of arrangements are abusive, Member States' tax administrations should undertake an objective analysis of all relevant facts and circumstances.
(8) While Member States should use the anti-abuse clause to tackle arrangements which are, in their entirety, not genuine, there may also be cases where single steps or parts of an arrangement are, on a stand-alone basis, not genuine. Member States should be able to use the anti-abuse clause also to tackle those specific steps or parts, without prejudice to the remaining genuine steps or parts of the arrangement. That would maximise the effectiveness of the anti-abuse clause while guaranteeing its proportionality. The to the extent approach can be effective in cases where the entities concerned, as such, are genuine but where, for example, shares from which the profit distribution arises are not genuinely attributed to a taxpayer that is established in a Member State, that is, if the arrangement based on its legal form transfers the ownership of the shares but its features do not reflect economic reality.
(9) This Directive should not affect in any way Member States' ability to apply their domestic or agreement-based provisions aimed at preventing tax evasion, tax fraud or abuse.
(10) Directive 2011/96/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
In Directive 2011/96/EU, Article 1(2) is replaced by the following paragraphs:
2. Member States shall not grant the benefits of this Directive to an arrangement or a series of arrangements which, having been put into place for the main purpose or one of the main purposes of obtaining a tax advantage that defeats the object or purpose of this Directive, are not genuine having regard to all relevant facts and circumstances. An arrangement may comprise more than one step or part.
3. For the purposes of paragraph 2, an arrangement or a series of arrangements shall be regarded as not genuine to the extent that they are not put into place for valid commercial reasons which reflect economic reality.
4. This Directive shall not preclude the application of domestic or agreement-based provisions required for the prevention of tax evasion, tax fraud or abuse.
Article 2
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 31 December 2015 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions. When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
Article 3
This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 4
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 January 2015. For the Council The President J. Reirs
Versions
Cited by
- Commission Decision (EU) 2019/421 of 20 June 2018 on State aid SA.44888 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Luxembourg in favour of ENGIE (notified under document C(2018) 3839) (Only the French version is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) Decision · Grade B
Luxembourg claims that Article 166 LIR does not require for its application that the profit stemming from participations must have previously been taxed and that the provisions of Article 164 LIR are not a condition sine qua non for the application of Article 166 LIR. In the same line, Engie considers that the conditions for the application of Article 166 LIR have all been respected, so there can be no derogation. Both Luxembourg and Engie also contest that the objective of Article 166 LIR is the avoidance of double taxation with various arguments related, inter alia, to Council Directive (EU)
- Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège – Belgium) – John Cockerill SA v État belge (Case C-135/24, John Cockerill) Notice · Grade B
Reference for a preliminary rulingCommon system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member StatesDirective 2011/96/EUArticle 1(4)Prevention of tax evasion, tax fraud or abuseArticle 4(1)Prohibition on taxing profits receivedDirect effectInclusion of the dividend distributed by the subsidiary in the parent company’s tax baseDeduction of the distributed dividend from the tax base of the parent companyLimitation of the deductionIntra-group transfer scheme allowing profits made by certain companies to be transferred to othersC/2025/2501Language of t
- Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 3 April 2025 Judgment · Grade B
This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 1(2) and (3) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 2011 L 345, p. 8), as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2015/121 of 27 January 2015 (OJ 2015 L 21, p. 1) (Directive 2011/96).
- Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 3 April 2025 Judgment · Grade B
Recitals 1 to 8 of Directive 2015/121 state:
- Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 3 April 2025 Judgment · Grade B
As regards, next, the scheme and objectives of Directive 2011/96, it is apparent from recitals 4 and 5 of Directive 2015/121, which inserted into Directive 2011/96 the anti-abuse provision that has since been contained in Article 1(2) and (3) thereof, that that provision is very helpful, in particular in the light of the diversity of the national tax systems, to prevent misuse of Directive 2011/96. It should be stated that, having regard both to its position, that is to say, in the first article of Directive 2011/96, and to the objective thus expressed, that provision is cross-cutting in natur
- Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 3 April 2025 Judgment · Grade B
In that regard, it follows from recital 8 of Directive 2015/121 that single steps or parts of an arrangement might, on a stand-alone basis, not be genuine and could, therefore, be covered by the anti-abuse clause, making it possible to give that clause its full effectiveness while guaranteeing its proportionality.
- Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 3 April 2025 Judgment · Grade B
According to recital 7 of Directive 2015/121, Member States’ tax administrations should undertake an objective analysis of all relevant facts and circumstances when assessing whether an arrangement or a series of arrangements are abusive. That wording is reproduced in essence in Article 1(2) of Directive 2011/96, according to which the benefits of that directive are not to be granted to arrangements which are not genuine having regard to all relevant facts and circumstances.
- Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 3 April 2025 Judgment · Grade B
The anti-abuse provision set out in Article 1(2) and (3) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2015/121 of 27 January 2015, must be interpreted as not precluding national practice under which a parent company is denied, in its Member State of residence, an exemption from corporation tax in respect of dividends received from a subsidiary established in another Member State on the ground that that subsidiary is a non-genuine a
- Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 3 April 2025 Judgment · Grade B
The anti-abuse provision set out in Article 1(2) and (3) of Directive 2011/96, as amended by Directive 2015/121, must be interpreted as precluding a national practice under which, without exception, only the situation existing as at the dates of payment of dividends is to be taken into account in order to classify a subsidiary established in another Member State as a non-genuine arrangement, where that subsidiary was set up for valid commercial reasons and the genuine nature of its activity before those dates is not called into question.
- Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 3 April 2025 Judgment · Grade B
The anti-abuse provision set out in Article 1(2) and (3) of Directive 2011/96, as amended by Directive 2015/121, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a parent company has received dividends from a subsidiary classified as a non-genuine arrangement, that classification alone is not sufficient to find that, by enjoying an exemption from corporation tax in respect of those dividends, the parent company obtained a tax advantage that defeats the object and purpose of that directive.
- Request for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės (Lithuania) lodged on 17 March 2025 – NEO GROUP UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Case C-203/25, Neo Group) Notice · Grade B
In circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, are the objectives of the anti-abuse rule of Directive 2011/96/EU, including the principle of proportionality referred to in [the recitals of] Directive 2015/121/EU, compatible with a national practice in which the tax authorities apply the anti-abuse rule in the State in which the dividends are paid, even though the transactions, which have led to a chain of transactions being recognised as an arrangement (which the tax authorities regard as not genuine), were carried out in another EU Member State by tax residents in that an
- Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 24 February 2022 Judgment · Grade B
This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 5(4) and Article 12(b) TEU, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), Articles 49 and 63 TFEU, Article 4(1)(d) of Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States (OJ 2003 L 157, p. 49), Article 1(1)(b) and (3) and Article 5 of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent compan
- Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 24 February 2022 Judgment · Grade B
Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States, read in conjunction with Article 4(1)(d) of that directive, Article 5 of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2015/121 of 27 January 2015, and Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect ta
- Opinion of Advocate General Hogan delivered on 24 October 2019 Case C‑458/18 GVC Services (Bulgaria) EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika — Sofia (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Sofia Administrative Court, Bulgaria)) Opinion · Grade B
The present request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 2(a)(i) and (iii) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2015/121 of 27 January 2015, and its Annex I, Part A(ab) and Part B.
- Opinion of Advocate General Hogan delivered on 24 October 2019 Case C‑458/18 GVC Services (Bulgaria) EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika — Sofia (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Sofia Administrative Court, Bulgaria)) Opinion · Grade B
Article 2(a) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2015/121 of 27 January 2015, in conjunction with Annex I, Part A(ab) and Annex I, Part B, must be interpreted as meaning that a company incorporated in Gibraltar and subject to Gibraltar corporation tax cannot be considered to be a company of a Member State within the meaning of that directive.
- Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Viva Telecom Bulgaria EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika — Sofia (Case C-257/20) Notice · Grade B
Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States, read in conjunction with Article 4(1)(d) of that directive, Article 5 of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2015/121 of 27 January 2015, and Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect ta
- Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 13 March 2025 Judgment · Grade B
This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 1(4) and Article 4 of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 2011 L 345, p. 8), as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2015/121 of 27 January 2015 (OJ 2015 L 21, p. 1) (Directive 2011/96).
- Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 13 March 2025 Judgment · Grade B
On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby rules: Article 1(4) and Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2015/121 of 27 January 2015, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State that provides that dividends received by a parent company from its subsidiary must first be included in the tax base of the subsidiary, before they can subsequently be deducted, without that deduction applying
- Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 April 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės – Lithuania) – Nordcurrent group UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Case C-228/24, Nordcurrent group) Notice · Grade B
The anti-abuse provision set out in Article 1(2) and (3) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2015/121 of 27 January 2015, must be interpreted as not precluding national practice under which a parent company is denied, in its Member State of residence, an exemption from corporation tax in respect of dividends received from a subsidiary established in another Member State on the ground that that subsidiary is a non-genuine a
- Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 April 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės – Lithuania) – Nordcurrent group UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Case C-228/24, Nordcurrent group) Notice · Grade B
The anti-abuse provision set out in Article 1(2) and (3) of Directive 2011/96, as amended by Directive 2015/121, must be interpreted as precluding a national practice under which, without exception, only the situation existing as at the dates of payment of dividends is to be taken into account in order to classify a subsidiary established in another Member State as a non-genuine arrangement, where that subsidiary was set up for valid commercial reasons and the genuine nature of its activity before those dates is not called into question.