ECJ (Opinion of Geelhoed AG) Interpretation of Articles 43 and 56 EC and Articles 4(1) and 6 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States – Tax exemption granted in a Member State to a company established in its territory which received dividends paid by companies also established in its territory – Exemption not granted for dividends paid to that company by companies established in the territory of another Member State
‘ . . where a member state has a system for preventing or mitigating the imposition of a series of charges to tax or economic double taxation as regards dividends paid to residents by resident companies, it must treat dividends paid to residents by non-resident companies in the same way.
[The Treaty provisions] do not preclude legislation of a member state which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, when that state imposes corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a non-resident company in which the resident company holds at least 10% of the voting rights, while at the same time granting a tax credit in the latter case for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the member state in which it is resident, provided that the rate of tax applied to foreign-sourced dividends is no higher than the rate of tax applied to nationally-sourced dividends and that the tax credit is at least equal to the amount paid in the member state of the company making the distribution, up to the limit of the amount of the tax charged in the member state of the company receiving the distribution.
Article [63FEU] precludes legislation of a member state which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, where that state levies corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a non-resident company in which it holds less than 10% of the voting rights, without granting the company receiving the dividends a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the state in which the latter is resident.
[The Treaty provisions] preclude legislation of a member state which allows a resident company receiving dividends from another resident company to deduct from the amount which the former company is liable to pay by way of advance corporation tax the amount of that tax paid by the latter company, whereas no such deduction is permitted in the case of a resident company receiving dividends from a non-resident company as regards the corresponding tax on distributed profits paid by the latter company in the state in which it is resident.’
C-446/04,  EUECJ C-446/04,  STC 326,  ECR I-11753,  BTC 222,  STI 2750,  2 AC 436,  2 WLR 1240,  ECR I-11753, 9 ITL Rep 426, ECLI:EU:C:2006:774,  1 CMLR 35
Council Directive 90/435/EEC 6
At ECJ – Test Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue SC 23-May-2012
The European Court had found the UK to have unlawfully treated differently payment of franked dividends between subsidiaries of UK companies according to whether all the UK subsidiaries were themselves UK based, thus prejudicing European . .
At ECJ – Test Claimants In the FII Group Litigation v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 27-Nov-2008
The claimants were companies with parent companies in the UK and other subsidiaries not so resident, both in the EU and outside. They complained of the differences in treatment under corporation tax of the payment of dividends between the . .
See Also – Test Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v The Commissioners For Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs ECJ 19-Jul-2012
ECJ Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU – Payment of dividends – Corporation tax – Case C-446/04 – Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation – Interpretation of the judgment – Prevention of economic double taxation – . .
See Also – Test Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ECJ 5-Sep-2013
ECJ Opinion – Recovery of national taxes which are contrary to European Union law – Limitation period for instituting proceedings – National legislation curtailing the limitation period with retroactive effect . .
See Also – Test Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ECJ 12-Dec-2013
ECJ Judicial protection – Principle of effectiveness – Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations – Restitution of sums paid but not due – Remedies – National legislation – . .
See Also – The Test Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 18-Dec-2014
The company claimants had paid large sums in excess tax under a mistake of European law. . .
Cited – Littlewoods Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs SC 1-Nov-2017
The appellants had overpaid under a mistake of law very substantial sums in VAT over several years. The excess had been repaid, but with simple interest and not compound interest, which the now claimed (together with other taxpayers amounting to 17 . .
Cited – Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 25-Jul-2018
PAC sought to recover excess advance corporation tax paid under a UK system contrary to EU law. It was now agreed that some was repayable but now the quantum. Five issues separated the parties.
Issue I: does EU law require the tax credit to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.374511