Details

Op 16 juni 2021 hebben de staatssecretarissen van Financiën de 3e voortgangsrapportage -Belastingdienst 2020 aan de Tweede Kamer gestuurd. Bij deze 3de voortgangsrapportage zijn 3 bijlagen bijgevoegd waarvan met name 2 bijlagen interessant zijn voor fiscalisten die werkzaam zijn in de internationale praktijk. Vooral de Bijlage: “Rulings met een internationaal karakter - Jaarverslag 2020” is een interessante. De andere interessante bijlage is de “Rapportage van een onafhankelijke onderzoekscommissie rulings met een internationaal karakter 2019”.

Details

Over the last few years many suggestive reports have seen the light regarding aggressive IP planning. The main goal of most of these reports seems to be to feed the negative sentiment that the Netherlands is a tax haven for multinationals. These reports have been drafted by organizations as SOMO. They use terms like: “The Netherlands do not tax royalties”, “The Dutch APA and ATR practice allow multinationals to come to agreements with the Dutch tax authorities that are against the law” or “The Netherlands is a tax haven”, “Because of the Dutch APA and ATR practices other countries lose out on billions of (corporate) income taxes”.

 

In many of these reports it is suggested that the jurisdictions of which the sub-licensees are residents have lost out on huge amounts of taxes. The Netherlands is one of the jurisdictions that is often accused of being a tax haven that enables the (most US) IP-owners of robbing the jurisdictions of which the sub-licensees are residents out of the possibility to levy billions in taxes . (Obviously also Ireland and Luxembourg are jurisdictions that are regularly mentioned). What most of these reports furthermore have in common is that they love to throw around billions of royalties being paid by the sub-licensees.  Furthermore they love to pretend that the structures lead to gigantic amounts of deductible costs in the jurisdictions of which the sub-licensees are residents and that these costs would not exist in a ‘straightforward’ structure.

 

Now I am not going to pretend that I have read all these reports, but what I miss in these reports is a comparison between the taxes that would have been paid by a multinational in a straightforward structure and the taxes that they pay when using an aggressive tax planning structure.

Details

On June 4, 2021 the European Commission opened a public consultation titled: “Tax avoidance – fighting the use of shell entities and arrangements for tax purposes”. Interested parties can give their input until August 27, 2021 (midnight Brussels time). The consultation is shaped in the form of a questionnaire via which interested parties can provide their input.

Most of the questions included in the questionnaire are so-called multiple choice questions and only a few times interested parties have the possibility to provide alternative input. Looking at the questionnaire I get the feeling that the European Commission has already chosen the direction it wants to go, which is mainly based on the colored way left-wing activists describe(d) shell entities (or letter-box entities as they prefer to call them).

Details

On June 9, 2021 the key decisions of the European Commission’s June infringements package were published. With respect to Taxation and Customs Union the Commission decided to send reasoned opinions to Germany and Malta as well as an additional letter of formal notice to Sweden and letters of formal notice to Greece and Bulgaria.

Details

Op 3 juni 2021 heeft de meervoudige belastingkamer van de Rechtbank Noord-Nederland een opvallende uitspraak gedaan in een zaak waarin de vraag centraal stond of en hoe groot het liquidatieverlies is dat een lichaam dat belastingplichtig is geworden voor de vennootschapsbelasting vanwege de Wet modernisering Vpb-plicht overheidsondernemingen mag nemen. Meer precies is de vraag eigenlijk op welke waarde de deelneming op de openingsbalans moet worden opgenomen. Is dat op historische kostprijs? Of op de waarde in het economisch verkeer?

In de onderhavige zaak besliste de Rechtbank dat belastingplichtige een liquidatieverlies in aanmerking mag nemen. Het in aanmerking te nemen liquidatieverlies bedraagt het verschil tussen de historische kostprijzen van de deelnemingen en de daaruit ontvangen liquidatie-uitkeringen.

Details

Op 7 juni 2021 heeft De staatssecretaris van Financiën een informatie brief gestuurd aan de Tweede Kamer inzake de opzegging door de Russische Federatie van het Nederlands-Russische belastingverdrag. Middels deze brief informeert de staatssecretaris de Kamer over de gang van zaken en de gevolgen van dit besluit.

Details

On June 1, 2021 the Dutch government published what it calls the synthesised text of 12 Double Taxation Agreements, which are impacted by the Multilateral Instrument (the MLI). In the published documents the concrete consequences of the MLI are presented in a legible manner in the continuous text of the treaty. The publication of these 12 documents is very handy, because the show which articles of the MLI impact which of these DTAs in which manner and it will save you from having to spend a lot of time to solve the puzzle yourself.

Details

Zoals u wellicht reeds wist heeft Nederland recent een verdrag tot het vermijden van dubbele belasting met betrekking tot belastingen naar inkomen en het voorkomen van het ontduiken en ontwijken van belastingen gesloten met Cyprus. Het verdrag is ondertekend op 1 juni 2021.

Hoewel het verdrag is ondertekend is het nog niet in werking getreden. Daarvoor moeten eerst de ratificatieprocedures in beide landen zijn doorlopen.

De tekst van het verdrag is beschikbaar in de Griekse, Nederlandse en Engelse taal op de website van het Cypriotisch Ministerie van Financiën.

Details

In the Netherlands we currently have a scandal regarding a member of a large political party and 2 business associates seem to have earned millions on a facial mask deal with the Dutch Ministry of Health.

 

Facts

Like many countries during the year 2020 the Dutch government had a problem in obtaining the necessary facial masks. Many employees working in different areas of the health care industry therefore had to work unprotected. Many entrepreneurs offered to deliver facial masks to the Dutch Ministry of Health. However, the Dutch Government said that during a crisis it would not want to do business with cowboys. Therefore they seem to have turned down many of these offers.

Details

Op 4 juni mei 2021 is de website van de Rechtspraak een interessante conclusie gepubliceerd van Advocaat-Generaal Wattel van 11 mei 2021 in zaak nummer: 20/04195, Stichting [X] tegen de Staatssecretaris van Financiën (ECLI:NL:PHR:2021:475).

Belanghebbende (X) is een woningcorporatie. De belanghebbende is een woningcorporatie die sociale-huurwoningen exploiteert. In 2011 heeft zij in het kader van herontwikkelingsprojecten tot verduurzaming van haar woningvoorraad 90 van haar sociale-huurwoningen gesloopt en daarvoor in de plaats 66 nieuwe sociale-huurwoningen, 27 vrije-sector huurwoningen en 20 koopwoningen neergezet. In geschil is de vraag of de bedrijfswaarde van sloopwoningen behoort tot de kostprijs van de nieuwe woningen is zoals zou volgen uit  (het standpunt van de inspecteur) of dat zij ineens mag worden afgeboekt ex het Warenhuisarrest HR BNB 1993/240 om te lage afschrijving te corrigeren (het standpunt van belanghebbende)?

In zijn conclusie noemt de A-G het Warenhuisarrest (HR BNB 1993/240) moeilijk te plaatsen.

Details

On June 3, 2021 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judged in the Case C‑931/19, Titanium Ltd versus Finanzamt Österreich (formerly Finanzamt Wien), (ECLI:EU:C:2021:446).

The request has been made in proceedings between Titanium Ltd, established in Jersey, and the Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Wien (Tax authority of Austria, formerly tax authority of the city of Vienna, Austria) (‘the tax authority’), concerning the levying of value added tax (VAT) on rental income relating to a property located in Austria for the tax years 2009 and 2010.

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) and Directive 2006/112, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008 (OJ 2008 L 44, p. 11, ‘Directive 2006/112, as amended’).

Details

On June 3, 2021 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judged in the Case C‑182/20, BE and DT versus Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Suceava, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Iaşi, Accer Ipurl Suceava, acting as court-appointed liquidator of BE and EP, (ECLI:EU:C:2021:442).

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1; the ‘VAT Directive’), and in particular Articles 184 to 186 of that directive.

The request has been made in proceedings between BE, a company which has been declared insolvent, and DT, a partner and administrator of that company, on the one hand, and the Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Suceava (District Directorate of Public Finances, Suceava, Romania), and the Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Iaşi (Regional Directorate-General of Public Finances, Iași, Romania) (together, the ‘tax authorities’), as well as Accer Ipurl Suceava, acting as court-appointed liquidator of BE, and EP, on the other, concerning the tax authorities’ decision, adopted after BE was declared insolvent, to adjust certain value added tax (VAT) deductions made by BE before it was declared insolvent.

Details

On June 1, 2021 EU Tax Observatory released its first report, titled “COLLECTING THE TAX DEFICIT OF MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES: SIMULATIONS FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION”. The very interesting report makes an estimation of the amount of tax revenue that the EU could raise by imposing a minimum tax on the profits of multinational companies. The study considers several scenarios for the imposition of such a tax – ranging from an international tax agreement to unilateral measures – and a range of rates.

The study estimates how much tax revenue the European Union could collect by imposing a minimum tax on the profits of multinational companies. It computes the tax deficit of multinational firms, defined as the difference between what multinationals currently pay in taxes, and what they would pay if they were subject to a minimum tax rate in each country. The study then considers three ways for EU countries to collect this tax deficit.

Details

On June 1, 2021 the European Commission announced the launch of the European Tax Observatory. The European Tax Observatory a new ‘research laboratory’ to assist in the EU's fight against tax abuse. The Observatory was created under the initiative of the European Parliament.

Funded by the European Union, the purpose of the Tax Observatory is to support EU policy-making through cutting-edge research, analysis and data-sharing. The Observatory will be fully independent in conducting its research, objectively informing policymakers and suggesting initiatives that could help to better tackle tax evasion, tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning.

Details

On May 28, 2021 on the website of the Dutch Courts (De Rechtspraak) a judgment of the Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden of May 18, 2021 in the Case: 19/00599, (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2021:4878), was published. The case regards the question which jurisdiction has the right to tax signing bonuses of professional football players which are lent out/rent out by a Belgium professional football organization (a BPFO) to a Dutch professional football organization (a DPFO).

Before discussing the case I have to admit that this case were an eye-opener for me. From time-to-time I hear/read about the new contracts top players sign with a club. The press then talks about the huge signing bonusses the players receive. The naïve football fan in me always believed that when the player signs the new contract on day X, one day later the millions were remitted to his bank account. The facts of the underlying case gave me some new insight with respect to signing bonusses.

Details

Op 27 mei en 28 2021 zijn op de website van De Rechtspraak 3 conclusies gepubliceerd van Advocaat-Generaal Niessen waarin hij zijn licht laat schijnen wat moet worden verstaan onder de Exploitatie van een schip in het internationaal verkeer in de zin van artikel 15, lid 3, van het Verdrag Nederland-Zwitserland. Of beter gezegd wat daar niet onder valt.

Details

On May 21, 2021 on the website of the Dutch Courts (De Rechtspraak) an opinion of Advocate General Wattel in the Case: 21/00564, Stichting [X] versus de inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/kantoor [P] (the tax inspector/tax office [P]) (ECLI:NL:PHR:2021:440), was published. The opinion concerns questions referred to the Dutch Supreme Court for a preliminary ruling by the District Court of Noord-Nederland.

Before discussing the tax consequences of the restructuring it might be good to get some understanding regarding the position of the taxpayer in the underlying case and why it came in the position it is.

Details

Op 21 mei 2021 is de website van de Rechtspraak de conclusie gepubliceerd van de Advocaat-Generaal Wattel van 30 april 2021 in zaak nummer: 21/00564, Stichting [X] tegen de inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/kantoor [P] (ECLI:NL:PHR:2021:440). Deze conclusie betreft prejudiciële vragen die zijn gesteld door de Rechtbank Noord-Nederland.

De Rechtbank Noord-Nederland vraagt zich met name af of de nieuwe vastrentende leningen moeten worden beschouwd als voortzettingen van de vroegere variabel rentende leningen met IRS-hedges, waardoor de IRSs-afkoopsom beschouwd zou moeten worden als de rente die de belanghebbende zich tijdens de looptijd van die nieuwe leningen bespaart. Gegeven HR BNB 2014/116 (market maker) en HR BNB 2020/13 (IRS: een voldoende samenhangende IRS en variabel rentende lening worden tezamen behandeld als een vastrentende lening), is de vraag wat rechtens is als de looptijd van de swap en de daaraan gekoppelde variabele-rente-lening niet wordt uitgezeten, maar (vermoedelijk) wél de looptijd van de vervangende vastrentende lening. De rechtbank heeft de Hoge Raad daarom bij tussenuitspraak van 9 februari 2021 verschillende vragen gesteld.

Details

On May 20, 2021 on the website of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) the opinion of Advocate General Tanchev in the joined Cases C-45/20, (E versus Finanzamt N) and C-46/20 (Z versus Finanzamt G) (ECLI:EU:C:2021:417), was published.

These requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court, Germany, ‘the referring court’), seek clarification of the Court’s case-law on allocation of capital goods and, more specifically, immovable property used for both business and private purposes (‘mixed-use assets’), to a taxpayers private assets, or to the assets of a taxpayer’s business, or to a combination of both (‘the allocation decision’). More specifically, the questions address the consequences flowing from the allocation decision for the right to deduct input tax, under Articles 167 and 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EC of 22 December 2009 amending various provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’).

The questions ask about the compatibility with EU law, particularly in the light of the Court’s ruling in the judgment of 25 July 2018, Gmina Ryjewo, of what is in effect a limitation period under German law for communication to the German tax authorities of the allocation decision, the expiry of which has been interpreted in the case-law of the referring court as resulting in the loss of the right to deduct input tax. The same appears to follow from the presumption in the referring court’s case-law of allocation of mixed-use assets to a taxpayer’s private assets, which applies in the absence of sufficient indications to the contrary.

The Advocate General has reached the conclusion that, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, an interpretation of Member State law in the case-law of the referring court, and pursuant to which a taxable person loses the right to deduct input tax for failure to communicate an allocation decision with respect to mixed-use assets within the time limit for so doing operative under Member State law, is incompatible with Articles 167 and 168(a) of the VAT Directive, for inconsistency with the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, given that there is no indication in the case file of any active concern with respect to tax evasion. The same conclusion applies to the aforementioned assumption of allocation to the private assets of the taxpayer when it results in loss of the right to deduct. 

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
INTERESTING ARTICLES