On August 12, 2021, on the website of the Dutch Courts a very interesting judgment of the District Court of Gelderland (Rechtbank Gelderland) in the joined cases, AWB-19_6602 and AWB-19_6603, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2021:2972, was published. The cases concern the Dutch fiscal unity regime. Actually, the cases concern 2 questions. The first question is whether in the underlying case through a restructuring that a.o. includes a legal merger the taxpayer gains access to the possibility to set off pre-consolidation losses of a fiscal unity against profits that are allocable to the business of an entity that was only included in the fiscal unity after the losses were already incurred and that has disappeared through a legal merger that took place within the fiscal unity? Or does the fraus legis doctrine apply and is the taxpayer therefore denied the possibility to set off these pre-consolidation losses against the profits that are allocable to the business of the entity that has disappeared through the legal merger? The second question regarding which the District Court rules is whether based on the principles of sound business practices a taxpayer is obliged to amortize goodwill?


I find the case very interesting, because based on the judgment of the District Court of Gelderland it seems that in the underlying case the taxpayer has found a creative way to get access to pre-consolidation losses. Even although the Dutch legislation contains numerous provisions that are meant to avoid that the fiscal unity regime is abused to lower the Dutch tax burden. Several of these provisions specifically aim at avoiding that the fiscal unity regime is abused in order to get access to pre-consolidation losses and therewith lowering the amounts of Dutch corporate income tax (DCIT) due in later years. Since in the Netherlands losses can only be carried forward for a maximum of 6 years (6 financial years) the judgment can be of help in situations where a taxpayer is afraid that its losses are going to expire unused. Therefore this judgment might not only be interesting, but also very useful to taxpayers if the judgment of the District Court is ultimately confirmed by the Dutch Supreme Court. 

On august 19, 2021 the HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) published new draft legislation that will require large businesses to notify HMRC where they have adopted an uncertain tax treatment , as defined by notification criteria set out in this draft legislation. This measure aims to highlight and clarify legal interpretation differences earlier, either through notification, or by encouraging more businesses to discuss areas of uncertainty with HMRC before they submit their returns, thereby negating the requirement to notify. Although not exclusive to large businesses, most of the legal interpretation tax gap is attributable to this taxpayer group.


The measure will apply to returns due to be filed on or after April 1, 2022. The legislation will apply the regime to Corporation Tax, Value Added Tax and Income Tax (for partnerships, and including amounts collected via PAYE).

Op 13 augustus 2021 heeft staatssecretaris Vijlbrief de Tweede Kamer geïnformeerd dat de schriftelijke vragen van het lid Snels aan de staatssecretaris van Financiën over de cv/bv-structuur (2021Z13822, ingezonden 16 juli 2021) met het oog op een zorgvuldige en volledige beantwoording niet binnen de gebruikelijke termijn kunnen worden beantwoord.


Eerlijkheidshalve moeten wij toegeven dat wij deze schriftelijke vragen gemist hadden. De door Kamerlid Snels gestelde aanvullende vragen hebben betrekking op de ‘belastingontwijking’ door Pfizer waar Kamerlid Snels al eerder vragen over heeft gesteld. Over de antwoorden op de initiële vragen schreven wij al op 29 juni 2021 (Ambtelijke notitie meegezonden bij de antwoorden op Kamervragen over belastingontwijking door Pfizer).

On August 6, 2021, on the website of the Dutch courts an interesting opinion of the Dutch Advocate General to the Dutch Supreme Court was published. Although nowadays we have the eurozone it will still regularly happen that taxpayers purchase assets for which the purchase price is denominated in another currency then the Euro. And often a purchase agreement will be entered into with respect to assets which will be delivered on a later date. In his very interesting opinion, the Advocate General sets out which facts influence how the question raised in the title is to be answered for Dutch corporate income tax purposes.

Op 12 augustus 2021 is op De Rechtspraak de uitspraak van Rechtbank Gelderland in de zaken met  de zaaknummers: AWB - 19 _ 6602 en 19_6603, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2021:2972 gepubliceerd. De zaak draait feitelijk om 2 vragen. De eerste vraag is of in de onderhavige casus de belastingplichtige middels een juridische fusie toegang krijgt tot de mogelijkheid om voorvoegingsverliezen te verrekenen? Een mogelijkheid tot verliesverrekening die zonder de juridische fusie niet zou hebben bestaan. Of dat het algemene leerstuk van fraus legis roet in het eten gooit? De tweede vraag is of een belastingplichtige op basis van de beginselen van goed koopmansgebruik verplicht is om af te schrijven over goodwill?

Op 6 augustus is op De Rechtspraak de conclusie van Advocaat_Generaal Wattel in zaaknummer: 20/03943, ECLI:NL:PHR:2021:708 gepubliceerd. Belanghebbende heeft in 2014 een vliegtuig in US dollars gekocht. Het vliegtuig is in 2015 is geleverd. In 2014 heeft belanghebbende 20% van de prijs betaald, de rest betaalt zij bij levering. Op het moment van bestelling heeft zij het vliegtuig geactiveerd en de resterende betalingsverplichting gepassiveerd, beide tegen de valutakoers op dat moment. Ultimo 2014 is de dollar aangetrokken tegenover de euro, waardoor de resterende betalingsverplichting is gegroeid. De belanghebbende wil dit negatieve resultaat op basis van het voorzichtigheidsbeginsel fiscaal als verlies nemen in 2014.

A recent judgment of the Court of Amsterdam (Gerechtshof Amsterdam), case number: 20/00352, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:1765, shows the importance of good timing and the use of precise wording during (financial) restructurings. In the underlying case the question arose whether a Dutch taxpayer should take into account a taxable profit with respect to a dividend it received from its Swiss subsidiary.

On August 3, 2021, the OECD has published updated/new transfer pricing country profiles, reflecting the current transfer pricing legislation and practices of 20 jurisdictions. These updated/new profiles also contain new information on countries' legislation and practices regarding the transfer pricing treatment of financial transactions and the application of the Authorised OECD Approach (AOA) to attribute profits to permanent establishments.

Op 2 augustus 2021 is op De Rechtspraak de uitspraak van het Gerechtshof Amsterdam in zaaknummer 20/00352, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:1765 gepubliceerd. De groep waar belanghebbende onderdeel vanuit maakt werd in 2011 financieel geherstructureerd. Bij deze herstructurering ontvangt belanghebbende een dividend haar dochter. Deze dividenduitdeling vindt plaats door de overdracht van een US-dollar lening. Waarna een dooruitdeling door belanghebbende aan haar aandeelhouder plaats vindt.

Submit to FacebookSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn