ECJ C-600/10 Commission v. Germany – Tax discrimination offoreign pension funds – discriminación de los fondos de pensionesextranjeros

SavingTrending
topics:
Libre circulación de capitales (art. 63
TFUE y 40 EEE) — Normativa nacional relativa a la imposición de los
dividendos y de los intereses abonados a los fondos de pensiones y
a las cajas de pensiones, que reserva ciertas ventajas fiscales
exclusivamente a los dividendos e inte­ reses abonados a las
instituciones residentes. Failure of a Member State to fulfil
obligations — Infringement of
Article 63 TFEU and of Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — National
legal provisions on the taxation of dividends and interest paid to
pension funds and pension insurance schemes, granting certain
fiscal advantages only in respect of dividends and interest paid to
resident institutions.

La sentencia (sólo disponible en
alemán
y en francés)
analiza la posible discriminación fiscal de los fondos de
pensiones no residentes que perciben intereses y dividendos en
Alemania, pues en tales casos no es posible deducir los gastos
derivados de la actividad económica relacionados directamente con
dicha percepción. La sentencia considera que la Comisión no ha
probado suficientemente la existencia de gastos directamente
relacionados con los ingresos (párrafo 26), aunque la Comisión
había mencionado las comisiones bancarias, los gastos derivados de
controversias legales y los gastos de personal especializado
(párrafo 19).

Muchas gracias a Federico Garau (Conflictus Legum) por facilitarnos la
información.

The
judgement
(available only in German
in French)
deals with a possible tax discrimination of dividends and interest
paid to non-non resident pension funds, because they can not deduct
business expenses directly related to those payments. The
Commission invokes the Gerritse judgment. However, in the Court’s
view the Commission has failed to provide enough evidence that
those expenses do exist in the case of non-resident pensión funds
(parr. 26. The Commission mentioned bank fees, cost derived from
legal disputes and personnel costs (paragraph 19).
According to the Court it is
not clear that those costs are necessarily
involved in the perception of dividends and interest by
non-resident pension funds.

Comment:
Perhaps the degree of evidence provided that the Court requires to
the Commission goes beyond reasonable standards. It could be that
the Court is trying to minimise some perverse
effects derived from a literal interpretation of the
Gerritse judgment.

Many thanks to Federico Garau (Conflictus Legum) for the peace of
information.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s