Tom O’Shea: ECJ Punch Graphix, C- 371/11, Linking Parent-Subsidiary and Merger Directives – Interpretación conjunta de la Directiva Matriz-Filial y la Directiva de Fusiones

johnny_automatic_boxing_glovesTrending Topics: Remisión del Derecho interno al Derecho de la Unión – Directiva 90/435/CEE – Directiva 90/434/CEE – Prevención de la doble imposición económica – Excepción – Liquidación de una filial con motivo de una fusión – Reparto de beneficios – Concepto de “liquidación”, Reference by domestic law to European Union law – Directive 90/435/EEC-Directive 90/434/EEC – Prevention of economic double taxation – Exception – Liquidation of a subsidiary upon a merger – Distribution of profits – Concept of ‘liquidation’

Tom O’Shea has published an inspiring paper on the Punch Graphix judgement (C-371/11) [“ECJ Rules Dissolution of a Company Not the Same as Liquidation”, in Tax Notes International vol. 67, no. 7, February 18, 2013]

“In Punch Graphix, the Court determined that the concept of liquidation in the parent-subsidiary directive must take into account the concept of merger in article 2(a) of the merger directive, ‘‘so that the dissolution of a company in the context of a merger by acquisition cannot be considered to be a ‘liquidation’ within the meaning of ’’ article 4(1) of the parent-subsidiary directive (…)

The Court explained that the proposal for the parent subsidiary directive was submitted on the same day by the European Commission as the proposal for the merger directive. Moreover, those two directives were adopted by the Council of the EU on the same day and had to be transposed into the national legal systems of the EU member states simultaneously. The Court also observed that the two directives had the same objective ‘‘to abolish restrictions, disadvantages or distortions arising in particular from the tax provisions of the Member States for the operations covered by those directives.’’ Consequently, the Court determined that ‘‘those directives, governing different types of transnational cooperation between companies, constitute, according to the legislature’s plan, a whole, in that they complement each other”.

Many thanks for sharing your thought with us, dear Tom.

Tom O’Shea ha publicado un interesante comentario a la STJUE Punch Graphix (C-371/11) [“ECJ Rules Dissolution of a Company Not the Same as Liquidation”, in Tax Notes International vol. 67, no. 7, February 18, 2013].

En Punch Graphix el Tribunal concluye que el concepto de “liquidación” en la directiva matriz-filial debe tener en cuenta el concepto de fusión en el art. 2.a de la directiva de fusiones, “de modo que la disolución de una sociedad en el contexto de una fusión por absorción no puede considerse una “liquidación” en el sentido del art. 4.1 de la directiva matriz-filial (…)

El Tribunal explica que la propuesta de directiva matriz-filial se aprobó por la Comisión Europea el mismo día que la directiva de fusiones. Además, ambas directivas se aprobaron el mismo día por el Consejo de la UE y han sido objeto de trasposición simultánea por los Estados miembros. El Tribunal considera que ambas directivas tienen el mismo objetivo, “suprimir restricciones, desventajas o distorsiones derivadas de las disposiciones fiscales de los estados miembros relativas a las operaciones contempladas en dichas directivas. Por consiguiente, el tribunal concluye que “dichas directivas, que regulan distintas modalidades de cooperación transfronteriza entre sociedades, constituyen, según el plan del legislador, un todo que se complementa mutuamente”.

Muchas gracias por compartir estas ideas con nosotros, querido Tom.

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