Two new preliminary questions regarding taxes on the raising of capital

Two new preliminary questions regarding taxes on the raising of capital.

(You can see the Spanish version here)

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie (Poland) lodged on 27 June 2013 — Drukarnia Multipress sp. z o. o. v Minister for Finance

(Case C-357/13)

(2013/C 274/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Drukarnia Multipress sp. z o. o.

Defendant: Minister for Finance

Questions referred

1. Should Article 2(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital ( 1 ) (OJ L 46, 21.2.2008, p. 11) be interpreted to mean that a limited joint-stock partnership should be regarded as a capital company within the meaning of those provisions if it follows from the legal nature of that partnership that only part of its capital and partners are able to meet the requirements set out in Article 2(1)(b) and (c) of the Directive?

2. If the first question is answered in the negative, should Article 9 of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ L 46, 21.2.2008, p. 11), which allows a Member State to choose not to recognise the entities referred to in Article 2(2) of the Directive as capital companies, be interpreted to mean that the said Member State is also free to choose whether or not to levy capital duty on such entities?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 3 July 2013 — Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-377/13)

(2013/C 274/13)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, S.A.

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

Do Article 4(1)(c) and (2)(a), Article 7(1) and Article 10(a) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC ( 1 ) of 17 July 1969 (as amended by Council Directive 85/303 EEC ( 2 ) of 10 June 1985) preclude national legislation, such as Decree-Law No 322-8/2001 of 14 December 2001, which subjected to stamp duty any increases in the capital of capital companies through the conversion into capital of the claims of shareholders in respect of ancillary services provided previously to the company, even if those ancillary services had been provided in cash, bearing in mind that, as at 1 July 1984, national legislation subjected those increases in capital, made in that way, to stamp duty at the rate of 2 %, and that, at the same date, it exempted from stamp duty capital increases made in cash?

Many thanks to Federico Garau (Conflictus Legum) for the piece 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