“Royalty Restrictions“ in Germany

11 July 2017

Germany has recently introduced new rules that will restrict the tax deductibility of related-party cross-border royalty payments if these payments are benefiting from a low taxation triggered by a harmful preferential tax regime in the country of the recipient.

Based on these new rules, such royalty expenses incurred after 31 December 2017 will no longer be fully deductible in Germany if the relevant income is subject to an effective tax rate of less than 25%:

In detail

For example, if the royalty income is subject to a preferential 10% effective tax rate, 60% of the royalty payments would not be deductible at the German taxpayer level.

However, if a recipient of cross-border royalty payments is subject to the regular tax rate (i.e. no preferential tax regime applies), the royalty restriction rule is not applicable, even if the effective tax rate is less than 25%.

Furthermore, patent box regimes which comply with the OECD “nexus” approach (i.e. under foreign law the preferential tax rate is only granted following an OECD-compliant “nexus” approach) are exempt from the new rule. A patent box of this kind is likely to be introduced in Switzerland in the context of tax package 17 (former corporate tax reform III).

It should however be noted that tax package 17 and therefore an
OECD-compliant Swiss patent box will probably not be introduced before 2020. Consequently, German royalty payments incurred between 1 January 2018 and the introduction of such a patent box in Switzerland could be subject to the new German royalty restriction rule if such royalties benefit from a Swiss preferential tax regime. The following regimes in Switzerland should be investigated in particular to establish whether or not they qualify as harmful preferential tax regimes:

  • Nidwalden IP Box
  • Mixed companies
  • Holding companies
  • Principal companies

An investigation into the impact of the new German limitation rules is recommended in order to determine their impact and to decide whether restructuring should be conducted before 1 January 2018.

In summary, there is still some uncertainty about how the new rules will be interpreted and applied. However, for now it can be assumed that all Swiss preferential regimes may potentially cause issues under the German royalty restriction rule.

There are, however, certain planning ideas which can help mitigate and/or reduce such issues. These solutions may depend on the very specific circumstances of your group and we advise you to have them analysed by your PwC tax consultant on a case-by-case basis.

For a more detailed discussion of how this might affect your business, please contact:

Armin Marti
Partner, Leader Corporate Tax
Tel. +41 58 792 43 43
armin.marti@ch.pwc.com

Stefan Schmid
Partner, Tax & Legal
+41 58 792 44 82
stefan.schmid@ch.pwc.com

Roman Brunner
Partner, Tax & Legal
+41 58 792 72 66
roman.brunner@ch.pwc.com

Urs Brügger
Partner, Tax & Legal
+41 58 792 45 10
urs.bruegger@ch.pwc.com

Reto Inauen
Senior Manager, Tax & Legal
+41 58 792 42 16
reto.inauen@ch.pwc.com

EUDTG Newsletter May – June 2017

EU direct tax law is a fast developing area. This presents taxpayers, in particular groups and multinational corporations that have an EU or European Economic Area (EEA) presence, with various challenges.

The following topics are covered in this issue of EU Tax News:

CJEU Cases

  • Belgium: CJEU judgment in X concerning the Belgian fairness tax
  • Belgium: CJEU judgment in Van der Weegen and Pot concerning the tax exemption applicable to income from savings deposits
  • France: CJEU judgment in AFEP concerning the French contribution tax
  • Luxembourg: CJEU judgment in Berlioz concerning exchange of information upon request

National Developments

  • Austria: Administrative High Court disallows import of foreign (final) losses despite transfer of place of management
  • Germany: Federal Fiscal Court refers §6a RETT Act to CJEU as potential State aid
  • Germany: Federal Fiscal Court denies deduction of final losses according to EU law
  • Italy: Amendments to the NID and Patent Box Regime: conversion into law with revisions
  • Poland: Ministry of Finance publishes warning on aggressive tax planning structures
  • Spain: Supreme Court issues preliminary ruling about tax on activities that affect the environment
  • Switzerland: Federal Council presents basic parameters of the renewed planned tax reform
  • United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery decision on the Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Trustees

EU Developments

  • EU: ATAD II Directive formally adopted
  • EU: European Commission proposes mandatory disclosure rules for intermediaries
  • EU: ECOFIN Council of 23 May 2017: agreement on Double taxation dispute resolution mechanism in the EU
  • EU: ECOFIN Council of 16 June 2017: Main results
  • EU: European Parliament PANA Committee issues draft report and draft recommendations
  • EU: Public CBCR: European Parliament ECON and JURI Committees adopt joint report
  • Italy: EU Tax Commissioner Moscovici concludes that Italian flat tax for high net worth individuals does not appear to constitute harmful tax competition
  • Spain: European Commission starts infringement procedure on state liability for breach of EU law

Fiscal State aid

  • EU: European Commission and China start dialogue on State aid control
  • EU: European Commission adopts annual Competition Policy Report for 2016
  • Hungary: Advertisement Tax Act aligned to comply with EU State aid rules
  • Spain: CJEU judgment on tax exemptions for Catholic Church
  • United Kingdom: CJEU judgment on the Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association

 

Read the full newsletter

 

This EU Tax Newsletter is prepared by members of PwC’s international EU Direct Tax Group (EUDTG).

Further information about our service offerings in EU taxes: www.pwc.com/eudtg


Contact

Armin Marti
Partner Tax & Legal Services, Leader Corporate Tax Services
+41 58 792 43 43
armin.marti@ch.pwc.com

Anna-Maria Widrig Giallouraki
Senior Tax Manager
+41 58 792 42 87
anna-maria.widrig.giallouraki@ch.pwc.com

Mandatory disclosure rules for intermediaries proposed by the European Commission

On 21 June 2017, the European Commission (EC) adopted a proposal for a Council Directive on the mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation in relation to so called “reportable cross-border arrangements”. The proposal accordingly provides for mandatory disclosure of cross-border arrangements by intermediaries or taxpayers to the tax authorities and mandating automatic exchange of this information among Member States. Its stated objective is to enhance transparency, reduce uncertainty over beneficial ownership and dissuade intermediaries from designing, marketing and implementing harmful tax structures.

Mandatory disclosure for cross-border arrangements

The proposal applies to cross-border arrangements, i.e. an arrangement or series of arrangements in either more than one Member State or a Member State and a third country.

Such arrangements become reportable by intermediaries (or in certain cases by the taxpayers themselves), if they bear at least one of certain generic or specific features (called “hallmarks” and including but not limited to the conversion of income into lower-taxed revenue streams, deductible cross-border payments between related parties where the recipient is resident in a zero or low tax jurisdiction, situations where the intermediary is entitled to receive a fee fixed by reference to e.g. the amount of tax advantage derived, the use of jurisdictions with weak regimes of enforcement of anti-money laundering legislation for identifying the beneficial ownership of legal entities et al).

An intermediary is any person being responsible vis-à-vis the taxpayer for designing, marketing, organising or managing the implementation of the tax aspects of a cross-border arrangement. An intermediary may also be a person who directly or indirectly provides material aid or advice with respect to any of the above activities. Intermediaries are covered by this proposal if incorporated/governed by the laws/resident/registered in an EU Member State.

Next steps

Timing-wise, Member States will need to take the necessary measures to require intermediaries and taxpayers to file information on reportable cross-border transactions that were implemented between the date of the formal adoption of the proposal by the Council and 31 December 2018. The provisions of the proposed measure are set to apply as per 1 January 2019 with the first information being disclosed by the end of the first quarter of 2019 (being 31 March 2019).

The Commission’s proposal will now be sent to the Council and the European Parliament. The Directive needs to be formally adopted by the Council by unanimous vote, after consultation of the European Parliament.

For more detailed information, please refer to the PwC Newsalert from our EUDTG network.

Cooperation between PwC and Noveras Tax Reporting for international Banking Clients

PwC and Noveras Services AG have agreed to cooperate in providing offshore tax reports for banks located in Switzerland and in foreign countries. This cooperation results in the following benefits:

Benefits for Banks:

  • Able to offer truly country-specific, high-quality tax reports to clients
  • No need to build up and maintain tax reporting infrastructure
  • No need to follow tax laws around the world
  • Tax reporting provided even for small numbers of clients
  • Flexible, cost-efficient cooperation

Benefits for Clients:

  • Client receives a high-quality tax report for their offshore account
  • Reports deliver all of the necessary information for client’s tax return in their country
  • Overall lower costs for the client due to saving the expense of local tax support

Statement by the Leaders

  • This unique cooperation ensures several high-quality services (such as highly skilled tax reporting products).
  • The synergy between PwC as leading expert advisor in tax-related topics and a practice-oriented boutique with profound knowledge of wealth management / cross-border banking, IT and international tax law creates a unique market solution.

Find out more

Contact

Dieter Wirth
Partner
+41 58 792 4488
dieter.wirth@ch.pwc.com

Michael Taschner
Senior Manager
+41 58 792 1087
michael.taschner@ch.pwc.com

OECD BEPS: Multilateral Instrument signed by Switzerland and 67 other countries

On 7 June 2017, officials from more than 70 countries participated in the signing of the multilateral instrument (“MLI”), which is a result of negotiations of more than 100 jurisdictions. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) aims for a swift implementation of a series of tax treaty measures to update international tax rules and reduce the opportunity for tax avoidance. Impacts for Swiss companies are mainly expected in the field of dispute resolutions.

The MLI is one of the outcomes of the OECD/G20 Project to tackle Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”) and has the goal to enable countries to swiftly modify bilateral tax treaties (more than 3’000 worldwide) to include the measures developed in the course of the BEPS work. In this respect, an ad hoc group, consisting of 99 countries, four non-state jurisdictions and seven international or regional organizations participating as observers, developed the MLI. In their negotiations, the ad hoc group focused on the following BEPS measures and how the MLI would need to modify the provisions of bilateral or regional tax agreements. Aiming to swiftly implement those measures, some of which are minimum standards and others representing best practice recommendations only:

  • Hybrid mismatch arrangements in accordance with BEPS Action 2 (best practice recommendation);
  • Granting of treaty benefits in inappropriate circumstances under BEPS Action 6 (minimum standard);
  • Amendments to the definition of “permanent establishment” as recommended under BEPS Action 7 (best practice recommendation);
  • Facilitating of access to and resolution of mutual agreement procedures consistent with BEPS Action 14 (minimum standard).

Continue to read in detail in our current newsletter.

If you have questions, please contact your usual PwC contact person or one of PwC Switzerland´s experts named below.

Contacts

Andreas Staubli
Partner
Leader TLS Schweiz
Tel. +41 58 792 44 72
Send E-mail
Armin Marti
Partner
Leader CT Schweiz
Tel. +41 58 792 43 43
Send E-mail
Stefan Schmid
Partner
Tax & Legal
+41 58 792 44 82
Send E-mail
Fabio Dell’Anna
Partner
Tax & Legal
+41 58 792 97 17
Send E-mail
Claude-Alain Barke
Partner
Tax & Legal
+41 58 792 83 17
Send E-mail
Michael Ruckstuhl
Senior Manager
Tax & Legal
+41 58 792 14 94
Send E-mail

Switzerland publishes recommendations for new corporate tax proposal 17

After rejection by popular vote of the Swiss corporate tax reform III (CTR III) package in February 2017, a Swiss governmental working group comprised of federal and cantonal members (the steering body) has been working on a revised package (tax proposal 17).

The steering body on June 1, 2017, published its recommended contents for tax proposal 17. The Federal Council now will consider the draft proposal and is expected to publish a final proposal for consultation by end of June 2017. Thereafter, parlamentary discussions are expected to start in spring 2018 and entry into force is expected to take effect January 1, 2020.

Continue to read in detail in our current newsletter.

If you have questions, please contact your usual PwC contact person or one of PwC Switzerland´s experts named below.

Contacts

Andreas Staubli
Partner
Leader TLS Schweiz
Tel. +41 58 792 44 72
Send E-mail
Armin Marti
Partner
Leader CT Schweiz
Tel. +41 58 792 43 43
Send E-mail
Benjamin Koch
Partner
Leader TP and VCT
+41 58 792 43 34
Send E-mail
Daniel Gremaud
Partner
Tax & Legal
+41 58 792 81 23
Send E-mail
Claude-Alain Barke
Partner
Tax & Legal
+41 58 792 83 17
Send E-mail
Remo Küttel
Partner
Tax & Legal
+41 58 792 68 69
Send E-mail
Laurenz Schneider
Director
Tax & Legal
+41 58 792 59 38
Send E-mail

EMEA ITS Permanent Establishment Webcast Series, Episode One

The Changing PE Threshold

Thursday, 8 June 2017, 3.00 – 3.45 pm CET

Preventing the artificial avoidance of Permanent Establishment (“PE”) status is one of the key topics addressed by the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”) package.

In this webcast series PwC specialists will address the practical implications that a reduction in the PE threshold will have for multinational corporations and will provide an insight, through examples, on the challenges and practical actions that can be taken to manage PE in the post-BEPS world.

The webcast series will provide a mix of technical updates and analysis, practical experience and local country expertise around topics such as profit attribution to a PE, direct tax consequences of a PE and the broader impact that the new rules will have on an increasingly global and mobile workforce. Critically, it will give you the chance to raise questions directly to our PE specialists.

The webcast series will start by setting the scene for the current PE landscape by considering the practical changes that have taken place to the PE threshold and the subsequently looking at the practical challenges associated with attributing profit to PE’s. The later sessions will focus on the practical implications of
these changes, providing guidance and experience of the challenges and risks that may be created.

  • Session 1 –The Changing PE Threshold – 8 June 2017
  • Session 2 –Profit Attribution to PE’s – 6 July 2017

After the summer break we will return recharged with further sessions covering topics such as

  • Broader implications of a PE beyond corporate tax
  • VAT and PE
  • Employee mobility and PE consequences

Episode 1, The Changing PE Threshold – 8 June 2017

This introductory episode will set the stage for our ongoing discussion of PE in the new tax environment and will work through practical examples being faced by multinational corporations, addressing questions such as:

  • What are the main developments in the definition of PE in the international environment?
  • Walk though practical examples to demonstrate how the changes related to: (1) fixed place of business, (2) auxiliary and preparatory exceptions, (3) independent and dependent agent, (4) antifragmentation and contract splitting are likely to work in practice and potential risk areas.
  • Assess how PE definition and interpretation may vary by local jurisdiction, taking Poland and Spain as examples to identify the impact this will have on a multinational’s approach to international business.
  • Provide an update on the multilateral instrument as it relates to PE.

Speakers for episode 1 are:

Monica Cohen-Dumani – EMEA ITS Leader
Guillaume Glon – PwC France
Mike Cooper – PwC UK
Agata Oktawiec – PwC Poland
Carlos Concha Carballido – PwC Spain
Please click on the below link to register for the WebEx session.

Registration Link

Complete the required registration fields and select “Submit”.
Once you have registered, you will receive the WebEx access details. The WebEx will be recorded and you will receive a link to the recording via e-mail after the event using the same details. There will be time for questions and answers with your speakers during the WebEx. Questions can also be sent in advance of the
WebEx session to the following email address: grasiele.neves@ch.pwc.com

We do hope that you will join us online!

Best regards
Monica Cohen-Dumani

PwC | Partner, International tax services, EMEA ITS Leader
Office: +41 58 792 9718 | Mobile: +41 79 652 14 77
Email: monica.cohen.dumani@ch.pwc.com
PricewaterhouseCoopers SA
Avenue Giuseppe-Motta 50 | Case postale | CH-1211 Genève 2, Switzerland
http://www.pwc.ch

Swiss Withholding Tax Refund on Equity Finance Transactions: New Decision of the Federal Supreme Court

On 5 April 2017, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court issued a new decision concerning the Swiss withholding tax refund right of an Italian bank that was engaged in a combination of buy-sell and derivatives transactions with shares of Swiss issuers around dividend payment dates. To a large extent, the decision of the Court concentrated on the evaluation of taxpayers’ compliance with the concept of beneficial ownership requirements aimed at assessing whether relevant transactions entered into by the taxpayer constituted the mere setup of a dividend stripping. Subsequently, the Court denied Swiss withholding tax refund claims due to the failure of the taxpayer to provide the Federal Tax Authorities (“FTA”) with the required information for the identification of the counterparties to the relevant trades, considering this a failure of the taxpayer to cooperate since such information is, in the view of the Court (and of the FTA), an essential element of proof within beneficial ownership testing.

Previous jurisprudence

The judgment represents the further evolution of previous cases delivered by the Federal Supreme Court in similar situations, and in particular, with regard to two Swiss withholding tax refund lead cases dealing with Danish Banks (for further details, please see the following blog posts).

Decision of the Federal Supreme Court of 5 April 2017

Relevant facts:

A bank incorporated in Italy entered into a number of buy/sell and derivatives transactions (futures) with Swiss shares. The bank acquired these securities shortly before the dividend payment date and sold them shortly after the dividend receipt. Further to the dividend payments, the Italian bank filed several withholding tax refund requests with the FTA regarding dividends distributions arising from securities held on ex-dividend dates. While the claims were under consideration, the FTA requested the bank provide additional information regarding the transactions, and in particular, to disclose information enabling the identification of the counterparties to the transactions with underlying securities prior and post the dividend payment event.

Because the Italian bank was unable to provide this information, the FTA and the Federal Administrative Court rejected its Swiss withholding tax refund claims.

Federal Supreme Court decision highlights:

In its decision, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court reiterated its jurisprudence regarding the concept of beneficial ownership, and provided the following arguments:

  • The Federal Supreme Court re-established that Swiss withholding tax refund claim eligibility in the context of the application of a double taxation treaty requires that the claimant be the beneficial owner of the underlying income.
  • To qualify as a beneficial owner of income (a dividend in the case in question), the recipient should be free in determining further faith of income received (this means that the taxpayer should not have any contractual or legal obligation to pass on such income to third parties). The notion of beneficial ownership should be considered while taking into account economic circumstances and not just pure tax reasons (such as the attempt of the recipient of the dividend to benefit from a double tax treaty withholding tax reduction). Consequently, the Court mentioned that although the tax savings is effectively not present, this is not relevant for the double tax treaty eligibility analysis, which precluded the line of reasoning that all counterparties involved in the transaction were residing in treaty countries with the same residual Swiss withholding tax rate under the relevant treaty with Switzerland.
  • Moreover, the Federal Supreme Court recalled that Swiss Tax Law imposes information-sharing and cooperation duty on taxpayers. This duty should apply both to resident and non-resident taxpayers, even if the double tax treaty does not have a specific provision in this respect. The Court stated that during the procedure, the FTA may request information and documentation enabling it to appropriately review and assess a Swiss WHT refund claim. The rules are that the requested evidence must not be obviously inappropriate to make the required assessment (i.e., it must be reasonable and offer suitable proof) and should not result in disproportionate costs for the claimant. The absence of cooperation cannot create a comparative benefit for the taxpayer, and will have negative consequences if the case cannot be properly reviewed and assessed by the authorities.
  • The Federal Supreme Court also stated that brokers used in equity finance transactions will not be recognized as counterparties but only as intermediaries, and that it is the claimant’s duty to provide proof of the effective counterparty behind the broker.

After analysing the facts of the case, the Court found that:

  • The taxpayer could not establish its compliance with Swiss beneficial ownership requirements for double tax treaty benefits application purposes just by providing the names of the counterparties effectively involved in the transactions.
  • The FTA may request information and documentation to make a proper assessment of the facts and circumstances of the transaction which resulted in a Swiss WHT claim. The claimant must provide reasonable documentation as part of his information and cooperation duties. These duties are limited by the principle of proportionality, which means that the requested information should neither be obviously inappropriate to make the required assessment nor result in disproportionate costs for the claimant. Of course, these principles are open for legal interpretation and subject to scrutiny.
  • Moreover, the Court ruled that, by not providing the requested information, the Italian bank deliberately hid essential elements of the facts required for the analysis of its transactions by the authorities, meaning non-cooperation was in fact established. Without the documentation by the claimant, the FTA was put in a position where it was impossible to understand the effective flows and structure, or to analyse the claim against the practice established by the Court. Hence, the claimant was forced to face the consequences of the missing proof of its tax mitigating elements.

Further to the above, the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the withholding tax refund should be denied to the Italian bank (only a non-material claim was sent back to the tax authorities for reassessment due to violation of the formal requirements of the procedure).

What does it mean for you?

The new Court decision clearly shows, in line with previous jurisprudence, an overall trend for assessing compliance with beneficial ownership requirements, and for the detailed review of relevant documentation when withholding tax refund claims are filed within the scope of financial services industry transactions. Market participants using brokers in similar transactions will be required to disclose the effective parties behind the broker, which will in practice make it difficult to establish proof.

The recent jurisprudence makes it clear that all cases should be analysed on the basis of individual facts and circumstances, and that outcomes may vary depending on the analysis of transactions.

We encourage you to review present and previous withholding tax claims filed for similar transactions to determine whether any risks are present, and to develop and implement risk mitigating strategies for the future.

Martin Büeler
Partner, Tax & Legal
martin.bueeler@ch.pwc.com
+41 58 792 43 92
Luca Poggioli
Director, Corporate Tax
luca.poggioli@ch.pwc.com
+41 58 792 44 51
Victor Meyer
Partner, Tax & Legal
victor.meyer@ch.pwc.com
+41 58 792 43 40
Dieter Wirth
Partner, Tax & Legal
dieter.wirth@ch.pwc.com
+41 58 792 44 88
Dmitri Deniskin
Director, Tax & Legal
dmitry.deniskin@ch.pwc.com
+41 58 792 8258

EU: Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive II (“ATAD II”) formally adopted

On 29 May 2017 the Council Directive amending Directive (EU) 2016/1164 as regards hybrid mismatches with third countries (“ATAD II”) was formally adopted by the EU Council. Political agreement on this Directive had already been achieved at ECOFIN level on 21 February 2017.

The amended Directive (ATAD II) has a broader scope than ATAD I (adopted in 2016 and effective as of 2019) as it also covers hybrid mismatches with third countries and extends the hybrid mismatch definition to cover more categories of mismatches (e.g. to include arrangements involving PEs, hybrid transfers, imported mismatches, reverse hybrid entities and rules on tax residency mismatches). The terms and concepts contained in ATAD II are very similar to those in the OECD’s BEPS Action 2 recommendation as it currently stands.

The EU Member States will need to transpose the provisions of ATAD II by 31 December 2019 into their national laws and apply them per 1 January 2020. Only exception is the reverse hybrid entity rule for which the EU Member States will need to transpose by 31 December 2021 and apply per 1 January 2022. Nevertheless, payments to reverse hybrids will no longer be deductible from 1 January 2020.

We strongly recommend multinationals with Swiss & EU operations to review their structures to consider whether any of the new rules applies. In particular also Swiss entities benefiting from e.g. the Swiss finance branch and the Swiss principal taxation rules (to the extent still applicable in 2020 depending on timing and outcome of the Swiss Corporate Tax Reform 17 project) should review a potential impact by these rules on a case by case basis.

For more information please find below the newsletter from our EUDTG Network:

Download

Contact

Armin Marti
Partner Tax & Legal Services, Leader Corporate Tax Services
+41 58 792 43 43
armin.marti@ch.pwc.com

Anna-Maria Widrig Giallouraki
Senior Tax Manager
+41 58 792 42 87
anna-maria.widrig.giallouraki@ch.pwc.com

EUDTG Newsletter March – April 2017

EU direct tax law is a fast developing area. This presents taxpayers, in particular groups and multinational corporations that have an EU or European Economic Area (EEA) presence, with various challenges.

The following topics are covered in this issue of EU Tax News:

CJEU Cases

  • Belgium: CJEU judgment on interpretation of the subject-to-tax requirement of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive: Wereldhave
  • Belgium: AG Opinion on interest deduction limitation in light of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive: Argenta
  • Germany: CJEU referral on the German CFC rules: X

National Developments

  • Belgium: Supreme Court does not allow withholding tax refunds for dividends received by investment companies before 12 June 2003
  • Belgium: CJEU referral by the Commission of Belgium over the discriminatory tax treatment of foreign real estate income
  • Finland: Supreme Administrative Court confirms tax treatment of dividend income from third countries to be in line with Articles 63 and 65 TFEU
  • Italy: Amendments to the NID and Patent Box Regime
  • Norway: Government’s response to ESA’s decision on the compatibility of the Norwegian interest limitation rules with the freedom of establishment
  • Poland: Supreme Administrative Court judgment on the settlement of foreign branch losses
  • Spain: Supreme Court judgment on State aid recovery procedure
  • United Kingdom: England and Wales High Court judgment regarding repayment of stamp duty reserve tax: Jazztel plc v The Commissioners for HMRC
  • United Kingdom: The Great Repeal Bill White Paper

EU Developments

  • EU: European Parliament clears way for formal adoption of ATAD II by the ECOFIN Council
  • EU: Update on EU proposal for public country-by-country reporting
  • EU: Council adopts conclusions on EU relations with the Swiss Confederation
  • EU: Informal ECOFIN Council held in Malta in early April

Fiscal State aid

  • Greece: CJEU judgment on State aid implemented by Greece: Ellinikos Chrysos AE
  • Italy: CJEU judgment on Italian bankruptcy procedure: Marco Identi

Read the full newsletter here.

This EU Tax Newsletter is prepared by members of PwC’s international EU Direct Tax Group (EUDTG).

Further information about our service offerings in EU taxes: www.pwc.com/eudtg