Current Status of Anti Money Laundering Legislation and Practice In Italy

The EU Directive n. 2015/849 (the "IV Directive") on anti money laundering sets forth new provisions requiring financial institutions and professional individuals to verify their customers or clients by identifying the ultimate "beneficial owner" of an entity, legal arrangement or financial transaction; obtaining and conserving information about their customers and the ultimate beneficial owners, as defined in the Directive, and reporting an extensive amount of information about trusts, foundations and other similar arrangements in a central register held by each Member State. EU Member States have time until June 26, 2017 to traspose the provisions of the Directive into their national laws. 

Unlike EU Regulations that are enacted by the EU Council of Ministers, which have automatically the full force and effect of EU prevail over any non conforming national law regulating the same area, EU Directives proposed by the EU Commission are not self executing. EU Members States are left with some leeway to decide which provisions are to be adopted. EU Directives are usually adopted through a number of legislative procedures depending on the different subject matters. As a result, while the deadline to implement the Directive is still pending, and until a country enacts domestic legislation actually implementing the Directive, the Directive has no immediate effect and cannot be directly applied. 

In Italy, the Italian Parliament by way of Act n. 170 of August 12, 2016 granted legislative authority to the Italian Government to implement the provisions of the IV Directive. Now the Government is working at adopting one or more legislative decrees containing the specific provisions that will traspose the IV Directive into Italy’s national law. The legislative decrees to be issued pursuant to the grant of authority provided by the Parliament need not be approved by the Parliament. Rather, they become law as soon as they are adopted by the Government. 

In light of the above, we can safely say that Italy is well on track to implement the Directive within the June 26, 2017 deadline. If that should not be the case, at that point the Directive would become self executing and could still be applied, for those provisions that are sufficiently detailed and need not be specified or modified by way of national implementing legislation.     

Law n. 170 refers to the definition of beneficial owner that is set forth in the IV Directive. 

The definition of “beneficial owner” in the IV Directive, for corporate entities, is the following (article 3, paragraph 6, letter a)):

(6) ‘beneficial owner’ means any natural person(s) who ultimately owns or controls the customer and/or the natural person(s) on whose behalf a transaction or activity is being conducted and includes at least: 

(a) in the case of corporate entities: 

(i) the natural person(s) who ultimately owns or controls a legal entity through direct or indirect ownership of a sufficient percentage of the shares or voting rights or ownership interest in that entity, including through bearer shareholdings, or through control via other means, other than a company listed on a regulated market that is subject to disclosure requirements consistent with Union law or subject to equivalent international standards which ensure adequate transparency of ownership information. A shareholding of 25 % plus one share or an ownership interest of more than 25 % in the customer held by a natural person shall be an indication of direct ownershipA shareholding of 25 % plus one share or an ownership interest of more than 25 % in the customer held by a corporate entity, which is under the control of a natural person(s), or by multiple corporate entities, which are under the control of the same natural person(s), shall be an indication of indirect ownership. This applies without prejudice to the right of Member States to decide that a lower percentage may be an indication of ownership or control. Control through other means may be determined, inter alia, in accordance with the criteria in Article 22(1) to (5) of Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (3); 

(ii) if, after having exhausted all possible means and provided there are no grounds for suspicion, no person under point (i) is identified, or if there is any doubt that the person(s) identified are the beneficial owner(s), the natural person(s) who hold the position of senior managing official(s), the obliged entities shall keep records of the actions taken in order to identify the beneficial ownership under point (i) and this point.  

Under the definition set forth here above, the beneficial owner is the natural person who ultimately owns or control the tested corporate entity (defined as "customer" in the Directive). 

For the purpose of identifying the natural person who ultimately owns or controls the tested corporate entity, the Directive adopts the “more than 25% shareholding or ownership interest” test, as an indication or presumption of beneficial ownership, and uses both a direct and indirect ownership test. 

Under the direct ownership test, if a natural person directly owns more than 25% of a shareholding or ownership interest in the “tested" corporate entity, that person is presumed to be the beneficial owners of that entity. In case of direct ownership, the analysis stops at the natural person who owns the relevant shareholding interest in the tested corporate entity. Under the indirect ownership rule, a shareholding or ownership interest (of any size) in the “tested" corporate entity, owned by another legal entity (such as another corporate entity, trust, foundation, etc.), is attributed to the beneficial owner(s) of such other legal entity, to determine the ultimate beneficial owner of the “tested” corporate entity.

In case of trust or other similar legal arrangements, "beneficial owner" is defined as follows (article 3, paragraph 6, letter b)):

(6) ‘beneficial owner’ means any natural person(s) who ultimately owns or controls the customer and/or the natural person(s) on whose behalf a transaction or activity is being conducted and includes at least: 

...

(b) in the case of trusts: 

(i) the settlor; 

(ii) the trustee(s); 

(iii) the protector, if any; 

(iv) the beneficiaries, or where the individuals benefiting from the legal arrangement or entity have yet to be determined, the class of persons in whose main interest the legal arrangement or entity is set up or operates;

(v) any other natural person exercising ultimate control over the trust by means of direct or indirect ownership or by other means.  

If interpreted literally, the definition of “beneficial owner” in case of trusts, foundations and other similar fiduciary arrangements is extremely broad, and would automatically require to verify and disclose each one of the settlor, trustees, beneficiaries or protectors of a trust, regardless of whether any one of them  actually owns an interest in the trust’s income or property or has any meaningful power with respect to the administration of the trust. Also, the literal definition of "beneficial owner" used in the IV Directive in case of trusts does not make any distinction between an interest in the income of the trust, as opposed to an interest in the corpus of the trust, and does not refer to any minimum ownership requirement such as the 25 percent ownership threshold that applies in case of corporate entities.  

An over broad interpretation of the term "beneficial owner" in case of trusts would put banks, financial institutions, professional individuals and their customers under extreme pressure, potentially dramatically extending the amount of information to collect and creating a friction between the need of a thorough verification of the customer for anti money laundering purposes, and the right to privacy for all individuals involved who do not own any ownership interest of power of administration with respect to the trust.

It would seem more reasonable to limit the definition of "beneficial owner" of a trust, to those individuals or entities, among the settlor, trustee(s) or beneficiaries, who actually have a meaningful interest in corpus of the trust or real powers with respect to the administration of the trust.   

Arguably, sub paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b) of article 3 should apply separately, depending on whether the "customer" to be tested is a corporate entity (in which case, the test of sub paragraph a) should apply) or a trust or other similar arrangement (in which case the test of sub paragraph b) should apply).

However, there is a potential argument for a concurrent application of the two sets of rules, whenever a shareholding or ownership interests in a corporate entity is held through a trust, foundation or other similar legal arrangement. In that case, under the "indirect ownership" rule requiring to find the natural person that ultimately owns the corporate entity, it may be reasonably be argued that the “beneficial owner” of the trust should be verified under the separate rules of sub paragraph b), and he or she would be deemed to indirectly and ultimately own the shareholding or ownership interest which the trust owns in the tested corporate entity.

Under a different interpretation, in the event that a shareholding or ownership interest in a corporate entity is owned through a trust, the analysis should stop at the person or persons who control the entity, under the rules of sub paragraph a), thereby limiting the know your customer verification to the person or persons who act as trustee or trustees for the trust.  

In light of all the potential interpretative challenges, briefly mentioned above, it is important to see how the provisions of the IV Directive are going to be incorporated into the national legislation that will be enacted to transpose the Directive into Italy’s internal law. 

As for the scope of the disclosure mandated by the Directive, it is carried out at two levels. At one level, a bank, financial institution or professional individual that does business with an Italian entity or trust is required to conduct proper customer due diligence, which under article 13, paragraph 1, letter (b) of the Directive, including the following:

(b) identifying the beneficial owner and taking reasonable measures to verify that person's identity so that the obliged entity is satisfied that it knows who the beneficial owner is, including, as regards legal persons, trusts, companies, foundations and similar legal arrangements, taking reasonable measures to understand the ownership and control structure of the customer

At another level, under article 30, paragraph 1 of the Directive, the companies themselves are required to obtain and hold  adequate, accurate and current information on their beneficial ownership, including the details of the beneficial interests held. 

Article 30, paragraph 2 requires that the information of the companies’ beneficial ownership and beneficial interests be held in a way that it is accessible in a timely manner to the tax and financial authorities. 

In addition to the above, article 30, paragraph 4 of the Directive provides that the information on the companies’ beneficial ownership and beneficial interests shall also be held in a central register accessible in all cases to the tax and financial authorities, banks and financial institutions and any other person or organization that can demonstrate a legitimate interest to 

Finally, under the Directive, a separate and independent disclosure regime may apply to trusts. Indeed, article 31, paragraph 1 provides that:

1.Member States shall require that trustees of any express trust governed under their law obtain and hold adequate, accurate and up-to-date information on beneficial ownership regarding the trust. That information shall include the identity of: (a) the settlor; (b) the trustee(s); (c) the protector (if any); (d) the beneficiaries or class of beneficiaries; and (e) any other natural person exercising effective control over the trust.    

Italy does not have any law governing trusts (except that it applies its owns tax rules for the taxation of trusts both for income and gist and estate tax purposes). Trusts are usually established under foreign law, and recognized and enforced in Italy, if necessary, under the Hague Convention on Trusts which has been ratified in Italy by way of Law n. 364 of 1989. Law n. 171 refers is to “trusts governed under law n. 364 of October 16, 1089”, which includes any trust established under foreign law, which is recognized and enforced in Italy pursuant to the Trust Convention.

Furthermore, article 31, paragraph 4 of the Directive provides that

4.Member States shall require that the information referred to in paragraph 1 is held in a central register when the trust generates tax consequences. The central register shall ensure timely and unrestricted access by competent authorities and FIUs, without alerting the parties to the trust concerned. It may also allow timely access by obliged entities, within the framework of customer due diligence in accordance with Chapter II. Member States shall notify to the Commission the characteristics of those national mechanisms. 

The separate disclosure for trusts seems to be triggered whenever a trust is recognized and made effective in Italy pursuant Law n. 389 and the Hague Convention, and when the trust generates tax consequences in Italy.

Finally, it should be noted that on July 5, 2016, the European Commission adopted a proposal to amend the IV Directive on anti money laundering, which would reduce the shareholding test from 25% to 10%. 

Until the IV Directive is actually transposed into Italian law,  the provisions of legislative decree n. 231 of November 21, 2007 still apply.  

Legislative Decree n. 231 treats as “beneficial owner” the natural person or persons who ultimately own or control an entity, by directly or indirectly owing or controlling an adequate shareholding, voting or ownership interest in the entity, with the understanding that a (direct or indirect) shareholding or ownership interest of more than 25% of the entity is sufficient to satisfy the definition of beneficial owner. 

In case of trusts, beneficial owner is any identified beneficiary of the trust, who owns a qualified interest in more than 25% of the trust’s assets. 

The disclosure under Legislative Decree n. 231 is much more limited and restricted, given the narrower definition of beneficial owner that applies when a corporate entity is owned indirectly through a trust. Unlike the IV Directive, which mentions each of the trust’s settler, trustees and beneficiaries as beneficial owners of the trust, and as owning indirectly indirectly any shareholding or ownership interest that the trust holds in the tested entry, the legislative decree n. 231 refers solely to the trust’s identified beneficiaries owning an interest in at least 25% of the trust’s assets. 

In the course of our practice, we have been involved in situations in which banks and other financial  institutions or professional firms adopt a stricter and more balanced approach, by referring to the 25 percent ownership test and, for trusts, by limiting their investigations to beneficiaries holding an interest on more than 25 percent of trust's assets and trustees holding effective power of administration of the trust. In other situations, however, we noted that other banks may want to anticipate the application for the new provisions of the IV Directive, even before its entry into force, and conduct a 360 degree investigation on trusts, requesting information about all of the trust's settlor, trustees and beneficiaries (both actual and contingent) of wither income or corpus of the trust, regardless of the existence of an actual interest in, or power of administration with respect to, the assets of the trust.
 
In those cases, we have experienced that clients are willing to discuss the matter with their banks to make sure that their legitimate privacy rights are respected, and that anti money laundering, know your client verifications do not go beyond their legitimate, reasonable needs and become unmanageable or drain excessive resources.
 
In anticipation of the implementation of the IV Directive, clients should make the effort to review their structures, and put together a standard package that should be used with all of the banks, financial intermediaries and professional firms with whom they do business, and who will require information pursuant to anti money laundering legislation, to achieve efficiency and stay in compliance in such a challenging area clearly destined to draw more scrutiny and attention.            

Foreign Trusts Subject to Disclosure in Italy

Every time a trust has connections with Italy and is given legal effects or enforced there, the trustee will need to collect, keep and disclose (if required) information on beneficial ownership of the trust and, potentially, report such information in a special Trust section of the Italian Business Register. The new trust disclosure rules derive from the Italian bill  transposing into national law the EU Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (2015/849).

The Directive requires trustees of any express trust governed under the law of a Member State to obtain and hold information on the beneficial ownership of the trust, inclusive of the identity of the settlor, the trustee, the protector (if any), the beneficiaries, and any other natural person holding any authority or exercising effective control over the trust. When the trust generates legal or tax consequences in the legal system of a Member State, such information has to be reported in a central register of that Member State.

The Italian bill implementing the Directive imposes such duties on “trustees of express trusts governed in accordance with Law dated October 16, 1989 n. 364".   With law n. 364 Italy ratified the Hague Convention of July 1, 1985 on the Law applicable to Trusts and their Recognition. The reference to trust governed by law n. 364 has the effect to attract all foreign trusts recognized and enforced in Italy to the new disclosure rules.

Italy does not have a body of national statutory provisions on trusts, but the enforcement of the 1985 Hague Convention with the Law n. 364 of 1989 permits to recognize and give legal effects in Italy to trust created under and governed by foreign law.

As a result, every time a foreign trust is to be legally used in Italy, and is designed to produce legal and tax effects there, it can be considered a trust “governed in accordance with Law n. 364 of 1989”, thereby triggering the know your customer and disclosure obligations set forth in the Directive. Therefore, it will be automatically subject to the new disclosure obligations, including the registration in a special Trust section of the general Business Register. Foreign trustees of a foreign trust that has a connection with Italy, are potentially subject to those rules, and need to pay close attention to the their new reporting obligations under the new rules.

Situations that fall within the scope of the disclosure rules include common cases in which a foreign trust has Italian resident beneficiaries, or owns movable or immovable assets located in Italy. In those cases, the beneficiaries in order to claim the distribution of income or assets from the trust need to put in place the procedure to have the trust recognized and enforced in Italy. The same happens when a foreign beneficiary claims the distribution of the trust’s Italian assets pursuant to the trust.

Even when the settlor of a foreign trust is an Italian individual, the new rules would apply. Indeed, the settlor may need to rely on the trust to separate herself from the assets transferred to the trust, and claim that the trust assets and income belong to somebody else who should bear the responsibility of tax filing, payment and reporting relating to the trust. To the effect, the trust would have legal and tax consequences in Italy, which would put it within the scope of the new disclosure rules.   

The Directive set forth a deadline for its implementation into EU member’ States’ law, currently expiring on June 26, 2017. The Italian bill once enacted into law will need legislative decrees with enforcement provisions to be adopted by the Government pursuant to the legislative authority granted therein.

 

Interview with MQR&A on Italian financial newspaper Italia Oggi

European Commission Blesses Italy's Anti-Inversion Rules

Italy's Tax Code determines the tax residency of a company on the basis of one of three alternative tests: place of legal seat, place of management and principal place of business. As a result, an Italian or foreign company that is effectively managed from Italy is treated as an Italian company for Italian tax purposes and it is subject to tax in Italy on its worldwide income.

In order to prevent abusive practices consisting in putting an Italian company owned or controlled by Italian shareholders under the umbrella of a foreign holding company established in a tax favorable jurisdiction, Italy enacted special anti abuse provisions according to which a foreign company owning or controlling an Italian company is presumed to have its tax residency in Italy if one of two alternative tests are met: Italian shareholders control the foreign company, or the majority of the company's board members are Italian nationals. Taxpayers can rebut the presumption by providing clear and convincing evidence that the foreign company is effectively managed outside of Italy.

 

           

Continue Reading...

EU Council of Finance Ministers Adopted New Draft Legislation on Exchange of Tax Information

On December 7, 2010 the Council of Finance Ministers of the European Union (ECOFIN) adopted a new draft legislation that provides for reinforced and more extended exchange of tax information among EU Member States to contrast international tax evasion. The new bill shall be formally presented in a future ECOFIN meeting and enacted into law as EU directive by the EU Parliament. At that point the EU Member States shall have to incorporate the new directive into their own internal legal systems so that the directive shall be generally enforceable throughout the EU.

The new directive shall eliminate the banking secret and shall prevent a Member State from denying the access to information in response to a detailed request coming from another Member State. From 2015, the exchange of information shall be automatic in at least five of the eight areas that are covered by the directive namely employment income, bonuses, dividends, capital gains, royalties, life insurances pensions and real estate.   

ECJ Ruled On Tax Consolidation Case

On February 25, 2010 the European Court of Justice issued its ruling in X Holding (C-337/08 X Holding Judgment.pdf). Under the facts of the case, a Dutch parent wanted to be allowed to combine with its Belgian subsidiary under the Dutch tax consolidation rules to use the latter losses, which it would have been allowed to use had the subsidiary been a branch. The Dutch fiscal unit system, which disregards intra group transactions, is consolidation. Under Dutch tax law, the Netherlands does not tax a foreign branch's profits, but allows a deduction for foreign branch's losses subject to recapture of branch's profits in the following years for an amount equal to losses allowed in prior years. The Belgian subsidiary could still use its losses in Belgium, so it was clear that the losses would not be deductible under Marks & Spencer holding and the case rested on a cash flow argument that the parent should be allowed to use the losses sooner in the Netherlands. The Attorney General's opinion concluded that the denial of consolidation of foreign subsidiaries is justified under the balanced allocation of taxing powers, coherence of tax system and need to protect member state's tax base and the restriction to the freedom of establishment is proportional and justified. The European Court of Justice upheld the AG's opinion and ruled in favor of the Dutch government. The Court rejected the taxpayer's argument that taxpayer should be allowed the same treatment granted in case of a foreign branch, on the ground that a foreign branch and a foreign subsidiary are not in a comparable situation, the former being subject in principle to the tax jurisdiction of the member state of origin, while the latter being an independent legal and tax entity subject only to the tax jurisdiction of the member state of destination.      

Marco Rossi of MQR&A lectured at the Fairfield University International Tax Program

On July 14, 2010 Marco Rossi presented a lecture on the European Union and EU tax law to candidates/students of Master of Science in Taxation at Fairfield University. We provided an overview of the European Union and its institutions, discussed the sources of EU law and the main developments in the area of EU statutory tax law (including the EU tax directives and tax arbitration convention), and illustrated the main concepts of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice in the area of direct taxation, including a brief analysis some landmark cases recently decided by the Court. We attach a copy of the presentation materials for your direct reference (EU Law-Fairfield University Lecture.pdf.) (An Italian Perspective On Recent ECJ Direct Tax Decisions (TNI 2_6_08).pdf)        

EU Outbound Merger Not Eligible For Tax-Free Treatment if No Permanent Establishment in Italy After the Merger

In ruling n. 21/E of January 27, 2009 (Resolution 21/E-2009.pdf), Italy's tax administration ruled on whether a merger of an Italian company into a Spanish parent would qualify for tax-free treatment under the EU merger directive.

Under the facts of the ruling, a Spanish company engaged in the business of distribution and sale of clothing and accessories would acquire the stock of an Italian company, which perform the following services:

- receipt of goods from Italian manufacturers and suppliers;

- storing and warehousing;

- quality and conformity control;

- packaging, shipping and delivery of goods to the parent or customers;

- collection and provision of information and other auxiliary services.

Immediately after the acquisition, in order to avoid administrative costs the Italian company would be merged into the Spanish company and would continue to operate as a permanent establishment in Italy of the Spanish company.

According to the taxpayer, the transaction should qualify as a tax free merger under the provisions of the EU merger directive as implemented in Italy.

Also, the Spanish company through its Italian permanent establishment should be able to purchase stock of other Italian companies and include them in a domestic tax consolidated group in Italy, with offset of profits and losses among the members of the group.

The Italian tax administration disagreed and ruled that the merger would be a taxable transaction and the Spanish company could not consolidate other Italian subsidiaries under Italian domestic tax consolidation rules.

According to the tax administration, after the merger there would be no permanent establishment of the foreign parent company in Italy, because the activities performed in Italy are excluded from the definition of permanent establishment provided for in the tax code.

Consequently, since the permanent establishment requirement is not met, the tax deferral treatment granted by the EU merger directive would not apply, and any gain or loss realized in the merger would have to be recognized for Italian tax purposes.  

 

 

 

Continue Reading...

EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive Does Not Apply to Dividends on Shares Held in Usufruct, ECJ Ruled

With judgment issued on December 22, 2008 in Les Vergers du Vieux Tauves (C-48/07) the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that Directive 90/435/EEC of July 23, 1990 (the EU parent-subsidiary directive), which exempts dividends paid by a EU subsidiary to its EU parent from withholding tax, does not apply to dividends paid to the holder of a right of usufruct on the shares for which the dividends are paid.

In the case decided by the Court, a Belgian company held a usufruct in the shares of another Belgian company, while a different Belgian company held legal title to the shares.

The usufruct conferred to the holder the right to receive the dividends paid on the shares, but it did not confer full legal title on the shares or the status of shareholder.

Article 3, paragraph 1 of the EU parent-subsidiary directive requires that, for the benefits of the directive to apply (exemption from withholding), the dividend recipient have a minimum holding of 25 per cent of the capital of the dividen payer (reduced to 15 per cent for dividends distributed from 1.1.07 and to 10 per cent for dividends distributed from 1.1.09).

The usufruct does not represent a participation to the capital of the company, and does not confer the status and rights of shareholder. As a result, the parent-subsidiary directive does apply to dividends paid to the holder of the usufruct on the shares.  

     

 

 

 

Continue Reading...

Withholding Tax on Outbound Dividends to a Luxemburg Investment SICAV Illegal, AG of the ECJ Says

On December 19, 2008, the Attorney General (AG) at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) filed his opinion in Aberdeen Property Fininvest Alpha (C-303/07).

The case concern Finnish taxation of dividends paid by a Finnish company to a Luxembourg SICAV investment fund owning 100 percent of the stock of the Finnish company.

Under Finnish law, the dividends paid to the Luxembourg fund are subject to Finnish withholding tax. The Luxembourg fund does not qualify for the dividend withholding tax exemption granted under the EU parent subsidiary directive, because it is not organized according to one of the corporate forms enumerated in the directive and is not subject to corporate tax in Luxembourg. 

Dividends paid to a Finnish company or investment fund are exempt from withholding tax to eliminate double taxation of corporate profits.

The Attorney General in his opinion took the position that the Finnish withholding tax violates the EC treaty.

According to the AG, the EC treaty still applies to inter-company dividends that fall outside the scope of the parent-subsidiary directive. The treaty freedom of establishment and free movement of capital prohibit member states from taxing outbound dividends less favorably than domestic dividends. The position of a Luxembourg investment fund Sicav is comparable to that of domestic company or fund, even though the Luxembourg fund Sicav is not subject to tax in Luxembourg.

The opinion is not binding on the ECJ, even though the Court tends to rule according to AG opinions in most of the cases. If the ECJ accepts the AG opinion, the case would be a major step ahead towards the elimination of dividend withholding tax in the EU.

Continue Reading...

Italy's Tax Administration Rules on Cross-Border Tax Free Mergers

On December 3, 2008 Italy's tax administration issued ruling n. 470/E, by which it clarified that cross-border mergers between non-EU companies with permanent establishments in Italy can be carried out tax free.

Italian law provides for nonrecognition treatment of mergers between domestic companies, in which all of the assets of the target company are transferred to the acquiring company in a statutory merger, and the target company's shareholders exchange their stock in the target company for stock of the acquiring company. No boot can be exchanged in the transaction. The acquiring company takes a carryover basis in the assets of the target company, and the target company's shareholders get an transferred basis in the stock of the acquiring company received in the transaction.  

The EU directive 90/434/CEE (the mergers directive) provides for a tax deferral treatment of mergers that are carried out between companies resident in two different EU member states. In this case, ten per cent of the consideration can be cash.

In the ruling, the tax administration clarifies that the Tax Code non recognition treatment of domestic mergers can apply also to cross border mergers that fall outside the scope of application of the EU mergers directive.

The ruling is extremely important because it facilitates the possibility to carry out cross-border reorganizations involving Italian assets or Italian companies without immediate recognition of gain.

Continue Reading...

ECJ Ruled That Restrictions to Tax Consolidation Violate EC Treaty

On November 27, 2008 the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") issued its judgment in Ministry of Finance v. Société Papillon (C-418/07). The questions referred to the Court was whether the French national tax laws, which do not allow a French parent company to form a French consolidated tax group with its French subsidiaries (and reduce its tax liability by offsetting its profits with the losses of other members of the group and disregarding intra-group transactions), when the French subsidiaries are owned indirectly through an EU holding company (in the case, a Dutch BV) not subject to tax in France, violates  Article 43 of the EC Treaty.  

The Court ruled that such restriction is discriminatory and constitutes a violation of the freedom of establishment, because a French parent company that exercises its freedom of establishment by incorporating a holding company in another EU Member State through which it owns stock in its French subsidiaries is subject to a less favorable tax treatment in France than a French parent company that owns stock in its French subsidiaries directly or through other French intermediate holding companies. Indeed, the latter is able to offset its profits with the losses of the French subsidiaries while the former is not.

Contrary to the Advocate General's opinion, the Court refused to apply the coherence of tax system  justification to sustain the restriction, on the ground that the restriction goes beyond what is strictly necessary for that purposes and fails the proportionality test.

Société Papillon provides legal support to taxpayers who intend to challenge national tax laws that restrict access to consolidated tax regimes in EU cross border situations.

Italy permits consolidation of foreign subsidiaries, but sets more restrictive requirements that those that apply to consolidation of domestic subsidiaries. The ECJ ruling in Société Papillon puts in doubt the validity of those restrictions under EU Law.

Continue Reading...