On 25 April 2018, the Commission presented a package of proposals concerning the reform of EU company law (i.e. “Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive EU 2017/1132 as regards cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions”). The set of new rules is intended to clamp down on firms that relocate within the European Union exclusively for shrinking their tax bills, by setting up mere letterbox companies. Under the proposed rules, which need approval from EU states and parliamentarians, Countries where companies are originally headquartered would be able to inhibit their relocation to another Member State if “the operation constitutes an artificial arrangement” meant solely to circumvent tax or workers’ rights, by means of thorough preventive scrutiny of business restructuring’s operation.
Before of analyse the new rules ‘content, it is crucial to outline the jurisprudential screenplay where this reform stands. Therefore, I will take stock of two well-known rulings of European Court of Justice (ECJ) strictly related to that topic.
At the outset, it is relevant to note that on the background of the EU rules’ overhaul, there are a plethora of aggressive tax planning schemes carried out by an increasing number of EU companies over last decades, which often resulted in prominent European Court of Justice’s decisions. At the root of these decisions, there is the abusive exploitation of the freedom of establishment ensured by articles 49 and 54 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), which include the right to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons and to set up and manage undertakings.
Amongst others, I want to stress the importance of two paramount judgements issued by the ECJ on that topic, namely Cadbury Schweppes (ECJ, Case C-196/04) and Polbud – Wykonawstwo (ECJ, Case C-106/16) cases. The combined effect of these two cases, indeed, makes apparent the need for positive harmonization of cross-border operations under EU law.
In the first mentioned decision, the European Court ruled that the freedom of establishment entails, for companies or firms formed in accordance with the law of a Member State and having their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community, the right to exercise their activity in the Member State concerned through a subsidiary, a branch or an agency.
In this respect, a national measure restricting freedom of establishment may be justified where it specifically relates to wholly artificial arrangements aimed at circumventing the application of the legislation of the Member State concerned. In order to evaluate the conduct of the taxable person, it is necessary to take particular account of the objective pursued by the freedom of establishment. Indeed, the freedom in question is finalised to allow a national of a Member State to set up a secondary establishment in another Member State to carry on his activities there and thus assist economic and social interpenetration within the Community. To that end, freedom of establishment is designed to enable a Community national to participate, on a stable and continuing basis, in the economic life of a Member State other than his State of origin and to profit therefrom.
By contrast, in Polbud – Wykonawstwo’s case law, The ECJ held that the freedom of establishment is applicable when the registered office alone, without the real head office, is transferred from one Member State to another, if the Member State of new incorporation accepts the registration of a company even without the exercise of an economic activity.
On that basis, the ECJ concluded that Polbud, a company incorporated under Polish law, has the right to convert itself into a company governed by the laws of Luxembourg, as long as the conditions laid down by Luxembourg legislation are satisfied and in particular that the criteria adopted by the Luxembourg legislation to recognize a company as being a company governed by the laws of Luxembourg is satisfied.
In that case, in fact, article 49 TFEU does not require such an economic activity as a precondition for its applicability. The novelty of this case is that the ECJ clearly decided that the principle of freedom of establishment applies to a cross border change of form by means of the sole transfer of the registered office of the company. As such, Polbud is allowed to move its sole registered office to Luxembourg without moving its headquarters, irrespective of the fact whether or not Polbud pursues any economic activity in Luxembourg.
However, in both cases, ECJ highlights that the mere fact that a resident company establishes a secondary establishment, such as a subsidiary, in another Member State cannot pose a general presumption of tax evasion and justify a measure which compromises the exercise of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty.
According to the proposal of Directive, corporate restructurings and transformations such as cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions, are part of companies' life cycle and represent a natural way for companies to grow, adapt to a changing environment and explore opportunities in new markets.
The objective of the proposal at issue is two-fold: providing specific and comprehensive procedures for cross-border conversions, divisions and mergers to foster cross-border mobility in the EU while, at the same time, offering company stakeholders adequate protection in order to safeguard the fairness of the Single Market. Such action forms part of creating a deeper and fairer Single Market, which is one of the priorities of the current Commission.
The aforementioned typologies of corporate restructurings are defined as follows:
In such cases, competent Authorities of the Member State of the person that intends to carry out one of the above-mentioned operations can:
To conclude, the proposal at issue is a further step in the pivotal fight against the abuse of the freedoms guaranteed by the European Union law within Single Market. It is needless to say that copying with artificial arrangements is a multi-pronged issue, investing not only commercial concerns but also (and above all) tax wrongdoings. It is apparent, indeed, that tax alarms are the priority of the proposal of Directive, since the misuse of letterbox entities is targeted. Thereby, the proposal represents a higher level in the contrast to aggressive tax planning than stand-alone rulings of ECJ, but the clear fine-tuning of an enforcement mechanism against letterbox entities in the EU market has still a long way to go.
The information provided in this article is for general information purposes only. The information is not intended to be comprehensive or to include advice on which you may rely. You should always consult a suitably qualified professional on any specific matter.
Lorenzo Savastano is an Italian police officer belonging to Guardia di Finanza, a highly specialised military Corps committed in fighting economic and financial crimes, both on national and international level. He obtained two master’s degrees with honors, respectively in Law and in Economic and Financial Security. In addition, he attended several courses of advanced studies in International and Corporate Tax Law as well as in Tax crimes investigations. As aggressive tax planning and financial law enforcement specialist, he currently deals with corporate illicit activities and white collar crimes investigation.
Tax Treatment of Crypto Currency in Croatia According to the ECJ judgment mentioned in the first section, crypto currencies trading in Croatia is considered a financial transaction, and the income generated by the sale of crypto currencies is subject to personal income tax on the basis of capital gains, since it is the gain on the basis of the sale of that currency, which is an equivalent to money market instruments.Read more