CJEU Confirms Dutch Interest Deduction is Lawful – Introduction
On 4 October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down an important ruling concerning the Dutch interest deduction limitation rule under Article 10a of the Corporate Income Tax Act 1969 (CITA).
The CJEU ruled that this rule does not breach EU law, as it aims to combat tax fraud and evasion.
This ruling comes in the context of a preliminary question raised by the Dutch Supreme Court, following concerns about whether this rule infringes on the EU’s freedom of establishment.
This decision is a significant development for companies operating within the EU, particularly those engaged in cross-border transactions with related parties.
Background
Article 10a CITA limits the deduction of interest payments on loans from related parties if the loans are tied to specific transactions, often referred to as “tainted transactions.”
These transactions typically involve situations where there is a risk of tax avoidance.
For example, if a company borrows money from a related entity to fund a transaction that doesn’t have strong economic justification, the interest on that loan may not be deductible under Dutch tax law.
This case was linked to the CJEU’s earlier ruling in Lexel (C-484/19), where the Court found that a similar Swedish interest deduction limitation rule was incompatible with EU law.
That ruling suggested that interest on loans made under arm’s length conditions (fair market terms) could not be considered part of an artificial arrangement.
After the Lexel ruling, the Dutch Supreme Court referred the case to the CJEU to determine whether Article 10a CITA also conflicted with the EU’s fundamental freedoms.
Advocate General’s Opinion
Before the judgment, the Advocate General issued an opinion acknowledging that Article 10a CITA could restrict the EU freedom of establishment.
However, he suggested that this restriction could be justified if it aimed at preventing tax avoidance.
His recommendation focused on whether the restriction applied only to wholly artificial arrangements, meaning transactions with no economic purpose beyond securing a tax benefit.
CJEU’s Judgment
The CJEU agreed with the Advocate General, confirming that Article 10a CITA pursues the legitimate objective of combatting tax avoidance.
Although the rule restricts the freedom of establishment, this restriction is permissible under EU law because it applies only to wholly artificial arrangements.
The CJEU set out important guidelines for determining whether a transaction is artificial. Key points include:
- Economic Reality: The Court highlighted that for a loan to be artificial, it must lack economic justification. The terms of the loan, such as the interest rate, must reflect what independent companies would have agreed to under the same conditions. The loan must also align with the economic reality of the transaction.
- Arm’s Length: The CJEU clarified that simply because a loan is at arm’s length (i.e., fair market value) does not automatically mean it is genuine. Even an arm’s length loan may be denied deduction if it has no purpose other than securing a tax advantage.
- Justification for Restrictions: The judgment reinforced that EU law allows member states to enact rules like Article 10a CITA if they are aimed at preventing tax fraud and evasion. The key is ensuring that the rule only applies to arrangements that are wholly artificial, with no real economic substance.
Comparison with Lexel Case
The CJEU also explained that Article 10a CITA differs from the Swedish rule examined in the Lexel case.
The Swedish legislation was broader in scope and targeted aggressive tax planning, not just wholly artificial arrangements.
As such, the CJEU noted that its earlier ruling in Lexel does not imply that all transactions at arm’s length are automatically non-artificial. Each case must be assessed based on its individual facts.
Implications for Businesses
This ruling has important consequences for companies operating within the EU, particularly those engaging in cross-border loans or transactions with related parties.
Businesses should carefully review their loan agreements and ensure that they reflect economic reality and serve a genuine business purpose.
It’s also crucial for companies to reassess their tax positions in light of this ruling, especially if they have relied on the Lexel judgment for tax planning.
CJEU Confirms Dutch Interest Deduction is Lawful – Conclusion
The CJEU Confirms Dutch Interest Deduction Is Lawful and compatible with EU law, providing clarity on the application of interest deduction limitations in the context of tax avoidance rules.
This judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that cross-border transactions have solid economic justification and are not simply designed to obtain a tax advantage.
Final Thoughts
If you have any queries about this article on the CJEU Confirms Dutch Interest Deduction Is Lawful or tax matters in the Netherlands more generally, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the Netherlands and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.