Nordcurrent group: Interpretation of the anti-abuse provision in the EU parent-subsidiary directive: Opinion statement ECJ-TF 1/2025 on the CJEU decision of 3 April 2025 in Nordcurrent Group UAB (Case C-228/24)

Georg Kofler; Alfredo  García Prats; Eric Kemmeren; Alfredo Garcia Prats (Professor at the University of Valencia), Werner Haslehner (Professor at the University of Luxembourg), Georg Kofler (Chair of this Task Force and Professor at the Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law of WU Wien), Michael Lang (Professor at the Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law of WU Wien), João Nogueira (Deputy Academic Chairman at IBFD), Christiana HJI Panayi (Professor at Queen Mary University of London), Stella Raventós-Calvo (Vice-President of CFE Tax Advisers Europe), Isabelle Richelle (Co-Chair of the Tax Institute - HEC - University of Liège, Brussels Bar Elegis), and Alexander Rust (Professor at the Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law of WU Wien) -

Nordcurrent group: Interpretation of the anti-abuse provision in the EU parent-subsidiary directive: Opinion statement ECJ-TF 1/2025 on the CJEU decision of 3 April 2025 in Nordcurrent Group UAB (Case C-228/24)

Georg Kofler
, Alfredo García Prats
, Eric Kemmeren
, Alfredo Garcia Prats (Professor at the University of Valencia), Werner Haslehner (Professor at the University of Luxembourg), Georg Kofler (Chair of this Task Force and Professor at the Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law of WU Wien), Michael Lang (Professor at the Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law of WU Wien), João Nogueira (Deputy Academic Chairman at IBFD), Christiana HJI Panayi (Professor at Queen Mary University of London), Stella Raventós-Calvo (Vice-President of CFE Tax Advisers Europe), Isabelle Richelle (Co-Chair of the Tax Institute - HEC - University of Liège, Brussels Bar Elegis), and Alexander Rust (Professor at the Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law of WU Wien) -^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Professional

Abstract

In this CFE Opinion Statement, submitted to the EU Institutions in May 2025, the CFE ECJ Task Force comments on the CJEU’s decision of 3 September 2024 in Nordcurrent Group UAB (Case C-228/24), in which the Court concluded that the notion of abuse requires both an objective element – namely the existence of a non-genuine arrangement – and a subjective element – namely the intention to obtain a tax advantage that defeats the object or purpose of the Directive. Further, in deciding whether an arrangement is a non-genuine arrangement, all facts and circumstances have to be taken into account, employing a wide time horizon. Regarding the tax advantage, it does not suffice to take a look at the participation exemption in isolation. The overall tax burden of the investment has to be taken into consideration.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	302-305
Number of pages	4
Journal	European Taxation
Volume	65
Issue number	7
Publication status	Published - 2025

Keywords

EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive
Anti- Abuse Provision
object or purpose
objective element
subjective element
non-genuine arrangement
participation exemption

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Nordcurrent group: Interpretation of the anti-abuse provision in the EU parent-subsidiary directive: Opinion statement ECJ-TF 1/2025 on the CJEU decision of 3 April 2025 in Nordcurrent Group UAB (Case C-228/24)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

@article{948c2c993a794a0d9f7c2cee19514fa3,

title = "Nordcurrent group: Interpretation of the anti-abuse provision in the EU parent-subsidiary directive: Opinion statement ECJ-TF 1/2025 on the CJEU decision of 3 April 2025 in Nordcurrent Group UAB (Case C-228/24)",

abstract = "In this CFE Opinion Statement, submitted to the EU Institutions in May 2025, the CFE ECJ Task Force comments on the CJEU{\textquoteright}s decision of 3 September 2024 in Nordcurrent Group UAB (Case C-228/24), in which the Court concluded that the notion of abuse requires both an objective element – namely the existence of a non-genuine arrangement – and a subjective element – namely the intention to obtain a tax advantage that defeats the object or purpose of the Directive. Further, in deciding whether an arrangement is a non-genuine arrangement, all facts and circumstances have to be taken into account, employing a wide time horizon. Regarding the tax advantage, it does not suffice to take a look at the participation exemption in isolation. The overall tax burden of the investment has to be taken into consideration.",

keywords = "EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive, Anti- Abuse Provision, object or purpose, objective element, subjective element, non-genuine arrangement, participation exemption",

author = "Georg Kofler and \{Garc{\'i}a Prats\}, Alfredo and Eric Kemmeren and -, \{Alfredo Garcia Prats (Professor at the University of Valencia), Werner Haslehner (Professor at the University of Luxembourg), Georg Kofler (Chair of this Task Force and Professor at the Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law of WU Wien), Michael Lang (Professor at the Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law of WU Wien), Jo{\~a}o Nogueira (Deputy Academic Chairman at IBFD), Christiana HJI Panayi (Professor at Queen Mary University of London), Stella Ravent{\'o}s-Calvo (Vice-President of CFE Tax Advisers Europe), Isabelle Richelle (Co-Chair of the Tax Institute - HEC - University of Li{\`e}ge, Brussels Bar Elegis), and Alexander Rust (Professor at the Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law of WU Wien)\}",

year = "2025",

language = "English",

volume = "65",

pages = "302--305",

journal = "European Taxation",

issn = "0014-3138",

publisher = "International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation (IBFD)",

number = "7",

}

Nordcurrent group: Interpretation of the anti-abuse provision in the EU parent-subsidiary directive: Opinion statement ECJ-TF 1/2025 on the CJEU decision of 3 April 2025 in Nordcurrent Group UAB (Case C-228/24). / Kofler, Georg; García Prats, Alfredo ; Kemmeren, Eric et al.
In: European Taxation, Vol. 65, No. 7, 2025, p. 302-305.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Professional

TY - JOUR

T1 - Nordcurrent group: Interpretation of the anti-abuse provision in the EU parent-subsidiary directive

T2 - Opinion statement ECJ-TF 1/2025 on the CJEU decision of 3 April 2025 in Nordcurrent Group UAB (Case C-228/24)

AU - Kofler, Georg

AU - García Prats, Alfredo

AU - Kemmeren, Eric

AU - -, Alfredo Garcia Prats (Professor at the University of Valencia), Werner Haslehner (Professor at the University of Luxembourg), Georg Kofler (Chair of this Task Force and Professor at the Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law of WU Wien), Mich

PY - 2025

Y1 - 2025

N2 - In this CFE Opinion Statement, submitted to the EU Institutions in May 2025, the CFE ECJ Task Force comments on the CJEU’s decision of 3 September 2024 in Nordcurrent Group UAB (Case C-228/24), in which the Court concluded that the notion of abuse requires both an objective element – namely the existence of a non-genuine arrangement – and a subjective element – namely the intention to obtain a tax advantage that defeats the object or purpose of the Directive. Further, in deciding whether an arrangement is a non-genuine arrangement, all facts and circumstances have to be taken into account, employing a wide time horizon. Regarding the tax advantage, it does not suffice to take a look at the participation exemption in isolation. The overall tax burden of the investment has to be taken into consideration.

AB - In this CFE Opinion Statement, submitted to the EU Institutions in May 2025, the CFE ECJ Task Force comments on the CJEU’s decision of 3 September 2024 in Nordcurrent Group UAB (Case C-228/24), in which the Court concluded that the notion of abuse requires both an objective element – namely the existence of a non-genuine arrangement – and a subjective element – namely the intention to obtain a tax advantage that defeats the object or purpose of the Directive. Further, in deciding whether an arrangement is a non-genuine arrangement, all facts and circumstances have to be taken into account, employing a wide time horizon. Regarding the tax advantage, it does not suffice to take a look at the participation exemption in isolation. The overall tax burden of the investment has to be taken into consideration.

KW - EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive

KW - Anti- Abuse Provision

KW - object or purpose

KW - objective element

KW - subjective element

KW - non-genuine arrangement

KW - participation exemption

M3 - Article

SN - 0014-3138

VL - 65

SP - 302

EP - 305

JO - European Taxation

JF - European Taxation

IS - 7

ER -