The Netherlands I: Köln-Aktienfonds Deka (C-156/17): Refund of dividend withholding tax for a foreign investment fund

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterScientific

Abstract

In this contribution, the author discusses a case concerning the Dutch dividend withholding tax. Dividend withholding taxes have been assessed for their consistency with EU law in cases referred from several Member States. As a result, a large body of case law has been developed on dividend withholding taxes (DWHT). Nevertheless, on many issues, a lack of clarity or inconsistency between the DWHT and EU law is still present. The case discussed in this chapter exhibits a number of still existing open questions, at least according to the Dutch Supreme Court.
This case deals with a claim for refund of Dutch DWHT by a non-resident portfolio shareholder, more precisely, a German resident investment fund, which was refused by the tax authorities. The case focuses on the question of whether the situation of this investment fund is comparable with a Netherlands resident fiscal investment institution (FII) which would have been entitled to a refund of Dutch DWHT.
In the context of the fact that under domestic Dutch tax law, the taxpayer in this case is not entitled to a DWHT refund, the author firstly present the facts of the case, the relevant domestic tax laws and DTC law, the main considerations of the Dutch Supreme Court, and the preliminary questions that have been referred to the CJEU. Secondly, the author comments on the issues raised. In this respect, the following issues are discussed:
1. Whether the Dutch Supreme Court can uphold its decision in HR BNB 2015/203 that a foreign investment fund is not comparable with a Netherlands resident FII because a foreign investment fund is not a dividend withholding agent in the Netherlands?
2. Whether on the basis of the Miljoen case, the effective Dutch tax position of participants in a foreign investment fund is comparable with that of participants in a domestic FII and the foreign investment fund therefore has a legal basis for a DWHT refund claim?
3. Whether the PMT case is a confirmation of HR BNB 2015/203?
4. Whether the specific shareholder conditions of the FII regime prevent a comparison of a foreign investment fund with a domestic FII?
5. Whether the redistribution condition of the FII regime prevents a comparison of a foreign investment fund with a domestic FII?
These comments are not made in isolation, rather they are based on benchmarks. The contribution is closed by summarizing the author’s main conclusions.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationCJEU - Recent Developments in Direct Taxation 2017 (2018)
EditorsMichael Lang, Pasquale Pistone, Alexander Rust, Josef Schuch, Claus Staringer, Alfred Storck
Place of PublicationVienna
PublisherLinde Verlag Wien
Pages153-185
Volume110
ISBN (Electronic)9783709409565
ISBN (Print)9783707339024
Publication statusPublished - 2018
EventRecent and Pending Cases at the CJEU on Direct Taxation - WirtschaftsUniversität (WU), Vienna, Austria
Duration: 16 Nov 201718 Nov 2017

Publication series

NameSeries on International Tax Law
PublisherLinde Verlag
Volume110

Conference

ConferenceRecent and Pending Cases at the CJEU on Direct Taxation
CountryAustria
CityVienna
Period16/11/1718/11/17

Fingerprint

withholding tax
foreign investment
Netherlands
tax law
Supreme Court
shareholder
European Law
resident
taxes
regime
legal basis
case law
redistribution
social isolation

Cite this

Kemmeren, E. (2018). The Netherlands I: Köln-Aktienfonds Deka (C-156/17): Refund of dividend withholding tax for a foreign investment fund. In M. Lang, P. Pistone, A. Rust, J. Schuch, C. Staringer, & A. Storck (Eds.), CJEU - Recent Developments in Direct Taxation 2017 (2018) (Vol. 110, pp. 153-185). (Series on International Tax Law; Vol. 110). Vienna: Linde Verlag Wien.
Kemmeren, Eric. / The Netherlands I: Köln-Aktienfonds Deka (C-156/17): Refund of dividend withholding tax for a foreign investment fund. CJEU - Recent Developments in Direct Taxation 2017 (2018). editor / Michael Lang ; Pasquale Pistone ; Alexander Rust ; Josef Schuch ; Claus Staringer ; Alfred Storck. Vol. 110 Vienna : Linde Verlag Wien, 2018. pp. 153-185 (Series on International Tax Law).
@inbook{ea95cb6abbf14971840cbe0a6a6084d1,
title = "The Netherlands I: K{\"o}ln-Aktienfonds Deka (C-156/17): Refund of dividend withholding tax for a foreign investment fund",
abstract = "In this contribution, the author discusses a case concerning the Dutch dividend withholding tax. Dividend withholding taxes have been assessed for their consistency with EU law in cases referred from several Member States. As a result, a large body of case law has been developed on dividend withholding taxes (DWHT). Nevertheless, on many issues, a lack of clarity or inconsistency between the DWHT and EU law is still present. The case discussed in this chapter exhibits a number of still existing open questions, at least according to the Dutch Supreme Court.This case deals with a claim for refund of Dutch DWHT by a non-resident portfolio shareholder, more precisely, a German resident investment fund, which was refused by the tax authorities. The case focuses on the question of whether the situation of this investment fund is comparable with a Netherlands resident fiscal investment institution (FII) which would have been entitled to a refund of Dutch DWHT. In the context of the fact that under domestic Dutch tax law, the taxpayer in this case is not entitled to a DWHT refund, the author firstly present the facts of the case, the relevant domestic tax laws and DTC law, the main considerations of the Dutch Supreme Court, and the preliminary questions that have been referred to the CJEU. Secondly, the author comments on the issues raised. In this respect, the following issues are discussed:1. Whether the Dutch Supreme Court can uphold its decision in HR BNB 2015/203 that a foreign investment fund is not comparable with a Netherlands resident FII because a foreign investment fund is not a dividend withholding agent in the Netherlands?2. Whether on the basis of the Miljoen case, the effective Dutch tax position of participants in a foreign investment fund is comparable with that of participants in a domestic FII and the foreign investment fund therefore has a legal basis for a DWHT refund claim?3. Whether the PMT case is a confirmation of HR BNB 2015/203?4. Whether the specific shareholder conditions of the FII regime prevent a comparison of a foreign investment fund with a domestic FII?5. Whether the redistribution condition of the FII regime prevents a comparison of a foreign investment fund with a domestic FII?These comments are not made in isolation, rather they are based on benchmarks. The contribution is closed by summarizing the author’s main conclusions.",
author = "Eric Kemmeren",
year = "2018",
language = "English",
isbn = "9783707339024",
volume = "110",
series = "Series on International Tax Law",
publisher = "Linde Verlag Wien",
pages = "153--185",
editor = "Michael Lang and Pasquale Pistone and Alexander Rust and Josef Schuch and Claus Staringer and Alfred Storck",
booktitle = "CJEU - Recent Developments in Direct Taxation 2017 (2018)",

}

Kemmeren, E 2018, The Netherlands I: Köln-Aktienfonds Deka (C-156/17): Refund of dividend withholding tax for a foreign investment fund. in M Lang, P Pistone, A Rust, J Schuch, C Staringer & A Storck (eds), CJEU - Recent Developments in Direct Taxation 2017 (2018). vol. 110, Series on International Tax Law, vol. 110, Linde Verlag Wien, Vienna, pp. 153-185, Recent and Pending Cases at the CJEU on Direct Taxation, Vienna, Austria, 16/11/17.

The Netherlands I: Köln-Aktienfonds Deka (C-156/17): Refund of dividend withholding tax for a foreign investment fund. / Kemmeren, Eric.

CJEU - Recent Developments in Direct Taxation 2017 (2018). ed. / Michael Lang; Pasquale Pistone; Alexander Rust; Josef Schuch; Claus Staringer; Alfred Storck. Vol. 110 Vienna : Linde Verlag Wien, 2018. p. 153-185 (Series on International Tax Law; Vol. 110).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterScientific

TY - CHAP

T1 - The Netherlands I: Köln-Aktienfonds Deka (C-156/17): Refund of dividend withholding tax for a foreign investment fund

AU - Kemmeren, Eric

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - In this contribution, the author discusses a case concerning the Dutch dividend withholding tax. Dividend withholding taxes have been assessed for their consistency with EU law in cases referred from several Member States. As a result, a large body of case law has been developed on dividend withholding taxes (DWHT). Nevertheless, on many issues, a lack of clarity or inconsistency between the DWHT and EU law is still present. The case discussed in this chapter exhibits a number of still existing open questions, at least according to the Dutch Supreme Court.This case deals with a claim for refund of Dutch DWHT by a non-resident portfolio shareholder, more precisely, a German resident investment fund, which was refused by the tax authorities. The case focuses on the question of whether the situation of this investment fund is comparable with a Netherlands resident fiscal investment institution (FII) which would have been entitled to a refund of Dutch DWHT. In the context of the fact that under domestic Dutch tax law, the taxpayer in this case is not entitled to a DWHT refund, the author firstly present the facts of the case, the relevant domestic tax laws and DTC law, the main considerations of the Dutch Supreme Court, and the preliminary questions that have been referred to the CJEU. Secondly, the author comments on the issues raised. In this respect, the following issues are discussed:1. Whether the Dutch Supreme Court can uphold its decision in HR BNB 2015/203 that a foreign investment fund is not comparable with a Netherlands resident FII because a foreign investment fund is not a dividend withholding agent in the Netherlands?2. Whether on the basis of the Miljoen case, the effective Dutch tax position of participants in a foreign investment fund is comparable with that of participants in a domestic FII and the foreign investment fund therefore has a legal basis for a DWHT refund claim?3. Whether the PMT case is a confirmation of HR BNB 2015/203?4. Whether the specific shareholder conditions of the FII regime prevent a comparison of a foreign investment fund with a domestic FII?5. Whether the redistribution condition of the FII regime prevents a comparison of a foreign investment fund with a domestic FII?These comments are not made in isolation, rather they are based on benchmarks. The contribution is closed by summarizing the author’s main conclusions.

AB - In this contribution, the author discusses a case concerning the Dutch dividend withholding tax. Dividend withholding taxes have been assessed for their consistency with EU law in cases referred from several Member States. As a result, a large body of case law has been developed on dividend withholding taxes (DWHT). Nevertheless, on many issues, a lack of clarity or inconsistency between the DWHT and EU law is still present. The case discussed in this chapter exhibits a number of still existing open questions, at least according to the Dutch Supreme Court.This case deals with a claim for refund of Dutch DWHT by a non-resident portfolio shareholder, more precisely, a German resident investment fund, which was refused by the tax authorities. The case focuses on the question of whether the situation of this investment fund is comparable with a Netherlands resident fiscal investment institution (FII) which would have been entitled to a refund of Dutch DWHT. In the context of the fact that under domestic Dutch tax law, the taxpayer in this case is not entitled to a DWHT refund, the author firstly present the facts of the case, the relevant domestic tax laws and DTC law, the main considerations of the Dutch Supreme Court, and the preliminary questions that have been referred to the CJEU. Secondly, the author comments on the issues raised. In this respect, the following issues are discussed:1. Whether the Dutch Supreme Court can uphold its decision in HR BNB 2015/203 that a foreign investment fund is not comparable with a Netherlands resident FII because a foreign investment fund is not a dividend withholding agent in the Netherlands?2. Whether on the basis of the Miljoen case, the effective Dutch tax position of participants in a foreign investment fund is comparable with that of participants in a domestic FII and the foreign investment fund therefore has a legal basis for a DWHT refund claim?3. Whether the PMT case is a confirmation of HR BNB 2015/203?4. Whether the specific shareholder conditions of the FII regime prevent a comparison of a foreign investment fund with a domestic FII?5. Whether the redistribution condition of the FII regime prevents a comparison of a foreign investment fund with a domestic FII?These comments are not made in isolation, rather they are based on benchmarks. The contribution is closed by summarizing the author’s main conclusions.

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9783707339024

VL - 110

T3 - Series on International Tax Law

SP - 153

EP - 185

BT - CJEU - Recent Developments in Direct Taxation 2017 (2018)

A2 - Lang, Michael

A2 - Pistone, Pasquale

A2 - Rust, Alexander

A2 - Schuch, Josef

A2 - Staringer, Claus

A2 - Storck, Alfred

PB - Linde Verlag Wien

CY - Vienna

ER -

Kemmeren E. The Netherlands I: Köln-Aktienfonds Deka (C-156/17): Refund of dividend withholding tax for a foreign investment fund. In Lang M, Pistone P, Rust A, Schuch J, Staringer C, Storck A, editors, CJEU - Recent Developments in Direct Taxation 2017 (2018). Vol. 110. Vienna: Linde Verlag Wien. 2018. p. 153-185. (Series on International Tax Law).