ARTICLE
19 December 2020

Interpretation And Application Of The General Anti-abuse Rule Of The Parent-Subsidiary Directive

EN
Elias Neocleous & Co LLC

Contributor

Elias Neocleous & Co LLC is the largest law firm in Cyprus and a leading firm in the South-East Mediterranean region, with a network of offices across Cyprus (Limassol, Nicosia, Paphos), Belgium (Brussels), Czech Republic (Prague), Romania (Budapest) and Ukraine (Kiev). A dynamic team of lawyers and legal experts deliver strategic legal solutions to clients operating in key industries across Europe, Asia, the Middle East, India, USA, South America, and China. The firm is renowned for its expertise and jurisdictional knowledge across a broad spectrum of practice areas, spanning all major transactional and market disciplines, while also managing the largest and most challenging cross-border assignments. It is a premier practice of choice for leading Cypriot banks and financial institutions, preeminent foreign commercial and development banks, multinational corporations, global technology firms, international law firms, private equity funds, credit agencies, and asset managers.
We prepared the ‘‘Overview of EU Member States and Switzerland'', which gives you a comprehensive overview of the current state of play
Cyprus Tax

We prepared the ''Overview of EU Member States and Switzerland'', which gives you a comprehensive overview of the current state of play on the interpretation and application of the EU Parent Subsidiary Directive general anti-abuse rule (Directive 2015/121/EU) in the EU member states and how Switzerland deals with it.

As you may have noticed, it has now been approximately five years since the EU Parent Subsidiary Directive general anti-abuse rule (Directive 2015/121/EU (PSD GAAR)) was included in the EU Parent Subsidiary Directive (Directive 2011/96/EU). Since then legislative developments have occurred and some countries have developed internal guidance, administrative practice or case-law concerning the interpretation. Furthermore, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has taken ground-breaking decisions in the past few years that impact the interpretation and application of the PSD GAAR; in particular, the ECJ judgments in Eqiom, Juhler Holding and Deister Holding cases, and the Danish cases.

Additionally, these tax developments are also of importance for the principal purpose test (PPT) which is included in many tax treaties via the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (MLI). It may be expected that countries would follow a similar interpretation for both the PPT and the PSD GAAR.

In this context we prepared the ''Overview of EU Member States and Switzerland'', which gives you a comprehensive overview of the current state of play on the interpretation and application of the PSD GAAR in the EU member states and how Switzerland deals with it.

Read and download the overview

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More