- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-498/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 14 October 2010 — X NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010CN0498
62010CN0498
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
15.1.2011
Official Journal of the European Union
C 13/19
(Case C-498/10)
()
2011/C 13/33
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: X NV
Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Questions referred
1.Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a restriction on the freedom to provide services exists if the recipient of a service, provided by a service provider established in another Member State, is obliged under the legislation of the Member State where the service recipient is established and where the service is provided, to withhold tax on the remuneration payable for that service, whereas that withholding obligation does not exist in relation to a service provider who is established in the same Member State as the service recipient?
2(a)If the answer to the previous question has the effect that legislation which provides for the imposition of tax by a service recipient hinders the freedom to provide services, can such a hindrance then be justified by the need to ensure that taxes are levied and collected from foreign companies whose stay in the Netherlands is short and which are difficult to control, with the result that the execution of the taxing powers allocated to the Netherlands becomes problematic?
2(b)In that case, is it relevant that the legislation was later amended for situations such as the one at issue here, in the sense that the tax was unilaterally waived because it proved incapable of being simply and efficiently applied?
3.Does the rule go beyond what is necessary given the opportunities for mutual assistance in the recovery of taxes presented in particular by Directive 76/308/EEC? (1)
4.In answering the foregoing questions, is it relevant that the tax which is payable on the remuneration in the Member State where the service recipient is established can be set off against tax which is payable on that remuneration in that other Member State?
Council Directive of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties (OJ 1976 L 73, p. 18).