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
(Case C-126/10) (1)
(Approximation of laws - Directive 90/434/EEC - Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States - Article 11(1)(a) - Valid commercial reasons - Restructuring or rationalisation of the activities of companies participating in operations - Definition)
(2012/C 25/12)
Language of the case: Portuguese
Applicant: FOGGIA — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais SA
Defendant: Secretário de Estado dos Assuntos Fiscais
Intervener: Ministério Público
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1) — Operations pursuing the ends of tax evasion or avoidance — Meaning of ‘valid commercial reasons’ and ‘restructuring or rationalisation of the activities of companies participating in operations’
Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a merger operation between two companies of the same group, the fact that, on the date of the merger operation, the acquired company does not carry out any activity, does not have any financial holdings and transfers to the acquiring company only substantial tax losses of undetermined origin, even though that operation has a positive effect in terms of cost structure savings for that group, may constitute a presumption that the operation has not been carried out for ‘valid commercial reasons’ within the meaning of Article 11(1)(a). It is incumbent on the national court to verify, in the light of all the circumstances of the dispute on which it is required to rule, whether the constituent elements of the presumption of tax evasion or avoidance, within the meaning of that provision, are present in the context of that dispute.
OJ C 134, 22.5.2010