Holding companies and Leveraged Buy-Outs (LBOs) in the EU after BEPS: beneficial owner, abuse of law and the single taxation principle [Working Paper]

Abstract

La Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la UE en las sentencias danesas supone uno de los hitos más destacados en el desarrollo de la jurisprudencia sobre el abuso de las libertades y normas fiscales desde Cadbury Schweppes. El Tribunal parece cerrar la lógica de las libertades en materia fiscal al dotar de consistencia a la jurisprudencia de abuso, ahormándola a un único criterio frente a los criterios dispares previos, así como frente al primer período de la jurisprudencia Comunitaria en que las libertades primaban frente a la norma fiscal de los Estados. Esa primacía erosionaba la potestad tributaria de los Estados y favorecía una carrera a la baja. Con esta sentencia se equilibra el binomio potestad tributaria-libertades, y se inicia el paso hacia una homogenización de la concepción del abuso en Europa. Por el contrario, esta jurisprudencia puede llevar a un incremento de los costes de capitales y reducción de la inversión si las agencias tributarias actúan con excesivo celo. El adecuado equilibrio entre libertades y prevención del abuso resulta en todo punto positivo pero debe ser analizado caso por caso con sumo cuidado para no eliminar ninguno de los dos principios en cuestión: el desarrollo del Mercado Interior y el Derecho de los Estados a recaudar para sostener sus gastos públicos.

The ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Danish cases is called to be one of the milestones in the development of abuse of law doctrine in the EU. This ruling seems to bring coherence to the binomial freedoms-tax duties. On the one hand, it sets a single set of criteria against previous differences between applicable abuse principles in different tax matters. It also balances duty to pay taxes agains early jurisprudence on tax matters where freedoms were eroding tax powers and allowing significant tax planning. Such primacy of freedoms without any counterbalance was favouring tax competition and the erosion of tax base This ruling rebalances tax powers-freedoms. It also sets a first step towards homogenization of abuse doctrine in a single doctrine. Moreover, it overrides Directives requirements of transposition of anti-avoidance rules by setting a general principle of prevention of abuse is applicable irrespective of being contained in a DIrective or being transpond to domestic law. However, this Case-Law may lead to an increase in cost of finance and reduction of investment if tax authorities use it agressively. Is not clear what benefits more EU economy, if access to capital markets, or raising revenue for public expense, what should be politically analysed carefully. In any case, a proper balance between freedoms and prevention of abuse is needed so none of the principles involved is completely eroded: right to move freely throught the internal market, what makes economies to grow and brings prosperity; and the right of states to raise revenue, so public expenditure is guaranteed and redistribution of wealth is achieved.