In the Belgian case of Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium NV v Belgische Staat (CJEU Case C-371/11) a company (P) carried out a merger with two subsidiary companies which transferred their assets to P and were dissolved without going into liquidation. P claimed that the way in which the resulting surplus was treated under Belgian legislation was a breach of art 4(1) of Directive 90/435/EEC. The Bruges Court of First Instance ruled that P was not entitled to the credit which it had claimed on the grounds that the transactions in question amounted to a liquidation of P’s subsidiaries. P appealed to the Ghent Court of Appeal which referred the case to the CJEU for a ruling on the interpretation of ‘liquidation’ in art 4(1). The CJEU issued a ruling in favour of P holding that ‘the dissolution of a company in the...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In the Belgian case of Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium NV v Belgische Staat (CJEU Case C-371/11) a company (P) carried out a merger with two subsidiary companies which transferred their assets to P and were dissolved without going into liquidation. P claimed that the way in which the resulting surplus was treated under Belgian legislation was a breach of art 4(1) of Directive 90/435/EEC. The Bruges Court of First Instance ruled that P was not entitled to the credit which it had claimed on the grounds that the transactions in question amounted to a liquidation of P’s subsidiaries. P appealed to the Ghent Court of Appeal which referred the case to the CJEU for a ruling on the interpretation of ‘liquidation’ in art 4(1). The CJEU issued a ruling in favour of P holding that ‘the dissolution of a company in the...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
