Freedom of movement
In the German case of H&P Petersen v Finanzamt Ludwigshafen (CJEU Case C-544/11) the CJEU held that article 45 of the TFEU ‘must be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State pursuant to which income received for employment activities by a taxpayer who is resident in that Member State and has unlimited tax liability is exempt from income tax if the employer is established in that Member State but is not so exempt if that employer is established in another Member State’.
Why it matters: The CJEU held that the relevant German legislation contravened article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
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:
Freedom of movement
In the German case of H&P Petersen v Finanzamt Ludwigshafen (CJEU Case C-544/11) the CJEU held that article 45 of the TFEU ‘must be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State pursuant to which income received for employment activities by a taxpayer who is resident in that Member State and has unlimited tax liability is exempt from income tax if the employer is established in that Member State but is not so exempt if that employer is established in another Member State’.
Why it matters: The CJEU held that the relevant German legislation contravened article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
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: