Important judgment on tax classification of financial instrument
On May 17, 2024 the Dutch Supreme Court rendered an important judgment on the tax qualification of a financial instrument that was issued by a company established in France in 2007. It concerned the ‘obligation remboursable en actions’ (hereinafter: ORA). The question was whether the instrument had to be regarded as equity (capital) or debt capital (loan) for the purposes of the Corporate Income Tax Act 1969. Although the dispute focused on the question whether the costs related to the issue of the instrument were allocable to a Dutch permanent establishment of the French company, the Supreme Court judgment potentially has a much broader scope.
Where the ruling practice used to be seen as a fundamental pillar of the Dutch business climate, the Dutch tax authorities now describe preliminary consultation as ‘an important element of its monitor ...
Interest on tax due and late payment interest also often play a role in the adjustment or reassessment of the profit. Sates involved maintain different national rules on interest, which can result in ...
As of 2024, the Pillar 2 rules will become a reality within the EU and other jurisdictions worldwide. Under Pillar 2, the Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) rules ensure that large multinational enterpr ...
An easy-to-use reference work that will help businesses, institutions and organizations in their accounting practices. The tax rates, premiums and contributions for 2023 have been summarized for your ...
The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union brings key clarifications with regard to the choice of a reference system in transfer pricing State aid reviews.
Money worries can seriously impact the (mental) health of employees. This ultimately increases the risk of absenteeism due to sickness and employees who are off work for extended periods of time. A se ...
The planned tax measures include a reduction in the step-up corporate income tax bracket, the introduction of two tax brackets in Box 2, a cap on the 30% ruling and an increase in the general real est ...
The Lower House of Parliament had doubts about both the costs of enforcement and the generic application of the bill. It was therefore decided to stay the bill and examine it further.
