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.
De KPMG Belgium-Holland Desk nieuwsbrief verschijnt maandelijks met uitzondering van juli en augustus. In deze nieuwsbrief gaan wij in op actuele ontwikkelingen op fiscaal gebied in Nederland en Belgi ...
How can you use terms of employment to create greater employee involvement? How do you incorporate ESG into your terms of employment while at the same time realizing cost savings? A recent public ...
The District Court of Overijssel recently rendered a judgment in respect of a dispute between an owner of a floating solar park (the plaintiff) and the tax officer of the joint tax office Lococensus-T ...
The Minister of Finance has asked the Dutch Chamber of Commerce to temporarily stop providing information from the UBO register, effective as of November 22, 2022.
Given the current situation where cross-border workers are still working from home of a permanent basis, the end of the No Impact policy could affect many employers and employees.
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 preliminary ruling shows that, for ‘essentially a new building’ to have been created, there must have been alterations to the structural construction as a minimum.
Non-litigants will also be governed by a Supreme Court judgment in these litigation proceedings for the years 2017 through 2020 even if they have not filed a request.