Discrimination is not justified with investment funds

June 30, 2012

In May the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found that French tax legislation is contrary to EU law when it taxes nationally-sourced dividends paid to certain investment funds which are resident in another state. Nadine Gelli, Eduardo Gracia and Manuel Paz of Ashurst explain why this break-through decision opens the door to a significant number of claims for full refunds to be filed by both EU and non-EU investment funds in France and all across Europe.

Unlock this content.

The content you are trying to view is exclusive to our subscribers.

To unlock this content:

Take a Free Trial or Login

Topics

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Direct Tax

Co-sourcing in tax: a growing trend with pillar two

In-house teams who want a balance of internal control and external expertise for pillar two should seriously consider co-sourcing models, Russell Gammon of Tax Systems argues

Russell Gammon, January 22, 2025

Direct Tax

Trump: OECD’s pillar two ‘no force or effect’ in US

The OECD has vowed to continue working with the US despite the president effectively pulling the country out of the organisation’s global minimum tax deal

Sam Sholli, January 21, 2025

Direct Tax

Exploring the tax classification of non-Dutch entities in 2025

Norton Rose Fulbright highlights a Brazilian investment fund as a practical example of how new Dutch tax rules will require significant attention from foreign companies

Bart Le Blanc , January 20, 2025

Direct Tax