Partitioning doctrine inapplicable in case of law change, Dutch Supreme Court rules
The Netherlands Supreme Court held on 14 June (Case 11/04538) that the partitioning doctrine for splitting benefits under the participation exemption into taxable and non-taxable periods doesn’t apply if the conditions for the participation exemption weren’t met because of a change in law.
Under the Dutch participation exemption, corporate taxpayers are exempted from Dutch corporate income tax on benefits (such as dividends, capital gains and liquidation profits) derived from qualifying shareholdings. Capital losses are non-deductible unless they result from a subsidiary’s liquidation, and even then, strict conditions must be met.
Several conditions must also be met for shares to fall within the scope of the participation exemption. That raises the question of how benefits are to be taxed if they can be allocated to periods during which the conditions were met as well as periods during which the conditions weren’t met…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
The decision of the US Court of Appeals has raised questions about how issuers should present their disclosures on conflict minerals under Exchange Act Rule 13p-1 and Form SD.
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth.
Analysis from The Lawyer
As international firms question their future in these small, closely linked markets, local lawyers too are eyeing the business environment with caution
Beyond the headline infrastructure projects, UK construction work is still recovering from the clobbering it took during the slump