This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CN0371
Case C-371/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 13 July 2011 — Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium N.V. v Belgische Staat
Case C-371/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 13 July 2011 — Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium N.V. v Belgische Staat
Case C-371/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 13 July 2011 — Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium N.V. v Belgische Staat
OJ C 282, 24.9.2011, p. 11–12
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
24.9.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 282/11 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 13 July 2011 — Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium N.V. v Belgische Staat
(Case C-371/11)
2011/C 282/22
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Hof van beroep te Gent
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium N.V.
Respondent: Belgische Staat
Question referred
Can the national tax authorities exclude the application of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States on the basis of the provision in that Article that it is not applicable in a case where the subsidiary is liquidated, by relying on a provision of domestic law (here, Article 210 WIB92 [Income Tax Code 1992]) which treats a merger by acquisition where in reality no liquidation of the subsidiary takes place, as a merger where liquidation of the subsidiary does in fact take place?