This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CA0009
Case C-9/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v D.G. Kieback (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Tax legislation — Income tax — Income received in a Member State — Non-resident worker — Tax in the State of employment — Conditions)
Case C-9/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v D.G. Kieback (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Tax legislation — Income tax — Income received in a Member State — Non-resident worker — Tax in the State of employment — Conditions)
Case C-9/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v D.G. Kieback (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Tax legislation — Income tax — Income received in a Member State — Non-resident worker — Tax in the State of employment — Conditions)
OJ C 279, 24.8.2015, p. 11–11
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
24.8.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 279/11 |
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v D.G. Kieback
(Case C-9/14) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Tax legislation - Income tax - Income received in a Member State - Non-resident worker - Tax in the State of employment - Conditions))
(2015/C 279/12)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Defendant: D.G. Kieback
Operative part of the judgment
Article 39(2) EC must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, for the purposes of charging income tax on a non-resident worker who has pursued his occupational activity in that Member State during part of the year, from refusing to grant that worker a tax advantage which takes account of his personal and family circumstances, on the basis that, although he received, in that Member State, all or almost all his income from that period, that income does not form the major part of his taxable income for the entire year in question. The fact that that worker left to pursue his occupational activity in a non-member State and not in another EU Member State does not affect that interpretation.