Case C-650/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — A/S Bevola, Jens W. Trock ApS v Skatteministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Corporation tax — Freedom of establishment — Resident company — Taxable profits — Tax relief — Deduction of losses incurred by resident permanent establishments — Authorised — Deduction of losses incurred by non-resident permanent establishments — Excluded — Exception — Optional scheme of international joint taxation)
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — A/S Bevola, Jens W. Trock ApS v Skatteministeriet
(Case C-650/16) ( 1 )
‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Corporation tax — Freedom of establishment — Resident company — Taxable profits — Tax relief — Deduction of losses incurred by resident permanent establishments — Authorised — Deduction of losses incurred by non-resident permanent establishments — Excluded — Exception — Optional scheme of international joint taxation)’
2018/C 276/04Language of the case: DanishReferring court
Østre Landsret
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: A/S Bevola, Jens W. Trock ApS
Defendant: Skatteministeriet
Operative part of the judgment
Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which it is not possible for a resident company which has not opted for an international joint taxation scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to deduct from its taxable profits losses incurred by a permanent establishment in another Member State, where, first, that company has exhausted the possibilities of deducting those losses available under the law of the Member State in which the establishment is situated and, second, it has ceased to receive any income from that establishment, so that there is no longer any possibility of the losses being taken into account in that Member State, which is for the national court to ascertain.
( 1 ) OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.