CASE C19604 Cadbury Schweppes plc Cadbury Schweppes Overseas

CASE C-196/04 Cadbury Schweppes plc, Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue

Cadbury Schweppes group Organizational structure Cadbury Schweppes plc (CS) Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd (CSO) Cadbury Schweppes Treasury International (CSTI) Cadbury Schweppes Treasury Services (CSTS)

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES CENTRE Dublin's IFSC, which was set up by the Irish Government with EU approval in 1987, is globally recognised as a leading location for a range of internationally traded financial services, including banking, asset financing, fund management, corporate treasury management, investment management, ecc. . The IFSC was established in 1987 under legislation designed to boost activity and employment in the Irish economy. The Finance Act 1987 established a special 10 per cent corporation tax rate for certified companies setting up in the IFSC.

Commissioners of Inland revenue The Inland Revenue, established in 1665, was a department of the British Government responsible for the collection of direct taxation, including income tax, national insurance contributions, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, corporation tax, petroleum revenue tax and stamp duty. From April 2005, it was merged to form HM REVENUE and CUSTOMS, a non-ministerial department supported by two agencies and public bodies.

NATIONAL LEGISLATION on Controlled Foreign Companies (CFCs) Sections 747 -756 of the Income and Corporation taxes act 1988 provide that: ‘profits of a CFC -a foreign company in which the resident company owns a holding of more than 50%- are attributed to the resident company and taxed on its hands, by means of a tax credit for the tax paid by the CFC in the state in which it is established. If those same profits are distributed in the form of dividends to the resident company, the tax paid by the latter in the United Kingdom on the profits of the CFC is treated as additional tax paid by the latter abroad and gives raise to a tax credit in respect owed by the tax resident company on those dividends. ’

Rationale behind this legislation The legislation on CFCs is designed to apply when the CFC is subject, in the state in which is established to a ‘lower level of taxation’, which is the case, in respect of any accounting period in which the tax paid by the CFC is less than the ¾ of the amount of tax which would have been paid in the United Kingdom on the taxable profits. In year 1996 the tax rate in the United Kingdom on corporation income was 30%. The legislation on CFCs was accompanied by a number of exceptions, the taxation does not apply in any of the following cases: • Acceptable distribution policy • ‘Exempt activities’ • Public quotation • Profits below 50000£ • Motive tests

Facts in the main proceedings • It was common ground that CSTS and CSTI were established in Dublin solely in order that the profits could benefit from the tax regime of the IFSC. • The UK tax authorities took the view that profits for the financial year 1996 of CSTS and CSTI were subject to a ‘lower level of taxation’ within the meaning of CFCs’ legislation. • Furthermore, none of the conditions for exemptions from taxation provided by the legislation applied to those subsidiaries. CS and CSO appeal against the tax notice to the Special Commisioners of Income Tax Commissioners of Inland Revenue claimed corporation tax from CSO 18 -Aug-2000 The special Commissioners of Income Tax refer a question to the European Court for a preliminary ruling 21 -Aug-2000 29 -April-2004

Uncertainties faced by the national court 1) In establishing and capitalising companies in another member state solely to take advantage of a tax regime more favourable than that applicable in the UK, is CS abusing the freedoms the EC treaty? 2) If the CS is merely exercising those freedoms in a genuine manner, may the legislation on CFCs be viewed as a restrictions on the exercise of those freedoms? 3) If so, would the fact that CS may pay no more tax than what CSTS and CSTI would have paid if they had been established in the UK mean that there is no such restriction? 4) Should the legislation on CFCs be viewed as involving discrimination if CS would have established subsidiaries in a Member State which does not charge a lower rate of tax? 5) Could the legislation be justified on grounds of prevention of tax avoidance, given its objective to prevent the reduction or diversion of profits liable to UK tax?

Question to the EU court for a preliminary ruling Do Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 56 EC preclude national tax legislation such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which provides in specified circumstances for the imposition of a charge upon a company resident in the member state in respect of the profits of a subsidiary company resident in another member state and subject to a ‘lower level of taxation’?

Answer of the EU Court The question must be understood as referring primarily to articles 43 EC and 48 EC. This because if the CFCs legislation comprises restrictive effects on the free movement of services and capital, such effects are unavoidable consequence of any restriction on freedom of establishment and do not justify an independent examination of that legislation in the light of Articles 49 EC and 56 EC. q. Article 43 EC q. Article 48 EC

Abuse of freedom of establishment Can the fact that a company established in a Member State which establishes and capitalises companies in another Member State solely because of the more favourable tax regime applicable in that Member State constitute an abuse of freedom of establishment? NO. It is true that nationals cannot attempt improperly to circumvent their national legislation and must not fraudolently take advantage of provisions of Community law. However, the fact that the company was established in a Member State for the purpose of benefiting from more favourable legislation does not in itself constitute abuse of that freedom. Therefore, it must be examined whether Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude the application of legislation such as that on CFC’s.

o Article 43 EC: Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State shall be prohibited. Such prohibition shall also apply to restrictions on the setting-up of agencies, branches or subsidiaries by nationals of any Member State established in the territory of any Member State. Freedom of establishment shall include the right to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons and to set up and manage undertakings, in particular companies or firms within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48, under the conditions laid down for its own nationals by the law of the country where such establishment is effected, subject to the provisions of the chapter relating to capital. o Article 48 EC: Companies or firms formed in accordance with the law of a Member State and having their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community shall, for the purposes of this Chapter, be treated in the same way as natural persons who are nationals of Member States. "Companies or firms" means companies or firms constituted under civil or commercial law, including cooperative societies, and other legal persons governed by public or private law, save for those which are non-profit-making.

So, the provisions of the Treaty prohibit the Member State of origin from hindering the establishment in another Member State of one of its nationals or of a company incorporated under its legislation. In this case, it is common ground that the legislation on CFCs involves a difference in the treatment of resident companies on the basis of the level of taxation imposed on the company in which they have a controlling holding. Basically, CFC legislation creates a tax disadvantage for the resident company to which is applicable. Thus, the separate tax treatment under the legislation on CFCs and the resulting disadvantage for resident companies which have a subsidiary subject, in another Member State, to a lower level of taxation constitute a restriction on freedom of establishment within the meaning of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC.

UK GOVERNMENT SUBMISSION The legislation on CFCs is intended to counter a specific type of tax avoidance involving the artificial transfer by a resident company of profits from the Member State in which they were made to a low-tax State. However, the mere fact that a company establishes a secondary establishment, subsidiary, in another Member State cannot set up a general presumption of tax evasion and justify a measure which compromises the excercise of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty.

Justified restriction on freedom of establishment A national measure restricting freedom of establishment may be justified where it specifically relates to wholly artifcial arrangements aimed at circumventing the application of the legislation of the Member State concerned. It is necessary, in assessing the conduct of the taxable person, to take particular account of the objective pursued by the freedom of establishment. Freedom of establishment is intended to allow a Community national to partcipate, on a stable and continuing basis, in the economic life of a Member State other than his State of origin and to profit therefrom. Consequently, it presupposes actual establishment of the company concerned in the host Member State and the pursuit of genuine economic activity there.

So, the resident company, which is best placed for that purpose, must be given an opportunity to produce evidence that the CFC is actually established and that its activities are genuine. As suggested by UK government and the Commission, that finding must be based on objective factors which are ascertainable by third parties with regard, in particular, to the extent to which the CFC physically exists in terms of premises, staff and equipment. That is what Cadbury Schweppes plc did

CONCLUSION Articles 43 EC and 48 EC must be interpreted as precluding the inclusion in the tax base of a resident company established in a Member State of profits made by a controlled foreign company in another Member State, where those profits are subject in that state to a lower level of taxation that applicable in the first State, unless such inclusion relates only to wholly artificial arrangements intended to escape the national tax normally payable. Accordingly, such a tax measure must not be applied where it is proven, on the basis of objective factors which are ascertainable by third parties, that despite the existence of tax motives that controlled company is actually established in the host Member State and carries on genuine activities there.

Aiello Beatrice Palmieri Gabriele