The Belgian regime aimed at avoiding the economic double taxation of cross-border dividends within the EU, based on an "inclusion-deduction" mechanism for those dividends in the tax base of the parent company, has been repeatedly criticized by the Court of Justice of the EU for its incompatibility with the provisions of the "mother-daughter" directive (Council Directive 90/435/EEC, as amended by Directive 2003/123/EC). However, with the ruling of 20/10/2022, in case C-295/21, the Court of Justice of the EU seems to have changed its approach and, contrary to the provisions of the Belgian doctrine itself, confirmed the compatibility that had previously been denied. In this context, the recent ruling in case C-135/24, where the Court again criticizes that mechanism, finding it contradictory to the provisions of the directive, follows. The fluctuating stance of the CJEU, while making it difficult to answer the question of whether Belgian legislation is in compliance with European standards, also allows for reflection on a broader issue. The Belgian "case" appears emblematic of how delicate the balance is between the process of supranational integration within the European Union and the desire of Member States (in this case, Belgium) to "safeguard" their national prerogatives.
Fiduccia, F. (2025). Integrazione europea e salvaguardia delle prerogative nazionali degli Stati membri: il caso della tassazione belga degli “RDT”. RIVISTA DI DIRITTO TRIBUTARIO(2), 1-12.
Integrazione europea e salvaguardia delle prerogative nazionali degli Stati membri: il caso della tassazione belga degli “RDT”
Fabio Fiduccia
2025-12-04
Abstract
The Belgian regime aimed at avoiding the economic double taxation of cross-border dividends within the EU, based on an "inclusion-deduction" mechanism for those dividends in the tax base of the parent company, has been repeatedly criticized by the Court of Justice of the EU for its incompatibility with the provisions of the "mother-daughter" directive (Council Directive 90/435/EEC, as amended by Directive 2003/123/EC). However, with the ruling of 20/10/2022, in case C-295/21, the Court of Justice of the EU seems to have changed its approach and, contrary to the provisions of the Belgian doctrine itself, confirmed the compatibility that had previously been denied. In this context, the recent ruling in case C-135/24, where the Court again criticizes that mechanism, finding it contradictory to the provisions of the directive, follows. The fluctuating stance of the CJEU, while making it difficult to answer the question of whether Belgian legislation is in compliance with European standards, also allows for reflection on a broader issue. The Belgian "case" appears emblematic of how delicate the balance is between the process of supranational integration within the European Union and the desire of Member States (in this case, Belgium) to "safeguard" their national prerogatives.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
20251204_Fiduccia.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Versione Editoriale
Dimensione
178.25 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
178.25 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


