1 / 0

Heidi Pietilä Laura Rajala Elina Rantanen 19.2.2013

Case C-42/02 Lindman Diana Elisabeth Lindman v Skatterättelsenämnden ( Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ålands Förvaltningsdomstol (Finland )). Heidi Pietilä Laura Rajala Elina Rantanen 19.2.2013. Agenda. Background of the case National (and Å land province ) legislation

zahi
Télécharger la présentation

Heidi Pietilä Laura Rajala Elina Rantanen 19.2.2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Case C-42/02 LindmanDiana Elisabeth LindmanvSkatterättelsenämnden(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the ÅlandsFörvaltningsdomstol (Finland)) Heidi Pietilä Laura Rajala Elina Rantanen 19.2.2013
  2. Agenda Background of the case National (and Ålandprovince) legislation Questionreferred The FinnishGovernment The Commission and the EFTA Surveillance Authority The Court’sConclusion Impact on FinnishLegislation
  3. Background of the case The Facts: Ms Lindman, Finnishcitizen and resident of Finland living in autonomousprovince of ÅlandIslands. In 1998 shewon 1.000.000 Swedishcrowns in a lotteryarrangedbySwedeshcompany in Sweden. Thisamountwasconsidered as taxableearnedincome of Ms Lindman. The Board of Adjustmentrejected Ms Lindman’sappeal of adjustmentfor lowering the taximposed. Furthershecomplained to Administrativecourt of Åland (Finland).
  4. National legislation According to the national LotteryTaxLaw (552/1992) the lotteryorganizer is accountable for paying the tax for lotteriesorganized in Finland. Finnishlotterywinnings for the beneficiaryarenottaxableincome in Finland. – No doubletaxation. The Åland Islands, residence of MsLindman, has autonomy as enacted in a legislation. Some taxation issues are under legislativeauthority of Ålande.g. In this case, however, Ålanddoesnothaveautonomypower.
  5. The questionreferred The administrativecourt of Åland (Finland) askedpreliminaryruling of EC court: DoesArticle 56 of the EC Treatyprevent a MS fromapplyingrulesthatenables MS to includelotterywinningsfromother MS in the taxableincomewhilelotterywinningsfromlotteriesheld in MS in questionareexemptfromtax.
  6. The Finnish Government The Finnish legislation is compatible with Article 56 Taxation of games of chance is only a specific aspect of the general regime governing games of chance, a field in which the Member States have a wide discretion Any restrictions are justified by overriding reasons in the public interest relating to combating the pernicious consequences of games of chance, since if winnings from foreign lotteries were exempt, the public would be encouraged to participate in them
  7. The Commission and the EFTA Surveillance Authority The taxation in a Member State of winnings from lotteries solely where they are organized in other Member States is contrary to Article 56 In accordance with the principle of fiscal neutrality, a Member State may not treat a winner of a game of chance lawfully organized in another Member State less favorably than a winner who participated in a game organized in the first State Cannot be justified with public interests Ms Lindman: the Finnish legislation is discriminatory, since, if she had resided in Sweden or if the amount at issue in the main proceedings had been won in a Finnish lottery, she would not have been charged income tax
  8. The Court’s Conclusion Although direct taxation is within the competence of the MS, MS must none the less exercise that competence consistently with Community Law. Court’s statement: The case should be examined from the viewpoint of freedom to provide services. The case falls within the scope of Article 56. Foreign lotteries are treated differently for tax purposes from, and are in a disadvantageous position compared to Finnish lotteries. Therefore Finnish legislation was discriminatory Article 56 prohibits a MS’s legislation under which winnings from games of chance organized in other MS are treated as income of the winner chargeable to income tax, whereas winnings from games of chance conducted in the MS in question are not taxable.
  9. Impact on Finnish Legislation The preliminary ruling given by the Court forced Finland (among other Nordic Countries) to change its legislation regarding taxation of games of chance. In Finland this was implemented by changing the Income Tax Law (1535/1992) § 85, regarding the taxation of lottery winnings: “Income arising from winnings in a lottery may be exempt from income tax if income arises from winnings in a lottery in an EEA country, operatedaccording to the rules of the national legislation of that country, or from a Finnish lottery conforming to the provisions of § 2 of the Act on Tax on Lottery Prizes.” The Income Tax Law § 85 was applied for the first time in income taxation of the fiscal year 2004.
  10. THANK YOU!Questions?
More Related