Skattestyrelsen har givet delvist afslag på anmodningen om tilbagebetaling af indeholdt udbytteskat for kalenderårene 2014-2017. Det fremgår af anmodningen, at der er søgt om tilbagebetaling af i alt 19.250.261,57 kr., hvilket skulle svare til 27 % af det angivne bruttoudbytte fra danske selskaber. 

Skattestyrelsen har afslået tilbagebetaling af 10.694.589,76 kr. Det afslåede beløb svarer til 15 % af det angivne bruttoudbytte. Skattestyrelsen har tilbagebetalt den øvrige del af de ansøgte beløb. 

H1 har påklaget den del af Skattestyrelsens afgørelse, der omhandler det afslåede beløb. 

Landsskatteretten stadfæster Skattestyrelsens afslag vedrørende tilbagebetaling af indeholdt udbytteskat, svarende til 15 % af bruttoudbyttet.

Faktiske oplysninger
I ansøgning dateret den 28. november 2017 fra administrationsselskabet G1 AG blev der anmodet om tilbagebetaling af indeholdt udbytteskat med i alt 19.250.261,57 kr. for H1 vedrørende kalenderårene 2014-2017. 

I henhold til ansøgningen har H1 investeret i aktier i danske børsnoterede selskaber og har modtaget udbytte fra aktierne i kalenderårene 2014-2017. I denne forbindelse er der blevet indeholdt udbytteskat med 27 %. 

Ansøgningen er begrundet med, at H1 er udsat for forskelsbehandling efter TEUF artikel 63. 

Det fremgår af ansøgningen, at der til støtte for ansøgningen var vedlagt følgende bilag: 

·         Prospekt af marts 2016 for H1
·         UCITS-attest for H1
·         Hjemstedserklæringer for H1 repræsenteret via G1 AG for indkomstårene 2014-2017 udstedt af Finanzamt […] Abteilung Betriebsprüfung
·         Transaktionsoversigt
·         Udbytteoversigt 

Ved Skattestyrelsens fremsendelse af sagsmaterialet indgik der ikke udbyttenotaer for samtlige udbytteudlodninger. 

Det fremgår af hjemstedserklæringerne, at H1 var hjemmehørende i Tyskland i indkomstårene 2014-2017. 

I ansøgningen er der desuden angivet følgende oplysninger om H1: 

"(…) 

The Fund is a UCITS fund, i.e. it has been authorized by the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) an undertaking for collective investments in transferable securities under the UCITS Directive 2009/65/EC. 

The Fund has its registered office in […], […], Germany. 

The Fund is considered to be resident in Germany within the meaning of the double tax treaty between Denmark and Germany. 

UCITS funds are comprised by article 19, section 2, number 1 of the Danish Act on capital gains on shares (Danish abbreviation 'ABL') and accordingly qualified as an 'investment company' under Danish tax rules and thereby eligible to elect status as IMB. 

Furthermore, the Fund issues transferable certificates, cf. section 16C of the Danish Tax Assessment Act (in Danish 'ligningsloven'). 

It is therefore our opinion that The Fund is comparable to Danish investment companies that have elected status as IMB's. 

(…)" 

I den del af prospektet, som er benævnt "General Investment Conditions" er der bl.a. oplyst følgende: 

“General Investment Conditions governing the legal relationship between the investors and G1 AG, […], Germany (hereinafter referred to as the "Company"), for the Directive-Compliant Securities Index Investment Funds (hereinafter referred to as "UCITS Funds") managed by the Company in accordance with the UCITS Directive. These "General Investment Conditions" are valid only in combination with the "Special Investment Conditions" established for each respective individual UCITS Fund. 

§ 1           General provisions. 

1.        The Company is an Investment Management Company subject to the provisions of the German Investment Code (Kapitalanlagegesetzbuch — KAGB).
2.        The Company shall invest the funds placed by the unitholders in its own name for the collective account of the investors in accordance with the principle of risk diversification in assets permitted by the KAGB and separated from its own assets in the form of UCITS investment funds. Certificates (unit certificates) will be issued by the Company regarding the rights of the investors resulting therefrom.
3.        (…)
4.        The legal relationship between the Company and the investor is governed by the General Investment Conditions (GIC) and the Special Investment Conditions (SIC) of the UCITS Fund and the KAGB."

Skattestyrelsens afgørelse
Skattestyrelsen har den 16. august 2019 givet delvist afslag på tilbagebetaling af indeholdt udbytteskat. Afslaget vedrører 10.699.691,58 kr., hvilket skulle svare til 15 % af det angivne bruttoudbytte. 

Ved supplerende afgørelse af 31. oktober 2019 har Skattestyrelsen foretaget en korrektion af det udbetalte beløb. Skattestyrelsen skulle retteligt have udbetalt i alt 8.555.671,81 kr., hvilket skulle svare til 12 % af det angivne udbytte. Det afslåede beløb udgør således 10.694.589,76 kr. 

Som begrundelse for afgørelsen har Skattestyrelsen anført følgende: 

“(…) 

Skattestyrelsens begrundelse
Skattestyrelsen har ud fra den foreliggende dokumentation vurderet at Investeringsselskabet efter en dansk skatteretslig vurdering skal anses som en skattemæssig selvstændig juridisk enhed. Således anses Investeringsselskabet at være berettiget til at tilbagesøge udbytteskatten ned til 15% i henhold til dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten mellem Danmark og Tyskland. 

Vi skal bemærke at efter en samlet vurdering af det indsendte materiale, herunder prospekt, er det vores opfattelse at Investeringsselskabet skal sammenlignes med en dansk værdipapirfond. 

En dansk værdipapirfond var før den 15. december 2015 anset for en skattemæssig transparent enhed, men efter den 15. december 2015 for et selvstændigt skattesubjekt, jf. SKM2016.98.SKAT. Idet der er tale om delvis tilbagesøgning af udbytteskat på udlodninger før 15. december 2015, anses Investeringsselskabet derfor for en skattemæssig transparent enhed før denne dato. 

Henset til at administrationsselskabet G1 AG handler på vegne af investorerne jf. prospektet, anses G1 AG derfor at tilbagesøge udbytteskatten på vegne af investorerne. 

Vi gør derfor opmærksom på at investorerne ikke efterfølgende kan ansøge om refusion af udbytteskat for de ovennævnte udlodninger. 

Vi vil herefter godkende jeres ansøgning på vegne af investeringsselskabet om at få udbytteskat tilbage med 12% af udbytteskatten på grundlag af dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten mellem Danmark og Tyskland. 

Refusionsbeløbet udgør i alt 8.550.569,99 kr. 

Investeringsselskabet har ansøgt om at få den resterende udbytteskat tilbagebetalt svarende til 15 % af udbyttet 10.699.691,58 kr., idet man anser sig berettiget til at modtage udbytte uden indeholdelse af udbytteskat. 

Skattestyrelsen bemærker, at udbytter hidrørende fra danske selskaber til selskaber og foreninger m.v. der har hjemsted i udlandet er omfattet af begrænset skattepligt til Danmark, jf. selskabsskattelovens § 2, stk. 1, litra c. 

Det udbyttegivende danske selskab indeholder som udgangspunkt 27 % kildeskat, jf. kildeskattelovens § 65, stk. 1. Den endelige beskatning kan dog være lavere end de 27 %, hvilket bl.a. kan skyldes en dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst. 

Investeringsselskaber, som er selvstændige skattesubjekter efter dansk ret, behandles som udgangspunkt efter aktieavancebeskatningslovens § 19. Det fremgår af aktieavancebeskatningslovens § 19, stk. 2 hvilke juridiske enheder, som anses for værende investeringsselskaber. Ved et investeringsselskab forstås blandt andet et investeringsinstitut i henhold til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2009/65/EF. 

Skattestyrelsen mener, at Investeringsselskabet skattemæssigt skal sidestilles med et dansk investeringsselskab, som er undtaget fra skattepligten efter selskabsskattelovens § 3, stk. 1, nr. 19. Et dansk investeringsselskab omfattet af selskabsskattelovens § 3, stk. 1, nr. 19 er undtaget fra skattepligt, men dog bliver udbytte omfattet af ligningslovens § 16 A, stk. 1 og 2, som modtages fra et selskab, der er hjemmehørende her i landet, beskattet med 15 %. 

Et investeringsselskab kan dog vælge, at de vil følge de betingelser, der gælder for et investeringsinstitut med minimumsbeskatning i henhold til reglerne i ligningslovens § 16 C. En dansk udloddende forening er skattepligtig efter selskabsskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 5c og er herefter kun skattepligtig af indtægt ved erhvervsmæssig virksomhed, jf. selskabsskattelovens § 1, stk. 4, hvilket indebærer, at den ikke beskattes af renter, udbytter og kursavancer. Investeringsinstitutter med minimumsbeskatning er således i realiteten skattefri. Investeringsselskabet skal tilkendegive dette valg over for Skattestyrelsen. 

I henhold til kildeskattelovens § 65, stk. 1 skal selskaber og foreninger omfattet af selskabsskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 1, 2, 2e, 2h, 4 og 5a indeholde 27 % kildeskat medmindre andet er fastsat i medfør af kildeskattelovens § 65, stk. 3. I henhold til stk. 3 har Skatteministeren mulighed for at fastsætte regler om, at der ikke skal indeholdes kildeskat på udbytter. Denne bemyndigelse er udnyttet ved bekendtgørelse nr. 499 af 27/3 2015 om kildeskat. 

Det fremgår af kildeskattebekendtgørelsens § 31, stk. 2, nr. 1, jf. kildeskattelovens § 65, stk. 3, at der udstedes frikort til investeringsinstitutter med minimumsbeskatning, der er omfattet af selskabsskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 6. Udenlandske enheder er ikke omfattet af den danske selskabsskattepligt i selskabsskattelovens § 1 og kan derfor ikke få udbyttefrikort efter den pågældende bestemmelse. 

Det fremgår af selskabsskattelovens § 3, stk. 1, nr. 19, at værdipapirfonde, der er omfattet af denne bestemmelse, er skattefritaget, dog således at udbytte af danske aktier beskattes med 15 pct. Af kildeskattebekendtgørelsens § 31, stk. 2, nr. 1, følger, at selskaber, der er omfattet af selskabsskattelovens § 3, stk. 1, nr. 19, ikke er omfattet af reglerne om udbyttefrikort. 

Der sker således ikke forskelsbehandling mellem udenlandske investeringsselskaber og danske investeringsselskaber som er registreret efter selskabsskattelovens § 3, stk. 1, nr. 19, da beskatning af udbytte foretages med 15%. 

Skattestyrelsen henviser i øvrigt til Østre Landsret dom af 2. april 2019 om udenlandske investeringsinstitutters ret til tilbagebetaling af indeholdte udbytteskatter. 

Østre Landsret har i den omhandlede sag taget stilling til hvorvidt de danske regler om, at der ikke skal ske indeholdelse af udbytteskat til minimumsbeskattede investeringsinstitutter, der er hjemmehørende i Danmark, er forenelige med de EU-retlige regler om fri bevægelighed. 

Østre Landsret har i den forbindelse anmodet EU-domstolen om en præjudiciel afgørelse vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 56 TEUF og artikel 63 TEUF. 

EU-domstolen har således ved dom af 21. juni 2018, se C 480/16 Fidelity Funds, taget stilling til, hvorvidt de danske regler om, at der ikke skal ske indeholdelse af udbytteskat til minimumsbeskattede investeringsinstitutter, der er hjemmehørende i Danmark, er forenelige med de EU-retlige regler om fri bevægelighed. 

EU-domstolen fandt, at det er i strid med EU-rettens bestemmelse om kapitalens frie bevægelighed, jf. TEUF artikel 63, at der sker kildebeskatning i relation til ikke-hjemmehørende investeringsinstitutter, mens udbytter til investeringsinstitutter, der er hjemmehørende i den pågældende medlemsstat, er skattefritaget under forudsætning af, at de opfylder betingelserne i ligningslovens § 16 C om opgørelse af en minimumsindkomst mv. 

Med hensyn til om der forelå tvingende almene hensyn, der kunne begrunde en restriktion for den frie bevægelighed, udtalte EU-domstolen bl.a. i præmis 84, at:
"Som generaladvokaten har anført i punkt 80 i forslaget til afgørelse, kan den interne sammenhæng i den i hovedsagerne omhandlede beskatningsordning opretholdes, hvis investeringsinstitutter, der er hjemmehørende i en anden medlemsstat end Kongeriget Danmark, og som opfylder betingelserne i ligningslovens § 16 C, kunne opnå kildeskattefritagelse, når de danske skattemyndigheder, med disse institutters fulde samarbejde, sikrer, at de sidstnævnte betaler en skat, der svarer til den skat, som de udloddende investeringsforeninger, jf. ligningslovens § 16 C, der er hjemmehørende i Danmark, skal indeholde, som forskudsskat, i den minimumsudlodning, der er beregnet i overensstemmelse med denne bestemmelse. At give sådanne investeringsinstitutter mulighed for, under disse betingelser, at opnå denne fritagelse ville være en mindre restriktiv foranstaltning end den nuværende ordning." 

Videre fremgår det af præmis 87, at:
"Henset til ovenstående betragtninger skal det forelagte spørgsmål besvares med, at artikel 63 TEUF skal fortolkes således, at den er til hinder for en medlemsstats lovgivning som den i hovedsagerne omhandlede, hvorefter udbytter, der udbetales af et selskab hjemmehørende i denne medlemsstat til ikke-hjemmehørende investeringsinstitutter, kildebeskattes, mens udbytter, der udbetales til investeringsinstitutter hjemmehørende i denne samme medlemsstat, kan opnå fritagelse for en sådan skat, forudsat at disse institutter foretager en minimumsudlodning til deres medlemmer eller teknisk opgør en minimumsudlodning og foretager indeholdelse af skat i denne faktiske eller fiktive minimumsudlodning i forhold til institutternes medlemmer." 

Det er muligt for udenlandske investeringsenheder at blive registret som minimumsbeskattede investeringsinstitutter efter ligningslovens § 16 C. Investeringsselskabet er ikke registeret som minimumsbeskattet investeringsinstitut. 

Investeringsselskabet kan ikke opnå fritagelse for udbytteskatten på linje med danske minimumsbeskattede investeringsinstitutter, da det ikke er registreret efter ligningslovens § 16 C eller opfylder betingelserne i ligningslovens § 16 C. 

Skattestyrelsen finder således ikke, at det omhandlede Investeringsselskab kan sidestilles med danske investeringsinstitutter, der er omfattet af kildeskattebekendtgørelsens regler om udbyttefrikort. 

Investeringsselskabet skal derfor betale 15 % i udbytteskat, jf. selskabsskattelovens § 3, stk. 1, nr. 19 samt dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten med Tyskland. 

Som følge heraf kan investeringsselskabet kun få refunderet den del af den indeholdte udbytteskat, som overstiger 15%, jf. kildeskattelovens § 69 b, stk. 1. 

Skattestyrelsen kan således ikke godkende refusion af 15 % af udbytteskatten på 10.699.691,58 kr. 

(…)"

Udtalelse fra Skattestyrelsen
I forbindelse med Skatteankestyrelsens klagesagsbehandling har Skattestyrelsen den 21. november 2019 udtalt, at der ikke er fremkommet nye oplysninger.

Klagerens opfattelse
Administrationsselskabet har ved klage af 5. november 2019 fremsat følgende påstand:

“We hereby appeal the decision by Skattestyrelsen regarding the rejection of the EU-law based claim, i.e. the remaining 15 % suffered withholding tax on Danish equities, and claim that the amount of DKK 4,097,173.16 should be repaid to The Fund."

H1’s repræsentant R1 har ved indlæg af 30. maj 2025 foretaget påstandsrevision, hvorefter der er sket korrektion af beløbet til 10.699.691,58 kr.

Til støtte for påstanden har administrationsselskabet i klagen bl.a. anført: 

"(…) 

Under Danish rules, Danish resident funds that are comparable to The Fund are exempt from Danish dividend withholding tax. The Fund however has been subject to Danish withholding tax and the difference in treatment is based solely on the tax residence of the Fund. The discrimination applied under the Danish domestic rules cannot be justified by 'overriding reason in the public interest' or a need to preserve a 'coherence in the tax system'. The Danish rules are accordingly contrary to EU law. 

The Fund further finds that the requirements that apply in order for The Fund to qualify as an investment institute with minimum taxation ('IMB') under the Danish Tax assessment Act section 16C are contrary to EU law. 

Should the Tribunal therefore find that the fact that The Fund has not elected status as or complied with the requirements applicable for an IMB, implies that the Fund is not eligible for a refund, then The Fund will claim that the Tribunal should provide guidance on how The Fund could provide information which could form the basis for the tax authorities to make a correct taxation of their members. Alternatively, that the Tribunal refers the case back to the tax authorities for them to provide such guidance, cf. the Danish ruling from the high court (Østre Landsret, 13. afdeling) 'B-232-10 m.fl.' of 2 April 2019. 

(…) 

Our arguments

The Free Movement of Capital 

It follows from established CJEU case law that member states must respect the freedoms enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) when they formulate their tax regulations. This means that a member state's tax regulations may not discriminate between objectively comparable cross-border situations. 

A Danish Fund may elect to comply with the conditions applicable to minimum dividend-paying investment funds (IMB’s) pursuant to the rules in § 16 C of the Tax A5sessment Act. A dividend-paying fund (IMB) is liable to pay tax in accordance with § 1, s. 1, no. 5 c of the Corporate Tax Act in force at the time and after this only liable to pay tax on income from business activities, see § 1, s. 4 of the Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, it is not subject to tax on interest, dividends and capital gains. So, dividend-paying investment funds [IMBs] are in fact tax-exempt. 

Even if The Fund had elected IMB-status, it would not have been exempt from Danish dividend withholding tax since the exemption in Danish domestic law only applies to Danish resident IMB's. 

The Fund considers that this differential treatment between Danish investment funds and non-resident funds runs counter to the free movement of capital enshrined in Article 63, TFEU. 

This is supported by ample CJEU case law. A recent ruling is related to the Danish rules in question: 

Case C-480/16 Fidelity Funds from 21 June 2018,
In this ruling, the CJEU confirms that Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) must be interpreted as precluding the Danish rules. 

The CJEU held first that the situations of the Danish resident and non-Danish resident investment funds were objectively comparable in the light of the objective of the law which was to avoid economic double taxation by only taxing the members of the investment fund. If both the investment funds and their members were taxed, economic double taxation would occur. 

The CJEU then established that the taxation of non-Danish resident investment funds on dividend payments from Danish companies could not be justified by the need to ensure the allocation of taxing powers as Denmark had chosen not to tax resident investment funds on Danish dividend payments. 

The CJEU further held that the need to safeguard the coherence of the Danish tax system could in principle, constitute a justification for the restriction, however that the restriction went beyond what was necessary in order to safeguard the coherence of the Danish tax system. The CJEU therefore concluded that the restriction could not be justified by the need to safeguard the coherence of the Danish tax system, and that the Danish rules were in breach of EU law. 

Consequently, the ruling from the CJEU confirmed that non-Danish resident investment funds, comparable to Danish investment funds, should be exempt from Danish withholding tax on dividends received from their Danish portfolio investments. 

The CJEU states in paragraph 85 and 86 that: "Furthermore, refusal to grant UCITS which are resident in a Member State other than the Kingdom of Denmark and which satisfy the conditions of Article 16 C of the Danish Tax Assessment Act (‘ligningsloven’) exemption from withholding tax leads to a series of charges to tax on the dividends paid to their members resident in Denmark, which runs precisely counter to the objective pursued by the national legislation. 

Consequently, it must be held that the restriction resulting from application of the tax legislation at issue in the main proceedings cannot be justified by the need to safeguard the coherence of the tax system. 

In our view, The Fund is comparable to Danish investment funds eligible for the exemption since it is a non transparent entity eligible to opt for IMB status. 

The investors in the foreign funds do not pay a Danish tax but are likely subject to a tax in the country of their tax residence and are therefore also in this regard to be considered in a comparable situation with a Danish investor in the foreign funds. 

It is of no importance that The Fund has not elected IMB status and thereby fulfilled the Danish formal requirements for taxation as IMB, since even if such status had been elected, The Fund would not have obtained a Danish dividend withholding tax treatment corresponding to that of a Danish resident fund. In this regard we also refer to the below re. the Metallgesellschaft Ltd/Hoechst AG, Hoechst UK Ltd. Case according to which it cannot be required to make a domestic election when even when making such election, treatment in line with domestic entities does not apply, cf. further details on this case in the section on IMB election below. 

Should the tax Tribunal find that the fact that The Fund has not elected status as or complied with the requirements applicable for an IMB, implies that The Fund is not eligible for a refund, then The Fund will claim that the tax authorities should have provided guidance on how the Fund could provide information which could form the basis for the tax authorities to make a correct taxation of their members, cf. the Danish ruling from the high court (Østre Landsret, 13. afdeling) 'B-232-10 m.fl.' of 2 April 2019 which has been appealed to Danish Supreme Court (Højesteret). 

For further EU case law, we refer to e.g. C-265/04 Bouanich, C-170/05 Denkavit, C-379/05 Amurta, C-303/07 Aberdeen, C-540/07 Italy vs Commission, C-493/09 Commission vs Portugal, C-284/09 Commission vs Germany, C-338/11 & C-347/11 Santander and C-190/12, Emerging Market Series of DFA Investment Trust Company). In these cases, the CJEU held that withholding tax had been withheld in contravention of EU law. Member states have referred to a number of justification grounds in this context, such as the need to ensure the efficiency of tax audits, to maintain the cohesion of the tax system and ensure balanced allocation of the power to tax. These justifications have not been successful. 

AG Opinion in C-156/17 Köln-Aktienfonds Deka 

On September 5, 2019, Advocate General (AG) Pitruzzella of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered his opinion in the Köln-Aktienfonds Deka case (C-156/17) concerning the compatibility with EU law of the Dutch withholding tax on dividends distributed to non-resident investment funds. 

The AG concluded that the shareholders and distribution requirements imposed by the Dutch Legislation to benefit from a tax refund may be contrary to the free movement of capital. 

Non-resident taxpayers requesting the benefit of a Dutch tax advantage should not be subject to an excessive administrative burden, such that it is in fact impossible for them to qualify for the benefit. The same argument can be put forward in relation to the Danish IMB compliance requirements which are excessively burdensome - and not even providing any benefit to foreign funds. 

With regards to the assessment on the comparability, the AG clarifies that "a tax" in par. 84 of the Fidelity Funds ruling of June 21 2019, can also be the tax of the state where the foreign fund is resident, i.e. this statement in the Dutch case supports the comparability in the Fidelity case. 

Discrimination
It can be deduced from the Santander judgement that the test of objective comparability should be performed at the level of the investment fund, However, there is also a question of whether this should be applied at the level of the investment fund in combination with the tax position of the shareholders in some circumstances. In the claimant's view it is irrelevant how this assessment should be applied; in both cases, the outcome is discrimination in objectively comparable cases that is not proportionate. 

1. Comparison (only) at the level of the investment fund 

With a test only at the level of the investment fund, it is completely evident that a less favorable treatment is applied to a foreign investment fund. A resident IMB is entitled to claim a tax exemption to Danish dividend tax and a non-resident investment fund may not claim a tax exemption nor is it entitled to a full refund of Danish dividend tax and must suffer the 15% withholding tax. 

That the IMB withholds Danish dividend tax on dividends distributed to its shareholders is irrelevant to this analysis given that the dividend tax is borne by the shareholders rather than the IMB. 

1.1. Danish IMB can attach a Danish tax credit to its distributed dividends 

The Danish IMB is given the benefit of being able to attach a potentially refundable tax credit to its distributed dividends. A very similar credit attached to distributed dividends was a point of discussion in the ACT Group Litigation judgment, case C-374/04. From that judgement it follows that such benefit must also be given to the non-resident entity if the source state also taxes the dividend received by that non-resident: 

70            If the Member State of residence of the company making distributable profits decide to exercise its taxing powers not only in relation to profits made in that State but also in relation to income arising in that State and paid to non-resident companies receiving dividends, it is solely because of the exercise by that State of its taxing powers that, irrespective of any taxation in another Member State, a risk of a series of charges to tax may arise. In such a case, in order for non-resident companies receiving dividends not to be subject to a restriction on freedom of establishment prohibited, in principle, by Article 43 EC, the State in which the company making the distribution is resident is obliged to ensure that, under the procedures laid down by its national law in order to prevent or mitigate a series of liabilities to tax, non-resident shareholder companies are subject to the same treatment as resident shareholder companies.

(…) 

74            The answer to Question 1 9a) must therefore be that Articles 43 EC and 56 EC do not prevent a Member State, on a distribution of dividends by a company resident in that State, from granting companies receiving those dividends which are also resident in that State a tax credit equal to the fraction of the corporation tax paid on the distributed profits by the company making the distribution, when it does not grant such a tax credit to companies receiving such dividends which are resident in another Member State and are not subject to tax on dividends in the first State. 

Since Denmark does not tax the dividends received by the non-resident investment fund, they should (by analogy) allow the same benefit to non-resident investment funds. The same treatment can only be effected by giving a refund of the Danish dividend tax to the non-resident investment fund. 

2. Comparison at the level of the investment fund in combination with the shareholders 

Based on the CJEU Santander ruling (paragraphs 30, 31 and 40) and the reference to the judgment in Case C-194/06 Orange European Smallcap Fund which concerned the Netherlands tax scheme applicable to UCITS, there is reason to believe that the tax position of the shareholders could also become relevant upon determining whether the cases are objectively comparable. This is not certain however. 

If the test should indeed not be confined to the level of the investment institution itself, a comparison between a purely domestic situation and a cross-border situation results in the following observations. 

It is the source state - Denmark - that has elected to tax the dividend. In the Fund's view, it is therefore necessary to consider only how Denmark taxes the dividend (cross-border versus internal). It can then be established that in some cases in the internal situation the dividend is effectively taxed at less than 15%. 

The tax benefits granted to IMBs cannot be justified on the basis that the shareholders of such a fund are subject to Danish taxation and therefore the Danish domestic rule can be defended on the basis of the need to preserve the coherence of the Danish tax system. In its case law on this particular justification the CJEU required a connection at the level of one and the same person and one and the same tax category. A number of judgments are relevant in this regard, including Lenz (C-315/02), paragraph 36 and Baars (C-251/98), paragraph 40. 

When considering the taxation of The Fund and the shareholder it is clear there is no direct link between taxation and dividends receipts. So, the benefit (the WHT exemption for the fund) is not necessarily offset by a corresponding tax charge. We have set out some examples below. 

If an investor in a Danish IMB is a Danish tax exempt entity then it too may obtain a tax exemption certificate and no withholding tax would be withheld by the IMB on dividends distributed to it. So, the tax exemption of the Danish IMB is not offset by a corresponding tax charge in these cases. 

If the Danish resident investor is a corporate entity the withholding tax on distributions from the IMB could be set off against tax due on other income and if the investors total tax on all income is less than the tax withheld, the withholding tax could be refunded. So again, the tax exemption of the Danish IMB is not necessarily offset by a corresponding tax charge in these cases. 

Lack of justification for the discrimination
According to the arguments of SKAT, the tax treatment of The Funds is not discriminatory whilst at the same time SKAT does acknowledge a difference in tax treatment between resident and non-resident investment funds that may deter Danish investors from investing in a non-resident fund. 

This is discrimination as also acknowledged by the Ministry of Taxation cf. the Ministry of Taxation's response of 2 July 2012 to the Commission letter of 30 April 2012. SKAT states that it is merely a difference in treatment justified by an overriding reason in the public interest and by the need to preserve the coherence of the tax system. 

The following EU case law clearly demonstrates that different treatment of resident and non-resident funds for withholding tax purposes cannot be justified by the need to preserve the coherence of the tax system or the allocation of the power to tax and safeguarding tax revenue. 

The Emerging Markets Ruling
In the Emerging Markets ruling (Judgment of the CJEU of 10 April 2014 in case C-190/12) the CJEU precludes tax legislation of a member state (Poland), under which dividends paid by companies established in that member state to an investment company situated in a non-member state cannot qualify for a tax exemption, whereas an exemption is available for investment companies resident in the member state. 

The ruling rejects an argument made by the Polish Government that is similar to that being made by the Danish Government, namely the "need to guarantee the effectiveness of fiscal supervision and the preservation of the coherence of the tax system". 

The CJEU stated in section 95 of C-190/12 Emerging markets: 

"Consequently, in the absence of a direct link ... between the exemption from the deduction of tax at source on dividends of national origin received by a resident investment fund and the taxation of those dividends as the income of unitholders in that investment fund, the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings cannot be justified by the need to preserve the coherence of the tax system." 

We have also set out above why there is no "direct link" between the exemption of tax at source on dividends received by the IMB and the taxation of the dividends by the shareholders of the fund. 

The FIM Santander Ruling
Arguments similar to those made by the Danish Ministry of Taxation were made also by the French authorities in the FIM Santander ruling (Judgment of the Court of justice of the European Union ("CJEU") of 10 May 2012 in the joined cases C-338/11 to C-347/11). In this case the French rules were disputed since the rules provided dividend withholding tax exemption for domestic investment funds but not for foreign investment funds. 

The CJEU rejected the arguments (as made by the French authorities) that the rules were necessary to "guarantee the effectiveness of fiscal supervision and the preservation of the coherence of the tax system", stating at section 55 that: 

“[…] Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State which provided for the taxation, by means of withholding tax, of nationally sourced dividends when they are received by UCITS resident in another State, whereas such dividends are exempt from tax when received by UCITS resident in the Member State in question." 

The Van Caster and Van Caster Ruling
In the Van Caster and Van Caster case, the Court of Justice of the European Union precludes German legislation on taxation of Companies even though resident and non-resident investment companies are treated equally. The Court states that the German rules are 

“[...] Likely to deter a German investor from acquiring holdings in a non-resident investment Company, since such an investment is likely to expose such an investor to a disadvantageous flat-rate tax without offering him the opportunity to produce evidence or information which could demonstrate the actual size of that investor's income." 

The Van Caster and van Caster case thus supports that even if the favourable tax treatment of domestic investment companies is available for foreign investment companies, the administrative obligations can constitute a restriction of the free movement of capital if they are burdensome to an extent that makes it unlikely for foreign companies with limited activity in that jurisdiction to choose to comply with them. 

Thus, the German rules were deemed to be in conflict with article 63 of TFEU. 

To support the coherence argument, SKAT refers to fact that the Danish tax exemption for domestic funds should be seen in connection with the fund’s investors' tax liability on the dividends, applied as a withholding obligation on the distributions by the resident funds. We have discussed above, with examples, that there is no "direct link" between the exemption of the IMB and the taxation of the investors which is required in order to use this argument. 

Further, we believe that this point of view cannot justify that foreign funds should pay withholding tax on dividends from Danish companies. In certain situations, it is obvious that there is a discrimination by applying these rules. E.g. a Danish investor investing in Danish shares via a foreign investment fund receives the return from the fund net of the fund's payment of dividend tax to Denmark. The investor will also be subject to Danish taxation on the income from the fund. Accordingly, in this situation the Danish investor will be exposed to double taxation ("a series of charges to tax"), contrary to what would be the case for a Danish investor investing via a Danish resident investment fund exempt from the Danish dividend tax. 

SKAT’s view of symmetry is also inconsistent with the fact that foreign investors who receive dividends from a non-Danish resident investment fund, are highly likely to be subject to tax on distribution from the foreign fund. This is indeed the case for investors in the Fund as The Fund will promptly distribute its profits and the foreign investor in the Fund thus suffers a similar double taxation. 

On this basis, we find that the arguments included in the ruling by SKAT on justification of the difference in treatment with reference to the 'overriding reason in the public interest' and 'the coherence in the tax system' is incorrect. 

IMB election
Under the rules applicable for the years the reclaim relates to, the IMB status election would not have changed The Fund's Danish withholding tax position, cf. that according to the 2012 version of 'kildeskattebekendtgørelsen' § 31, section 2 no. 1 states that exemption certificates can be issued to associations etc. comprised by the Corporation Tax Act, § 1, section 1, no. 6, and institutions etc. which are tax exempt under the Corporation Tax Act § 3, section 1, except for all types of corporate entities comprised by the Corporation Tax Act § 3, section 1, no. 19 (investment companies). 

SKAT states that the fact that SKAT has not received a notification of IMB status election from the Funds implies that the Funds must suffer 15% Danish withholding tax, cf. the Corporate Tax Act § 3, sec. 1, no. 19 and in line with the applicable tax treaty. 

SKAT does not address the fact that even if the Funds had elected IMB status they would not have been exempt from Danish dividend withholding tax since the exemption in Danish domestic law only applies to Danish resident IMB's. (and certain specific tax-exempt entities). 

A non-resident taxpayer cannot be expected to make a domestic election in the source country applying EU law where the domestic law would still not have provided the non-resident with the tax benefits of the residents having made such an election. This is stated in the Hoechst ruling described in the following. 

In the joined cases C-397/98 and C-410/98 Metallgesellschaft Ltd/Hoechst UK Ltd, section 106 the CJEU rejects that a non-resident taxpayer can be required to make an election in the source country in order to benefit from EU law, when they - even if such election was made - would not have obtained the same tax treatment as a resident taxpayer having made such election: 

"The exercise of rights conferred on private persons by directly applicable provisions of Community law would, however, be rendered impossible or excessively difficult if their claims for restitution or compensation based on Community law were rejected or reduced solely because the persons concerned had not applied for a tax advantage which national law denied them, with a view to challenging the refusal of the tax authorities by means of the legal remedies provided for that purpose, invoking the primacy and direct effect of Community law." 

SKAT’s reference to the fact that the Fund has not elected IMB status is accordingly not relevant. Our view is based on the CJEU rulings, stating that a reclaim cannot be rejected based on the reasoning that the Fund has not requested a tax election that would not have applied to them under Danish rules. Furthermore, it should be considered that the conditions required to comply with the IMB status, including preparing and filing an annual minimum distribution for Danish tax purposes would be a significant administrative burden for a non-resident. 

According to the Danish ruling from the high court (Østre Landsret, 13. afdeling) 'B-232-10 m.fl.' of 2 April 2019 in the Fidelity case referred to above, the Fidelity Funds were not entitled to a repayment of the Danish dividend tax case because they did not meet the IMB requirements and they had not sought to contribute to fulfil the objective considerations behind this provision (i.e. the Danish Tax Assessment Act section 16C) in a less intrusive way. 

There is no guidance neither in the ruling nor in any Danish tax regulations as to how a foreign investment fund could have fulfilled the objective of the IMB rules in a less intrusive way than by complying with the section which would have been very burdensome for The Fund and still would not have implied that The Fund would have been eligible to the exemption as described above.
Should the Tribunal find that The Fund is not entitled to a refund based on the fact that The Fund has not complied with the IMB requirements, then The Fund will claim that the Tribunal should provide such missing guidance on how The Fund could provide information which could form the basis for the tax authorities to make a correct taxation of their members. Alternatively, that the Tribunal refers the case back to the tax authorities for them to provide such guidance. Based on such guidance, The Fund should then be given the opportunity to seek and provide information that would entitle The Fund to a refund of the Danish dividend tax suffered. 

(…)"

Klagerens yderligere bemærkninger til sagen
Repræsentanten har den 31. august 2020 fremsat nedenstående bemærkninger som svar på en række spørgsmål fra Skatteankestyrelsen i brev af 5. maj 2020. Bemærkningerne vedrører 54 klagesager: 

"(…) 

The Supreme Court in the Fidelity case will finally resolve questions of principle and set binding precedent for the appeal cases. By then, the reasoning of the High Court in its 2 April 2019 ruling, no longer sets a relevant precedent. Therefore, we would like to be given the opportunity to comment on the Supreme Court's impending ruling, when it has been handed down, as agreed. Meanwhile, we hereby provide our comments on the CJEU ruling and the Danish High Court ruling in the Fidelity case, (Østre Landsret, 13. afdeling) B-232-10 m.fl.. 

In the CJEU ruling, the CJEU confirms that Article 56 TEC (now Article 63 TFEU) must be interpreted as precluding the Danish rules. 

The CJEU held first that the situations of the Danish resident and non-Danish resident investment funds were objectively comparable in the light of the objective of the law which was to avoid economic double taxation by only taxing the members of the investment fund. If both the investment funds and their members were taxed, economic double taxation would occur. 

The CJEU then established that the taxation of non-Danish resident investment funds on dividend payments from Danish companies could not be justified by the need to ensure the allocation of taxing powers as Denmark had chosen not to tax resident investment funds on Danish dividend payments. 

The CJEU further held that the need to safeguard the coherence of the Danish tax system could in principle, constitute a justification for the restriction, however that the restriction went beyond what was necessary in order to safeguard the coherence of the Danish tax system. The CJEU therefore concluded that the restriction could not be justified by the need to safeguard the coherence of the Danish tax system, and that the Danish rules were in breach of EU law. 

Consequently, the ruling from the CJEU confirmed that non-Danish resident investment funds, comparable to Danish investment funds, should be exempt from Danish withholding tax on dividends received from their Danish portfolio investments. 

In relation to the proportionality test, the CJEU states in par. 84: 

"As the Advocate General has observed in point 80 of his Opinion, the internal coherence of the tax system at issue in the main proceedings could be maintained if UCITS resident in a Member State other than the Kingdom of Denmark, which satisfy the conditions of Article 16 C of the ligningslov, were eligible for exemption from withholding tax, provided that the Danish tax authorities ensure, with the full cooperation of such UCITS, that the latter pay a tax that is equivalent to the tax which Danish Article 16 C funds are required to retain, as a withholding tax, on the minimum distribution calculated in accordance with that provision. Allowing such UCITS to enjoy that exemption, under those conditions, would be less restrictive than the current system." 

When ruling that the Danish restriction is not appropriate and proportionate in the light of the aim pursued, being to safeguard the coherence of the tax system, the CJEU is thus proposing one way that Denmark could have made its tax system to make it proportionate and thus compliant with EU Law. Theoretically, Denmark could have established a system that was proportionate. This is of course also an option that is available "now" for the Danish legislator, to ensure compliance in the future. This is why the word “could" was used in the above paragraph, as compliance is conditional on a change in the law in Denmark. However, due to the separation of competences of the national courts and the CJEU, the preliminary ruling concerns only the interpretation of EU law, not the interpretation of rules of national law or issues of fact raised in the main proceedings. Consequently, the CJEU has not considered the requirements of Article 16 C of the ligningslov and whether they are compliant with EU Law for non-resident funds. 

Further, the CJEU in Köln-Aktienfonds Deka Case C-156/17 (issued in January 2020), confirmed that “a tax", can also be the tax of the state where the foreign fund is resident, i.e. when considering whether the investor in a non-resident fund is in a comparable situation to an investor in a Danish resident fund, a subjection to tax in the investors tax residence jurisdiction should also be taken into account, and not only the fact that they are not subject to Danish (withholding) tax. 

The CJEU states in paragraph 85 and 86 

"Furthermore, refusal to grant UCITS which are resident in a Member State other than the Kingdom of Denmark and which satisfy the conditions of Article 16 C of the ligningslov exemption from withholding tax leads to a series of charges to tax on the dividends paid to their members resident in Denmark, which runs precisely counter to the objective pursued by the national legislation. 

Consequently, it must be held that the restriction resulting from the application of the tax legislation at issue in the main proceedings cannot be justified by the need to safeguard the coherence of the tax system." 

In the Danish High Court ruling in the Fidelity case, the claims of the non-resident funds were rejected despite the fact that the CJEU concluded that the Danish rules on dividend withholding tax that Denmark impose on foreign investment institutions constitute a restriction to the free movement of capital in Article 63 of TEUF. 

The High Court has provided the following reasoning (unofficial translation of extracts of the ruling): 

"The fact that the residence requirement has now been rejected by the European Court of Justice does not imply that, according to EU law or under Danish administrative law, the applicants can be repaid the tax paid, even though they neither fulfilled the conditions of section 16 C of the Tax Assessment Act [the IMB requirements] nor sought to contribute to fulfil the objective considerations behind this provision in a less intrusive way." 

The High Court however also states, that it cannot be ruled out that the CJEU would also consider the IMB requirements to constitute inappropriate and disproportionate restrictions of the free movement of capital. The High Court moreover acknowledges that it should be possible to obtain a refund if the non-resident fund in some other way has sought to "fulfil the objective considerations" behind section 16C. 

The High Court refrains from ruling on the conditions for a refund, stating that the applicants failed to claim that the cases should be remitted ("hjemvist", in Danish) to the Danish Tax Agency for an assessment of how they could - in a manner other than that prescribed under § 16 C - seek to provide the tax authorities with the information that is necessary for the proper taxation of members of the funds. 

The High Court concludes, referring to the way that the "case is presented" to it, that a decision of the case did not require a decision on whether EU law requires that a non-resident investment fund must be given the opportunity to give the information needed for the equation to another and for them less burdensome manner than prescribed in Article 16 C of the ligningslov, as this provision was worded in the relevant tax year. 

The justification of the High Court for not ruling on the appropriate means of "reparation" under Danish law is of a procedural, technical nature, essentially blaming the applicants for their handling of the matter, and, in particular, their formulation of claims. 

Clearly, the Supreme Court will have to rule on this matter. First, the applicants can rephrase their claims, to this effect. Secondly, it would be inappropriate for the Supreme Court to follow the approach of the High Court and thus deny giving full effect to the clear ruling of the CJEU. 

If the Supreme Court is not able to make the relevant guidance under EU law, it may - and as court of last resort - is obliged to, submitting preliminary questions to the CJEU, in this respect.

We further refer to the other relevant CJEU cases commented in the appeal letters and in our response to question 4 below. 

Question 3 - Funds' election of Danish tax status 

We confirm that none of the Funds have elected Danish tax status as distributing fund/investment institute with minimum taxation ('IMB') under the Danish Tax Assessment Law section 16C. 

As further addressed in our response to questions 4, it is in our view of no importance that the non-resident Funds have not made such elections and complied with the Danish formal requirements for taxation as an IMB. Firstly, the burden and cost of these compliance requirements are not in proportion to the benefits of obtaining this status for non-resident funds that are not targeted at Danish investors. The fact that to our knowledge only very few non-resident funds (less than 10) have ever elected this status, serves as evidence that having such Danish tax status is for practical reasons only possible for Danish resident funds. 

Secondly, even if such status had been elected, the Funds would not have obtained a Danish dividend withholding tax treatment corresponding to that of a Danish resident fund, since the Danish withholding tax exemption only applies to Danish resident funds - a fact which CJEU concluded in the Fidelity case (C-480/16) was contrary to the EU rules on the free movement of capital enshrined in Article 63, TFEU. 

In this regard we refer to the Metallgesellschaft Ltd (C-397/98); Hoechst AG & Hoechst UK Ltd (C-410/98) cases according to which it was held that a requirement for tax payers to apply for a tax advantage denied them by national laws (in breach of EU law) would make it excessively difficult to exercise the EU law right concerned. Accordingly it was contrary to EU Law for the UK to deny relief on sole grounds that the taxpayers had failed to make a group income election (a domestic election) when even when making such election, treatment in line with domestic entities would not apply. 

Furthermore, we refer to C-156/17 - Köln-Aktienfonds Deka (referenced in further detail under question 4) par. 49 

"..it follows from the Court’s case-law that the measures prohibited by Article 63(1) TFEU, as restrictions on the movement of capital, include those which are such as to discourage non-residents from making investments in a Member State or to discourage that Member State’s residents from doing so in other States (see judgments of 10 April 2014, Emerging Markets Series of DFA Investment Trust Company, C-190/12, EU:C:2014:249, paragraph 39, and of 22 November 2018, Sofina and Others, C-575/17, EU:C:2018:943, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited)" 

And Par 56: 

"That is the case where national legislation which applies without distinction to resident and non-resident operators reserves a tax advantage in situations in which an operator complies with conditions or obligations which are, by their nature or in fact, specific to the national market, in such a way that only operators present on the national market are capable of complying with those conditions or obligations, and non-resident operators which are comparable do not generally comply with those conditions or obligations (see, to that effect, judgments of 9 October 2014, van Caster, C-326/12, EU:C:2014:2269, paragraphs 36 and 37, and of 8 June 2017, Van der Weegen and Others, C-580/15, EU:C:2017:429, paragraph 29)." 

And par. 64 last sentence: "..non-resident taxpayers may not be subject to excessive administrative burdens that make it impossible for them to benefit from a tax advantage." 

Question 4 - Whether the Fund meets the requirements in the Danish Tax Assessment Act section 16C 

As confirmed in our response to question 3 above, the Funds have not elected status as IMB and have accordingly not submitted annual assessment on minimum income with reference to the act on Taxation at source, section 16 C. 

The funds have not been provided with any request or guidance on how to alternatively provide information to the tax authorities that would enable the Danish tax authorities to assess whether the investors have been subject to comparable tax in the country of the Funds’ residence and such information has therefore not been submitted by the Funds to date. 

You ask whether the Funds have provided information to support that they have withheld tax from distributions or minimum income in accordance with section 16C. We note that the Funds have not withheld any Danish tax on distributions and have had no legal basis to do so since such obligation under the Act of Taxation at Source, section 65 only applies to Danish domestic funds and the Danish law cannot legally be applied retrospectively to Non-resident funds. 

In para 84 of the Fidelity decision the CJEU was proposing what changes Denmark could make to its tax system to make it compliant with EU Law for the future. (See our comments under question 2).

Danish tax law cannot be applied retrospectively even if it is compliant with EU Law, and to require a non-resident fund to meet the IMB requirements is clearly contrary to EU Law, cf. paras 84-87 of the CJEU ruing in the Fidelity-matters. 

With regard to TFEU Article 63, the Funds are comparable to Danish tax exempt funds since they are non-transparent entities from a Danish tax point of view, and issue transferable certificates for the investors contributions to the Funds and are otherwise in a comparable situation to Danish tax exempt IMB's. 

We refer to the arguments presented in the appeal letters. 

Furthermore, we refer further to the below CJEU case ruled upon in January 2020 after the submission of the appeal letters. 

C-156/17 - Köln-Aktienfonds Deka 

In the following, we have provided information and referred to statements from this Dutch case referred to CJEU with a fact pattern that is to some extent comparable to the Danish issue at hand and which also makes a reference to the Danish Fidelity case. 

As described in par. 4, 5 and 7 of the case: 

"The Netherlands regime relating to fiscal investment enterprises (‘FIEs’) is intended to enable natural persons and, in particular, small investors to make collective investments in certain types of assets. The aim of that regime is to bring the tax treatment applicable to private individuals who invest through an FIE in line with the tax treatment of private individuals who make investments on an individual basis. 

For that purpose, FIEs are subject to a zero corporation tax rate. They also benefit from the refund of dividend tax withheld on dividends received in the Netherlands. Thus, Article 10(2) of the Wet op de dividendbelasting 1965 (Law on the Taxation of Dividends of 1965), in its version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, states: 

‘A company classified as an investment enterprise for the purposes of corporation tax may request the inspector to adopt a decision, open to appeal, granting it a refund of the dividend tax withheld from it during a calendar year …’ 

When they distribute dividends, FIEs are required to withhold Netherlands tax on the recipient’s dividends." 

The Dutch tax regime is thus to some extent comparable to the Danish tax regime, and though no final conclusion is reached on this point by the CJEU, the purpose of the Dutch tax regime also seems to be to avoid economic double taxation of investors in the investment funds. The Dutch rules however - contrary to the Danish rules in question - did not distinguish between resident and non-resident investors, cf. par. 54 of the CJEU ruling. 

The CJEU concludes on the second point subject to the ruling that: 

"Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that a non-resident investment fund cannot be granted a refund of dividend tax which it has had to pay in that Member State, on the ground that it has not met the legal conditions for that refund, namely that it does not distribute the proceeds of its investments in full to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis within 8 months of the end of its financial year, where, in its Member State of establishment, the proceeds of its investments which have not been distributed are deemed to have been distributed or are taken into account in the tax which that Member State levies on shareholders or participants as though that profit had been distributed and where, having regard to the objective underlying those conditions, such a fund is in a situation that is comparable to that of a resident fund which benefits from the refund of that tax, which it is for the referring court to verify." 

Based on the statement in paras 81 and 82, it is the opinion of the CJEU that the Dutch tax regime is in conflict with art. 63 of TFEU, to the extent that comparable tax advantages are not granted to non-resident Funds, where the tax regime in the country of the Funds’ residence transfers the taxation from the Fund level to the shareholder level. 

Par 81 and 82: 

"By contrast, if the objective pursued lies principally in the taxation of profits made by a shareholder in an investment fund, a resident investment fund which makes an actual distribution of its profits, and a non-resident investment fund whose profits are not distributed but are deemed to have been distributed and are taxed as such in respect of the shareholder in that fund, must be regarded as being in an objectively comparable situation. In both cases, the level of taxation is transferred from the investment fund to the shareholder. 

In the latter situation, the refusal by a Member State to grant a non-resident investment fund, on the ground that it does not distribute the proceeds of its investments in full to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis within 8 months of the end of its financial year, a refund of the dividend tax that it has paid in that Member State, whereas in the Member State in which that fund is established, under the legal provisions in force, the proceeds of its investments which have not been distributed are deemed to have been distributed or are taken into account in the tax which that Member State levies on the shareholders or participants in that fund as though that profit had been distributed, would constitute a restriction on the free movement of capital." 

The opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella delivered on 5 September 2019 in this case makes a reference to the Fidelity case in par 131 in which it is stated that "the AG also clarifies that “a tax" in par. 84 of the Fidelity Funds ruling of June 21 2019, can also be the tax of the state where the foreign fund is resident".: 

Based on these statements of the ruling, it is clearly contrary to EU law, if the non-resident funds cannot be granted a refund of Danish dividend tax which the Funds have had to pay in Denmark on the grounds that they have not met certain Danish domestic conditions (electing IMB status and complying with annual assessment of minimum income) where the proceeds of the Funds' investments which may or may not have been distributed to its investors are taken into account in the tax which the investors' tax residence jurisdiction levies on shareholders in accordance with the rules of that jurisdiction. 

Despite the foreign Funds not having elected status as an IMB nor complied with the formal requirements of section 16C of the Act on Taxation at Source it is thus our conclusion that the Funds are in a comparable situation to the Danish tax exempt funds. 

Question 5 - Taxation of investors 

The conditions for reclaims must comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness of remedies. The principle of effectiveness requires that Member States establish a system of legal remedies and procedures that do not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by EU law. 

Accordingly, the procedural rules governing these remedies must not be designed in such a way as to make it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred on individuals by the Union’s legal order. More broadly, this principle requires that the rights that individuals derive from Union law are effectively applied. 

We have provided further information about this point in relation to each of the Funds in the attached Appendices 1-11. 

Question 6 - Conflict with TFEU article 63 

We agree that the conflict between the Danish rules and the EU rules should be based on TFEU article 63 on free movement of capital and not article 56 on free movement of services. Reference has been made in certain cases to article 56 of the TEC (Treaty Establishing the European Community) which corresponds to the current article 63 of TFEU. 

The Danish rules in the Corporation Tax Act section 2 (1) c) cf. section 65 (1) of the Act on Taxation at Source and the IMB requirements stipulated in the rules in § 16 C of the Tax Assessment Act provide a hindrance for the free movement on capital in relation to the investment in Danish shares by non resident funds. 

Consequently, the Funds have been subject to Danish withholding tax and a difference in treatment compared to Danish domestic funds which is based solely on the tax residence of the Funds. Such discrimination applied under the Danish domestic rules cannot be justified by 'overriding reason in the public interest' or a need to preserve a 'coherence in the tax system', as that would be disproportionate. The Danish rules are accordingly contrary to EU law enshrined in article 63 of TFEU. 

(…)" 

Endvidere har repræsentanten ved særskilt bilag af 31. august 2020 (appendix 4) fremsat bemærkninger til 3 af klagesagerne - heriblandt nærværende sag - vedrørende spørgsmål 5. Af bemærkningerne fremgår følgende: 

“Re. question 5 - Taxation of investors
The funds referred to in this Appendix are German resident UCITS funds (ETF's). 

The funds can issue both distributing and accumulating unit classes. Currently, they have only one unit class per fund, which is a distributing unit class. 

Distributions of income to German residents are taxed at source in most circumstances, distributions of capital gains are also taxed at source, the received income and gains distributed will form part of the taxable position of the recipient. 

The prospectus’ details the interaction of applicable tax and exemptions on distributions to German residents in section 31 (section 23 for […]). Distributions to non-German residents (if they have provided the fund with evidence of their non-residence) are only taxed at source in relation to German-sourced income and form part of the taxable position of the recipient in their home jurisdiction. The funds do not make any tax filings on behalf of its unitholders, their distributions are detailed in its annual publications and submitted tax forms. 

See Sub-appendix 4a-4c for information on the investors' tax residence also provided and taken into account by Skattestyrelsen in relation to the funds' treaty based partial withholding tax reclaim. 

Further unitholder details held by the fund is private non-disclosable data, which is not disclosable unless required by Law. The Funds are subject to GDPR requirements. 

The received income and gains from the fund unit holdings will form part of the taxable base of the recipient. For individuals, investment funds, corporations typically this should be subject to annual income or corporation tax in the home jurisdiction of the recipient. If the recipient is a tax-exempt organization, such as a pension fund, the income may not be subject to further taxation. The precise tax treatment at unitholder level is not visible to the fund and will depend on numerous factors such as recipient type, tax residence, type of income, any applicable cross-border tax treaties and any domestic tax deductions or exemptions available." 

Repræsentanten har den 23. maj 2025 fremsat nedenstående bemærkninger som svar på en række spørgsmål fra Skatteankestyrelsen. Bemærkningerne vedrører 40 klagesager: 

"(…) 

2 UDVIKLING I PRAKSIS SIDEN VORES SENESTE SKRIVELSE AF 31. AUGUST 2020 

Vi har tidligere ved skrivelse af 31. august 2020 fremsendt bemærkninger om klagerne og drøftet disse på kontormøde den 12. november 2020. I tillæg hertil fremsender vi hermed supplerende kommentarer, herunder relateret til den efterfølgende udvikling i retstilstanden på området i form af Højesterets afgørelse af 24. juni 2021 og Styresignalet af 21. juni 2022. 

For så vidt angår Den Europæiske Unions Domstols ("ECJ") afgørelse af 21. juni 2018 i sag C480/16 Fidelity Funds ("ECJ C480/16") henvises til vores bemærkninger af 31. august 2020. 

2.1 Højesterets afgørelse af 24. juni 2021 og Styresignalet af 21. juni 2022 

Højesteret fandt i sag 59/2019, at en udenlandsk fond, som ikke har valgt status som investeringsinstitut med minimumsbeskatning, og derfor ikke har indsendt en årlig opgørelse af minimumsindkomst med henvisning til kildeskatteloven, ikke kan fritages for indeholdt kildeskat. 

Højesteret fandt ligeledes, at der ikke var behov for yderligere opklarende spørgsmål til ECJ. 

Højesteret var enig i, at betingelsen om, at investeringsfondene for at kunne opnå udbytteskattefritagelse skulle være skattemæssigt hjemmehørende i Danmark, var i strid med EU-retten, jf. også ECJ C480/16, men fandt dog ikke, at dette i sig selv kunne indebære en tilsidesættelse af ordningen i sin helhed. Højesteret fandt desuden, at betingelsen om, at udenlandske investeringsfonde skulle have valgt status som investeringsinstitut med minimumsbeskatning, var begrundet i behovet for at sikre sammenhængen i det danske skattesystem, og at dette således udgjorde en proportional foranstaltning. 

Det er vores opfattelse, at Højesterets afgørelse strider mod praksis fra ECJ C480/16 og reglerne om kapitalens frie bevægelighed, idet udenlandske investeringsfonde, selv hvis disse havde valgt status som investeringsinstitut med minimumsbeskatning, ikke ville kunne opnå samme skattemæssige retsstilling som dansk hjemmehørende fonde med denne status. Det har således aldrig været muligt for udenlandske investeringsfonde at opnå samme skattefritagelse som danske fonde, der har valgt status som investeringsinstitut med minimumsbeskatning. 

Vi gentager her vores henvisning til MetallgesellschaftLtd (C-397/98) og Hoechst AG & Hoechst UK Ltd (C-410/98) cases: 

A requirement for tax payers to apply for a tax advantage denied them by national laws (in breach of EU law) would make it excessively difficult to exercise the EU law right concerned. Accordingly it was contrary to EU Law for the UK to deny relief on sole grounds that the taxpayers had failed to make a group income election (a domestic election) when even when making such election, treatment in line with domestic entities would not apply. 

I forhold til proportionalitetsargumentet, gør vi opmærksom på, at som sagen blev forelagt ECJ, blev der ikke taget stilling til de danske krav iht. Ligningslovens § 16C, men at det burde have været muligt at have stillet mere lempelige krav til udenlandske fonde ift. at dokumentere, at fonden indeholdt skat ved udlodning, eller at investorerne blev beskattet på en måde, der tilsvarede beskatningen af investorer i danske fonde, eller endda at indeholde en dansk kildeskat svarende til den kildeskat, der indeholdes af danske fonde (jf. herunder også generaladvokatens præmis 80 og Fidelity afgørelsen præmis 84). Sådan alternativ mulighed var imidlertid ikke tilgængelig for de udenlandske fonde. 

Desuden kan vi henvise til Fidelity-dommens præmis 71: "Domstolen har imidlertid allerede fastslået, at når en medlemsstat har valgt -således som det er tilfældet i hovedsagerne -ikke at beskatte udbyttemodtagende hjemmehørende investeringsinstitutter af indenlandsk udbytte, kan den imidlertid ikke påberåbe sig nødvendigheden af at sikre en afbalanceret fordeling af beskatningskompetencen mellem medlemsstater med henblik på at begrunde en beskatning af ikke-hjemmehørende investeringsinstitutter, der modtager sådant udbytte." 

Det er vores opfattelse, at Østre Landsrets og Højesterets afgørelser ikke tager højde for disse forhold, men baserer sig på, at ECJs afgørelse ikke har fastslået at LL 16C kravene ikke er anset uforenelige med EU-retten. De er imidlertid heller ikke vurderet forenelige, idet ECJ ikke har taget specifikt stilling til dem i Fidelity-afgørelsen. 

På denne baggrund anser vi også Styresignalet for at være for smalt afgrænset ift. de udenlandske fonde, der berettigedes til tilbagesøgning af dansk udbytteskat, idet tilbagesøgningen var betinget af, at fonden havde opfyldt betingelserne i LL § 16C. 

2.2 Klage til EU-Kommissionen af 12. december 2022 

Den 12. december 2022 indsendtes klage til EU-Kommissionen vedrørende den danske praksis, der udsprang af Højesterets dom af 24. juni 2021 (sagsnummer CHAP(2022)03458). Klagen vedrører særligt sammenligneligheden mellem danske investeringsinstitutter med minimumsbeskatning og tyske investeringsforeninger, men argumenterne kan efter vores opfattelse fremføres tilsvarende for fonde hjemmehørende i andre lande. Det fremføres i klagen, at Højesterets doms strider mod den danske stats forpligtelse til at implementere ECJ C480/16. 

Det fremføres i klagen, at den danske praksis strider mod EU-retten på særligt tre måder: 

For det første henvises der i klagen til ECJ C480/16, hvoraf det fremgår, at der ville eksistere et sammenhængende dansk skattesystem, såfremt ikke-hjemmehørende investeringsfonde kunne bevise, at de betalte en skat svarende til den, der tilbageholdes af danske, hjemmehørende investeringsinstitutter som acontobetaling af skatten på minimumsudlodningen. 

For det andet argumenteres for, at såfremt der ikke havde været en EU-stridig betingelse for skattefrihed om, at investeringsfondene skulle være skattemæssigt hjemmehørende i Danmark, ville ikke-hjemmehørende investeringsfonde have haft bedre mulighed for at opfylde de resterende betingelser for skattefrihed, herunder betingelse om valg af status som investeringsinstitut med minimumsbeskatning. Med den EU-stridige betingelse havde de udenlandske fonde ikke noget incitament til at vurdere, om efterlevelse af betingelserne i 16C i øvrigt kunne opfyldes for at opnå udbytteskattefritagelsen. 

For det tredje henvises der i klagen til ECJ afgørelse af 30. januar 2020 i sag C-156/17 Köln Aktienfonds Deka, hvoraf det fremgår, at der er tale om en overtrædelse af artikel 63 TEUF, hvis kildelandet gør refusion kildeskatter til ikke-hjemmehørende investeringsfonde betinget af, at de foretager eller rapporterer en (skønnet) minimumsudlodning i overensstemmelse med de lovkrav, som hjemmehørende investeringsfonde skal opfylde for at være fritaget for kildeskat, hvis den ikke-hjemmehørende investeringsfond allerede foretager eller rapporterer en (skønnet) minimumsudlodning i overensstemmelse med reglerne i dens hjemstat. 

Vi er ikke bekendt med status på behandling af klagen til EU-Kommissionen. 

3 AFSLUTNING 

På baggrund af det ovenfor fremførte, er det vores opfattelse, at afslag på refusion i sagerne omfattet af dette sagskompleks er uberettiget og strider mod EU-retten og kapitalens frie bevægelighed, og vi fastholder dette på trods af Højesterets dom af 24. juni 2021. Vi mener således, at klagerne er berettigede til refusionen på trods af at de ikke har valgt status som investeringsinstitut med minimumsbeskatning af de ovenfor og i den tidligere skrivelse anførte grunde. 

(…) 

Vi gør opmærksom på, at vi som anmodet har kommenteret på de 3 sager med påstand om skattemæssig transparent kvalifikation i 2014-2015 separat på de enkelte sager (19-0098312, 19-00983125 og 19-0098318). 

(…)" 

Den 30. maj 2025 har repræsentanten suppleret til ovenstående indlæg med konkrete bemærkninger vedrørende de tre sidstnævnte sager, heriblandt nærværende klagesag: 

"Vi henviser til vores kommentarer indsendt 23. maj 2025 til det samlede R1 sagskompleks i disse EU retsligt baserede tilbagesøgningssager, som også omfatter dette sagsnummer. 

Ansøger fastholder kravet også relateret til perioden frem til 15. december 2015 baseret på sammenlignelighed med en dansk udbytteskattefritaget investeringsinstitut trods Skattestyrelsens vurdering af transparent kvalifikation med hjemmel i styresignalet SKM2016.98.SKAT - der henvises i denne forbindelse til, at ansøger anses skattemæssigt hjemmehørende i Tyskland, og til afgørelsen SKM2023.4.SR. Ansøger fastholder således sin klage af afslaget på baggrund af den EU-retlige vurdering af kravet og kan fremkomme med yderlige kommentarer om den danske kvalifikation, såfremt denne herefter måtte blive afgørende. Det skal i denne forbindelse bemærkes, at der ikke af Skattestyrelsens kvalifikation af ansøger som skattemæssigt transparent er fremsat begrundelse ift. hvilke kriterier ved ansøger, der er lagt vægt på ved vurderingen. 

For så vidt angår H1 skal det påklagede beløb rettelig være 10.699.691,58 kr. (…)"

Landsskatterettens afgørelse
H1 har påklaget den del af Skattestyrelsens afgørelse, der angår Skattestyrelsens afslag vedrørende yderligere tilbagebetaling af indeholdt udbytteskat. Sagen angår dermed, om H1 er berettiget til yderligere tilbagebetaling af indeholdt udbytteskat, svarende til 15 % af bruttoudlodningerne, for kalenderårene 2014-2017 for i alt 10.694.589,76 kr.

Retsgrundlaget
Krav på tilbagebetaling af indeholdt udbytteskat
Et dansk selskab, der udbetaler udbytte, skal som udgangspunkt indeholde 27 % af det samlede udbytte, jf. kildeskattelovens § 65.

Er der efter kildeskattelovens § 65 indeholdt kildeskat på udbytte, som overstiger modtagerens endelige udbytteskat, kan den for meget indeholdte udbytteskat kræves tilbagebetalt. For begrænset skattepligtige fremgår modtagerens endelige udbytteskat af enten kildeskattelovens § 2, selskabsskattelovens § 2 eller en dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst. For sådanne fysiske eller juridiske personer er det i første omgang et krav, at de vurderes som begrænset skattepligtige til Danmark, hvis de vil opnå refusion af udbytteskat. Det fremgår af selskabsskattelovens § 2, stk. 1, litra c, at et selskab mv. som nævnt i § 1, stk. 1, der har hjemsted i udlandet, er begrænset skattepligtig, hvis det oppebærer udbytte fra kilder her i landet omfattet af ligningslovens § 16 A, stk. 1 og 2. Der skal dermed være tale om en udenlandsk enhed, der organisatorisk svarer til en dansk enhed, der er omfattet af selskabsskattelovens § 1, stk. 1.

Det er særligt de kriterier, som er udviklet på baggrund af retspraksis i forhold til selskabsskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 2, der anvendes i forhold til vurderingen af skattesubjektivitet for udenlandske enheder. Det fremgår af bestemmelsen, at den omfatter andre selskaber, i hvilke ingen af deltagerne hæfter personligt for selskabets forpligtelser, og som fordeler overskuddet i forhold til deltagernes i selskabet indskudte kapital. 

Investeringsselskab
Et investeringsselskab er bl.a. defineret som et investeringsinstitut i henhold til UCITS-direktivet, jf. aktieavancebeskatningslovens § 19, stk. 1, nr. 1 (tidligere § 19, stk. 2, nr. 1).

For indkomstårene 2014-2017 var et investeringsselskab skattepligtig med 15 % af udbytte fra et dansk selskab, jf. dagældende selskabsskattelovs § 3, stk. 1, nr. 19. 

Investeringsinstitut med minimumsbeskatning
Ved et investeringsinstitut med minimumsbeskatning forstås et institut, der udsteder omsættelige beviser for deltagernes indskud, og som har valgt, at instituttets indkomst skal beskattes hos deltagerne. Endvidere skal investeringsinstituttet opgøre en minimumsindkomst, jf. den dagældende ligningslovs § 16 C, stk. 1 (lovbekendtgørelse nr. 405 af 22. april 2013). Forud for den 1. januar 2013 var ordlyden i ligningslovens § 16 C, stk. 1, anderledes, idet der tidligere var tale om en udloddende investeringsforening, og der skulle opgøres en minimumsudlodning. 

Valget i stk. 1 af skattemæssig status som investeringsinstitut med minimumsbeskatning skal være truffet inden det første af instituttets indkomstår, som valget gælder for. I et nyoprettet investeringsinstitut skal valget være truffet i forbindelse med oprettelsen, hvis det skal gælde fra instituttets første indkomstår. Meddelelse om valget skal indsendes til told- og skatteforvaltningen. 

For indkomstårene 2014-2017 var et dansk investeringsinstitut med minimumsbeskatning skattepligtig i henhold til selskabsskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 5 c. For investeringsinstitutter med minimumsbeskatning blev modtagelsen af udbytte ikke anset som en indtægt ved erhvervsmæssig virksomhed, hvorfor sådanne udbytter var skattefritaget for disse enheder. Som følge heraf havde danske investeringsinstitutter med minimumsbeskatning mulighed for at få et udbyttefrikort efter reglerne i kildeskattebekendtgørelsen. Fritagelsen for beskatning af udbytter fra danske selskaber til danske investeringsinstitutter med minimumsbeskatning blev ophævet ved lov. nr. 1181 af 8. juni 2021 med virkning fra den 1. januar 2022. 

Praksis
EU-Domstolens dom i C-480/16 (Fidelity) omhandlede blandt andet, hvorvidt den danske stat havde overtrådt kapitalens fri bevægelighed i Traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions Funktionsmåde (TEUF) artikel 63. EU-Domstolen lagde bl.a. til grund, at den omhandlede skattelovgivning udgjorde en restriktion i forhold til TEUF artikel 63, men domstolen udtalte, at restriktionen som udgangspunkt kunne begrundes i hensynet til at sikre sammenhængen i den danske beskatningsordning. EU-Domstolen fandt dog, at den danske skattelovgivning var for restriktiv, idet udenlandske investeringsinstitutter, der opfylder betingelserne i ligningslovens § 16 C, ikke har mulighed for kildeskattefritagelse. Den danske skattelovgivning var derfor i strid med kapitalens fri bevægelighed.

Højesteret har i dom af 24. juni 2021, offentliggjort i SKM2021.353.HR, taget stilling til udenlandske investeringsinstitutters tilbagebetalingskrav vedrørende den udbytteskat, der blev indeholdt af deres udbytter fra aktier i danske selskaber i perioden 2000-2009, og betydningen af EU-Domstolens dom i sag C-480/16 (Fidelity). Højesteret fandt, at der i forbindelse med den danske skatteordning for udloddende investeringsforeninger skulle ses bort fra ordningens nationalitetskrav, men at der stadig skulle tages stilling til betingelserne i ligningslovens § 16 C. Højesteret udtalte i den forbindelse:

"Ligningslovens § 16 C

(…)

(…) I årene 2000-2009 sikrede bestemmelsen bl.a., at der af en dansk investeringsforenings opgjorte minimumsudlodning skete beskatning hos foreningens danske og udenlandske investorer som modstykke til den opnåede kildeskattefritagelse. EU-Domstolens dom af 21. juni 2018 i sag C-480/16 (Fidelity Funds m.fl.) må forstås sådan, at hensynet til denne interne sammenhæng i den danske beskatningsordning kan retfærdiggøre, at det over for investeringsforeninger hjemmehørende i et andet EU-land stilles som betingelse for at opnå kildeskattefritagelse, at investeringsforeningen betaler skat til de danske skattemyndigheder svarende til det beløb, som danske udloddende investeringsforeninger skal indeholde på grundlag af den opgjorte minimumsudlodning, jf. dommens præmis 84.

På den baggrund finder Højesteret, at kravet i § 16 C om at opgøre en årlig minimumsudlodning omfattende bl.a. udbytte fra danske selskaber må anses for retfærdiggjort ved hensynet til at kunne foretage en korrekt beskatning og til den interne sammenhæng i beskatningsordningen, og at kravet ikke udgør en uproportional restriktion i strid med retten til fri bevægelighed for kapital efter TEUF artikel 63.

Højesteret finder derfor, at det kan stilles som betingelse for de udenlandske investeringsinstitutters kildeskattefritagelse af udbytte fra danske selskaber, at de i årene 2000-2009 opfyldte kravet i § 16 C om at opgøre en årlig minimumsudlodning.

De udenlandske investeringsinstitutter valgte ikke at blive kvalificeret som udloddende investeringsforeninger og opgjorde ikke en årlig minimumsudlodning, og de opfyldte dermed ikke denne betingelse for at opnå kildeskattefritagelse.

Højesteret finder herefter, at de udenlandske investeringsinstitutter ikke har krav på tilbagebetaling af de indeholdte skatter, selv om der skal ses bort fra den EU-retsstridige betingelse om at være hjemmehørende i Danmark.

(…)"

Landsskatterettens begrundelse og resultat
En dansk investeringsforening, der udstedte omsættelige beviser, og som var et selvstændigt skattesubjekt, blev som udgangspunkt anset for et investeringsselskab i skattemæssig henseende, jf. dagældende aktieavancebeskatningslovs § 19, stk. 2, nr. 1. Et investeringsselskab blev i de pågældende indkomstår beskattet med 15 %, når det modtog udbytte fra et dansk selskab jf. dagældende selskabsskattelovs § 3, stk. 1, nr. 19.

En dansk investeringsforening, der udstedte omsættelige beviser, havde dog mulighed for - under visse betingelser - at tilvælge ligningslovens § 16 C, hvorved den blev anset for et investeringsinstitut med minimumsbeskatning i skattemæssig henseende. Et investeringsinstitut med minimumsbeskatning var i indkomstårene 2014-2017 skattepligtig efter selskabsskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 5 c, og betalte 0 % i skat af udbytte fra danske selskaber. 

H1 har ved anmodningen søgt om tilbagebetaling af indeholdt udbytteskat. H1 har i denne forbindelse gjort gældende, at investeringsinstituttet i henhold til TEUF artikel 63 er udsat for forskelsbehandling, når instituttet sammenlignes med danske investeringsinstitutter med minimumsbeskatning.

Højesteret har, efter EU-Domstolens dom i C-480/16 (Fidelity), i SKM2021.353.HR taget stilling til, om udenlandske investeringsinstitutter er udsat for forskelsbehandling, og Højesteret har i den forbindelse særligt behandlet ligningslovens § 16 C. Højesteret udtalte i dommen, at det forhold, at betingelsen om at være hjemmehørende i Danmark er i strid med EU-retten, ikke i sig selv bevirker, at udenlandske investeringsinstitutter har krav på at få tilbagebetalt indeholdt kildeskat af udbytter. 

Det fremgår endvidere af Højesterets dom, at det kan stilles som en betingelse for udenlandske investeringsinstitutters kildeskattefritagelse af udbytte fra danske selskaber, at de udenlandske investeringsinstitutter har valgt at blive kvalificeret som udloddende investeringsforeninger, og at de opfylder kravet i ligningslovens § 16 C om at opgøre en årlig minimumsudlodning. Der kan endvidere henvises til Landsskatterettens afgørelser i SKM2025.302.LSR og SKM2025.303.LSR. 

Det fremgår af Skattestyrelsens afgørelse, at Skattestyrelsen i kalenderårene 2014-2015 har anset H1 for en transparent enhed efter dansk skatteret, hvorimod Skattestyrelsen for kalenderårene 2016-2017 har anset H1 for et selvstændigt skattesubjekt (skæringsdato den 15. december 2015). For samtlige udlodninger i de fire kalenderår har Skattestyrelsen godkendt tilbagebetaling af i alt 12 % af bruttoudbyttet for de danske aktier på grundlag af dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten mellem Danmark og Tyskland. 

H1 har påklaget den del af Skattestyrelsens afgørelse, der angår Skattestyrelsens afslag vedrørende yderligere tilbagebetaling af indeholdt udbytteskat. Landsskatteretten skal dermed tage stilling til, om H1 er berettiget til yderligere tilbagebetaling af indeholdt udbytteskat, svarende til 15 % af bruttoudlodningerne. 

H1 har ifølge det oplyste i ingen af kalenderårene 2014-2017 opfyldt betingelserne i ligningslovens § 16 C, hvorfor der ikke findes grundlag for yderligere tilbagebetaling af indeholdt udbytteskat med henvisning til C-480/16 (Fidelity) og SKM2021.353.HR.

I forlængelse af ovennævnte skal det bemærkes, at en transparent enhed ikke kan vælge status som investeringsinstitut med minimumsbeskatning efter ligningslovens § 16 C, idet et sådant tilvalg forudsætter skattesubjektivitet. Dette gælder både for danske og udenlandske investeringsinstitutter. Landsskatteretten har ved afgørelser af 26. februar 2025 (sagsnr. 18-0005537) og 25. april 2025 (sagsnr. 18-0005725) fastslået, at et udenlandsk investeringsinstitut, der anses for skattemæssig transparent efter dansk ret, ikke er udsat for forskelsbehandling i henhold til EU-retten.

På baggrund af ovenstående vil der, uanset om H1 måtte være et selvstændigt skattesubjekt eller en skattemæssig transparent enhed, skulle gives afslag på den del af tilbagebetalingskravet, der svarer til 15 % af bruttoudbyttet. Som følge heraf finder Landsskatteretten det ufornødent at tage stilling til, om H1 er et selvstændigt skattesubjekt.

Landsskatteretten bemærker, at pligten for at ansøge på vegne af rette skattesubjekt som udgangspunkt må påhvile den, der søger om tilbagebetaling af udbytteskat. Der ses ikke at have været særlig anledning til, at Skattestyrelsen skulle have foretaget yderligere vejledning, og en sådan eventuel mangelfuld eller manglende vejledning kan i den konkrete sag ikke føre til et andet resultat.

Landsskatteretten kan således tiltræde, at H1 ikke har krav på tilbagebetaling af indeholdt udbytteskat på 15 % af bruttoudbyttet. Der er i øvrigt ikke taget stilling til dokumentationen for det fremsatte krav eller Skattestyrelsens allerede foretagne tilbagebetaling. 

Landsskatteretten stadfæster med denne begrundelse Skattestyrelsens afslag.