Skattestyrelsen har givet afslag på anmodning om refusion af indeholdt udbytteskat for indkomståret 2016. 

Landsskatteretten stadfæster Skattestyrelsens afgørelse.

Faktiske oplysninger
Skattestyrelsen har den 17. november 2016 modtaget H1s anmodning om refusion af udbytteskat for følgende udlodning:

Selskabets navn	Record date	Udbytte	Indeholdt udbytteskat	Ansøgt refusion
G1 A/S	21.03.2016	13.122,00 kr.	3.542,94 kr.	3.542,94 kr.

Anmodningen vedrører udbytte, der er modtaget på baggrund af 7.290 American Depositary Shares, som repræsenterer aktier i G1 A/S. Klageren har indgivet anmodningen på baggrund af American Depositary Receipts (herefter benævnt ADR-beviser), der er udstedt som kvittering for erhvervelsen af American Depositary Shares.

G1 A/S har den 13. marts 2015 indgået en aftale med F1-Bank (herefter benævnt depotbanken) om deponering af aktier hos depotbanken, som på baggrund af de deponerede aktier har udstedt American Depositary Shares, der handles over-the-counter (OTC) i USA. Der er således tale om et sponsoreret level 1 ADR-program.

Aftalen, der er benævnt "Deposit Agreement", fastsætter rettigheder og forpligtelser for G1 A/S, indehavere af ADR-beviser og depotbanken. Ved erhvervelse af American Depositary Shares accepterer indehaveren af ADR-beviset at blive part i deponeringsaftalen og dermed tiltræde de i deponeringsaftalen indeholdte vilkår.

Hver American Depositary Share, som er dokumenteret med et ADR-bevis, repræsenterer ⅕ aktie i G1 A/S.

Af deponeringsaftalen fremgår bl.a. følgende:

"1.  Certain Definitions.

…

(b)           "ADRs" mean the American Depositary Receipts executed and delivered hereunder. … ADRs … shall be substantially in the form of Exhibit A annexed hereto (the "form of ADR"). … The form of ADR is hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof; the provisions of the form of ADR shall be binding upon the parties hereto.

…

(i)           "Holder" means the person or persons in whose name an ADR is registered on the ADR Register.

…

12.  Successor Depositary.  … In case at any time the Depositary acting hereunder shall resign or be removed, the Company shall use its best efforts to appoint a successor depositary … Every successor depositary shall execute and deliver to its predecessor and to the Company an instrument in writing accepting its appointment hereunder, and thereupon such successor depositary, without any further act or deed, shall become fully vested with all the rights, powers, duties and obligations of its predecessor. The predecessor depositary, only upon payment of all sums due to it and on the written request of the Company, shall (i) execute and deliver an instrument transferring to such successor all rights and powers of such predecessor hereunder (other than its rights to indemnification and fees owing, each of which shall survive any such removal and/or resignation), (ii) duly assign, transfer and deliver all right, title and interest to the Deposited Securities to such successor, and (iii) deliver to such successor a list of the Holders of all outstanding ADRs. Any such successor depositary shall promptly mail notice of its appointment to such Holders. …"

Deponeringsaftalens bilag A (form of ADR) er et ADR-bevis, som ikke er udfyldt. Af bilaget fremgår bl.a. følgende:

"(1)  Issuance and Pre-Release of ADSs.  …

In its capacity as Depositary, the Depositary shall not lend Shares or ADSs; provided, however, that the Depositary may (i) issue ADSs prior to the receipt of Shares and (ii) deliver Shares prior to the receipt of ADSs for withdrawal of Deposited Securities, including ADSs which were issued under (i) above but for which Shares may not have been received (each such transaction a "Pre-Release"). …

(2)  Withdrawal of Deposited Securities.  Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), upon surrender of (i) a certificated ADR in a form satisfactory to the Depositary at the Transfer Office or (ii) proper instructions and documentation in the case of a Direct Registration ADR, the Holder hereof is entitled to delivery at, or to the extent in dematerialized form from, the Custodian's office of the Deposited Securities at the time represented by the ADSs evidenced by this ADR, provided that the Depositary may deliver Shares prior to the receipt of ADSs for withdrawal of Deposited Securities, including ADSs which were issued under (1) above but for which Shares may not have been received (until such ADSs are actually deposited, "Pre-released Shares") only if all the conditions in (1) above related to such Pre-Release are satisfied). At the request, risk and expense of the Holder hereof, the Depositary may deliver such Deposited Securities at such other place as may have been requested by the Holder. …

(3)  Transfers of ADRs.  … Title to this ADR (and to the Deposited Securities represented by the ADSs evidenced hereby), when properly endorsed (in the case of ADRs in certificated form) or upon delivery to the Depositary of proper instruments of transfer, is transferable by delivery with the same effect as in the case of negotiable instruments under the laws of the State of New York; provided that the Depositary, notwithstanding any notice to the contrary, may treat the person in whose name this ADR is registered on the ADR Register as the absolute owner hereof for all purposes and neither the Depositary nor the Company will have any obligation or be subject to any liability under the Deposit Agreement to any holder of an ADR, unless such holder is the Holder thereof. …

…

(7)  Charges of Depositary. … The following additional charges shall be incurred by the Holders, by any party depositing or withdrawing Shares or by any party surrendering ADSs, to whom ADSs are issued … whichever is applicable (i) a fee of U.S.$0.05 or less per ADS for any Cash distribution made pursuant to the Deposit Agreement, …

…

(10)  Distributions on Deposited Securities.  Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), to the extent practicable, the Depositary will distribute to each Holder entitled thereto on the record date set by the Depositary therefor at such Holder's address shown on the ADR Register, in proportion to the number of Deposited Securities (on which the following distributions on Deposited Securities are received by the Custodian) represented by ADSs evidenced by such Holder's ADRs: (a) Cash. Any U.S. dollars available to the Depositary resulting from a cash dividend or other cash distribution or the net proceeds of sales of any other distribution or portion thereof authorized in this paragraph (10) ("Cash"), on an averaged or other practicable basis, subject to (i) appropriate adjustments for taxes withheld, (ii) such distribution being impermissible or impracticable with respect to certain Holders, and (iii) deduction of the Depositary's and/or its agents' fees and expenses in (1) converting any foreign currency to U.S. dollars by sale or in such other manner as the Depositary may determine to the extent that it determines that such conversion may be made on a reasonable basis, (2) transferring foreign currency or U.S. dollars to the United States by such means as the Depositary may determine to the extent that it determines that such transfer may be made on a reasonable basis, (3) obtaining any approval or license of any governmental authority required for such conversion or transfer, which is obtainable at a reasonable cost and within a reasonable time and (4) making any sale by public or private means in any commercially reasonable manner. (b) Shares. (i) Additional ADRs evidencing whole ADSs representing any Shares available to the Depositary resulting from a dividend or free distribution on Deposited Securities consisting of Shares (a "Share Distribution") and (ii) U.S. dollars available to it resulting from the net proceeds of sales of Shares received in a Share Distribution, which Shares would give rise to fractional ADSs if additional ADRs were issued therefor, as in the case of Cash. (c) Rights. (i) Warrants or other instruments in the discretion of the Depositary, after consultation with the Company if practicable, representing rights to acquire additional ADRs in respect of any rights to subscribe for additional Shares or rights of any nature available to the Depositary as a result of a distribution on Deposited Securities ("Rights"), to the extent that the Company timely furnishes to the Depositary evidence satisfactory to the Depositary that the Depositary may lawfully distribute the same (the Company has no obligation to so furnish such evidence), or (ii) to the extent the Company does not so furnish such evidence and sales of Rights are practicable, any U.S. dollars available to the Depositary from the net proceeds of sales of Rights as in the case of Cash, or (iii) to the extent the Company does not so furnish such evidence and such sales cannot practicably be accomplished by reason of the non-transferability of the Rights, limited markets therefor, their short duration or otherwise, nothing (and any Rights may lapse). …

…

(12)  Voting of Deposited Securities.  As soon as practicable after receipt from the Company of notice of any meeting or solicitation of consents or proxies of holders of Shares or other Deposited Securities, the Depositary shall distribute to Holders a notice stating (a) such information as is contained in such notice and any solicitation materials, (b) that each Holder on the record date set by the Depositary therefor will, subject to any applicable provisions of Danish law and the Charter or similar documents of the Company, be entitled to instruct the Depositary as to the exercise of the voting rights, if any, pertaining to the Deposited Securities represented by the ADSs evidenced by such Holder's ADRs and (c) the manner in which such instructions may be given, including instructions to give a discretionary proxy to a person designated by the Company. Upon actual receipt by the ADR department of the Depositary of instructions of a Holder on such record date in the manner and on or before the time established by the Depositary for such purpose, the Depositary shall endeavor insofar as practicable and permitted under the provisions of or governing Deposited Securities to vote or cause to be voted the Deposited Securities represented by the ADSs evidenced by such Holder's ADRs in accordance with such instructions. The Depositary will not itself exercise any voting discretion in respect of any Deposited Securities. There is no guarantee that Holders generally or any Holder in particular will receive the notice described above with sufficient time to enable such Holder to return any voting instructions to the Depositary in a timely manner. …

…

(17)  Termination.  The Depositary may, and shall at the written direction of the Company, terminate the Deposit Agreement and this ADR by mailing notice of such termination to the Holders at least 30 days prior to the date fixed in such notice for such termination … After the date so fixed for termination, the Depositary and its agents will perform no further acts under the Deposit Agreement and this ADR, except to receive and hold (or sell) distributions on Deposited Securities and deliver Deposited Securities being withdrawn. As soon as practicable after the expiration of six months from the date so fixed for termination, the Depositary shall sell the Deposited Securities and shall thereafter (as long as it may lawfully do so) hold in a segregated account the net proceeds of such sales, together with any other cash then held by it under the Deposit Agreement, without liability for interest, in trust for the pro rata benefit of the Holders of ADRs not theretofore surrendered. After making such sale, the Depositary shall be discharged from all obligations in respect of the Deposit Agreement and this ADR, except to account for such net proceeds and other cash. After the date so fixed for termination, the Company shall be discharged from all obligations under the Deposit Agreement except for its obligations to the Depositary and its agents.

…

(20)  Elective Distributions in Cash or Shares.  Whenever the Company intends to distribute a dividend payable at the election of the holders of Shares in cash or in additional Shares, the Company shall give notice thereof to the Depositary at least 30 days prior to the proposed distribution stating whether or not it wishes such elective distribution to be made available to Holders. Upon receipt of notice indicating that the Company wishes such elective distribution to be made available to Holders, the Depositary shall consult with the Company to determine, and the Company shall assist the Depositary in its determination, whether it is lawful and reasonably practicable to make such elective distribution available to the Holders. The Depositary shall make such elective distribution available to Holders only if (i) the Company shall have timely requested that the elective distribution is available to Holders, (ii) the Depositary shall have determined that such distribution is reasonably practicable and (iii) the Depositary shall have received satisfactory documentation within the terms of Section 14 of the Deposit Agreement including, without limitation, any legal opinions of counsel in any applicable jurisdiction that the Depositary in its reasonable discretion may request, at the expense of the Company. If the above conditions are not satisfied, the Depositary shall, to the extent permitted by law, distribute to the Holders, on the basis of the same determination as is made in the local market in respect of the Shares for which no election is made, either (x) cash or (y) additional ADSs representing such additional Shares. If the above conditions are satisfied, the Depositary shall establish a record date and establish procedures to enable Holders to elect the receipt of the proposed dividend in cash or in additional ADSs. The Company shall assist the Depositary in establishing such procedures to the extent necessary. Nothing herein shall obligate the Depositary to make available to Holders a method to receive the elective dividend in Shares (rather than ADSs). There can be no assurance that Holders generally, or any Holder in particular, will be given the opportunity to receive elective distributions on the same terms and conditions as the holders of Shares."

Skattestyrelsens afgørelse
Skattestyrelsen har givet afslag på anmodning om refusion af indeholdt udbytteskat for indkomståret 2016. 

Skattestyrelsen har som begrundelse bl.a. anført: 

"Skattestyrelsen er af den opfattelse, at anmoder ud fra de foreliggende oplysninger ikke er den, der er begrænset skattepligtig af det modtagne udbytte, jf. selskabsskattelovens § 2, stk.1, litra c, og derfor ikke er den tilbagesøgningsberettigede efter kildeskattelovens § 69 B.

Skattestyrelsen har ud fra de foreliggende oplysninger vurderet, at der ikke er grundlag for at imødekomme anmodningen om tilbagebetaling af indeholdt kildeskat, idet der kan henvises til lovbekendtgørelse nr. 591 af 18. juni 2012, kildeskattelovens § 69 B, stk. 1, hvor der fremgår følgende: 

"§ 69 B Har nogen, der er skattepligtige efter § 2 eller selskabsskattelovens § 2, modtaget udbytte, hvori der efter §§ 65-65 D er indeholdt kildeskat, som overstiger den endelige skat efter en dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst… tilbagebetales beløbet inden 6 måneder fra told- og skatteforvaltningens modtagelse af anmodning om tilbagebetaling. Sker tilbagebetaling efter dette tidspunkt, tilkommer der den skattepligtige en rente svarende til renten efter opkrævningslovens § 7, stk. 2, med tillæg af 0,4 procentpoint pr. påbegyndt måned.

Det er således den, der er begrænset skattepligtig efter selskabsskattelovens § 2, stk. 1, litra c, der er berettiget til at ansøge om refusion af indeholdt kildeskat på udbytte.

Af selskabsskattelovens § 2, stk. 1, litra c fremgår, at skattepligten påhviler selskaber og foreninger mv., der har hjemsted i udlandet, for så vidt de oppebærer udbytte omfattet af ligningslovens § 16 A, stk. 1 og 2. Efter ligningslovens § 16 A, stk. 2, nr. 1 henregnes til udbytte alt, hvad der af selskabet udloddes til aktuelle aktionærer eller andelshavere. En kapitalejer (aktionær eller anpartshaver) er enhver ejer af en eller flere kapitalandele, jf. selskabslovens § 5, stk. 1, nr. 15. Det er således aktionæren, der er skattepligtig af det udbytte denne oppebærer og kan tilbagesøge kildeskat efter kildeskattelovens § 69 B.

Det fremgår i øvrigt også af bemærkningerne til selskabsskattelovens § 2, stk. 3 (de alm. bem. til LFF 2016 123), at det er det direkte udbyttemodtagende selskab, dvs. den begrænset skattepligtige, der kan tilbagesøge udbytteskatten.

En aktionær har nogle økonomiske og forvaltningsmæssige rettigheder, der er knyttet til aktien. Det er derfor som udgangspunkt den, der har de økonomiske og især de forvaltningsmæssige rettigheder forbundet med aktien, der er ejer af aktien og dermed aktionær. Se f.eks. SKM2007.770.SR og SKM2020.179.HR.

Det er Skattestyrelsens opfattelse, at det som udgangspunkt er depositarbanken, der skal anses for aktionær af de underliggende danske aktier, da banken er den civilretlige ejer af disse og indehaver af de forvaltningsmæssige rettigheder, der er knyttet til de underliggende danske aktier i det omfang intet andet er aftalt.

Et ADR-bevis i det usponsorerede G1 A/S -ADR-program kan ikke anses for et aktielignende ejerbevis, da de forvaltningsmæssige rettigheder ikke er tildelt ADR-indehaveren. ADR-indehaveren kan derfor ikke anses for aktionær.

Tilbagesøgningen om indeholdt kildeskat på udbytte kan således ikke imødekommes, da anmoder ikke anses for at være aktionær og dermed tilbagesøgningsberettiget. Det er depositaren, der anses for at være aktionær og dermed den skattepligtige, jf. selskabsskattelovens § 2, stk. 1, litra c samt den tilbagesøgningsberettigede, jf. kildeskattelovens § 69 B.

Skattestyrelsen anser dog ikke depositarbanken for at være retmæssig ejer af udbyttet, da banken via ADR-ordningen har overdraget dispositionsretten til ADR-ejer.
Når det direkte udbyttemodtagende selskab (dvs depositarbanken) ikke er retmæssig ejer af udbyttet, opgøres en eventuel for meget indeholdt kildeskat i forhold til en eventuel dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst for den retmæssige ejer. Det er dog stadig den begrænset skattepligtige (dvs depositarbanken), der skal anmode om refusionen, jf. kildeskattelovens § 69 B.

Anmodningen kan således ikke imødekommes

…

Artikel 22 i dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten med USA er en såkaldt LOB-bestemmelse ("Limitation of Benefits"). Formålet med artiklen er at begrænse anvendelsen af visse af overenskomstens bestemmelser (begunstigelser) til særligt kvalificerede personer/selskaber. Formålet med artikel 22 er at imødegå tilfælde, hvor beskatning skal nedsættes eller eventuelt bortfalde som led i treaty shopping - altså udnyttelse af forskelle i f.eks. definitioner landene imellem, der kan medføre nedsat beskatning. Grundlaget for artikel 22 er derfor en kæde af objektive kriterier (tests), hvor der fokuseres på modtagerens tilknytning til bopælslandet, såsom at der er ydre tegn på seriøs virksomhed i bopælslandet som f.eks. børsnotering, at der ikke sker urimelig udhuling af skattegrundlaget i bopælslandet gennem fradragsberettigede betalinger (baseerosion), at der er reel forretningsmæssig aktivitet i bopælslandet. I nogle tilfælde skal flere kriterier være opfyldt samtidigt. Et selskab, der ikke opfylder kravene i en test, f.eks. formelle krav om ejerforhold og børsnotering, går videre til en anden test om betalingsstrømme og evt. til en tredje test om aktiv erhvervsudøvelse. Se bl.a. Den juridiske vejledning 2021-1, afsnit C.F.9.2.20.5.2 og lovforslag L 30 af 4/10 2006 om indgåelse af protokol om ændring af dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten mellem Danmark og USA.

Af artikel 22, stk. 8, litra c fremgår det, at i relation til artikel 22 omfatter udtrykket "aktier" depotbevis deraf. I tilknytning til artikel 22’s bestemmelser om bl.a. ejerforhold til aktier omfattes således også depotbeviser af aktier.

Hvem der er aktionær i et dansk selskab og deraf, hvem der er rette indkomstmodtager af udbytte fra selskabet skal afgøres efter dansk ret. Se f.eks. Højesterets dom i SKM2018.376.HR.
Hvis en amerikansk bank efter dansk ret anses for aktionær i et dansk selskab, er det dermed banken der er rette indkomstmodtager af udbytte, jf. ligningslovens § 16 A og dermed banken, der er begrænset skattepligtig til Danmark af udbyttet efter reglerne i selskabsskattelovens § 2, stk. 1, litra c. Det er ligeledes banken, der som aktionær, kan tilbagesøge eventuelt for meget indeholdt udbytteskat, jf. reglerne i kildeskattelovens § 69 B. Den danskamerikanske dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst - herunder LOB-bestemmelsen i artikel 22 - har således ingen betydning i relation til dette.

Hvis den amerikanske bank kan anses for aktionær efter dansk ret og dermed rette indkomstmodtager af udbyttet, skal der tages stilling til, om beskatning i Danmark af udbyttet sker i overensstemmelse med den dansk-amerikanske dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst, hvorefter beskatningen eventuelt skal begrænses. Det skal herunder vurderes om banken er retmæssig ejer af udbyttet eller om banken f.eks. har afgivet sin dispositionsret over udbyttet og viderefører dette til en indehaver af et ADR-bevis. Hvis en indehaver af et ADR-bevis er retmæssig ejer af udbyttet vil det være ADR-indehaverens dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst med Danmark der afgør, om beskatningen af udbyttet kan begrænses. Som ovenfor nævnt ændrer dette ikke på, hvem der er aktionær i forhold til det danske selskab og dermed hvem, der er rette indkomstmodtager af udbyttet. Bemærk, at rette indkomstmodtager af et udbytte og retmæssig ejer af et udbytte ikke nødvendigvis er den samme. Aktionæren er den rette indkomstmodtager af udbyttet, men ikke nødvendigvis den retmæssig ejer af udbyttet, hvis aktionæren har afgivet dispositionsretten over udbyttet.
LOB-bestemmelsen i dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomstens artikel 22 kan få betydning for, om og hvor meget beskatning af udbytte skal begrænses efter den dansk-amerikanske dobbeltoverenskomst artikel 10.
Som nævnt indledningsvis er formålet med artiklen at begrænse anvendelsen af visse af overenskomstens bestemmelser (begunstigelser) til særligt kvalificerede personer/selskaber. Hvorvidt artikel 22 har betydning for begrænsning af udbytteskatten beror på en vurdering af om de objektive tests i artiklen opfyldes.

Det er Skattestyrelsens opfattelse, at H1 ikke er rette indkomstmodtager af udbyttet og således heller ikke den rette ansøger af tilbagebetaling af for meget indeholdt udbytteskat"

Klagerens opfattelse
Klagerens repræsentant har fremsat påstand om, at klageren er berettiget til refusion af indeholdt udbytteskat. 

Til støtte for påstanden er bl.a. anført: 

"Skattestyrelsen’s denial is based, not on anything about the Claimant, but on its determination that the owners of G1 A/S ADRs is the depository bank, that the depository bank is liable to tax, and that the depository bank is eligible to reclaim excess withheld tax.

We submit that Skattestyrelsen’s interpretation is at odds with Denmark’s tax treaty with the United States. It is also at odds with Denmark’s practice of international law. Skattestyrelsen’s interpretation has further adverse implications likely contrary to Danish interests.

Contrary to Treaty
Section 8(c) of Article 22 of the Convention Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and The Prevention of Fiscal Evasion With Respect to Taxes on Income entered into in 1999, as amended by the 2006 protocol (“Tax Treaty") to that treaty provides, without qualification, that “the term ‘shares’ shall include depository receipts thereof." Thus, the treaty unambiguously provides that Claimant is the owner of shares entitled to the tax relief anticipated by the treaty. Nothing in the treaty, protocols, or interpretations suggests a depository would be considered the owner of the shares or able to recover taxes. The opposite seems clear. Specifically, if the intention was that there be just one reclaim application, i.e., G1 A/S has just one depository, the treaty could easily have said that. It does not because that is not the intention. Rather, the history of the application of Article 22 since its inception and further clarified in 2006, is that holders of ADRs are treated as a shareholder and may obtain the tax relief provided by the treaty.

In support of its contrary position, Skattestyrelsen asserts:

Article 22 of the double taxation agreement with the USA is an LOB (Limitation of Benefits) provision. The purpose of the article is to limit the application of certain provisions of the double taxation agreement (benefits) to particularly qualified persons/companies. The purpose of article 22 is to address cases where taxation is to be reduced or possibly lapses as an element of treaty shopping - i.e. exploitation of differences in e.g. definitions between countries that may lead to reduced taxation. The basis for article 22 is therefore a chain of objective criteria (tests) with focus on the recipient’s affiliation to the country of residence, such as external signs of serious business activity in the country of residence, e.g. stock-exchange listing, that there is no unreasonable erosion of the tax base in the country of residence through deductible payments (base erosion), and that there is actual commercial activity in the country of residence. In some cases, several criteria must be fulfilled at the same time. A company that does not fulfil the requirements in a test, e.g. formal requirements concerning ownership and stock-exchange listing, will proceed to another test concerning payment flows, and possibly to a third test concerning active pursuit of business activities.

The title of Article 22 of the Tax Treaty is, of course, “Limitation of Benefits." The purpose of that article, however, is to specify who is entitled to the benefits of the Tax Treaty. That is made explicit in subsection 1, “A resident of a Contracting State shall be entitled to the benefits of this Convention only to the extent provided in this Article." It then proceeds to specify who is entitled to those benefits. Skattestyrelsen does not question whether Claimant is entitled to benefits under Article 22. Moreover, Skattestyrelsen, in its next paragraph makes clear:

Article 22(8) para (c) states that, in relation to article 22, the term ‘shares’ includes depositary receipts representing ownership thereof. In connection with the provisions of article 22 on, inter alia, ownership of shares, depositary receipts for shares are thus also included.

Notwithstanding that conclusion, Skattestyrelsen asserts:

Who is a shareholder in a Danish company and hence who is the beneficial income recipient of dividends from the company must be decided in accordance with Danish law. See e.g. the Danish Supreme Court’s judgement in SKM2018.376.HR.

We submit that is not correct. Skattestyrelsen has conflated two issues: (i) who is a shareholder, and (ii) who is the recipient of dividends. The Danish Supreme Court did not address that first question in the cited case (likely because it was not at issue in the case). Concerning (ii), the Danish Supreme Court determined that the question of who may be considered the rightful recipient of income from a dividend that was distributed by a Danish company must be decided in accordance with Danish law. That, however, does not negate the possibility of a treaty, as part of Danish law, influencing that analysis. Moreover, in that case, it was determined that, contrary to the assertion of the claimant, that the Danish-Dutch double taxation treaty did not apply. Thus, only Danish domestic law was left. In our present case, however, Skattestyrelsen does not question that the Tax Treaty applies. Instead, Skattestyrelsen speculates:

If an American bank is deemed to be a shareholder of a Danish company under Danish law, the bank will be the beneficial income recipient of dividends, see section 16 A of the Danish Tax Assessment Act (Ligningsloven)…

Skattestyrelsen, however, does not reach that conclusion. After speculating on the application of Articles 10 and 22 of the Tax Treaty and without sharing the criteria upon which it replies, it leaps to the conclusion, “It is the Danish Tax Agency’s opinion, that H1, is not the beneficial income recipient of the dividend and as such not the rightful applicant for reimbursement of any excess dividend tax withheld." That, however, we submit is not correct. First, as noted and not questioned by Skattestyrelsen, the Tax Treaty applies. Second, the Tax Treaty, as Skattestyrelsen notes, provides that ownership of ADRs is equivalent to shares. Thus, the Claimant is covered by the treaty, the owner of the shares/ADRs, the recipient of the dividend, and entitled to the benefits of the treaty.

Skattestyrelsen instructs, “It is also the bank that, as a shareholder, can apply for reimbursement of any excess dividend tax withheld, see the rules in section 69 B of the Danish Withholding Tax Act (Kildeskatteloven)." We suggest that Skattestyrelsen’s assertion that the depositary could pursue cover is contrary to Danish law. By way of example, in Skatteministeriet v. TDC A/S (C-116/16) the Danish Eastern High Court held that a Luxembourg holding company was not the beneficial owner of a dividend because it merely redistributed a dividend up the ownership chain to those not entitled to the tax benefit being sought. Similarly, the depository bank must pass on the dividend on to those entitled to the tax benefit being sought, i.e., the ADR holders.

Contrary to Danish Treaty Law
Under Danish law, absent a clear statutory directive abrogating a treaty, Danish law must be interpreted and applied to give force to Denmark’s treaty obligations. (See Jens Faerkel, Some Aspects of The Constitution of Denmark, Irish Jurist (1982) at 23 and 24 and Peter Koerver Schmidt, The Emergence of Denmark’s Tax Treaty Network— A Historical View, Nordic Tax Journal (2018) at note 17). For over twenty years, and all the more so since the 2006 protocol, holders of ADRs of Danish securities have been treated as shareholders and accorded the benefits of the treaty. There has been no change to the Danish Corporation Tax Act that directs the interpretation recently adopted by Skattestyrelsen regarding ADRs. We suggest that the new interpretation is in conflict with Danish law and Denmark’s treaty obligations and, therefore, must be reversed.

Further Adverse Implications
Deprivation of Benefits
Please appreciate that Skattestyrelsen’s conclusions have further adverse implications if the depositary banks were to pursue recovery of excess withheld tax. First, the treaty provides for different rates for different types of entities. For example, charities and pensions are entitled to more favorable rates than the depositaries would obtain. Thus, under Skattestyrelsen new interpretation certain types of entities will be deprived of the intended benefits of the treaty. Second, if the depositories were to obtain recoveries of taxes and distribute them to the holder of the ADRs, Skattestyrelsen new interpretation would have the odd result of giving treaty benefits to anyone that owns such an ADR even if a citizen of a country with which Denmark does not have a treaty and even a Danish citizen. Surely that cannot be Skattestyrelsen’s intent. 

Market Distortion
Skattestyrelsen’s new interpretation is also distorting to the market. A key point behind ADRs is that, except for trading in different markets and, thus, different currencies, the ordinary shares, and the ADRs are equivalent. Because Skattestyrelsen new interpretation applies different tax rules to ordinary shares versus ADRs, their value to the same entity would be different. By way of example, if Claimant owned the ordinary shares of G1 A/S instead of the ADR, there seems no question that it would have been entitled to treaty benefits. Thus, we have three possibilities:

1.        Owning ordinary shares - full treaty benefits as applicable to the owner.
2.        Owning ADRs and the depositary pursues recovery - treaty benefits based on the tax status of the depositary, which is less favorable for charities and pensions.
3.        Owning ADRs and the depositary does not pursue recovery - no treaty benefits

It seems contrary to the interests of the market for Skattestyrelsen’s interpretation to be allowed to force what are supposed to be equivalent securities to have different values. Please further appreciate the implications of #2 above. If depositaries were to pursue recovery of taxes, Skattestyrelsen’s interpretation would effectively extend treaty benefits to the whole world, thereby effectively circumventing the limitations of Article 22 of the Tax Treaty."

Klagerens yderligere bemærkninger til sagen
Klagerens repræsentant har fremsat følgende supplerende bemærkninger:

"We are confirming this with each of the depositaries. Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, no pre-release is involved with these ADRs. Moreover, it is important to note, when it comes to tax reclamation, the concern with pre-release is that there may be claims for which there are no underlying shares. G2’s processes ensure that this cannot happen. For sponsored ADRs for which there is always just a single depositary, when G2 provides tax reclaim services, the applicable depositary provides the total of the share position it holds in custody. G2 ensures that limit is never exceeded. Second, in the more complex situation of unsponsored ADRs, for which there can be more than one depositary, G2 services all of the depositaries. Thus, while there may be more than one issuer of the ADRs, G2 receives the total share position each depositary holds in custody and ensures that combined limit is never exceeded.

…

Skattestyrelsen has noted in many of its letters, “De underliggende aktier i det ikke-amerikanske (fx danske) selskab er typisk direkte ejet af den amerikanske depositarbank (evt. gennem en nominee), og banken vil derfor typisk være registreret i udsteders ejerbog." / “The underlying shares in the non-American (e.g. Danish) company are typically directly owned by the American custodian bank (possibly through a nominee), and the bank will therefore typically be registered in the issuer's register of owners." and “Aktierne holdes af den amerikanske depositarbank i et depot i depositarbankens navn." / “The shares are held by the American custodian bank in a depository in the name of the custodian bank." That is not correct. The underlying shares are not owned by the depositary. As the word suggests, the shares are deposited with the depositary. That deposit may be made, for example, by the issuer in the case of sponsored issues or Danish or other financial institutions, often at the request of the party that desires to hold the ADR, for unsponsored issues. If a depositary were to go bankrupt, the deposited shares would not be part of the depositary’s estate. Rather, a different depositary would be appointed and the shares shifted to their custody." 

Repræsentanten har fremsat følgende bemærkninger i forbindelse med mødet med Skatteankestyrelsen:

"I. Background
In a notice dated February 12, 2021 (Vores sagsnr. 21-0129530), Skattestyrelsen announced its determination that certain American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs") are owned by the issuing depositary bank rather than the ADR holder. That notice specified seven ADR programs on Danish issues: (i) Carlsberg A/S, (ii) Chr. Hansen Holding A/S, (iii) Danske Bank A/S, (iv) FL Smidth A/S, (v) H. Lundbeck, (vi) Novozymes A/S, and (vii) Pandora A/S. Thus, contrary to decades of experience and practice, applications for tax reclaims filed by beneficial owners of those ADRs started to be rejected. That, however, was only the start. Reclaims have now also been rejected on the same basis on at least four more: (viii) A.P. Møller-Mærsk A/S, (ix) Coloplast A/S, (x) DSV A/S, and (xi) Vestas Wind Systems A/S. Thus, this “rule" now at least applies to eleven of the eighteen Danish ADRs that pay a dividend. To our knowledge, the only ADR on which reclaims are now being paid is Novo Nordisk A/S. Please note that we have not filed reclaims on the remaining six and less widely held dividend-paying Danish ADRs (GN Store Nord A/S, ISS A/S, Ørsted A/S, Sydbank A/S, Topdanmark A/S, and Tryg A/S).

The difficulty, as further discussed below, is that determination contradicts Denmark’s treaty obligations and Danish law, and is contrary to Denmark’s interests.

II. Contrary to Tax Treaty
Section 8(c) of Article 22 of the Convention Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and The Prevention of Fiscal Evasion With Respect to Taxes on Income entered into in 1999, as amended by the 2006 protocol (“Tax Treaty") provides, without qualification, that “the term ‘shares’ shall include depository receipts thereof." Thus, the Tax Treaty unambiguously provides that beneficial owners of ADRs are the owner of shares entitled to the tax relief anticipated by the Tax Treaty. Until 2021, the holders of those ADRs were treated as shareholders. Thus, when dividends were paid on Danish securities, holders of the ADRs were entitled to and regularly did obtain treaty benefits. Nothing has happened in the intervening seventeen years since that protocol was agreed that would change this.

Nothing in the Tax Treaty, protocols, or interpretations suggests a depositary would be considered the owner of the shares or able to recover taxes. The opposite seems clear: if the intention was that just a maximum of four reclaim applications, i.e., one for each depositary, should be made, the Tax Treaty could easily have said that. It does not, not least because that is not the intention. Rather, the history of the application of Article 22 since its inception and further clarified in 2006, is that holders of ADRs are treated as a shareholder and may obtain the tax relief provided by the Tax Treaty.

III. Incorrect Application of the Tax Treaty
In support of its contrary position, Skattestyrelsen asserts (there have been slight variations of this paragraph among the various letters from Skattestyrelsen):

Article 22 of the double taxation agreement with the USA is an LOB (Limitation of Benefits) provision. The purpose of the article is to limit the application of certain provisions of the double taxation agreement (benefits) to particularly qualified persons/companies. The purpose of article 22 is to address cases where taxation is to be reduced or possibly lapses as an element of treaty shopping - i.e. exploitation of differences in e.g. definitions between countries that may lead to reduced taxation. The basis for article 22 is therefore a chain of objective criteria (tests) with focus on the recipient’s affiliation to the country of residence, such as external signs of serious business activity in the country of residence, e.g. stock-exchange listing, that there is no unreasonable erosion of the tax base in the country of residence through deductible payments (base erosion), and that there is actual commercial activity in the country of residence. In some cases, several criteria must be fulfilled at the same time. A company that does not fulfil the requirements in a test, e.g. formal requirements concerning ownership and stock-exchange listing, will proceed to another test concerning payment flows, and possibly to a third test concerning active pursuit of business activities.

We note that Skattestyrelsen has never identified the “chain of objective criteria (tests)" referenced above. Moreover, the title of Article 22 of the Tax Treaty is, of course, “Limitation of Benefits." The purpose of that article is to specify who is entitled to the benefits of the Tax Treaty. That is made explicit in subsection 1, “A resident of a Contracting State shall be entitled to the benefits of this Convention only to the extent provided in this Article." It then proceeds to specify who is entitled to those benefits. Skattestyrelsen has never questioned whether any of the claimants are entitled to benefits under Article 22. Moreover, Skattestyrelsen, regularly notes, as we do, that:

Article 22(8) para (c) states that, in relation to article 22, the term ‘shares’ includes depositary receipts representing ownership thereof. In connection with the provisions of article 22 on, inter alia, ownership of shares, depositary receipts for shares are thus also included.

Notwithstanding the Tax Treaty, Skattestyrelsen asserts (there have been slight variations on this paragraph among the various letters from Skattestyrelsen):

Who is a shareholder in a Danish company and hence who is the beneficial income recipient of dividends from the company must be decided in accordance with Danish law. See e.g. the Danish Supreme Court’s judgement in SKM2018.376.HR.

Skattestyrelsen, however, has conflated two issues: (i) who is a shareholder, and (ii) who is the beneficial income recipient of dividends. The Danish Supreme Court did not address that first question in that case (likely because it was not at issue). Concerning the second, however, the court determined, as Skattestyrelsen notes, that who is the beneficial income recipient of dividends must be determined in accordance with Danish law. In that case, having determined that the foundation in question was not properly formed under Danish law, the board of the foundation, i.e., A and his parents, were the beneficial owners of the dividends. Because A was domiciled in Great Britain, the court determined that the Danish-British double taxation agreement applied.

As noted, the above case did not consider ADRs. That subject was taken up by Skatterådet in SKM2022.333.SR and SKM2022.334.SR. In those cases, the court held that ADRs are the equivalent of Danish shares and found that administrative and financial rights to the underlying shares had been transferred to the holder of the ADR. That, in particular, included dividends. That is also the case for each of the Danish ADRs at issue. Each provides for the distribution to the holder of the ADR of all distributions, subject only to exceptions when that is not possible. It must be noted that in no event does the depositary keep the distribution for itself. Given this, each claimant is the holder of the ADR, is the recipient and beneficial owner of the dividends, and is entitled to the benefits of the Tax Treaty.

For reference, Appendix A includes links to the F-6 filing submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for each of the ADRs at issue. As noted, each provides for distributions to be passed to the owners of the ADRs.

IV. Depositary Not Eligible to Reclaim Taxes
In rejecting claims on behalf of the beneficial owners of Danish ADRs, Skattestyrelsen has regularly instructed (with slight variations), “It is also the bank that, as a shareholder, can apply for reimbursement of any excess dividend tax withheld, see the rules in section 69 B of the Danish Withholding Tax Act (Kildeskatteloven)" We suggest that Skattestyrelsen’s assertion that the depositary could pursue recovery is contrary to Danish law. First, as the word “depositary" suggests, the shares are deposited with the depositary. It does not own them. That deposit may be made, for example, by the issuer in the case of sponsored issues or Danish or other financial institutions, often at the request of the party that desires to hold the ADR, for unsponsored issues. If a depositary were to go bankrupt, for example, the deposited shares would not be part of its estate. Rather, a different depositary would be appointed and the shares shifted to their custody. Second, as discussed in Section III above, the depositary is not the beneficial owner of the dividends paid on the ADRs for which it serves as the depositary. Rather, as described, it must distribute dividends to the owners of the ADRs.

By way of example, in Skatteministeriet v. TDC A/S (C-116/16) the Danish Eastern High Court held that a Luxembourg holding company was not the beneficial owner of a dividend because it merely redistributed a dividend up the ownership chain to those not entitled to the tax benefit being sought. Similarly, as is the ordinary course for ADRs, the depository bank must pass the dividend on to the holder of the ADR. As the depositary is not the owner of the shares and not the beneficial owner of the dividend, it is not entitled to recovery under the Tax Treaty.

V. Contrary to the Danish Application of International Law
Under Danish law, absent a clear statutory directive abrogating a treaty, Danish law must be interpreted and applied to give force to Denmark’s treaty obligations. (See Jens Faerkel, Some Aspects of The Constitution of Denmark, Irish Jurist (1982) at 23 and 24 and Peter Koerver Schmidt, The Emergence of Denmark’s Tax Treaty Network—A Historical View, Nordic Tax Journal (2018) at note 17). For over twenty years, and all the more so since the 2006 protocol, holders of ADRs of Danish securities have been treated as shareholders and accorded the benefits of the treaty. There has been no change to the Danish Corporation Tax Act that directs the interpretation recently adopted by Skattestyrelsen regarding ADRs. We suggest that the new interpretation is in conflict with Danish law and Denmark’s treaty obligations and, therefore, must be reversed.

VI. Ratio is Irrelevant
A point that has been noted in connection with this issue is the ratio of ADRs to the ordinary shares on which they are based. As Skattestyrelsen has noted in many of its letters, “er forholdet mellem ADR-beviser og de underliggende aktier ikke altid 1:1." “the ratio between ADRs and the underlying shares is not always 1:1." That is certainly true. Based on information at www.adr.com, which is operated by F1-Bank, the ratios between ADRs and their underlying securities range presently between 1,000:1 to 1:100. Among the twenty-eight ADRs based on Danish securities, the ratios range between 1:1 and 200:1. Only seven of the ADRs based on Danish securities have a ratio of 1:1. Those, for example, include Novo Nordisk on which Skattestyrelsen has continued to pay tax reclaim applications ordinarily and correctly, as well as Novozymes, on which it has not.

The ratio of ADRs to the underlying shares is based on various factors. By way of example, ensuring that ADRs have a price per share that meets the requirements of the exchange on which they will trade (NASDAQ may delist a security for which the price falls below $1 for more than ten days and NYSE applies a similar rule at $4 per share). Further, the ratio may be set to allow a price that will garner greater interest in the U.S. market versus the home market. In any event, the ratio is irrelevant for purposes of the applicability of the Tax Treaty and for determining the beneficial owner of dividends.

VII. Further Adverse Implications
A. Deprivation of Benefits
Skattestyrelsen’s conclusions have further adverse implications. Assuming, arguendo, that the depositary banks were to pursue recovery of excess withheld tax, the Tax Treaty provides different rates for different types of entities. Specifically, versus the standard Danish withholding rate of 27%, charities and pensions are entitled to a 0% withholding rate (i.e., to recover 100% of the withholding), while it appears that a depositary bank would only be entitled (applying Skattestyrelsen’s view) to a 15% withholding rate (i.e., to recover only 85% of the withholding). Thus, under Skattestyrelsen interpretation certain types of entities would be deprived of the intended benefits of the Tax Treaty. As noted, however, the depositaries are not entitled to recover taxes withheld on ADRs in Denmark (nor under any other tax treaty of which we are aware).

B. Unintended Beneficiaries
If the depositaries were to obtain recoveries of taxes and distribute them to the holder of the ADRs, Skattestyrelsen new interpretation would have the odd result of giving treaty benefits to anyone that owns such an ADR - even if a citizen or resident of a country with which Denmark does not have a treaty and even a Danish citizen. Surely that cannot be Skattestyrelsen’s intent as it would defeat the purpose of Article 22 of the Tax Treaty that limits treaty benefits to certain entities.

C. Market Distortion
Skattestyrelsen’s interpretation is also distorting to the market. A key purpose for ADRs is that, except for trading in different markets and, thus, in different currencies, the ordinary shares and the ADRs are equivalent. Because Skattestyrelsen’s new interpretation applies different tax rules to ordinary shares versus ADRs, their value to the same entity would be different. By way of example, if the claimant in these cases owned the ordinary shares of the Danish security instead of the ADR, there seems no question that they would have been entitled to treaty benefits. Thus, we have three possibilities:

1.        Owning ordinary shares - full treaty benefits as applicable to the owner.
2.        Owning ADRs and the depositary pursues recovery - treaty benefits based on the tax status of the depositary, which is less favorable than for charities and pensions, but would seem to be available to the whole world.
3.        Owning ADRs and the depositary does not pursue recovery - no treaty benefits.

It seems contrary to the interests of the market for Skattestyrelsen’s interpretation to be allowed to force what are supposed to be equivalent securities to have different values.

VIII. Prayer for Relief
In light of the above, we respectfully request that you determine that the Skattestyrelsen’s notice of February 12, 2021 (Vores sagsnr. 21-0129530) was outside of its authority, and, therefore, beneficial owners of Danish ADRs are entitled to recover excess withheld taxes based on their tax status under the Tax Treaty. Based on that, we ask that all of the appeals be granted and the Skattestyrelsen be directed to immediately pay with statutory interest the amount due on each claim. We further ask that Skattestyrelsen be directed to apply the same result to all filed claims, including any that it has denied on the same basis as those in the cases covered in the present matters."

Landsskatterettens afgørelse
Sagen angår, om klageren for indkomståret 2016 er berettiget til refusion af udbytteskat vedrørende udbytte, der er modtaget på baggrund af American Depositary Shares.

En American Depositary Share er et omsætteligt værdipapir udstedt af en amerikansk depotbank, som repræsenterer et nærmere bestemt antal aktier eller en nærmere bestemt andel af en aktie i et ikke-amerikansk selskab. Indehaveren af American Depositary Shares modtager et ADR-bevis som kvittering for erhvervelsen.

Retsgrundlaget
Et dansk selskab, der udbetaler udbytte, skal for indkomståret 2016 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 tilbagesøges. 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.

Ligningslovens § 16 A, stk. 1, og stk. 2, nr. 1, har følgende ordlyd:

"§ 16 A. Ved opgørelsen af den skattepligtige indkomst medregnes udbytte af aktier, andelsbeviser og lignende værdipapirer, jf. dog stk. 4.

Stk. 2. Til udbytte henregnes:

1) Alt, hvad der af selskabet udloddes til aktuelle aktionærer eller andelshavere…"

I Danmark er udbytter fra danske selskaber som altovervejende udgangspunkt skattepligtige. Det gælder også, når de modtages af udenlandske personer og selskaber mv., jf. ligningslovens § 16 A, jf. kildeskattelovens § 2, stk. 1, litra 6, og selskabsskattelovens § 2, stk. 1, litra c, medmindre der findes en særlig hjemmel, som giver adgang til skattefrihed.

Udtrykket "aktuelle aktionærer" i ligningslovens § 16 A blev indsat ved lov nr. 1414 af 21. december 2005, og af lovforarbejderne (lovforslag nr. 79 fremsat den 16. november 2005) fremgår bl.a. følgende:

"Det foreslås at præcisere ligningslovens § 16 A således, at kun beløb, der udloddes til aktuelle aktionærer betragtes som skattepligtigt udbytte. Det afgørende vil herefter være, om man er aktionær (d.v.s. har ejendomsret til aktien) på tidspunktet for deklarering af udbyttet."

Spørgsmålet om, hvem der må anses for aktionær i et dansk selskab og dermed rette indkomstmodtager af udbytte fra selskabet, skal afgøres efter dansk ret. Der henvises til Højesterets dom af 19. juni 2018, offentliggjort SKM2018.376.HR.

Landsskatterettens begrundelse og resultat
Klageren har anmodet om refusion af 3.542,94 kr. i udbytteskat, der blev indeholdt ved G1 A/S’ udbetaling af udbytte den 21. marts 2016. Det udloddede udbytte udgør 13.122 kr., og klagerens anmodning om refusion er indgivet på baggrund af klagerens American Depositary Receipts, det vil sige såkaldte ADR-beviser.

ADR-beviser, der dokumenterer American Depositary Shares, er værdipapirer, som vedrører underliggende aktier i selskaber, og som handles såvel på børser som "over-the-counter" (OTC), det vil sige uden om en børs direkte mellem sælger og køber.

De underliggende aktier ifølge klagerens ADR-beviser er i G1 A/S, og beviserne er udstedt i henhold til aftalen af 13. marts 2015 mellem G1 A/S og depotbanken (F1-Bank). Aftalen, der er benævnt "Deposit Agreement" (deponeringsaftalen), fastlægger rettigheder og forpligtelser mellem G1 A/S, indehavere af ADR-beviser og depotbanken.

Spørgsmålet for Landsskatteretten er, om klageren er berettiget til refusion af udbytteskat på grundlag af de omhandlede ADR-beviser. Landsskatteretten finder, at sådan refusion af udbytteskat forudsætter, at klageren har modtaget udbyttet som ejer af aktier i G1 A/S, jf. ligningslovens § 16 A, stk. 1.

Afgørelsen heraf beror efter Landsskatterettens opfattelse på en bedømmelse af, om klageren ved ADR-beviserne har fået overdraget ejendomsretten til de underliggende aktier i G1 A/S.

Det bemærkes herved, at de pågældende American Depositary Shares ikke i sig selv kan anses for aktier eller "lignende værdipapirer" efter dansk ret, jf. ligningslovens § 16 A, idet udstedelsen af American Depositary Shares hverken udvider aktiekapitalen i G1 A/S eller skaber selvstændige ejerrettigheder i selskabet.

I forhold til bedømmelsen af ejendomsretten er det udgangspunktet, at depotbanken har købt de underliggende aktier i G1 A/S. Spørgsmålet er herefter, om depotbanken ved deponeringsaftalen samt salget af de pågældende ADR-beviser har overdraget de underliggende aktier i G1 A/S til klageren. Da sagen, som anført, angår klagerens anmodning om refusion af udbytteskat, skal klageren godtgøre, at en sådan overdragelse er sket.

Aftalen er benævnt som en deponeringsaftale og således ikke som en overdragelsesaftale vedrørende aktierne i G1 A/S.

De rettigheder, der er knyttet til klagerens ADR-beviser, følger - som det ellers gælder for aktier - ikke direkte af selskabets, G1 A/S, vedtægter m.v., der er reguleret af den selskabsretlige lovgivning, men indirekte af deponeringsaftalen. Denne aftale er ikke en sædvanlig deponeringsaftale, hvorefter depotbanken mod vederlag på aktieejerens vegne alene administrerer aktieejerens rettigheder. Deponeringsaftalen fastlægger således nøje rettigheder og forpligtelser i forholdet mellem depotbanken, som har købt aktierne i G1 A/S, G1 A/S og indehaverne af ADR-beviser, og denne fastlæggelse er ikke udelukkende bundet af G1 A/S’ vedtægter m.v.

Hver af klagerens 7.290 American Depositary Shares svarer ifølge deponeringsaftalen ikke til én aktie i G1 A/S, men alene til ⅕ heraf, ligesom en række andre rettigheder for indehavere af ADR-beviser ifølge deponeringsaftalen afviger fra de rettigheder, som ejere af aktier i G1 A/S opnår.

Herunder fremgår det af deponeringsaftalens bilag A, pkt. 12, at indehavere af ADR-beviser ikke har sikkerhed for at blive informeret om generalforsamlinger i G1 A/S i tilstrækkelig tid til at kunne give stemmeinstruks til depotbanken. Depotbanken skal alene bestræbe sig på at stemme i overensstemmelse med en stemmeinstruks på generalforsamlinger, hvorfor indehavere af ADR-beviser heller ikke har sikkerhed for, at depotbanken rent faktisk udøver stemmeinstruksen.

Af deponeringsaftalens bilag A, pkt. 20, fremgår, at indehavere af ADR-beviser ikke har sikkerhed for at blive tilbudt valgmuligheden mellem kontant udbytte og udbytte i form af aktier på samme vilkår og betingelser som ejere af aktier i G1 A/S.

Af deponeringsaftalens bilag A, pkt. 17, fremgår, at aftalen kan opsiges, hvorefter indehavere af ADR-beviser skal tilbagelevere beviset senest 6 måneder efter en opsigelse. Sker der ikke tilbagelevering, skal depotbanken sælge de underliggende aktier.

Derudover fremgår det af deponeringsaftalens bilag A, pkt. 7, at depotbanken har ret til at pålægge indehavere af ADR-beviser et gebyr pr. American Depositary Share for enhver kontantudlodning, som foretages i henhold til deponeringsaftalen.

Det er desuden ikke dokumenteret, at depotbanken ikke har anvendt såkaldt pre-release af ADR-beviser, det vil sige udstedelse af American Depositary Shares, inden depotbanken har modtaget de underliggende aktier i G1 A/S.

Allerede efter de anførte omstændigheder finder Landsskatteretten, at klageren ikke har godtgjort, at deponeringsaftalen samt det tilknyttede salg af ADR-beviser indebærer, at der er sket en overdragelse af de underliggende aktier i G1 A/S fra depotbanken til klageren. Klageren kan derfor ikke anses som modtager af udbyttet fra G1 A/S og er dermed heller ikke berettiget til refusion af udbytteskat.

Det af klageren anførte, herunder at indehaveren af ADR-beviset til enhver tid kan få udleveret de underliggende aktier, kan ikke føre til et andet resultat. Herved bemærker Landsskatteretten også, at det ikke er muligt at få udleveret ⅕ af en aktie i G1 A/S.

Skatterådets praksis kan heller ikke føre til et andet resultat.

I øvrigt kan klageren ikke påberåbe sig en evt. beskyttelse som skattefritaget i henhold til en dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst, da klageren ikke er modtager af udbyttet fra G1 A/S. Der tages herefter ikke stilling til, om betingelserne i den dansk-amerikanske dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst er opfyldt.

Landsskatteretten stadfæster Skattestyrelsens afgørelse.