¹ Angharad Miller, Lynne Oats, & B. Bus, Principles of International Taxation 54 (2009).Google Scholar

² Moschetti, Giovanni, Origine storica, significato e limiti di utilizzo del place of effective management, quale criterio risolutivo dei casi di doppia residenza delle persone giuridiche, 2 Neotepa 31, 37 (2009).Google Scholar

³ Although such a purpose was not stated at that time.Google Scholar

⁴ OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and Capital (2010). This Model, which represents a non-binding set of guidelines for countries entering into bilateral conventions, first adopted by the OECD in 1963 and periodically updated, is widely taken as a reference by both EU and extra-EU countries. The bilateral conventions against double taxation will be referred to, hereinafter, as “double tax conventions.”Google Scholar

⁵ id. Google Scholar

⁶ This is the case of France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherland, Poland, Slovenia and Spain, in addition to the UK.Google Scholar

⁷ See e.g., Case C-264/96, ICI, 1998 ECR I-4695, para. 21; Case C-446/03, Marks & Spencer, para. 31.Google Scholar

⁸ See e.g., Case C-212/97, Centros, 1999 ECR I-1459, para. 24; Case C-321/05, Kofoed, 2007 ECR I-5795, para. 38.Google Scholar

⁹ See e.g., Ascoli, Daniele, Exit taxes and fundamental freedoms: the impact of the De Lasteyrie decision on EU member states domestic laws, 1 Diritto e Pratica. Tributaria. Internazionale 99 (2006); Michael Lang, Die gemeinschaftsrechlichen Rahmenbedierungen fur “Exit Taxes” im Lichte der Sclussantrage von GA Kokott in der Rechtsachte N, in Steuer und Wirtschaft International 213-226 (2006); Erik Kemmeren, Pending Cases Filed by Dutch Courts I: The van Dijk and Bujura Cases, in ECJ: recent developments in direct taxation 219-260 (Michael Lang, Joseph Schuch & Claus Staringer eds., 2006).Google Scholar

¹⁰ COM/2011/121/4, Commission's Proposal for a Council Directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB)Google Scholar

¹¹ Id. at Art. 86.Google Scholar

¹² Giovanni Moschetti, supra note 2.Google Scholar

¹³ Case 81/87, Daily Mail, 1988 ECR 5483, para. 19. This ruling was widely commented on by the literature: inter alia, Servaas Van Thiel, Daily Mail Case: Tax Planning and the European Right of Establishment. A Setback, European Taxation 357-366 (1988); Otto Sandrock & Andrea Austmann, Das Internationale Gesellschaftsrecht nach der Daily Mail-Entscheidung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs: Quo vadis?, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 249-253 (1989); Boutard Labarde & Marie Chantal, Chronique de jurisprudence de la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes. Libre circulation des personnes et des services, Journal du droit international 428-431 (1989); Nemesio Vara de Paz, Traslado de la sede social (sede de dirección) en el ámbito de la Comunidad Económica Europea, in Revista de Instituciones Europeas 871-882 (1989); Bernhard Großfeld & Thomas König, Das Internationale Gesellschaftsrecht in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, Recht der internationalen in Wirtschaft 433-440 (1992).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Case 81/87, Daily Mail, 1988, supra note 13, at para. 24.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Case C-371/10, National Grid, 2011. In the situation at stake, the transfer of the place of effective management implied – the ECJ noted – the transfer of tax residence under the UK-Netherland double tax convention, and the ECJ had to deal with the issue of whether exit taxes imposed by the Netherland were compatible with the freedom of establishment. The ECJ ruling thus concerned the tax consequences of the change of the connecting factor under double tax treaties. This leaves open the different issue – dealt with in this work – about whether the application of the connecting factor in itself can create a restriction to the freedom of establishment, when this application attracts the tax residence to a country from which a company operates an outbound transfer (see infra, para. 2.and 3).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Id. at para. 26-28.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Case C- 411/03, SEVIC Systems, 2005 ECR I-10805.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Id . at para. 18 and 19.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Case C 210/06, Cartesio, 2008 ECR I-9641. Amongst the vast literature on this ruling: Uwe Grohmann, Nancy Gruschinske, Beschränkungen des Wegzugs von Gesellschaften innerhalb der EU – die Rechtssache Cartesio, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 463-464 (2008); Stefan Leible & Jochen Hoffmann, Cartesio -fortgeltende Sitztheorie, grenzüberschreitender Formwechsel und Verbot materiellrechtlicher Wegzugsbeschränkungen, Betriebs-Berater 58-63 (2009); Veronika Korom & Peter Metzinger, Freedom of Establishment for Companies: the European Court of Justice confirms and refines its Daily Mail Decision in the Cartesio Case C-210/06, 6 European Company and Financial Law Review 125-160 (2009); Jan Bohrenkämper, Corporate Mobility across European Borders: Still no Freedom of Emigration for Companies?, European Law Reporter, 82-92 (2009); Gaetane Goddin & Brice Goddin, Arrět “Cartesio”: l'étendue de la liberté d'établissement pour les sociétés “émigrantes”, 157 Journal des tribunaux / droit européen 77-78 (2009); François Mélin, Déplacement de siège social dans la Communauté européenne, 1208 La Semaine juridique – entreprise et affaires 2009, 43-45 (2009); Luca Cerioni, The Cross-border Mobility of Companies within the European Community after the Cartesio Ruling of the ECJ, The Journal of Business Law 311-337 (2010).Google Scholar

²⁰ Id. at para. 111-112.Google Scholar

²¹ Commentary of Article 4 of the OECD Model, para. 24.Google Scholar

²² See e.g., Case C-311/97, Royal Bank of Scotland, 1999 ECR I-2651, para. 19; Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98, Metallgesellschaft, 2001 ECR I-1727, para. 37; Case C-319/02, Manninen, 2004 ECR I-7477, para. 19; Case C-446/03, MarksASpencer, 2005 ECR I-10837, para. 29.Google Scholar

²³ Case 270/83, avoir fiscal, 1986 ECR 273, para. 26.Google Scholar

²⁴ Case 2/74, Reyners, 1974 ECR 631, para. 21; Case C-196/04, Cadbury Schweppes, 2006 ECR I-7995, para. 53.Google Scholar

²⁵ Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECR I-4165, para. 25, Case C-196/04, supra note 24, at para . 53.Google Scholar

²⁶ Case C-411/03, SEVIC Systems, para. 18.Google Scholar

²⁷ Case C-196/04, supra note 24, at para. 54, citing Case C-221/89, Factortame, 1991 ECR I-3905, para. 20 and Case C-246/89, Commission v. United Kingdom, 1991 ECR I-4585, para. 21.Google Scholar

²⁸ Case C-196/04, supra note 24, at para. 54.Google Scholar

²⁹ Among the numerous contributions: Louis Neville Brown, Is there a general principle of abuse of rights in European Community Law?, in Institutional Dynamics of European Integration, Vol. II 511, 513-515 (Deirdre Curtin & Tom Heukels eds., 1994); Anders Kjllgren, On the Border of Abuse-The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice on circumvention, fraud and other misuses of Community Law, 11 European Business Law Review 179-194 (2000); Karsten Engsig. Sorensen, Abuse of Rights in Community Law: A Principle of Substance or Merely Rhetoric, 43 Common Market Law Review 423-459 (2006); Pierre Schammo, Arbitrage and Abuse of Rights in EC Legal System, 14 European Law Journal 3, 351-376 (2008); Rita de la Feria, Prohibition of abuse of (Community) Law: The Creation of a new general principle of EC law through tax, 45 Common Market Law Review 395-441 (2008).Google Scholar

³⁰ This ruling has also been attracting wide scholarly debate; inter alia: Jan Sedemund, Cadbury/Schweppes: Britische Regelungen zur Hinzurechnungsbesteuerung nur im Falle rein künstlicher Gestaltungen europarechtskonform, Betriebs-Berater 2119-2120 (2006); Philip Baker, Pending Cases Filed by UK Courts I: The Cadbury Schweppes Case, the CFC and Dividend GLO and the Vodafone 2 Case, ECJ recent developments in direct taxation, 311-321 (Michael Lang, Joseph Schuch & Claus Staringer eds., 2006); Manfred Köplin & Jan Sedemund: Das BMF-Schreiben vom 8. 1. 2007 -untauglich, die EG-Rechtswidrigkeit der deutschen Hinzurechnungsbesteuerung nach Cadbury Schweppes zu beseitigen!, Betriebs-Berater 244-248 (2007); Mauro Beghin, La sentenza Cadbury Schweppes e il “malleabile” principio della libertà di stabilimento, 50 Rassegna Tributaria 983-993 (2007); Grahame Turner, The Legitimacy of CFC Legislation Within the Community, 9 The EC Tax Journal 23-47 (2007).Google Scholar

³¹ Which were numbered, respectively, Art. 43 and Art. 48 of the EC Treaty at the time of the EG ruling.Google Scholar

³² Case C-196/04, supra note 24, at para. 68.Google Scholar

³³ Id. at para. 75.Google Scholar

³⁴ E.g., Case C-264/96, supra note 24 at, para. 26; Case C-324/00, Lankhorst-Hohorst, 2002 ECR I-11779, para. 37; Case C-9/02, De Lasteyrie du Saillant, 2004 ECR I-2409, para. 49; Case C-446/03, Marks & Spencer, 2005 ECR I-10837, para. 57.Google Scholar

³⁵ Case C-196/04, supra note 24, at para. 65-66.Google Scholar

³⁶ Id. at para. 67.Google Scholar

³⁷ Case C-110/99, Emsland-Starke, 2000, ECR I-11569, para. 52 and 53.Google Scholar

³⁸ Case C-255/02, Halifax [2006], para. 74 and 75.Google Scholar

³⁹ Case C-196/04, supra note 24, at para. 64.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Case C-212/97, Centros, 1999 ECR I-1459.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Id. at para. 21.Google Scholar

⁴² Id. at para. 36.Google Scholar

⁴³ Rita de la Feria, Prohibition of abuse of (Community) law: the creation of a new general principle of EC Law through tax, 45 Common Market Law Review 395, 428-429 (2008).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Case C-105/07, Lammer&Van Cleeffs, 2008 ECR I-173.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Id. at para. 28.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Case C-212/97, supra note 40.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Case C-126/10, Foggia, 2011.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Art. 11(a) of Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990, subsequently replaced by Directive 2009/133/EC of 19 October 2009.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Case C-321/05, supra note 8, at 38.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Case C-255/02, supra note 38.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Case C-212/97, supra note 40.Google Scholar

⁵² Case C-321/05 ,supra note 8.Google Scholar

⁵³ Case C-126/10, Foggia, 2011, para. 47.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ “Agenzia delle Entrate” [hereinafter “AE”].Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Art. 73, par. 5-bis, ter and quarter of the TUIR.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ A similar presumption is also applied under Spanish tax law, which considers companies created in other countries as tax residents if most of their economic interests are located in Spain.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ De Beers Consolidated Mines, Limited v. Howe [1905] 2 K.B. 612.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Provincial Tax Court of Belluno, 3 December 2007 – 14 January 2008, rulings 173/01/2007 and 174/01/2007.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Regional Tax Court of Tuscany, sez. XXV, 3 December 2007g – 18 January 2008, n. 61/25/27.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Id. at para. 4.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Case 777/10/TAXU.Google Scholar

⁶² Case C-364/01 Barbier, 2003 ECR I-15013.Google Scholar

⁶³ Case C-196/04, supra note 24, retro, par. B, II.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ref. 3-1923/2010.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ European Commission's letters to Italy on 4 June 2010 and 11 January 2011.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See Bertolaso, P. & Bressan, E., Le “esterovestizioni” alla prova della presunzione di residenza – Alcune considerazioni con particolare riguardo alle holding statiche, 36 Il fisco, 5617, (2006); L. Del Federico, Società estere e presunzione di residenza ai sensi del D. L. 223/2006: articoli 43 e 48 del Trattato CE, Convenzioni contro la doppia imposizione e disapplicazione della norma interna di cui al comma 5-bis dell'Art. 73 del Tuir, 41 Il fisco (2006); Greggi, Marco, Recenti sviluppi e questioni di compatibilità comunitaria delle disposizioni di contrasto al fenomeno della cosiddetta “esterovestizione” societaria, LII1 Rassegna Tributaria 105-134 (2009).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ “[T]he place where the most senior person or group of persons (for example, a Board of Directors) makes its decision”): OECD Commentary on Art. 4, para. 24Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Valente, Pierpaolo, la Residenza Fiscale nel Diritto Tributario Internazionale e Comunitario, 2 Neotepa 11, 20 (2009).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Moschetti, supra note 2; Ben J.M. Terra & Peter. J. Wattel, European Tax Law (2008), at 42.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Moschetti, supra note 2, at 38.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Regulation 282/2011/EU of 15 March 2011, laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of VATGoogle Scholar

⁷² Id. at Art. 3Google Scholar

⁷³ Id. at para. 60-61.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Id. at para. 62Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Case C-421/10, Stoppelkamp, 2011.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Englisch, Joachim, VAT/GST and Direct Taxes: Different Purposes, in Value Added Tax and Direct Taxation Similarities and Differences, 2 (Michael Lang, Peter Melz, Eleonore Kristoffersson eds., 2009).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See e.g., Case C-196/04, supra note 24, at para. 49 and the case-law cited there.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See e.g., Case C-336/96, Gilly, 1998 ECR I-02793, para. 31; Case C-307/97, Saint-Gobain ZN, 1999 ECR I-6161, para. 57; Case C-513/03, van Hilten, 2006 ECR I-1957, para. 47.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Council Directive 90/435/EEC (Parent-Subsidiary Directive), Art. 2; Council Directive 2009/133/EC (Merger Directive), Art. 3; Council Directive 2003/49/EC (interest-royalties Directive), Art. 3.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Case C-336/96, supra note 79, at para. 30-31; Case C-513/03, van Hilten, 2006 ECR I-1957, para. 47-48; Case C-470/04, N, 2006 ECR I-7409, para. 44- 45.Google Scholar

⁸¹ See e.g., Case C-279/03, Schumacker [1995] ECR I-225Google Scholar

⁸² Wouters, Jan, Fiscal Barriers to Companies’ Cross-Border Establishment in the Case-Law of the EC Court of Justice, 14 Yearbook of European Law 73 (1995).Google Scholar

⁸³ Schumacker, supra note 82, at paras. 32-33Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Communication COM (785) 2007 final.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Id. at 3.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Id. at 4.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Id. Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See Cadbury Schweppes, supra note 24, at para. 67.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Id. Google Scholar

⁹⁰ COM (785) 2007 final, at 4.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Poggioli, Marcello, Nuove logiche di pianificazione fiscale internazionale, 4 Neotera 7 (2011).Google Scholar

⁹² See supra, in paragraph C. I, the Regional Tax Court of Tuscany ruling, cited supra, notes 59 and 60.Google Scholar

⁹³ l.e. with conversion of the legal form into a form offered by the State of destination: see Cartesio, supra note 19, at para. 111-112.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See Provincial Tax Court of Belluno, supra note 58.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ As it was argued by the Italian literature with regard to the “foreign-dressing” presumption intended to apply the “central administration” criteria: see supra, in paragraph C, I., the literature cited in note 66.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ See Foggia, supra note 47, at para. 47.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ See the discussion supra in paragrah B, II, about the Cadbury Schweppes ruling.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ See supra note 1, at 67.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ OECD (2001), THE IMPACT OF THE COMMUNICATION REVOLUTION ON THE APPLICATION OF ‘PLACE OF EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT’ AS A TIEBREAKER RULE, A DISCUSSION PAPER FROM THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING TREATY NORMS FOR THE TAXATION OF BUSINESS PROFITS, at 11-12.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ OECD (2003) PLACE OF EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT: SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE OECD MODEL TAX CONVENTION, DISCUSSION DRAFT 27 MAY 2003, at 5.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See Schumacker, supra note 82, at paras. 32-33.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Statute for a European Private Company, COM(2008)396/3.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ For an in-depth analysis of the Commission's Proposal for a EPC Statute, see Rolandino Guidotti, The European Private Company: The Current Situation, 13 Germ. L. J. 331 (2012).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ See Cadbury Schweppes, supra note 24 at para. 49, and the previous case-law cited in that note.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ UK-Netherlands Double Tax Convention, signed on 26 September 2008, available online at: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxtreaties/in-force/2008-netherlands-uk-dtc.pdf (last accessed: 31 August 2012).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Miller, Oats, and Bus, supra note 1, at 143, highlight that establishing a single State of residence, where the tiebreaker clauses in Art. 4 of the Model (and of double tax conventions) have failed, is one of the most common situations where the MAP is invoked.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Id. at 144, where the Authors stress that it is not unusual for a MAP to take between 8 and 10 years to be concluded.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Communication (2011) 712 final, Double Taxation in the Single Market, at 9-10.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ See e.g., double tax conventions between France and UK (19 June 2008), between the Netherlands and UK (26 September 2008) and between Germany and UK (30 March 2010).Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Council Directive 2011/16/EU on 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC, in OJ L 64/1 of 11 March 2011.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ This definition is laid down by Art. 5 of the OECD Model and of double tax conventions based on this Model and includes, as illustrative examples, an office, a factory etc. Google Scholar

¹¹² Art. 7 of the OECD Model, replicated in double tax conventions based on it.Google Scholar

¹¹³ This choice nowadays appears to have started to be called into question anyway: e.g., the double tax convention between Italy and the USA, in Art. 4, does not indicate the place of effective management as a tiebreaker rule, but simply states that, if a company is regarded as tax resident by both contracting States under their domestic law, tax residence is allocated via an agreement between the authorities of the two countries. See the Convention against double taxation between the USA and Italy (1984), Art. 4(3).Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ When entered into with developed countries.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ The UN Model Tax Convention, developed in 1980 and (just like the OECD Model) periodically updated, serves as a reference for double tax conventions between developed and developing countries, and, in its Art. 4, indicates as a tie-breaker rule for corporate tax residence the place of effective management, like the OECD Model. See United Nations Model Double Tax Convention between Developed and Developing Countries, Art. 4(3).Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ As argued supra, in paragraphs C. II and C. Ill.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Notably, the EEA countries are bound to apply EU fundamental freedoms, and thus the freedom of establishment too, by the EEA Agreement (Art. 31).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ See supra, in paragraph C. Ill, the argument concerning the modern, computerized economy and the awareness shown by the OECD about the impact of technological developments.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ COM (785) 2007 final.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Id. at para. B, II.Google Scholar

¹²¹ As illustrated supra, in para. B, II.Google Scholar

¹²² See supra para. C, II.Google Scholar

¹²³ Id. Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Communication COM (2006) 823 final, at 4. On this Communication, among others, Adam Zalasinski, Franco Roccatagliata, A Community action to facilitate the co-ordination Members States’ tax systems. The Communication of the Commission “Coordinating Member States’ direct tax systems in the Internal Market”: A newstep on the strategy of co-operation between the European Commission and the Member States Un’ azione comunitaria per agevolare il coordinamento tra gli ordinamenti fiscali degli Stati membri 1 Rivista di Diritto Tributario Internazionale 1, 193-202 (2007); Pietro Selicato, La Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) tra esigenze di armonizzazione della imposta sulle società e profili di compatibilità con gli ordinamenti nazionali, in 2 Rivista di Diritto Tributario Internazionale 161, 167-169 (2009).Google Scholar