| Abstract [eng] |
The FMTP described in brief: This master thesis goes on to examine the different ways in which dividends are taxed between companies in the European Union and the potential disputes that tend to arise, even though the Parent–Subsidiary Directive (2011/96/EU) was created specifically to be able to avoid double taxation. The research proceeds by focusing on how the Directive, and its anti-abuse amendment (2015/121/EU) are applied in practice. Differences often lead to uncertainty for businesses and create risks that dividends may be either taxed twice or not taxed at all. To understand these problems, the study analyses ten court cases: important CJEU rulings and several Lithuanian and Norwegian cases. Using qualitative analysis, the thesis compares how tax authorities and courts evaluate economic substance, company structure, and cross-border dividend payments. Based on the results, the thesis offers a set of proposals that are meant to enhance the functioning of the tax system while emphasizing the need for a more consistent and straightforward method of identifying beneficial owners, greater openness in corporate structures through reinforced ownership registers, and harmonization of substance requirements across the EU; the main measures is to foster clarity and transparency minimizing confusion and curbing tax avoidance while, at the same time, ensuring that cross-border investment can take place under fair and stable conditions. Problem, objective and tasks of the FMTP: Problem: Although the Parent–Subsidiary Directive aims to prevent double taxation of intra-group dividends, EU Member States apply its anti-abuse rule very differently, creating legal uncertainty and frequent disputes. Objective: The objective of this thesis is to analyze real court practice on dividend taxation, identify the main gaps in how “genuine arrangements” and substance requirements are applied, and evaluate their impact on fair and consistent taxation. Tasks: The thesis examines ten cross-border cases, compares national approaches, and provides recommendations to improve transparency, strengthen beneficial ownership identification, and harmonize the application of the anti-abuse rule across the EU. Research methods used in the FMTP: Qualitative Methods: Document/Content analysis; Case Study Analysis Research and results obtained: The thesis analysed ten court cases from Lithuania, the EU, and Norway to identify how tax authorities and courts interpret “genuine arrangements” and apply anti-abuse rules to cross-border dividends. The findings show that inconsistent criteria, limited transparency, and unclear beneficial ownership information are the main reasons for disputes and unequal tax treatment. Based on these results, the thesis proposes stronger transparency requirements, harmonized substance standards, and clearer rules for identifying the true economic owner of dividends. Conclusions of the FMTP: The research concludes that the biggest challenge in cross-border dividend taxation is the inconsistent and subjective application of anti-abuse rules across EU and EEA states. Clearer transparency requirements, especially unified rules for identifying beneficial owners and demonstrating real economic substance—would reduce uncertainty and help prevent both tax avoidance and unjustified double taxation. Strengthening harmonization at the EU level would create a more predictable system in which dividends are taxed where real value is generated. |
