Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 5 juli 2018

Onder 8.5 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 5 juli 2018

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 5 juli 2018, ECLI:NL:PHR:2018:830.

“The wholly artificial arrangement test would appear to be stricter in the sense that it would seem to follow from this that where a taxpayer also has another intention for a certain arrangement (for example, a business intention) there is no question of a wholly artificial arrangement; whereas under the main purpose test, having another reason still places a taxpayer under the common anti-abuse rule. Nevertheless, the question here is if there really is a difference. It must be pointed out, namely, that under the case law of the CJ, when an arrangement forms an artificial arrangement ‘in whole or in part’, there can be a matter of abuse. It would appear to follow from this that the existence of a business reason for one part of a transaction does not remove the abuse intention for the other part. Part of the transaction (a certain step) can also be ‘wholly artificial’. In other words: there can also be a matter of abuse under the wholly artificial arrangement test when in addition there are also non-fiscal reasons (for another part of the transaction). That is the same as under the main purpose test.”

Zelf controleren

Voor dit citaat hoeft niemand Bron op zijn woord te geloven. Het document dat rechtspraak.nl publiceerde, staat op https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/0747eafb4e8d83a84efc06fb42ae22c804172afabe9dbacde3c166cdda33dfe0. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt 0747eafb4e8d83a84efc06fb42ae22c804172afabe9dbacde3c166cdda33dfe0, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 170057 tot 171306.