CJ, 21-05-2026, nr. C-203/25

Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės

Applicant: NEO GROUP UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

In circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, is it compatible with the objectives of the anti-abuse rule of Directive 2011/96/EU 1. for a national practice to exclude, in the State of the dividend payer, the possibility of exemption from withholding tax on dividends, where the dividends are paid to a genuine parent company operating in a different EU Member State, which, as such, is not an entity which is not genuine in so far as it carries on business, and the dividends are paid to it as the beneficial owner of the dividends, but which is recognised by the tax authorities as a participant in a chain of non-genuine transactions by reason of the payment/transfer of the dividends through it to the beneficial owner of the entire group of companies?

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, could the transfer of dividends in a chain be based on the correspondence of the amounts of dividends (similar and identical) transferred in a chain of transactions?

In circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, are the objectives of the anti-abuse rule of Directive 2011/96/EU, including the principle of proportionality referred to in [the recitals of] Directive 2015/121/EU, 1. compatible with a national practice in which the tax authorities apply the anti-abuse rule in the State in which the dividends are paid, even though the transactions, which have led to a chain of transactions being recognised as an arrangement (which the tax authorities regard as not genuine), were carried out in another EU Member State by tax residents in that another EU Member State?

Does the anti-abuse rule in the State of the dividend payer give rise to a right to withholding tax on dividends where the tax benefit arises at any stage of the chain of transactions? Can the applicant be considered to have received a tax benefit contrary to the subject or purpose of Directive 2011/96/EU if, as a result of the creation of such a chain of transactions, a tax benefit is obtained by the ultimate beneficiary who uses the dividends paid by the applicant to earn such benefit?

In circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, can the provisions of Article 1(2) of Directive 2011/96/EU be interpreted as meaning that the application of the ‘participation exemption’ rule, which implements the provisions of Article 5 of Directive 2011/96/EU in national law, can be excluded on the grounds of the abuse of the right due to the use of dividends received, where the receipt and use of the dividends (the subsequent distribution of the profits) took place over a continuous period?

In circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, is a national practice in which the effect of the tax authority is applied to a dividend payer, without assessing whether the dividend payer was and/or could have been aware of the existence of a chain of non-genuine transactions, compatible with the objectives of the anti-abuse rule laid down in Directive 2011/96/EU?