CLASSIFICATION SHEET. Sella Bank Luxembourg S.A This document relates to the following request: 8 March 2010

Transcription

1 CLASSIFICATION SHEET This document relates to the following request: 8 March 2010 References: MF1/JNLE/NECE/S M-AOMO Sella Bank Luxembourg S.A I. K_!y to_pics: Tax losses 2. Name of the advisor : PwC 4. Name of the project: N/ A S. Amount intended to be invested: NIA 6. Date of receipt: ENTREE - 8 MARS 2010

2 ADDITIONAL WORKSHEET This document refers to the following company: 8 March 2010 References: MFI/JNLE/NECE/S349 I 0006M-AOMO Sella Bank Luxembourg S.A _J I. Tax returns drafted by : Dcloitte up to] 008 ~ 2. Last tax return filed : 3. Request to postpone the filing of the tax return j until : 4. Last assessed year : I Tax advances: CIT MBT NWT 6. Estimated profit : _j 9, Tax carried forward losses ( ),I 38,351,929

3 Chart of the current structure of the client: NIA J Summary of the current tax position: Cf. Advance Tax confirmation dated 19 October 2009 (Ref: RMS/MFI/ AELD/NECE/S M-JNLE)

4

5 For the attention of Mr Marius Kohl Administration des Contributions Directes Bureau d'imposition Societes VI 18, rue du Fort Wedell L-2982 Luxembourg PriccwaterhouscCoopcrs Societc a rcsponsabilitc limilcc Reviscur d'entrepriscs 400, route d'esch B.P L-1014 Lm.:ernbourg Telephone t Facsimile [email protected]\\c.com 8 March 2010 References: MFl/JNLE/NECE/S M-AOMO BUREAU D'f MPOSITION SOC. 6 ENTREE - 8 MARS 2010 Sella Bank Luxembourg S.A Tax losses Dear Mr Kohl, In our capacity of tax consultant of the above-mentioned client, please find below the tax treatment applicable to the transactions foreseen/implemented by our client. This letter aims at confirming the conclusions reached during our today meeting and will serve as a basis for the preparation of the tax returns of the Luxembourg companies involved. A. Background I. We refer to our meetings held on 12 June 2009 and 21 September 2009 and to the Advance Tax Confirmation ("ATC") that was submitted to you for signature on 19 October 2009 (reference: RMS/MFl/AELD/NECE/S M-JNLE). 2. According to the A TC, it has been confirmed that the New Bank resulting from the partial demerger of Sella Bank (Luxembourg) S.A. ("The Bank") is entitled to carry forward all the tax losses incurred by the Bank. B. Applicable tax regime 3. The Tribunal AdministratiC in its decision regarding the entitlement to carry forward tax losses by a taxpayer dated 6 July 2009, adopted a legal approach for the application of the provision of Article 114 of the Luxembourg Income Tax Law. This judgment was confirmed by the Court of appeal in its decision dated 4 February R.C.S Luxembourg ll TV/\ LU

6 4. Accordingly, the legal approach should be followed. The economic approach should only be taken into account in case of abuse of law. 5. Our analysis is not in breach of the position taken by the Court of appeal in its recent judgment as such position would only recognize the foll legal effects of a partial demerger. The tax losses will then be apportioned up to the level of activity transferred to New Bank. As, in the case at hand the whole banking activity will be exercised by New Bank, the full tax losses will be carried forward by New Bank only. 6. Therefore, the analysis and conclusion reached in the A TC will not be jeopardized by the decision of the Luxembourg Court. We remain at your disposal should you need any further information and would like to thank you for the attention that you will give to our letter. Yours sincerely, (, L~ L Murielle Filipucci Partner Alberto Morpurgo Senior Manager Appendices: Appendix l: Appendix 2: Advance Tax Agreement dated 19 October 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeal dated 4 February 20 I 0 T/i/s wr agrcemc111 is based on Ilic facts as presented to Pricewaterho11seCoopPr.1 Si1rl as at the dale the advice was given. 711e agreement is dependent on specific facts and circ11111stanccs and may not be appropria1e to any party 01her than 1/ie one for which ii ll'as prepared. This lax agrecmenl 11 as prepared wuh only the inlerests of Sella Bank Luxembourg S.A.. 1n d, and was 1101 planned or carried conte111platw11 of any use by a11y other party. Pricewa1erho11seCoopcrs Silrl, ifs parlners, employees and or agenls. neither Oll'e 11or accept a11y d111y of care or any respo11sib1hty to tmy other party. whether 111 co111ract or i11 tori (me/ruling 11 11hou1 l111nta eghge11ce or breach of swtutory duty) howe1-er arising. and shal/ 11ot be liable 111 respect of Oii}' loss. damage or expense of whalewr nature wluch 1s caused to any 01her /Xlrl)'. (2)

7 C LASSIFICAT IO N SHEET This document relates to the following request: :tober 2009 Refon:nccs: RMS/MFl/AELD/NECE/S M-JNLE BUREAU O'IMPOSITION SOC 6 ENTREE Sella Bank Luxembourg S.A Key topks: I a:1. lo~:--~ s Z. Nt1nw of tht advisor : Pw(' 3. Corpornte group ~ nan~c. or fu nd sponsor: ~dla.t. Na nil' of the projt'cl: Ni.'\ S. Amounl int<'ndcd lo be invcsll'd: N/A 6. Datt of rect.'ipl:

8

9 For the attention of Mr Marius Kohl /\dmimstrntion des Contributions Dirn<.:tcs I3urcau d'imposition Sucictes VI 18. rue du Fort Wedell L-2982 Luxembourg Prict'" :ll~rhou~t-c oopcn Socit;li\; r<'s1>011~11bili1i limilt;r l~hi~t ur d't 111rc 1.11 hl'b Wll, l\iui <l'r,..,h Ill' l.f B I IO I-I I u~, mboufll I d.:phon.: 35:! 19 1X4X I Facs11111l1: ~ 352 1'1411-l~ -2'1(!11 ww".pwc C llt lu iul(>fcdu pwl:.l:l lll I 9 October 2009 References: RMS/MFl/t\ELD/NEC'E/S I M-JNLE Sella Bank Luxembourg S.A Partial dcmcrgcr D<.:ar Mr Kohl. In our capacity of tax consultant of the above-mentioned client, pica e find below the wx treatment applicable to the transm:tions foreseen by our client. This kttcr aims at confirming the conclusions reached during our meeting dated 12 J unc 2009 and 21 Scptl!mber 2009 und will serve as a basis for the preparation of the tax rctums or the Luxembourg companies involved. A. Facts.\.1 Description of the Bank I. Ban<.:a Sella S.p./\. (now called Sella llolding Banca S.p./\.) was set up in l 886 as a limited pannership by members of the wealthy Sella family in the province of Bi1.:lla in the north-western Italian region or Piedmont. The bank originally operated under the nmnc or Banca Gaudenzio Sdla&C'o., and became a joint-stock company in 194<). 2. During the 1990s, the bank started expanding internationally by acqumng u minority partic..:ipation in Compagnic Financicrc Martin-Maurel S.A ( 1993) and opening a brarn.:h in Luxembourg in 1995 (Banca Sella S.pA. no more listed on the CSSF website). 3. Sella Bank Luxembourg S./\ ("the Bank") is a Luxembourg joint-stock company incorpornt<.:d on 8 April 1999 under thc name 113L Investment Bank Luxembourg S.t\. It is held at ~3.66% by Sella l lolding Banc..:a S.p.A. and at 76.34~'0 by Sdla llulding 1:\. V, u Dutch company.

10 4. The Bank offer:- private and wrroratc bankmg services to privulc and institutional clients and ranked Rih for its activities, according to the hanking list cstahlished hy the Luxembourg Wort in For its private clients, the Bank provides custodial services. financial management advice and a discretionary management service. 6. For its institutional clients. the Bank offer the creation or Luxembourg or offshore investment vehicles. domictlintion. administrative management and accountmg. associated bank deposit services and numerous specialized services such as the issuunce or bonds, stock exchange flotution and the creation of bank assurance products. 7. Due to the cu1tenl market situation as well as the past history of the Bank 1, it appeared to the management that a new impetus is needed in order to further develop the bank activities in Luxembourg. ln this respect, it 1,.vas decided to restructure the Bank to face this new cha I lcnge. A.2 Description of the restructuring ~ - The rcstructuration will consist in a partial dcmcrgcr of the B.111k pursuant lo Article 288 of the Law of I 0 August 1915 on commercial companies, as amended by the I.aw of I 0 June The foreseen partial demcrger consists in the reduction of the share capital of the Bank up to the contribution of the assets to the New Bank and the subsequent cancellation of these shares. The New Bank will issue shares up to the contrihution and in favor of the shareholders of the divided Bank. I 0.!he partial demergcr will be realized trough: (i} (ii) The incorporation of' a New Bank whose purpose is to carry out the whole private and corporate banking activity by the transfer of the coitespon<ling assets and liabilities. The major part of the Bank employees will be transferred to the New Bank which will rent new offices: The current Bank will be converted into a professional of the financial sector ("Old Company") whose purpose is to manage the litigation assets and liabilities. The Old Company will keep the material and human resources needed to carry out its activities. 11. The creditors of the Old Company \vould be protected by a legal commitment from shareholders to intervene in case the resources of the Old Company would not allow it to fullill its rcsponsihi lities. (2)

11 12. The allocation of the assets and liabiliti<.:s will be finally determined in the Dcmcrgcr project in accordance with the above guiddines. The steps of the partial demergcr wi II all take place hy the end of 2009 in order for New Hank to start its activities on I January 20 I 0. B. Tax treatment B. I Tax residence ascd on article 159 of the Luxembourg lnt;omc Tax Law ("LITL"). a company is tn.:atcd us a tax resident in Luxembourg provided that either its registered office or its ct::ntrat administration is located in Luxembourg. Under douhk tax treaties signed with Luxembourg, the tic-bnmker rule is the place of cffecti\ e management. 14. In this respect, Board meetings and Shareholders mectings of Ncw Bank and Old Company will be physically held in Luxembourg. The accounting will he done and the ri.!cords arc kept in Luxembourg. Furthermore, regular meetings will take place:.: in Luxembourg through which all the important and slrutcgic decisions will physically bc taken in Luxembourg. 15. As a result, New Bank and Old Company arc effectively managed from Luxembourg and qualify as Luxembourg tax resident companies. Should the need arist.:, a tax residence certilicate could be obtained. 8.2 The partial dcmcrger Tax neutrality of the partial de merger 16. The partial clcmcrger will he realized under the tux ncutrulity as long as the following conditions. mentioned in Artidc 170(3) of the Luxembourg Income Tax Law (''L!TL"), arc met: (i) (ii) (iii) (1v) The companies toking part in the partial ctcmergcr arc Luxembourg fully taxable resident joint-stock companies; The contribution will only be remunerated by shan.:s representing the share cupital or New Bank (a maximum cash outlet of I O~o of the nominal or par value may however be accepted) to the shareholders of the divided company, i.e. the Bunk. Therefore, the shares of the 13unk will he cancelled up to the contribution to the New Bank; The distribution of shares of N<.:w Bank will he apportioned uccording to the previous holding percentage i11 the Bank; The contribution will be realized at book value in order for the unrealized capital gain linked to the activity contributed to remain subject to taxation in Luxembourg later on; (3)

12 (v) The assets transrcrred will represent a business or a part or a business (branch of activity) and the Bank, after division in Old Company, \vill keep at least one branch of activity. 17. In the case at hand, the demcrgcr wi ll have the effect to transfer an autonomous pati of business to New Bank (i.e. the full banking business). At the same time, the divided company, i.e. Old Company, wi ll keep a branch of activity through the asset management activity it will carry out. for this purpose, Old Company will also keep the liabilities attached to the assets managed as well as needed staff and materials to reach its business purposes. B.2.2 Tax neutrality at the level of the shareholde1 s 18. The shareholders will exchange their shares in the divided Bank for shares in the New Bank. Given the comments from the Chamber of Commerce and the State Council regarding the Drall Bill (5829/1 and 5829/6), the provisions of art. 22bis (2) 3 LITL should normally apply also to a partial dcmergcr as this transaction should be tax neutral (sec in this respect the comments from the Chamber of Commerce and the State Council regarding the Draft Bill ). 19. /\.s a result, none of the shareholders of the Bank will be taxable on any porential gain that may arise from the partial dcmcrger. ln this respect. the holding period on the shares in New Bank v..'ill be computed as from the acquisition date of the shares previously held in the Bank (article 22bis (4) LITL) in order to benefit from the withholding tax exemption under article 14 7 LlTL. B.3 C arry forward of the tax losses of the Bank B.3.1 Article 114 LITL 20., Article 114 LITL- provides that a taxpayer can deduct as special expenses under article I 09 (I) 4 LITL, tax losses incuttcd in the past in its business undertaking without any time limit provided that the following conditions arc met: (i) (ii) (iii) These tax losses could not have been used/deducted previow;ly to off."et other income or any debt waiver as foreseen by article 52 LITL ("gain d 'assainisscmcnt "); The accounting of the taxpayer is in line with general accepted accounting principles; Only the business undertaking who suffered the lax loss can carry it forward. 21. In case of business restructuring, the key criterion is the one of identity or taxpayer according to the tax legislation. Indeed, as long as the taxpayer incurring the losses and the one using them arc the same entity, the carry forward of tux losses will not be denied. I!owever, there is a discussion on whether the economic or legal analysis should be adopted in order to determine if tbc identity condition is met. To h1. r.:;id w11h lh.: Circul:u ixllrr I IR n" da1~d 15 'h:pll'lnhc (4)

13 19. According to a recent case Jaw (against which an appeal was introduced by the Luxembourg Tax Authorities) 3, it was held that as the provision::; or ai1icle l 14 LITL are clear, there should be no room for intcrpn.:tation. Therefore, given that the article of law refers to legal concepts, they should be intcrpretc.:d based on their meaning in the wmmercial law and not based on an economic approach. 20. Based on the traditional interpretation of article I 14 LITL, the argument would be that the business undertaking who suffered the tax losses is the Bunk and not the >Jew Bank resulting from the partial demcrgcr. Therefore, only the Old Company would be entitled to carry forward the tax losses as its legal personality docs not '"change" further to the dcmergcr. However, this reading is nol satisfying even based on a legal approach. Further details on the conditions to carry forward tax losses as well as on the approach to be taken could be found in Appendix 2. B.3.2 Appfic(lfio11 oftlze legal approach in case of a partial demerger 21. Should the condition of identity be only considered in the light of the commercial Jaw. the l'ull legal consequences of the partial dcmcrgcr must be taken imo account. In this respc<.:t, a partial dcmerger entails a universal trans for of assets and liabilities to u new entity, i.e. New Bank, according to article 288 of the law dated August I 0. J 915. paragraph I. as amended by article 28 of the law dated J unc I 0, 2009: H /,a scission par co11stitwio11 de no11velles socil;th es1 / 'op<irario11 par laquel!e 1111c socit;te (...) trans/he. sans dissol111io11, (l une 011 pl11sie11rs soci(>1c\ 'l'lle111<!11t constitwil's, 1mc partie vu/ 'ensemble de son µatrimoi11e. ac1iveme11! el passi\'( ment, 111oye111u111t /'attrib111io11 cl ses associes d 'actions ou de parts des.rncii:t(;.,. bc!11e/iciaires et. frem11clleme11t, d '1111e soulte en especes 11c depassanr pas 10''1, de la rnlcur nominale des actio11s 011 paris a1trib11ees 011, cl d~fhut de \l(/feur no111i11ale, de leur pwr compwhle». 22. As a result, New Bank as well as Old Company arc deemed to be part of' the divided t.:l)mpany. the Bank. but cannot be considered alone as the sole heir of the di\ 1dcd company. rhi::; still holds true even if Old Company continues the legal person of the Bank as the legal titles and obligations o!' the Bank un: mostly transferred to New Bank in the ease at hand (inc.:luding lh!.! start). Morco\er, another clue of the continuity of the Bank by New Bank lays in the foct lhat part or the shan: capital of' the Bank will be cam:ellccl and allrn.:atcd to the New Bank further to the partial dcmergcr. 23. Therefore. transferring the tax losses only to Old Company would not he in line \\'Ith the legal consequences of the demcrgcr a::;. (.!\\ Bank inherits from part or the es\lltc ol'the divided t:ompany, i.e. the Bank. A trnnsrcr of tax losses apportioned to the acti\'ity transf'erred to New Bunk would then be more in line \\1th the legal 11nplicat1ons and, 111 addition, would follow the rationale behind article 11-t (1) 3 LIT!.. Indeed. in case of a lransfor of a business by succession. the tax law provides that the bcnclit.:iary can d<.:duct the tax losses incurred by the transferor provided he was collet.:th dy taxed with him at the time the tax losses wcrc 1ncurred' 1. l'nbu11.1l 1\J11111:hlr.111r. 1> Jul) Wtl'I. 11 ~11JX:? In ~J\I,' nl l"o \II lllurl' h nclicr.tnl.,., la~ Ii.,;~,.., ;rn.: 1r.m~fc11. J pm nlla lhcu nvhts.1cn1nhng lu lhc CirculJI l c'lll'i n" 114 'I 1fatc'tl I~ Scptcmh, r.'00 1 (5)

14 24. Even 1 f this exception was initially foreseen only for mdividuals, the application to partial demergcr of companies would entitle New Bank to carry forward part or all the tax losses of the Bank as it cany out the same activity and was pre\ iously taxed together ~1th the divided company. B.3.3 Method to apportion tlie tax losses ,~ w I. l\s there is no guidance regarding the apportionment of tax losses in case of pa1iial demergcr, reference could be made to the tax legislation in force in neighbor countries (The Netherlands, Germany, France and Belgium r<:ir instance). Jn s<.:vcral or them, the transfer of tax losses in case of a partial dcmcrger is authorized provided that they arc apportioned and provided that certain economic requirements arc met. For further details, plca<;e refer to Appendix 3. In the case at hand. the tax losses lo be carry forward by Old Company or Ne\\ Hank \s,. ill be apportioned based on the activity transfctted. Given that the banking busmcss, which was the core activity of the Bank is only transfcned to cw Bank, only this company will be entitled to carry forward the whole amount of tax losses incurred hy the Bank (1.e. EUR :rn of tax losses as at and an1 additional tax losses to be incurred until the partial division is realized). In case the identity criterion should also be consider<.:cl 111 the light 0f an economic analysis (depending on the outcome of the appeal introduced against the judgment dated 6 July 2009), the tax losses should also have to he allocated to the Ne\ 1.: Bank us il continues the economic entity or th<.: Bank (same shareholders. same activity). R.3.4 The application nf anti-abuse provisions 28. None or the anti-abuse provisions will apply to the dcmerger given the underlying sound economic reasons for such rcstructu1ing. For additional details on the non application of anti-abuse provisions, please re for to Appendix 4. (6)

15 We remain at your disposal should you need any further information and would like to thank you for the at1cntion that you will give to our request. \ Yours s111tcrd y, r ~/\~-~ - --r- Partncr Murielle filipucci Partner., Appendices Appendix I : Appendix ~ : Appendix 3: Appendix.+: Sd la Bank (Luxembourg) S.A. Conditions to carry forward tux losses in Luxcmhourg Overview of the becoming of tax losses in case of dcmcrgers m our neighbor countries Non application of anti-abuse provisions J1n\ /cl\ ag1,, mo:t j\ b~ah/ Vfl Im. Jue/\ ti.> pn. ff. ll(l'l' lo /i111 c.twlllt rhrn,;, ( (,U/Jt'rt s,;,.,,n '11 :hr dt1/1' tlh._,,,.h' 11 -~H j!l\'t'll 111' ~'l:' c1.:111t 111., ti, I nc/, 111 '".\Jlt:L!I:< /ti<. I.\ au.1 c;rcum.hunce~ u11d mut not b, c:p/wo/jl"wltt /fl any /KU 11 11tl1C'r 1l1tu1 tlw '''ff,,,,- ' '1wJ1 /,' \\ "'-" 11r.par<1/ / ,11.1gr""'""' t1l/l /ll<'j111rcd \\ilh 1111/\ 1/w 1/lln'l'\/; u/ Sella /11111A / 111<111/>11111-g S.:I in 111i11d. t1111/ 11'111t111I11/111111, d '" n1rncd 0111jl/,1mte11111l11/lfl11 u/ <llly "'' lw 1111y olirfr pauy l'rtn rh<-11s1 ( '0011 rs S1/rl. 11> partm 1,,, l'lll/''"l <'1'.r <111.l nr ux "' 11hc1,,...,. uor,,. <' "!'' duty u/, an,,, n s1~m.1"1/ti/111 1u 1my u1/11 r p 11rt1 nlwthn 111 L'CJl//r,1t t "r I 11111!11di11.~ 1111/:11111 l1m1tu1w11. t11 gt1gn11,.,,. /Ir,"' h!) 1: >1'1' cf1111 I lru11, 1, r 11n.w1,i: 1111d 1/r11// 1ro1 I>< /w/>lc- m f<'l/11'< I,,(ti/II l11<r d.1111t1,i(<' ''' 1/><' / 11 /1111,,,., 1(<1/111"(' \\"/J(("/J /~ 1ill.\C c/ (II )//rl'I' /~11"/,1' (7)

16 Appendix 1 Sella Bank (Luxembourg) S.A. Sella Bank Luxembourg is held by Sella Holding BY and by Sella I folding Banca S.p.A. It exercises the banking activity, including the private banking, corporate banking and Salles des Marches activities. 2 The well-known events of the last management ( ) have undermined the credibility and the reputation of SBL on the market. Such a negative trend \.vas due to the necessity to fucc the provisions required by the litigations, arisen and only pa11ially dclined. and to the leaving or clients linked lo the worscnmg of the hank's rcputati on. 3 The research of a new impetus for the hank occurs in the most appropriate moment as the possibility to have an efficient and "safo" banking ~tructure becomes the condition sine qua non to be attractive towards the clients interested to the services rendered by a I.uxembourg bank. 4 The profit an<l loss account for the years shows a continuity of losses, nlong with a contraction of' the assets. In this respect, it is sufficient to recall such loss, taking into account that for year 2008 the negative result worse due to the write-down of the credit towards Lehman Brothers International (Europe) Ltd, currently in administration. and by the implementation or redundancy plan which involved the payment of money as incentive to the exit ( ) 2004 (J.615J48) 2005 ( ) 2006 ( ) 2007 ( l. l ) 2008 ( ) (8)

17 Appendix 2 Conditions to carry forward tax losses in Luxembourg A Legal requirements Article 114 LJTL 5 provides that a taxpayer can deduct as special expenses under anidc I 09 (l) 4 l.itl, tax losses incurred in the past in its business undertaking without any time limit provided that the following conditions arc met: (i) (ii) tiii) These tax losses could not have been used/deducted previously to offset other income or any debt waiver as foreseen hy aniclc 52 LITL ('ga111 d 'assai11isseme11t "); The accounting of the taxpayer is in line with general at:<.:<.:pled accounting principles; Only the business undertaking who suffered the tax loss can <.:arr) it forward. 2 This aniclc should be read taking into account the historical and econonm; background. B l listorical background 3 Before World War II ("WW II"), Luxembourg tax legislation denied the carry forward of tax losses in all cascs 6. During WW II. the German tax legislation was applied to Luxembourg according to > ordinances 7. The application of this Gcm1an direct tax legislation in Lux<.:mbourg was validated ultcr WW II by the Grnnd-ducal dc1.;rec dulcd 26 Odobcr 194-t. Based on this legislation, thi.! carry forward of tux losses was U\'ailablc under <.:i.!rtain conditions~. 5 Bill 11vs71 was ujoptcd by the law of 1967 which cnch.:tcd the current article 114 l.itl (fonncrly a1ticle 127). The cmtcnl article was not signi ticantly modi lied (except in 1990 to withdraw uny time limit to the carry forward of tux losses) since its enm:tment more than 40 years ago. 6 To u <.:e1iain extent, the current wording or artick 114 l.itl is no longer appropriate given th<: evolution of the economic market since To b.: rcjj \I ath 1lw Cucul.1r l-<11l'r I IR n'l 14 I Jull'tl IS S -plcrnbcr '.!00-i l'arhamc111:11y d1>11j111c11111' 571, ~0111mc111:iril'' 011 J1t1ck 127 of1hc Brll. p.346 and 'l'i Ordonr rnc, d11i- J 30 Scp11:111bc 1 I 'l IO ( V13ll p.17), Ordo1111a11cl' dutc'ci 25 Novc111h, r 1940 ( VBll I 9 IO. p 14 7), 01dn1111,uw, d<hcj31 lkccrnhl'r l 1 1.\\l(Vl31l. l9 10,p476) P.irhaml'lllOI) J111.umc111 n 'i71. curnmcntanc:. on urtick 1:?7 oftlw llrll. p 346 anj ~c-i (9)

18 7 For instance. the condition of identity between the business undettaking who suffered the tax loss and the one who can can-y forward it was ah initio provided with only commercial activities directly excrci/,cd hy individuals in mind and not specifically for corporations 9. Moreover, the concept of pru1ial division was only introduced in the Luxembourg legislation on June 10, Given this background. the requirement of identity of the individual is justified as taxes arc personal. Indeed. it should not be accepted that an individual can deduct a tax loss effectively suffered by another individual. Nevertheless. the tax legislation provides for an exception in case of a transfer of the business by succession where the beneficiary can dedud the tax losses incurred by the trans fcror provided he was rollcctively taxed with him at the time the tax losses were incu1tcd 1. This is a case of an authorized transfer as there arc different legal persons but there 1s only one taxpayer. 9 Article I 14 LJTL is applicable to corporations according to article 162 UTL and to the Grand-ducal Decree dated 3 Dcccinbcr The identity criterion hcing also applicable to corporations, the right to can-y forward tax losses should normally be denied only when there is a new legal cntity 1 ~. Doctrine confirms that tax losses arc maintained as long as the legal personality is not changed (sec the specific application of this principle in case of conversion as a specific provision of the law leads to the entitlement lo carry forward tax losses in this case) 1 '. According lo traditional doct1inc therefore, in case of a division where the divided company disappears. the tax losses should normally be lost 14 I 0 In this respect, it appears that article 114 LITL was enacted for individuals and not for corporations. The condition of identity required by aitidc 114 LIT!, is therefore not adapted to corporate reorganizations and was enacted before mergers and divisions verc introduced following EU company directives and before EU directive 90/434/EEC providing for tax neutrality in case of mergers and dcmcrgcrs. C Economic background 11 The economic analysis is generally applied in order to levy the appropriate taxes when the legal form of the transaction docs not correspond to the underlying real economic situation 15. " /\ S1t~1.:l1c11. l'n. u~ d..i;. dmi.l!i~ illa~.[m1 rcrns..;. ~004. p..\60. parap.raph ';111iamcn1ary d11<..11mc111s n' commcnl~ on a111clc l 21. p 346 nn<l,.,l'q. ' \rt1dc 2XX ni" the l:iw dated I 0 /\up.u~i l'amgr.iph I. a" amcmkd hy a11iclc ~g (lf lhc law d111.xl I 0.hnw 20<N ii 111 case o! 1wn or 111on: hcnclic1:11 i ~.1aA lm.~c's arc 1m11.\l"crrcd pm rata 1he11 ngh1' nccnr<lin!! lo lhc Circula1 Lc11c1n'114 I <lalc'(l 15 Sep I e111ocr I ' 11 Eh111ger. Rcck111gcr. rnpponcur:- mniommx. IFAC 1998, p.c.~0 : "/,fi 1rwuflir111at1111is de /)( r ,., mmr1/<.< tcllu </LU /1., 14 l"hlll1rc>llt'll/j de f()i 11/r SO< ih11i1 e a f '/11/rrir11r di.'s.~odf-tl>.f df' t11pita/.!("/.f,1 /fjll.i CIC I/Ill II 0 1~/{ccll /1/ J'a.t I'll dmil cfrj.mt"ihl;f fa pc r m 11l1. l'llli/1: 1111"id1q1w fo111i1111e dr 1 il'n s<>u.1 la m1'mt fnrmr, n "uffcur111 pm la ru1.i.iil>ili111f di' 1'Cf)()lf d1 prrt1.< 11 Elv111gl"1 R,'Ckingcr. 111J11Xlll"ur~ mllmnaux, IFA( 199~, p.627. I~! nr 111~1.Jlll:C. *6 of 1h, Adapw1iu11 L;iw fstcu cr~1npa~~lljl!!s!,!.csct.:r) 1cgunhng abu~~ o\" luw Fo1 1\trthcr 1ktails plcam' 1l'fc1 h 1\ St«1d1cn. Mill1ucl <led.mi! n.~l.11, Drrl!J..fig;ilL~.w;nli. r. I. Sainl l'aul. :!006. p and ~c-q ( 10)

19 11 The economic method derives from the German "Wirtsch<{(fliche Be1raclit1111gsweise" pr1nciple and is often applied by the Luxembourg courts. For mstunce, the Luxembourg Supreme Court has ad of tcd the economic approach to 1:malysc th1,; tax consequences of a legal ugrecmcnl 1 (Conseil d'elut 13 juillct 1955 n.5473 Parsic.:r. XVI page 352). As a result, in case of any discrepancy between the economic and legal position, the economic approach should prevail. This economi<.: approach 17 is notably applied regarding the ownership (legal \'S. cconomic) 1 x and also regarding the tax treatment or lease agrecmcnts Even if the application of the economical analysis is discus-;cd regarding the tax losscs 20 this approach is still interesting to analyze the consequences of the tax rules in case of business restructuring. Based on the current practice. it seems that onl y a kind or legal approach is adopted The cmt) forward of tax losses cunnot he considered as a fa\orablc tux m~asurc but as an essential tax provision to avoid any increase or the tax burden. If a business undertaking cannot caity forward part of its tax losses, the cffc<.:ti' c tux rate will be higher than the one dctcm1incd by the tax legislution (i.e. rnrrcntly 28.59% in Luxembourg City): C';HT)' fonvard of tax losses Authorizi:d No t Authorized Year I FUR ( ) ( 1, ) Yl.!ar 1 l:ur I,000,000 t,000,000 Year 3 EUR I, ,000,000 Ycur 4 EUR 1,000, Year 5 EUR 1,000,000 1, Ag~rrcgatc la\ rcsuh FUR 3, ,000 Nomu1al tax r:.11e 28.59~u 18 59~o Tax d11l' EUR Efft ctivl' ta\ rate (in % ) U 2 D Legal vs. economic approach 15 A<.:cording to the current practice, the conditions to carry forward tax losses should be considered from a legal standpoint. This analysis has recently been strengthened by the outcome nf a judgment from the Tribunal Adrninistratif dated 6 july 2009 (11 '.!3982) regarding the "Manlelkauf' Gennan theory. 1 C<>IN'd J'Hal D Jllilkt 111~5 n.5473 P: u~in XV I pag~ 35:! 17 J I' Wm;u'IJ) " ,.. 1,J!icJll,.,mm111qm d l"<'f'<jrl rle.1 f>l!rt<'l "" drmt /heal lr1w111bo11ri:c m.< " IFA AI rr. Dtc ll focal lu\1. 1nh..1uri:l'\ 1,, I_ 1' rr Ju htlilln:.ik I' I FA~blll.1<1nl>q tlrg. 13ruylant 2UOX, p J W. 1 b Rcy;11\lit1g the p11."1:;.'\l1. 11cc uf 1.'l:onom1c tlwm 1~l11p tt\'l.'r kgal OWl'ncrship ~ ' 1hc 1.uwml>uury AJ:1p1a1inn la" Jat1.-J Iii 01. 1ubc1 1 'll-1. 'i1c111:r.111p;.1.>>lllll!'l!1.~1. 11, Con,c1I d' Etat 15 July 1953 n1k n")'.!-1~. ~oc1c11. Natmnak J1.~ Ch1.1nm., de f1. r I u\1 ml>\1u1v1.i>h w1. al'" /\Jm1111st1a1Jvl.' Court, '.Ui June 2008, n"'.' I061C 1cg.1rding l'all 1.1ptwn' 011,har1.-: F1mh:s l i>l.'.il1, n 811. M:11d1 l'l~'i. l.c l...:1slll1l<.:!l.ilt.'ql.uhc,il. Cado l\tack. J'nbun.11 AJ111111i,1r.1111' 11 Jul) 200'1. n"'.!39x2 (;m : pj>l."ji v.a, mtn>juc1.-<l) ~~-.:.1bo J I' Wmand> 4pf rc <1f/t11m "1J11tm!l'{ll<', / tcjn 1/.'n i' 1,', n (1k<1i f /k1111~c o1.1" IF\ /\I EF. Dml\ Ii seal Ju\1 111Q!!.111r.co1-, Llln:Jl!illl,1m J~ I Jh\ I uxc11!llij.y_a:. U11Jyla111 '.'00~. p 19?.1ml ''-''i ( I I )

20 16 In this dec1s1on. the judges held that the provisions of article 114 LIT!. should he appl ied in the light of the general principles of law according to which there 1s no room for interpretation where there is a clear legal provision. As mticle 114 LITL refers lo legal concepts. the economic approach. even if it nonnally pre\ ails in case of discrepancy with the legal anal ysis, should not apply as far as tax losses arc concerned. 17 As an appeal was introduced against this judgment, the solution held in this case has to be taken with caution. However, the debate (legal vs. economic) regarding which analysis should be applied in order to appreciate the conditions to carry forward tax losses is not decisive as both analyses will lead to entitle New Bank to carry forward part or all the tax losses incumxl before the partial division E Partial division and tax losses 18 fhc cu1tcnt position regarding the carry forward of lax losses is neither driven by a ~anct economic approach nor a strict legal approach. Indeed. under both methods the lramdcr of ta"< losses would have been possible. 19 The transfer of all assets an<l linbililics is ruled by company law without liquidation of the company which is the subject of the partial division. Assets and liabilities should he passed to the new company ("New Bank'') resulting from the partial division. Indeed, according to article :?.88 of the law dated Au!,rusl 10. IC) 15. paragraph I, as amended by article 28 of the law dated June I : (< l.a scissio 11 par constitution de 11011vellcs sncil!tes est I 'opcmtio11 par!aq11cllc llll<'.\ ocic;t(i (... ) trm1.y{erc, sa11s dissolt11ion, u ou p/11sieurs societh; c//emc111 co11stit11jc.\. 1111e partic 011 I 'e11se111blc de son patrimninc, actil'<'lll<.!11! er f)(l\'sivcmenl, 11w1 c1111a11t / 'aurih11tio11 ci.ws associh d 'actions 011 de parts des socii!tc's hh1c;ficiaircs ct. frc111uelleme11t. d '1111<' so11/f( C'n espc;ces m dcpassant pas I W',, de la \'Ulcur 11om111alc des actions 011 parts uttribuc;cs 011. ci dq(aut de l'(l/c>ur i11alc. de l<'ur pair comptahle». 20 n1e traditional interprclation leads to applying a legal approach without recogni1.ing fully the legal effects. :?. I In order to fully follow the legal consequences of a panial division. the tax losses of the dcmcrged entity will he fully or partially transferred t<' the New Bank proportionally to the assets and liabilities transferred. 22 J\s a result, a similar reasoning as for individuals will be carried out (i.e. transfer of tax losses when the beneficiary was collcclivcly taxed with the transferor when the tax losses were incuncd) 22 Indeed: In ~ ll <: ol tw,,, lx:ndi",1111..,, t.i- ln~,l..,,1n: 1r;in,fl.'1Too pro r.lla rhl ir nl'l11, n'""1d111µ t thl t"ir~u l.11 l.lit. 1 n 11-1 I J.tlL'll ' ' S.:ptcmli..:1 : <Ml-I ( 12)

21 (ij (ii) New Bank continues part of the legal personality or the Bank (before the demcrger) and a transtcr of all assets and liahihties occurs without liquidation through which the acti vity of the Bank will be continued by!\cw Bank. Such transfer is highlighted by the fact that part of the share capital is cancelled in the Bank us it is allocated to the share capital of New Bank: New Bank was taxed together with the Bank before the partial dcmcrgcr. 23 Such analysis is not in breach of the position takc.m by the Tribunal Administratif in its recent judgment as such position would only recogni7c the full legal effects of a partial demcrgcr. The tax losses will tlwn be apportioned up to the lcvd or adivity trunsforrcd to New Bank. As, in the case at hand the whole banking activity- will be cxercized by New Bank, the full tax losses will be carried forward hy ~cw Bank only. ( 13)

22 Appendix 3 Overview of the becoming of tax losses in case o f demcrgers in our neighbor countries A The Netherlands Full demcrrcr In case of Cull dcmergcr (i.e. the divided company disappear), it is in principle not possible to transfer any existing tax losses available at the level of the divided entity to the beneficiary companies under Dutch tax law. ' I lowcvcr. based on a decree by the Dutch secretary of State implemented in Dutch tax law. it could he possible to transfer such tax losses to the beneficiary ~ompanies upon request and provided that certain conditions arc met: (i) (ii) Sound business reasons must exist, and: The total division must not result in a taxable profit. 3 The tax losses transferred arc then allocated to the beneficiary companies according to the transfcttcd business that caused these losses at the level or the divided company. f>artial demer;;;cr 4 In case of partial demcrgcr (i.e. the divided com puny remains and only transfer part of its activities to a beneficiary company). any existing tax losses available at the level of the existing company will remain at its levd only and cannot be trans fcrrcd. B Germany /)fr is ion 5 A division according to section 123 of the German Reorganization Act occurs when a legal entity may on dissolution without liquidation divide its assets and liabilities in exchange for the grant of shares or memberships in the following legal entities to the shareholders or the divided entity: (i) (ii) by means of acquisition through the concurrent transfer of the parts or assets and liabilities, cad1 time collectively. to other existing legal entities (receiving legal entities). or by means of the formation of a new company th rnugh the concurrent transfer of the parts of assets and liabilities. each time collectively. to other new legal cntities ro1111cd by it this way ( 14)

23 6 In case or division, tax losses of the transferring entity will not be transforred to the bencliciary companies. This rule is new (applicable for transactions occurring alter the end of2006) and wa designed in order to avoid some kind of abuse. Farria/ di1 isio11 7 A partial division according t'o section I 23 of the German Reorganization Act occurs when a legal entity may separate one or several parts from its assets and liahil1lit.:s in exchange for the grant or shares or memberships in the fi.>llowing legal entities to the shareholders of the divided entity: (i) (ii) by means or acquisition through tht: transfer of such part or such paits, t:ach time collectively, to one or more existing legal entities (receiving legal entities). or by means of the fonnation of a 1ww company through tht: transfer or sul:h part or such parts, each time collectively. to one new entity or several new legal entities formed by this way 8 In case of partial di vision, any remaining tax losses of the divided company shall he n.:duccd at the ratio at which, taking the fair market val ue as a basis. assets and liabilities arc transferred to the beneticiary companies. The bcncli<.:iury companies howe\ er cannot use any tux losses of the divided company. This rule is new as before the end of 2006, tax losses could have bet.:n transfc1tcd provided that ce 1ain conditions were mt:t. Spin-0//'b.1 opaalio11 <4 law 9 A spin-off by operation of law according to section 123 of the German Reorganization Act occurs when a legal entity may spin off one or several parts of its assets an<l liabilities in exchange for the grant of shares or memberships m the followmg legal entities to the shareholders of the divitk<l entity: liii) (iv) by means of acquisition through the transfor of' such part or su1,;h parts, cat.:h tim1.: c:oll~ctively, to one or more existing legal entities (receiving!<.!gal entities), or by means of the flirmation of n new company through the transfer of such part or such pans. each time co llectively, to one new entity or several new legal entities fonned by this way I 0 In case or spin-off. tux losses of the divided company remain at its level and t:unnot be transf'crrcd tu the bern.:liciciry companit:s. (15)

24 C France Full dcmcrger! I Jn case or foll <lcmcrger (i.e. the divided company disappear), it is in principle not possihlc lo transfer any existing lax losses available at the level of the divided entity to the beneficiary companies under French tax law. 12 However. if the transaction can benefit from the tax neutral dcrncrgcr regime, the transfer of' tax losses could then be obtained provided that certain conditions arc met and if an administrative agreement is obtained: (v) Sound business reasons must exist and the dcmcrger mu~ t be realized for reason other than tax reasons; (vi) The activity which caused the tax losses should be continued for at least 3 years. 13 The tax losses transferred arc in principle apportioned between the beneficiary companies depending on the activities transferred. J>auial denu!tgc'r 14 In case of partial dcmerger (i.e. the di vided company remains), it is in principle not possible to transfer any existing tax losses available at the level of the divided entity to the beneficiary compan ies under French lax law. 15 I lowcver, i r the transaction can benefit from the tax neutral dcmerger regime~ \ the transfer or lax losses could then be obtained provided that certain conditions arc met and if an administrative agreement is obtained: (vii) (viii) Sound business reasons must exist and the demcrgcr must be realized for reason other than tax reasons; The activity which caused the tax losses should be continued for at least J years. l 6 The lax losses transforrcd arc in principle apporiioncd depending on th~ activities trans!erred. D Belgium Full dc111erger 17 In case of full <lcmergcr (i.e. the di vided company disappear), it is in principle not possibk to transfer any existing tax losses available at the level of the divided entity to the beneficiary companies under Belgian tax Jaw., \ 1 ht.: l11x neut ml Ucm.. :rg~1 should c.onc~tn a auwnonlclus hranch <1f activity or._t~s1m1latlxl d~incnt~ t ~ ~ta~tlwlj~t llf nwn: Lllan S{l 41 o h r 111stancc\ ( 16)

25 18 J l(m ever, ir the transaclion can benefit from the tax neutral demcrger n.:gimc 24 the translcr of tax losses could then be obtained. 19 The transfer of tax losses is apportioned based on the net fiscal value or the transfc1ted business. In this respect, division with beneficiary companies newly im:orporated will in principle lead lo the possibility lo transfer more tax losses than when existing companies are beneficiaries (due to the computation method}. Nevertheless, the beneficiary company will not be entitled to deduc;t any tax losses i r its net fiscal value prior to the division was nil. Partial de111erger 20 In case of partial demerger (i.e. the divided company remains). it is in principle not possible to transfer any existing tax losses available at the le\ el of the divided entity to the beneficiary companies under Belgian lax law. 21 I lowe, er, if the transaction can benefit from the tax neutral dcmcrger n:gimc 25. the transfer of tax losses could then be obtained under the same conditions as for a full de1rn.:rger. E Conclusion 22 Two of our neighbors have opted for the possible trans for of tax losses in case of a partial division provided that they are apportioned dl!pcnding on certain economic criteria. This practice is in fact the recognition of the universal transfer that occurs from a kgal standpoint. 23 Moreover, in case or full demcrgcr, 3 count ii cs out of 4 authorize the trans for of the tax losses to the new companies.?.a 'icv1.. ml ~\.H1d 1 tions,ar1.: rc4l11n.:d and rnhuhly s.uund 1.."C()ll(>1111c R':L,tHb!~ Scvt:ral comhl1ons,1n: r~;4ui1l1i an,t not~1b1y sound "'-cononuc r~-;bu~ ( 17)

26 Appendix 4 Non application of anti-abuse provisions A Non application of the "Mantelkauf', German theory In case of a corporate restructuring, regarding the wnscqucnccs on the tax losses, one issue al stake is notably to determ ine whether the so-called Geiman "Mantelkaul" thcory'.! 6 applies in Luxembourg. As Luxembourg tax legislation stems from German tax legislation. it is possible to refer tn German case law and legislation. 2 The "\tlantelkaut'' theory was implemented in the German tax legislation in According to this theory, the use of losses is denied in case of change of shareholder. if there is also substantial change in the activities of the transfcned company. 3 In Luxembourg, the sole provision rcgardi ng tax losses is article I 14 (2) 3 LlTL which docs not refer to the "Mantelkaur theory and only provides that tax losses may only he used by the company which has effectively incurred them. The enacted Luxemhourg tax provisions regarding tax losses were not changed since I <J4 I except for enabling taxpayers lo unlimited carry fonvarcj of tax losses as from he change in the German tax law which occurred in 1990 was not followed by any amendment in Luxembourg to implement such changes in the domestic tax law. 4 Thus, there arc strong arguments to consider that the "Manlclkaur theory resulting from the 1990 Gcnnan tax reform cannot be applied in Luxembourg as the Luxembourg tax legislation derives from a fom1cr version of the German law.!n this respect, the Luxembourg Courts already decided on another topic that German la\\ cannot he referred to when, further to a change, Gcmrnn and L uxcmbourg tax legislation arc no more similar 17. 5!he relevant GcnTian case law for Luxembourg is therefore the case lav,, applicahlc before the 1990 change in the Gcnnan tax legislation. The Geiman Supreme Cou rt ~ 11 in 1986 denied the application of the economic identity (i.e. "Mantclkauf' thcor;) in two decisions according to the legislation in force before As a result, doctrine considers that the principles determined tn these cases should h1.: applied. i.e. non application of the "Mantclkaur theor/' in case of sale of shares. ~~ (icnnan\ J111c111kd "' 111.\ kµ1~lnt1on ll'g;:irdrn!l t.1\ lo~\('$ in IQC)ll hy 111tr'11<1u('ll1t1tlw1... qui1c111c11t,,f c.;n111'111ic i1k-nhty A' a n suli. 1.1\ low~.11\' 10,1 111 c;l'c of ;1 chml!'c 111' ~ wnonuc idcnt1l)i hy J 1ra1L,lc1 of 50" nf lhl' sha11, hdu cjp1t<il compan}.m,j ;1 cn mn <'f tlu ar11vi1y wuh s1i:nilican1 New L"Sl"tS con1rihu1.xl hy the \lcw.. 1t.1rchnkkr.. Tnhunal Ad1111nis1ra11f ~ ' O.;tohcr ~006. N" I 9'l:?5 2 ~ BFll llncil wm :!CJ O.:tnhcr! 1~6(1 R 'IR '191\.W BStBI S Jiil. ll!-11 V<'lll :!(>Octl'h.:r 19SfJ, IR :112.~~.!l'J J P \\'1n;md~. ['1,\f;.tl1t,~ \'I s:omj>l\.~ annµ~i~ ill:_, cnlrgirj~c"!. ~00~. fl.'5n. Jlat~J'rJrh ( 18)

27 6 A rcc<.:nt Luxembourg j udgment dated July 6, '..WO<J (n 23982) also stated that this German theory cannot be applied in Luxl:mbourg (an appeal was introduced by the Luxemh~)Urg Tax Authorities). In the situation dealt \\.1th b) the Tribunal Administrutif, a taxpayer incurred tax losses during a period when its purpose was limited to a spcci lie activity. Three years later, the shares or the wmpany arc sold to a nc\\ investors and the purpose of the company is broaden so that totally new at:tivitics arc carried out by the taxpayer but it can benefit from the tax losses accumulated before. The Luxembourg Tax Authorities denied the carry forward of thcst.: tax losses based on the "Mantclkaul'' theory and an economic approach. l lowcver. the judges held that when the law refers to legal concepts (here tax losses should be uttacht.:d to the IL:ga! personality), only a legal approach should be applied us Lhl!rc is no room for interpretation when the law is clear. Therdi.HT. the application 01' the Mantelkauf theory in Luxembourg was not recog11i1.cd by the Trihunal Administrati rand the company was entitled to eurry forward the tax losses as its lcgul personality was not altered. 7 In any ease, should the "Mantclkaul'' theory be consiclcrcd as applicable in Luxembourg (which is not our position). it should also be stressed that said theory will not be applil:able in the case at hand as the condition relating to a change or activity is nnt complied with. B Non application of the abuse of law theory 8 The tax cnnscql1ences applied to a transaction might be challenged in case of' abuse of law 1 u An abuse of law exists 31 when: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) There is an abuse of the fom1 and intcqjrctations ol'the civil legislation: in order to avoid taxation: by using an inappropriate structure or transaction: without sound reasons (for instance economic reasons) justifying sueh choice other than tax reasons. 9 In the case at hand, there will be no ubuse of law as the partiul division is justified by economic reasons. Therefore. the choice of a division is cconomieally and legall )' l:<.llnpell ing 11. '" ' I he th~ ~,f.. m 11htp1lrupriJh.. ' stnl\,;lutc of tr~m,.1~t1tm l.!:ao J.h.:fin\. J J'.'-1 the u:tu~al lo u~ a nu:an-.. tli;.n lhc: k y.1,lahn t..:lln~h.kr... -J.. 1~ Jlfl"'Jlrlilh:.111J I rnmmun '.:n'" 10 rcalh th«"cllllllm1c c11ji> (J.p W111.1ml>. l.~hu, de d11111 d la '111w!l!\J1 11 qt Jn n li:«.al luw111hourr,~'ih\,!lx>4 p I ::! 1 1, n' J<;:q ( 19)

28

29 Appendix 2 Decision of the Court of Appeal dated 4 February 2010 (27)

30

31 GRAND-DUCHE OE LUXEMBOURG COUR ADMINISTRATIVE Numero du role : 25957C lnscrit le 6 aout 2009 Audience publigue du 4 fevrier 2010 Appel forme par l'etat du Grand-Duche de Luxembourg cont re un jugement du tribunal administratif du 6 juillet 2009 (n du role) dans un litige l'opposant a la societe... s.a r.i.,... en matiere d'impot sur le revenu des collectivites Yu l'acte d'appel, inscrit sous le numero 25957C du role, depose au greffc de la Cour administrative le 6 aout 2009 par Madame le delcguc du gouvcrnement Monique ADAMS pour compte de l'etat du Grand-Duchc de Luxembourg, sur base d'un mandat lui confere le 16 juillet 2009 par le ministre des Finances, dirige contre un jugement rendu par le tribunal administratif le 6 juillet 2009, declarant fondc le recours en reformation introduit par la societe a responsabilite limitee... s.a r. I., etablie et ayant son siege social a L-..., inscrite au registre de commerce ct des societes de Luxembourg sous le numcro B.., rcprescntee parses gerants actuel lement en fonctions, a l'cncontrc des bulletins de l'impot sur Jc rcvenu des collcctivites pour Jes annccs 2002 et 2003, em is respectivement le 25 janvier et le I er fevricr 2006 par le bureau d'imposition Soeietcs. et reformant lesdits bulletins dans le sens que les pertes reportables declarees par la societe... au titre des annees 1995 ct 1996 sont deductibles en tant que depenses speciales au sens de!'article I 14 LIR, confonncrnent aux motifs enonces dans le corps dud it jugement ; Yu le memoire en reponse, intitule «memoire en rcpliquc», depose au greffe de la Cour administrative le 4 septembre 2009 par Maltre Bernard PELTEN, avocat a la Cour, inscrit au tableau de l'ordre des avocats a Luxembourg, pour compte de la socictc a responsabilitc limitce... s.a r.i. ; Vu le mcmoire en replique depose au grcffe de la Cour administrative le 14 octobre 2009 par Madame le delegue du gouvcrnement Monique ADAMS pour compte de l'etat du Grand-Duche de Luxembourg;

32 Vu les pieces versees en cause ct notamment le jugement entrepris ; Le rappo1tcur entendu en son rapport, ainsi que Madame le delcguc du gouvcrncmcnt Monique ADAMS ct Maltre Isabelle GIRAULT, en remplaccment de Maitre Bernard f.'elten, en leurs plaidoiries respectives a!'audience publiquc du 15 deccmbre Dans ses declarations pour l'imp6t sur le revenu des collectivites ct pour l' imp6t commercial communal des annees 2002 et 2003, deposces respectivement le 22 decembre 2003 ct le 29 octobre 2004, la societe a responsabilite limitee... fit etat au titre de dcpenses spcciales de pertes d'exploitation reportablcs d'un montant de rcspcctivement ,36 ct ,48. Le bureau d'imposition Socictes. de la section socictes du service d'imposition de!'administration des Contributions directes, ci-apres designe par le «bureau d'imposition», emit en date du 25 janvier 2006 a l'egard de la societe...!es bulletins de l' impot sur le revenu des collectivites, ainsi que les bulletins de l'imp6t commercial communal pour les annees 2001 et Le lcr fevricr 2006, le bureau d'imposition ctablit le bulletin de l'imp6t sur le rcvcnu des collcctivitcs ainsi quc le bulletin de l' imp6t commercial communal pour l'annee Par lettre de son mandataire du 13 avril 2006, la socicte... introduisit unc reclamation aupres du dircctcur de!'administration des Contributions dircctcs, ci-aprcs dcsigne par le «directeur», contre les bulletins d'impot des annees 2001a2003, en se plaignant du fait que le bureau d'imposition n'avait pas admis le repott des pe1tes subies par la societe au titre des cxcrciccs 1995 ct I 996. Par decision du 31 mai 2006 (n C du role), le dirccteur rcjcta la reclamation de la societc... en cc qu'cllc est dirigee contrc le bulletin de l'impot sur le rcvcnu des collectivites de l'annee 2001, comme irrecevable pour defaut d'interet dans la mesure ou le montant de l' impot sur le revenu des collectivites avait ete fixe a zero franc. Le directeur precisa dans la meme decision que «Les reclamations contre Les bulletins de / 'impot sur le revenu des collectivites des annees 2002 et 2003 [sont] disjointes pour etre videes separement )), Aucunc decision cmanant du directeur n'etant ccpcndant intcrvenuc conccrnant!cs annces 2002 ct 2003, la societe... introduisit, par requete deposec au grcffe du tribunal administratif le 24 janvier 2008, un rccours tcndant a la reformation, sinon a l'annulation des bulletins de l'impot sur le rcvcnu des collectivites pour!es annees 2002 et 2003 precites. A travers un jugement du 6 juillet 2009, le tribunal administratif re~ut en la forme le recours principal en reformation et declara le recours subsidiaire en annulation irrecevable. Quant au fond, ii rejeta d'abord le moyen de la societe... tire du defaut par le bureau d'imposition de l'avoir informe, prealablement a!'emission des bulletins litigicux, de son intention de refuser le report des pertcs des annees L 995 et 1996 au motif que la divergence mise en avant par la partie demandercssc, tant a travcrs sa reclamation qu'a travers son recours contentieux, ne provenait d'aucun ajout quelconque d'elements ou de donnees par rapport a ceux produits a travers sa declaration d' impot, mais qu'elle s'analysait en une question d'application de la loi qui releve de la competence du bureau d'imposition, seul appele a appliquer les dispositions legates et a apprecier si les conditions legales d'application de ce1taines deductions y prevues, et notamment cellcs du report de pc1tcs anterieures, sont reunies. 2

33 Concemant la prctention au fond de la societe... au report de ses pertes des exercices 1995 et 1996 et!'argumentation opposee par l'etat que la condition legale d'identite ne se trouverait pas remplie dans le chef de la societe... au motif que celle-ci aurait subi, suite a sa reprise en 1998 par la societe..., des changements tels qu'elle nc scrait plus la mcme sur base d'unc appreciation cconomique des faits,!'operation s'analysant plutot en un achat de manteau societaire («Mantelkm1())), le tribunal dcgagea de!'article 114 de la Joi modifiec du 4 dcccmbrc 1967 concernant l'impot sur le revcnu, en abregc «LlR», quc pour qu'une socictc puisse bencficier du report en avant des pcrtes essuyees, ii fallait notamment qu'il y ait identite entre la societe qui a subi la perte et celle qui la reporte et que cette condition d'identite est, en vertu de I' article I 62 LIR, egalement applicable aux collectivites. Ensuite, le tribunal retint que c'est le contribuable qui peut dcduire commc dcpense specialc lcs pcrtcs et qu'en presence d'unc personnc morale soumise a l'impot sur le rcvcnu des collectivitcs, c'est la personne morale qui est le contribuable assujetti a l'impot. II estima que!'article I 14 LIR soulevc partant la question de savoir si la verification de l'identite de celui qui a subi la perte et de celui qui la reporte est a faire sur la base de criteres juridiques ou sur la base de critcrcs cconomiqucs. Pour repondre a cette question, le tribunal rappela d'abord que Jes lois fiscales sont avant tout d'interpretation stricte, ccci dans le souci de garantir la securite juridique ct que s'il existc un principe d'interprctation en droit fiscal qui veut quc les fails ct actcs juridiques soient apprccics d'aprcs leur realit6 economiquc, ii n'en demcurcrait pas moins que lorsque le droit fiscal utilise des notions du droit des societes, comme en!'occurrence cellc de la socicte a responsabilite limitcc, ii conviendrait d'interprcter cette notion dans le sens qu'elle a en droit des societes, a moins qu'il ne ressorte du texte meme que le legislateur ait voulu donncr un autre sens a cette notion, en privilegiant notamment la situation economique par rapport aux formcs juridiques. Ensuite, ii considera qu'il nc resulterait ni du libellc de!'article 114 Lffi, ni de sa ratio legis que le lcgislateur fiscal ait voulu subordonner le droit au report des pertes a!'existence d'unc identite de l'entreprisc d'apres des critcres economiques et que le droit au report des pertes de la collectivite serait uniquement conditionne par la qualite de socictc au sens du droil des societcs, sans que la loi se referc a d'autrcs criteres tels quc l'idcntite des assocics ou Jes activites de Ia societe. II se rcfera encore a une solution semblable retenue par deux arrets de la Cour supreme fiscalc allemande ( «Bundesfinanzhof») du 29 octobre 1986 dans le sens que lorsquc le droit fiscal sc rcfcrc aux situations de droit civil, ii serait aussi lie par le droit civil. En l'especc, cu cgard au caractcre inconteste des pertcs subies par la societe... au titre des annccs 1995 ct 1996 et nonobstant!es changcmcnts signi ficati fs en 1998 dans la mesurc ou notamment l'integralite du capital social de la societe... a etc cedee a un associe unique, la societe devenant ainsi une societe a responsabilite limitee unipersonnelle, et ou son objct social a etc etendu pour permettre en dehors de l'activite de ]'exploitation d'une brasserie avec debit de boissons alcooliqucs ct non alcooliques cellc de travaux d'installation de chauffagc, de ventilation ct de climatisation, le tribunal retint que tous ces changcments n'ont pas cu d'incidence sur la personnalite juridiquc de la societe... et decida qu'en l'especc, la condition de ]'article 114 (2) numero 3 LIR est remplie et que partant!es pertes reportees au titre des cxercices 1995 et 1996 sont deductibles des benefices des exerciccs 2002 et 2003 en tant que dcpenses speciales au sens de!'article 114 LIR, et dans!es limitcs prevues audit article, de sorte quc les bulletins de l'impot sur le revenu des collectivites dcfcres etaient a reformer en ce sens. Par rcquetc dcposee au grcffc de la Cour administrative le 6 aoot 2009, l'etat a regulicrcmcnt fa it rclcvcr appel de cc jugement du 6 juillet

34 II y a lieu de preciser liminaircmcnt que suite aux plaidoiries ct a la prise en delibere de l'affairc a!'audience du 15 deccmbre 2009, le mandatairc de la societe... a adrcsse a la Cour le 24 dcccmbre 2009 un courrier a travcrs lcqucl ii a fourni a la Cour ce1taines precisions quant a certains volets de la plaidoiric du dclcguc du gouvernement. Dans la mcsurc cependant ou ce courrier a ete soumis aprcs la prise en delibere de l'affaire sans que la partic intimee n 'ait ete autorisee par la Cour a fourni r un memoire supplementaire, celle-ci nc saurait en tcnir comptc. A l'appui de son appel, l'etat rcprochc aux premiers juges qu'en decidant que la verification de l'idcntite de cclui qui a subi la pertc dcvrait ctrc opcrcc non pas sur base de la realite economique des faits, mais sur base cxclusivcmcnt de critcrcs juridiques, ils auraicnt fait unc interpretation erronee de!'article 114 (2) n 3 LIR ct meconnu le principc fondamcntal de droil fiscal de I 'appreciation d'aprcs des criteres economiqucs. L'Etat rappclle que la societe..., constituec le 10 aoot 1994 avec l'objet d'exploitcr unc brasserie avcc debit de boissons, aurait realise au cour s des annees 1995 et 1996 des pcrtes d'cxploitations respectivemcnt de LUF et de LUF et qu'elle aurait dct vcndrc son fonds de commerce durant l'annec 1995, de manicre a avoir pcrdu son objet social a partir de cc moment. Une asscmblec generalc des associes tcnuc le 29 decembrc 1998 aurait consacre la transformation de la substance de la societe... au motif qu'a!'exception du nom de la societe, tout aurait ete modific, a savoir lcs associes (cession integrale des 500 parts), la forme juridique (s.a r.l. unipersonnelle), l'objet social et l'activite, le mode de cession des parts sociales, les personncs en charge de la gestion et le siege social. De la sorte, l'activite materielle de cettc societe aurait etc mutec en unc activite purement financierc ct clle serait devcnue une SOPARFI classiquc, de sorte que cette operation s'analyscrait en une transformation complete de sa substance cl en la creation d'unc nouvelle cntitc cconomique. Ces modifications dcmontreraient que le nouvcl associe unique, la societe anonyme..., aurait tout simplement acquis la «carcasse» de la societc... avcc les pertes accumulees par celle-ci au cours des annees 1995 et En droit, l'etat se prevaut de!'autonomic du droit fiscal en tant que branche du droit public ct de l' inapplicabilite en la matiere en decoulant du droit des societes, domine par le principc de!'autonomic de la volonte privec ct de la libertc contractuclle, le droit fiscal etant en particulicr caractcrisc par le principe de!'appreciation d'aprcs des critcres cconomiques, dccoulant du principe d'egalite devant l' impot afin de luttcr contre les evasions fiscales par des constructions juridiques attificiellcs ct!'utilisation abusive des formes du droit prive. A l'instar d'autrcs dispositions legales, telles les S, 6 et 11 de la loi d'adaptation fiscale du 16 octobre 1934, dite «Steueranpassungsgesetz» (StAnpO), l 'a11icle 114 (2) n 3 LIR s'insererait dans la memc logique ct cxigcrait la continuite de l' identite de la societe qui a cssuye la pcrte d'un point de vue cconomiquc et de la societe admisc au report de cettc pc1tc,!'examen de cette condition pouvant valablement faire conclure fiscalcment a la creation ou constitution d'unc nouvelle unite economique dissocicc de ccllc ayant subi Jes pcrtes antcricurcs des lors que l' identite economique dans le chef de la personne concernee n'est pas assurec. Ainsi, en l'espece, les changements apportes a la socicte... a travers l'assemblee genera le du 29 decembre 1998 auraient emporte, d 'un point de vue economique et fiscal, la creation d'unc nouvelle entite economiquc cnveloppee dans le «manteau» d'une ancienne cntitc ct la societe... aurait ainsi pu cxerccr unc nouvelle activitc profitable dont les benefices pourraicnt echappcr a!'imposition s'ils ctaicnt absorbes par lcs pertes de l'activitc antericurc. La partic ctatiquc soutient que la jurisprudence allemande invoqucc par le tribunal scrait isolcc ct aurait provoquc!'intervention du legislatcur allcmand a travers!'introduction d'unc disposition legale en sens contraire. L'Etat conclut quc la decision du bureau d'imposition de ref user le report des pertes en cause a la societc... scrait «en concordance paifaite avec /es 4

35 textes et principes traditionne/lement applicables en droit allemand» et que la solution relenue par le tribunal adminislratif impliquerait que le report de pertes ne pourrait plus jamais etre refuse meme en presence d'une substitution complete des proprietaires d'une societe et d'un changcmcnt fondamental de son acti vitc, de manicre a encourager des rcstructurations societaircs par des constructions juridiques ftctivcs ct a ouvrir «ainsi la porte a un grand nombre d 'abus de droit non admis par le 6 StAnpG». La societe... dcmande la confirmation de!'analyse faite par le tribunal et de la solution par lui degagcc. Elle insiste plus particulieremcnt sur ce que la loi fiscale serait d'interpretation stricte, que le but de la loi serait de pennettre a la personne morale de deduire des pertes anterieures, qu'en consequence, le droit au report de pertes scrait seulement conditionne par la qualite de socicte au sens du droit des socictcs et quc la LlR, dont notamment!'article 114, ne SC refcrerait pas a d'autres critcres tenant a l'identitc economique de celui qui invoque le report de pertes anterieures. Elle critique encore le deleguc du gouvemement pour avoir tente de minimiser la portee de la jurisprudence allemande citee par le tribunal ct estime quc cette jurisprudence demontrerait l'impossibilite pour les juges d'appliquer une interpretation sur base de critcres economiques sans violer certains principes fondamentaux du droit. Elle fait encore valoir que si son objct statutairc a certes etc ctendu vcrs l'activite d'installation de chauffages et autrcs, aucunc activite rccllc n'aurait etc cntamec en cc sens et quc le changement d'associes en 1998 aurait implique des beneficiaires economiques de la mcme famillc, I' actionnaire de la societe... ctant un membre de la famille des associes d'origine. Dans la mesure ot1 elle aurait maintenu dans son objet statutaire et continue en fait son activite originaire de debit de boissons, elle ne saurait etre qualifiee de «coquille vide» et le report des pertes des exercices 1995 et 1996 ne saurait etre qualific d'abus de droit. I/article 114 LIR dispose comme suit: «(I) Le contribuable peut, dans /es conditions deflnies au second a/inea, deduire a titre de depenses speciales, /es pertes survenues au cours des exercices d 'exploitation clotures apres le 31decembre1990 dans son en/reprise commerciale (... ). (2) la deductibilite des reports deflcitaires est subordonnee aux conditions suivantes: (... ) 3. Seu/ celui qui a subi la perte peut la porter en deduction. Toutefois, en cas de transmission de l 'entreprise ou de /'exploitation par succession, le successeur peut faire valoir la perte a condition qu 'ii ail fail 1 'objet d'une imposition collective avec le cedant a / 'epoque oi1 la perte est survenue». II y a lieu de rappeler liminairement que le droit au report de pertes subies du chef d'exercices d'expjoitation anterieurs est considere non pas comme une mesure de faveur pour le contribuable, mais comme une mesure corrective necessaire par rapport a l'annualite de l'impot afin de tenir compte de la capacite contributi ve effective du contribuablc sur une pcriode dcpassant un scul exercicc d'imposition (cf. notamment projet de loi conccrnant l'impot sur le revenu, commentaire des articles, doc. parl , ad art. 127, p. 232; TIPKE LANG: Steuerrecl1t, 18 edit, p. 232; Alain STCICHEN: Manuel de Droitjisca/, t. 2, p. 1266; Jean-Pierre WINANDY : Fiscalite et comptes annuels des entreprises, edit. Portal is, p. 344), de manicre que ce droit doit etre reconnu au contribuablc en principe des lors que les conditions legates se trouvent reunies. 5

36 F.n disposant que «seul celui qui a subi la perte peut la porter en deduction», l'atticle 114 (2) n 3 LIR impose, commc le tribunal l'a rctcnu ajustc titre, unc idcntitc cntrc le contribuable ayant supporte economiquement la pcrtc ct cclui qui invoquc son report sur un exercice subsequent. Au vreu de!'article 162 (L) LIR, cette condition trouvc egalemcnt application aux collectivites soumises a l'impot sur le revenu des collectivites. Or, en qualifiant dans son a11icle 159 les societes de capitaux, dont Jes societes a responsabilite limitee, de contribuables passibles de l'impot sur le revenu des collectivites, la LIR a reconnu quc ces formcs de societes sc distinguent par leur structure autonome - en cc que Jeur activite s'cxcrcc par le truchemcnt de lcurs organes statutaircs et non pas directement par lcurs associes - ct par le risque entrepreneurial assume par elles, les socictcs, a!'exclusion des assocics non soumis a une responsabilite illimitce pour Jes dcttcs de l'entreprise (cf. projet de loi concernant l'impot sur le revenu, avis du Conseil d'etat, doc. parl , p. 106 ; Henri MICHELS: L 'imp6t sur le revenu des collectivites, Etudes FiscaJcs n s 39/40, p. 7; Alain STEICHEN : Manuel de Droit fiscal, t. 2, p. 1058). II s'ensuit que les societes de capitaux doivcnt ctrc qualifiees de contribuables au mcme pied que!es contribuablcs pcrsonncs physiques. C'est partant a justc titre quc le tribunal a decide quc c'est la socictc de capitaux qui est le contribuable assujetti a l'impot, tout comme ii a valablement conclu quc le droit au repo11 des pertes dans le chef d'une collectivite est uniquement conditionne par la qualite de societe au sens du droit des societes et par l'identite juridique de la personne morale. Quant a la question, soulevee par!'argumentation etatique, de savoir si ce critere de I 'idcntite juridique de la societe de capitaux pretendant au report de pertcs antcrieures doit etrc dcdoublc d'un critcre cconomique en ce sens quc la substance de la societe entrevuc a la fois d' un point de vue materiel et personnel doit avoir subsiste entre le moment de la realisation de la perte et cclui de son report, c'est encore a juste titre quc le tribunal a denie l'applicabilite de piano d'un tel critere. En effet, applicable de la sortc, celui-ci serait constitutif d'une entorse au principe de la reconnaissance des societes de capitaux en tant que contribuables ainsi qu'au caractcre correctif du report de pertes par rapport a l'annualite de l'impot et nc saurait partant ctre applique a defaut d'etre prevu comme tel par unc disposition legalc applicable en maticrc d'impot sur le revenu. Or, ni la LIR, ni plus particulierement son titre II relatif a l' impot sur le rcvenu des collectivites ne comportent unc disposition expresse tendant a requerir le maintien d'une identite economique dans le chef d'une societe de capitaux comme condition pour pouvoir pretendre au report de pertes d'exerciccs antcrieurs. Un tel critere ne peut non plus etre deduit de!'article 162 (I) LIR in fine, cette disposition tendant a cxclure en general!'application d'une disposition du titre (er a tous Jes organismes collectifs au motif quc son application est dans!'intention du legislateur limitcc aux pcrsonncs physiques. En outrc, la Cour rejoint le tribunal en son analyse qu'il nc sc dcgagc ni du libelle de!'article 114 LIR, ni de sa ratio legis, les travaux parlementaires relatifs a la LIR restant en effet muets sur Jes conditions du report de pertes dans le chef de societes, quc le legislatcur fiscal ait voulu subordonner le droit au report des pcrtcs a!'existence d'une identite de l'entreprise d'apres des criteres economiques. D'un autre cote, la Cour tient a preciser que le defaut de pouvoir appliquer de piano, comme dccoulant des dispositions specifiques de la LIR, une condition imposant une idcntitc cconomique de la socicte d'un point de vue materiel et personnel nc saurait avoir pour cffct d'exclurc d'officc ct en toute hypothese une appreciation cconomiquc d'unc operation concrete afin de verifier si elle n'est pas constitutive d'un abus de droit dont!'existence devrait etre admise au cas ou la personnalite juridique et fiscale de la socicte scrait utilisee aux seules fins de contourner le caractere personnel du droit au repo11 de pertes et 6

37 !'interdiction en decoulant d'une transmission desdites pertes dans le seul but d'user des pertes reportables afin d'eviter!'imposition des benefices afferents. Les circonstances que le report de pertes soit reclame par une societe ayant cesse dans le passe son activite anterieure et n'ayant plus dispose d'un actif social d'une valeur economique relevante, que les parts de cette socicte aient ete cedees a de nouveaux associes et que cettc societc excrce ensuite une activitc cnticrcment differcnte, cventuellement deja antcricurc dans le chef des nouveaux associes, et profitable doivcnt etre qualifiees d'indices dans le sens de I 'existence d' un abus de droit. Dans l'hypothese ou un tel abus de droit au sens du 6 ( I) StJ\npG se trouverait verifie, le report de pertes d'exercices anterieurs devrait etre refuse conformement au 6 (2) StAnpG. En l'espece, ii est vrai que la societe... a subi des changements significatifs en 1998 dans la mcsurc 011 notamment I 'integralite de son capital social a etc ccdce a un associe unique, la societc devenant ainsi une socicte a responsabi lite limitee unipersonnelle et que son objet social a etc ctendu pour permettre en dehors de l'activite de!'exploitation d'une brasserie avec debit de boissons alcooliques et non alcooliques celle de travaux d'installation de chauffage, de ventilation et de climatisation, tandis que!es personnes en charge de la gestion de la societe ont ete remplacees. D'un autre cote, la socicte... a realise, d'apres les indications des parties, un benefice de LUF en 1997, un benefice de LUF en 1998 ct un benefice de LUF en 1999, mais une perte de LUF en l'annee La socicte... affirme en outre avoir en realite continue son activite de debit de boissons et son mandatairc a declare a!'audience qu'elle aurait certes sollicite une autorisation d'etablissement pour les activites d'installations de chauffage, de ventilation et de climatisation, mais qu'elle aurait par la suite renonce a l'exercice de ces activites. Par ailleurs, ii se dcgage d'un courrier du gerant de la societe... du 26 juin 2002 a l'adresse du bureau d'imposition qu'a cc moment cctte societe avait pour activite!'organisation de spectacles, la decoration, la formation de personnel, la gerancc de cafes/restaurants, la misc a disposition de personnel et!'administration dans le sccteur de la gastronomic. Ces elements de fait sont cependant insuffisants pour permettre a la Cour, appelee en tant que juge de la reformation a apprecier le cas d'imposition en fait et en droit, d'examiner si!'operation en cause s'analyse en un abus de droit ou non. En effot, cette appreciation presuppose la soumission d'indications concretes et precises sur la nature ct!'importance des activites de la societc... et sur la consistance de son patrimoine depuis la realisation des pcrtcs en cause jusquc et y compris les excrcices pour lesquels le report de pertes est dcmandc. Dans ces circonstances, la Cour est amenee a prononcer, tous droits des parties etant par ailleurs reserves, la rupture du delibere et a demander aux parties de lui soumettre des elements et prises de position complementaires suivant les modalites precisees dans le dispositif du present arret. PAR CES MOTIFS la Cour administrative, statuant a l'egard de toutes les parties en cause, rer;:oit l 'appel du 6 aoot 2009 en la forme, 7

38 au fond, avant tout autre progres en cause, tous droits des parties etant reserves, dcmandc au dclcguc du gouvernement de verser en cause jusqu'au 26 fcvrier 2010 le dossier fiscal de la societe... pour les annees 1994 a 2000, demande au mandataire de la societe... de soumettre en cause les elements suivants jusqu'au 19 mars 2010 : o les comptes annuels de la societe... pour les annees 1994 a 2000, o de preciser dans un memoire supplementaire les activites concretes de la socicte... depuis la realisation des pcrtcs en cause jusque ct y compris lcs exercices pour lesquels le report de pertes est demande, o de prendre position, le cas ccheant, dans le mcme memoire par rapport au contenu du dossier fiscal ci-avant vise, accorde au delegue du gouvernement la possibilite de prendre position par rapport aux elements precitcs a travers un mcmoire supplementaire a soumettrejusqu'au 9 avril 2010, fixc l'affairc pour continuation des debats a!'audience publiquc du jcudi 15 avril 2010, reserve les frais. Ainsi delibere etjuge par: Francis DELAPORTE, vice-president, Serge SCHROEDER, conseiller, Lynn SPIELMANN, conseiller, et lu a!'audience publique du 4 fevrier 2010 au local ordinaire des audiences de la Cour par le vice-president, en presence du greffier en chef de la Cour Erny MAY. s. MAY s. DELAPORTE 8

39 LE GOUVERN EM ENT DU GRAND- DUCHE DE LUXE MBOURG Administ ra tion des contrib L1tions directes Bureau d'imposition Societes 6 For the attention of Murielle Filipucci PricewaterhouseCoopers 400, route d'esch B.P L Luxembourg Companies involved : Sella Bank Luxembourg S.A. Tax Number March 2010 Dear Madam, Further to your letter dated 8 March 2010 with reference MFl/JNLE/NECE/S M-AOMO relating to the transactions that the group Sella would like to conduct, I find the contents of said letter to be in compliance with current tax legislation and administrative practice. It is understood that my above confirmation may only be used within the framework of the transactions contemplated by the above-mentioned letter and that the principles described in your letter shall not apply ipso facto to other situations. Le prepose Ju bureau d'impositioi ~ocietes 6 Mari s Kohl I 18, rue du Fort Wedell Tel.: (352) Adresse postale Site Internet Luxembourg Fax: (352) L-2982 Luxembourg

40