Introduction
On 17 September 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber) delivered its judgment in case C-197/25, A. sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Zielonej Górze. The case reached the Court by way of a request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, the Supreme Administrative Court of Poland.
At the heart of the dispute lies the interpretation of Directive 2008/7/EC concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital. The referring court sought guidance on several interrelated provisions of that directive, specifically in the context of a transaction involving the conversion of a partnership operating for profit into another partnership operating for profit. The judgment addresses questions of considerable practical importance for businesses and tax authorities across the European Union wherever similar conversion transactions occur.
Legal framework: Directive 2008/7/EC and its key provisions
Directive 2008/7/EC harmonises the rules governing indirect taxes levied on the raising of capital within the European Union. Its principal objective is to prevent the distortion of the internal market that would arise if Member States were free to impose such taxes in an uncoordinated manner.
Article 2(2) of the directive is of particular relevance to the present case. That provision deems certain entities to be capital companies for the purposes of the directive, even where they do not formally qualify as such under national law. This deeming rule extends the directive's protective scope beyond entities that are capital companies in the strict legal sense.
Article 9 of the directive grants Member States an option to derogate from the obligation to treat certain entities as equivalent to capital companies. The scope of that derogation option was one of the central questions referred to the Court in the present case.
Articles 5(1)(a) and 7(1) of the directive address the concept of 'capital duty', establishing both the transactions that may be subject to such a duty and the prohibition on Member States levying capital duty on transactions not listed in the directive. Article 3 of the directive concerns the requirement that a contribution of capital be present before the directive's rules on capital duty can be engaged.
Facts and the question referred
The case concerns A. sp. z o.o. and a dispute with the Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Zielonej Górze, the Director of the Tax Administration Chamber in Zielona Góra, Poland. The underlying transaction involved the conversion of a partnership operating for profit into another partnership operating for profit.
The Polish tax authority's position gave rise to questions about whether such a conversion could properly be subjected to capital duty under Polish law, and whether the relevant provisions of Directive 2008/7/EC permitted or precluded such taxation. The Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny considered that the resolution of the dispute required an authoritative interpretation of the directive by the Court of Justice and accordingly made a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
The questions referred touched on four distinct but interconnected issues: the application of Article 2(2) to the entities involved; the scope of the Article 9 derogation available to Member States; the meaning of 'capital duty' within Articles 5(1)(a) and 7(1); and whether the transaction in question involved a contribution of capital within the meaning of Article 3.
The Court's analysis
The Third Chamber of the Court of Justice examined each of the referred questions in turn, interpreting the provisions of Directive 2008/7/EC in light of its wording, context, and objectives.
With respect to Article 2(2), the Court considered the circumstances in which partnerships operating for profit fall within the deeming provision that treats certain entities as capital companies. This analysis was essential to determining whether the directive's rules on capital duty applied at all to the conversion transaction at issue.
The Court also addressed the scope of the Article 9 derogation, clarifying the extent to which Member States may choose not to treat certain entities as equivalent to capital companies and the consequences of exercising or not exercising that option. The boundaries of the derogation are significant because they determine the degree of flexibility available to national legislatures when designing their capital duty regimes.
On the concept of 'capital duty' under Articles 5(1)(a) and 7(1), the Court provided guidance on which transactions may lawfully be subjected to such a duty and which may not, reinforcing the directive's function as a ceiling on Member State competence in this area.
Finally, the Court examined the requirement under Article 3 that a contribution of capital be present. This requirement is a threshold condition: without a qualifying contribution of capital, the directive's rules on capital duty are not engaged, and the question of whether a particular charge is permissible does not arise in the same way.
Significance for Member States and businesses
The judgment in case C-197/25 has direct relevance for any Member State that levies a form of capital duty and whose national law provides for the conversion of partnerships. By clarifying the interaction between Article 2(2) and Article 9, the Court defines the outer limits of national legislative discretion in this area.
For businesses contemplating restructuring transactions that involve the conversion of one form of partnership into another, the judgment provides important guidance on the EU law framework within which such transactions are assessed for capital duty purposes. The clarification of the 'contribution of capital' requirement under Article 3 is particularly relevant, since it determines whether a conversion transaction is capable of giving rise to a capital duty liability at all.
The case also illustrates the continuing role of the preliminary ruling procedure in ensuring the uniform application of EU tax law across Member States. Where national courts encounter genuine uncertainty about the interpretation of a directive, the reference mechanism allows the Court of Justice to provide authoritative guidance that binds all courts and authorities within the Union.
Conclusion
The judgment of 17 September 2026 in A. sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Zielonej Górze (case C-197/25) represents a significant contribution to the body of EU case law on Directive 2008/7/EC. By addressing the application of Articles 2(2), 3, 5(1)(a), 7(1), and 9 to the conversion of a profit-making partnership into another profit-making partnership, the Third Chamber of the Court of Justice has clarified both the scope of the directive's harmonising effect and the limits of Member State discretion.
Practitioners, tax authorities, and legislators in all Member States should take note of the Court's reasoning, particularly as regards the conditions under which entities are deemed to be capital companies, the permissible scope of the Article 9 derogation, and the threshold requirement of a contribution of capital. The judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that national capital duty rules are fully compatible with the directive's requirements.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications