In a judgment dated 9 June 2026 (No. 53689C), the Higher Administrative Court (Cour administrative) held that a subsidiary forming part of a tax group under Article 164bis LIR has standing to challenge a decision concerning its investment tax credit (bonification d'impôt pour investissement), even where its corporate income tax liability is nil under the fiscal integration regime.
Fiscal integration and investment tax credit
Under Article 164bis LIR, Luxembourg companies may elect to form a tax group, whereby all taxable results are consolidated at the level of the parent company, which bears the corporate income tax and municipal business tax liability for the entire group. While each integrated subsidiary must determine its own investment tax credit based on its individual investments, only the parent company may claim the deduction of those credits against the group's overall tax liability.
Under the AO (Abgabenordnung), a taxpayer wishing to challenge a tax assessment (Steuerbescheid) must demonstrate a positive tax liability (§ 232(1) AO). An integrated subsidiary whose tax liability is nil therefore lacks standing on that basis. However, § 235, no. 5, AO provides a separate right to challenge decisions on tax advantages (Steuervergünstigungen), without requiring a positive tax liability. The central question was whether the investment tax credit qualifies as such a Steuervergünstigung, and whether the subsidiary remains a taxable person ("Steuerpflichtiger") entitled to bring a claim under that provision.
The appellant, a Luxembourg société anonyme, had absorbed an integrated subsidiary (a société à responsabilité limitée) within a tax group headed by the appellant.
The disputed investment tax credit
In February 2022, the tax office refused to grant the investment tax credit in respect of certain project management and insurance costs, on the ground that they did not qualify as depreciable tangible assets under Article 152bis LIR. The subsidiary's claim was declared inadmissible by the Director of the Direct Tax Administration (Administration des contributions directes, "DTA") for lack of standing, on the basis that its corporate income tax had been fixed at nil. The Administrative Court upheld that decision, and the appellant subsequently appealed.
The DTA’s Position
The DTA argued that:
- under § 232 AO, no standing exists in the absence of a positive tax liability;
- joint liability under § 114 AO was insufficient to confer standing;
- private-law agreements, such as the Tax Sharing Agreement, could not override the provisions of the AO; and
- no separate decision existed within the meaning of § 235, no. 5, AO, the integrating entity being the sole tax subject entitled to claim the credit.
The Court’s Analysis
The Higher Administrative Court ruled in favour of the appellant. Endorsing a prior judgment of 3 February 1999 (Nos. 10598 and 10883), it held that a tax assessment contains two legally distinct decisions, one on corporate income tax, and another on the investment tax credit, and that the latter constitutes a tax advantage (Steuervergünstigung) subject to a separate claim under § 235, no. 5, AO. The court further found that the integrated subsidiary qualifies as a taxable person ("Steuerpflichtiger") under §§ 97 and 114 AO, since it generates the entitlement to the tax credit through its own investments and remains jointly liable for the group's tax debts. The requirement of a positive tax liability under § 232(1) AO does not apply to claims concerning tax advantages.
The court noted that both the integrating entity and the integrated subsidiary could have standing concurrently, as no legal provision restricts the right to challenge to a single entity. Accordingly, the court reversed the Director's inadmissibility decision and remitted the case to the Director for a determination on the merits of the investment tax credit.
Consequences
For groups operating under Tax Sharing Agreements, this ruling is particularly relevant since the amount of the investment tax credit may directly affect the subsidiary's financial obligations under such arrangements. A subsidiary has a confirmed right to challenge that amount independently.
In broader terms, the judgment draws a clear procedural dividing line: the tax assessment itself (§ 232 AO) remains the preserve of the integrating entity, but any decision on a subsidiary's investment tax credit (§ 235, no. 5, AO) may be challenged by the subsidiary in its own right regardless of whether its tax liability is nil.
The ruling nonetheless highlights the shortcomings of the existing dispute framework for direct taxes. The court's reasoning turns on the absence of an express exclusion in § 235 AO, arguably a legislative gap rather than a deliberate policy choice, and on a broad reading of Steuerpflichtiger anchored in potential joint liability under § 114 AO. Rather than simplifying the procedural landscape, the decision adds a further layer of complexity to an area of law where legislative reform would be both welcome and desirable.
Share on
