Greece: New Greek Income Tax Code is supplemented by additional anti-avoidance rules

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Greece: New Greek Income Tax Code is supplemented by additional anti-avoidance rules

stathis.jpg

Dionisios Stathis

On July 23 2013, a new Greek law (4172/2013) introduced a virtually new Greek Income Tax Code, which inevitably leads to significant changes in the former Greek Income Tax legislation (for both individuals and legal entities) as we knew it. It has not officially been confirmed yet if the provisions of the former Greek Income Tax Code (law 2238/1994) are automatically abolished after the introduction of said law, or if they continue to apply to the extent they do not run contrary to the new provisions. The new law aims at introducing simpler and more straightforward tax rules with a view to enhance clarity and predictability among taxpayers and effectively build trust and stability in the relationship between taxpayers and the tax authorities.

Interestingly enough, the new code is supplemented by a series of anti-avoidance provisions which were not present in the previous code. In particular, further to the transfer pricing, thin capitalisation and anti-tax haven provisions that already existed in the previous code, which are refined and/or amended to a certain extent in the new code, new controlled foreign companies (CFC) rules are introduced for the first time in Greek tax legislation.

Most importantly, the new code includes a more general anti-abuse rule which covers all kinds of transactions which are now embedded in the Greek Income Tax Code, such as mergers, divisions, contributions of assets, exchanges of shares and transfers of the registered seat of an SE (Societas Europaea – a European public limited liability company) or SCE (European Cooperative Society) to another EU member state.

Under this rule, all tax benefits enjoyed when performing such transactions may be lost if it is found that the principal objective or at least one of the principal objectives for effecting such transactions was merely tax avoidance and/or evasion and, thus, the corresponding transaction was not motivated by sound business reasons. Said rule effectively quotes the corresponding provision found in the Merger Directive (90/434/EEC), which was implemented into Greek law several years ago through a separate legal document (law 2578/1998).

Given the fact that the new law is still fairly recent, it is expected that additional guidance will be provided by the Greek Ministry of Finance in due course via relevant administrative circulars to shed additional light on any ambiguous points.

Dionisios Stathis (dionisios.stathis@gr.ey.com)

EY

Tel: +30 210 2886573

Website: www.ey.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The UK’s Labour government has an unpopular prime minister, an unpopular chancellor and not a lot of good options as it prepares to deliver its autumn Budget
Awards
The firms picked up five major awards between them at a gala ceremony held at New York’s prestigious Metropolitan Club
The streaming company’s operating income was $400m below expectations following the dispute; in other news, the OECD has released updates for 25 TP country profiles
Software company Oracle has won the right to have its A$250m dispute with the ATO stayed, paving the way for a mutual agreement procedure
If the US doesn't participate in pillar two then global consensus on the project can’t be a reality, tax academic René Matteotti also suggests
If it gets pillar two right, India may be the ideal country that finds a balance between its global commitments and its national interests, Sameer Sharma argues
As World Tax unveils its much-anticipated rankings for 2026, we focus on EMEA’s top performers in the first of three regional analyses
Firms are spending serious money to expand their tax advisory practices internationally – this proves that the tax practice is no mere sideshow
The controversial deal would ‘preserve the gains achieved under pillar two’, the OECD said; in other news, HMRC outlined its approach to dealing with ‘harmful’ tax advisers
Former EY and Deloitte tax specialists will staff the new operation, which provides the firm with new offices in Tokyo and Osaka
Gift this article