Med hensyn til den tredje begrundelse vedrørende risikoen for skatteunddragelse har Domstolen i Marks & Spencerdommen udtalt, at muligheden for at overføre underskud pådraget af et ikkehjemmehørende datterselskab til et hjemmehørende moderselskab indebærer en risiko for, at overførslerne af underskud bliver organiseret inden for en koncern af selskaber i retning mod de selskaber, der har hjemsted i de medlemsstater, der anvender den højeste skattesats, og hvor skatteværdien af underskuddene derfor er størst. I modsætning til situationen for datterselskaber, hvor det kunne tænkes, at overførsel af underskud vil være systematisk tilrettelagt inden for en koncern, og at disse underskud vil være rettet mod de koncernselskaber, der er hjemmehørende i medlemsstater med de højeste skattesatser 15, er der i tilfælde af faste driftssteder åbenbart ingen mulighed for »forum shopping«, hvis et selskab i en medlemsstat kan fradrage underskud pådraget af et fast driftssted i en anden medlemsstat. Det forholder sig således, fordi foranstaltninger, der giver mulighed for overførsel af underskud fra et fast driftssted i modsætning til et datterselskab, således som Kommissionen har gjort gældende, hverken er nødvendige eller teoretisk mulige: Underskud pådraget af et fast driftssted er underskud i det skattepligtige »moderselskab«. Underskud pådraget af indenlandske faste driftssteder kan således umiddelbart og straks fradrages. Den eneste forskel mellem denne indenlandske situation og det foreliggende tilfælde vedrører fordelingen af beskatningskompetencen: Hvis det faste driftssted er hjemmehørende i en anden medlemsstat, med hvilken der er indgået en dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst som den, der er tvist om i den foreliggende sag, vil denne stat have eksklusiv kompetence til at beskatte det pågældende faste driftssteds indkomst. Dette berører ikke den 13 — Da underskuddet blev pådraget i 1999 og først kunne anvendes i Luxembourg i 2003, var Lidl stadig ufordelagtigt stillet ved selskabets manglende mulighed for på et tidligere tidspunkt at fradrage underskuddet i selskabets overskud i Tyskland.
Court stated in Marks & Spencer that the possibility of transferring the losses incurred by a nonresident company to a resident company entails the risk that within a group of companies losses will be transferred to companies established in the Member States which apply the highest rates of taxation and in which the tax value of the losses is therefore the highest. In contrast to the situation concerning subsidiaries, where it is conceivable that the transfer of losses will be systematically organised within groups of companies and losses directed solely to companies of the group established in Member States with higher rates of taxation, 15in the case of permanent establishments there is clearly no scope for such ‘jurisdiction shopping’ if a company in one Member State is allowed to deduct losses made by a permanent establishment in another Member State. That is because, as the Commission submits, measures enabling the ‘transfer’ of losses from a permanent establishment, as opposed to a subsidiary, are neither necessary nor theoretically conceivable: losses made by a permanent establishment are losses of the taxpayer ‘parent’ company. Losses made by national permanent establishments can accordingly be directly and immediately deducted. The only difference between that domestic situation and the present case lies in the allocation of the power to impose taxes: if the permanent establishment is resident in another Member State with which there is a double taxation convention such as that at issue in the present case, that State will have the exclusive right to tax the income of the permanent establishment in question. That does not affect the fact that a loss accrues to the taxpayer company, directly reducing its taxable income in its State of residence. The other State’s right to tax simply creates a second connecting factor for the same 13 — Since the loss was made in 1999 but could not be used in Luxembourg until 2003, Lidl was still disadvantaged by its inability to set the loss off against its profits in Germany at an earlier stage.