RIVISTA DI DIRITTO TRIBUTARIO INTERNAZIONALE - Rdti.it

D. Gwmalll1: Tax lrealmerlt ofpellsiol1s. A comparative analysis
tions for the employer does not prevent them from being treated as taxable
in come for the employee: this is the case in Denmark, Finland and
Portugal (12).
The situation gets more complex \vhen it comes to the employee's
contribution to a foreign scheme.
B - Cmllributiol1S made bv the empIoyee
A distinction must be made here between systems which admit no deduction
and others which allow a possible deduction. This first distinction
must then be refined as follows.
First category: No deduction Second category: Possible deduction
Sub-category l: Open denial Sub-categoT}' 3: Deduction if
contribution started abroad
Sub-category 2: Covert denial Sub-categoT}' 4: Open systerns
The first categorv may itself be subdi,ided into two sub-categories,
according to the level of "discrimination" existing between foreign and
domestic funds. Sub-categon' l includes those countries which openly
refuse to allo\\' any deduction of contributions made under a voluntary
contract with a foreign insurance company. These States are Finlanci anci
Norway (13). The only exceptions to this strict policy regard cases where
a foreign insurance company has an office in Finlanci or a branch in Norway.
Some exceptions are also provided by the Finnish legislation to take
into account cases of taxpayers who moved to Finland after subscribing
an insurance policy abroad for a sufficiently long time. Other countries
may also adopt the same line, and at the same time manage to comply
with their European commitments: this is the case of Haly, which denies
(12) Not surprisingl ... " by the \vay. As \ve mentioned earlier, such contributions are
treated in the same way e\'en where the eontributions are made to domestic schemes
(at least in Finland and Portugal).
(13) The Spanish Tax Authoritics also refuse to allo\\' the deductibility of a conlnbution
made to a foreign scheme, e\'en Ioeated in the European Union. This solution
is obviously problematic according to EC La\\' (see J. M. Tejerizo, Taxation of Pension
Provision in Spain, paper presented at the EATLP Meeting of Lisbon, lune 2001, p. 9).
RIVISTA DI DlRITIQ TRIBL:TARIO INTER\'AZIO\ALE 3nOOi