In its recent decision in the Eqiom case, the CJEU refined its Cadbury Schweppes doctrine and shed light on yet another important aspect of the relationship between anti-abuse rules and European primary law. The CJEU declared a French rule disallowing the withholding tax exemption for outbound dividends paid to companies controlled by third state investors to violate the freedom of establishment in the meaning of Art 49 TFEU and the obligations set forth in the Parent-Subsidiary Directive. The French rule, which generally assumed an abusive intent based on the investor’s state of residence without requiring the tax authorities to provide even a prima facie evidence, was found to be incompatible with European Union law, although it allowed the taxpayer to prove his bona fide intent. The CJEU thus puts the burden of proof in case of anti-abuse provisions on the tax administration. Eqiom, hence, could have far reaching consequences. Thus, Daniel W. Blum and Karoline Spies assess the decision’s broader implications for anti-abuse legislation – both at the domestic and at the European level (e.g. ATAD) – and analyze whether Austria’s implementation of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive in ...