The European Union (EU) is built on the principle of freedom of establishment, meaning that companies have the possibility to establish themselves as a company or by setting up a secondary establishment in other Member States. This right has been confirmed by the European Court of Justice through case law.

A basic feature in domestic tax legislation is that losses are allowed to be set off against profits when calculating the tax liability of a company. At the moment cross-border loss compensation within the EU is restricted, unfeasible or just accepted on a temporary basis. This lack of recognition of loss-offset gives the fact that double taxation may occur and claims form two or more national tax systems leads to uncertainty in the way a company will be taxed. Depending on whether the secondary establishment is a subsidiary or a branch, the rules relating to loss compensation differs.

Taxation of secondary establishments is based on the principle of whether or not they are considered as a resident or a non-resident of the state. In regards to taxation of secondary establishments, the PE is considered to be a non-resident and a subsidiary considered to be a resident. However, the European Court of Justice approach of non discriminatory treatment and equal treatment that has been developed and seen in the history of case law leads to the question if the Marks & Spencer ruling that concerned secondary establishments in form of subsidiaries can be applied to permanent establishments.

The most vital difference between a subsidiary and a permanent establishment is connected to the taxation of the two. The subsidiary is considered to become a resident of the establishing state while the permanent establishment is seen as a non-resident. This legal difference between the two leads to different treatment under tax law. Taxation under a tax treaty leads to the situation where one of the contracting states will either credit or exempt the income deriving from the permanent establishment. Permanent establishments are often taxed under the method of exemption.

In the Marks & Spencer case it was held that losses and profits were two sides of the same coin. Applying this statement to permanent establishments gives the notion that if a contracting state exempts an income, there will be a set off of the symmetry of having losses and profits within the same tax system. This lead to the fact that if applying the Marks & Spencer ruling on permanent establishments that are taxed under the exemption method, allowing terminal losses to be taken into account at the head office will set off the symmetry. Therefore it can be considered as the Marks & Spencer ruling shall not apply to permanent establishments.