Neodyum Miknatis
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
Casino Siteleri
canli poker siteleri kolaybet meritslot
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
Short Reads

European Commission orders the recovery of State aid of around EUR 250 million from Amazon

European Commission orders the recovery of State aid of around EUR 25

European Commission orders the recovery of State aid of around EUR 250 million from Amazon

01.11.2017 EU law

On 4 October 2017, after a long investigation, the European Commission held that a tax ruling between Amazon and Luxembourg constituted illegal State aid [see our November 2015 Newsletter]. The Commission ordered Luxembourg to recover this aid from Amazon, which is estimated to be around EUR 250 million.

The Commission explained that the tax ruling in question allowed Amazon to pay substantially less tax than other companies. More specifically, the Commission stated that the tax ruling enabled Amazon to shift the vast majority of its profits from an Amazon group company (Amazon EU) to another company (Amazon Europe Holding Technologies). Amazon EU is subject to taxation in Luxembourg while Amazon Europe Holding Technologies is not. As a limited partnership, only the partners of Amazon Europe Holding Technologies are subject to taxation. These partners are located in the US and have so far deferred their tax liability.

Amazon EU operates Amazon's retail business in Europe. Amazon Europe Holding Technologies does not have any employees or offices, nor does it carry out any business activities. The holding company is an intermediary between Amazon EU and Amazon in the US. It has intellectual property rights and grants its exclusive use of these rights to Amazon EU. Under the tax ruling, Amazon EU paid royalties to Amazon Europe Holding Technologies, as a result of which Amazon EU's taxable profits were substantially reduced.

The Commission decided that the royalty payments did not reflect the economic reality. According to the Commission, the holding company did not perform any activities to justify the level of the royalties received since it was not involved in the management, development or use of its intellectual property. The royalty payment was therefore contrary to the so-called "arm's length principle" under which payments between two companies in the same group should be in line with arrangements that take place under commercial conditions between independent businesses.

The non-confidential version of the decision has not been published yet. Therefore, the exact methodology used to calculate the illegal advantage enjoyed by Amazon is not fully known. The tax authorities in Luxembourg will use this method to determine the exact amount of the State aid that has to be recovered from Amazon.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of November 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. General Court annuls UPC/Ziggo merger decision
  2. General Court rules that luxury watchmakers can limit supply of parts to approved repairers
  3. General Court upholds fine for 'gun jumping' EU merger control procedure
  4. Nike can restrict sales via online platforms within its selective distribution system
  5. Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal rules on cover pricing
  6. KLM and Amsterdam Schiphol airport offer commitments to reduce competition concerns

Team

Related news

07.01.2021 NL law
Commission evaluates Antitrust Damages Directive: to be continued

Short Reads - On 14 December 2020, the Commission published a report on the implementation of the Antitrust Damages Directive (the Directive). The Commission observes a significant increase in antitrust damages actions since the adoption of the Directive. However, there is insufficient experience with the new Directive to properly evaluate its application. Instead, the Commission provides a concise overview of the implementation of some key aspects of the Directive.

Read more

07.01.2021 NL law
Amsterdam District Court puts a halt to unlimited forum shopping

Short Reads - On 25 November 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the Court) declined jurisdiction over all non-Dutch defendants (the foreign defendants) in proceedings for compensation of damage based partly on an infringement of Article 101 TFEU. The proceedings were initiated by four public utility companies from the Gulf States (claimants) against both Dutch and foreign defendants.

Read more

07.01.2021 NL law
ACM study calls for regulation of Big Techs on payment market

Short Reads - The ACM’s market study, published on 1 December 2020, provides an overview of recent and upcoming developments concerning the role of Big Tech companies in both online and offline payment markets in the Netherlands. Although Big Tech companies currently have a relatively limited presence in these markets, the ACM expects significant expansion in the near future given these companies’ ability to leverage existing market power on other (platform) markets.

Read more

07.01.2021 NL law
Do the math: ACM publishes strategy on monitoring use algorithms

Short Reads - The ACM worries that the use of algorithms may lead to the creation of cartels, or nudge consumers towards a purchasing decision that is not in their best interest. Therefore, on 10 December 2020, it published a new policy document (in Dutch) setting out what businesses can expect when the ACM checks their algorithms. On the same day, the ACM also launched a trial with online music library Muziekweb to improve the ACM’s knowledge about the categories of data that are likely to be relevant in such investigations. All signs indicate the ACM’s intention to become more active in this area.

Read more

07.01.2021 NL law
(Geo)blockbuster: Canal+ ruling annuls commitment decision

Short Reads - A heads-up for companies seeking to settle in antitrust proceedings: commercially-affected third party complainants are not to be ignored. The Canal+ judgment marks the first time a commitment decision has been successfully challenged since the adoption of Regulation 1/2003. The European Court of Justice annulled the commitment decision on the ground that the Commission failed to take into account the rights of contractual parties affected by the commitments.

Read more