Articles

The European Commission qualified Member States' tax rulings as state aid

The European Commission qualified Member States' tax rulings as state aid

The European Commission qualified Member States' tax rulings as state aid

03.11.2015 NL law

On 21 October 2015, the European Commission decided that a tax ruling between Starbucks and the Netherlands should be considered illegal state aid. As a consequence, the European Commission ordered the Dutch State to recover the aid granted to a Dutch Starbucks group company (Starbucks Manufacturing EMEA B.V.), which is estimated between EUR 20 and 30 million. 

On the same date the European Commission decided that a tax ruling between Fiat and Luxembourg also amount to illegal state aid. Investigations into tax rulings with respect to other major companies such as Apple and Amazon are pending.

In a press release the European Commission stated that, even though tax rulings as such are legal, the Starbucks tax ruling endorsed transfer pricing methods that did not reflect the economic reality and unduly lowered Starbucks tax burden in the Netherlands. In particular, the European Commission found that the ruling artificially lowered taxes paid by Starbucks Manufacturing EMEA BV in two ways:

  1. Starbucks Manufacturing pays a royalty to Alki (a UK-based company in the Starbucks group) for coffee-roasting know-how, which the European Commission considers to be very substantial               
  2. Starbucks also pays a price for green coffee beans to Switzerland-based Starbucks Coffee Trading SARL, which the European Commission deems to be inflated.

 

In response to the European Commission's decision, the Dutch State Secretary of Finance explained that the Dutch government was surprised by the outcome because it was convinced that international standards recognized by the OECD had been applied by the Netherlands. The Secretary also considered that the same prices charged between independent parties had also been applied within the Starbucks corporation. The Dutch government intends to analyse the decision carefully before making a decision on further steps.

Since the decision has not yet been published, it is not possible to fully assess the Commission's reasoning. The Starbucks decision in part confirms longstanding case law: the taxation of multinational companies must comply with state aid law. A pivotal legal question to be answered however, is whether and how the application of internationally accepted transfer pricing rules may result in a selective advantage and thus possibly amount to illegal state aid. The Starbucks tax ruling can only be deemed to constitute a selective advantage if other companies in a similar factual and legal position to Starbucks are unable to get a similar deal. It is still unclear how the European Commission reached the conclusion that the tax ruling gives Starbucks a selective advantage in this respect, since the Netherlands appears to have acted in line with commonly applied OECD standards.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of November 2015. Other articles in this newsletter:

Back to top

Team

Related news

03.08.2022 EU law
Gotta catch ‘em all? Upward referral of ‘killer acquisitions’ upheld

Short Reads - Companies involved in intended or completed M&A transactions falling below EU and national merger notification thresholds should beware that their deals may still catch the European Commission’s eye. The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision to accept a national referral request regarding Illumina’s acquisition of Grail: a transaction not triggering any of the notification thresholds within the EEA.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Highest Dutch court: the postman may still ring twice?

Short Reads - The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy was wrong to unblock the ACM’s prohibited merger between postal operators PostNL and Sandd on grounds of public interest. According to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb), the Minister cannot substitute the ACM’s assessment for its own when considering public interest reasons. Since the Minister did do so in this particular case, the CBb annulled the Minister’s merger clearance.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Purely commercial interest also a legitimate interest? Council of State leaves the question unanswered.

Short Reads - On 27 July 2022, the Council of State confirmed that the Dutch Data Protection Authority wrongly imposed a €575,000 fine on VoetbalTV. But the Council did not answer the question whether the AP rightly or wrongly believes that a purely commercial interest cannot be a legitimate interest within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Foreign Subsidies Regulation crosses the finish line

Short Reads - On 30 June 2022, the European Parliament and the European Council reached agreement on the final text of the Foreign Subsidies Regulation. Adding to the regulatory burdens, this Regulation creates a notification obligation for companies that receive subsidies from non-EU governments in transactions or public procurement procedures. 

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Zuiver commercieel belang ook gerechtvaardigd belang: Raad van State laat zich er niet over uit

Short Reads - Op 27 juli 2022 heeft de Raad van State bevestigd dat de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens onterecht een boete van € 575.000 aan VoetbalTV heeft opgelegd. De hoop bestond dat de Afdeling antwoord zou geven op de vraag of de AP terecht of onterecht meent dat een zuiver commercieel belang géén gerechtvaardigd belang kan zijn in de zin van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming. Het antwoord op deze vraag blijft echter uit.  

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Take note(s): Qualcomm’s EUR 1 billion dominance abuse fine quashed

Short Reads - The General Court annulled the Commission’s EUR 1 billion fine imposed on Qualcomm for abuse of dominance on the LTE chipsets market. In addition to finding fault with the Commission’s foreclosure analysis of Qualcomm’s alleged exclusivity payments, the General Court found that the Commission’s procedural irregularities alone would have sufficed to set the Commission’s decision aside.

Read more