Articles

Belgium's "excess profit" tax scheme qualified as illegal state aid

Belgium's "excess profit" tax scheme qualified as illegal state aid

Belgium's "excess profit" tax scheme qualified as illegal state aid

02.02.2016 BE law

On 11 January 2016, the European Commission decided that the selective tax advantages and related "rulings" granted by Belgium under its "excess profit" tax scheme are illegal state aid. According to the Commission's press release, Belgium must recover around EUR 700 million from 35 multinational companies. The decision has not yet been published.

Belgium’s tax scheme on "excess profits" and implementing rulings allows multinational group companies under certain conditions to pay substantially less tax in Belgium. The underlying principle is that multinational companies make in specific circumstances "excess profit" following, among others, synergies as a result of being part of a multinational group. According to the Commission, the accounting profits would often be reduced from 50% to 90% for tax purposes.

Following an in-depth investigation initiated in February 2015, the Commission concluded that by discounting excess profit from a company’s actual tax base, the Belgian "excess profit" tax scheme is contrary to state aid rules because it derogates both from normal practice under Belgian company tax rules and from the "arm’s length principle". Companies operating in Belgium that were not part of a multinational group were unable to obtain such ruling but had to pay taxes on their actual profits generated in Belgium. The "excess profit" tax scheme thus gave multinationals a selective advantage. Furthermore, under the arm's length principle, even if multinationals had generated "excess profits", those would have been shared among the group companies and taxed where the profits were generated in a way that reflected economic reality. However, under the contested scheme, such profits were simply discounted unilaterally from the tax base of a single group company.

According to the Commission, preventing double taxation could not be considered as a justification of the scheme's selective tax advantages because it did not require the companies applying for tax rulings to demonstrate any evidence or even risk of double taxation (compare with the OECD model tax Convention on Income and on Capital). On the contrary, the Commission stated that it resulted in double non-taxation.

This decision follows the Commission's earlier investigation into the tax ruling practices of Member States, and the decisions of October 2015 in which the Commission held that Luxembourg and the Netherlands granted selective tax advantages to Fiat and Starbucks, respectively [see our November 2015 newsletter].

The Commission established that Belgium must cease applying the excess profit ruling system at issue and recover the full, unpaid tax from the involved companies. Belgium has announced it will likely appeal the decision. Several companies are considering to appeal as well or to intervene in the Belgian procedure.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of February 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice confirmed independence of EU and national leniency programmes
  2. Court of Justice reduced fine imposed on Galp Energía España and acknowledged excessive duration of General Court proceedings
  3. Court of Justice clarified the concept of a concerted practice for unilateral announcements
  4. Court of Justice dismissed Toshiba's appeal in the power transformers cartel case
  5. German Competition Authority fined ASICS for restricting Internet sales of its distributors

Team

Related news

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Short Reads - The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring