Articles

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 EU 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

16.02.2018 EU law
Who is a consumer? The dynamic approach to the concept of 'consumer' under the Brussels I Regulation

Short Reads - On 25 January 2018, the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") rendered a preliminary ruling in a case between Austrian citizen Maximilian Schrems and online social network Facebook. The ruling is important for two reasons. First, the ECJ approved a dynamic approach to the concept of 'consumer' under the Brussels I Regulation. Secondly, the ECJ clarified that the special consumer forum can only be invoked by the specific consumer who is party to the contractual relationship with the professional trader.

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Qualifying dawn raid documents as 'in scope' or 'out of scope': marginal review by Belgian Court

Short Reads - On 13 December 2017, the Brussels Court of Appeal rendered a judgment clarifying the qualification 'in scope' and 'out of scope' of documents seized by the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) during dawn raids at the applicants' (Distripaints NV and Novelta NV) premises. The dawn raids were launched after a complaint by SA Durieu Coatings, which accused both distributors of colluding with its competitor Akzo Nobel.

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Highest German Court rules that ASICS's ban on using price comparison websites violates EU competition law

Short Reads - On 19 January 2018, the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) published its judgment concerning an appeal brought by shoe manufacturer ASICS against a fining decision. The FCJ ruled that ASICS had infringed competition law by prohibiting its retailers from participating in price comparison websites. The judgment confirms the strict approach of German courts relating to vertical online sales restrictions.  

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Participation d’entreprises liées aux marchés publics: qui assume la responsabilité ?

Articles - L’avocat général Campos Sanchez-Bordona a récemment déposé des conclusions intéressante dans le cadre de l’affaire nr. C-531/A6 dont la Cour de justice a été saisie. Selon l’avocat général, des soumissionnaires qui sont liés mais qui présentent chacun une offre séparée pour un marché public déterminé n’ont pas à informer le pouvoir adjudicateur des liens existant entre eux. Il ressort en outre des conclusions que le pouvoir adjudicateur n’est pas légalement tenu de vérifier de manière active la participation d’entreprises liées à un marché public.

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Dissemination of misleading information on the safety of a medical product can be a "by object" infringement

Short Reads - On 23 January 2018, the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment on a request for a preliminary ruling by the Italian Council of State. The request concerned an agreement between Roche and Novartis to make public statements concerning the alleged lack of safety and efficacy of one of Roche's products which competed with a product licensed to Novartis (the Agreement). The Court of Justice found that such an agreement can, under specific circumstances, constitute a restriction of competition "by object".

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy and Cookie Policy