Articles

European Commission qualified Dutch and Belgian tax regimes for seaports as state aid

European Commission qualified Dutch and Belgian tax regimes for seaports as state aid

European Commission qualified Dutch and Belgian tax regimes for seaports as state aid

01.03.2016

On 21 January 2016, the European Commission decided that the corporate tax exemptions granted to seaports under the existing Dutch and Belgian tax regimes constitute state aid. These exemptions need to be removed from the tax code since they are incompatible with the internal market. The Commission decisions are a result of a broader investigation into the functioning and taxation of ports across EU Member States aimed at ensuring fair competition.

The Commission emphasized in both cases that although it accepts that certain activities of the ports cannot be considered economic activities - and thus fall outside the scope of EU state aid control - the commercial operation of port infrastructure constitutes an economic activity which can be in competition with private companies who are subject to corporate income tax. Furthermore, the Commission found that the tax exemptions for ports are "existing aid" since they predate the entry into force of the Treaty of Rome. This means that any state aid given to the seaports in the past does not need to be recovered.

The Netherlands

As far as the Netherlands is concerned, the Commission already proposed measures to reform the Dutch Corporate Income Tax Code ("Wet Vpb 1969") in May 2013 which also contained exemptions for other public undertakings besides public seaports. Subsequently, the Dutch government adopted revised legislation ("Wet Vpb 2015"), aimed at subjecting public undertakings to corporate tax in the same manner as private undertakings. The Wet Vpb 2015 however, maintains exemptions for Dutch public seaports and for bodies whose activities consist mainly of the management, development or operation of seaports. This remaining exemption triggered the European Commission to start an in-depth formal investigation which resulted in the binding decision of 21 January 2016.

The Dutch government and interested seaports put forward several arguments for upholding the tax exemptions. One of their main arguments was that the Commission's investigation into tax exemptions in other Member States was not progressing at the same pace. As a consequence, Dutch seaports have to compete with seaports that are still benefitting from these tax exemptions. The European Commission considered that this argument does not change the fact that the exemptions constitute state aid, and it does not justify a transitional period with regard to the exemptions for seaports. In absence of EU harmonization of direct taxes, the Commission concluded that the tax position of ports will vary amongst Member States in any event.

While the Dutch state does not have to recover any state aid given to the seaports, it must take the necessary steps to remove the corporate tax exemption for seaports as of 1 January 2017.

Belgium

As regards Belgium, the Commission found that ports are also subject to a different tax regime, with different base and tax rates, resulting in an overall lower level of taxation compared to other companies active in Belgium and therefore grants the ports a selective advantage.

Based on this finding, the Commission proposed measures to Belgium to adapt its legislation in order to ensure that both public and private ports pay corporate tax on their economic activities in the same way as other companies. Belgium has two months to react. If Belgium refuses the Commission’s proposal, the Commission might open an in-depth formal investigation. This final phase may be closed by a Commission decision requiring Belgium to put an end to the existing taxation regime.

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

1. General Court largely confirmed Commission's freight forwarding cartel decision
2. CBb ruled that the ACM wrongfully blocked merger between baking companies

Team

Related news

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
Swifter merger clearance and shorter merger filings in Belgium

Short Reads - Companies can expect swifter merger clearance and simpler filing rules in Belgium. The Belgian Competition Authority has published a communication with additional rules concerning the simplified procedure for certain types of concentrations. As a result, a new category of concentrations will be eligible for a simplified merger filing, leading to swifter approval and lower costs. It will also allow the BCA to focus its resources on more problematic and complex files.

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
ECJ confirms: gun jumping is double trouble

Short Reads - Companies beware: the European Court of Justice has confirmed the Commission’s practice of imposing two separate fines for gun jumping; one for failing to notify a concentration prior to its implementation, and another for implementing the concentration before obtaining clearance. The ruling underlines, once again, the increased focus of competition authorities on procedural merger control breaches – good reason for companies to keep a watchful eye on their gun jumping obligations and to take note of the possibility of two separate gun jumping fines. 

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
Commission continues cross-border trade crusade

Short Reads - The European Commission is on a roll in its fight against territorial sales restrictions. Just one month after fining broadcast network company NBCUniversal for restricting cross-border sales, it has also imposed a fine on hotel group Meliá for discriminating between customers based on nationality or place of residence. Meanwhile, the Commission is urging national consumer protection authorities to tackle cross-border issues, after an EU-wide screening of nearly 500 e-shops showed that one fifth of the flagged websites did not respect the Geo-blocking Regulation. 

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring