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

07.11.2019 NL law
Tackling Big Tech up-front? Time to stop thinking and start acting

Short Reads - Benelux competition authorities have published a joint memorandum on how best to keep up with challenges in fast-moving digital markets. As well as calling on the European Commission to issue an economic study on digital mergers, the memorandum calls for an ex ante intervention tool to fill the gap between interim measures and ex post enforcement. This tool would pre-emptively impose behavioural remedies on digital gatekeepers without first having to establish an actual competition law infringement.

Read more

08.11.2019 BE law
Interview with Wouter Ghijsels on Next Gen lawyers

Articles - Stibbe’s managing partner Wouter Ghijsels shares his insights on the next generation of lawyers and the future of the legal profession at the occasion of the Leaders Meeting Paris where Belgian business leaders, politicians and inspiring people from the cultural and academic world will discuss this year's central theme "The Next Gen".

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Rotterdam District Court rules that claims in elevator cartel damages proceedings need further substantiation

Short Reads - The Rotterdam District Court has ordered claimant SECC (a litigation vehicle) to substantiate its claims in proceedings against Kone and ThyssenKrupp regarding the elevator cartel. The Court also ruled that some claims have become time-barred, unless SECC can show that these were timely assigned to SECC and notified to Kone and ThyssenKrupp. The Court rejected several defences of Kone and Thyssenkrupp, including a jurisdictional challenge based on arbitration clauses between the defendants and assignors of claims to SECC.

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Safeguarding legal privilege: better safe than sorry?

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice recently ruled that the European Commission does not have to take additional precautionary measures to respect the right of legal professional privilege when conducting a new dawn raid at the same company. Companies are well-advised to mark clearly all communications covered by legal privilege as 'privileged and confidential' and to keep all privileged communication separate from other communication.

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