umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
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

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more

04.03.2021 NL law
Net(work) closing in on cross-border cartels?

Short Reads - A heads-up for companies with cross-border activities. The ECN+ Directive’s transposition deadline has expired and its provisions should by now have found their way into the national laws of the EU Member States. In the Netherlands, amendments to the Dutch Competition Act giving effect to the ECN+ Directive came into force recently, together with a new governmental decree on leniency.

Read more