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

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

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